Printable Version of Topic

-Antievolution.org Discussion Board
+--Forum: After the Bar Closes...
+---Topic: AFDave's UPDATED Creator God Hypothesis 2 started by stevestory


Posted by: stevestory on Sep. 22 2006,12:37

Because the 'new page bug' accumulated in the old thread, we begin anew.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
AF DAVE'S UPDATED CREATOR GOD HYPOTHESIS

When I first proposed my hypothesis a few days ago, I asked for comments and critique.  I have now received this and have updated my hypothesis to reflect this.  You can see this discussion under "AFDave's God Hypothesis."  Thanks to all of you for your feedback!

I will now restate my updated Hypothesis (added a few points) and set forth the updated rules and framework which I wish to use for my reasoning.

MY BACKGROUND
I was first an Electrical Engineer, then an Air Force pilot (T-38 and Huey, believe it or not), then a businessman. Having sold my second business, I am now what you might say "between businesses" and am spending a lot of time on non-profit endeavors. I do have an aircraft charter business (a single King Air to fuel my flying "habit") and I am into alternative motor vehicle fuels with the possibility of a future business venture, but I'm not currently doing anything big in business.  I was never a logician, by trade, but that does not mean I can't become one very quickly, especially when I see gross incompetence in the field.  I also do not pretend to be a professional geologist, cosmologist, physicist, biologist, or Hebrew or Greek scholar.  But I do know some good ones and I read voraciously. What I really am is an ordinary guy with a pretty good brain for learning most anything who is sick and tired of what appears to me to be absolute nonsense being fed to us from the Evolution Dogmatists.  It appears to me that while there are many good scientists doing a truckload of good work for the benefit of humanity, there seems to be a big disconnect with reality when "science" begins speculating about how life began and developed.  I was pleased to see the article mentioned below by Meyer because it is now obvious to me that I am not the only one floating the "God Hypothesis" again. I am apparently in very good company and the pace of new research in this area is accelerating.

RULES OF ENGAGEMENT (ROE)
I need to say right up front that my reasoning with respect to this "Creator God Hypothesis" DOES NOT follow the Deductive Framework.  I have stated prior to giving my hypothesis, that I cannot provide a watertight proof for God and I don't believe anyone can, so people are correct in saying that my hypothesis would fail using the deductive schema.  However, we CAN use Abductive Reasoning then draw an Inference to the Best Explanation (IBE), and as Meyer points out below, this gives us powerful support for believing that the "Creator God Hypothesis" may in fact be true.  So there is good news, O Seeker of Truth!  There is massive support for the existence of God and for the literal truth revealed in the Bible.  Stay with me through all of my points and I will show it to you in terms you can understand!  

Here's a little blurb on Abductive reasoning from Stephen C. Meyer.  I would HIGHLY, HIGHLY recommend reading his entire paper (only 23 pages) called "The Return of the God Hypothesis" which can be found here ...

< http://www.arn.org/docs/meyer/sm_returnofgod.pdf >

Abductive Reasoning
DATA: The surprising fact A is observed. (The finely tuned cosmos, biological machines, written 'holy' books, etc.)
LOGIC: But if B were true, then A would be a matter of course. (B is the God of the Christian Bible)
CONCLUSION: Hence, there is reason to suspect that B is true.  

Stephen C. Meyer notes that "The natural and historical sciences employ such logic [abductive] routinely.  For instance, Peirce argued that skepticism about Napoleon's existence was unjustified although his existence could be known only by abduction: Numberless documents refer to a conqueror called Napoleon Bonaparte. Though we have not seen the man, yet we cannot explain what we have seen, namely, all these documents and monuments, without supposing that he really existed" (Peirce, C. S. 1931. Collected Papers. Eds. Charles Hartshorne & Paul Weiss. Vol. 2. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press).

UPDATED HYPOTHESIS
A. There is a God -- My hypothesis proposes that there is a Super Intelligent, Incredibly Powerful Being -- I choose to call him God -- who has knowledge of scientific laws far more advanced than anything ever discovered by 21st Century humans.  These scientific laws are so powerful that this Being can literally "speak" material things into existence and destroy things with a simple command.  This Being lives "outside of time" and can view what we call "the future" and "the past" with equal ease.

B. This God created the Cosmos as a specially designed whole, with life and mankind as its fundamental goal and purpose.  This God created mankind with a choice of either doing his will or not doing his will, in a similar way as parents "create" babies knowing full well that their child will either do their will or not do their will.  Christian Theologians commonly call the choice of NOT doing God's will "sin."

C. All of human kind descended from two genetically rich parents, Adam and Eve, but did not diversify significantly due to minimal geographic isolation.  My hypothesis proposes that there was only one large "super-continent" prior to the Great Flood of Noah, thus minimizing geographic isolation and resultant natural selection and specialization/diversification.  The same applies to animals except that I make no proposal as to HOW MANY animals there were initially.  Obviously, there would have to be at least one pair of each 'kind' (a term to be defined later)

D. Early man was created perfectly, i.e. no deleterious genetic mutations.  It is proposed that early man was vigorous, healthy and possibly taller than modern humans.  Early families were very large--on the order of 30 to 50 kids per couple and lives were long, many over 900 years.  Sons routinely married their sisters in the ante-diluvian world with no worries of genetic defects.  The first laws prohibiting close marriages did not occur until the time of Moses by which time we assume that accumulated harmful genetic mutations would have been a significant consideration.

E. Mankind chose NOT to do God's will very early on (just as all young children choose not to do parents' will), thus prompting God to institute a system for persuading humans to admit their folly and begin doing His will, for "redeeming" humans who choose this path, and for reminding humans that the present physical world is only a "proving ground" or "training camp" for the next world which will be created at a definite point in the future.  These events are commonly called the Fall and the Curse by Christian Theologians.

F. God allowed the choices of mankind to take their natural course for the most part, intervening in the affairs of men sporadically and briefly.  Most of the "day-to-day management" of Planet Earth was delegated to mankind himself, similar to how modern parents delegate the day-to-day management of their children to a school or a day care center.

G. The natural result of collective disobedience to the revealed will of God was an extremely corrupt society--i.e. rampant dishonesty, injustice, murder, theft, etc.--which was terminated by God through the agency of a global, life-destroying flood--the Flood of Noah described in Genesis.  

H. The Global Flood of Noah was an immense cataclysm of enormous tectonic, volcanic and hydraulic upheaval.  It completely reshaped the ante-diluvian world and resulted in massive, worldwide sedimentation and fossilization, mountain range uplift, sea basin lowering, continent separation, and climate change.  The Flood was survived in a floating ark by 8 humans (four couples) and one or more pairs of terrestrial, air-breathing, genetically rich animals and birds. The diversity we see in the living world today is the result of subsequent geographic separation and isolation of species and natural selection.

I. Following the Global Flood, we hypothesize an Ice Age of undetermined duration brought on by the massive climate changes induced by the Flood.  It was during this time that the dinosaurs and many other species died out. Since the time of the Ice Age, the structure of the earth's crust and the climate which followed, has not changed appreciably, and uniformitarian principles may now be applied to geological studies.

J. We hypothesize a supernatural intervention by God at the Tower of Babel which instantly and miraculously created several new languages (we think on the order of 12 or so), whereas prior to this event, there was only one language.

K. The record of these events (except the Ice Age) was dictated to selected individuals such as Adam and Seth and their descendants and carefully recorded on stone tablets, then passed down to successive generations.  Moses eventually received these stone tablets (or copies of them) and composed the book we now call Genesis by compiling these records into one written document.  He then composed his own written record of the events of his own lifetime, resulting in the complete Pentateuch.

L. God personally dictated the events of the Creation week to the first man, Adam, but then assumed a less active role in the composition of the balance of Genesis and the balance of what is now commonly called the Christian Scriptures.  This role varied from active dictation in an audible voice to less obvious methods--we might call it "planting of thoughts" in the minds of the writers.  This collective process is commonly called the "Inspiration of Scripture" by Christian Theologians.

M. Many cultures in geographically diverse locations around the world have legends which follow the general outline above.  The reason for the variance we find in the legends is that many of them are simply oral traditions passed down through the generations without the benefit of scrupulous copying of written records that the Christian Scriptures have enjoyed.  Since the Documentary Hypothesis (Graf-Wellhausen Theory) has now been thoroughly discredited, we have good reason to revert to the previously well established hypothesis that Genesis is NOT oral tradition, but rather it is a carefully copied written record of eye-witness accounts.

N. The Christian Scriptures, i.e. the 66 books of what is commonly called the Holy Bible, are essentially the WRITTEN record of what this Super-Intelligent, Super-Powerful Creator God wanted mankind to know about Himself, His Creation, and His Plans for the Future.

O. Jesus of Nazareth is the single most influential human being to ever walk Planet Earth.  Also, there are over 300 specific prophecies concerning a supposed "Messiah" figure throughout the Jewish Scriptures -- what Christians call the Old Testament.  These prophecies "just happen" to all converge in the life of one man of history--Jesus of Nazareth. We hypothesize that this Jesus of Nazareth was (and is) the Creator God in human form, just as he claimed to be.

P. The Christian Scriptures consisting of the Jewish Scriptures plus what is commonly called the New Testament are the most basic and foundational collection of documents for all of mankind's activities on Planet Earth--from scientific endeavor to family activities to government structure.  They also are the only reliable source documents for knowing the future of Planet Earth and Mankind in relation to it.  As such, these Scriptures should be the basis and starting point for all human activities from individual behaviour to family operation to nation building and governance of human affairs to scientific endeavors and the arts.

So now you have the "AF Dave Creator God Updated Hypothesis" ... this is my second draft and almost completely my own words.  While it is true that I have done extensive study, the only sentence to my knowledge "lifted" from an outside source is the first sentence of para (b).  This hypothesis covers many of the main points that I believe should be included, but I would welcome any constructive comments suggesting additions, modifications, or clarifications.

As soon as I am satisfied from my feedback from you that my framework of reasoning is sound, I will proceed to provide evidence which I believe supports each point in my Hypothesis.

This should be fun ... I welcome your comments!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Mike PSS on Sep. 22 2006,13:10

stevestory,
I think MidnightVoice had a good idea in the "Broken Thread" discussion.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Try locking the old thread and leaving a link to the new one as the last post.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Still Possible?
Posted by: stevestory on Sep. 22 2006,13:13

I'll add a link.
Posted by: ericmurphy on Sep. 22 2006,13:35

Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 22 2006,17:37)
I suppose I should be more considerate and at least give you a fair chance to explain why it makes sense, even though it makes no sense to me.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Gee Dave, it makes sense to the rest of us. What's your problem? Do you think maybe the reason it doesn't make sense to you is because you don't want it to make sense?

As I've said before, it's difficult to make a man understand something when his religious beliefs depend on his not understanding it.

The thing is, Dave, you have no valid reason for supposing the earth is only 6,000 years old. You know you've never been able to find any method of dating anything which always results in dates less than 6,000 years. The most you've ever been able to do is throw up your hands in defeat and claim that it's impossible, even in principle, to date anything other than by reference to your Bible (which, as I've pointed out on numerous occasions, is not self-authenticating, and that it gets some things right is no guarantee that it gets everything right).

Did you read my post from yesterday, Dave? You have two choices: you can believe that everything ever written on science in the last hundred years that has any bearing on the age of the earth is wrong, or you can believe that one book is wrong. But for some reason, you take the infinitely more unlikely choice, and put your one book (which even you admit has errors in it) against the hundreds of thousands of other books, papers, articles, etc., and claim without any supporting evidence whatsoever that your book is right, and all the others are wrong.
Posted by: Russell on Sep. 22 2006,13:40

Davie's original quote of Dalrymple, before proper application of QuoteMine™ Scissors:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
One of the principal tasks of the geochronologist is to select the type of material used for a dating analysis. A great deal of effort goes into the sample selection, and the choices are made before the analysis, not on the basis of the results. (my emphasis)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

... and after:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
One of the principal tasks of the geochronologist is to select the type of material used for a dating analysis. A great deal of effort goes into the sample selection
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Seems a bit - what's the word I'm looking for? - dishonest?
Posted by: JonF on Sep. 22 2006,13:45



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Did I read that right?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nope, Davie-doodles.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I never noticed this before!  I was laughing so hard that John was griping about my miniscule range of Y-values being only slightly more miniscule than Dalrymples that I didn't even notice the X-axis values!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I never griped about any minuscule range of Snelling's Y-values; I wrote "Dalrymple's data is fine, accurate and well above the threshold of the instrumentation.  So is Snelling's."  I griped about your misleading plot that, due to inappropriate axis scaling, gave a false impression of the points not lying essentially exactly on a horizontal straight line.  Of course the range of Snelling's data is small; that's what we expect from a horizontal line. And that data defines a nice horizontal line when the axes are scaled appropriately, or when analyzed with an appropriate line-fitting algorithm.
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Look at those X-values!  Talk about MINISCULE!!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nope, Davie-doodles.  Large.  Compared to the only relevant standard; the accuracy and precision of the measuring instruments.  I know you are stupid, but I expected even you to understand the difference between magnitude and accuracy. The values were measured to 3-4 significant digits; that's plenty of precision.
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So you mean to tell me that you think this meteorite is 4.6 GYO because they measured these infinitesmally miniscule values and they plot on a nice line with a slope?  Wow!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Not quite, we think that meteorite is 4.6 GYO because we measured the ratios of isotopes with accuracy of 3-4 significant figures, and they plot on a nice line with a statistically significant slope.  As does Snelling's data, except the slope of the line is zero, and the variation in 87Sr/86Sr values is negligible, and the variation in 87Rb/87Sr values is significant ... exactly what you said was impossible!

I notice you're no longer claiming that Snelling's data doesn't define a horizontal isochron, and you have no response to my pointing out the difference between uptake of different isotopes of the same element and different elements.  Is it possible some facts have finally penetrated your pointy head?  My bet is no.
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

And mind you, I do understand why positive slopes LOOK like old age, but I just keep hearing Dalrymple's statements ringing in my ears ...        

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

The K-Ar method is probably the most widely used radiometric dating technique available to geologists.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


May have been true in 1984, Davie-dip. Not true today.  Proven several times over.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
and ...    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Unlike argon, which escapes easily and entirely from most molten rocks,  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


... and migrates IN also, JonF, as we have seen.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


True (except, of course, there's been no discussion of the kinematics of argon in molten rock) ... but argon does not migrate in either direction after solidification, Davie-dork.  Argon moves freely in or out as appropriate in molten rock, doesn't in solidified rock.  That's why we can see excess argon in some (but not all) ancient rocks (if the argon were mobile there'd be no noticeable argon of any parentage), and it's why the K-Ar method works as well as it does.
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And the famous Cherry Picking statement ...        

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

One of the principal tasks of the geochronologist is to select the type of material used for a dating analysis. A great deal of effort goes into the sample selection
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


True in any field that involves selecting samples, and not evidence of cherry picking.

You have yet to address the the evidence that terrifies you ... the observed patterns of isochron slopes, isochron intercepts, and concordance between different dating methods.  No matter what you think of the methods, the patterns are there and if you can't explain 'em your hypothesis ain't viable.  You can't explain 'em, your hypothesis is rejected.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And tomorrow ... Mineral Isochrons!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ah, running away again leaving 99.9999% of the evidence and problems with your hypothesis unadressed.
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
(Oh BTW ... did anyone notice that the chart we just discussed with the miniscule range of values was primarily a MINERAL isochron chart?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yup. Did you notice that Snelling's data is 100% whole-rock and defines a nice horizontal line with insignificant variation in 87Sr/86Sr and large variation in 87Rb/86Rb?  Therefore, at least some whole-rock isochrons are correct ... just as at least some K-Ar ages are correct because excess argon is not universal ... and we can therefore conclude that your hypothesis of a young Earth is falsified.
Posted by: JonF on Sep. 22 2006,14:50

Quote (Russell @ Sep. 22 2006,19:40)
Davie's original quote of Dalrymple, before proper application of QuoteMine&#8482; Scissors:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
One of the principal tasks of the geochronologist is to select the type of material used for a dating analysis. A great deal of effort goes into the sample selection, and the choices are made before the analysis, not on the basis of the results. (my emphasis)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

... and after:  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
One of the principal tasks of the geochronologist is to select the type of material used for a dating analysis. A great deal of effort goes into the sample selection
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Seems a bit - what's the word I'm looking for? - dishonest?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I missed that.  Just goes to show; the sheer quantity of Dave's pathetic attemps at deception precludes any one person tracking them all.
Posted by: afdave on Sep. 23 2006,01:38

Russell ...  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Davie's original quote of Dalrymple, before proper application of QuoteMine™ Scissors:
Quote  
One of the principal tasks of the geochronologist is to select the type of material used for a dating analysis. A great deal of effort goes into the sample selection, and the choices are made before the analysis, not on the basis of the results. (my emphasis)
... and after: Quote  
One of the principal tasks of the geochronologist is to select the type of material used for a dating analysis. A great deal of effort goes into the sample selection
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

What difference does that make?  Geochronologists have gotten so many "wrong" dates that they are adept at sample selection.  Why do you think K-Ar was so popular when Dalrymple wrote his piece but now it's not, according to Jon?  

But wait!  If they mess up they cherry pick them like in the example I gave you at Koobi Fora.

JonF...  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Yup. Did you notice that Snelling's data is 100% whole-rock and defines a nice horizontal line with insignificant variation in 87Sr/86Sr and large variation in 87Rb/86Rb?  Therefore, at least some whole-rock isochrons are correct ...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

"Correct" WRT to what?  That's the whole problem.  You have this preconceived notion of "correct" dates and the whole geochronological community beats their drum to this tune.

No, Jon, my CGH is not falsified ... far from it.

JonF...  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Ah, running away again leaving 99.9999% of the evidence and problems with your hypothesis unadressed.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

No, just that I have led a horse to water once again, but I can only wait for him to drink so long.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
May have been true in 1984, Davie-dip. Not true today.  Proven several times over.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Finally agreed with the creationists by '84 that it's bogus, huh ...

JonF...  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You have yet to address the the evidence that terrifies you ... the observed patterns of isochron slopes, isochron intercepts, and concordance between different dating methods.  No matter what you think of the methods, the patterns are there and if you can't explain 'em your hypothesis ain't viable.  You can't explain 'em, your hypothesis is rejected.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

All explained in the RATE Books, Jon.  The RATE guys have left these antiquated ideas of time significance in the dust (and they are presenting in Dallas in 8 days ... there's still time to book a ticket!;).  Radioisotope signatures DO tell us something ... just not what you think they do.  This is why they are discordant most of the time as the RATE Team has clearly shown ...



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
As does Snelling's data, except the slope of the line is zero, and the variation in 87Sr/86Sr values is negligible, and the variation in 87Rb/87Sr values is significant ... exactly what you said was impossible!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Could you kindly show me where I said that?

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I know you are stupid, but I expected even you to understand the difference between magnitude and accuracy. The values were measured to 3-4 significant digits; that's plenty of precision.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Measuring infinitesmally small ranges of data and plotting the data on a hugely expanded scale does not a believer make, and is exactly what you told me I should NOT do ... are you above this?  Are you special or something?
Posted by: Mike PSS on Sep. 23 2006,03:15

AFDave,
As a preamble, I'm a chemical engineer and have worked in the chemical/agricultural process industry for ten years.  Lucky for me I'm still in a position where I can use skills and knowledge that were taught in university.  Also, PSS stands for Project Steve Sibling since my brother is on the < list >.  Before university I was enlisted in the Air Force fixing jets (F-4G, F-4E, F-16, A-10, and others) and teaching pilots how to properly use new avionics technology on the planes.
I've worked and trained Air Force pilots before and know that their egos get in the way of there brains sometimes.  I found that the only way some of them accept a fact is to make them think they discovered it themselves (as opposed to having someone else pound it into their thick skulls).

My < presentation > of Material Science facts regarding crystal structure and formation (and JonF's < additional > and detailed information) are based upon measured values of observed phenomena.  These values have nothing to do with age of the earth.

So when you respond with  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Look at those X-values!  Talk about MINISCULE!!

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I wonder what you actually know about any of the basic sciences like physics, chemistry, math, statistics, etc.... being discussed.  At some point AFDave you'll have to take your Isochron argument back to the basic math and science of the method because your present line of arguments lead directly back to these facts.

AFDave,
Do you accept the basic science of crystal formation?  If not why not?


Your lost in this argument and getting more desperate by the day.  Either learn some basics, accept some basics, or accept defeat of your argument and move on.

Mike PSS
Posted by: afdave on Sep. 23 2006,03:16

WHAT WE HAVE COVERED SO FAR HERE AT ATBC

1) I showed you how "whale evolution" doesn't support evolution.  (AFDave Wants You to Prove Evolution thread)
2) I showed you in detail how ridiculous it is to say that apes and humans have a common ancestor.  No one has ever showed me how the LCA date of 8 my was arrived at.
3) I showed you the details of the RATE Helium diffusion experiment--another serious challenge to conventional earth ages
4) You were shown how geologists have been completely surprised to find too much C14 in coal and diamonds.  If they are so old, it shouldn't be there.
5) You were shown how leading evolutionists already admit "apparent design" in nature, yet they are so blind they (and you) say it is only a mirage
6) You were shown how your own site which you love (Talk Origins) supports the Michael Denton observation that the cosmos is finely tuned for life, and specifically for mankind
7) You were shown how the observed phenomenon of Universal Morality supports the God Hypothesis
8) You were shown with fruit flies, bacteria and other organisms how macroevolution simply does not occur and has never been observed.
9) You were shown how the Genesis Record is not an oral tradition, but is in reality a carefully written, eye-witness account and predates the Gilgamesh Epic and other heathen distortions.
10) You were shown the most obvious and persuasive evidence ever given to any generation of the truth of a Global Flood--Millions of dead things buried in rock layers, laid down by water all over the earth.
11) You were shown how many leading geologists have now reluctantly become catastrophists because of the goading of creationists to observe the actual evidence.
12) You have been shown that your "convincing fossil record" consists of only 13% of the entire supposed geologic time according to Encyclopedia Britannica, and is characterized by gaps, not a continuous sequence of evolutionary change
13) We touched on the fact that there has been a new term invented -- "Punctuated Equilibrium" -- Why?  Because the fossil record simply does not support the evolutionary scenario.
14) You have been shown two modern day examples--the Palouse Canyon and the Toutle River--of debris dams bursting and forming canyons, one of them cutting vertical walls in hard rock, showing exactly how the Grand Canyon was probably formed.
15) You have been shown how uniformitarians laughed at Harlan Bretz for 60 years before finally agreeing that he was right--that the Palouse Canyon was formed catastrophically.  When will they stop laughing at creationists who say the Grand Canyon was formed rapidly?
16) You have been shown that incised meanders such as those found in the Grand Canyon require soft sediments, thus showing that the Grand Canyon was formed while sediments were still soft in the Receding Phase of the Great Flood.
18) You have been shown that the sedimentary layers of the Grand Staircase have been dated by fossils--which is pure speculation, not radiometrically as we are led to believe
19) You have been shown how K-Ar dating used to be the most popular radiometric dating method until geologists realized that there are all kinds of problems with it making it often wildly discordant from other methods
20) You have been shown how Isochron Dating was invented in an attempt to solve the problem of unknown initial conditions, but in the case of the whole rock isochron (used to be the most common), the diagrams can easily be interpreted as nothing more than mixing diagram--useless for assigning any real ages to rocks.

And much of this can be found at ...

Answers in Genesis International ... <a href="www.answersingenesis.org" target='_blank'>www.answersingenesis.org</a> which has many scholarly articles written by scientists with PhD's in many different fields.

Ditto for the Institute for Creation Research ... <a href="www.icr.org" target='_blank'>www.icr.org</a>

Where do we go from here?  We will finish our discussion of Radiometric Dating, then move to points in my "CGH" which have not yet been covered.
Posted by: improvius on Sep. 23 2006,03:29

Quote (Mike PSS @ Sep. 23 2006,09:15)
AFDave,
Do you accept the basic science of crystal formation?  If not why not?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think another important question would be whether or not Dave accepts the basic science of half-lives and daughter elements.  He probably doesn't, since that alone would blow his 6000-year hypothesis.
Posted by: JonF on Sep. 23 2006,03:38

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 23 2006,07:38)
Russell ...      

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Davie's original quote of Dalrymple, before proper application of QuoteMine&#8482; Scissors:
Quote  
One of the principal tasks of the geochronologist is to select the type of material used for a dating analysis. A great deal of effort goes into the sample selection, and the choices are made before the analysis, not on the basis of the results. (my emphasis)
... and after: Quote  
One of the principal tasks of the geochronologist is to select the type of material used for a dating analysis. A great deal of effort goes into the sample selection
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

What difference does that make?  Geochronologists have gotten so many "wrong" dates that they are adept at sample selection.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Unsupprted assertion, as usual.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Why do you think K-Ar was so popular when Dalrymple wrote his piece but now it's not, according to Jon?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Because other methods are more accurate (although K-Ar is stil useful and used, and is accurate enough to disprove your hypothesis by orders of magnitude) and more widely applicable. 
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Ah, running away again leaving 99.9999% of the evidence and problems with your hypothesis unadressed.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

No, just that I have led a horse to water once again, but I can only wait for him to drink so long.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



  • Passing the mixing test is not sufficient evidence for a mixing line.
  • Their own data doesn't support their conclusion; many of their samples failed the mixing test!  They have no evidence that it is even reasonable to interpret those isochrons as mixing lines.
  • Mixing does not explain the observed pattern of isochron slopes.
  • Mixing does not explain the observed pattern of isochron intercepts.
  • Mixing does not explain the observed pattern of agreement with other dating methods that are not susceptible to mixing. No matter what you think of the individual dating methods, the pattern is there and must be explained by any viable hypothesis.

You've been led to the water many times, Davie-doodles.  Drink up!
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
May have been true in 1984, Davie-dip. Not true today.  Proven several times over.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Finally agreed with the creationists by '84 that it's bogus, huh ...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nope.  Just not as widely used, because improved methods have been developed.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You have yet to address the the evidence that terrifies you ... the observed patterns of isochron slopes, isochron intercepts, and concordance between different dating methods.  No matter what you think of the methods, the patterns are there and if you can't explain 'em your hypothesis ain't viable.  You can't explain 'em, your hypothesis is rejected.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

All explained in the RATE Books, Jon.  The RATE guys have left these antiquated ideas of time significance in the dust (and they are presenting in Dallas in 8 days ... there's still time to book a ticket!;).  Radioisotope signatures DO tell us something ... just not what you think they do.  This is why they are discordant most of the time as the RATE Team has clearly shown ...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Then tell us, Davie-poo, what's  the significance of the patterns of isochron slopes, the patterns of isochron intercepts, and the patterns of concordance between differnt methods.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
As does Snelling's data, except the slope of the line is zero, and the variation in 87Sr/86Sr values is negligible, and the variation in 87Rb/87Sr values is significant ... exactly what you said was impossible!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Could you kindly show me where I said that?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh, so many places to choose from! < here >:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
JonF says that the samples above are widely spaced enough that they would be inhomogeneous WRT Rb content ...

Oh really?  OK, fine.  Then guess what ... they are inhomogeneous WRT to intial 87Sr/86Sr content also.  You cannot have it both ways.  The Whole Rock Isochron method assumes a homogeneous daughter ratio.  It is either homogeneous or it is not.  If it is, then Rb is homogeneous also.  If it is not, the the WRI diagram is rendered useless.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And < here >:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The above picture shows a typical lava flow.  Now the theory says that for the isochron to be valid, the initial Sr ratio of 87Sr/86Sr is HOMOGENEOUS.  Now one could argue whether or not the flow above is actually homogeneous, but for the whole rock isochron method to work, this is the assumption.  The typical assumed initial value is around 0.70 depending on whether you are talking about island volcanoes or continental volcanoes.  I think it's a little higher for contintental.  But in any case, it is ASSUMED to be homogeneous.  Now IF the 87Sr/86Sr ratio is homogeneous, this means that the 87Rb/86Sr ratio is ALSO homogeneous, and this means that we would have only ONE data point on the isochron diagram if we were to analyze any sample in the lava flow.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


{emphasis added}

And < here > (the same post in which you made it absolutely clear that you thought the intial daughter ratio was assumed rather than calculated):
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

BUt again, you are missing his point which is that WHOLE ROCK ISOCHRONS are either (a) homogeneous and meaningless (single point), or (b) heterogeneous and invalid (no way to determine initial daughter ratio ... remember, Jon, we are not talking about single crystals yet, we're talking about big samples containing all kinds of crystals)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Remember, Davie-dippers, we're talking about Snelling's big samples containing all kinds of crystals, and a whole-rock isochron that demonstrably is not a single point and has an intercept that determines the intial daughter ratio.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I know you are stupid, but I expected even you to understand the difference between magnitude and accuracy. The values were measured to 3-4 significant digits; that's plenty of precision.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Measuring infinitesmally small ranges of data and plotting the data on a hugely expanded scale does not a believer make, and is exactly what you told me I should NOT do ... are you above this?  Are you special or something?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ah, I guess you don't have the faintest idea what significant digits are.  Not surprising. From < significant digits >:

"The digits of the decimal form of a number beginning with the leftmost nonzero digit and extending to the right to include all digits warranted by the accuracy of measuring devices used to obtain the numbers. Also called significant figures."

{emphasis added}

Davie-moron, significant digits have nothing to do with graphs or graph scales.  If we measured 87Rb/86Sr as 1983.0, that would be accurate to five significant digits because the accuracy of the instrumenttion warrants it.    If we measured 87Rb/86Sr as 0.18573, that would be accurate to five significant digits because the accuracy of the instrumentation warrants it. The absolute size of the number does not matter, the size of the number relative to the accuracy of the instrumentation matters; and by that measure (the only meaningful one), Dalrymple's numbers are large.
Posted by: improvius on Sep. 23 2006,03:53

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 23 2006,07:38)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I know you are stupid, but I expected even you to understand the difference between magnitude and accuracy. The values were measured to 3-4 significant digits; that's plenty of precision.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Measuring infinitesmally small ranges of data and plotting the data on a hugely expanded scale does not a believer make, and is exactly what you told me I should NOT do ... are you above this?  Are you special or something?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If you really want to pursue this, Dave, you need to make a case for why the scale on your chart is more appropriate in this instance than JonF's.  But so far you haven't come up with any supporting reasons to think so.
Posted by: ericmurphy on Sep. 23 2006,05:14

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 23 2006,06:38)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
As does Snelling's data, except the slope of the line is zero, and the variation in 87Sr/86Sr values is negligible, and the variation in 87Rb/87Sr values is significant ... exactly what you said was impossible!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Could you kindly show me where I said that?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sure:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
JonF says that the samples above are widely spaced enough that they would be inhomogeneous WRT Rb content ...

Oh really?  OK, fine.  Then guess what ... they are inhomogeneous WRT to intial 87Sr/86Sr content also.  You cannot have it both ways.  The Whole Rock Isochron method assumes a homogeneous daughter ratio.  It is either homogeneous or it is not.  If it is, then Rb is homogeneous also.  If it is not, the the WRI diagram is rendered useless.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: ericmurphy on Sep. 23 2006,05:30

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 23 2006,08:16)
WHAT WE HAVE COVERED SO FAR HERE AT ATBC
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Um, not exactly, Dave. These points, these things you've "shown" us, have been refuted < again > and < again > and < again > and < again. > Do follow the links, Dave; they'll refresh your memory.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Where do we go from here?  We will finish our discussion of Radiometric Dating, then move to points in my "CGH" which have not yet been covered.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Glad to see you're finally giving up on radiometric dating, Dave (even though you'll never admit defeat, it's not like it isn't obvious you have been). Of course, you've only managed to completely mangle your understanding of basically two radiometric dating techniques out of the 40 or so that exist, but that's okay. I'm sure you're sick of getting the snot kicked out of your arguments (even though you'll never admit it).

So let's go back to your "global catastrophic flood," Dave. That was a good one. Let's see you once more avoid the unpleasant fact that you have no evidence whatsoever that it ever happened. Or would you prefer to move on to something else you have no evidence whatsoever for?
Posted by: JonF on Sep. 23 2006,05:41

Quote (improvius @ Sep. 23 2006,09:53)
Quote (afdave @ Sep. 23 2006,07:38)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I know you are stupid, but I expected even you to understand the difference between magnitude and accuracy. The values were measured to 3-4 significant digits; that's plenty of precision.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Measuring infinitesmally small ranges of data and plotting the data on a hugely expanded scale does not a believer make, and is exactly what you told me I should NOT do ... are you above this?  Are you special or something?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If you really want to pursue this, Dave, you need to make a case for why the scale on your chart is more appropriate in this instance than JonF's.  But so far you haven't come up with any supporting reasons to think so.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


He hasn't come up with a case for anything yet.  Assertions, yup, by the barrelful.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Sep. 23 2006,05:41

ericmurphy:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So let's go back to your "global catastrophic flood," Dave. That was a good one. Let's see you once more avoid the unpleasant fact that you have no evidence whatsoever that it ever happened. Or would you prefer to move on to something else you have no evidence whatsoever for?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Eric, please tell us what would constitute "evidence" for a global flood. Try to be as precise as possible. Thanks.
Posted by: stevestory on Sep. 23 2006,05:56

BTW, Wesley mentioned a while ago that the bug which bedeviled the former thread seems to result from very long posts. So those of you who make such posts might want to break them into chunks.
Posted by: Russell on Sep. 23 2006,06:19

Recapping...
Davie's original quote of Dalrymple, before proper application of QuoteMine™ Scissors:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
One of the principal tasks of the geochronologist is to select the type of material used for a dating analysis. A great deal of effort goes into the sample selection, and the choices are made before the analysis, not on the basis of the results. (my emphasis)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

... and after:  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
One of the principal tasks of the geochronologist is to select the type of material used for a dating analysis. A great deal of effort goes into the sample selection
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

to which the irrepressible AF "Don Quixote" Dave responds:  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
What difference does that make?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Well, now. That's a good question. Why did you excise the bolded part? To save precious bandwidth?

What we have learned so far:
No matter how thoroughly, devastatingly, "over-killingly" Davie's bizarre take on reality is demolished, he will keep summarizing all his ignominious defeats and retreats as glorious victories, thus firmly securing his reputation as the "Baghdad Bob" of internet creationists. One could, I suppose, go back and re-demolish each one of those "victories", but then one will have fallen for Davie's ploy of having one run around in infinite circles, covering the same old ground over and over.

Instead, one might ask Dave why, if actual practising scientists have been so decisively shown wrong on these extremely basic points, why are these "fallacies" still universally accepted in textbooks and in the professional scientific literature and practice?

Though that, too, would be covering old territory, as Davie will undoubtedly return with some variation of the "Atheist/secular humanist" conspiracy.

Here's one question, more or less randomly chosen from what must be at this point hundreds of dodged unanswered questions, I'll take as emblematic of the rest: Davie dismisses all the isotopic dating results as "unreliable" or "meaningless". Which, if it were the case, would predict a random, meaningless, array of dates for the age of the earth. Yet he's been shown volumes of data that all converge on the same remarkably narrow age: 4.55 x 10^9 years.

Which brings us back to the Dalrymple quote, and Davie's artful editing of it. I believe Davie's hilariously lame response to the obvious question is "cherry-picking".  So Davie is accusing Dalrymple (and the entire scientific community, for that matter) of the most contemptible sort of malfeasance when they point out, as Dalrymple did in the quote, that samples are selected before analysis.

I'm seriously considering using highlights from this thread for the very purpose Davie claims to be passionate about: teaching kids. I'm convinced that any high-school science student incapaple of recognizing the difference between "science" and "deluded zealotry" is beyond the reach of more sophisticated logic, and should probably not be wasting the time of science teachers anyway.
Posted by: Mike PSS on Sep. 23 2006,06:21

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Sep. 23 2006,11:41)
ericmurphy:

     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So let's go back to your "global catastrophic flood," Dave. That was a good one. Let's see you once more avoid the unpleasant fact that you have no evidence whatsoever that it ever happened. Or would you prefer to move on to something else you have no evidence whatsoever for?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Eric, please tell us what would constitute "evidence" for a global flood. Try to be as precise as possible. Thanks.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Touché GoP.  Touché.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Sep. 23 2006,06:44

Since we're posting lists
A Few Currently Unanswered Questions for Dave
(1) Why can't you provide a means of falsifying your "hypothesis?" This is your job, not that of others.
(2)  You admit you've never seen the supposedly "inerrant" originals of the bible . So-first-how do you know they're "inerrant"? Because the admittedly flawed copies tell you so? And you believe them why? From PuckSR, p.124
(3)  I asked you what was equivocal about the clearly discounted Tyre prophecy, and you all you have done is ignore my questions...for thirty days (from 7_Popes) p.124
(4)  How is the dendrochronology for Catal Huyuk wrong?
(5)  Who do you think had syphilis on the ark?
(6)  If Noah and his little group were the only humans left, can you calculate for me the average number of children each female would have to have in order to achieve the population levels we have today...in 4,356 years??
(7)  How much water was involved in the flood, Dave? Estimate of the amount of water that was underground, and how deep was it? Was it spread uniformly under the crust, or was it in localised (and deep) reservoirs?
(8)  You claim that  humans have been literate since your flood. How come none of them had anything to say about an ice age that froze most of the planet solid? How come there's no independent evidence of it from any written source?
(9)  Identify precisely the source for the "waters of the deep" Dave. point to any geology references that show this "layer of water" existed under the crust.
(10)  Why are there so many profitable companies that use the Old Earth paradigm as the basis for a successful business case?
(11)  Why is there not a single company anywhere in the world that uses your 6000 year old Young Earth paradigm as the basis for a business case?
(12)  How did those tracks get in the coconino sandstone in the midst of a raging flood that deposited billions MORE tons of sediment on top of the sandstone? Sandstone can't "dry" in the middle of a flood that continues to deposit layers under a "water canopy", Dave. Nor would those animals survive UNDERWATER, nor would their tracks survive the pressure of the layers above on the wet sandstone during the "flood year"
(13)  Layers should have SOME animals in them jumbled up *everywhere* dave. There should be dinos with modern rhinos, with deinotheriums and giant sloths, with Devonian amphibians...yet we don't see that. "Hydraulic sorting" won't do, Dave..or claims that mammals are "more mobile"-- this is utter nonsense.
(14)  Why are certain species of animals (fossilized trilobites) found in the lowermost layers, while others of the same approximate size and shape (fossilized clams) can be found at the top layers, even at the top of Mt. Everest? Did the clams outrun the trilobites in the race uphill from the flood waters?
(15)  Fossils of brachiopods and other sessile animals are also present in the Tonto Groupof the Grand Canyon. How could organisms live and build burrows in such rapidly deposited sediments?
(16)  If "Noah's Flood" transported the brachiopods into the formations, how would relatively large brachiopods get sorted with finer grained sediments? Why aren't they with the gravels?
(17)  Where's your evidence that those tens of millions of species radiated from the several hundred species of organisms that could possibly have fit on the ark, all in the space of a few thousand years? Ultra-mega-hyper-macroevolution, at rates millions of times faster than proposed by the Theory of Evolution?
(18)  Where did all that sediment come from? (Hint: it didn't wash down from the mountains) Where did it go?
(19)  Eric (p.129) notes: The continents are covered by an average of 6,000 meters of sediment. How does your 5,000-foot deep flood produce 6,000 meters of sediment?
(20)  Where did all that water in your ‘global flood run-off’---run off to?
(21)  Explain the presence of eolian and evaporite deposits between fluvial or marine deposits, carbonate and dolomite deposits, coal, and why there are clear cycles of regression and transgression present in the rock record allowing for things like sequence stratigraphy to be done.
(22)  Why are large shale formations consistently oxidized and red while others are consistently black and unoxidized?
(23)  How did the Mile-High cliffs of the Grand Canyon harden enough in ONE YEAR so that they didn't SLUMP under the weight of the deposits over them?
(24)  If there was extensive volcanic activity following the flood, why are there no large ash layers or igneous layers in the upper Canyon stratigraphy showing it?
(25)  Explain PRECISELY how the incised meanders, oxbows and the steep sides of the Grand Canyon were formed, given that these meanders are not in Mississipian-type soils, but through rock, including the igneous base schist (obviously , that is not "soft")
(26)  You said that there was only one land mass before the Flood, correct? this would mean that Africa and North America moved away from each other at the rate of 1 kilometer per HOUR per the Morris/Austin scenarios, Dave. What would that heat do? Where did that energy go? Why do we still have ANY oceans?
(27)  Why on earth do you want living dinosaurs in your timeline at the end of the flood ? When did they die out?
(28)  Why isn't plutonium-239 found to naturally occur? It has a good 20,000 year half-life, or thereabout, and could easily exist from the point of creation. Certainly we have any number of radioactive elements, but other than the ones that are produced by ongoing processes, we find none that wouldn't have disappeared to undetectable levels within 4 and a half billion years
(29)  Please explain the Oklo natural nuclear reactor
(30)  Why don't we see evidence of fast sea-floor spreading paleomagnetically? Remember, Africa and the Americas have to be FLYING away from each other at the rate of 1 kilometer PER HOUR.
(31)  Why does the magnetic dating of oceanic basalts show a longer period of time than your flood claim, Dave? (32) Why is the basalt cooler the further away you move from the rift zones? Calculate rates of cooling for basalt.
(33)  Why don't we see evidence of your massive flood and "tsunamis" in the deep-sea cores?
(34)  Why don't we see evidence of your massive volcanic activity, and carbon dioxide levels and HEAT in the ice cores?
(35)  Why don't we see disruption of the varves?
(36)  Why are mountains near each other differentially eroded if they were all formed at the same time in your "theory?"
(37)  Dave says that the rocky mountain- andes form a north-south chain that was created by rapid movement of the plates.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I say they moved away from the Mid-Ocean Ridge, then stopped rather suddenly. This caused folding and thickening onthe leading edge of the plate and generated massive quantities of heat and pressure leading to metamorphism.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

> This does not explain the east-west tending ranges of the Americas, Eurasia and Africa (himalayas, atlas mts., transverse ranges). Dave was asked: Did those continents STOP TWICE? IN DIFFERENT DIRECTIONS? IN ONE YEAR?
(38)   JonF noted that such rapid movements of plates and "sudden stopping" would melt the rock. Dave doesn't give a response or answer to that little problem.
(39)   Precisely how were the Vertebrae Ridge mountains you posted...metamorphosed?
(40)  Dave said that as the continents shifted the layers were folded, heated (and metamorphosed) and uplifted, all in a very short time span. He claimed "These are all very well-understood processes and this is a very plausible scenario". I asked Dave to show me references for this "well understood process " in regard to the Vertebrae Ridge gneiss. He failed to answer p.125
(41)  How did the iridium layer between the Cretaceous and the Tertiary appear within flood waters... the iridium layer is especially interesting, since it is global. How could iridium segregate markedly into a single thin layer...and why does the iridium layer "just happen" to date to the same time as the Chicxulub crater?
(42)  The Arizona Barringer Meteor penetrates the Permian Kaibab and Toroweap Formations and has caused shock effects on the Coconino Sandstone. Because the crater penetrates Permian strata, it is Permian or younger. And since the crater contains some Pleistocene lake deposits, it is Pleistocene or older. The Geomorphology of the crater itself indicates only a small amount of erosion. The Crater is dated at 49,000 years old. Explain this, DaveStupid.
(43)  Did the earth cool down several hundred degrees in 6000 years or so? Please explain the thermodynamics of such a cooling process.
(44)  Dave, since this is supposedly your "hypothesis" we're talking about here, how do you date the Grand Canyon?
(45)  How was a  canyon is carved in limestone and buried under 17000 feet of sediment in the Tarim Basin in far western China?That's over three miles deep of overlying rock and soil for the mathematically challenged Fundies out there.
(46)  I'm incredibly interested in how the Kaibab was formed in your model, Dave. Tell me how limestone was preferentially deposited in that layer. How is it that calcium carbonate was deposited in a flood, with the turbidity of a flood?
(47)  Dave claimed ( p.138, this thread) that only 3 radiometric dates had been given him, then that only three layers were dated. I asked: "okay, dave shithead...you said that I only provided three radiometric dates...want to make a gentleman's agreement on that? I'll bet you that I have given you much more than that. I will leave this forum and proclaim your victory if I am wrong." And: "Okay, let's switch it to your claim that only three layers have been dated, DaveShithead...want a gentleman's agreement on that? I'll not only leave this forum, but I'll pay for my plane ticket to your church and proclaim in front of them how I was wrong...IF I am wrong. In return--if you are wrong, you will get in front of your group at church and film it while you say you were wrong, begging my forgiveness, and post it on the internet here. Cowardly Dave refused to answer.
(48)  Explain the Paleosols we see in the Grand Staircase
(49)  Explain the buried vertical Yellowstone forests that have paleosols between them
(50) Why do you choose to lie deliberately so much, MaggotDave?

I would accept a global stratum that indicates a global flood. Such a stratum would have CLEAR indications of pre- and postflood strata bracketing it.
What creationists do is wave their delicate hands at ALL sedimentary layers and say "that MIGHT be one" without EVER clearly saying "here is the preflood basement...here's layer(s) X that were laid during the flood...and here are post-flood depositions."
Continents zooming around clearly did not occur 4300 years ago, nor is there any indication of a post-flood "ice age" which happened while the Egyptians and many others were still literate and writing. I'd accept a global strata, evidence of a massive die-off at that time, including freshwater fish, insects, plants, annelids, etc. but the fact is that no such layer can be shown to exist.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Sep. 23 2006,07:05

Let me be even more direct: I have no ideological inherent bias against the notion of a "flood" or a young earth for that matter. If such things were so, then the data would clearly indicate it. There would BE loud, clear unambiguous evidence of it everywhere. There would be short-half-life isotopes naturally occurring, there would be a global stratum, since floodwater carries suspended materials. There would be NO post-flood Egyptian or Sumerian civilizations. And a thousand other concordant facts. But NONE of those things are apparent, hence my rejection of this "hypothesis that is better than any other" since it has no factual basis.

Instead what there is evidence of is unfalsifiable fantasies by creationists--a flood that originates from water sources that "collapsed" and are therefore invisible now...a flood that left no clear traces that any creationist can clearly define....and  floodwaters that SHOT OFF INTO SPACE vanishing mysteriously. None of these things left a trace, they all are unfalsifiable, they all have no evidence at all to support them...but they are the mainstay of YEC (Christian) claims.

Creationists like Dave have no choice but to be dishonest, since the data is by far against them, yet he'll pretend to "win" arguments he knows nothing about, he'll repost a list of things he claims to have shown..while never having addressed directly those issues or any of the counterarguments directly under questioning. Anyone that reads the threads can see this is so, regardless of their views on YEC-ism, if they are honest.

As I said, I have no inherent bias against AirHead's claims, I was not born with a chip in my head forcing me to agree with an old earth, I am skeptical enough to reject claims that have sufficient evidence against them -- and theoretically, that COULD mean that I would reject an old-earth timeline...but the data is not against an old earth, it is clearly in opposition to AirHead's cartoon version of history.
Posted by: Mike PSS on Sep. 23 2006,07:27

Quote (improvius @ Sep. 23 2006,09:29)
 
Quote (Mike PSS @ Sep. 23 2006,09:15)
AFDave,
Do you accept the basic science of crystal formation?  If not why not?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think another important question would be whether or not Dave accepts the basic science of half-lives and daughter elements.  He probably doesn't, since that alone would blow his 6000-year hypothesis.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think Dave is working another angle on this.  He thinks if he can discredit the "assumption" of original daughter isotopic concentration in radiometric age analysis then he doesn't have to state the classic fundy line of "accellerated decay rates in the past" to explain the measured half-lives.  (even though ericmurphy has tried to get Dave to say this)

JonF or ericmurphy have already pummelled him with Ar-Ar dating techniques (which are self-correcting to original daughter isotopes) but Dave has ignored this MANY times.

AFDave,
Don't hold back.  State what you truly < believe > about crystal formation and radioisotopic half-lives.

Mike PSS
Posted by: improvius on Sep. 23 2006,09:01

Quote (Mike PSS @ Sep. 23 2006,13:27)
He thinks if he can discredit the "assumption" of original daughter isotopic concentration in radiometric age analysis then he doesn't have to state the classic fundy line of "accellerated decay rates in the past" to explain the measured half-lives.  (even though ericmurphy has tried to get Dave to say this)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oops!  Looks like he < already has >:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Maybe you will catch on soon that the Helium-Zircon Project is a stunning blow to long agers.  Maybe long agers will actually take the cue from the RATE Group and get cracking on accelerated decay research.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Yeah and if your meter is off by 5 orders of magnitude because you close your eyes to the possibility of a Creation event and a Flood event that might have caused accelerated decay, then you can take a BILLION measurements and you'll be wrong a BILLION times.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



< And again >:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The RATE Group claims that there is direct observable evidence of accelerated nuclear decay during some period in the past--we will be looking at this
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



And radiohaloes?  Oh yeah, Dave went there, too:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Next, we will be moving on to Uranium and Polonium radiohalos, which, according to ICR, provide direct, observable evidence of accelerated nuclear decay during some period of time in the past ... we shall see!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



All of which leaves me to wonder why Dave didn't just skip past all of the "sciencey" stuff and dismiss the dating methods based on accelrated decay right off the bat.
Posted by: Mike PSS on Sep. 23 2006,09:09

Quote (improvius @ Sep. 23 2006,15:01)
   
Quote (Mike PSS @ Sep. 23 2006,13:27)
He thinks if he can discredit the "assumption" of original daughter isotopic concentration in radiometric age analysis then he doesn't have to state the classic fundy line of "accellerated decay rates in the past" to explain the measured half-lives.  (even though ericmurphy has tried to get Dave to say this)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oops!  Looks like he < already has >:

     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Maybe you will catch on soon that the Helium-Zircon Project is a stunning blow to long agers.  Maybe long agers will actually take the cue from the RATE Group and get cracking on accelerated decay research.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I stand humbly corrected in awe of your search prowess.

AFDave,
You missed (at least) one:    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
WHAT WE HAVE COVERED SO FAR HERE AT ATBC

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


21) You have been shown that Portuguese is a mixture of French and Spanish.  (i.e. Portuguese = French + Spanish  and you didn't think I knew math!!!;))
Posted by: JonF on Sep. 23 2006,10:28

Quote (Mike PSS @ Sep. 23 2006,13:27)

I think Dave is working another angle on this.  He thinks if he can discredit the "assumption" of original daughter isotopic concentration in radiometric age analysis then he doesn't have to state the classic fundy line of "accellerated decay rates in the past" to explain the measured half-lives.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


My opinion is that Davie doesn't think at all; he just regurgitates.  He hasn't caught on that, if accelerated decay happened, all this stuff about excess argon and mixing and what-not is irrelevant.  He also hasn't caught on (despite being told many times) that accelerated decay causes more problems than it solves; melting the Earth, killing people with the radioactivity from the radioactive atoms in their bodies, and what-not. Of course, accelerated decay is inherently and explicitly magic and not science.
Posted by: ericmurphy on Sep. 23 2006,12:00

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Sep. 23 2006,10:41)
ericmurphy:

         

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So let's go back to your "global catastrophic flood," Dave. That was a good one. Let's see you once more avoid the unpleasant fact that you have no evidence whatsoever that it ever happened. Or would you prefer to move on to something else you have no evidence whatsoever for?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Eric, please tell us what would constitute "evidence" for a global flood. Try to be as precise as possible. Thanks.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Okay, this is the evidence I would expect to see if Dave's "Global Catastrophic Flood Hypothesis" were correct:

  • Evidence that there was ever enough water to produce a layer of water approximately 5,000 feet above current sea level (this is a tough one to pin Dave down on, because he doesn't seem to be aware of the fact that even without taking mountain ranges into account, continental terrain varies between a few hundred feet below sea level and ~5,000 above sea level, and he's never been able to account for such variation, even with continents rushing around at hundreds of miles an hour). I would want a description in detail of where the water originated from, how it got there to begin with, how it supported the weight of the rock above it and managed to remain in liquid form, and what is now in the place where that mile-thick layer of water used to be.
  • Evidence of where and how that water got to the surface. Given that several billion cubic kilometers were ejected from some distance beneath the surface into the atmosphere, there should be some evidence of escape routes for the water, which would have eroded hardly at all in less than 5,000 years.
  • An accounting for what happened to the water after the flood ended. I.e., where did it drain to? Or was it ejected into outer space?
  • A global layer of sediment laid entirely by water, datable to ~4,500 ya (Dave can use any method outside of reference to the Bible for dating this sediment), consistent with a layer of water between 5,000–7,500 feet (i.e., 5,000 or more feet of sediment is inconsistent with a layer of water 5,000 feet deep) above sea level.
  • Evidence that every human settlement in existence at the time (c. 2,500 B.C.) was utterly destroyed by a mile-deep layer of water.
  • A layer of partially-fossilized remains of holocene organisms (and no others) concentrated in the layer of sediment deposited by the flood, in no particular order, since the kind of turbulence associated with a mile-deep layer of water deposited in less than a year would certainly not allow for any sort of "hydraulic sorting."
  • Much smaller diversity in living organisms than we currently observe, since 4,500 years is nowhere near enough time for several tens of thousands of "kinds" of organisms to have radiated into the tens of millions of species observed today, aside from some sort of ultra-macro-hyper-evolution far beyond anything asserted by evolutionary theory.
  • All mountain chains worldwide should show the same amount of (very little) erosion, because 1) they'd be only a few thousand years old, and 2) they're all post-flood, so none of the accelerated erosional forces Dave assumes would be available.
  • Very little in the way of sea life, due to the huge dilution of seawater by fresh-water rain, unless Dave claims the floodwaters were seawater, in which case there should be almost no freshwater fish, molluscs, or crustaceans.
  • Evidence of a genetic "bottleneck" in not only humans, but in all organisms, datable to less than 5,000 years ago. There should be very little genetic variability among humans (to say nothing of other organisms), since 5,000 years is not enough time for much genetic variation to accumulate.

These are just a few things I could think of in ten minutes or so. Anyone else, feel free to add, but I should point out that the absence of just a few of these pieces of evidence is more than sufficient to completely falsify Dave's "hypothesis."

I should also point out that since it's Dave's hypothesis, it's his job to come up with evidence to falsify it, not ours, and he has never done so. Evidently he doesn't think it's possible to falsify it, which would be in accord with his statements so far.
Posted by: Henry J on Sep. 23 2006,13:04

Also lots of discontinuities between fossils just below the flood level, compared to what lives/lived after the flood - on each island, continent, body of water, or other isolated region.

Ice caps should be no deeper than expected from < 4500 yr. accumulation.

Henry
Posted by: skeptic on Sep. 23 2006,13:27

This is actually very useful.  Having come in so late to the conversation I never went back and read the previous 200 pages so I never saw the original hypothesis.  Just want to look at one point and that is section K:

The recording by Adam and Seth of these events that were passed down to Moses...

gonna need a reference on this one, in fact I don't think I've ever heard this before.  Can you supply some more info please?
Posted by: bystander on Sep. 23 2006,15:32

I have some questions from my nine year old. As AFDave is trying to poison/teach kids with his website these might be appropriate as most kids wont understand dating (also Dave doesn't seem to understand it either)

1. You say that the fossils are sorted based on body size, speed and intelligence. I have found out a lot of dinosaurs were small, fast and smart. Why aren't they mixed with mammals of the same size, speed and brain size?

2. You say that different sized sediments fell out of the water at different times forming the layers we see. I would have thought that this would mean the fine stuff would be at the top. However, in the cliffs behind my house I see shale below layers with bigger grains, how come?

Jordan (age 9)
Posted by: Steverino on Sep. 23 2006,18:09

Dave,

You never answered...

Does the sun revolve around the earth?....Is the earth the center of the universe?

It's in the Bible...spit it out.
Posted by: Steverino on Sep. 23 2006,18:14

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Sep. 23 2006,10:41)
ericmurphy:

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So let's go back to your "global catastrophic flood," Dave. That was a good one. Let's see you once more avoid the unpleasant fact that you have no evidence whatsoever that it ever happened. Or would you prefer to move on to something else you have no evidence whatsoever for?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Eric, please tell us what would constitute "evidence" for a global flood. Try to be as precise as possible. Thanks.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Paley,

You're like the third man in, in a hockey fight.  A born coward/pussy....pick you term.

How about posting something that proves 6000 year Creation.  Back it up or piss off.
Posted by: stevestory on Sep. 23 2006,18:28

I'm happy to report that the page just rolled over with no 'new page bug'.

cheers!

(shot of lime vodka with pomegranate juice)
Posted by: ericmurphy on Sep. 23 2006,19:30

Quote (bystander @ Sep. 23 2006,20:32)
I have some questions from my nine year old. As AFDave is trying to poison/teach kids with his website these might be appropriate as most kids wont understand dating (also Dave doesn't seem to understand it either).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Pretty embarrassing, isn't it, Dave, that a 9-year-old can ask questions about your "hypothesis" that you can't answer.

But you believe your hypothesis is correct because of "the overwhelming amount of evidence in favor of it." Except you can't remember what any of that evidence is…
Posted by: afdave on Sep. 24 2006,00:56

DOWNLOADABLE TEXT FILE NEEDED
I see that there are several people (including Deadman with his big list) who have the need to search my 200 page thread for answers to questions I have already given ... I have been unable to do so yet, and I assume others have not either.  I downloaded Jon Fleming's zip file but when I expanded it, I had the same original problem of too large a file size to handle.  If anyone (Jon?) knows how to make the thread into a downloadable text file (instead of an HTML file), this might work for everyone.  Then you could open it in notepad and search as needed.  I think many of you would be able to find what I have already said about many of your questions if you could do this.  I see that Improvius has already found my statements on accelerated nuclear decay--good!

FIGURES OF SPEECH ... IN EVERDAY SPEECH AND IN THE BIBLE
Steverino-- I finally do understand where you are coming from with your question ... I didn't know what you had in mind until you posted those verses ... I'll answer you with a question ... Have you ever used the terms "sunset" or "sunrise" ??  If so, does this mean that you think the sun is moving around the earth instead of vice versa?

WHO'S THE REAL REGURGITATORS?
JonF...

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
My opinion is that Davie doesn't think at all; he just regurgitates.  He hasn't caught on that, if accelerated decay happened, all this stuff about excess argon and mixing and what-not is irrelevant.  He also hasn't caught on (despite being told many times) that accelerated decay causes more problems than it solves; melting the Earth, killing people with the radioactivity from the radioactive atoms in their bodies, and what-not. Of course, accelerated decay is inherently and explicitly magic and not science.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Actually, regurgitation seems to be a good description of Deep Timers.  You just regurgitate what you've been taught in school uncritically.  

ACCELERATED NUCLEAR DECAY
You are correct that all the hoopla about excess Ar etc is NA if accelerated decay happened, but one of my goals is simply to get people thinking ... and pointing out that they have swallowed a very popular myth for many years is a good way to do it.  Some of you will say "Hmmmm ... I used to think Argon dating was accurate, but look at this evidence, and look at that evidence ... wow, I guess not.  I wonder what ELSE I've been taught is wrong."  IF accelerated decay happened, it happened mostly before life was created.

MAGIC? OR SIMPLY "HIGH-TECH"
I've said this before but it is worth repeating ...

"Miracles" by God or by any superhuman being are not really miracles at all ... they are simply high tech: technology which WE do not presently understand.  So they are miracles to US, but not to the Being performing them.  A native in the middle of deep dark Africa might think that our technology is magic also.  And to him it is.  But to us it is not because we understand it.  So let's quit spouting nonsense about "magic" and "miracles" shall we?

*******************************

Eric...you need to go read Walt Brown's Hydroplate Theory again.  He answers a lot of your questions.  Not saying I agree with him totally, but he's got some good guesses.  Which parts of his answers to your questions did you not understand or agree with and why?  www.creationscience.com

Skeptic ... p. 82 of the old thread answers your question very thoroughly.  Hopefully a downloadable text file will be available soon.  I also hope to rev up my blog and post these things for reference over there.

Those folks asking about hydrodynamic sorting should also search my old thread.

Monday we will continue with radiometric dating and look at mineral isochrons, concordia/discordia, etc.
Posted by: jeannot on Sep. 24 2006,01:02



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
ACCELERATED NUCLEAR DECAY
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Interesting. Can your hypothesis explain this?

Posted by: afdave on Sep. 24 2006,01:09

STUPID QUESTIONS ... YES, THERE IS SUCH A THING

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
AFDave,
Do you accept the basic science of crystal formation?  If not why not?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Maybe this particular question was not really stupid, but many like it have been ... so I will give general guidelines for determining whether your question is stupid or not.

In general, I (and every creationist I know) accept all science which involves repeatable, testable events.  Crystal formation and many other phenomena fall into this category.  What we do not necessarily accept is hypothetical stuff which cannot be tested reliably, such as the supposed common ancestor of apes and humans, and radiometric dating methods.  Now immediately, some will say "How do you test for your God?" to which the answer is "Of course you cannot."  But we CAN find evidence for God, then we must decide if we will believe in Him or not.

************************

Details please, Jeannot?
Posted by: jeannot on Sep. 24 2006,01:41

There aren't enough details four you, Davey? You have a model but you're not quite sure whether it fits the 65-135 Myear-old crust near the shoreline and you want to be sure it's not 64-134 million years? Man, I wish I had an irony-meter. :D
You could just give your typical explanation like "accelerated decay made the tectonic plates look older than they are, tada!". And then "we have successfully covered plate tectonics, blah blah... I declare victory. :)"

Since you seem a bit lazy : < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seafloor_spreading >
Posted by: tiredofthesos on Sep. 24 2006,02:16

:angry: "He's all over the place! 900 feet to 1300 feet!?!  What an #######!"   Airplane

 Part TWO!!!!  NOOOooooo!!!!!

 This guy isn't worth the first of any decent homo sapiens two cents!

 I beg of you all, let Dave die the miserable, lonely troll's death he deserves!  Not one lurker is ever going to be persuaded by his drooling lies and Xian faux-frindliness.

 Let him be remembered as the dumbest troll ever, with a permanent link to "Part 1" as his headstone (perhaps one like those painted styrofoam ones at the "Ripley's Believe It or Not!" tourist traps: "Here lies [how apt a metaphor!] Les Moore..."). but let it die!!!!!! :O
Posted by: Steverino on Sep. 24 2006,02:56

Dave,

"FIGURES OF SPEECH ... IN EVERDAY SPEECH AND IN THE BIBLE
Steverino-- I finally do understand where you are coming from with your question ... I didn't know what you had in mind until you posted those verses ... I'll answer you with a question ... Have you ever used the terms "sunset" or "sunrise" ??  If so, does this mean that you think the sun is moving around the earth instead of vice versa?"

Now who is being disingenuous?  Are you attempting to interpret the written word of God?

So that whole Galileo being tossed in prison was just about turn of phrase??? Can't have it both ways.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Sep. 24 2006,03:50



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In general, I (and every creationist I know) accept all science which involves repeatable, testable events.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yeah, like flying hydroplates of continents zipping around the Earth at speeds that would boil off every drop of water on the planet.
Or accellerated decay.
Or "fountains of the deep " that mysteriously vanished...
and floodwaters that flew off into space.
And a global flood that left no identifiable global strata, nor can any creationist identify the beginning of the flood anywhere by strata.
Or how about that testable hypothesis about "God created the Earth 6000 years ago?"
Or maybe the testable hypothesis of accellerated speciation that resulted in millions of new species in a two thousand year span?
Or how about that ice age that happened after the flood that NO ONE in history ever wrote about?
Or maybe the testable hypothesis of dinos that lived..AFTER the flood, 'cause NOAH, according to DumbAssDave...had dinos on the ark!! BWAHAHAHA
Yeah, real "testable" stuff there, Stupid.
By the way, AirHead, I love your pretense at "being scientific" after you fail to show how to falsify your hypothesis
Posted by: Mike PSS on Sep. 24 2006,03:59

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 24 2006,07:09)
STUPID QUESTIONS ... YES, THERE IS SUCH A THING

       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
AFDave,
Do you accept the basic science of crystal formation?  If not why not?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Maybe this particular question was not really stupid, but many like it have been ... so I will give general guidelines for determining whether your question is stupid or not.

In general, I (and every creationist I know) accept all science which involves repeatable, testable events.  Crystal formation and many other phenomena fall into this category.  What we do not necessarily accept is hypothetical stuff which cannot be tested reliably, such as the supposed common ancestor of apes and humans, and radiometric dating methods.  Now immediately, some will say "How do you test for your God?" to which the answer is "Of course you cannot."  But we CAN find evidence for God, then we must decide if we will believe in Him or not.

************************

Details please, Jeannot?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Thank you AFDave for admitting that the science of crystal formation is valid in your worldview.  The question wasn't meant to be "STUPID", only to establish a baseline that we both can agree upon.

My point in asking this (and other) questions goes back to your arguments in p.194 - p.202 of the 1st thread.  You (and Arndts and Overn) say you can't have a whole rock Isochron sample vary it's Rb/Sr ratio but the science of crystal formation directly contradicts your claim.

If you wish to carry on with your "ALL ISOCHRONS ARE MIXING LINES" claim then you have to show how the science of crystal formation supports your claim.

MANY (remember that definition) people warned you that you probably didn't know enough information to argue about Isochrons.  There are enough knowledgable people here to reveal what learning is required to understand this stuff.  However, your latest diatribe against "millionofyearsism" is troubling for this idea....
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Actually, regurgitation seems to be a good description of Deep Timers.  You just regurgitate what you've been taught in school uncritically.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'll leave this for another day.

Mike PSS
Posted by: JonF on Sep. 24 2006,04:54

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 24 2006,06:56)
DOWNLOADABLE TEXT FILE NEEDED
I see that there are several people (including Deadman with his big list) who have the need to search my 200 page thread for answers to questions I have already given ... I have been unable to do so yet, and I assume others have not either.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No problem here, Davie-dip; takes a minute or two to load (with images turned off) and search isn't really zippy, but it works.

Of course, if you're searching for answers to the tough questions that you've already given, you ain't gonna find any.  Hee hee hee hee..


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I downloaded Jon Fleming's zip file but when I expanded it, I had the same original problem of too large a file size to handle.  If anyone (Jon?) knows how to make the thread into a downloadable text file (instead of an HTML file), this might work for everyone.  Then you could open it in notepad and search as needed.  I think many of you would be able to find what I have already said about many of your questions if you could do this.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


HTML is a text file, Davie-doodles, which you can open in Wordpad or Notepad.  It's not as nicely formatted as it is in a web browser, but all the text is there.

I'll see what I can do.

No matter how you slice it, it's a big file.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I see that Improvius has already found my statements on accelerated nuclear decay--good!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yup, but he didn't find any answers to questions, like "where'd the heat go?" and "what shielded Noah from the radioactive atoms in his own body, and in the animals, and in the gopherwood?".
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
MAGIC? OR SIMPLY "HIGH-TECH"
I've said this before but it is worth repeating ...

"Miracles" by God or by any superhuman being are not really miracles at all ... they are simply high tech: technology which WE do not presently understand.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Until you have evidence for this alleged high technology, it's arm-waving and invocation of magic.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Those folks asking about hydrodynamic sorting should also search my old thread.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Where they'll find you just asserted, provided no evidence, and ran away from the questions (e.g. < Message 30422 >:
Quote (Jonf @ Sep. 3 2006,11:22)
OTOH,creationism predicts that anything is possible, and has no explanation for the observed facts of the fossil record other than magic; the so-called "creationist explanations" for the order in the fossil record (differential escape, hydrodynamic sorting, and ecological zonation) fall apart when examined.

Let's look at grass and fern pollen.  Grass and ferns grow pretty much everywhere that any plant grows on land.  Grass doesn't run very fast, and ferns are famed for their lack of running ability.  Grass pollen has the same hydrodynamic properties as fern pollen.  

But fern pollen is found in abundance in strata from circa 400 million years ago to the present, and grass pollen is only found in strata from circa 70 million years ago to the present.

How did that grass pollen get sorted out, Davie-diddles?

Or take plesiosaurs and dolphins.   They live (or lived) in the same environment, moved the same way, and have the same hydrodynamic properties.  Plesiosaur fossils are found in strata from 200-65 million years old and no more recent, dolphin fossils are found in strata from 13 million years old to the present.  How did that happen, Davie-poot?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Explain those, Davie-dumpling.  You haven't. You can't.

Your hydrodynamic sorting, ecological zonation, differential escape, or any combination thereof is falsified by the observed patterns of fossils.

And, of course, I found that by searching the downloaded copy in Notepad.  No problem.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Monday we will continue with radiometric dating and look at mineral isochrons, concordia/discordia, etc.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Running away again, hum, Davie-moron?  You finally realized that you did claim, multiple times, that a horizontal-line whole-rock isochron cannot be obtained from fresh lava, and that's your (and Arndts and Overn's) entire argument against whole-rock isochrons?  And that your claim is falsified by Snellings's, a creationist's, data?  And that this proves yet again that creationists think of everything in isolation, never cross-comparing?

Did you finally figure out what significant figures are?  Still got a problem with Dalrymple's numbers?  

Got any defense for the scaling of your graph of Snelling's data, other than "Davie's too dumb to figure out an appropriate scale and doesn't have a prayer of figuring out how to implement one in Excel"?

And, of course, the problems that terrify Dave beyond any others 'cause he can't address 'em:

  • Mixing does not explain the observed pattern of isochron slopes.
  • Mixing does not explain the observed pattern of isochron intercepts.
  • Mixing does not explain the observed pattern of agreement with other dating methods that are not susceptible to mixing. No matter what you think of the individual dating methods, the pattern is there and must be explained by any viable hypothesis.


Let's say that again, Davie-pootles:  No matter what you think of the individual dating methods, the pattern of concordance is there and must be explained by any viable hypothesis.  Your hypothesis doesn't explain the observed patterns.

So, to summarize what we've learned of radiometric dating so far:

  • A few rocks have excess argon which screws up K-Ar dating, but most do not.
  • There is no reason to suspect that even a majority of K-Ar dates are wrong.
  • Snelling's study of isotope systematics is irrelevant,  his claims are not supported by his data, and the claims are falsified by easily-available evidence.
  • The claim that any whole-rock isochron must initially start as a point on an isochron diagram (unless it is a result of mixing) is false.
  • There is no evidence that any appreciable number of whole-rock isochrons are not true indications of the age of the rocks.
  • There is lots of evidence that the vast majority of whole-rock isochrons are not the result of mixing, but rather are the result of radiaoctive decay in-situ over millions to billions of years.
  • Davie's young Earth is falsified.

Hee hee hee hee..

Hey, Davie, bet you're even more ignorant of concordia-discordia than you were of isochrons.  What do you wanna bet?  Hee hee hee hee...
Posted by: improvius on Sep. 24 2006,05:41

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 24 2006,06:56)
FIGURES OF SPEECH ... IN EVERDAY SPEECH AND IN THE BIBLE
Steverino-- I finally do understand where you are coming from with your question ... I didn't know what you had in mind until you posted those verses ... I'll answer you with a question ... Have you ever used the terms "sunset" or "sunrise" ??  If so, does this mean that you think the sun is moving around the earth instead of vice versa?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wow, it looks like something finally got through to Dave.  And I thought he'd never admit the folly of a literal interpretation of the Bible.  That's excellent progress, Dave my boy!

Now I want you to try expanding on that concept.  Meditate on this question: how can you tell the difference between literal and figurative passages in the Bible?
Posted by: ericmurphy on Sep. 24 2006,06:00

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 24 2006,05:56)
DOWNLOADABLE TEXT FILE NEEDED
I see that there are several people (including Deadman with his big list) who have the need to search my 200 page thread for answers to questions I have already given ...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dave, I have a searchable copy of the entire first thread (it's a webarchive format readable—and searchable—by Mac OS X's Safari web browser), so I know for fact that, e.g., you never even discussed the evolution of whales anywhere on this thread. At least when it comes to me, you can run, but you can't hide, and you can't lie about what you have and have not "proven," or even discussed.
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Eric...you need to go read Walt Brown's Hydroplate Theory again.  He answers a lot of your questions.  Not saying I agree with him totally, but he's got some good guesses.  Which parts of his answers to your questions did you not understand or agree with and why?  www.creationscience.com
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dave, I've looked at Walt Brown's Hydroplate "Theory" and various rebuttals of it, and I am well aware that 1) the "theory" is impossible on its face, and requires multiple miracles for it to have happened the way Dr. Brown claims it happened, and 2) there is no evidence, from geology, paleontology, or any other field, that Brown's claims are accurate. And just for review, Dave, you might want to read < this > again, assuming you ever read it in the first place.

Moreover, regardless of what Brown may think happened, he hasn't presented any actual evidence that it happened that way, and he presents none of the evidence I said I would need to credit a "global catastrophic flood hypothesis." In other words, he's answered none of my questions. If you think he has, feel free to post it here. Remember, this is your hypothesis, and it's not my job to hunt around for evidence supporting it; it's yours. If you can find any evidence at all of the kind I told Bill I would need to credit your "hypothesis," I strongly urge you to post it. You claim you've already seen such evidence, so it shouldn't take long to find it.
Posted by: TangoJuliett on Sep. 24 2006,07:43

Quote (tiredofthesos @ Sep. 24 2006,07:16)
This guy isn't worth the first of any decent homo sapiens two cents!

 I beg of you all, let Dave die the miserable, lonely troll's death he deserves!  Not one lurker is ever going to be persuaded by his drooling lies and Xian faux-frindliness.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Easy there fella!  As a (mostly) lurker, I can certainly agree with this sentiment.  However, if you take Dave seriously, you'll most likely go insane or be filled with revulsion!  His value lies (aptly) in taking him humorously.  How could anyone be so astoundingly, moronically, and irrationally stupid?  And all in the name of some magic sky-pixie dictator fantasy worship?!?!?  It boggles the mind!  You simply can't script this kind of humor.

Back in the 80's I used to watch televangelists just for laughs.  I found most of them to be hilariously funny.  Unfortunately, I don't have cable now so don't get to see much of them.  And, not surprisingly, Dave has taken their place for me in the humor department.  So I say let him drool and distort and wiggle and twist.  He's a great example of why I would never freely choose to be religious, in general, or Christian, in particular. Yes, he can be trying at times, but generally, I love the laughs.  I also appreciate the wit, humor, and knowledge of those who engage him on a regular basis.
Posted by: k.e on Sep. 24 2006,07:56

Bwhahahahahahahahaha

hehehehehehehe.




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Quote  by lies for kids AFD
In general, I (and every creationist I know) accept all science which involves repeatable, testable events.  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------




AFD you lying piece of ****.


You hold all evidence in total contempt,

You are pathologically incapable of accepting the rules of evidence.

If you were in a court you would be put away for contempt, for being the recalcitrant liar you are.

You and your fellow blow hard scam artists aka creationists, reduce your religion to nothing more than an ignorance peddling criminal activity.
Posted by: someotherguy on Sep. 24 2006,09:04

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 24 2006,06:09)
... so I will give general guidelines for determining whether your question is stupid or not.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


After having read about 150 pages of the previous thread, I assure you that you are in no position to be able to do this.
Posted by: improvius on Sep. 24 2006,09:12

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 24 2006,07:09)
Crystal formation and many other phenomena fall into this category.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Super.  Then how long does, say, a quartz crystal take to form?
Posted by: ericmurphy on Sep. 24 2006,10:53

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 23 2006,08:16)
WHAT WE HAVE COVERED SO FAR HERE AT ATBC

1) I showed you how "whale evolution" doesn't support evolution.  (AFDave Wants You to Prove Evolution thread)
2) I showed you in detail how ridiculous it is to say that apes and humans have a common ancestor.  No one has ever showed me how the LCA date of 8 my was arrived at.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I thought I'd take this opportunity to show, once again, how much of a liar Dave really is. He claims to have already covered < these > 20 topics. I've already < shown > he hasn't even begun to prove any of these assertions, or even present any evidence for them, but I thought I'd show how much of a liar is with one of them in more detail.

As I < stated > earlier, Dave's never even mentioned whale evolution on this thread, but it's hard to prove a negative without posting all 20-some megabytes of the entire thread. But I can provide affirmative evidence that dave is lying when he says "No one has ever showed [sic] me how the LCA [of humans, chimps, and gorillas] of 8 my was arrived at."

In other words, Dave claims he hasn't been shown any evidence for the assertion that humans, chimps, and gorillas have a common ancestor. Now, if he'd said he didn't believe that evidence, that would be one thing. But let's see what incorygible had to say on the subject back in May, in a < post > that I think deserved something along the lines of talk.origins "post of the month" award:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Dave, while you're parsing the sequence similarities between chimps, humans and gorillas, I have this nagging fear that once again you're going to miss the point.  Those similarities are interesting, but they aren't as relevant as this is going to be.  (I nevertheless eagerly await your response.)

In the meantime, please pay attention to this post.  It’s going to be long, but I’m really going to try to meet you halfway.  It is often said by some overzealous "evolutionists" that Creationism makes no testable predictions.  While this is often true (“goddidit” predicts nothing), it is by no means universal: there are many places where Creationists say “goddiditthisway”.  We’re going to talk about one of those.  The age of the earth is another great example yet to come, but we’re going to talk about the relationship between humans and (other) apes.  We’re going to assume that your theory (I’ll bite the bullet and avoid the scare-quotes) is, as you have claimed many times, “just as good” as ours.  We’re going to use our respective theories to make predictions.  You game?

A few notes before we begin:  When I make predictions on your behalf regarding Creation theory, I will disregard age of the earth, resulting rates of mutation, etc., and assume only the following (correct me if I’m wrong on either): (1) God originally created a human kind and an ape kind, the latter of which includes gorillas and chimpanzees; and (2) DNA is a valuable tool for examining and comparing exactly how God designed his creations.  Are you okay with those?  I will use parentheses to denote phylogenies, with H=humans, C=chimpanzees, G=gorillas.  For example, (H(CG)) represents a phylogeny where chimps and gorillas are most similar and humans are an outgroup, whereas (G(HC)) represents a phylogeny where humans and chimps are most similar and gorillas are an outgroup.  Finally, note that when we talk about frequencies of predicted phylogenies below, these are the percentages of sequences for which two species are predicted to be more closely related than the third.  These percentages are not the same as actual sequence similarity.  In other words, don’t get confused with the percentages below and the percentage sequence similarities in my earlier post – they’re related, in that the percentages we’re talking about here reflect how often chimps are more similar to gorillas, etc., but they are not the same thing.

All good?  Away we go.

Let’s assume it is 1985, and you and I are in a coffee shop having a congenial scientific discussion about the new-fangled genetic technology that is just being developed (and won’t really come into its own for another 10-20 years or so).  We’ve been over the same old ground many times about your Creation theory and my theory of evolution, including why you distrust dating methods, why you distrust the fossil record, etc.  These are accepted areas of disagreement.  Today (1985), we’re going to use our theories to predict what genetics will reveal about the relationships between humans, chimpanzees and gorillas.

Specifically, we’re interested in novel mutations.  We both believe these are random changes in the genome.  I think they are responsible (along with natural selection and a host of other mechanisms) for the diversity of life on earth, whereas you think they reflect degeneration of God’s Creation since the Fall.  This disagreement in views won’t matter.  Since we only have the back of the envelope, we’re going to simplify mutation as completely random changes in any sequence of DNA that occur at the same rate in each of our three species.  We’re going to assume that the rate at which these random novel mutations accumulate is dependent only upon time, but we’re going to keep time relative (so as to avoid that whole millions vs. thousands of years problem).

We start with a few null hypotheses that neither of us believes.  We believe genetics will reveal some sort of phylogenetic relationship (as opposed to none, or a purely random relationship).  For example, from the evolutionary perspective, if humans, chimps and gorillas were unrelated, or if they diverged from a common ancestor at the exact same time, I might predict that when we look at their genomes, 1/3 of my predicted phylogenies would be (H(CG)), 1/3 would be (C(HG)), and 1/3 would be (G(CH)).  However, the fossil record gives me good reason not to believe the null hypothesis (which doesn’t mean we don’t check it!.  Similarly, from a Creationist perspective, if humans, chimps and gorillas were created as separate kinds, you might predict the same 1/3 for each phylogeny.  However, you believe chimps and gorillas were created as part of a single “ape” kind, and even if they weren’t, you might predict “common design” to create the appearance of relationships that would refute the null hypothesis.

So I start with my Theory of Evolution prediction, based on what we know of the fossil record in 1985 (the timelines have changed a bit since then).

Predicted initial conditions:  Humans, chimps and gorillas shared a common ancestor as recent as approximately 8 million years ago.  From that LCA (8 mya), the gorillas diverged from the line that would eventually become both humans and chimps.  Humans and chimps themselves diverged about 5 million years ago.

Predicted genetic relationships:  If we assume random, time-based mutations occurring independently in each line, then we can expect that each of the three phylogenies may be produced, depending on the sequence we are looking at.  For example, if a novel mutation in a given sequence occurs independently in the human line, than phylogenies based on that sequence will group chimps and gorillas: (H(CG)).  If the mutation occurs in the gorilla line, the sequence will group humans and chimps (G(CH)).  However, we should be able to roughly estimate the frequencies at which these predicted phylogenies will occur, based on the ancestry pattern found in the fossil record and the relative timeframes for each lineage to mutate.

As in our null hypotheses, if they all diverged from the LCA at the same time, we would predict a 33% occurrence of each "tree".  However, I believe they diverged in the manner and times above.  Chimps and humans shared a lineage for 3 million of the 8 million total years, and this would tend to increase the frequency of (G(HC)) phylogenies by an amount we can estimate.  I therefore predict the following frequency of phylogenies:

(G(HC)) = 39% (from independent mutations in the gorilla line: 0.5*(3/8)+0.33*(5/8)) + 19% (from accumulation of mutations in the shared human-chimp line: 0.5*(3/8) = 58%

(C(HG)) = 21% (from independent mutations in the chimp line: 0.33*(5/8))

(H(CG)) = 21% (from independent mutations in the human line: 0.33*(5/8))

So I predict 58% of the sequences we look at will group humans and chimps as closer to each other than to gorillas, 21% will group humans and gorillas as closer to each other than to chimps, and 21% will group chimps and gorillas as closer to each other than to humans.

You then counter with Creationist Theory.

Initial conditions: the human kind and the ape kind were separately created, and never shared a common ancestor.  Already we’re in trouble, because we have no information on the genome of those two ancestral kinds.  We have reason to suspect they were similar (common design, like Escorts and Tauri in 1985), but we don’t know how similar.  We can’t do the same kind of relative calculations that I did by assuming one common ancestor (which do not require knowledge of its actual genome, just that it was shared).  However, we do know that any differences between these two ancestral kinds should inflate the frequency of (H(CG)) phylogenies predicted.  So right from the initial conditions, you predict that, when we look at a lot of genes to get overall frequencies, the predicted frequency of the relationship (H(CG)) will be greater than 33%.

Creationist Prediction:  We don’t have any information on when (relative to initial Creation – actual years don’t matter for this) chimpanzees and gorillas diverged via “microevolution” (changes within a Created kind).  However, we know it was some time since the Fall.  Without relative time-spans like I had, we can’t do similar estimates like I did, but we can predict that the shared ancestry of chimps and gorillas prior to divergence will increase the frequencies of (H(CG)) even further (as it did for the (G(HC)) phylogenies in my example).

So you end up predicting that more than (far more than?) 33% of sequences we look at will group chimps and gorillas as closer to each other than to humans, less than 33% of sequences will group humans and gorillas as closer to each other than to chimps, and less than 33% of sequences will group humans and chimps as closer to each other than to gorillas.

So, armed with our predictions, we meet back up in a bar 20 years later to discuss the results.  I bring along some papers from the prolific new genetics literature.  Specifically, I show you the following:

Satta, Y., J. Klein, and N. Takahata. 2000. DNA archives and our nearest relative: the trichotomy problem revisited. Mol. Phyl. Evol. 14:259–275.

Chen, F.-C., and W.-H. Li. 2001. Genomic divergence between humans and other hominoids and the effective population size of the common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 68:444–456.

O’hUigin, C., Y. Satta, N. Takahata, and J. Klein. 2002. Contribution of homoplasy and of ancestral polymorphism to the evolution of genes in anthropoid primates. Mol. Biol.
Evol. 19:1501–1513.

Kitano et al. 2004. Human-Specific Amino Acid Changes Found in 103 Protein-Coding Genes. Mol. Biol. Evol.:936-944.

Combined, these studies examined hundreds of sequences for their predicted phylogenies.  Each one found that, on average, approximately 60% of these sequences predicted the (G(HC)) tree (i.e., humans and chimps closer to each other than to gorillas), and the remaining 40% predicted the remaining two trees in roughly equal frequencies (i.e., humans and gorillas closer to each other than to chimps, and chimps and gorillas closer to each other than to humans).  (You can look this up if you don’t believe me Dave – I’m more than halfway here.)

I order you a double scotch (you’re gonna need it! as we pull out the faded napkin and look at our predictions.

If you’re still with me, here’s the pop quiz:

What did Creation theory predict?

What did the ToE predict?

What did we actually see?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So, Dave—still saying it's ridiculous to claim that apes and humans have a common ancestor? Or that no one showed you how a date of 8 mya was arrived at?

Of course, on one level it is absurd to say that apes and humans have a common ancestor, because humans are apes. But I can fix that by asserting that humans and other apes have a common ancestor. I know saying that makes Dave's blood boil, but that's why it's so much fun to say it!
Posted by: Mike PSS on Sep. 24 2006,12:32

I notice that AFDave's posts are a bit more shrill and contain a bit less truthiness.  I think this little exchange is going on in the background (a la Top Gun).


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Kids4Truth: “WHAT? WHERE'RE YOU--HEY, WHY THE HECK DON’T YOU POST?”

AFDave: “MY ARGUMENT DIDN'T ... AHHH...LOOK GOOD.”

Kids4Truth: “WHAT DO YOU MEAN? IT DOESN'T GET TO LOOK MUCH BETTER THAN THAT?”

AFDave: “NO. NO GOOD.”


{Later at the water cooler…}
Ken Ham walks up to Andrew Snelling who waits near a Piltdown Man replica.

A. Snelling: “He just won't engage. He can't do it, Skipper. He can't get back on the horse.”

K. Ham: “It's only been a day. Keep sending him our reports.”

A. Snelling: “I've seen this before.”

K. Ham: “So have I.”

A. Snelling: “Some guys never get their cognitive dissonance back.”

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: ericmurphy on Sep. 24 2006,15:02

Dave, a couple of posts ago I asked you to present evidence for the outlets of the "fountains of the deep" water that produced your flood. I said that in the last 4,500 years they should not have eroded very much, and should be easy to locate.

So where are they?

4,500 years ago isn't very long ago, and these suckers should be huge to have disgorged several hundred million cubic kilometers of water in a matter of a few hours, according to Walt Brown.

So where are they?

By way of contrast, Dave, the < Chicxulub crater > dates to 65 million years ago, and it's underwater, but it took less than 10 years of looking to locate it.

And by the way, here's a list of evidence for the impact:

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

  • The iridium excess in the 65 My-old soil layer has been confirmed at many points around the world.
  • The same soil layer contains grains of quartz that were deformed by high shock pressures, as would occur in a giant explosion. (The deformation is a microscopic structure called "twinning," in the crystals).
  • The same soil layer contains enough soot to correspond to burning down all of the forests of the world. This suggests that massive fires were touched off at the time of impact.
  • The same soil layer, especially around the Gulf of Mexico, contains massive deposits of tumbled boulders, as would be generated in a large tsunami, or "tidal wave." The geographic distribution of tsunami deposits suggest the impact was in the Caribbean area.
  • After a decade of searching, scientists in 1990 identified the crater associated with this material. It is no longer visible on the surface of the Earth, but is buried under sediments. It straddles the coast of Yucatan. It is revealed by mapping the strength of the gravity field over that area, and by drilling; it has been dated to 65 My old.
  • Astronomers have charted numerous asteroids that cross Earth's orbit. From studies of orbit statistics, it is estimated that asteroids of 10 km size can hit the earth roughly every 100 My or so -- which fits with the idea that we actually did get hit 65 My ago by an object this size. (Smaller hits are much more common).

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



And just so you know, Dave: that list is an example of what "evidence" looks like. You know, that thing you've been unable to provide in support of your "hypothesis" for the past five months? Now, I'm sure you'll disagree with the interpretation of that evidence, but you cannot deny that evidence has, in fact, been supplied. This stands in stark contrast to your inability to provide any evidence whatsoever for a flood, or a young earth, or indeed any other assertion you've made, that isn't far, far better explained by alternative theories.

But let's not get sidetracked here: WHERE ARE THE OUTLETS FOR THE "FOUNTAINS OF THE DEEP," Dave?
Posted by: JonF on Sep. 24 2006,15:52

Quote (ericmurphy @ Sep. 24 2006,16:53)
Quote (afdave @ Sep. 23 2006,08:16))
I showed you how "whale evolution" doesn't support evolution.  (AFDave Wants You to Prove Evolution thread)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


As I < stated > earlier, Dave's never even mentioned whale evolution on this thread
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


He did write that his pathetic atttempt at refutation is not in this thread, it's supposedly in < AFDave Wants You to Prove Evolution to Him >.
Posted by: ericmurphy on Sep. 24 2006,16:59

Quote (JonF @ Sep. 24 2006,20:52)
 
Quote (ericmurphy @ Sep. 24 2006,16:53)
   
Quote (afdave @ Sep. 23 2006,08:16))
I showed you how "whale evolution" doesn't support evolution.  (AFDave Wants You to Prove Evolution thread)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


As I < stated > earlier, Dave's never even mentioned whale evolution on this thread
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


He did write that his pathetic atttempt at refutation is not in this thread, it's supposedly in < AFDave Wants You to Prove Evolution to Him >.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yeah, I found it. It's your typical argument from incredulity. Dave himself doesn't find the evidence that whales are descended from land mammals persuasive, based on his extensive background in paleontology, comparative anatomy, and cladistics.

He sure convinced me. I'd certainly expect an undergraduate EE to be able to look at web graphics depicting fossilized remains and determine cladistic relationships from them.
Posted by: Mike PSS on Sep. 24 2006,17:13

AFDave,
Let's kick it up a notch and start putting some of the pieces of the sciences together to get a clearer picture of what is going on in Isochrons.

You accept the science of crystalization.  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In general, I (and every creationist I know) accept all science which involves repeatable, testable events.  Crystal formation and many other phenomena fall into this category.  What we do not necessarily accept is hypothetical stuff which cannot be tested reliably,{snip}
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I asked this question because I wanted a baseline of agreement for our discussion.

I'm going to use an example at University of Wisconsin-River Falls Dept. of Planet and Earth Sciences.  Nothing special about this selection, just near the top of the Google search for "Olivine mineral formation".  One < member of the faculty > is a PhD of geology in the department.  Who he is doesn't matter for my point, BUT he has co-authored an article about the subject we are talking about, BUT we won't discuss ages or time just yet.  I'm just showing that this particular reference is valid to our discussion.              

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
{snip}, 1976, "Rb-Sr Geochronology of Granite Gneiss from Horse Creek, Tobacco Root Mountains of Montana", Geochron West, Summer, p. 49.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The department has < catalogued > a lot of Wisconsin minerals but I want to point to < Olivine > specifically since this mineral is found in magmas AND in chondritic meteorites (remember the Minster graph?).  The Olivine page lists the identified locations of Olivine found in Wisconsin.  The entries are by county and indicate platte map references for location so any other geologist who is searching for this particular mineral can "find it quite easily" (a relative statement I'm sure). Notice that the Olivine page (and the other mineral pages) don't mention age or time, only location and geographic structure.  The site also has a bibliography of numerous references < here >, < here >, < and here. >

The Olivine page also has this heading: OLIVINE (Mg,Fe)2SiO4 Orthorhombic.  Ignore the chemical formulae for now, we can get to that later.  However, notice the "Orthorhomibic" entry because this describes the crystal structure of Olivine.  In fact, almost all the entries in the < list of minerals > have a heading with a specified crystal structure of the mineral.

So.... Olivine is a crystaline mineral with orthorhombic structure found in numerous places in Wisconsin and catalogued extensively.  Nothing hypothetical about this information that I can see.  I'm going to end my boring entry right now since there is enough corroberrated information above to ask a NOT-SO-STUPID question.

AFDave,
Do you agree that Olivine is formed according to the science of crystal formation?


If we can agree on the structural mechanics of Olivine then we can start on the chemistry.  Are you still game to continue with discussing Isochrons?
Mike PSS
Posted by: deadman_932 on Sep. 24 2006,17:53

Oi, man. I hadn't read all of Stupid's "AFDave Wants You to Prove Evolution " thread before...hah, he started out there just as arrogant and stupid as he did on the original thread of this. And got slapped around just as easily.
In particular, this claim set me laughing:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I would have to say that the "God Hypothesis" or the "Creation Hypothesis" is actually one of the best supported hypotheses around... In another post, I will outline the overwhelming evidence from many different disciplines for my "Creator God Hypothesis."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Bwahaha. He abandoned that crap as soon as he could, after getting batted around like a pinata--he can't even claim a shred of "scientific" evidence at all, since his hypothesis isn't falsifiable and isn't science. What a wanker. I'll be glad when one of his kids grows up and learns enough to spit in his smug, stupid face (metaphorically speaking, of course, hahaha). $500 bets on "Portuguese is a mixture of Spanish and French"...hahahaha, oh, man. That's almost as funny as him getting caught lying so many times. And quote-mining. And changing his claims. And running from data. And faking "data."
AirHeadDave is clear proof that being a creationist means you HAVE to lie -- he has no other option.
Posted by: ericmurphy on Sep. 24 2006,18:38



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I would have to say that the "God Hypothesis" or the "Creation Hypothesis" is actually one of the best supported hypotheses around... In another post, I will outline the overwhelming evidence from many different disciplines for my "Creator God Hypothesis."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Gee, Dave, I hope you weren't referring to this thread for where you were planning to post your "overwhelming evidence from many different disciplines for my 'Creator God Hypothesis.'"

But if you're not talking about this thread, then which thread were you talking about?
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Sep. 24 2006,18:56

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Sep. 23 2006,10:41)
ericmurphy:

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So let's go back to your "global catastrophic flood," Dave. That was a good one. Let's see you once more avoid the unpleasant fact that you have no evidence whatsoever that it ever happened. Or would you prefer to move on to something else you have no evidence whatsoever for?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Eric, please tell us what would constitute "evidence" for a global flood. Try to be as precise as possible. Thanks.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Paley, please tell us what would constitute "evidence" for the Sun revolving around the Earth and a 6,000 year old universe. Try to be as precise as possible. Thanks.
Posted by: Mike PSS on Sep. 25 2006,02:45

Quote (ericmurphy @ Sep. 25 2006,00:38)
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I would have to say that the "God Hypothesis" or the "Creation Hypothesis" is actually one of the best supported hypotheses around... In another post, I will outline the overwhelming evidence from many different disciplines for my "Creator God Hypothesis."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Gee, Dave, I hope you weren't referring to this thread for where you were planning to post your "overwhelming evidence from many different disciplines for my 'Creator God Hypothesis.'"

But if you're not talking about this thread, then which thread were you talking about?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What I have found so interesting in this thread is how our resident YEC has tried to use the "paragons of YEC" at AIG and ICR to support his arguments yet someone like myself with an undergrad education and some time in my field can overcome these arguments with LITTLE effort.  Some critical analysis of the YEC papers is all you need to shoot down their claims.

In AFDave's present train wreck called Isochrons I'm not even trying hard to find references or facts to support my claims, yet what little I find and use is damning to AFDave's argument.

C'mon Dave!
Give us something tough!
Your wrong about Isochrons!
Post some more evidence from many different disciplines!


Mike PSS
Posted by: k.e on Sep. 25 2006,03:44

Mike PSS

Right now lies 4 kids AFD is in the middle of compiling one of his long screeds of utter vomit.

Like the mythical Cyclops he believes he is a giant among men, even though he is half blind and easily fooled.

AFD thrives on the energy of others, he literally craves to be told he is a lying, contempable arsehole.

Evidence? You will never get any from him, lies yes.

Now back to our reularly scheduled program.

Take it away..... lies 4 kids AFD.......
Posted by: incorygible on Sep. 25 2006,04:27

Thanks for the legwork (and kind words) in digging up that post, Eric.  However, since that whole exercise started from an LCA estimated at 8 mya, and Dave has (for four months now) tried to weasel out of the questions posed in that post with his, "You never told me where you got 8 mya" (as if that was particularly relevant to the qualitative issue at hand), I will follow with a simple demonstration of how egregiously Dave is lying in his #2.

First, let's restate Dave's claim from September 23:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
2) I showed you in detail how ridiculous it is to say that apes and humans have a common ancestor.  No one has ever showed me how the LCA date of 8 my was arrived at.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Eric posts a response of mine to the first part. (I'll also refer to this < post >, which details genetic differences between humans and other apes, and was the source of the infamous "all you've got is 1%?!" argument.) As for Dave's second claim (and when humans and other apes diverged from a common ancestor is most definitely a secondary question Dave wants to distract us with, as opposed to the primary fact that they did), I submit the following:

First, my < post > on May 27 probably provided sufficient documentation for my methods to at least back down on any "how did you get THAT value" claim:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Dave, are you engaging?  This must be some kind of trick!  I wasn't going to reply further, but this is a fair question.  Unfortunately, I can only give you a general answer at the moment.

To get my estimates from the fossil record (and I should have been more accurate and said anything "non-genetic"), I initially searched ISI Web of Science abstracts from 1976-1985.  Unfortunately, I couldn't immediately find the information I was looking for in the abstracts themselves with a few quick search strings.  Online publication access doesn't generally go back that far (so I couldn't read the full papers I wanted to read), and you'll forgive me if I wasn't about to take any more time away from my actual work to trek across campus to the stacks.  Luckily, our lab library has a dusty shelf of old texts on human evolution (everything from Louis Leaky to Desmond Morris).  I picked an old physical anthropology textbook off the shelf (looked to be for an old undergrad course).  If I recall correctly, it was a 2nd edition published in 1987, which I figured was close enough.  I know the simplified numbers I used were the midpoints of ranges (4-6 mya and 5-10 mya, IIRC).  However, for the exact bibliographic information, you'll have to wait until I'm actually back in the lab (middle of next week) and get a chance to look it up again.  Okay?

In the meantime, maybe you could start on explaining why the Creation Theory prediction was QUALITATIVELY wrong?

Thanks.

Edit: Also, Dave, please keep in mind that I know those numbers have changed (and say so in my original post).  For example, Dawkins (2004) gives 6 mya for chimps and 7 mya for gorillas, which would have made the numbers match up less well.  What actually matters isn't the mya, but the time shared vs. time separate.  For example, 3/8 shared (HC) that I used in our back-of-the-envelope calculation, vs. 1/7 shared (HC) that I would use if I started from Dawkins.  So the value of the numbers I arrived at, while remarkably close to the genetic data, is probably just a coincidence, and could easily have been different (and I am well aware of this).  So fun as it was to think that, if I had that textbook in '85 and had made my prediction, I would have been bang-on, this isn't really the point (kind of a fluke).  The point is that evolutionary theory points us in the right direction (and gets us pretty close), and creation theory points us in the wrong direction.  I'd be grateful if you could address that.  Thanks.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



However, were that not sufficient, my < post > on May 29 answered his question fully (in more than enough detail for anyone honest to abandon claims that it had not been answered):

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
FYI (the source of my info in the little prediction exercise):

Lewin, R. 1984. Human Evolution: an illustrated introduction. Freeman, New York.

Stein, P.L. and Rowe, B.M. 1989. Physical Anthropology (4th ed.). McGraw-Hill , New York.

The Lewin text provides some good estimates of time bp (including the 5-10 and 4-6 that I ended up using), whereas Stein and Rowe further review fossil finds, comparative morphology, early protein sequence data, etc., and provide a series of (sometimes conflicting and often uncertain) dates (e.g., compare chapters 13 and 14), including those above).  Interestingly, back then, the timeline with gorillas splitting off earlier was the new kid on the block in the marketplace of ideas, though I get the feeling it had more traction in the primary literature than in undergrad texts.  Stein and Rowe still seemed to settle on placing gorillas in Panidae with chimps, but highlighted this was questionable.  Lewin's second edition (1989) is updated to less equivocally show the gorillas branching off first.

In framing my prediction, I ran with this "new" perspective (I could be accused of employing the benefit of hindsight, to be sure, but it beats wilfull blindness).  I suppose I could have gone with the old timeline (or the general uncertainty at the time), and run into the same problem as Dave's CGH (i.e., predicting more similarity between gorillas and chimps, or no definitive prediction at all).  Of course, in our little scenario, I would have revised that theory when the data came in (just as the field actually did -- hello, science!;), while the baraminology sect would continue to hide, deny and obfuscate their little "theory" right up until now.

Anyhow, as only one key participant in this discussion seems to have missed (thereby exhausting my patience), the key point relevant to this thread is NOT that evolutionary science at the time generated the right prediction (though it very well might have, and it was fun to try) -- it could have been wrong, but eventually revised to accomodate the new data.  The point, which you all know already, and which remains completely unaddressed by its proponent, is that a definitive prediction of the "CGH" is dead wrong.

I'll let others show why what is perhaps the most important prediction (i.e., a 6,000-year-old universe) is similarly out to lunch.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Dave, you have been lying about this for 4 months now.
Posted by: incorygible on Sep. 25 2006,05:00

Hmm, I forgot there was more, back when Dave first started claiming he was never told how the African ape LCA was determined.

On June 7, I post a further < reply >:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Quote (afdave @ June 12 2006,09:21)
I will say to Incorygible that I am still waiting to hear why you think it is valid to say that gorillas diverged at 8mya and chimps and humans diverged at 5mya.  I know you read it in a textbook, but my questions was, 'Why did the textbook think this is valid?  What is the basis for saying this?'

That would be as easy as reading my answers and checking the references, wouldn't it?  Lewin (1989; Chapter 3: Historical Views) gives a detailed history of scientific thought on human-ape relationships between the 1890s and the present.  He covers fossil hominid discoveries, early protein comparisons, etc., and the dates they suggested for branching in the ape lineage.  This includes the earlier and longer-held notion that chimps were closer to gorillas, and why this was overturned.  If you want even more details on some of this evidence, I provided you with a good reference (Stein and Rowe 1989) and relevant chapters.

Now, rather than implying that I don't answer your questions because I'm not spoonfeeding you dozens of pages of text, how about answering the one big question I posed to you many times regarding why your "Creator God Hypothesis" doesn't match the data?  This has nothing to do with what evoltuionary theory says and why.  Whether you view the "1%" as important or not, it is clear that the differences between us and chimps are smaller than your proposed "microevolutionary" variation within the "ape kind" (chimps and gorillas, plus we haven't even touched orangutans, which you would group in the ape kind, but have been known to be a significantly different outgroup since the 1920s).  Why do your Creator's code and the fossils of His Flood so strongly suggest to us that humans are just another ape, contrary to His book?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



And then, after he persisted, on June 21, I painstakingly < typed out > a key chunk of the book I was using in an effort to finally put this "how did you get the 8 my" lie to rest:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Quote (afdave @ June 21 2006,11:21)
No conspiracy.  Just a rather arrogant consensus that the Bible is a fairy tale and anything that sound 'Biblical" or 'religious' is pretty much ignored with no investigation.

You're wrong, Dave.  You're not the first to use the Bible as a source of hypotheses.  It's been used in exactly that fashion for two thousand years.  Caused no small degree of consternation when those hypotheses didn't pan out.  Where the Bible matches the evidence (e.g., history), it remains a source of information.  Where it doesn't (e.g., science), there's not much left to investigate.  And "arrogance" is an interesting characterization by somebody with such lofty opinion of his own faith and knowledge that he's willing to discount practically every biologist, physicist, and geologist on the planet.

Quote
You keep repeating this, but why?  My question is why?  Why the millions of years?  Do you have some math formula or something?  Or is it just a regression of 'this book quotes this other book which quotes this other book which quotes this other book' etc. etc. all the way back to Darwin or somebody?  Who put it in print first in modern times that apes and humans had a common ancestor several mya?  And why did they say this?  That's what I am trying to get you to tell me.


Why, Dave?  Why?  I repeat it because it illustrates the difference between your worldview and mine, and the projections you make.  You are so confident in revelation without method, assertion without evidence, and knowledge without information that you assume that's where my "belief" comes from.  You really think we can trace scientific understanding of life and the universe back to the pronouncements of some prophet on a mountain top, analogous to the source of your knowledge.  Yes, Dave, books quote other books.  They summarize them, answering the "why" on one level.  If you want more, you go to those other books.  But if you really think all of evolutionary theory (or even just the phylogeny of the great apes) reduces to "who put it in print first", you just don't get it.

But to answer your simple (and rather irrelevant) question: "Who put in print first in modern times that apes and humans had a common ancestor several mya? And why did they say this?"

Once again, I will refer you to that Lewin book you said you read, specifically Chapter 3 "Historical Views", which I referenced for you:

"During the past century, the issue of our relatedness to the apes has gone full cycle.  From the time of Darwin, Huxley and Haeckel until soon after the turn of the centruy, humans' closeses relatives were regardes as being the African apes, the chimpanzee and gorilla, with the Asian great ape, the orangutan, being considered to be somewhat separate. Then, from the 1920s until the 1960s, humans were distanced from the great apes, which were said to be an evolutionarily closely-knit group. Since the 1960s, however, conventional wisdom has returned to its Darwinian cast."

...
[skip 2 pages of description regarding the players and positions in the first half of the 20th century]
...

"During the 1950s and 1960s, fossil evidence of early apes accumulated at a significant rate, and it seemed to show that these creatures were not simply early versions of modern apes, as had been tacitly assumed. This meant that those authorities who accpeted an evolutionary link between humans and apes, but did not accept a close human/African ape link, did not now have to go way back in the history of the group to 'avoid' the specialization of the modern species. At the same time, those who insisted that the similarities between African apes and humans were the result of common heritage, not parallel evolution, were forced to argue for a very recent origin of the human line. Prominent among proponents of this latter argument was Sherwood Washburn, of the University of California, berkeley.

"One of the fossil discoveries of the 1960s -- in fact, a rediscovery -- that appeared to confirm the notion of parallel evolution to explain human/African ape similarities was made by Elwyn Simons, then of Yale University. Ramapithecus was the fossil specimen, an apelike creature that lived in Eurasia about 15 million years ago and appeared to share many anatomical features (in the teeth and jaws) with hominids.  Simons, later supported closely by David Pilbeam, proposed Ramapithecus as the beginning of the hominid line, thus excluding a human/African ape connection.

"Arguments about the relatedness between humans and African apes took place against a rethinking about the relatedness among the apes themselves. In 1927, G.E. Pilgrim had suggested that the great apes be treated as a natural group, with humans evolutionarily more distant. The idea eventually became popular, and was the accepted wisdom until molecular biological evidence undermined it in 1963, the work of Morris Goodman at Wayne State University. Goodman's molecular biology on blood proteins indicated that humans and the African apes formed a natural group, with the orangutan more distant.

"Thus, the Darwin/Huxley/Haeckel position was reinstated, with first Gregory and then Washburn its champions. Subsequent molecular biological -- and fossil -- evidence seems to confrim Washburn's original suggestion that the origin of the human line is indeed recent, lying between 5 and 10 million years ago. Ramapithecus was no longer regarded as the first hominid, but simply one of many early apes."

...
[skip a few pages discussion of more recent fossil hominids, too use, etc.,  not to mention historical phylogenetic trees showing the perceived evolutionary relationships between men and apes, including a 1927 version with "negroes" and "negroids" divering not long after Neanderthal]
...

"During the past decade, not only has there been an appreication of a spectrum of hominid adaptations -- which includes the notion simply of a bipedal ape -- but the lineage that eventually led to Homo sapiens has come to be perceived as much less human. Gone is the notion of a scaled-down version of a modern hunter-gatherer way of life. In its place has appeared a rather unusual African ape adopting some novel, un-apelike modes of subsistence.

"Hominid origins are thereforenow completely divorced from any notion of human origins. Questions about the beginning of the hominid lineage are now firmly within the territory of behavioral ecology, and do not draw upon those qualities that we might perceive as separating us from the rest of animate nature. [HINT: These are "qualities" like writing, SATs, and table manners, Dave]  Questions of human origins have now to be posed within the context of primate biology."

...
[Exit the chapter on Historical Perspectives demonstrating that there was NO pronouncement by any patriarchal authority, but that thought developed, changed, and changed back more than once as the evidence appeared.  Turn to Chapter 9 on Molecular Perspectives, which describes dated fossil finds and DNA data.]
...

"The shape of the hominoid tree according to the molecular evidence available in the early 1980s was therefore as follows: gibbons split away first, about 20 million years ago; orangutans next, about 15 million years ago; leaving humans, chimpanzees and gorillas in an unresolved three-way split, close to 5 million years ago. A three-way split of a lineage is biologically unlikely, and in this case it meant that the timing of the different divergences was so tightly bunched that none of the techniques was able to prise it apart with any confidence.

"Meanwhile, most morphologists had since the 1960s accepted the notion of a human/African ape clade, with an African ape clade existing within that. The expectation among molecular biologists, therefore, was that their data would confirm this pattern. showing that the common ancestor of humans and the African apes diverged to produce the human lineage on the one hand and an African ape lineage on the other, which then subsequently split to produce gorillas and chimpanzees.

[WOW, eh Dave? In the early 1980s, they were still expecting chimps to be closer to gorillas.  Do you think a certain amount of your "I wouldn't invite a chimp to dinner" thinking led to that expectation?  Kinda different then your idea that we have an innate, arrogant urge to convince everyone he's a monkey, eh?]

"It was therefore something of a surprise when, in 1984, Charles Sibley and Jon Ahlquist, then of Yale University, published data on DNA-DNA hybridization that strongly implied that chimpanzees are more closely related to humans than they are to gorillas. Gorillas evolved from the human/African ape common ancestor between 8 and 10 million years ago, they concluded, leaving humans and chimpanzees briefly sharing a common ancestory of their own, and splitting at between 6.3 and 7.7 million years ago."

Then we have a table, titled "Converging Evidence":

Time          Ape/human divergence date (millions of years)
               Fossils          Molecules
1980s         5-8                5-8
1970s         15                  5
1960s         30                  5

Then we have a tree, with Time -- Millions of years, illustrating:

Chimpanzee/Human: 5.5-7.7
Chimp/Human/Gorilla: 7.7-11.0
C/H/G/Orangutan: 12.2-17.0
C/H/G/O/Gibbon: 16.4-23

So, your question of how I arrived at my 1985 prediction, way back when?  Simple.  By 1985, molecular and fossil data had converged on a split between humans and other apes (i.e., chimps) at 5 million years ago (the number I used).  The gorilla estimate from 1989 was 7.7-11.0, but this included some of the new DNA techniques that we were supposed to be "predicting".  So I went with a ballpark around 8 mya, which was the upper end of the 5-8 mya range of the "convergence" between fossils and "molecules", nicely "between 5 and 15, but closer to 5" from early 1980s fossil discoveries, the lower end of the 8-10 mya range from the first 1984 foray into DNA technology (which I would have been rightly skeptical of, but intrigued, in 1985), and closest to the 5 mya for the "three-way-split" from established molecular studies.

That's where I got my dates for in my silly (but fun) little hypothetical exercise, Dave.  Don't you wish you could give an answer like that for your own arguments?  Something other than "it's obvious" or "imagine you went to dinner/bed/school with a chimp"?  Ever?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



If this doesn't elevate Dave's lie from egregious to unequivocally sinful, I don't know what would. You are an evil liar, Dave.
Posted by: ericmurphy on Sep. 25 2006,05:57

You know, the interesting thing about Dave's take on all this is that he makes a big deal (one might say a huge deal) out of the fact that science cannot develop an irrefutable proof that, e.g., humans are more closely related to chimps than either is to gorillas, or that the universe is 13.7 by old. He's right about that; there are no such irrefutable proofs.

But what's the standard he holds the Bible up to in terms of "irrefutable proofs" of its inerrancy? Well, that's hard to say, because Dave has in fact admitted two things: 1) that no Bible he has ever read or even heard about is actually inerrant; and 2) although he's sure there used to be a version of the Bible that was the inerrant word of God, he's never read or even heard about such a version.

So on the one hand, Dave claims he believes the Bible is inerrant because of "the overwhelming amount of evidence" supporting such a belief. But when pressed to provide such evidence, he has come up empty-handed every single time.

And on the other hand, Dave admits that no currently-existing Bible actually is inerrant! Moreover, he admits he has never read an inerrant version of the Bible, and therefore has no way of knowing (other than by reference to non-existent evidence) which parts of the Bible are correct and which are not. Improvious < asked > Dave yesterday how he knows which parts of the Bible are to be taken literally, and which are merely "figures of speech." It would be interesting to see how Dave would answer that question, if there was a chance he ever would.

So, on the one hand, Dave wants absolute proof of any assertion made by science, but on the other, doesn't seem to need any sort of proof, or even evidence, at all for an assertion made by the Bible. So much for his claims to be a "skeptic," or "scientific," or even honest.
Posted by: afdave on Sep. 25 2006,06:03

LINK TO THE ORIGINAL "AFDAVE'S UPDATED CREATOR GOD HYPOTHESIS"

(Otherwise known as "The Greatest Thread of All Time")

< http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....p=13064 >

I see that the original thread is slipping into oblivion, so unless there is some other way to keep it readily available, I will just repost this link in this thread periodically.  I will also be taking selected material and posting it on my blog for permanent reference.

If anyone comes up with a downloadable text only file, this would also be nice to have available.

More soon!
Posted by: JonF on Sep. 25 2006,06:57

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 25 2006,12:03)
I will also be taking selected material and posting it on my blog for permanent reference.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Bet I could guess the selection criteria, and they won't be neutral.  None of those embarrasing questions that you can't answer will show up on your blog, will they, Davie-doofus?  No questions about the pattern of grass and fern pollen in the geological column, the pattern of dolphin and plesiosaur fossils in the geological column, the pattern of concordance of radiometric dates, the falsification of your claim that whole-rock isochrons that don't result from mixing must be a single point, and on and on and on and on and on ...


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If anyone comes up with a downloadable text only file, this would also be nice to have available.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I have both an HTML and PDF version with no images that load pretty quickly and search fast (1:15 from the beginning for a four-word phrase found only at the end); the load and search times are comparable to Notepad on a text-only version, and I'm loading full-bore Acrobat (not the reader).  Of course, the PDF and HTML versions are preferable to text 'cause you can set up links directly to appropriate messages with the "Permalink" link. (I know Davie-doodles couldn't stand claiming he's answered a question in the other thread without providing a link to exactly where he answered the question.) I'll make 'em available soon, but right now the FTP is gebroken 'cause my domain name expired yesterday with no reminder or even transmission of the invoice they generated on 8/19.  Grrrr!!


---------------------QUOTE-------------------

More soon!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Looking forward to your respoinse to Mike PSS on crystallization, and your response to me on the patterns of isochron slopes, isochron intercepts, and radiometric dating concordance.
Posted by: ericmurphy on Sep. 25 2006,07:31

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 25 2006,11:03)
LINK TO THE ORIGINAL "AFDAVE'S UPDATED CREATOR GOD HYPOTHESIS"

(Otherwise known as "The Greatest Thread of All Time")

< http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....p=13064 >

I see that the original thread is slipping into oblivion, so unless there is some other way to keep it readily available, I will just repost this link in this thread periodically.  I will also be taking selected material and posting it on my blog for permanent reference.

If anyone comes up with a downloadable text only file, this would also be nice to have available.

More soon!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dave, I dare you to allow others to post comments to your blog. When you say you'll post "selected material," I can only imagine how dishonestly you'll quote mine others (and even yourself!) on your blog.

Also, you're going to have to find some way to download the file yourself that involves miracles of some sort, because even as a text file with no images, the AFDUCG"H" thread is several tens of megabytes. I managed to do it, but it's way too big to e-mail; otherwise I'd just send it to you.
Posted by: incorygible on Sep. 25 2006,07:37

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 25 2006,11:03)
I will also be taking selected material and posting it on my blog for permanent reference.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Might I suggest including my above selection of posts, Davey? After all, even my deficient atheistic morality ranks lying as a reprehensible act, and I have openly and publicly accused you of such, and documented the reason therefore. I know I would feel the need to respond to such charges.

You could title your post, "An Evolutionist Accuses Me of Lying!"

Then you would post your claim of 23 September:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
No one has ever showed me how the LCA date of 8 my was arrived at.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Follow it with the four posts I quote above, in their entirety, with the permalinks to the time and date they were posted.

Then post my charge that you are lying here, including this challenge.

Now explain why my charge is false. Justify your claim that no one has ever provided you with an explanation for how the LCA date came to be. Don't waste time on why you don't believe that explanation -- that's not your claim as you've stated it for four months, and you have had plenty of time (and encouragment) to revise it accordingly into something that wasn't misleading and misrepresentative (read: a LIE).

C'mon, Dave. You believe you are being honest, right? So right on your blog, show the world how we evolutionists have laid heinous charges of dishonesty upon you without justification. Dare ya.
Posted by: ericmurphy on Sep. 25 2006,09:20

I'm actually hoping Dave does manage to obtain a searchable version of his AFDUCG"H" thread soon, so he'll be able to post what he supposes are his responses to the very large number of questions and objections to his "hypothesis." I think it will be intriguing to see what Dave sees as "answers" to those questions and objections.

Yesterday I gave Dave an example of what actual "evidence" in support of an assertion looks like (in the context of the Chicxulub crater in the Gulf of Mexico), so he should be able to compare that evidence to what he thinks is "evidence."

But I think Incorygible has pointed out a major misconception Dave has about how science works. Dave seems to be under the misapprehension that science works the same way Bible study works. He seems to think that if you trace back the foundation for an assertion such as "Humans and chimps diverged from a common ancestor ~5 million years ago, and the common ancestor of humans and chimps diverged from the common ancestor of gorillas ~8 million years ago," you'll eventually just come to an unsupported assertion made by "some scientist." He doesn't seem to get that scientists are not in the business (generally) of making unsupported assertions, and that assertions such as that about humans, chimps, and gorillas is based on actual research and investigation, a concept that is foreign not just to Dave, but to creationists of all stripes.

Thus, when someone like Incorygible presents Dave with a big long list of citations to original research papers, Dave just assumes that those research papers just make bald, unsubstantiated assertions. Which, of course, is far from the case, because otherwise those papers would never get past peer-review, and even if they did, they'd be utterly demolished by other workers in the field, in a manner not dissimilar to the way Dave's unsubstantiated assertions are demolished here.

You just don't get science, Dave. You don't understand that the science paradigm is very different from your paradigm of reference to books that are just assumed, as a matter of faith, to be accurate.
Posted by: improvius on Sep. 25 2006,09:32

Quote (ericmurphy @ Sep. 25 2006,15:20)
Thus, when someone like Incorygible presents Dave with a big long list of citations to original research papers, Dave just assumes that those research papers just make bald, unsubstantiated assertions.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This first of which is, of course, "there is no God."
Posted by: Robert O'Brien on Sep. 25 2006,15:34

Quote (doering @ May 2 2006,13:23)
There is nothing more "absolute" in human knowledge than technological proof, it is more certain than mathematical proof.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nonsense
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Sep. 25 2006,16:42

Quote (Robert O'Brien @ Sep. 25 2006,20:34)
 
Quote (doering @ May 2 2006,13:23)
There is nothing more "absolute" in human knowledge than technological proof, it is more certain than mathematical proof.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nonsense
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wrong.







(See, I can do O'Brienesque answers, too! )
Posted by: afdave on Sep. 26 2006,03:50

THE BOOK OF GENESIS IS LITERAL, EYEWITNESS HISTORY, A COMPILATION BY MOSES OF ANCIENT TABLET RECORDS

Now available at my blog site ...

< http://airdave.blogspot.com >

******************************************

ENCYCLOPEDIA BRITANNICA ON "DATING"

(All quotes are from the 2006 online edition)

ROCKS ARE "DATED" PRIMARILY BY FOSSILS AND BY THE ASSUMPTION THAT EVOLUTION HAS OCCURRED
       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
[DATING ...] in geology, determining a chronology or calendar of events in the history of the Earth, using to a large degree the evidence of organic evolution in the sedimentary rocks accumulated through geologic time in marine and continental environments.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I said this long ago and was laughed at of course, but it is still true and here it is confirmed again.  After the "date" is "determined" from fossils, then it is "confirmed" or "calibrated" with RM dating if possible.  This is one of the biggests shams in science today, friends.

CHERRY PICKING CONFIRMED AGAIN: ONLY "CERTAIN" ROCKS
       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Rubidium–strontium (Rb–Sr) dating was the first technique in which the whole rock isochron method was extensively employed. Certain rocks that cooled quickly at the surface were found to give precisely defined linear isochrons, but many others did not. Some studies have shown that rubidium is very mobile both in fluids that migrate through the rock as it cools and in fluids that are present as the rock undergoes chemical weathering. Similar studies have shown that the samarium–neodymium (Sm–Nd) parent–daughter pair is more resistant to secondary migration but that, in this instance, sufficient initial spread in the abundance of the parent isotope is difficult to achieve.[This is what JonF was griping at me about on the Snelling data...]
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

If certain rocks are not qualified for RM dating, then how can we qualify ANY rock legitimately?  We cannot claim to truly know the history of ANY rock.  The simple fact that we have to cherry pick certain rocks to get "acceptable" dates proves that the whole approach is worthless simply because it confirms that we really do not know the initial conditions and the histories of the rocks.  And we MUST know these things if RM dating is going to be valid.

RM DATING IS NOW "AS GOOD" AS FOSSIL "DATING."
Here's another quote I like ...        

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Absolute dating > Major methods of isotopic dating
Isotopic dating relative to fossil dating requires a great deal of effort and depends on the integrated specialized skills of geologists, chemists, and physicists. It is, nevertheless, a valuable resource that allows correlations to be made over virtually all of Earth history with a precision once only possible with fossiliferous units that are restricted to the most recent 12 percent or so of geologic time.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

... implying, of course, that "Fossils are King" ... they are standard by which other methods are judged.  See?  "with a precision once only possible with fossiliferous units restricted to the most recent 12% or so of geologic time."  IOW ... "We used to only be able to date rock layers with fossils and it only covered 12% of geologic time.  Now we can obtain the same precision on the remaining 88% of geologic time."

Notice they did NOT say, "RM dating allows to VERIFY our fossil-based guesses about millions of years."  No no no.  That's because ...

1) FOSSILS ARE KING (and Evo assumptions with them)
2) FOSSILS VERIFY RM DATES (and determine which ones are "wrong" and "right")
3) AND IT'S NOT VICE VERSA NO MATTER HOW LOUDLY THEY SAY OTHERWISE.

******************************************************

CONCORDANCE OBTAINED BY "PROCESSING" INDIVIDUAL GRAINS?"
Moving along through the "Dating" article from EB ... we see that U-Pb dating supposedly is superior to other dating methods ... then we read something rather surprising ...

       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Absolute dating > Major methods of isotopic dating > Uranium–lead method > Double uranium-lead chronometers

Figure 2: Concordia diagram.
From T.E. Krogh, Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, vol. 46; © 1982 Pergamon Press
The reason why uranium–lead dating is superior to other methods is simple: there are two uranium–lead chronometers. Because there exist two radioactive uranium atoms (those of mass 235 and 238), two uranium–lead ages can be calculated for every analysis. The age results or equivalent daughter–parent ratio can then be plotted one against the other on a concordia diagram, as shown in Figure 2. If the point falls on the upper curve shown, the locus of identical ages, the result is said to be concordant, and a closed-system unequivocal age has been established. Any leakage of daughter isotopes from the system will cause the two ages calculated to differ, and data will plot below the curve. Because each of the daughters has a different half-life, early leakage will affect one system more than the other. Thus there is a built-in mechanism that can prove or disprove whether a valid age has been measured. Historically it had been observed that the uranium–lead systems in the mineral zircon from unmetamorphosed rocks were almost invariably disturbed or discordant but yielded a linear array on the concordia diagram. Given a set of variably disturbed samples, an extrapolation to zero disturbance was possible (see Figure 2). More recently, it has been found that of all the grains present in a rock a very few still retain closed isotopic systems but only in their interior parts. Thus grains with a diameter comparable to that of a human hair, selected under a microscope to be crack-free and of the highest possible quality, have been found to be more concordant than cracked grains. In addition, it has been shown that most such grains can be made much more concordant by mechanically removing their outer parts using an air-abrasion technique (upper points in Figure 2).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Now am I reading this right?  You're tellng me that we can pretty much pitch all the mineral isochrons done on individual grains because they are open systems?  We have to strip away the outer part of the grain in order for the "dating" to be concordant?

*******************************************************

STILL NO FUNDAMENTAL ANSWER ON WHY EVOS SAY CHIMPS/GORILLAS/HUMANS DIVERGED AT 8 MYA.
Incorygible ... I had not seen this table before this thread ... I guess it got lost in the many paragraphs that you posted ...        

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"It was therefore something of a surprise when, in 1984, Charles Sibley and Jon Ahlquist, then of Yale University, published data on DNA-DNA hybridization that strongly implied that chimpanzees are more closely related to humans than they are to gorillas. Gorillas evolved from the human/African ape common ancestor between 8 and 10 million years ago, they concluded, leaving humans and chimpanzees briefly sharing a common ancestory of their own, and splitting at between 6.3 and 7.7 million years ago."

Then we have a table, titled "Converging Evidence":

Time          Ape/human divergence date (millions of years)
              Fossils          Molecules
1980s         5-8                5-8
1970s         15                  5
1960s         30                  5
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

This is very close to a good answer.  At least I see where you got your answer.  However, what I am looking for is HOW they arrive at these figures.  Best I can tell, they find a "homonoid" fossils, try to find some datable rock layers close to it, come up with many discordant dates, then throw out the ones that are not "correct" and keep the ones that are "correct."  This I learned from Koobi Fora.  Is that close?  It is interesting that the divergence date has changed from 30 my to 5-8.  Why? (I know that some book says so, but I really mean "why?" fundamentally).  As for the molecular evidence, how does this work?  What are the fundamental assumptions?  Is it that "neutral" mutations happen at such and such a rate and we observe 1.5% sequence differences b/t chimps and humans, for example?  Do you now understand why I have been saying that you have not answered the question?  What I am really zeroing in on is WHY you buy the textbooks theories?  Why does Incorygible find all this text that you have posted convincing?

*****************************************************

EVERYONE IS BIASED
JonF...        

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Bet I could guess the selection criteria, and they won't be neutral.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

What have we here?  You think my selection criteria is biased or something?  Well, guess what?  You're right!!  I am biased and guess what else?  EVERYONE is biased.  That's what I've been telling you for a long time.
Posted by: Ved on Sep. 26 2006,03:59

Dammit, quit shouting. It's too early.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
3) AND IT'S NOT VICE VERSA NO MATTER HOW LOUDLY THEY SAY OTHERWISE.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Yes, it is.
Posted by: k.e on Sep. 26 2006,04:45

geez AFD how long did that last bit of creo-crap take you?

You have made a mistake, let me correct it for you.

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
THE BOOK OF GENESIS IS LITERAL a fable, EYEWITNESS imagined HISTORY, A COMPILATION authored  BY  MOSES by unknown people based on Gilgamesh and other ancient Myths OF ANCIENT TABLET RECORDS ancient fireside pre-literate tales, passed down through oral tradition
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



....get it right AFD, like every other stupid ignorant thing you write, your carefully planned, but crude, lies unveil your god to be the god of contempt for Man's revealed knowledge.

Oh by the way AFD what's the fastest growing religious group in the USA?  ....Yes AFD.....Atheism.

You can take some of the credit for that AFD.
Posted by: improvius on Sep. 26 2006,05:00

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 26 2006,09:50)
THE BOOK OF GENESIS IS LITERAL, EYEWITNESS HISTORY, A COMPILATION BY MOSES OF ANCIENT TABLET RECORDS
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


...except for when it's figurative.  How do you tell the difference, Dave?
Posted by: Robert O'Brien on Sep. 26 2006,05:00

Quote (k.e @ Sep. 26 2006,09:45)
Oh by the way AFD what's the fastest growing religious group in the USA?  ....Yes AFD.....Atheism.

You can take some of the credit for that AFD.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Weta:

According to whom? (Hint: non-religious != atheist)
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Sep. 26 2006,05:40

The trends as I understand them are laid out < here >.

Christianity in America (and Canada) is dropping by almost one percentage point a year.

The fastest growing religion (in terms of percentage) is Wicca.

Another tidbit:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
A USA Today/Gallup Poll in 2002-JAN showed that almost half of American adults appear to be alienated from organized religion. If current trends continue, most adults will not call themselves religious within a few years.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I think people like AFDave are doing quite a lot to contribute to that trend. Evangelical Christians are doing a lot to drive away intelligent people.
Posted by: improvius on Sep. 26 2006,05:44



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
A USA Today/Gallup Poll in 2002-JAN showed that almost half of American adults appear to be alienated from organized religion. If current trends continue, most adults will not call themselves religious within a few years.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Just like Dave.
Posted by: Mike PSS on Sep. 26 2006,05:49

AFDave,
Your assertion that        
Quote (afdave @ Posted on Sep. 26 2006,09:50)
If certain rocks are not qualified for RM dating, then how can we qualify ANY rock legitimately?  We cannot claim to truly know the history of ANY rock.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

is funny in the extreme.  I know that you tried this argument in the past and were smacked down.  Are you now changing your Rb/Sr Isochron argument to the above position instead of what you argued three days ago?      
Quote (AFDave @ Sep. 23 2006,09:16)
20) You have been shown how Isochron Dating was invented in an attempt to solve the problem of unknown initial conditions, but in the case of the whole rock isochron (used to be the most common), the diagrams can easily be interpreted as nothing more than mixing diagram--useless for assigning any real ages to rocks.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

.
My verbose prose on crystallization was only the beginning of the science lesson in showing you how Rb/Sr Isochron methods are valid.  You haven't responded to my last < question > regarding Olivine and crystallization.  Here it is again.

Do you agree that Olivine is formed according to the science of crystal formation?

We have a basis in understanding that we can agree upon and I'm trying to build upon this basis.  
Quote (afdave @ Sep. 24 2006,07:09)
In general, I (and every creationist I know) accept all science which involves repeatable, testable events.  Crystal formation and many other phenomena fall into this category.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


From this beginning I intend on showing you how electrochemical selection will vary the Rb uptake in a crystal formed in an olivine melt and how this uptake variability results in the linear relation found on the Isochron graph.

Your cherry picking argument can only be applied to the global scale, not the local scale.  You have to show that cherry picking a sample to fit the Rb/Sr testing method (remember, the rocks are chosen BEFORE they are tested so no age bias is introduced to the rock selection) somehow invalidates the results of the test.

AFDave, eventually the ony argument you will have left in this whole Isochron fiasco will be the "accellerated decay rate in the past" position.  Why not skip all the pretense and start arguing this position.  Here's the initial < counter argument > you will have to address in your first post about decay rates.
I look forward to another smack-down.
Mike PSS
Posted by: ericmurphy on Sep. 26 2006,05:57

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 26 2006,08:50)
THE BOOK OF GENESIS IS LITERAL, EYEWITNESS HISTORY, A COMPILATION BY MOSES OF ANCIENT TABLET RECORDS
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dave, repeating the same old crap that's been completely blown away over and over again on this very thread, EVEN WHEN IT'S BOLD AND ALL-CAPS, doesn't make it any more true, or any less of a lie.

Now, with regard to your statement that because rocks are very carefully selected for radiometric dating, that amounts to "cherry-picking," that's got to rank up there with one of the dumber comments you repeatedly make. Would one's decision not to date a chunk of granite using C14 be "cherry picking"? Of course not. So why is being very careful to make sure a crystal you're using for U-Pb dating is a closed system "cherry picking"?

You're mistaking careful experimental technique for "cheating."

So you really believe that if you can't radiometrically date every single rock out there, you can't date any of them? Would you care to favor us with the logic behind that statement?

And one more time, for the learning-impaired: fossils provide relative dating of sediments; radiometric dating provides absolute dates. Get it yet? Of course not, and I could repeat it every day for a month and you still wouldn't get it, because you don't want to get it.

And you think I'm repetitive.

Well, here's one more thing I can repeat: where's your evidence for Biblical inerrancy, after you've already < admitted > it's not inerrant?
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
There is no 100% literal, inerrant translation ...

But I use NKJV ... it's close ...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Do you see why making statements like that persuade everyone here you're an idiot?
Posted by: ericmurphy on Sep. 26 2006,06:19

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 26 2006,08:50)
STILL NO FUNDAMENTAL ANSWER ON WHY EVOS SAY CHIMPS/GORILLAS/HUMANS DIVERGED AT 8 MYA.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You're not going to wriggle out of this, Dave.

Your claim was that no one had ever shown you how a figure of 8 my for the divergence of humans/chimps and gorillas was derived. That was lie, because you were shown. Now, in a classic goalposts-moving maneuver, you change your claim to


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Do you now understand why I have been saying that you have not answered the question?  What I am really zeroing in on is WHY you buy the textbooks theories?  Why does Incorygible find all this text that you have posted convincing?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's not what you asked, Dave, and you know it. You asked how it was derived, not why anyone believes the evidence. (We already know why you don't believe the evidence: it's because you "resent" the notion that humans could be related to other apes.)

Incorygible already warned you not to change your claim to that you don't believe the evidence that humans/chimps and gorillas diverged 8 mya. But you went ahead and did it anyway, hoping no one would notice.

Busted, Dave. And not for the first time, nor the last.
Posted by: Ved on Sep. 26 2006,06:42

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 26 2006,08:50)
THE BOOK OF GENESIS IS LITERAL, EYEWITNESS HISTORY, A COMPILATION BY MOSES OF ANCIENT TABLET RECORDS
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Who are the eyewitnesses, specifically? If an eyewitness' name and actual quotation aren't preserved, do you still have an "eyewitness account"?
Posted by: incorygible on Sep. 26 2006,07:40



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
STILL NO FUNDAMENTAL ANSWER ON WHY EVOS SAY CHIMPS/GORILLAS/HUMANS DIVERGED AT 8 MYA.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So with the insertion of "fundamental", you acknowledge that    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"No one has ever showed me how the LCA date of 8 my was arrived at."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


is a lie that you have been trumpeting for four months. I still have no "fundamental" answer for why you believe the garbage you believe, Dave, but I wouldn't claim you haven't  been able to "show me". That would be a lie, and I don't lie.
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Incorygible ... I had not seen this table before this thread ... I guess it got lost in the many paragraphs that you posted ...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Of course. I'm sure it's a one-time mistake that won't happen again. After all, I know you wouldn't ignore the bulk of actual content on this board in favour of simply trumpeting your "victories" and making claims that no one has been able to answer your questions. Furthermore, speaking of "cherry picking", you wouldn't dare pull a table of numbers out of context from the paragraphs describing it (with citations), only to claim it was "lost" amidst that explanation and demand further explanation, right?
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
This is very close to a good answer.  At least I see where you got your answer.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dave, if tables of data, multiple pages of explanatory text, numerous citations, and an extensive hand-typed selection (bordering on copyright infringement) from a published source are what you consider "close to a good answer" on an internet forum, then: (1) you have lazy, ridiculous standards; and (2) you should apply them to your own "answers" before lying about the quality of those provided by others.
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
However, what I am looking for is HOW they arrive at these figures.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


*sigh* Read, Dave. Read. Read what I re-posted. Not satisfied? Read the many posts of mine that I didn't re-post (maybe more stuff "got lost in all those paragraphs"?). Finally, and most importantly, if you're still curious, READ THE FREAKING LITERATURE. Plenty of citations are given, and -- believe it or not -- you can use Google Scholar for more than counting "hits".
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Best I can tell, they find a "homonoid" fossils, try to find some datable rock layers close to it, come up with many discordant dates, then throw out the ones that are not "correct" and keep the ones that are "correct."  This I learned from Koobi Fora.  Is that close?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No. Not close at all. Read, Dave. Read more. Learn. If you do that, then starting a sentence with "Best I can tell..." might actually carry a little weight. Until then, it means dick all.
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It is interesting that the divergence date has changed from 30 my to 5-8.  Why? (I know that some book says so, but I really mean "why?" fundamentally).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


New data. New methods. Excising of errors. Reduction of uncertainty. SCIENCE, Dave. The understanding it provides is known to change over decades. It's one of the main reasons that it provides a more accurate picture of the world than millennia-old texts and dogma.
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
As for the molecular evidence, how does this work?  What are the fundamental assumptions?  Is it that "neutral" mutations happen at such and such a rate and we observe 1.5% sequence differences b/t chimps and humans, for example?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Read, Dave. At least you're getting closer (I notice you've dropped "favourable" and replaced it with "neutral" in scare-quotes).  (Note that scare-quotes around "neutral" might be used to good effect by a scientist who actually understood this material, but I think you're implying something different entirely.) There are plenty of answers to this right in my posts (and those of others). Even better, there are literally dozens of citations to scientific literature and introductory texts that would give you a much better idea of how it works and what the "fundamental assumptions" are.
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Do you now understand why I have been saying that you have not answered the question?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes. You have been lying. Period. You are a LIAR. Saying you have not read enough of what we have provided in way of an answer would be honest. Saying that you still do not understand that answer would be honest. Saying that we have not answered it is LYING, by any reasonable, objective assessment.
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
What I am really zeroing in on is WHY you buy the textbooks theories?  Why does Incorygible find all this text that you have posted convincing?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Incorygible has spent over a decade of his life, tens of thousands of his dollars, and a good chunk of his day EARNING his education in evolutionary biology. Over that time, Incorygible has forgotten more about what evidence "convinced" him than AFDave will learn here, even if AFDave suddenly became intellectually honest. Nevertheless, plenty of "convincing" stuff remains, which Incorygible has gone to great efforts to show AFDave. Incorygible also knows that, if one desires intellectual satisfaction beyond the level of introductory textbooks, it takes much, much more to learn exactly "how" any field of science actually works than even the most prolific internet posting, especially if one writes more than one reads. Incorygible does not "buy the textbook's theories", and would not be wholly convinced by two pages from any introductory textbook (although he might be provisionally accepting of most textbooks, because Incorygible understands the investments other researchers have made in obtaining their answers, and the vetting process by which those answers are deemed "convincing"). Incorygible can recognize would-be commenters who have not made this investment or properly vetted their convictions. In answer to AFDave's question, Incorygible pulled this specific introductory textbook for a particular pedagogical exercise in an effort to educate AFDave, who is apparently not up to the introductory level. For his own "convincing", Incorygible relies on a large selection of the even larger body of literature in evolutionary biology. Incorygible even contributes to that literature in his own field of specialty. After many years of reading, education and practice, Incorygible is, indeed, convinced. However, for Incorygible to impart this evidence-based conviction to AFDave, without lazy AFDave reading even the smallest smidgeon of the available literature (or even Incorygible's own posts) and without AFDave making the slightest honest effort toward his own education, would require direct neural manipulation beyond the present scope of medical science (not Incorygible's field). Nevertheless, here is Incorygible, and many like him, attempting to provide free, hard-earned answers to AFDave, after spending a morning providing some of those answers to dozens of students who have invested many more hours of honest learning than AFDave (and a fair chunk of change) for the opportunity. Meanwhile, AFDave, like a spoiled child, will simply claim yet again that Incorygible has provided no answers, and therefore has no answers. AFDave will claim that he is "bringing the truth" to Incorygible regarding evolutionary biology. Sad but true.

Read more, Dave. Or, at the very least, read something from a source not linked to AiG and their ilk. Read the evidence and arguments you try so hard to avoid. We've given you a good head start. Give us a reason to elevate your "Best I can tell..." assessment to a level above the perceptive ability of a deaf, dumb and blind amoeba.
Posted by: afdave on Sep. 26 2006,07:48

Ved...    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Who are the eyewitnesses, specifically? If an eyewitness' name and actual quotation aren't preserved, do you still have an "eyewitness account"?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

They were preserved.  They are Adam, Noah, the Sons of Noah, Shem, Terah, Ishmael & Isaac, and Esau & Jacob.  For example, Noah's account goes from Genesis 5:3 - 6:9a, concluding with the phrase "these are the generations of Noah."  Note that there is no name given in the first section which concludes with "these are the generations of the heaven and the earth" in Genesis 2:4a.  This makes sense when you realize that there was no human eyewitness alive yet to witness the acts of creation.  Note that it was probably Moses who inserted the names at the end of the proper section as he compiled these tablet records into one volume probably written on vellum.  See my blog at airdave.blogspot.com and the article referenced at the end of my blog article for more info.
Eric...  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
That's not what you asked, Dave, and you know it. You asked how it was derived, not why anyone believes the evidence.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Yeah, how IS it derived?  Not "Here, Dave, here's what this textbook says."  Not "all these hundreds of experts had a bunch of meetings over the last 50 years and this is what they think."

I want to know HOW it was derived.  I want to know stuff like "Well, we have 1.5% sequence difference and we know that neutral mutation changes at the rate of 10 bazillion nucleotides per year so you multiply blah blah blah X blah blah and presto! you get 5 million years."  Or "Well, we have these fossils here and they look more like apes, but then we have these fossils here and they look a little more like humans, and when you measure the blah blah blah and subtract out the blah blah blah, then take the square root of blah blah blah, presto! you get 5 million years."
Posted by: incorygible on Sep. 26 2006,07:54

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 26 2006,12:48)
I want to know HOW it was derived.  I want to know stuff like "Well, we have 1.5% sequence difference and we know that neutral mutation changes at the rate of 10 bazillion nucleotides per year so you multiply blah blah blah X blah blah and presto! you get 5 million years."  Or "Well, we have these fossils here and they look more like apes, but then we have these fossils here and they look a little more like humans, and when you measure the blah blah blah and subtract out the blah blah blah, then take the square root of blah blah blah, presto! you get 5 million years."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh, THAT...

< Here you go! >

Enjoy. Come back when you're done, and we'll talk about any remaining general questions or concerns you might have.

(If you want a narrowed down version, might want to search the thread for particularly relevant titles.)
Posted by: improvius on Sep. 26 2006,08:18

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 26 2006,13:48)
I want to know HOW it was derived.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Then it makes no sense whatsoever that you were not following up and reading all of the links and source material that people were citing here.

The truth is that you don't really want to know that stuff.  All you want to do is dig up little tidbits so you can use them out of context to support your own rationalizations.  You don't really want to know the truth.  You just want to know that you're right.

So, Dave, how do you tell the difference between the figurative and literal parts fo the Bible?

And how long does a quartz crystal take to form?
Posted by: incorygible on Sep. 26 2006,08:20

As an example:

Dave, I know that one of the very first papers we (repeatedly) recommended you read was the infamous Nature chimpanzee paper that was fortuitously published online in late May, right around the time that we started this discusson. We referenced it repeatedly. Did you ever read it?

Once again, that's:

Patterson, N., D.J. Richter, S. Gnerre, E.S. Lander, and D. Reich. 2006. Genetic evidence for complex speciation of humans and chimpanzees. Nature 441: 1103-1108.

If I recall correctly, I think someone even stretched the rules of academic subscriptions and sent you a copy? I might be wrong about that, but it is certainly easy enough to find at any library.

Did you read it, Dave?

Because I just pulled it up again for another (more useful) task, and I notice it begins:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The genetic divergence time between two species varies substantially across the genome, conveying important information about the timing and process of speciation. Here we develop a framework for studying this variation and apply it to about 20 million base pairs of aligned sequence from humans, chimpanzees, gorillas and more distantly related primates. Human–chimpanzee genetic divergence varies from less than 84% to more than 147% of the average, a range of more than 4 million years. Our analysis also shows that human–chimpanzee speciation occurred less than 6.3 million years ago and probably more recently, conflicting with some interpretations of ancient fossils. Most strikingly, chromosome X shows an extremely young genetic divergence time, close to the genome minimum along nearly its entire length. These unexpected features would be explained if the human and chimpanzee lineages initially diverged, then later exchanged genes before separating permanently.

The genetic divergence between two species (the proportion of nucleotides differing between representative individuals of the two species) can be converted into a divergence time in terms of millions of years, provided that differences between genomes have accumulated at a constant rate as a result of new mutations1,2. The average genetic divergence, t genome, is sometimes used to estimate the speciation time, tspecies. However, t(x), the genetic divergence at any position x, fluctuates across the genome and is everywhere larger3 than tspecies (Fig. 1a, and Supplementary Note 1). Thus, its average tgenome necessarily exceeds tspecies.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Sounds a little like what you're looking for (and what you claim we haven't provided), eh? Read on, and it gets nice and specific about the calculations (but still written for a general scientific audience).

Did you read it, Dave?

Coincidentally (not really), you might find something similar in the publications from my post quoted by Eric, and many others.

Did you read them, Dave?

So...Dave...you were saying?

Dave?
Posted by: Diogenes on Sep. 26 2006,08:42

Well I think some of you are being a bit hard on Dave.  I think he's right about taking the Bible as a record of actual events.  I would think most of us could agree that the Bible is as accurate, and should be treated as literally as we treat the Avesta, the I Ching, the Rigveda, or the Pali Canon.
Posted by: ericmurphy on Sep. 26 2006,08:55

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 26 2006,12:48)
Eric...    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
That's not what you asked, Dave, and you know it. You asked how it was derived, not why anyone believes the evidence.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Yeah, how IS it derived?  Not "Here, Dave, here's what this textbook says."  Not "all these hundreds of experts had a bunch of meetings over the last 50 years and this is what they think."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dave, the only way you're going to "know" how it was derived is to go out and get a freaking education in the relevant fields to the point where you can understand the "how." Incorygible explained to you, in exquisite detail, the "how" of the matter, and you're blaming your own inability to understand the "how" on his explanation, rather than your own ignorance.

If you would read the fucking links, and read the fucking original research papers that Incorygible has supplied you, you would know "stuff like "Well, we have 1.5% sequence difference and we know that neutral mutation changes at the rate of 10 bazillion nucleotides per year so you multiply blah blah blah X blah blah and presto! you get 5 million years."  What else do you want, Dave? Direct implantation of the information into your brain through osmosis? Those links Incorygible provided to you give you exactly the information you say you want! The problems are these: 1) you won't read the links, and you won't go out and get the actual articles where they're not available online; 2) even if you did read them, you don't have the specialized training necessary to understand them; and 3) are not willing to spend the time, money, and effort to obtain the necessary specialized training necessary to understand them! How is this anyone's fault but yours, Dave?

As Incorygible explained to you in exhaustive detail about one post above yours Dave, he does have the necessary specialized training and expertise to understand this stuff, and that's why he believes it. You don't, which is why you don't believe it. That, and the fact that you "resent" the notion that humans could be in any way related to other apes.

So what all this means is that when you said, "No one has shown me how the 8 mya date was derived," you were lying. You most emphatically were shown, in detail, how that date was derived. That you don't understand the methodology well enough to make head or tail of it doesn't change the simple fact that you were shown exactly how that date was derived.

Dave, I can't design an electronic circuit. Does that give me the right to say that it's impossible to design one? Because that's what you're claiming. You're claiming that because you don't understand how these dates were derived, that no one's shown you how they were derived.

It's like you're under the misapprehension that all of science should be instantly comprehensible by anyone with an undergraduate degree in electrical engineering. That may have been true 500 years ago, but today, no one person has the training necessary to understand more than a tiny, tiny fraction of the sum total of scientific knowledge. You don't have the training necessary to understand any of it.
Posted by: Mike PSS on Sep. 26 2006,09:12

Quote (ericmurphy @ Sep. 26 2006,14:55)
     
Quote (afdave @ Sep. 26 2006,12:48)
Eric...            

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
That's not what you asked, Dave, and you know it. You asked how it was derived, not why anyone believes the evidence.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Yeah, how IS it derived?  Not "Here, Dave, here's what this textbook says."  Not "all these hundreds of experts had a bunch of meetings over the last 50 years and this is what they think."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


ericmurphy,
AFDave only applies this method of argument to obfuscate matters.  When I try to engage him by explaining all the relevant facts needed to understand ONE aspect of crystal formation.... he ignores the facts and the questions posed.

incorygible,
Good third-person paragraph.  How many mistakes before you clicked your brain into third-person typing? :)
 
Quote (incorygible @ Sep. 26 2006,13:40)
Incorygible has spent over a decade of his life, tens of thousands of his dollars, and a good chunk of his day EARNING his education in evolutionary biology. Over that time, Incorygible has forgotten more about what evidence "convinced" him than AFDave will learn here, even if AFDave suddenly became intellectually honest. Nevertheless, plenty of "convincing" stuff remains, which Incorygible has gone to great efforts to show AFDave. Incorygible also knows that, {snip}
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: afdave on Sep. 26 2006,09:21

Incorygible ... you give me a link to Google Scholar with "evolution" as the search term?  Come on.  How am I going to narrow that down.  I realize that I am also guilty of this sometimes, but I will repeat that it is much more conducive to having someone read your reference if you can select the concise portions which are applicable to the point being argued.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The genetic divergence between two species (the proportion of nucleotides differing between representative individuals of the two species) can be converted into a divergence time in terms of millions of years, provided that differences between genomes have accumulated at a constant rate as a result of new mutations1,2.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Now we are getting somewhere ... this is what I have been trying to get out of you for months.  Can you distill all this complicated genetic stuff into an executive summary so that my pea brain can understand it?  This is what I try to do for you all with creationist info.  (I don't always achieve it, admittedly.)

**************************

When I say I am a Biblical literalist, I simply mean that I take passages literally unless there is a good reason to take them figuratively or metaphorically.  How do we determine this?  Well ... how do we determine if Steverino literally means the sun rose when he says "the sun rose"?  By knowing something about customary usage, that's how.  Same thing with Biblical studies.  A lot of Hebrew and Greek scholars have spent an enormous amount of time studying other texts and comparing them with the Biblical texts to see which parts are literal and which parts are figurative.  The RATE Book has a whole section proving why Genesis was intended to be taken as a literal, historical account.  But most of it is not rocket science.  Some is, to be sure, but most is not.  For the most part, we can look at the word for "day" in Genesis where it talks about the "evening and the morning were the fourth day" etc., and we can compare this with other instances of the usage of that same word, and we can pretty easily see that the author meant a literal 24 hr day ... not 1000 years or a million years, or what have you.

****************************

Mike PSS-- I accept the science of crystal formation ... I'm not dodging you.  I just want you to get to your point.  What are you trying to prove to me and how does olivine crystal formation support your point.  Concisely please.
Posted by: ericmurphy on Sep. 26 2006,09:40

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 26 2006,14:21)
Now we are getting somewhere ... this is what I have been trying to get out of you for months.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dave, he linked to this months ago, which you would have realized if you'd read it the first time. But even if you hadn't read it back then, wouldn't it have been a clue when Incorygible stated to you that he had posted it back in May, when it first came out? Or did you miss that part, too? How large and bold does the type have to be before you read it, Dave?

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Can you distill all this complicated genetic stuff into an executive summary so that my pea brain can understand it?  This is what I try to do for you all with creationist info.  (I don't always achieve it, admittedly.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No. Dave, if you want to understand this, you need to develop the intellectual toolkit necessary to understand it. It can't be "distilled down" to where someone with a pea-brain can understand it. Don't complain that someone hasn't "shown" something to you, when the real issue is that you can't understand the explanation in the first place!

And Dave, the problem isn't that we don't "understand" your creationist drivel. We "understand" it just fine. We understand that it's undifferentiated bullshit, we've explained to you exactly why it's undifferentiated bullshit, and you ignore us.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
When I say I am a Biblical literalist, I simply mean that I take passages literally unless there is a good reason to take them figuratively or metaphorically.  How do we determine this?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Or, more to the point, how do you determine where the Bible is right, and where it isn't? Given that you've already admitted that the Bible is not inerrant. So how do you know where it's right, and where it's wrong, Dave?
Posted by: creeky belly on Sep. 26 2006,09:41



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
RM DATING IS NOW "AS GOOD" AS FOSSIL "DATING."

... implying, of course, that "Fossils are King" ... they are standard by which other methods are judged.  See?  "with a precision once only possible with fossiliferous units restricted to the most recent 12% or so of geologic time."  IOW ... "We used to only be able to date rock layers with fossils and it only covered 12% of geologic time.  Now we can obtain the same precision on the remaining 88% of geologic time."

Notice they did NOT say, "RM dating allows to VERIFY our fossil-based guesses about millions of years."  No no no.  That's because ...

1) FOSSILS ARE KING (and Evo assumptions with them)
2) FOSSILS VERIFY RM DATES (and determine which ones are "wrong" and "right")
3) AND IT'S NOT VICE VERSA NO MATTER HOW LOUDLY THEY SAY OTHERWISE.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



The first attempts to characterize the "relative" age of the landscape using fossil was done in the 1830s, almost 30 years before Darwin's work. Similar patterns of fossils were discovered in landscapes in different countries, and these were the first attempts of using the geological process of superposition. The actual pattern of fossils made sense in the light of the TOE, and then finally in the early 1900s the first absolute dating methods were discovered with  radioactive decay and radiometric dating. To say that the method requires knowledge of evolution is absurd. It requires you to assume that certain species lived at the same time together, and that the species should correlate in some way with the stratographic column. Eric, deadman, JonF and others showed you this many times before, and even offered you a testable method for carrying this out. The assumption of evolution becomes an independent verification when species complexity decreases with age.

This doesn't begin to address other dating methods either, which the thread has called you on many times.

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Here's another quote I like ...        
Quote
Absolute dating > Major methods of isotopic dating
Isotopic dating relative to fossil dating requires a great deal of effort and depends on the integrated specialized skills of geologists, chemists, and physicists. It is, nevertheless, a valuable resource that allows correlations to be made over virtually all of Earth history with a precision once only possible with fossiliferous units that are restricted to the most recent 12 percent or so of geologic time.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I love how you can understand the deep innerworkings of an entire field of science from a few quotes. I wish I had that talent.
Posted by: improvius on Sep. 26 2006,09:45

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 26 2006,15:21)
When I say I am a Biblical literalist, I simply mean that I take passages literally unless there is a good reason to take them figuratively or metaphorically.  How do we determine this?  Well ... how do we determine if Steverino literally means the sun rose when he says "the sun rose"?  By knowing something about customary usage, that's how.  Same thing with Biblical studies.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So are suggesting that, at the time the Bible was written, it was customary to assume that the Earth circled the sun, and not vice versa?

Also, how long does a quartz crystal take to form?
Posted by: Mike PSS on Sep. 26 2006,09:46



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Mike PSS-- I accept the science of crystal formation ... I'm not dodging you.  I just want you to get to your point.  What are you trying to prove to me and how does olivine crystal formation support your point.  Concisely please.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


AFDave,
This is where you go wrong.  The point isn't concise, or containable in an executive summary.  I'm trying to lead you down the primrose path of knowledge here in bite size pieces.  Each bite size piece is an executive summary of a whole body of knowledge.  There are at numerous seperate professional disciplines involved just to understand radiometric dating.  You have to understand what olivine is (geology), how the crystals formed (material science, chemistry, chemical and mechanical engineering), how isotopes and radioactivity work (nuclear physics), how radioisotope testing equipment works (mechanical engineering, physics, electronic engineering), and that's just off the top of my head.

When your argument is about "all Isochrons are mixing lines" then you are arguing DEEP into the basic knowledge base of the method (radiometric testing).  To support that argument you need to comprehend and understand ALL of the knowledge base listed above.
However, you don't have to be an expert in all the fields listed above.  You could purchase the radiometric testing machine and TRUST that the people that designed it and put it together knew what they were doing.  You could install the machine and calibrate it according to the instruction sheet that comes with the equipment.  You could then follow all the instructions (like proper sample selection) and test your materials.  The instructions probably have some checks and balances for your data to make sure the machine is working properly.  Voila, a valid data point.  Rinse and repeat.  That wasn't hard.

If you want an executive summary then talk to me about the economic viability of investing in an alternative fuels plant (ethanol or biodiesel).  I'm involved in the operation, modification, testing, and optimization of these things.  Landfill Gas?  No problem.  Wood Combustion?  Bring it on.  Executive summaries work in business, not always in science.

Mike PSS
Posted by: ericmurphy on Sep. 26 2006,09:48

And, you know, this is classic Dave: first he complains that you haven't shown him something, even after you've shown it again and again and again. Then he complains that you haven't really shown it to him; you've just sent him links to a bunch of articles that say something, without showing  how that conclusion was arrived at. Then, when you point out that those articles show exactly how that conclusion was arrived at, in excruciating detail, he complains that the explanation is too complicated, and could you please distill it all down to an executive summary he can actually understand.

And then, if you actually complied with that request, he'd accuse of you of just giving him a biased interpretation of the data, rather than the data itself.
Posted by: afdave on Sep. 26 2006,10:04

I give you guys executive summaries all the time to try to make my points understood, the latest being the issue of Biblical Literalism.

Why is it so hard for you to do the same?
Posted by: ericmurphy on Sep. 26 2006,10:11

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 26 2006,15:04)
I give you guys executive summaries all the time to try to make my points understood, the latest being the issue of Biblical Literalism.

Why is it so hard for you to do the same?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Think about it, Dave.

If you think the Bible (especially Genesis 1 and 2, which are like 800 words long) is as complex and difficult to understand as, say, genomics, or the Theory of Evolution, or Quantum Chromodynamics, or superstring theory, or comparative anatomy, or nuclear chemistry, then you're even dumber than you appear (and you appear pretty dumb).

You can't just do an executive summary of topics like radiometric dating, Dave. Sorry; it just simply cannot be done. Why is this such a tough idea to get through your noggin?

Also, when are you going to address the glaring problem with your Biblical Literalism, which is that you've already admitted that the Bible is not inerrant, and you have no way of knowing which parts are correct and which parts are not?
Posted by: Mike PSS on Sep. 26 2006,10:41

OK Dave,  Here's an executive summary for you.

Bible - Goddidit.
Your arguments - Wrong
My arguments - Right.

Is that what you wanted?  Be concise in your requests.

I can simplify it for you but you have to show me what YOU know first.  So far you have exhibited little knowledge of HOW radiometric dating is actually done.

Mike PSS
Posted by: afdave on Sep. 26 2006,11:17

Improvius...

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So are suggesting that, at the time the Bible was written, it was customary to assume that the Earth circled the sun, and not vice versa?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

The biblical writers were not making a statement one way the other about which actually circled which, just as we are not when we say "the sun rose."  However, it is interesting to note that many of the ancients who lived a very long time ago (like longer ago than 2000 BC) knew that the earth went around the sun and they knew the length of the period, the earth-sun distance, the number PI, and many other scientific facts.


Mike PSS--  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I can simplify it for you but you have to show me what YOU know first.  So far you have exhibited little knowledge of HOW radiometric dating is actually done.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I have shown you a lot of how it actually works.  And JonF has done as good a job of fighting for the Deep Timer cause as can be expected of anyone, given the impossibility of the task.  My theory is that you really don't know what you are talking about and that you are just pretending you do.  Asking you to do an executive summary simply allows me to determine whether you really understand the things you are talking about or not.  And whether you are serious about debating anything or not.  My guess is that you are not.

Creek Belly ... more on RM dating tomorrow!
Posted by: creeky belly on Sep. 26 2006,11:35



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Creek Belly ... more on RM dating tomorrow!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Sweet! Ghost of Paley has a new challenger for the most "more on XXXXXX which I will completely garble tomorrow!"
Posted by: improvius on Sep. 26 2006,11:47

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 26 2006,17:17)
Improvius...  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So are suggesting that, at the time the Bible was written, it was customary to assume that the Earth circled the sun, and not vice versa?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

The biblical writers were not making a statement one way the other about which actually circled which, just as we are not when we say "the sun rose."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dave, you said we could discern between literal and figurative statements "by knowing something about customary usage."  So you must be able to tell that any biblical statements WRT the sun rising are figurative because it was the "customary usage" at the time of writing.
Posted by: JonF on Sep. 26 2006,11:49

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 26 2006,09:50)
ENCYCLOPEDIA BRITANNICA ON "DATING"
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Not a particularly reliable source.  It's too dumbed-down to be really accurate.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
ROCKS ARE "DATED" PRIMARILY BY FOSSILS AND BY THE ASSUMPTION THAT EVOLUTION HAS OCCURRED
           

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
[DATING ...] in geology, determining a chronology or calendar of events in the history of the Earth, using to a large degree the evidence of organic evolution in the sedimentary rocks accumulated through geologic time in marine and continental environments.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I said this long ago and was laughed at of course, but it is still true and here it is confirmed again.  After the "date" is "determined" from fossils, then it is "confirmed" or "calibrated" with RM dating if possible.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That quote does not support your claim. Yes, stratigraphy and index fossils are involved in dating.  No, the date is not determined from fossils, absolute dates are determined from radiometric dating and index fossils are used to correlate between locations.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
CHERRY PICKING CONFIRMED AGAIN: ONLY "CERTAIN" ROCKS
           

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Rubidium&#8211;strontium (Rb&#8211;Sr) dating was the first technique in which the whole rock isochron method was extensively employed. Certain rocks that cooled quickly at the surface were found to give precisely defined linear isochrons, but many others did not. Some studies have shown that rubidium is very mobile both in fluids that migrate through the rock as it cools and in fluids that are present as the rock undergoes chemical weathering. Similar studies have shown that the samarium&#8211;neodymium (Sm&#8211;Nd) parent&#8211;daughter pair is more resistant to secondary migration but that, in this instance, sufficient initial spread in the abundance of the parent isotope is difficult to achieve.[This is what JonF was griping at me about on the Snelling data...]
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

If certain rocks are not qualified for RM dating, then how can we qualify ANY rock legitimately?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


By cross-correlation with other methods, some not radiometric.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Here's another quote I like ...            

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Absolute dating > Major methods of isotopic dating
Isotopic dating relative to fossil dating requires a great deal of effort and depends on the integrated specialized skills of geologists, chemists, and physicists. It is, nevertheless, a valuable resource that allows correlations to be made over virtually all of Earth history with a precision once only possible with fossiliferous units that are restricted to the most recent 12 percent or so of geologic time.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

... implying, of course, that "Fossils are King" ... they are standard by which other methods are judged.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Not implying any such thing.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
IOW ... "We used to only be able to date rock layers with fossils and it only covered 12% of geologic time.  Now we can obtain the same precision on the remaining 88% of geologic time."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Not quite.  Now we can obtain the same precision on near 100% of geologic time, and verify the fossil dating.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Notice they did NOT say, "RM dating allows to VERIFY our fossil-based guesses about millions of years."  No no no.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes, yes, yes, Davie-doodles, your lack of reading comprehension is showing again.  They explicitly said that RM dating allows us to verify our fossil-based data. "Isotopic dating ... is, nevertheless, a valuable resource that allows correlations to be made over virtually all of Earth history."  "Virtually all of Earth history" ain't no stinkin' 88%, Davie-dip, it's 99.9% or so.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
CONCORDANCE OBTAINED BY "PROCESSING" INDIVIDUAL GRAINS?"
Moving along through the "Dating" article from EB ... we see that U-Pb dating supposedly is superior to other dating methods ... then we read something rather surprising ...

           

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Absolute dating > Major methods of isotopic dating > Uranium&#8211;lead method > Double uranium-lead chronometers

Figure 2: Concordia diagram.
From T.E. Krogh, Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, vol. 46; © 1982 Pergamon Press
The reason why uranium&#8211;lead dating is superior to other methods is simple: there are two uranium&#8211;lead chronometers. Because there exist two radioactive uranium atoms (those of mass 235 and 238), two uranium&#8211;lead ages can be calculated for every analysis. The age results or equivalent daughter&#8211;parent ratio can then be plotted one against the other on a concordia diagram, as shown in Figure 2. If the point falls on the upper curve shown, the locus of identical ages, the result is said to be concordant, and a closed-system unequivocal age has been established. Any leakage of daughter isotopes from the system will cause the two ages calculated to differ, and data will plot below the curve. Because each of the daughters has a different half-life, early leakage will affect one system more than the other. Thus there is a built-in mechanism that can prove or disprove whether a valid age has been measured. Historically it had been observed that the uranium&#8211;lead systems in the mineral zircon from unmetamorphosed rocks were almost invariably disturbed or discordant but yielded a linear array on the concordia diagram. Given a set of variably disturbed samples, an extrapolation to zero disturbance was possible (see Figure 2). More recently, it has been found that of all the grains present in a rock a very few still retain closed isotopic systems but only in their interior parts. Thus grains with a diameter comparable to that of a human hair, selected under a microscope to be crack-free and of the highest possible quality, have been found to be more concordant than cracked grains. In addition, it has been shown that most such grains can be made much more concordant by mechanically removing their outer parts using an air-abrasion technique (upper points in Figure 2).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Now am I reading this right?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nope.  I don't know why you bother to ask that, the answer is always the same.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
 You're tellng me that we can pretty much pitch all the mineral isochrons done on individual grains because they are open systems?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nope.  He's not talking about isochrons. He's talking about a particular set of elements, one of which (lead) is fairly volatile as elements that are solid at STP go.  He's talking about metamorphic rocks, which are always tricky.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
We have to strip away the outer part of the grain in order for the "dating" to be concordant?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sometimes yes and mostly no.  That article's pretty seriously out of date.  Since then instrumentation advances and sample preparation advances have cut down the need to strip away the outer part of the grain.  Sometimes we still have to strip away the outer part of the mineral grain for the dating to be absolutely concordant (but not often) BUT you don't understand what "concordant" means in this context.  Here "concordant" means" "absolutely exact agreement", and "discordant" means that the two methods disagree. The air abrasion technique is used to get concordant samples when the discordance is very small and there's reason to suspect differential leaching of lead from different parts of the sample. Even with "discordant" results, it's clear approximately how old the rock is; the air-abrasion technique is used to take results that are already accurate to a few percent and get the accuracy down below 1%. With or without discarding the outer layer of metamorphosed zircons, the rocks are far older than you think.

One of the great things about U-Pb concordia-discordia dating is that it often returns a valid and accurate date when the sampels are discordant, sometimes even seriously discordant.  The reasons why are well understood.

And, of course, the truth that Davie dare not address; different methods are susceptible to different possible problems, but the observed concordance between different methods that are not susceptible to the same problems is one of the many reasons we can be sure that the vast majority of our dates reflect reality.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Bet I could guess the selection criteria, and they won't be neutral.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

What have we here?  You think my selection criteria is biased or something?  Well, guess what?  You're right!!  I am biased and guess what else?  EVERYONE is biased.  That's what I've been telling you for a long time.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yup. but you're an ignorant liar ; I make mistakes once in a while, but at least they're honest mistakes.  Are you going to post any pf the many questions you have been ducking and can't answer?  Or are you going to cherry-pick to try to give the impression that your claims stand up to casual inspection?  I know the answer ...
Posted by: ericmurphy on Sep. 26 2006,11:52

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 26 2006,16:17)
Mike PSS--        

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I can simplify it for you but you have to show me what YOU know first.  So far you have exhibited little knowledge of HOW radiometric dating is actually done.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I have shown you a lot of how it actually works.  And JonF has done as good a job of fighting for the Deep Timer cause as can be expected of anyone, given the impossibility of the task.  My theory is that you really don't know what you are talking about and that you are just pretending you do.  Asking you to do an executive summary simply allows me to determine whether you really understand the things you are talking about or not.  And whether you are serious about debating anything or not.  My guess is that you are not.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dave, you've got it exactly backwards. The fact that you think it's even possible to do an "executive summary" of an entire field of scientific investigation shows just how abysmally ignorant you really are.

You think you've shown us "lot of how [radiometric dating] actually works"? Good grief, man! What you've really shown us is that you don't have a clue how it actually works! You've made mistake after mistake after mistake in your understanding of radiometric dating techniques, which JonF has, to his infinite credit, painstakingly corrected. So you think JonF and Mike are just "pretending" to understand radiometric dating? Then where does that leave you? You don't even pretend to understand it! You admit it doesn't make any sense to you.

Mike is trying to establish that you know anything whatsoever about radiometric dating, crystal formation, or indeed anything about any relevant field, in order to determine how he can do an executive summary you can understand without leaving out crucial information. I know, from my long experience of wading through your drivel, that it's an impossible task, because you don't want to understand; your entire worldview depends on your not understanding.

Mike will eventually come to the same conclusion, but hopefully not before he's done a lot of interesting and informative posts. Interesting and informative posts for the rest of us, at least; I doubt you'll get anything out of them.

And speaking of "defending" things—would you care to estimate what century it will be before you get around to defending your own hypothesis, which is ostensibly what this thread is all about?
Posted by: JonF on Sep. 26 2006,11:53

Quote (Mike PSS @ Sep. 26 2006,11:49)
AFDave, eventually the only argument you will have left in this whole Isochron fiasco will be the "accellerated decay rate in the past" position.  Why not skip all the pretense and start arguing this position.  Here's the initial < counter argument > you will have to address in your first post about decay rates.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And < The Constancy of Constants, Part 2 >
Posted by: skeptic on Sep. 26 2006,12:03

Dave, thanks for the reference concerning the theory of eyewitness account of genesis.  I see some problems with it but that was the view from 10,000 feet so I'll get back to you after closer inspection.  I did notice in that post your refernce to me and the wish that I embrace the truth of YEC.  I feel I must respond to that.  To start with I have two quick questions:

Do you know the actual origin of the 6,000 years chronology?

Would it be any less miraculous if God had created the universe in 6,000 years, 6 billion years or 60 billion years?
Posted by: JonF on Sep. 26 2006,12:03

The first thread, with all images removed:

< AF Dave's UPDATED Creator God Hypothesis (no images) PDF.zip > 8.75 MB, 13.1 MB unzipped.

< AF Dave's UPDATED Creator God Hypothesis (no images) HTML.zip >, 3.8 MB, 27.5 MB unzipped.
Posted by: incorygible on Sep. 26 2006,13:12

Quote (Mike PSS @ Sep. 26 2006,14:12)
incorygible,
Good third-person paragraph.  How many mistakes before you clicked your brain into third-person typing? :)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


More than one! :) I think it only comes naturally to cranks and other assorted crazies (such as the one to whom I was replying in kind). ;)
Posted by: Mike PSS on Sep. 26 2006,13:25

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 26 2006,17:17)
Mike PSS--        

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I can simplify it for you but you have to show me what YOU know first.  So far you have exhibited little knowledge of HOW radiometric dating is actually done.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I have shown you a lot of how it actually works.  And JonF has done as good a job of fighting for the Deep Timer cause as can be expected of anyone, given the impossibility of the task.  My theory is that you really don't know what you are talking about and that you are just pretending you do.  Asking you to do an executive summary simply allows me to determine whether you really understand the things you are talking about or not.  And whether you are serious about debating anything or not.  My guess is that you are not.

Creek Belly ... more on RM dating tomorrow!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ad Hominum Ad Nausium from AFDave.

Can I call "shenanigans" and get AFDave back on track?

Dave,
Nowhere in your quoted reply do you address the pertinent information regarding Olivine crystal formation.  Your "Theory of Mike PSS not knowing what he's talking about" has to be proven by counterring the information I presented.
Where did I make a mistake in my argument?  Please be precise.
Mike PSS
Posted by: incorygible on Sep. 26 2006,13:33

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 26 2006,14:21)
Incorygible ... you give me a link to Google Scholar with "evolution" as the search term?  Come on.  How am I going to narrow that down.  I realize that I am also guilty of this sometimes, but I will repeat that it is much more conducive to having someone read your reference if you can select the concise portions which are applicable to the point being argued.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The body of scientific understanding pertaining to evolution, or even just the evolution of humans and other great apes, is not concise. Period. The Google search was meant only to illustrate this. You can take the Coles Notes version you've been supplied. Or you can put the time and effort into achieving something closer to the education that specialists (like those you routinely argue with) have, beginning with the appropriate papers that we have laid out for you. Your choice.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Now we are getting somewhere ... this is what I have been trying to get out of you for months.  Can you distill all this complicated genetic stuff into an executive summary so that my pea brain can understand it?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



First: Dave, as Eric points out, you "got this out of me" as soon as you asked. Before you asked, actually -- I brought it up.  I cited this paper right around the time you were discovering (for the first time, apparently) that genetic research has conclusively demonstrated that humans are more closely related to chimps than chimps to gorillas. Remember that, Dave? Liar.

Second: No. Dave, a Nature article of about 4,000 words IS the "Executive Summary". Top-tier, broad-spectrum journals like Nature and Science are written for those with a passable scientific background to keep abreast of the major findings in other fields. The data summarized in these executive summaries is found in the specialist journals and (in even more abundance) in the databases, drawers and minds of those actually doing the work. If you can't count yourself a member of the "scientific" audience, well, tough titty said the kitty. If you don't even understand the language, don't bother arguing fundamental science with those who do possess such a background because you simply don't meet the minimum requirements. There's nothing wrong with that (we all possess specialized knowledge), unless you are in the vain habit of arguing entire fields of science with specialists therein. And (before you pull out any analogy involving church history) practically ANYONE can learn the language, if they are so inclined, with enough time and effort. You haven't done this yet. Come back and argue science when you can comprehend it.

You may think think this is elitist (as much as any meritocracy is). Fine. You may point out that this elitism is the reason your brand of "evidence" is more popular among the lay public. You'd probably be right. Regardless, it is what it is. After trying very hard to encourage you to begin to understand some of this stuff at an appropriate level, I don't care care what you think. Science is indeed a tough titty and you, Dave, are just another displaced runt.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
This is what I try to do for you all with creationist info.  (I don't always achieve it, admittedly.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Does that "evolution" Google Scholar search give you any reason to suspect your job is easier than mine? Or should I thrown in "or geology", "or radiomentric dating", "or cosmology"...
Posted by: stevestory on Sep. 26 2006,14:01

Quote (incorygible @ Sep. 26 2006,19:33)
Or you can put the time and effort into achieving something closer to the education that specialists (like those you routinely argue with) have, beginning with the appropriate papers that we have laid out for you. Your choice.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


LOL I remember him saying something like "I don't want to learn to be an expert, I just want to prove them wrong!"

Which might be the all-time dumbest thing he's said.

Making up that imaginary data to refute real data was pretty close, though.
Posted by: improvius on Sep. 26 2006,14:18

Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 26 2006,20:01)
LOL I remember him saying something like "I don't want to learn to be an expert, I just want to prove them wrong!"

Which might be the all-time dumbest thing he's said.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


For your viewing pleasure:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'm not interested in getting a geology degree ... by an internet flame war or any other way ...

I'm interested in showing that those who DO have geology degrees are grotesquely mistaken when they say that sedimentary rock layers were laid down over millions and millions of years by the same well-understood processes which are in operation today (the present is the key to the past) ...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Sep. 26 2006,14:30

eric:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Dave, the only way you're going to "know" how it was derived is to go out and get a freaking education in the relevant fields to the point where you can understand the "how." Incorygible explained to you, in exquisite detail, the "how" of the matter, and you're blaming your own inability to understand the "how" on his explanation, rather than your own ignorance.

If you would read the fucking links, and read the fucking original research papers that Incorygible has supplied you, you would know "stuff like "Well, we have 1.5% sequence difference and we know that neutral mutation changes at the rate of 10 bazillion nucleotides per year so you multiply blah blah blah X blah blah and presto! you get 5 million years."  What else do you want, Dave? Direct implantation of the information into your brain through osmosis? Those links Incorygible provided to you give you exactly the information you say you want!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Dave, I've argued with Eric about many subjects, and I've never seen him this angry. Why do you tease him so?  :D  :D
Posted by: incorygible on Sep. 26 2006,14:40

Quote (improvius @ Sep. 26 2006,19:18)
Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 26 2006,20:01)
LOL I remember him saying something like "I don't want to learn to be an expert, I just want to prove them wrong!"

Which might be the all-time dumbest thing he's said.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


For your viewing pleasure:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'm not interested in getting a geology degree ... by an internet flame war or any other way ...

I'm interested in showing that those who DO have geology degrees are grotesquely mistaken when they say that sedimentary rock layers were laid down over millions and millions of years by the same well-understood processes which are in operation today (the present is the key to the past) ...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Indeed. Actually, not "speaking the language" is as apt an analogy as any.

I'm natively fluent in English, and will debate in English (or even debate its proper usage) with any native English speaker. I could get by pretty well with French in either France or Quebec (even know how to adjust accordingly), but would know to ask for clarification (in French) and would accept correction graciously from its native speakers. I might even be able to eek out an existence in (tee hee) Portugal, based on its Latin roots. Put me in China and I wouldn't know where to begin (but I probably wouldn't start by demanding they all speak English instead).

That's where Dave is. China. And he don't speak no Chinese. So he's busily demanding (in English, no less) that the entire country switch to the revealed truth of English because he can't find the fucking bathroom. The inevitable result is, of course, that Dave will shit his pants. Repeatedly. As he has.

Dave, you really stink by this point.
Posted by: ericmurphy on Sep. 26 2006,14:55

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Sep. 26 2006,19:30)
eric:
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If you would read the fucking links, and read the fucking original research papers that Incorygible has supplied you, you would know "stuff like "Well, we have 1.5% sequence difference and we know that neutral mutation changes at the rate of 10 bazillion nucleotides per year so you multiply blah blah blah X blah blah and presto! you get 5 million years."  What else do you want, Dave? Direct implantation of the information into your brain through osmosis? Those links Incorygible provided to you give you exactly the information you say you want!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Dave, I've argued with Eric about many subjects, and I've never seen him this angry. Why do you tease him so?  :D  :D
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Bill, for all our disagreements, and my belief that you're mistaken about virtually all of science, most of history, and all of politics, you've never acted as absolutely bone-stupid as Dave is. And Dave is not, as far as I can tell, actually stupid. He's that way on purpose, i.e., he's deliberately obtuse. I've just never seen anyone behave so deliberately idiotically. (But I have to admit; it's strangely entertaining to watch, kind of like watching a slow-motion train-wreck.)

When Dave complains over and over about how no one has ever shown him something, and then three people demonstrate with actual links to their actual posts that they have indeed shown him, and he still insists that they never showed it to him, it gets exasperating. But Dave's not teasing; he actually thinks he's being honest.

And that's the scary part.
Posted by: afdave on Sep. 27 2006,02:29

I did not bother with an answer to most of JonF's "rebuttals" today because they are weak.  I particularly liked the one where he said my 2006 EB article is "out of date" ... also, EB is not accurate because it is "dumbed down."  Fine Jon, let's call up the author and see if he likes that characterization.

But I will answer this one ...

JonF...

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And, of course, the truth that Davie dare not address; different methods are susceptible to different possible problems, but the observed concordance between different methods that are not susceptible to the same problems is one of the many reasons we can be sure that the vast majority of our dates reflect reality.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I DO "dare" address this.  I've been addressing it for a long time.  There is a reason why you have "observed concordance between different methods.  The answer is ...

FOSSILS ....

Fossils are your guide for keeping or throwing away dates as we have seen quite clearly now.

***********************************

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

Mike PSS...

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Your "Theory of Mike PSS not knowing what he's talking about" has to be proven by counterring the information I presented.
Where did I make a mistake in my argument?  Please be precise.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Contrary to what Eric thinks, I do not think that you and Jon do not understand RM dating.  I'm quite sure you do.  But that is an entirely different thing than being able to defend it reasonably and convince me that the "dates" obtained are real.  And I don't think you have made any mistakes in your arguments other than the fact that I really don't know what your argument is or what your point is.  But I am happy to hear it.  Now ... I do know what olivine is and I understand crystal formation somewhat.  What does this have to do with RM Dating being a valid indicator of true age.

Incorygible...

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Second: No. Dave, a Nature article of about 4,000 words IS the "Executive Summary". Top-tier, broad-spectrum journals like Nature and Science are written for those with a passable scientific background to keep abreast of the major findings in other fields.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

So you are telling me I need to go buy this particular copy of "Nature" and then I will understand your position on why the molecules point to 5 my?  Which issue is it again?  I assume we are talking about a $10 or less copy, right?  It's not availabe for free  online?

Me...

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'm not interested in getting a geology degree ... by an internet flame war or any other way ...

I'm interested in showing that those who DO have geology degrees are grotesquely mistaken when they say that sedimentary rock layers were laid down over millions and millions of years by the same well-understood processes which are in operation today (the present is the key to the past) ...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Thanks.  And I'll say it again and again.  It stands as the dumbest things in modern science that people can go all the way through 8 years of school and get PhD's in geology and yet NOT understand that "massive quantities of water-laid sedimentary rock got laid down by massive quantities of water,"  (The second dumbest thing is that people like Steve Story say people like me are dumb for pointing this out.  Oh well!;)

Skeptic...

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Dave, thanks for the reference concerning the theory of eyewitness account of genesis.  I see some problems with it but that was the view from 10,000 feet so I'll get back to you after closer inspection.  I did notice in that post your refernce to me and the wish that I embrace the truth of YEC.  I feel I must respond to that.  To start with I have two quick questions:

Do you know the actual origin of the 6,000 years chronology?

Would it be any less miraculous if God had created the universe in 6,000 years, 6 billion years or 60 billion years?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I have only known about the 2 references I gave you for 3 months or so, so I could use some time to inspect the whole thing closer myself.  But my initial study seems to indicate that it is a very good theory.  I have not found any holes yet.  I did not intend to reference any individuals in my post on my blog.  I will search that out when I have time and delete it.

Origin of the 6000 year chronology:  Not much time right now, but off the top of my head, I think there are several people groups who have historically kept track of years in a way closely resembling the 6000 year chronology.  If I recall, the Jews have something called "Anno Mundi"  ... I'll check into this and get back to you.  In any case, my chronology comes from Bishop Ussher.

***************************************************

Gone for 3 days to Silver Dollar City!  Don't know if I will have time to post or not.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Sep. 27 2006,02:46

Dave - presumably you believed this 6000 year old guff last year? In that case, is the earth now 6001 years old then? Or in your world, is gawd holding back the age of the earth and keeping it steady at 6000 years? Or taking off a year at the start instead?

So, what is the age of the earth then as you see it? 6000 years? 5999? 6001?
If it's 6000, presumably there must be a point where it tips over to 6001? Would that be new years day? If so, why? If not, what day does it flip over to 6001 years on? Simple  questions, but i dont expect a reasonable answer. Prove me wrong! Give me a date/time when the earth will be 6001 years old instead of 6000.
Posted by: improvius on Sep. 27 2006,03:04

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 27 2006,08:29)
Fossils are your guide for keeping or throwing away dates as we have seen quite clearly now.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You have not shown one iota of evidence for your fossil overlord conspiracy theory.
Posted by: notta_skeptic on Sep. 27 2006,03:13

I know this is off-topic, but I just found out this morning that I have the opportunity to go to a public lecture by Dr. Kenneth Miller this afternoon at the National Institutes of Health. He's speaking to researchers, medical professionals, and interested parties on evolution. You can see the webcast at < NIH webcast > (I have no idea if this is available for all or just over NIH intranet, but I think it's freely viewable by anyone.) And tomorrow, I'm going to be participating in a national 'convocation' in DC on science eductation across the US and helping to develop national policy on strengthening science teaching K - 16. It's people like Dave who give me the impetus to stand up in these meetings and explain exactly why we need better educated science teachers. If Dave had ever had a good teacher, he/she might have been able to explain to him the difference between a "guess" and a "theory". Dave shows little evidence of knowing what either one means in a scientific context.
Posted by: notta_skeptic on Sep. 27 2006,03:17

Oops! Forgot the time for the Miller webcast: 3 - 4 PM Eastern Daylight Time. Sorry.
Posted by: incorygible on Sep. 27 2006,03:39

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 27 2006,07:29)
Incorygible...  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Second: No. Dave, a Nature article of about 4,000 words IS the "Executive Summary". Top-tier, broad-spectrum journals like Nature and Science are written for those with a passable scientific background to keep abreast of the major findings in other fields.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

So you are telling me I need to go buy this particular copy of "Nature" and then I will understand your position on why the molecules point to 5 my?  Which issue is it again?  I assume we are talking about a $10 or less copy, right?  It's not availabe for free  online?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


*sigh* No, Dave. If you read that paper, you will have read that paper. If you understand that paper, you will have a better understanding of "my position" on why the molecules point to 4-6 my. If you understand the brief synopsis of the current state of the field provided by the authors, and if you follow up on the citations they provide for a more detailed examination of work in the field, you will have an even better understanding.

You were a CEO (or similar), right? You asked for an executive summary. Here it is, equivalent to an executive summary of earnings in one department in the last quarter. Read it, and you'll have a better understanding than the press releases and third-party speculations you're working from now. But, as CEO, would you assess your company's performance based purely on one executive summary for one quarter? It's a good place to start, but you might want a deeper understanding of trends, etc., right?

To truly understand my position on evolution, or even on molecular phylogenetics, you would have to sit in on more than a few university-level courses, read hundreds of textbooks, read literally thousands of papers, attend dozens of conferences, have a few beers and "back-of-the-envelope" sessions with dozens of prestigious scientists actually doing the work, do some of the work yourself, publish peer-reviewed papers where you apply the same principles, use the principles in a very practical facet of your job (determining populations or units of fish species that qualify for protection as endangered species, for example), and so on.

Until you do that (and do similar for the geologists, linguists, and anthropologists that you argue with here), you won't "understand" our positions in the slightest. We've given you the public, press-release version. We've pointed you to the executive summaries (and I am willing to email you the Nature paper and any others you might like to see, assuming my institutional subscription covers them -- PM me with an email address). But you simply CANNOT hope to develop the painstakingly earned depth of knowledge in these fields that the people publishing them actually have. That's okay, since you claim not to want it. However, you should realize that, when you go to toe-to-toe with them within their fields in an effort to discredit them, you are way out of your league. (Picture a dogfight between a trained military pilot and a biologist who read the "executive summary" on jet aircraft.)
Posted by: ericmurphy on Sep. 27 2006,06:00

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 27 2006,07:29)
I did not bother with an answer to most of JonF's "rebuttals" today because they are weak.  I particularly liked the one where he said my 2006 EB article is "out of date" ... also, EB is not accurate because it is "dumbed down."  Fine Jon, let's call up the author and see if he likes that characterization.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yeah, Dave, that's what you said about the Theobald paper I sent you back in May. It's a 20,000 word paper with close to 200 references, and your response was, "it's weak." Could you find any holes in it? Did you even understand it? Doubtful. I'm still doubtful you even read it.

So when you say you think JonF's scathing rebuttals of your limp-wristed attempts to debunk the entire field of radiometric dating are "weak," we give that comment all the credibility it deserves.

And Dave, an EB entry could have been published yesterday and still be out of date, if it doesn't reflect current research on the topic. On fast-moving topics, e.g., genomics, EB entries are out of date before they even hit the printing press. That's why you don't reference EB articles if you want to be taken seriously by professionals practicing in the field. You come off as what you are: a dilettante.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But I will answer this one ...

JonF...    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And, of course, the truth that Davie dare not address; different methods are susceptible to different possible problems, but the observed concordance between different methods that are not susceptible to the same problems is one of the many reasons we can be sure that the vast majority of our dates reflect reality.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I DO "dare" address this.  I've been addressing it for a long time.  There is a reason why you have "observed concordance between different methods.  The answer is ...

FOSSILS ....
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Um, no. Fossils never provide an absolute date, as has been pointed out to you a dozen times. JonF is talking about the concordances between different radiometric methods, genius. What possible connection do fossils have  with that? When two entirely different radiometric techniques provide the same age for a given sample, where do fossils fit into that?

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Contrary to what Eric thinks, I do not think that you and Jon do not understand RM dating.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dave, you've got to knock off this lying:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
My theory is that you really don't know what you are talking about and that you are just pretending you do.  Asking you to do an executive summary simply allows me to determine whether you really understand the things you are talking about or not.  And whether you are serious about debating anything or not.  My guess is that you are not.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So you were either lying when you typed this yesterday, or you're lying today. Which is it, Dave?

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But my initial study seems to indicate that it is a very good theory.  I have not found any holes yet.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You mean, other than the hundreds of holes we've pointed out to you again and again and again, Dave? The questions and objections we've raised that have totally stymied you?
Posted by: k.e on Sep. 27 2006,07:57

Time to up your dose AFD.

Your magical reality must require truck loads.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Sep. 27 2006,08:55

I'd looked over AirHead's posts the last few days and thought about responding, but then decided not to -- the truth of the matter is that Stupid's ideas won't make a bit of difference except to those kids whose college entrances he manages to screw up, in which case, they'll resent him and his lies even more, which is fine with me.

But I was amused enough by a couple of things to make a comment today. First: Dave's stupid claim about  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Fossils are your guide for keeping or throwing away dates as we have seen quite clearly now.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Except when no fossils at all are used, eh, AirHead? Like with lunar samples? Meteorites? Ancient prebiotic rocks? Thousands of dates don't rely on fossil calibration, hundreds of thousands. Little things like those that you haven't managed to come close to discrediting -- and instead just showed how truly stupid you are?

Here's another wonderfully stupid claim from Stupid, perfectly illustrating how far from reality his "10,000-foot view" is:  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It stands as the dumbest things in modern science that people can go all the way through 8 years of school and get PhD's in geology and yet NOT understand that "massive quantities of water-laid sedimentary rock got laid down by massive quantities of water,"
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The problem with your claim is immense here, AirHead. In regard to your claim about all fossils, everywhere, and all strata, everywhere being part of the same deluge, you have been questioned and found wanting.

Your "hypothesis" here doesn't even come close to dealing with the reality of strata and fossil data. Your claim is that it's ALL part of the same deluge, remember? Yet it's sorted...and like the question from the young person on page 2 on this section of your thread about HOW they got sorted....you can't explain it. Nor does the ICR...in fact, the "study" by the French "scientist" who has no degree (remember?) showed that even in the artificial setting he concocted, he couldn't get grains of 3 kinds to do what he needed them to do.
Furthermore, you couldn't show how eolian layers got in the mix, AirHead...shown by those terrible little spider tracks in the Coconino sandstone that you still can't explain. Nor can you explain the limestone layers preferentially deposited in the midst of this raging flood...limestones that are over 95% pure. Nor can you explain ( and you haven't even tried explaining) the paleosols in the Grand Staircase ( and don't try to play even more stupid than you are and say you haven't been shown examples...yes you have, Jon cited a ton of them)...and on and on and on, dozens of questions that negate your claim that the mere existence of lots of layers and lots of fossils supports your view.

It doesn't support your hypothesis..it supports the idea of deep time and a succession of fossils.  

And speaking of those fossils, I see you're still claiming that layers in the Grand Staircase are not radiometrically dated, despite the fact that I gave you dozens of dates on the Morrison alone. Do you really think lying so blatantly helps you? You began your original thread on your "hypothesis that is better than any other" by lying...and you continue it still. Bravo! You can lie for months at a time. Great. Now how about dealing with all the questions asked you about your hypothesis? Oh, yeah, you can't answer those, so you just puke up more ICR and AIG nonsense ( despite being lied to BY THEM...BWAHAHA, there's a turnaround...liars lying to each other).

So...how's about that Barringer meteor crater that is radiometrically dated at 49,000 years old and penetrated the layers of the Grand Canyon that you say are only 2300 years old?

How about those civilizations that had writing and wrote continuously before and after your alleged flood? And they didn't DIE!!.Bwahahaha. RUN, Dave, RUN. Questions are being asked...RUN!!!!
Posted by: stevestory on Sep. 27 2006,09:16

Quote (deadman_932 @ Sep. 27 2006,14:55)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It stands as the dumbest things in modern science that people can go all the way through 8 years of school and get PhD's in geology and yet NOT understand that "massive quantities of water-laid sedimentary rock got laid down by massive quantities of water,"
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And get doctorates in biology while virtually never rejecting evolution. And get astrophysics PhD's while NOT understanding that all the light they're looking at aren't really from far off galaxies, but were miracled into place. And get MD's while NOT understanding that you can drink any poison and not be harmed as long as you believe in Jesus...

Clearly, the dumbest people in the world are all the experts.
Posted by: ericmurphy on Sep. 27 2006,09:20

Quote (incorygible @ Sep. 27 2006,08:39)
 To truly understand my position on evolution, or even on molecular phylogenetics, you would have to sit in on more than a few university-level courses, read hundreds of textbooks, read literally thousands of papers, attend dozens of conferences, have a few beers and "back-of-the-envelope" sessions with dozens of prestigious scientists actually doing the work, do some of the work yourself, publish peer-reviewed papers where you apply the same principles, use the principles in a very practical facet of your job (determining populations or units of fish species that qualify for protection as endangered species, for example), and so on.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Or, Dave, you could recognize that you don't begin to have the necessary intellectual toolkit to understand this sort of highly-technical information, forget about your methodologically-dubious attempts to do end-runs around the hard parts, and accept the fact that the guys who have spent their careers studying this stuff (and the other guys who review their work to make sure it represents solid science) know it way, way, way better than you ever have a prayer of knowing it, and take their word for it.

When the entire scientific community (i.e., the relevant part of that community, not the engineers, the mathematicians, the astronomers, or the biblical scholars, for crying out loud) accepts that humans and chimps are more closely related to each other than either is to gorillas, maybe it's time for you to accept it as well. After all, guys who are way smarter than you are, e.g., Stephen Hawking, Leonard Susskind, Ed Witten, or Lisa Randall, accept the fact that they don't know nearly enough about primate evolution to critique the work of recognized experts in the field. What make you think you're qualified to do so?

If you were really interested in evidence supporting the (HC)G) phylogeny, you'd actually study that evidence (and not rely on the non-specialist critiques on AiG). You'd delve into the actual original research, and in order to do that, you'd need to have a pretty good understanding of the underlying science, which you most emphatically do not have.

Remember way back in May, on the very first day of this thread, when I < admonished > you about saying  you would "forgive scientists if they admit their errors and fix them"? You think you're going to find "errors" in Incorygible's, or JonF's, work, to say nothing of scientists of international reputation? This is exactly the kind of arrogance that drives people crazy around here, because God, Dave, no one I have ever seen in any Internet forum discussing science has less right than you do to be arrogant when it comes to science.

You're still laboring under the misapprehension that science is easy, Dave, and reading a few websites like AiG and ICR (which are not intended for even a scientifically-literate audience, let alone an audience of scientists) is enough to get you up to speed on topics like radiometric dating, primate genetics, stratigraphy, astrophysics, etc. But science isn't easy. It's extremely hard. Just getting knowledgeable about one tiny little subspecialty (< Lake Victoria cichlids >, and you'll note that the first paragraph of that abstract contradicts your young-earth "hypothesis," which should once more give you an idea of what you're up against in trying to disprove and old earth) can take an entire career. But you have the monumental arrogance to think you can take in all of science in one big year-long gulp from the muddy puddle of creationist websites, and get anywhere disproving all of science.

And you still can't come up with any actual support for your own hypothesis!
Posted by: Mike PSS on Sep. 27 2006,09:26

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 27 2006,08:29)
Mike PSS...              

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Your "Theory of Mike PSS not knowing what he's talking about" has to be proven by counterring the information I presented.
Where did I make a mistake in my argument?  Please be precise.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Contrary to what Eric thinks, I do not think that you and Jon do not understand RM dating.  I'm quite sure you do.  But that is an entirely different thing than being able to defend it reasonably and convince me that the "dates" obtained are real.  And I don't think you have made any mistakes in your arguments other than the fact that I really don't know what your argument is or what your point is.  But I am happy to hear it.  Now ... I do know what olivine is and I understand crystal formation somewhat.  What does this have to do with RM Dating being a valid indicator of true age.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

So AFDave.  When you said something like this but only 15hours 12minutes before you said this...          
Quote (afdave @ Sep. 26 2006,17:17)
I have shown you a lot of how it actually works.  And JonF has done as good a job of fighting for the Deep Timer cause as can be expected of anyone, given the impossibility of the task.  My theory is that you really don't know what you are talking about and that you are just pretending you do.  Asking you to do an executive summary simply allows me to determine whether you really understand the things you are talking about or not.  And whether you are serious about debating anything or not.  My guess is that you are not.  {my bolding in both blocks}
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

what was your point?  Ad Hominums are easier than addressing the issues.  AND what does Eric have to do with this?  Those are totally your words and quotes?  

Moving on.... I'll work with you on your request.  I'll try and summarize the following statement.  BUT first we have to agree upon the statement.  Do you agree to address the issues behind my summary of:

How crystallised olivine, originating from a homogeneous source, that contains Rb and Sr constituents can be tested using the Rb/Sr whole rock Isochron method and result in a data set forming a linear relation.
My summary will serve as my attempt to refute your claims of:
  • Whole rock Isochrons result in only single points from a sample (argued by Arndts and Overn also).
  • All whole rock Isochrons are better described as mixing lines.
After my summary you can review and respond to my summary as you see fit.  But first....

Do you agree to the above statement?
WARNING TO AFDAVE:  I am not indicating ages, time, or half-lives in my argument so any counter-arguments about time are not allowed.  I'm only trying to show the natural, physical processes for crystal formation as it relates to Rb/Sr testing and how these processes form the Rb/Sr whole rock Isochron graph.  My only contention is that Rb87 atoms decay to Sr87 atoms following published nuclear physical processes over some unspecified time (OR you can think of this numerically, some quantity of Rb decays to Sr after crystal formation but the quantity has no relation to the time involved if you want to bend your mind this way).  I can elaborate on this warning more if you don't understand ALL the implications related to this warning.

Mike PSS

p.s. AFDave, remember you can accept ALL Isochron graphs right now.  Just admit your argument against the Isochron testing was wrong (you can even say MISTAKEN).  You can STILL argue about time scales while accepting that the METHOD of whole rock Isochron testing is valid (in other words the data and graphs are correct but those funky time stamps on the side are wrong).  I'll stop pummelling you with this boring crystal stuff if you move your arguments to half-lives and accellerated nuclear decay rates.  Don't say I didn't warn you though  
Quote (Mike PSS @ Sep. 26 2006,11:49)
AFDave, eventually the only argument you will have left in this whole Isochron fiasco will be the "accellerated decay rate in the past" position.  Why not skip all the pretense and start arguing this position.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: stevestory on Sep. 27 2006,09:29

Quote (deadman_932 @ Sep. 27 2006,14:55)
I'd looked over AirHead's posts the last few days and thought about responding, but then decided not to -- the truth of the matter is that Stupid's ideas won't make a bit of difference except to those kids whose college entrances he manages to screw up, in which case, they'll resent him and his lies even more, which is fine with me.

But I was amused enough by a couple of things to make a comment today. First: Dave's stupid claim about  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Fossils are your guide for keeping or throwing away dates as we have seen quite clearly now.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Except when no fossils at all are used, eh, AirHead? Like with lunar samples? Meteorites? Ancient prebiotic rocks? Thousands of dates don't rely on fossil calibration, hundreds of thousands. Little things like those that you haven't managed to come close to discrediting -- and instead just showed how truly stupid you are?

Here's another wonderfully stupid claim from Stupid, perfectly illustrating how far from reality his "10,000-foot view" is:    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It stands as the dumbest things in modern science that people can go all the way through 8 years of school and get PhD's in geology and yet NOT understand that "massive quantities of water-laid sedimentary rock got laid down by massive quantities of water,"
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The problem with your claim is immense here, AirHead. In regard to your claim about all fossils, everywhere, and all strata, everywhere being part of the same deluge, you have been questioned and found wanting.

Your "hypothesis" here doesn't even come close to dealing with the reality of strata and fossil data. Your claim is that it's ALL part of the same deluge, remember? Yet it's sorted...and like the question from the young person on page 2 on this section of your thread about HOW they got sorted....you can't explain it. Nor does the ICR...in fact, the "study" by the French "scientist" who has no degree (remember?) showed that even in the artificial setting he concocted, he couldn't get grains of 3 kinds to do what he needed them to do.
Furthermore, you couldn't show how eolian layers got in the mix, AirHead...shown by those terrible little spider tracks in the Coconino sandstone that you still can't explain. Nor can you explain the limestone layers preferentially deposited in the midst of this raging flood...limestones that are over 95% pure. Nor can you explain ( and you haven't even tried explaining) the paleosols in the Grand Staircase ( and don't try to play even more stupid than you are and say you haven't been shown examples...yes you have, Jon cited a ton of them)...and on and on and on, dozens of questions that negate your claim that the mere existence of lots of layers and lots of fossils supports your view.

It doesn't support your hypothesis..it supports the idea of deep time and a succession of fossils.  

And speaking of those fossils, I see you're still claiming that layers in the Grand Staircase are not radiometrically dated, despite the fact that I gave you dozens of dates on the Morrison alone. Do you really think lying so blatantly helps you? You began your original thread on your "hypothesis that is better than any other" by lying...and you continue it still. Bravo! You can lie for months at a time. Great. Now how about dealing with all the questions asked you about your hypothesis? Oh, yeah, you can't answer those, so you just puke up more ICR and AIG nonsense ( despite being lied to BY THEM...BWAHAHA, there's a turnaround...liars lying to each other).

So...how's about that Barringer meteor crater that is radiometrically dated at 49,000 years old and penetrated the layers of the Grand Canyon that you say are only 2300 years old?

How about those civilizations that had writing and wrote continuously before and after your alleged flood? And they didn't DIE!!.Bwahahaha. RUN, Dave, RUN. Questions are being asked...RUN!!!!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's impressive watching you guys take down AFDave. It's kind of like watching Mike Tyson knock a 6th-grader's head completely off his body.
Posted by: Henry J on Sep. 27 2006,10:08

Re "and yet NOT understand that "massive quantities of water-laid sedimentary rock got laid down by massive quantities of water,""

Wonder if the phrase "water cycle" would ring any bells here...
Posted by: stevestory on Sep. 27 2006,10:17

After a 4 month dry spell, AFDumdum has a new post up at his blog.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Monday, September 25, 2006

THE BOOK OF GENESIS: EYEWITNESS ACCOUNTS FROM THE DAWN OF TIME

Today I will do a book review of a book entitled "Ancient Records and the Structure of Genesis." What this book does is show clearly that Genesis is "Eyewitness History" re-establishing the pre-JEDP view of the Book of Genesis. The book was written by Air Commodore P.J. Wiseman and edited and updated by his son, Professor of Assyriology Donald J. Wiseman. This material has been referred to by some Bible commentators including Henry Morris and R.K. Harrison, but I had never personally examined the book. I found a used copy (had to pay $85!;) and what a treat it has been. Absolutely fascinating book!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Comments are turned off, presumably because Dave's family knows about the blog, and Dave doesn't want them seeing what we have to say about his horribly bad thinking.

< http://airdave.blogspot.com/ >
Posted by: incorygible on Sep. 27 2006,10:30

Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 27 2006,14:29)
It's impressive watching you guys take down AFDave. It's kind of like watching Mike Tyson knock a 6th-grader's head completely off his body.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Which would be kind of sad entertainment, really, if said 6th-grader's headless corpse didn't then get up, time after time, and prance around the playground with his arms upheld in victory. At which point you feel compelled to grab another handful of popcorn. Hit 'im again, Mike!

Or even knock his block off yourself a few times. He doesn't even realize it's gone, so it's easy to excuse as a victimless crime, despite the obviously shameful mismatch.
Posted by: ericmurphy on Sep. 27 2006,11:47

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 27 2006,07:29)
And I'll say it again and again.  It stands as the dumbest things in modern science that people can go all the way through 8 years of school and get PhD's in geology and yet NOT understand that "massive quantities of water-laid sedimentary rock got laid down by massive quantities of water,"  (The second dumbest thing is that people like Steve Story say people like me are dumb for pointing this out.  Oh well!;)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, Dave. By far the dumbest thing I've ever heard said here is that 5,000 (or 50,000, of 500,000) feet of water could have laid down 5,000 feet of sediment, to say nothing of 17,000 feet of sediment. You simply refuse to address this bone-simple problem that completely blows your "global catastrophic flood hypothesis" away.

You simply don't have nearly enough water to accomplish what you need to accomplish. (In actual fact, you don't have any water, let alone enough water.) Do you think no one has noticed this glaring problem with your "hypothesis," Dave?

So what's your answer (for easily the twentieth time)? How do account for the 5,000—15,000 feet of sediment, when you yourself have only proposed 5,000 feet of water? What's your explanation for this glaringly obvious discrepancy between your "hypothesis" and reality?

And this is only one of many, many, many problems with just the "global catastrophic flood" part of your "hypothesis." The rest of the elements of your "UPDATED Creator God Hypothesis" are similarly at odds with observation. In other words, your whole "hypothesis" is bleeding not from a thousand cuts, but from a million sucking chest wounds, Dave.
Posted by: ericmurphy on Sep. 27 2006,11:56

Wow. I just checked out Dave's blog for the first time, and what a feeling of déja vu that precipitated. After looking at it, I can pretty much guarantee he will never, ever turn on comments. Can you imagine what would happen over there to his "Creator God Hypothesis" if he ever did? It would look just like this thread.

I think it's a testament to Dave's believe in the strength of his own arguments that comments are disabled on his own blog. If he really thought he was obliterating our arguments left and right, why would he not want those same arguments on his own blog so he could show them to all his friends?

So it really is just braggadoccio, Dave. You don't even believe you're winning any arguments here; you just pretend you do.

[edit] I just noticed that in the picture of Dave's family on his blog, there are six individuals. Shouldn't there be seven? DAve + Wife + Five Kids = ? Or is this one of those "Portuguese" things? Or maybe someone just couldn't make it to the photo op?
Posted by: argystokes on Sep. 27 2006,12:09

Unfortunately, Dave felt compelled to turn off comments (and erase those already there) after BWE said the poop word or something.

But Dave, why did you erase all the existing comments, such as mine?
Posted by: skeptic on Sep. 27 2006,13:54

Quote (incorygible @ Sep. 27 2006,15:30)
Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 27 2006,14:29)
It's impressive watching you guys take down AFDave. It's kind of like watching Mike Tyson knock a 6th-grader's head completely off his body.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Which would be kind of sad entertainment, really, if said 6th-grader's headless corpse didn't then get up, time after time, and prance around the playground with his arms upheld in victory. At which point you feel compelled to grab another handful of popcorn. Hit 'im again, Mike!

Or even knock his block off yourself a few times. He doesn't even realize it's gone, so it's easy to excuse as a victimless crime, despite the obviously shameful mismatch.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


A very appropriate analogy and should really give you guys pause in light of the fact (and if you continue the anaolgy) that if Tyson actually did hit a 6th grader he'd be in prison again.  You guys ought to feel a little ashamed of yourselves.
Posted by: creeky belly on Sep. 27 2006,13:57



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
A very appropriate analogy and should really give you guys pause in light of the fact (and if you continue the anaolgy) that if Tyson actually did hit a 6th grader he'd be in prison again.  You guys ought to feel a little ashamed of yourselves.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Don't worry, it was a legally sanctioned fight. The sixth grader just has a bad promoter.
Posted by: ericmurphy on Sep. 27 2006,14:13

Quote (skeptic @ Sep. 27 2006,18:54)
A very appropriate analogy and should really give you guys pause in light of the fact (and if you continue the anaolgy) that if Tyson actually did hit a 6th grader he'd be in prison again.  You guys ought to feel a little ashamed of yourselves.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What do you mean? Dave thinks he's winning!
Posted by: deadman_932 on Sep. 27 2006,15:19



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It's impressive watching you guys take down AFDave. It's kind of like watching Mike Tyson knock a 6th-grader's head completely off his body.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
A very appropriate analogy and should really give you guys pause in light of the fact (and if you continue the anaolgy) that if Tyson actually did hit a 6th grader he'd be in prison again.  You guys ought to feel a little ashamed of yourselves.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I feel great about it all  :D Considering that Dave had the temerity to call my ancestors "devolved," I'm glad to kick him in the huevos when I get the hankerin'. Steve is just making fun of my lisp, the bastard...Signed, Drederick "deadman" Tatum.
Posted by: Mike PSS on Sep. 27 2006,16:29

AFDave got me thinking (note to self; check expiration date of my medication) and one of his primary arguments has one more hole {glaring inconsistency, logical gap, sucking chest wound, whatever}.

One of his primary (there's that word again) arguments against RM dating is:      

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If certain rocks are not qualified for RM dating, then how can we qualify ANY rock legitimately?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



JonF, deadman, ericmurphy and others have said quite clearly that proper sample selection for testing counters this argument.  Another counter used is how does AFDave explain the date ranges that DO result from the proper samples.

But Dave's argument is ALSO against the METHOD of RM testing along with the results.  From his statement, he believes that ALL samples, no matter what their position or origin should give concordant results otherwise the technique of RM testing is somehow not worth anything.  I can hear AFDave saying right now; "Unless and until RM testing can atain this level of performance, I can't believe it."

I'm going to start holding AFDave's evidence to the same level of expectation. :D

AFDave is Luddite and doesn't like those RM machines.
Posted by: ericmurphy on Sep. 27 2006,17:49

Quote (Mike PSS @ Sep. 27 2006,21:29)
I'm going to start holding AFDave's evidence to the same level of expectation. :D
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Which will be a great idea, once he actually starts presenting it.

But Dave's whole premise that you can't trust any testing methodology unless it's 100% accurate is facially absurd. No testing methodology is 100% accurate, but that doesn't stop Dave from going to the doctor. If the doctor came to Dave and said to him, "I've got bad news: your test results come back, and it looks like there's a possibility you've got colorectal cancer" (no tasteless jokes, please), would Dave's response be, "I don't need any exploratory surgery, because your test isn't 100% accurate and therefore is worthless"? Doubtful.

But Dave's issues with radiometric dating are psychological, not methodological. Dave is well aware of the fact that radiometric dating (among zillions of other things) is the death knell for his worldview, and therefore he simply cannot accept that it is accurate. Therefore, it's imperative that he try to find some way to discredit in his own eyes, which initially I thought he was able to do, but given that he does not allow comments on his own blog, I'm starting to think otherwise. I think Dave realizes he's been defeated here (don't worry, Dave; I'm not expecting you to admit it), but he can't ever stop fighting, which means he'll be our favorite Creationist piñata for some time to come.
Posted by: Henry J on Sep. 27 2006,17:52

Re "I'm going to start holding AFDave's evidence to the same level of expectation. :D"

You'll have to find it, first. ;)

Henry
Posted by: Crabby Appleton on Sep. 27 2006,20:03

Quote (Mike PSS @ Sep. 27 2006,21:29)
I'm going to start holding AFDave's evidence to the same level of expectation. :D

AFDave is Luddite and doesn't like those RM machines.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The only evidence DDTTD has presented here is that he's a liar and a willfully ignorant moron (as well as a coward).

From his own blog;



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I actually enjoy getting comments from people who DISAGREE with me. The stronger your disagreement and the more intelligent you sound, the better!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



He thinks he's being clever by making statements like this.

His sole purpose here is to be (symbolically crucified) banned.

He's too cowardly to die for what he believes (like the apostles supposedly did), he won't take a physical beating for what he believes. He won't even take an intellectual/psychological beating on HIS OWN BLOG! That's why comments are turned off on his blog and why I'm sure he hasn't shown any of his friends this website.

Our Radical Diletantte Dave is merely tolerated by those in his life because he's a competent taxi driver.
Posted by: k.e on Sep. 28 2006,03:56



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Our Radical Diletantte Dave is merely tolerated by those in his life because he's a competent taxi driver.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Yeah I'll bet that's the one time when he doesn't make people pray when they are in his company...just before take off.
Posted by: Mike PSS on Sep. 28 2006,04:27

Quote (Henry J @ Sep. 27 2006,23:52)
Re "I'm going to start holding AFDave's evidence to the same level of expectation. :D"

You'll have to find it, first. ;)

Henry
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But in AFDave's mind, he has produced at least two pieces of evidence.

1) MASSIVE amounts of water-laid sediment.
2) A book.

Everyone else on this board has ripped this evidence to shreds.  I'm just saying that if AFDave wants to present these (and other) items that he terms as evidence for his arguments that he hold it to the same standards he holds for RM dating.

I'm purposefully avoiding any direct attacks on Dave's character.  I know this leads to (what I think are) boring posts, and I could cut loose any minute, but it doesn't serve MY purpose here. ;)   His last bit of theater, accusing me of "pretending to know this stuff" caused me to walk away from the keyboard and think before I typed.  I don't want AFDave to have any "outs" in my present discussion about crystal formation and Isochrons.  The evidence is rock solid  :p and everyone knows that AFDave has only one option, to argue against the actual age results.  If anyone sees another "out" that I'm missing then bring it up now and I can patch my argument accordingly.
Posted by: k.e on Sep. 28 2006,04:37

Mike PSS


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If anyone sees another "out" that I'm missing then bring it up now and I can patch my argument accordingly.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------



For AFD ignorance is bliss .....and no one has as much bliss as him..so he will ignore you...post a massive long pile of dog do doos to push your post off the page so he doesn't have to look at it, change the subject and claim victory.

You can lead an loony to a psychiatrist but you can't make him listen, as long as he holds his fingers in his ears and jumps up and down and screams lalalalalalalala.
Posted by: ericmurphy on Sep. 28 2006,05:48

Quote (k.e @ Sep. 28 2006,09:37)
For AFD ignorance is bliss .....and no one has as much bliss as him..so he will ignore you...post a massive long pile of dog do doos to push your post off the page so he doesn't have to look at it, change the subject and claim victory.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


…But you should continue nevertheless, Mike. Dave won't learn anything (his worldview depends on his not learning anything) but the rest of us probably will, and personally, I'm fascinated.

And, in truth, watching Dave try to wriggle around your evidence is fascinating, too.
Posted by: k.e on Sep. 28 2006,06:17

ericmurphy said.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
…But you should continue nevertheless, Mike. Dave won't learn anything (his worldview depends on his not learning anything) but the rest of us probably will, and personally, I'm fascinated.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I certainly don't want to discourage Mike PSS from further posts..,EXCEPT for AutisticFartDave the rest of the posts have been very enlightening.

But to give AFD his due.... without him we wouldn't be treated to a full scale pathological cognitive dissonance of biblical proportions, he's like a huge fridge to which little magnetic snippets of real science have been attached, except the light doesn't go on when you open the door...we just get the dank smell of rotting jesus fish. NPD? we should donate this thread to the American Psychiatrists Association as an example and AFD you should respond in kind by donating your body to science, I'm truly interested to see if there is *ANYTHING* inside your skull.
Now don't forget, in your will don't say “Donate my body to pseudoscience!”
Posted by: Mike PSS on Sep. 28 2006,07:33

Quote (ericmurphy @ Sep. 28 2006,11:48)
   
Quote (k.e @ Sep. 28 2006,09:37)
For AFD ignorance is bliss .....and no one has as much bliss as him..so he will ignore you...post a massive long pile of dog do doos to push your post off the page so he doesn't have to look at it, change the subject and claim victory.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


…But you should continue nevertheless, Mike. Dave won't learn anything (his worldview depends on his not learning anything) but the rest of us probably will, and personally, I'm fascinated.

And, in truth, watching Dave try to wriggle around your evidence is fascinating, too.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wriggle around.   AFDave tried both barrels of a shotgun approach.  But thanks to stevestory's disarming reply that turned into a slapstick comedy moment.  Cue clown car and circus music.


Ahhhhhh....   Good times....
Posted by: Diogenes on Sep. 28 2006,08:42

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 27 2006,07:29)
[massive snippage]
Thanks.  And I'll say it again and again.  It stands as the dumbest things in modern science that people can go all the way through 8 years of school and get PhD's in geology and yet NOT understand that "massive quantities of water-laid sedimentary rock got laid down by massive quantities of water,"  (The second dumbest thing is that people like Steve Story say people like me are dumb for pointing this out.  Oh well!;)
[snip]
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


For me, this pretty much sums up the entire debate.  Dave is of the belief that the hundreds of thousands of scientists in the world, in Geology, Astronomy, Physics, and Biology, from different countries, different backgrounds, and different religions, all to a man are either liars or idiots.  

Furthmore he is of the belief that a laymen armed with a Bible in one hand and the Encyclopedia Brittanica in the other can easily with a single picture, or a quick phrase destroy the founding principles of a branch of science, even when competing against experts in the individual fields who have dedicated their lives to understanding the field, and can do so for all the branches of science.  The fact that he often asks for help understanding a principle before he rhetorically rapes that principle is not a problem apparently.

Everyone else that posts on this thread appears to disagree with Dave.  Given the rather large chasm between the view of reality between the two parties, I'd guess the odds are against either changing the mind of the other.
Posted by: ericmurphy on Sep. 28 2006,08:50

Quote (Diogenes @ Sep. 28 2006,13:42)
Given the rather large chasm between the view of reality between the two parties, I'd guess the odds are against either changing the mind of the other.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I don't think anyone here harbors any illusions about being able to change Dave's mind. I knew Dave was lying when he said he might become an evolutionist as soon as he said it.

But he sure makes a fun pinata!
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Sep. 28 2006,14:30

Eric:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I don't think anyone here harbors any illusions about being able to change Dave's mind. I knew Dave was lying when he said he might become an evolutionist as soon as he said it.

But he sure makes a fun pinata!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



But is Dave worse at answering questions than any of ya'll?  ;)
Posted by: G. cuvier on Sep. 28 2006,14:41

Having read this thread from it's inception, let me just say that it has been hysterical. Everyone's responses to AFDave reminded me of this...
< Robot Chicken - One-sided Fistfights >
Posted by: ericmurphy on Sep. 28 2006,14:52

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Sep. 28 2006,19:30)
But is Dave worse at answering questions than any of ya'll?  ;)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yep. He's much worse. The list of questions Dave's never answered gets longer every week.

I'm talking about questions that Dave's never even acknowledged, let alone answered.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Sep. 28 2006,18:18



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But is Dave worse at answering questions than any of ya'll?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Like eric said, yeah, he's much worse. In fact, I and others have told him explicitly that he would be answered if he asks a direct question...and he has been answered each time he has asked one. Whether he ACCEPTS the answers is irrelevant, what counts is the QUALITY of the responses, which have been very high in each and every case.
The same can't be said at all about DumbAssDave's responses, nor has he even addressed dozens of questions that have been posed to him. So, yeah, he's  inferior in that regard. He has a LITTLE "skill" in avoidance, denial, unresponsive reversals, etc., but he's not nearly as accomplished in the art of weaseling as you , GoP -- perhaps because he's just a tad more stupid, but with a touch more moral fiber, low as it is. Now, shoo, and go play with your silly little geocentric model that you got slapped around with, stupid.
Posted by: afdave on Sep. 29 2006,03:09

MORE WILD SPECULATION ABOUT MANY THINGS AND STILL NOTHING CONVINCING ON ISOCHRONS

Mike PSS ... I have not claimed much of anything about mineral isochrons yet, other than the quotes from EB that show how "selective" one must be to get concordance.  Neither I nor Arndts nor Overn have claimed that whole rock isochrons only form a single point. We have only claimed that you (Deep Timers) cannot show that they are not merely mixing lines.  Combine this fact with the fact that discordances are the rule not the exception, and what do you have?  Well, you have ...

a) radioactive decay has indeed occurred
b) it is not a reliable indicator of true age

Now if you would like to show me how this is false and explain to me why mineral isochrons are the "magic bullet" that really show a true age for the earth, fine.  Be my guest.  

I see someone was surprised that I said that if you have to be selective to get "datable" rocks, then this throws ALL rocks into question.  The reason for this is simple.  What is the criteria for "correct" dates?  I have said it is fossils which is actually not specific enough.  It is actually Fossils plus the whole Fairy Tale of Evolution.  This answers Deadman's objection.  It appears to me that Deep Timers "need" the earth to be billions of years old, thus rocks are "dated" by keeping dates which fit in with the Grand Evo Fairy Tale.  If the rocks have fossils, all the better because "dates" can be selected more easily.

I also see that Deadman is continuing in his fallacious thinking that me not answering all his questions somehow means that I am "losing."  This is interesting and betrays Deadman's misperceptions about my goals (he thinks I am trying to "win"), and he thinks "winning" is gauged by how many of the opposition's questions one can answer. What he may never understand is that I am on a Truth Search regarding Origins and Human Nature.  And it is a fascinating search.

Every once in a while you all give me a glimpse into your minds and how you determine truth for yourselves.  I get these opportunities every time you speculate about some aspect of my life.  It is interesting because I know the truth about my own life far better than Origins issues, so it is quite obvious and funny when I see some of you making some wild speculation about some aspect of my life.  I've had people think I claimed to be a fighter pilot, had people say I washed out of pilot training in the Air Force, people that said I couldn't make rank, and got helicopters forced on me because I couldn't fly anything else and on and on.  I had Deadman speculating that my dad never contacted the Wai-wai Indians in Brazil and that I am getting rich off of Kids4Truth.

The latest fun has been Steve Story speculating about my blog site ...  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Comments are turned off, presumably because Dave's family knows about the blog, and Dave doesn't want them seeing what we have to say about his horribly bad thinking. < http://airdave.blogspot.com/ >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Actually, my family gets a kick out of reading this thread (ATBC) sometimes ... they (and many of my friends) have had access to it since the beginning.  As for comments on my blog, it's too much work right now.  I'm spending my forum time here.  But your comment provides an interesting parallel to the Evolutionist Approach to Truth.  What you WANT to believe seriously clouds your thinking and causes you to arrive at erroneous conclusions.

Another good one is Eric counting my family members ... he has heard me say there are seven people in my family, but he only counts 6 in my family picture.  Hmmmm ... he says, "a Portuguese moment for poor Dave?" (betraying that he still thinks I was wrong about Portuguese)  I'll leave this one hanging and see if there are any rocket scientists here who can figure this one out.

I also find it funny that some people think I need to get advanced degrees in 10 different areas to be able to refute Evolution.  And of course, there is the persistent notion that since "95% of the scientists in the world believe something, it must be true."  (**cough cough** forget about Galileo and Copernicus) And one final zinger is the erroneous notion that Evolution supports the real world of business, but Creationism does not.

I see that Aftershave finally got slapped down for his foul mouth (er ... keyboard) ... I remember admonishing him and others in this regard months ago.  I said that all he was really accomplishing was making Evos look bad.  Steve Story apparently agrees now.  I guess I should have kept my mouth shut since it is to the advantage of my cause for Evos to look bad.  But I do feel sorry for the underdog and I can't help but wish for him to have a sporting chance.  Seriously, my true goal for ALL is that you would come to the knowledge of the truth.  I have no interest in "winning" a personal war.  I only want others to benefit from the knowledge of the Truth in their lives as I have benefitted.  I do realize that the odds of hardened skeptics coming to a knowledge of the truth are slim, which is why I take my message to kids, but nevertheless, you all will never forget what you have learned here, whether you accept it now or not.

No time right now to give you any more info on RM Dating.  If anyone wants to try to convince me why Mineral Isochrons prove Deep Time, I'm all ears.  Hopefully, I will have time next week to dive into this topic a little more.

I will also be taking "The Best of ATBC" over to my blog site over the next few months.  I will let you know when new articles appear there.

***********************************************

Mike PSS...

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
How crystallised olivine, originating from a homogeneous source, that contains Rb and Sr constituents can be tested using the Rb/Sr whole rock Isochron method and result in a data set forming a linear relation.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

No disagreement here.  I just don't think it proves Deep Time.  As for my claims, you got one of them very close to right, but the other is wrong.  Now ... convince me of something if you can.
Posted by: k.e on Sep. 29 2006,03:47

AFD projects:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Actually, my family gets a kick out of reading this thread (ATBC) sometimes ... they (and many of my friends) have had access to it since the beginning.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Is that right AFD? ..terrific..get them to logon and say hello..I say you're lying.




---------------------QUOTE-------------------

As for comments on my blog, it's too much work right now.  I'm spending my forum time here.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Really? ...another bald faced lie. You're too chickensh*t to turn on comments. Spin away AFD you're not convincing anyone.

And now the money shot .....all creos do it ....as sure as the Pope is a Catholic.. they can't help themselves.
Let me help you fix your next comment for you AFD.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

But your MYcomment provides an interesting parallel to the EvolutionistCreationist Approach to Truth.  What you I WANT to believe seriously clouds your MY thinking and causes you ME  to arrive at erroneous conclusions.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Say whatever you like AFD, what you do not realize is that every single loony creo that has popped up here and on PT has EXACTLY the same Modus Operandi.

They each naively without the slightest hint of self awareness make the same mistake...you are just a parody..and no university in the world teaches a parody as science.

Go for it AFD...project your faults for all to see.... you are just a total loser.
Posted by: k.e on Sep. 29 2006,03:53

AFD makes another hollow boast:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I will also be taking "The Best of ATBC" over to my blog site over the next few months.  I will let you know when new articles appear there.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Why bother?

All you have done is C&P'ed creationist claptrap and hogwash.

If you were honest you would just provide the links to this thread......coward.
Posted by: improvius on Sep. 29 2006,03:57

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 29 2006,09:09)
But your comment provides an interesting parallel to the Evolutionist Approach to Truth.  What you WANT to believe seriously clouds your thinking and causes you to arrive at erroneous conclusions.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This seems to be the core of your Grand Evolutionist Conspiracy hypothesis.  But I don't think you have any supporting evidence for it.  In fact, the reality seems to be exactly the opposite of what you are saying.  I think I have a fairly objective view of the whole situation, and it seems obvious to me that the YECs such as yourself have far more of a psychological stake in the age of the earth than any of the "evolutionist" scientists.  As far as I can tell, the only people who are "seeing what they want to see" in regards to science are the fundamentalist Christians.

I'll grant you that there has been a lot of idle speculation WRT your personal life and issues, but I think that's beside the point.  Such things are already acknowledged as emotional reactions to your inability (or unwillingness) to comprehend simple logic.  But, as far as I can tell, the science discussed here (with the exception of any YEC claims that you present) bears no such bias.

YOU are the one who is desperate to match facts to your beliefs - not the scientists.
Posted by: incorygible on Sep. 29 2006,04:45

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 29 2006,08:09)
a) radioactive decay has indeed occurred
b) it is not a reliable indicator of true age
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Schrodinger's Cat just rolled over in its box.
Posted by: incorygible on Sep. 29 2006,05:09



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
This is interesting and betrays Deadman's misperceptions about my goals (he thinks I am trying to "win"), and he thinks "winning" is gauged by how many of the opposition's questions one can answer. What he may never understand is that I am on a Truth Search regarding Origins and Human Nature.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



That's fine if your version of "Truth" does not require being able to answer questions.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And it is a fascinating search.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I'll bet it is! A limitless flight of fancy unconstrained by buzzkills like reality? Pass some this way.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I also find it funny that some people think I need to get advanced degrees in 10 different areas to be able to refute Evolution.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



That's fine if you don't feel particularly compelled to actually understand that which you are refuting.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And one final zinger is the erroneous notion that Evolution supports the real world of business, but Creationism does not.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Since I can't recall anything else said recently on this front, surely you aren't representing my "executive summary" analogy (which used an appropriate-for-the-term corporate setting to illustrate increasing levels of understanding in a subject) as "evolution supports the real world of business"?

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
but nevertheless, you all will never forget what you have learned here, whether you accept it now or not.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Technically true, perhaps, and generally true if you are referring to the informative posts of others. But when it comes to yourself, Dave, I think you seriously misunderstand what we are learning from you. Plato you ain't, big guy.
Posted by: ericmurphy on Sep. 29 2006,05:55

Interesting that Dave has time to post a 1,000-word essay on why he's not losing here, but no time to post his objections to isochrons.

And Dave? You need a lot more than advanced degrees in 10 different fields to be able to "refute" evolution. Evolution is a fact, and no one who has actually studied the subject in any depth at all doubts it. In fact, you don't even doubt it. In fact, your "hypothesis" requires evolution rates far beyond anything contemplated by any theory of evolution, if you think the several thousand "kinds" on the ark have diversified into the tens of millions of species currently in existence in less than five thousand years. (Strange how silent you've been on this issue, like so many other issues, such as the depth of sediment your "flood" needs to account for.)

And that's why we know you're "losing," Dave. Your "hypothesis" has a number of absolutely fatal flaws to it (the above-mentioned two are representative of dozens), and your inability to address these critical problems with your theory means you are, indeed, "losing." As I pointed out to Bill, not only do you not answer these questions, you don't even acknowledge them.

Oh, so you want to refute the theory of evolution? Is that what you meant to say? Well, you're still going to need advanced degrees in ten subjects or more, because contrary to your bone-headed misapprehensions about how science works, the evidence in favor of the theory is mountainous.

And one more thing, Dave: "evolutionists" don't require the earth to billions of years old. The vast majority of complex multicellular life has arisen in less than the last billion years. For the first three billion years, life basically amounted to bacteria. So why do "evolutionists" "need" the earth to be 4.55 billion years old? They don't. They think the earth is 4.55 billion years old because the evidence supports that date. You're the one with an emotional attachment to a world six orders of magnitude younger than that, because otherwise your whole life becomes based on a lie. So don't go around accusing scientists of having an agenda. Your agenda couldn't be any clearer if you came out and admitted it (which, in some cases, such as the phylogeny of great apes, you already have).
Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Sep. 29 2006,06:03

Yeah ShitForBrains Dave, I sure got 'slapped down' alright!  :D  :D  :D

I bet the readers and lurkers here will accept my honest statements with vulgarities over your sugar-coated and flowery set of outright lies any day of the week.  Want to start a poll and bet on it?

When are you going to discuss the C14 calibration like you promised Davie?
When are you going to discuss the time required to form limestone?
When are you going to discuss the time required to form 1000 ft. of limestone, erode a canyon in it, then cover it with 17,000 ft. of sediment?
When are you going to discuss the two dozen sequentially buried mature forests in Yellowstone?

See Davie, stevestory can delete my harsh language when I slip across the line (as I occasionally do) and it won't alter my scientific arguments one little bit.

If he started deleting your lies, there would be nothing left but a blank white page.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Sep. 29 2006,06:04



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Neither I nor Arndts nor Overn have claimed that whole rock isochrons only form a single point. We have only claimed that you (Deep Timers) cannot show that they are not merely mixing lines.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, THEY said it. YOU parroted it, without knowing what the #### you were talking about. So much so that you felt compelled to invent fantasies out of whole cloth.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
This answers Deadman's objection.  It appears to me that Deep Timers "need" the earth to be billions of years old, thus rocks are "dated" by keeping dates which fit in with the Grand Evo Fairy Tale.  If the rocks have fossils, all the better because "dates" can be selected more easily.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Actually, no it doesn't answer my objections. As I previously posted, in the lunar and meteorite and prebiotic rock samples...all the radiometric methods used ...agreed. That is what you failed to address..the actual data. You have given what you think is a psychological reason for all scientists everywhere to FAKE dates...but you have not shown that they ARE fake. The term you are searching for here in psychology is "projection," little ProvenLiarDave.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I also see that Deadman is continuing in his fallacious thinking that me not answering all his questions somehow means that I am "losing."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You have a hypothesis that you are attempting to support, yet you cannot support it by answering questions, thus your "hypothesis that is better than any other" fails at several levels of requirements. This eliminates your hypothesis as valid or viable until corrected.  If you believe this is "fallacious" to think so, please explain your reasoning and cite the fallacy -- because this is a basic tenet of science, Stupid, a thing you again, fail miserably at grasping.

Your intellectual dishonesty forces you to avoid or otherwise lie, Stupid--you have no choice. This sort of thing is admirably illustrated by the fact that you have not directly responded to Jon or Mike's explanations/queries on the subject of whole-rock dating, again.
Posted by: carlsonjok on Sep. 29 2006,06:13

Quote (incorygible @ Sep. 29 2006,10:09)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And one final zinger is the erroneous notion that Evolution supports the real world of business, but Creationism does not.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Since I can't recall anything else said recently on this front, surely you aren't representing my "executive summary" analogy (which used an appropriate-for-the-term corporate setting to illustrate increasing levels of understanding in a subject) as "evolution supports the real world of business"?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, this addresses the fact that "old earth" geology is used quite successfully in the oil and gas industry.  Dave was asked the question regarding whether any such companies were using "young earth" geology to find oil.  Not surprisingly, Dave didn't answer.
Posted by: incorygible on Sep. 29 2006,06:17

Quote (carlsonjok @ Sep. 29 2006,11:13)
Quote (incorygible @ Sep. 29 2006,10:09)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And one final zinger is the erroneous notion that Evolution supports the real world of business, but Creationism does not.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Since I can't recall anything else said recently on this front, surely you aren't representing my "executive summary" analogy (which used an appropriate-for-the-term corporate setting to illustrate increasing levels of understanding in a subject) as "evolution supports the real world of business"?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, this addresses the fact that "old earth" geology is used quite successfully in the oil and gas industry.  Dave was asked the question regarding whether any such companies were using "young earth" geology to find oil.  Not surprisingly, Dave didn't answer.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ah! Silly me. I keep forgetting that evolution = geology.  My bad.
Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Sep. 29 2006,06:21



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
No, this addresses the fact that "old earth" geology is used quite successfully in the oil and gas industry.  Dave was asked the question regarding whether any such companies were using "young earth" geology to find oil.  Not surprisingly, Dave didn't answer.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I was the one a few months back who asked Dave questions about ANY businesses based on YEC models
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Why are there so many profitable companies that use the Old Earth paradigm as the basis for a successful business case?  

Why is there not a single company anywhere in the world that uses your 6000 year old Young Earth paradigm as the basis for a business case?  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


and
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If the YE model is the ‘truth’ and is so superior to the OE model, why has no YEC figured out a way to make money from it?  Why aren’t you, the super-duper businessman, making money from it?  Looks like you would have no competition IF you could figure out a good business case.  AFAICT, the only way to make money from YE is to sell pseudo-scientific books and videos to boobs like yourself who are desperate to have their delusions reinforced
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



As you note, Dishonest Dave never could come up with an answer.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Sep. 29 2006,06:54

Dave,
When will the earth be 6001 years old? Is there a specific day? Is it new years day?
Or is gawd keeping it at 6000 for ever?
It's a simple question but i dont expect an answer.
Posted by: ericmurphy on Sep. 29 2006,07:07

Quote (incorygible @ Sep. 29 2006,11:17)
Ah! Silly me. I keep forgetting that evolution = geology.  My bad.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Actually, more generally, "evolution" = "any scientific fact or theory that conflicts with my worldview." This may come as a surprise, but theories of cosmology or, e.g., stellar evolution are actually parts of the Theory of Evolution, to the extent that they require the universe to be more than 6,000 years old. It's a little-known fact that there is a conspiracy among cosmologists, astrophysicists, high-energy physicists, geologists, and evolutionary biologists, and others to defraud the public into thinking the Bible is false.
Posted by: BWE on Sep. 29 2006,07:27

Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Sep. 29 2006,11:21)
I was the one a few months back who asked Dave questions about ANY businesses based on YEC models
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Why are there so many profitable companies that use the Old Earth paradigm as the basis for a successful business case?  

Why is there not a single company anywhere in the world that uses your 6000 year old Young Earth paradigm as the basis for a business case?  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


and
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If the YE model is the ‘truth’ and is so superior to the OE model, why has no YEC figured out a way to make money from it?  Why aren’t you, the super-duper businessman, making money from it?  Looks like you would have no competition IF you could figure out a good business case.  AFAICT, the only way to make money from YE is to sell pseudo-scientific books and videos to boobs like yourself who are desperate to have their delusions reinforced
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



As you note, Dishonest Dave never could come up with an answer.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Are you serious?

Snake oil peddlers the world around use YEC models to make money. Dr. Dino? Tent revivals?

Hmm. Interesting that they are all making money by asking for donations from those who believe them isn't it?

Dave, Core samples? Let me know.

PS:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
afdave  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Posted: May 18 2006,22:21    

...Yes.  I knew about the planet thing.  I actually speak quite a bit of Spanish and Portuguese (which of course is Spanish and French mixed).

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


afdave  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Here's the specific statement that I am defending:

1)  AF Dave says that Spanish and Portuguese were essentially the same language until 1143 AD when Portugal broke away from Spanish control under a French nobleman by the name of Henry of Burgundy.  From this point on, the languages diverged into the modern situation.  The primary influence on the linguistic divergence was the French language.

2)  Rilke and Toejam say I am wrong

How much are you willing to bet?  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




afdave    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Posted: May 19 2006,08:37  
Rilke--

You keep saying I'm wrong, but you haven't put your money where your mouth is.  Just tell me how much money it's going to be ...

$500 says I can prove my statement (my later, more specific statement).  Are you willing to put up $500 and prove me wrong?

You know the wager ... it's as clear as a bell ...

Now are you going to back up your claim?  Or are you going to retract it and apologize?  Or shall I embarrass you publicly in front of all your friends?

Your choice, sweetie.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


BWE    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Posted: May 19 2006,14:22  
Davey-dog. You are an idiot. Define Spanish. Be careful, that's a trick question. Next Define spanish around the time of song of roland.  

I'll take your bet. But the stakes are different. If I win, I get to write a post on your blog, if you win, you get to write a post for my blog. and one more thing, please answer some age of the earth questions.


Just because I think you are stupid, I am not going to do any preliminary research.

And I am making some assumptions about your claim:

1) the portuguese language substantially changed beginning in the year 1143.

2) The Spanish you are referring to is Castilian

3) The french language and the Castillian language are the major components of modern Portuguese.

4) the dialect of Portuguese you are referring to is the one spoken in Lisbon.

5) That you are making an all or nothing claim similar to  your others (there are no gray areas)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

< link >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

< link here >

So you see, when you say that you didn't lose the portuguese thing, you get responses that disagree.
Posted by: stevestory on Sep. 29 2006,07:29

Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Sep. 29 2006,12:03)
See Davie, stevestory can delete my harsh language when I slip across the line (as I occasionally do) and it won't alter my scientific arguments one little bit.

If he started deleting your lies, there would be nothing left but a blank white page.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I entertained this idea w/r/t Ghost of Paley--not allow any new posts from him which didn't provide the models and evidence he's claimed for a year to have. I discarded the idea after about 1 second when I realized it would effectively end Paley's participation on this board, forever.
Posted by: Shirley Knott on Sep. 29 2006,07:49

And the down side to that would be what, precisely?

Sheesh, with the ghast of Paley around, who needs dogs pooping on the lawn?   At least some owners clean up after their dogs...

hugs,
Shirley Knott
Posted by: k.e on Sep. 29 2006,07:53

Shirley said:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And the down side to that would be what, precisely?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Touché...

Ah well ......there's no party without punch.
Posted by: ericmurphy on Sep. 29 2006,07:54

Quote (BWE @ Sep. 29 2006,12:27)
So you see, when you say that you didn't lose the portuguese thing, you get responses that disagree.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dave, not only did you lose the Portuguese thing, you never even argued your position. If this were a court case, I'd say you lost by having your default taken.

Your claim was a linguistic claim, Dave, requiring linguistic evidence to support it. You never provided any liguistic evidence at all, instead providing a pastiche of irrelevant historical trivia.

So you not only lost, Dave; you didn't even put up a fight.
Posted by: Mike PSS on Sep. 29 2006,08:04

AFDave,
I see you restate your case about mixing lines about Rb/Sr whole rock Isochron graphs.          
Quote (afdave @ Sep. 29 2006,09:09)
MORE WILD SPECULATION ABOUT MANY THINGS AND STILL NOTHING CONVINCING ON ISOCHRONS

Mike PSS ... I have not claimed much of anything about mineral isochrons yet, other than the quotes from EB that show how "selective" one must be to get concordance.  Neither I nor Arndts nor Overn have claimed that whole rock isochrons only form a single point. We have only claimed that you (Deep Timers) cannot show that they are not merely mixing lines.  Combine this fact with the fact that discordances are the rule not the exception, and what do you have?  Well, you have ...

a) radioactive decay has indeed occurred
b) it is not a reliable indicator of true age

Now if you would like to show me how this is false and explain to me why mineral isochrons are the "magic bullet" that really show a true age for the earth, fine.  Be my guest.  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And at the end of your post.  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Mike PSS...            

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
How crystallised olivine, originating from a homogeneous source, that contains Rb and Sr constituents can be tested using the Rb/Sr whole rock Isochron method and result in a data set forming a linear relation.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

No disagreement here.  I just don't think it proves Deep Time.  As for my claims, you got one of them very close to right, but the other is wrong.  Now ... convince me of something if you can.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dave,
I'm not talking about time or ages or "millionofyearsism", only the Isochron sample data in a linear relationship.  I even posted a warning to you but you ignored it.  Please review this  < again >.  Especially the WARNING.

Since you agree to the statement then I can begin my "executive summary" in another post.

ALSO, since you said one of my claims was almost right but the other was wrong, please reply and correct my claims to correctly reflect your stance on this issue.  Fill in the claims that reflect YOUR stance on the Rb/Sr Isochron method.  It won't change my stance but may change some of the examples I use.
1) Dave and mixing (please elaborate)
2) Dave and whole rock data linearity (please elaborate)

Thanks,
Mike PSS
Posted by: ericmurphy on Sep. 29 2006,08:43

Not that it isn't vastly entertaining watching Dave stagger around trying to discuss isochrons with his head wedged into a milk-bucket, but I wonder if he thinks he's getting away with anything here. His own "hypothesis" has multiple, absolutely fatal flaws, most of which are based on bone-simple conflicts with observations a bright nine-year-old could make, which he has not dealt with and cannot deal with. Yet here he is, trying to wedge a little doubt into an extremely technical, and yet extremely well-supported, methodology that happens to be just one of millions of nails in the coffin of his "hypothesis."

So why don't you start with the simple problems with your "hypothesis," Dave, like the fact that you don't have a source of water for your "flood," nor do you have an explanation for why we can see galaxies that are more than 6,000 lightyears away?

But if you would prefer to keep having your head bashed in by the likes of Mike PSS and JonF, go right ahead; I'll go make some more popcorn.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Sep. 29 2006,09:28

DumbAssDaveTheHabitualLiar says;


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I had Deadman speculating that my dad never contacted the Wai-wai Indians in Brazil and that I am getting rich off of Kids4Truth.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'll handle the last part of that statement first: I said that you were making money off your propaganda. Where it goes is irrelevant. I also said if --IF--you are not getting paid anything as "treasurer', great.

As to the first part of your statement: The fact is that this entire exchange about "contacting WaiWai indians in Brazil" is on pages 88-93 of the previous "AirHead Dave's Wild-Ass Guess " thread part1. Here is how it went. First, Dave makes a stupid claim:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
There is not a single Wai-wai village that my dad has not had contact with. What in the world are you talking about?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I said that I doubted that, for specific reasons:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
(p. 91) What I **DID** say was that you lied about me, Dave. You lied about my theistic views, you lied about my charity and social work, you lied about me "never dealing with a jungle tribe" you lied about your father contacting every WaiWai village--How do I know your Dad did NOT contact them? because they were NOT contacted until the 80's-90's, Dave-- You lied about the numbers of CIIPR researchers, you lied about him being the ONLY white person they'd seen " in the 20th century." Your father did not contact every WaiWai group...he could not have. He was not the first white man there in the 20th century, you lied about the CIIPR researchers. Other WaiWai are doing fine without your daddy's help, and in fact your daddy's group would have made it through, too...probably by moving to the highlands as other groups did, from Shefarimo and Masemakari I
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

and


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
(p 93): The fact remains that other villages, uncontacted by your father...survived. You may idolize your father to the point of being willing to lie and exaggerate, Dave, but that won't change the facts there. Your father was not in fact the first white man they had seen in the 20th century. The American Museum of Natural History has collections of WaiWai featherwork and weaving collected in the 1920's from that very village. I'm glad that he tried to help. I am not glad that he completed the destruction of their original belief system for that group. Fortunately, other WaiWai held on to theirs. Your father was simply misguided, as you are, Dave. I doubt that you'd show him these pages of your insane lying, though.
The only one that's off his rocker here is you, Dave. You lied about me for no reason other than sheer hubris, as I said. You came into this thread preening about yourself, you continuously degraded others and then cried foul when people returned it. You then proceeded to lie utterly about me and others.
I challenged you to cite any place that I lied, Dave, and you rightly ignored that because you can't find any such place. You deliberately falsely claimed that you knew about me, my views on theology, my work, my life, my emotions, even --as if your belief system makes you some kind of prophet or psychic. Your alligator ego writes checks your mosquito brain can't cash, Dave, so I advise that you get yourself some genuine professional help.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The reason I said I knew Dave's father had not contacted EVERY Brazilian WaiWai group was precisely because the Human Resource Area Files (HRAF) relied on by every anthropologist in the field...stated clearly that specific villages of WaiWai had NOT been contacted by any whites after moving to the Brazilian Highlands regions. They moved before Davey's daddy got there. He did not contact them.

Did Davey's daddy lie to little Davey? Is this where little Davey LEARNED to lie?
Posted by: Steverino on Sep. 29 2006,09:44

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Sep. 28 2006,19:30)
Eric:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I don't think anyone here harbors any illusions about being able to change Dave's mind. I knew Dave was lying when he said he might become an evolutionist as soon as he said it.

But he sure makes a fun pinata!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



But is Dave worse at answering questions than any of ya'll?  ;)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Typical Paley...wrong,  wrong, wrong!

People in the is thread have answered ALL of AFDave's questions and more...in detail...backup with links and documents.

Why is it you feel the need to make an incorrect statement?
Posted by: Diogenes on Sep. 29 2006,10:46

Bob the Biologist: Hey Rob, could I get you to do a favor for me?
Rob the Geologist: Sure Bob, what do you need?
Bob the Biologist: Well you know that stupid make belief  evolution story that we invented back 150 years ago?
Rob the Geologist: Sure do.
Bob the Biologist: Well, at this point we're pretty much stuck with it, I mean who wants to admit we've been full of crap for the last 150 years.  We've got alot of holes to patch and I was hoping you could help with this one.  We need the earth to be old, very old in fact, for evolution to even have a prayer.  Anything you could do to date rock formations back a few billion years?
Rob the Geologist: Well sounds good to me, even though it's obvious to all of us that the God of the Bible created the world we hate him and want to trick his followers.  Previously we've just been making numbers up at random for different layers, but I guess some sort of consistency would be good.
Bob the Biologist: Excellent.  So just talk to the archeologists any time you are going to date a sample to make sure which bones they want to use in a layer and which they are throwing away.  Don't worry I already talked to the Guild of Archeologists and they are fine with using our timeline.  We're going to use 6 MYA for the split with chimpanzees *laugh*.  Sorry, I always chuckle when I think about how stupid that idea is, anyone that knows anatomy can easily see why chimpanzees and humans are not related at all.
Rob the Geologist: Well, we still have a problem.  As I told you we just make the dates up right now.  Pretty soon those hyper-intelligent religious people are going to catch on.  Don't worry though, I have a plan.  Hey Todd, could you come over here!
Todd the Physicist: Hey Rob, what's up?
Rob the Geologist: Congratulations on getting funding for that radiometric dating scam you've been running.
Todd the Physicist: Thanks, but it's not hard when all scientists are in collusion to defraud the government.
Rob the Geologist: I've been talking with Bob and we want to use your dating method *laugh* to prove *laugh* that the earth is older than 6000 years.
Todd the Physicist: Well good, because I've got some Big Bang buddies that need an old universe, so they'd love to start with an old earth.
Bob the Biologist: Todd, make sure that the numbers aren't exact, add some randomness and make sure you add those little error bars so it doesn't look like we're just making this stuff up.
Todd the Physicist: I'm a scientist Bob, of course I know how to fake data.  I mean that's all we really do all day.  I'm sure we'll get those Christians this time.  Praise Satan!
All Together: Praise Satan!
Posted by: ericmurphy on Sep. 29 2006,11:25

Do we have a Post-of-the-Week contender here?

Stevestory, any way to do a "post of the week" kinda thing here at AtBC? Or is it so much work it would take the fun out of it?
Posted by: stevestory on Sep. 29 2006,11:33

Quote (ericmurphy @ Sep. 29 2006,17:25)
Do we have a Post-of-the-Week contender here?

Stevestory, any way to do a "post of the week" kinda thing here at AtBC? Or is it so much work it would take the fun out of it?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I've got a lot going on. If you want to do Post of the Week, you're more than welcome.

Here's a contender:

< http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....p=33183 >
Posted by: incorygible on Sep. 29 2006,11:41



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Bob the Biologist...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



ROTFLMAO! Priceless!
Posted by: ericmurphy on Sep. 29 2006,12:11

Here's a good post by PT's PZ Meyers at < Pharyngula > about a Jonathan Wells piece that illustrates what drives me crazy about creationists like our own AF Dave: every time scientists talk about not knowing something, these cretins leap all over them because they don't know everything.

You've got someone like Wells, or Dave, who essentially doesn't know anything about the subject at hand, be it brain development in humans or Rb/Sr isochrons, criticizing scientists because they don't know everything about the subject.

The tiniest little uncertainty that scientists present (how many scientific papers don't contain a sentence roughly similar to "…but the cause of this particular phenomenon remains a mystery"?) is taken by Dave and his ilk as proof that science in general is bogus. By contrast, ask Dave virtually any question about his "hypothesis," and he won't have an answer. But somehow, his "hypothesis" is a "better explanation" for huge swaths of observations than the standard theories.

Sure, Dave.
Posted by: Crabby Appleton on Sep. 29 2006,21:59

Quote (ericmurphy @ Sep. 29 2006,17:11)
By contrast, ask Dave virtually any question about his "hypothesis," and he won't have an answer. But somehow, his "hypothesis" is a "better explanation" for huge swaths of observations than the standard theories.

Sure, Dave.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wait a minute! DDTTD always has an answer for those tough questions, it's his Mantra.

Say it with me, I know you can.

MILLIONS OF DEAD THINGS
BURIED IN ROCK LAYERS
LAID DOWN BY WATER
ALL OVER THE EARTH

Amen.

I keep pointing out to DDTTD that there are plenty of places close to his home where he can explore his issues with fossils in more depth, but he keeps flying off to other locales.

Avoiding the issues?

Silver Dollar City is a bastion of scientific theory!

Granny, whomp us up a load o' possum and grits while we search for some black gold, Texas Tea, yada yada yada.

Try DRIVING out to Elmo Kansas and finding some of the absolutely amazing Permian insect fossils at that site.

WHAT catastrophe preserved the delicate features of those fossils?

It weren't a dang MASSIVE flood did that me bucko.

Enjoy your vacation in Redneck City and try again, Jethro.
Posted by: afdave on Sep. 30 2006,02:25

EVOLUTIONISTS NEED DEEP TIME TO MAKE THEIR THEORY BELIEVABLE



I love this chart from Michael Denton's book, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis.  Not only does it show clearly how different organisms are on a molecular level, but it also shows how utterly ridiculous it is to imagine that any organism is "transitional" to any other. (I suppose you guys don't say that anymore since molecular biology has proved you wrong, though.  You all are slippery and now I guess you say that "Oh yes, we agree that no modern forms are ancestral to any other, but there were common ancestors that lived in the past which diverged and gave rise to modern forms."  Just as ridiculous.)

We have been spending a long time on Radiometric "Dating" and I have shown you much support for my contention that ...

a) While radioactive decay has indeed occurred, it is not a reliable indicator of the age of rocks
b) Rocks are selected carefully so the "correct" dates are obtained.

Correct by what standard?  Well, of course, by the all powerful standard of the Evolution Fairy Tale.  And that is where the nice little chart from Dayhoff comes in handy.

Now of course, you object to me saying that Evolutionists NEED Deep Time.  But it is true.  Take a look at Incorygible's quote below.

Incorygible...  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Then we have a table, titled "Converging Evidence":

Time          Ape/human divergence date (millions of years)
              Fossils          Molecules
1980s         5-8                5-8
1970s         15                  5
1960s         30                  5

Then we have a tree, with Time -- Millions of years, illustrating:

Chimpanzee/Human: 5.5-7.7
Chimp/Human/Gorilla: 7.7-11.0
C/H/G/Orangutan: 12.2-17.0
C/H/G/O/Gibbon: 16.4-23

So, your question of how I arrived at my 1985 prediction, way back when?  Simple.  By 1985, molecular and fossil data had converged on a split between humans and other apes (i.e., chimps) at 5 million years ago (the number I used).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


and ...  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Hacia. (2001). Genome of the apes. Trends In Genetics 17(11): 637-645. I've gone to the effort of adapting Table 1 into % similarity (as opposed to % difference) to make it exactly what you requested (feel free to check out the original reference). What follows then is the type of genetic sequence analyzed, % similarity between humans and chimps (HC), % similarity between humans and gorillas (HG), then % similarity between chimps and gorillas (CG), in that order.

Noncoding intergenic: HC=98.76%, HG=98.38%, CG=97.37%
Intronic: HC=99.07%, HG=98.77%, CG=98.79%
Pseudogenes: HC=98.36%, HG=98.13%, CG=97.86%
X chromosome noncoding: HC=98.84%, HG=98.53%, CG=98.5%
Y chromosome: HC=98.32%, HG=97.67%, CG=97.22%

Coding sequences:
Synonymous (Ks): HC=98.89%, HG=98.52%, CG=98.36%
Nonsynonymous (Ka): HC=99.2%, HG=99.07%, CG=99.1%
Amino acid divergence: HC=98.66%, HG=98.42%, CG=98.35%
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Remember that H=Human, G=Gorilla and C=Chimp, OK?  Now if the divergence date was 5 million years ago and the genetic sequence difference is 1.5%--remember, we are talking about organisms with very similar morphologies here--how many millions of years are needed to evolve from a bacteria to a human?  Or from pond scum to the bacteria?

Well, just how different IS bacteria from, say, horses (to pick somthing from the chart)?  According to the chart, about 64% sequence difference comparing the Cytochrome C.  Interestingly, it's about the same for humans, pigeons, silkworms, wheat and yeast as well, which, as Denton points out, SHOULD be one of the most astonishing finds of modern science!  But you didn't hear much about it because it was a disappointing find to Darwinists.

Alright ... back to our Molecular Math.  Incorygible tells us that 1.5% =~ 5 million years, right? So let's see ... 64 / 1.5 =~ 43.  43 X 5 million years = 215 million years.  So Evolutionists NEED a significant amount of time for their theory to work.  Remember, that these are just rough numbers and we haven't added in the time needed for the pond scum to evolve some bacteria, or for the planet to cool, the necessary elements to arrange themselves in a fashion conducive to formation of life, etc, etc.  Add all this up and you can readily see why Evolutionists Need Deep Time for their theory to work.

This, in my opinion, is the overiding rule which guides the Selection of Rocks for dating, the rejection of "incorrect" dates, and the acceptance of "correct" dates.  Can I prove this happens?  I have shown a very public example of how it happened at Koobi Fora.  What do you want me to do?  Go spend a year with a professional geologist and watch him date rocks?  Sorry ... haven't got time.  Is this a conspiracy?  No.  These guys don't even think about the fallacy while they are dating these rocks.  The idea of Deep Time is so ingrained in their thinking and so widely accepted that it is "normal."  "Everyone knows that the ToE is true, so why would you question it?  Of course dates that don't agree with it are wrong!"


*************************************************

Now ... a question for Incorygible.  Seeing the chart above, do you not question the Theory of Evolution even a little bit?  How can a biologist such as yourself look at a chart like that, which totally violates everything Darwin predicted, and not have any questions in your mind about the whole Theory?  I mean this chart should have some really small numbers in the lower right hand corner, but it doesn't!  Those numbers should get bigger and bigger as we move to the left on the bottom row, but they don't!  Incredible!  And yet you still do not question Darwin's theory even a little bit?
Posted by: jeannot on Sep. 30 2006,03:36



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Not only does it show clearly how different organisms are on a molecular level, but it also shows how utterly ridiculous it is to imagine that any organism is "transitional" to any other.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Where does he show that? Last time I checked, my fahter was transitional between my grandfather and myself.
"Organisms on a molecular level" what does that mean?

Evolution needs some time to take place. Sure, huh... what's your point?

As Lenny says: you're, huh, blithering again.  ???
Posted by: improvius on Sep. 30 2006,04:26

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 30 2006,08:25)
Now of course, you object to me saying that Evolutionists NEED Deep Time.  But it is true.  Take a look at Incorygible's quote below.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Not at all, assuming (as you do) the numbers are arrived at arbitrarily.  Or do you have an objection to Diogenes' scenario as an accurate representation of your reality?

The only one who needs x number of years is you, Dave.
Posted by: afdave on Sep. 30 2006,04:50

AFD ...

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
any organism
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Sorry ... any organism ON THIS CHART.

Improv...

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Not at all, assuming (as you do) the numbers are arrived at arbitrarily.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I do not assume that they are arbitrary ... quite the contrary ... it is obvious that Evolutionists NEED Deep Time.  They cannot live with short (6000 year) timescale.  Or a 60,000 year timescale.  Or even a 600,000 year timescale.  Evos routinely say that my theory is blown if  the earth is OLDER that 10,000 years or so and this is true.  And it is also true that the ToE is blown if the earth is YOUNGER than ... mmm ... a billion years or so.
Posted by: ericmurphy on Sep. 30 2006,05:29

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 30 2006,09:50)
I do not assume that they are arbitrary ... quite the contrary ... it is obvious that Evolutionists NEED Deep Time.  They cannot live with short (6000 year) timescale.  Or a 60,000 year timescale.  Or even a 600,000 year timescale.  Evos routinely say that my theory is blown if  the earth is OLDER that 10,000 years or so and this is true.  And it is also true that the ToE is blown if the earth is YOUNGER than ... mmm ... a billion years or so.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dave, what's wrong with a two-billion-year-old earth, according to your argument? 215 million years is about 5% of the true age of the earth. Two billion years would be plenty of time for bacteria to have evolved into humans (and in fact that's roughly how long it takes). You yourself admitted you think a billion years is plenty of time! So why does everyone—geologists, paleontologists, physicists, chemists, astronomers—insist the actual figure is 4.55 billion years?

Evolution doesn't "need" 4.55 billion years. So explain, if you can, if you have the slightest clue, why all the evidence from a dozen different directions converges on that one value? Half that time would be plenty. A quarter of that time would be plenty. For all you know, a tenth of that time would be plenty. Did "evolutionists" just want to make sure they had a margin of error?

You need exactly 6,000 years, Dave, within a century or two. But you can't find any evidence that converges on 6,000 years. Your figures (to the extent you even have any figures) are all over the place!
Posted by: afdave on Sep. 30 2006,05:46



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Evolution doesn't "need" 4.55 billion years.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Mmmm ... I actually think it does, when you consider the time required for the planet to cool, the right chemical to collect in all the little pools, the first amino acids to spontaneously form proteins, etc., etc.  How about it?  Someone besides Eric.  Can anyone confirm the minimum time required for all of this this?
Posted by: improvius on Sep. 30 2006,06:24

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 30 2006,11:46)
Can anyone confirm the minimum time required for all of this?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm trying to recreate your chain of logic, Dave.  Tell me specifically where I'm getting this wrong:

1) The theory of evolution began as (and continues to be) a tool for atheists to disprove the existence of the Christian God.
2) Other "sciences" (and you use the term loosely) either grew up around or were hijacked by evolutionists in order to support their atheistc tool.
3) The only requirement WRT age of the eart is that it be significantly longer than whatever the Bible says.
4) Observed data is irrelevant because these "scientists" can carefully select and/or alter it to match whatever evolution requires.

Now, given all that, how exactly can 4.5 billion years be a required period of time?  If that number is neither based on evidence nor arrived at arbitrarily, then how do you think it is calculated?  How would you begin to accurately calculate the "minimum time required for all of this?"  If "all of this" is completely fictional and nonsensical to begin with, how could you possibly come up with a real time frame?
Posted by: jeannot on Sep. 30 2006,08:03

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 30 2006,09:50)
AFD ...  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
any organism
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Sorry ... any organism ON THIS CHART.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Why would a modern species be transitional to another one?

You see evolution as a ladder, don't you Davey? That wouldn't be surprising after all, given your level of educaction in biology.
Posted by: incorygible on Sep. 30 2006,08:29

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 30 2006,07:25)
You all are slippery and now I guess you say that "Oh yes, we agree that no modern forms are ancestral to any other, but there were common ancestors that lived in the past which diverged and gave rise to modern forms."  Just as ridiculous.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dave, this is basically what Darwin said, and what modern "evolutionists" have always said. Every living thing on this planet is equally "evolved", as all have been evolving for an equal amount of time. Jeannot notes the same thing -- you're stuck in some uneducated "ladder" interpretation of evolution. Once you understand why this is wrong, you might understand my answers to your other questions.

     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Well, just how different IS bacteria from, say, horses (to pick somthing from the chart)?  According to the chart, about 64% sequence difference comparing the Cytochrome C.  Interestingly, it's about the same for humans, pigeons, silkworms, wheat and yeast as well, which, as Denton points out, SHOULD be one of the most astonishing finds of modern science!  But you didn't hear much about it because it was a disappointing find to Darwinists.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Wrong. Both you and Denton are wrong here. This is a vindicating find to "Darwinists". The eukaryotic ancestor of all of the above (e.g., humans, pigeons, silkworms, wheat and yeast) diverged away from the prokaryotes (bacteria) probably over a billion years ago. After that initial divergence, the eukaryotic line itself then split (at vastly different times) to form all the groups you list, each of which has been evolving independently of bacteria for the same amount of time (once again, probably over a billion years). This is standard evolutionary theory. If you (or Denton) understood it, you wouldn't expect any of a horse or a human or a silkworm or yeast to be "more" genetically diverged from bacteria. You would expect them to be equally (but differently) diverged. They are. This is only an astonishing find of modern science if you've never heard of (or never understood) evolutionary theory.

     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Alright ... back to our Molecular Math.  Incorygible tells us that 1.5% =~ 5 million years, right? So let's see ... 64 / 1.5 =~ 43.  43 X 5 million years = 215 million years.  So Evolutionists NEED a significant amount of time for their theory to work.  Remember, that these are just rough numbers and we haven't added in the time needed for the pond scum to evolve some bacteria, or for the planet to cool, the necessary elements to arrange themselves in a fashion conducive to formation of life, etc, etc.  Add all this up and you can readily see why Evolutionists Need Deep Time for their theory to work.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Faster mutation rates would work just as well (for example, the ones you inevitably require when you propose all primate species diverged since the Flood). Plus, even if we did need Deep Time, we have it, and we had it well before Darwin.

     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Now ... a question for Incorygible.  Seeing the chart above, do you not question the Theory of Evolution even a little bit?  How can a biologist such as yourself look at a chart like that, which totally violates everything Darwin predicted, and not have any questions in your mind about the whole Theory?  I mean this chart should have some really small numbers in the lower right hand corner, but it doesn't!  Those numbers should get bigger and bigger as we move to the left on the bottom row, but they don't!  Incredible!  And yet you still do not question Darwin's theory even a little bit?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Not in the slightest. Most of those numbers look like exactly what I would expect from established phylogenies, and all are within the margin of error and uncertainty found within any particular selected region of DNA. Trace the horse (or any other) row along the matrix and you will see increasing genetic divergence with increasing estimated time since evolutionary divergence. The fact that you focus on the bottom row (which is evolutionarily equidistant from all other groups, and is therefore genetically equi-divergent), where you instead expect decreasing numbers from left to right, tells me you don't understand this. So does the fact that you expect very small numbers in the lower right hand corner, presumably meaning you think yeast (for example) is very similar to bacteria. Dave, whether you believe in or understand evolution or not, that is a grave error in basic biology. Fundamentally, yeast is no more similar to bacteria than humans.

The fact that I don't see a challenge to evolutionary theory here is not "incredible" at all. What is incredible is that you (and Denton) don't see how the table you have just presented is excellent evidence FOR evolutionary theory.

EDIT: Dave, just to be perfectly clear, IF you presented the data that YOU (erroneously) think that evolution predicts (i.e., decreasing genetic divergence from bacteria when moving from mammals to yeast), THEN you would have given me cause to doubt something about evolutionary theory. You've got this bass ackwards (yet again).
Posted by: afdave on Sep. 30 2006,08:50

Improvius...

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'm trying to recreate your chain of logic, Dave.  Tell me specifically where I'm getting this wrong:

1) The theory of evolution began as (and continues to be) a tool for atheists to disprove the existence of the Christian God.
2) Other "sciences" (and you use the term loosely) either grew up around or were hijacked by evolutionists in order to support their atheistc tool.
3) The only requirement WRT age of the eart is that it be significantly longer than whatever the Bible says.
4) Observed data is irrelevant because these "scientists" can carefully select and/or alter it to match whatever evolution requires.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




1)   No no no no.  You have projected this idea onto me.  I DO NOT believe that the theory of evolution began as (and continues to be) a tool for atheists to disprove the existence of the Christian God.
2)  Wow.  No again.  Most of the modern sciences were founded by creationists.

First, most scientists I think do not care how the earth came into existence.  They just go about their business inventing the next widget to make mankind's life easier.  And thank God for 'em!

Secondly, evolutionary geologists and biologists seem to be the ones who are so concerned about the age of the earth (here are all of you Thumbsters getting irate at me for being a creationist ... so it is apparently very important to you).  And you guys are very adamant that it is old.  Admittedly, we creationists are also adamant that it is young.

Thirdly, I do not think that geochronologists sit around dreaming up ways to bash Christians and "exalt Satan."  

I think they simply have not considered the Bible.

Let me say that again ... louder.

I think they have simply never considered the Bible.

And people who have never considered the Bible and its supernatural claims, simply operate in the material world.  They never even consider that there is an immaterial world out there.  They are naturalistic simply because ALL of us are BORN naturalistic.  In other words, we do what comes natural.  What comes natural?  Well, you eat, sleep, work, play, you go to school, get married, have kids, get old and die.  And if that's all that Joe the Geologist or Bob the Biologist ever does and never considers the Bible, then of course, why would they ever think anything BUT that life evolved, and that the radioactive decay we see is a true age indicator?  

Of course he would think this.  What else CAN he think?  He has no other outside information.  He's not conspiring to defeat the Christian worldview.  The truth is that he is walking in "Comfortable Oblivion", just as many Jews were in Germany.  "Bonhoeffer, you're an alarmist!  Hitler's a decent president.[oops!  I violated that rule what's it called? ... oh well] What are you guys getting all worked up about?  Hitler's a peach!"

Same thing here ...

COMFORTABLE OBLIVION

This will be my new catch phrase to describe evolutionary biologists and long age geologists.
Posted by: argystokes on Sep. 30 2006,09:00



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Same thing here ...

COMFORTABLE OBLIVION

This will be my new catch phrase to describe evolutionary biologists and long age geologists.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So what's your take on Glenn Morton?
Posted by: incorygible on Sep. 30 2006,09:01

Dave, good, you're still here.

As requested, I am going to send you that Nature paper (the "executive summary" of ape phylogenetics) on Monday. However, this recent post of yours gives me good cause to believe you cannot yet understand it, seeing as how you do not even have a rudimentary understanding of phylogenies. (Indeed, you get this so wrong that you're calling black white.)

So here is an exercise for you.

Take that table you have just posted. Pick any row (horses  for example). Draw a "tree" based on the % divergence (e.g., a 5% divergence between your chosen animal and another in the table would have a "branch" near the top of the tree and a 65% divergence would have a branch near the bottom). Look at your finished tree as representing time since evolutionary divergence. Compare it against a similar tree in any basic evolution text (e.g., Dawkins' Ancestor's Tale has exactly what you're looking for at the beginning of each chapter). Are they the same? Different? How should they compare if this incredible "finding" of yours (and Denton's) were, as you suggest, a revolutionary discovery that evolutionists suppress because it is disappointing?

If you're still unconvinced, do another tree for a different species. Make the branches as parsimonious as possible. For example, you might notice that all of the animals within the boxes in the table tend to have similar values. Does this give you any clue for how your tree might look? Why might this be? Do you perhaps have cause to group some o them together in a single branch? What does this tell you?
Posted by: carlsonjok on Sep. 30 2006,09:04

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 30 2006,13:50)
I think they have simply never considered the Bible.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


How can they use the Bible, Dave?  You have yet to give us a method for determining which parts of it are literal and which are figurative.  Are you prepared to do that now?
Posted by: incorygible on Sep. 30 2006,09:15

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 30 2006,13:50)
First, most scientists I think do not care how the earth came into existence.  They just go about their business inventing the next widget to make mankind's life easier.  And thank God for 'em!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


How delightfully patronizing.  Scientists don't think about any deep questions, eh?  Just concerned with widgets?



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I think they have simply never considered the Bible.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I could match you verse for verse, Dave. I've read it (and when I read something, I inevitably "consider" it, unlike some) cover to cover many times over. I was baptized United, went to a Catholic shool, and was a Baptist youth counsellor for many years. I've also considered the Qur'an, the Bhagavad Gita, and many others. Can you say the same?



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And people who have never considered the Bible and its supernatural claims, simply operate in the material world.  They never even consider that there is an immaterial world out there.  They are naturalistic simply because ALL of us are BORN naturalistic.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You might want to read up on some more educated opinions about exactly how "naturalistic" all of us are born, Dave. I might suggest Dennet or Pinker or...



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
COMFORTABLE OBLIVION
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



All this new touchstone phrase of yours conveys to me is that I would be better served playing a cool computer game right now than interacting with you.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Sep. 30 2006,09:32



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You see evolution as a ladder, don't you Davey?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Of course he does--with a little picture of Dave at the "top."
Stupid's current conspiracy theory is even more amusing than his previous blitherings. (1) He pulls up a chart of cytochrome distances and proclaims that it shows how (a)transitionals are impossible and that (b)evolution "needs" deep time, proudly pulling a figure from his well-reamed spincter and saying: "it is also true that the ToE is blown if the earth is YOUNGER than ... mmm ... a billion years or so." Evidence? Well, the CHART!! That chart alone gives his cunning mind the key to the vast global conspiracy that was begun back in the 1800's by all those theistic scientists that he's fond of mentioning.        
He moves from that to (2)
Geologists have all been secretly brainwashed into the conspiracy, so they only select rocks that fit the "secret" time frame. But he says THEY don't view it as a conspiracy.  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Is this a conspiracy?  No.  These guys don't even think about the fallacy while they are dating these rocks.  The idea of Deep Time is so ingrained in their thinking and so widely accepted that it is "normal."  "Everyone knows that the ToE is true, so why would you question it?  Of course dates that don't agree with it are wrong!"

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Of course, as with many "conspiracy" theories, there's huge gaping holes in this, but Dave presses on, undeterred by reality. He cites Koobi Fora again, convinced that here is PUBLIC evidence of the vast cabal at work. But the Koobi Fora KBS Tuff is only about 2 million years old. He ignores that the dating method was relatively new at the time. He ignores the statements of the lead geologists on the matter, because Dave knows their dark secret: they are all mindless drones, zombies working for the Great Atheist Conspiracy. THEY MUST HAVE DELIBERATELY altered the dates to FIT their theory...but would it have made a difference in science if the remains were 2.6 million years old instead of 1.87? No, not really. Pushing Homo habilis back to 2.6 might be surprising, but not any more so than a 4 MYA date for australopiths. Again, the lead geologists and paleontologists are all alive and have all described their experiences at this time, in various media outlets. While it shows how messy science can be, it certainly doesn't show a conspiracy. But Dave, and AIG says it does, because they were all under the evil spell of Evilushuns, unknown even to them. But Jack Miller, Ian McDougall, and Jim Aaronson, even Kay Behrensmeyer have all written about or given interviews on the subject. As have the lead paloeanthropologists, and the lead paleontologists. Even though they were all secretly fighting for an older date (so evolution could be accomodated) they all secretly agreed on a younger date to throw the noble God-loving creationists off the track and hide the vast atheist conspiracy. It all makes sense if you just look at it with a "10,000-foot view" that starves your brain of oxygen.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Sep. 30 2006,09:41



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I think they have simply never considered the Bible.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And yet I know the bible at least as well as you do, Stupid. In fact, you've been tested ON the Bible in this very forum and found less informed than your rivals. Ironic, eh?
Posted by: improvius on Sep. 30 2006,09:57

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 30 2006,14:50)
And if that's all that Joe the Geologist or Bob the Biologist ever does and never considers the Bible, then of course, why would they ever think anything BUT that life evolved, and that the radioactive decay we see is a true age indicator?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It seems that somehow, Dave, you've come around to agreeing with nearly everyone here.  You've done a complete about-face and are now acknowledging that evolution and deep time make perfect sense and fit observed data perfectly well.  And the only thing getting in the way of all of that is a belief in magic and/or miracles.

All right then.  So I guess we're done?
Posted by: Mike PSS on Sep. 30 2006,10:03

OK AFDave,  Here comes the summary....

Ready????

I'm going summarize "How crystallised olivine, originating from a homogeneous source, that contains Rb and Sr constituents can be tested using the Rb/Sr whole rock Isochron method and result in a data set forming a linear relation."

First let's find out what Olivine really is.  I think the 72nd Edition of my Handbook of Chemistry and Physics has some mineral tables.  I won that book in freshman chemistry with the highest grade in the class.  Chapter 4 - Page 4-150 - Physical Constants of Minerals.
Olivine has a chemical formula of (Mg,Fe)SiO4.  It must be a polymetalic mineral with an SiO4 crystal backbone.
The X-Ray Crystallographic Data of Minerals on pg. 4-157 lists all the different chemically pure crystaline minerals, but the geologic mineral olivine is made up of numerous different crystaline minerals.  Starting on pg 4-167 we have the following crystals that ALL are classified as Olivine since they ALL have an (xx)SiO4 chemical make-up.
Forsterite  Mg2SiO4
Fayalite    Fe2SiO4
Tephroite  Mn2SiO4
Lime Olivine  Ca2SiO4
Nickel Olivine Ni2SiO4
Cobalt Olivine  Co2SiO4
Monticellite  CaMgSiO4
Kerchsteinite  CaFeSiO4
Knebelite  MnFeSiO4
Glauchroite  CaMnSiO4

A chemically mixed homogenous melt that contains, say, Mg Fe and Ni (and Rb and Sr of course) will solidify with a crystal structure that is not only uneven in crystal size but also crystal distribution.  I won't go into the mechanics of this right now.  It is easier to show you a pertinent example of this.  Review this < advertisement > for an elemental analysis machine.  The pictures on page 2 clearly indicate        

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
XGT-5000 analysis of a 4x3 cm² section of kimberlite quickly allowed the rock’s mineral distribution to be visualised. The rock contains abundant crystals of olivine (Mg,Fe,Ni)2SiO4 and one zoned, partially altered crystal of garnet. The garnet crystal is immediately identified by its alteration rim comprised of potassium rich mica. High potassium content also shows the locations of mica crystals within the matrix.

The olivine crystals are black in the potassium and calcium images but have various shades in the iron and nickel images. These variations indicate the remarkable extent to which the compositions of these elements vary from crystal to crystal. In the Fe image, the olivine grains are seen to have thin Fe-rich rims. Notice also the additional information on physical structure provided by the transmission x-ray imaging.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Since the crystal distribution is somewhat randomized, and the Rb and Sr atoms are substitued in different quantities depending on if the crystal is Forsterite, Fayelite, or Nickel Olivine then we can clearly see how even a whole rock sample can give various Rb/Sr ratios if tested.  There is no part of that 4x3cm sample that has the same crystal distribution as any other part (unless you gerrymander the sample like congressional districts, which geologists don't do).  Also, I feel confident in stating that another 4x3cm sample will have a different crystal distribution and compisition that would give a different Rb/Sr ratio if tested.

There's my summary.  Pick it apart if you can OR drop your statements about mixing.  I think the above summary is enough to counteract Arndts and Overns argument that  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
What is needed but missing in the whole rock isochron is a mechanism to establish initial homogeneity, and then to extract heterogeneous samples. The mineral crystals do the job in an elegant way. Each type accepts a different level of contamination of the parent isotope, chemically determined. One cannot rationally extend this process back to the whole rock. It has been tried, but there is a fallacy .
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

 I don't think they, or you, were looking critically on how crystal formation is actually done.

We could actually use the analysis machine to identify and extract the seperate minerals and accomplish a mineral Isochron analysis too.  Neat!!!:D

Mike PSS

p.s. AFDave,  Just say you were mistaken about the whole rock thingy and start arguing about radioactive decay.
Posted by: Mike PSS on Sep. 30 2006,10:16

Quote (carlsonjok @ Sep. 30 2006,15:04)
 
Quote (afdave @ Sep. 30 2006,13:50)
I think they have simply never considered the Bible.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


How can they use the Bible, Dave?  You have yet to give us a method for determining which parts of it are literal and which are figurative.  Are you prepared to do that now?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I have a copy from The Church of Jebus Chrizt of Latter Day Saints.

Is this the one I should consider?
Posted by: afdave on Sep. 30 2006,11:12

I'm finding it quite difficult to believe that Michael Denton doesn't understand the Theory of Evolution.  I actually think he still believes in some form of it, though his book obviously questions the form he believes to be in the mainstream.  I will look into this.  Far be it from me to intentionally misrepresent mainstream ToE views.  

Notice, Cory, that I did not say "all scientists disregard the Bible."  I just said that probably most of them have not considered it's claims.  Yes, you are here arguing with me ... this makes you unusual.  I am here arguing with you ... this makes ME unusual.  So we are both unusual folks.  My new "COMFORTABLE OBLIVION" catch phrase simply describes most scientists and refutes Improvius' view that I am a conspiracy theorist.

Don't know much about Glenn Morton.  Maybe he encountered somebody obnoxious like those redneck creationists Steve Story grew up with and got turned off of YECs.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
How can they use the Bible, Dave?  You have yet to give us a method for determining which parts of it are literal and which are figurative.  Are you prepared to do that now?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I've explained this already.  But let me turn this around.  How does anyone determine the literalness or figurativeness of ANY text?  Let's just consider the book of Genesis now (we introduce too much controversy to even discuss the other books now).  Compare the Book of Genesis (a history book) to any other historical text.  What rules do you apply to the OTHER texts?  Why not apply the same rules to Genesis?
Posted by: deadman_932 on Sep. 30 2006,11:29

Mike : That was nicely done. Now watch Dave run. Run, Dave, run. Evilushuns are after you! Eeeeeeee...
Posted by: incorygible on Sep. 30 2006,11:36

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 30 2006,16:12)
I'm finding it quite difficult to believe that Michael Denton doesn't understand the Theory of Evolution.  I actually think he still believes in some form of it, though his book obviously questions the form he believes to be in the mainstream.  I will look into this.  Far be it from me to intentionally misrepresent mainstream ToE views.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm glad to hear that. Personally, I don't really care what "form" of evolution Denton "believes". Doesn't matter in the slightest. Because by "mainstream", you don't want to be arguing against any misconceived public or individual perception of evolution here (evolution as a ladder of increasing complexity or perfection, for example, or "if humans came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys"). You have your sights trained on the mainstream SCIENTIFIC theory of evolution. And (as Denton should be aware, unless he's aiming at a different target) that's the one that postulates a single divergence of prokaryotes and eukaryotes (and therefore roughly equal % genetic divergence between bacteria and all eukaryotic forms, as in your table). It postulates similar divergences among many of the groups identified by boxes in your table (hence the similar values within boxes). If you want to really understand the "mainstream" interpretation of evolutionary descent  (and how we have determined it), I'd recommend Dawkins' Ancestor's Tale as a good introductory, 700-page introductory "exectuive summary".



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Notice, Cory, that I did not say "all scientists disregard the Bible."  I just said that probably most of them have not considered it's claims.  Yes, you are here arguing with me ... this makes you unusual.  I am here arguing with you ... this makes ME unusual.  So we are both unusual folks.  My new "COMFORTABLE OBLIVION" catch phrase simply describes most scientists and refutes Improvius' view that I am a conspiracy theorist.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Fair enough. I know scientists for whom the Bible would be mostly Greek. I know vociferous Christians with no better understanding. I know plenty of other scientists who could also go verse-for-verse (for or against). In terms of "consideration" of the Bible, they are in no lesser or greater number than the population at large, as far as I can tell (though the number of disbelievers in a personal god certainly tends to be greater).
Posted by: improvius on Sep. 30 2006,11:44

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 30 2006,17:12)
My new "COMFORTABLE OBLIVION" catch phrase simply describes most scientists and refutes Improvius' view that I am a conspiracy theorist.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I like it.  It shows just how far you've come from some of your earlier posts:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Gee, then how come there are so few molecular biologists  who know about that? They're all still talking about molecular evolution.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

< Blinded by what they want to believe. >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------





---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< It appears to me that people come to Panda's Thumb looking for justification to be a skeptic.  They are looking for scientific sounding reasons to reject the Bible and set up their own morality and it helps to have some like minded people that affirm what they want to believe.  Now as sure as I say this, I will piled on with denials like "We come here to discuss science, you moron!  What in the world are you talking about?"  Well yes.  Part of it is science, but there is a very subtle thing going on here.  The subtle thing is that you have a lot of truth, but its mixed in with a lot of error concealed in sometimes inconspicuous places.  Combine this with a blindness which all humans are subject to when they want to believe something, and you have a very powerful deception. >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Sep. 30 2006,11:48

As usual, SFBDave can't type two consecutive sentences without lying

         
Quote (AFDave @ Sep. 30 2006,16:12)
Don't know much about Glenn Morton.  Maybe he encountered somebody obnoxious like those redneck creationists Steve Story grew up with and got turned off of YECs.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Note that we had a whole separate thread about Glenn's conversion from YEC and AFDave here, which I know Davie-dufus read because it named him.  Davie and I have also discussed Morton many times (although usually it was me telling, and Davie pretending to ignore).

< Topic: AFDave’s Psychosis and Glenn Morton’s 'Demon' >

     
Quote (AFDave @ Sep. 30 2006,16:12)
I've explained this already.  But let me turn this around.  How does anyone determine the literalness or figurativeness of ANY text?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



And we've already been through this before Davie, about a hundred pages ago.  Everyone else on the planet determines the literalness of a book account by looking for independent evidence that either confirms or rebuts the story.  Having *part* of a book be literal or historical (like the Bible) does not mean the WHOLE FRIGGIN' THING is literal.

Is King Kong really real Davie?  NYC is a real place, and the Empire State building is a real structure.  However, there is no historical record of a tower climbing giant ape in NYC taking place besides in that book,  More importantly, the laws of physics and biomechanics make it impossible to scale up a 6' creature into 100' size with the same relative dimensions.

You're getting boring with your repetitiveness Davie.  Why don't you move on to a new topic, like C14 calibration, or limestone formation, or sequentially buried forests?
Posted by: stevestory on Sep. 30 2006,11:51

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 30 2006,17:12)
Don't know much about Glenn Morton.  Maybe he encountered somebody obnoxious like those redneck creationists Steve Story grew up with and got turned off of YECs.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Morton didn't encounter a bunch of AFDaves, he was an AFDave. Except that he became an expert in geology and was a smart guy. So eventually he could no longer sustain the kind of hairbrained fantasies that AFDave can easily believe.
Posted by: ericmurphy on Sep. 30 2006,12:04

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 30 2006,10:46)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Evolution doesn't "need" 4.55 billion years.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Mmmm ... I actually think it does, when you consider the time required for the planet to cool, the right chemical to collect in all the little pools, the first amino acids to spontaneously form proteins, etc., etc.  How about it?  Someone besides Eric.  Can anyone confirm the minimum time required for all of this this?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nope, actually it doesn't, Dave. The oldest known fossils (bacterial mats called stromatolites) are approximately 3.8 billion years old. Let's say the first life on the planet is 200 million years older than that. Some evolutionary biologists believe life could have arisen as little as a few hundred million years after the earth formed. And there was essentially no other life on the planet for almost another three billion years after that.

But none of this helps your young-earth hypothesis, Dave, and all of it hurts it. We already know it would take almost a hundred million years for the earth to cooled from a completely molten state to a point where liquid water could exist at the surface. How does your "hypothesis" explain the earth cooling to the point where Adam could walk around on it in less than a week?

Yet another question you've never even acknowledged, Dave, let alone answered, which brings us to…
Posted by: ericmurphy on Sep. 30 2006,12:07

Well, it’s coming up on the five-month anniversary of Absolutely Fraudulent Dave’s UPDATED Creator God “Hypothesis,” and now seems like a good time to take stock of Dave’s progress in supporting his “hypothesis.” Naturally, Dave thinks he’s won every debate he’s engaged in here, but anyone who troubles to read this thread can judge for themselves how true that claim is. And naturally Dave, being a creationist, has spent virtually no time supporting his own “hypothesis,” but rather has attempted, in a floundering and ineffectual fashion, to discredit thoroughly supported and solidly-verified science, everywhere from biology and genetics to paleontology to chemistry to geology to quantum physics to astronomy and cosmology. And he's attempted this feat without making the tiniest effort to actually educate himself on any of these topics, but instead seems to believe that any layman can pick this stuff up in an afternoon on the AiG website.

In the meantime, Dave has left a not-inconsiderable number of questions about and objections to his “hypothesis” unanswered and un-responded to—many of them never even acknoweldged. Now, on the five-month anniversary (more or less) of Dave’s circus act, I thought it would be good to reprise the list of them. This is far from an exhaustive list, so feel free to add as necessary, and of course thanks to Deadman_932 for compiling the original list, which has grown significantly since he last posted it.

So, without further ado:

Dave’s Unanswered Questions, Sorted by Category

Problems with the Creator God “Hypothesis” Generally

  • Why can't you provide a means of falsifying your "hypothesis?" This is your job, not that of others.
  • Why are you bothering? Most people here don't deny that God may exist.


Problems With Biblical Inerrancy

  • You admit you've never seen the supposedly "inerrant" originals of the bible . So-first-how do you know they're "inerrant"? Because the admittedly flawed copies tell you so? And you believe them why? From PuckSR, p.124

  • I asked you what was equivocal about the clearly discounted Tyre prophecy, and you all you have done is ignore my questions...for thirty days (from 7_Popes) p.124

  • You claim that  humans have been literate since your flood. How come none of them had anything to say about an ice age that froze most of the planet solid? How come there's no independent evidence of it from any written source?

  • You claim that humans have been literate since Adam. If Adam and the origin of the universe are coeval, i.e., 6,000 years ago, then why don’t we have written records dating back to 6,000 years ago? You claim Adam’s “secretaries” followed him around with stone tablets taking dictation. Whatever became of those stone tablets, and why is it that the oldest written records are less than 5,000 years old?

Problems With a Young Earth

  • Why are there so many profitable companies that use the Old Earth paradigm as the basis for a successful business case?

  • Why is there not a single company anywhere in the world that uses your 6000 year old Young Earth paradigm as the basis for a business case?

  • What evidence do you have independent of the Bible that converges on an age of 6,000 years for the age of the earth?

  • If the universe were only 6,000 years old, there could be no visible stars, or galaxies, or quasars, or galactic superclusters, that are more than 6,000 light years away. But numerous methods of determining distances which all result in similar values demonstrate that the closest galaxies are several hundred thousand light years away, and the most distant visible objects are almost 14 billion light years away. How do you explain the observation of these objects?

  • 6,000 years is not nearly enough time for a solar system to form, to say nothing of a galaxy, or a galactic cluster, or a galactic supercluster. How does your “hypothesis” explain the existence of these objects?

  • It would take at least several million years for the giant molecular cloud that birthed the sun to undergo gravitational collapse to the point of self-sustaining thermonuclear fusion. How do you explain this happening in only 6,000 years?

  • It would take at least another few millions years for the planets to have formed through a process of gravitational accretion. How did this happen in only 6,000 years?

  • Photons produced in nucleosynthesis in the sun's core take a minimum of several tens of thousands of years to reach the photosphere, and an appreciable quantity would take hundreds of thousands to millions of years to reach the photosphere. Why don’t we see the sun’s power output increasing noticeably from one year to the next if it is only 6,000 years old?

  • Why isn't plutonium-239 found to naturally occur? It has a good 20,000 year half-life, or thereabout, and could easily exist from the point of creation. Certainly we have any number of radioactive elements, but other than the ones that are produced by ongoing processes, we find none that would have disappeared to undetectable levels within 4 and a half billion years.

  • The half-life of Uranium 235 is 704 million years. If the earth were only 6,000 years old, essentially none of this U-235 should have decayed by now. U-238 has a half-life of 4.5 billion years. If the earth were only 6,000 years old, it should be essentially impossible to detect any decay products of U-238. Why does observation demonstrate that an appreciable fraction of both has decayed since the earth was formed?

  • Please explain the Oklo natural nuclear reactor.

  • How do you cool an iron sphere massing over 10^24 Kg in less than 6,000 years?

  • Did the earth cool down several hundred degrees in 6000 years or so? Please explain the thermodynamics of such a cooling process.

  • For any of these things to have happened in 6,000 years or less would have required multiple miracles, Dave. But you say you believe in science. In fact you claim, overwhelming evidence to the contrary notwithstanding, that you accept "90-95%" of science. So if you believe in science, Dave, why do you also believe in miracles? Isn't that just a little bit inconsistent? And a little bit useless, in that you can wave away any phenomenon with an unknown cause by appeal to miracles?


Problems with Noah’s Ark

  • How did 35,000 or fewer "kinds" on the ark end up proliferating into over ten million species in less than 5,000 years? How is this not ultra-mega-supendo-fantastico-enormo-macroevolution?

  • Who do you think had syphilis on the ark?

  • If Noah and his little group were the only humans left, can you calculate for me the average number of children each female would have to have in order to achieve the population levels we have today...in 4,356 years??

  • Why on earth do you want living dinosaurs in your timeline at the end of the flood ? When did they die out?

Problems with the “Global Catastrophic Flood Hypothesis”

  • Identify precisely the source for the "waters of the deep" Dave. point to any geology references that show this "layer of water" existed under the crust.

  • How much water was involved in the flood, Dave? Estimate of the amount of water that was underground, and how deep was it? Was it spread uniformly under the crust, or was it in localised (and deep) reservoirs?

  • Where did all that sediment come from? (Hint: it didn't wash down from the mountains.)

  • Where did all that water in your “global flood run-off”---run off to?

  • Eric (p.129) notes: The continents are covered by an average of 2,600 meters of sediment. How does your 5,000-foot deep flood produce 2,600 meters of sediment?

  • Dave, since this is supposedly your "hypothesis" we're talking about here, how do you date the Grand Canyon?

  • Since the Bible makes no mention of the Grand Canyon, nor any other canyon, nor North America for that matter, what is your justification for assuming the Grand Canyon was carved by the Noachian flood? You’ve admitted you know of no way to date the Grand Canyon; therefore how do you know if the Grand Canyon was formed before, during, or after the “flood”?

  • Which sediment layers were laid before the “flood,” Dave? Which were laid during the “flood”? Which were laid after the “flood”? Or do you still maintain that all sedimentary layers worldwide (all several kilometers of them) were laid during the flood?

  • How did those tracks get in the coconino sandstone in the midst of a raging flood that deposited billions MORE tons of sediment on top of the sandstone? Sandstone can't "dry" in the middle of a flood that continues to deposit layers under a "water canopy", Dave. Nor would those animals survive UNDERWATER, nor would their tracks survive the pressure of the layers above on the wet sandstone during the "flood year"

  • Explain the presence of eolian and evaporite deposits between fluvial or marine deposits, carbonate and dolomite deposits, coal, and why there are clear cycles of regression and transgression present in the rock record allowing for things like sequence stratigraphy to be done.

  • Why are large shale formations consistently oxidized and red while others are consistently black and unoxidized?

  • How did the Mile-High cliffs of the Grand Canyon harden enough in ONE YEAR so that they didn't SLUMP under the weight of the deposits over them?

  • I'm incredibly interested in how the Kaibab was formed in your model, Dave. Tell me how limestone was preferentially deposited in that layer. How is it that calcium carbonate was deposited in a flood, with the turbidity of a flood?

  • Explain the Paleosols we see in the Grand Staircase

  • Explain the buried vertical Yellowstone forests that have paleosols between them.

  • Explain PRECISELY how the incised meanders, oxbows and the steep sides of the Grand Canyon were formed, given that these meanders are not in Mississipian-type soils, but through rock, including the igneous base schist (obviously , that is not "soft ")

  • If there was extensive volcanic activity following the flood, why are there no large ash layers or igneous layers in the upper Canyon stratigraphy showing it?

  • The Arizona Barringer Meteor penetrates the Permian Kaibab and Toroweap Formations and has caused shock effects on the Coconino Sandstone. Because the crater penetrates Permian strata, it is Permian or younger. And since the crater contains some Pleistocene lake deposits, it is Pleistocene or older. The Geomorphology of the crater itself indicates only a small amount of erosion. The Crater is dated at 49,000 years old. Explain this, DaveStupid.

  • How was a  canyon is carved in limestone and buried under 17000 feet of sediment in the Tarim Basin in far western China?That's over three miles deep of overlying rock and soil for the mathematically challenged Fundies out there.

  • Why don't we see evidence of your massive flood and "tsunamis" in the deep-sea cores?

  • Why don't we see evidence of your massive volcanic activity, and carbon dioxide levels and HEAT in the ice cores?

  • Why don't we see disruption of the varves?

  • How did the iridium layer between the Cretaceous and the Tertiary appear within flood waters... the iridium layer is especially interesting, since it is global. How could iridium segregate markedly into a single thin layer...and why does the iridium layer "just happen" to date to the same time as the Chicxulub crater?

  • Explain why it's more likely that all the hundreds of billions of fossils worldwide were laid down by a single gigantic flood (even the ones in sediments that were not laid down by water), rather than in innumerable smaller events over the last few billion years.

  • Layers should have SOME animals in them jumbled up *everywhere* dave. There should be dinos with modern rhinos, with deinotheriums and giant sloths, with Devonian amphibians...yet we don't see that. "Hydraulic sorting" won't do, Dave..or claims that mammals are "more mobile"-- this is utter nonsense.

  • Why are certain species of animals (fossilized trilobites) found in the lowermost layers, while others of the same approximate size and shape (fossilized clams) can be found at the top layers, even at the top of Mt. Everest? Did the clams outrun the trilobites in the race uphill from the flood waters?

  • Fossils of brachiopods and other sessile animals are also present in the Tonto Groupof the Grand Canyon. How could organisms live and build burrows in such rapidly deposited sediments?

  • If "Noah's Flood" transported the brachiopods into the formations, how would relatively large brachiopods get sorted with finer grained sediments? Why aren't they with the gravels?

  • You said that there was only one land mass before the Flood, correct? this would mean that Africa and North America moved away from each other at the rate of 1 kilometer per HOUR per the Morris/Austin scenarios, Dave. What would that heat do? Where did that energy go? Why do we still have ANY oceans?

  • Why don't we see evidence of fast sea-floor spreading paleomagnetically? Remember, Africa and the Americas have to be FLYING away from each other at the rate of 1 kilometer PER HOUR.

  • JonF noted that such rapid movements of plates and "sudden stopping" would melt the rock. Dave doesn't give a response or answer to that little problem.

  • Why are mountains near each other differentially eroded if they were all formed at the same time in your "hypothesis?"

  • Precisely how were the Vertebrae Ridge mountains you posted...metamorphosed?

  • Dave said that as the continents shifted the layers were folded, heated (and metamorphosed) and uplifted, all in a very short time span. He claimed "These are all very well-understood processes and this is a very plausible scenario". I asked Dave to show me references for this "well understood process " in regard to the Vertebrae Ridge gneiss. He failed to answer (p.125)

  • Dave says that the rocky mountain- andes form a north-south chain that was created by rapid movement of the plates.


    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
    I say they moved away from the Mid-Ocean Ridge, then stopped rather suddenly. This caused folding and thickening onthe leading edge of the plate and generated massive quantities of heat and pressure leading to metamorphism.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    This does not explain the east-west tending ranges of the Americas, Eurasia and Africa (himalayas, atlas mts., transverse ranges). Dave was asked: Did those continents STOP TWICE? IN DIFFERENT DIRECTIONS? IN ONE YEAR?

  • Why does the magnetic dating of oceanic basalts show a longer period of time than your flood claim, Dave?

  • Why is the basalt cooler the further away you move from the rift zones? Calculate rates of cooling for basalt.


Problems with Attempts to Refute Standard Dating Techniques

  • How do you plan to refute every single age ever given by any dating method (and there are least 40 radiometric dating methods, and multiple other non-radiometric methods) that is in excess of 6,000 years? How will you explain even one date in excess of 6,000 years?

  • Are discordant dates published, or is the observed concordance between methods an artifact of hiding all the discordant dates?  If the discordant dates are hidden, how come the program managers and accountants haven't noticed?
    How's that inquiry to the Menlo Park dating lab coming along?

  • Exactly how many of the dates given to you by deadman (for far more than four of the layers of the Grand Staircase) are argon dates?

  • Is Snelling's inclusion of xenoliths in his Ngauruhoe dating study fraud?  If not, would it have been fraud to inject argon into the samples?  Is there any difference between the two scenarios?

  • There are hundreds of thousands to millions of dates derived from both radiometric and non-radiometric techniques that range from more than 6,000 years to ~4.55 billion years. Note that no object that is known to have originated on the earth has ever been dated beyond ~4.55 billion years. I.e., nothing has ever been found that dates to 10 billion years, or a hundred billion years, or a trillion years. Why do you think this is? “Evolutionists” have no reason to believe it takes 4.55 billion years for life to evolve.

  • You believe that isochrons are meaningless—invalid. Would you care to compute the probabilities that isochrons [I]ever converge on any particular values? Why is it that rock formations that are expected to be of Precambrian provenance due to their location in the geologic column all date to—wait for it—the Precambrian? Why is it that rock formations that are expected to be of Triassic provenance due to their location in the geologic column all date to—wait for it again—the Triassic?

  • There is no reason to believe that life would have taken more than several hundred million years to evolve. Why don’t scientists claim that the earth is 700 million years old (20% of its currently-accepted age)?


  • How is the dendrochronology for Catal Huyuk wrong?

  • Dave claimed ( p.138, this thread) that only 3 radiometric dates had been given him, then that only three layers were dated. I asked:

    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
    Okay, dave shithead...you said that I only provided three radiometric dates...want to make a gentleman's agreement on that? I'll bet you that I have given you much more than that. I will leave this forum and proclaim your victory if I am wrong."
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    And:


    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
    Okay, let's switch it to your claim that only three layers have been dated, DaveShithead...want a gentleman's agreement on that? I'll not only leave this forum, but I'll pay for my plane ticket to your church and proclaim in front of them how I was wrong...IF I am wrong. In return--if you are wrong, you will get in front of your group at church and film it while you say you were wrong, begging my forgiveness, and post it on the internet here.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    Cowardly Dave refused to answer.


Theological Problems with a Creator God “Hypothesis”

  • Dave, do you understand the difference between these two statements?
    A) I believe that there is a Creator who takes an interest in the welfare of human beings;

    B) I believe that Jesus Christ is my personal lord and savior.

    [ ] Yes

    [ ] N
  • Why did God need a "global catastrophic flood" just to murder all the bad people in the world? Couldn't he come up with a more elegant solution that didn't involve wiping out 99.99999999999% of the life on the planet, the vast majority of which was completely innocent?

  • Why does God lie by making the earth look like it's 4.55 billion years old, and why does He lie by making the universe look like it's 1.37 billion years old? Is it to set an example for you, Dave?
  • What did God think he was accomplishing by nailing his own son to a tree?

Posted by: deadman_932 on Sep. 30 2006,12:08

Wesley R. Elsberry, whoever he is (I think he might work in biology or something) once wrote a critique of Denton's claims on cytochrome data, by the way:
< http://www.rtis.com/nat/user/elsberry/evobio/evc/argresp/sequence.html > . I wonder if he knows Glenn Morton. I bet they're both raving foaming ATHEISTS, though. Or maybe not, eh, AirHeadDave?
Posted by: afdave on Sep. 30 2006,12:18

Deadman ...  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Of course he does--with a little picture of Dave at the "top."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I beg your pardon ... that's Deadman at the top ... look closely and you'll see!



fossil record: geologic time scale with major evolutionary events. [Art]. Retrieved September 30, 2006, from Encyclopædia Britannica Online: < http://www.britannica.com/eb/art-1650 >

Hmmmm ... this is my trusty old Encyclopedia Britannica ... 2006 version.  Not sure how you get more mainstream than that.  Looks pretty "ladderish" to me.

Notice the timescale doesn't go all the way back to the first single-celled organism, but if it did, how many years more would that be?

Yes.  Evolutionists NEED Deep Time.  At least a billion years.  Probably more.  How am I wrong about this?

Mike PSS ... you are arguing something I don't even have any disagreement with.  Why are you wasting your keystrokes?  Do something productive ... like convince me that the Mineral Isochron method proves Deep Time.

Improv ... you are making the mistake of assuming that "most scientists" = "most Thumbsters" (you do know what a Thumbster is, right?)

And I can't keep straight what I'm supposed to read to get the REAL story on Evolution.  Some say Dawkins.  Some say others.  I say EB because I subscribe and someone here said they are reliable.
Posted by: incorygible on Sep. 30 2006,12:28

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 30 2006,17:18)
Deadman ...    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Of course he does--with a little picture of Dave at the "top."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I beg your pardon ... that's Deadman at the top ... look closely and you'll see!



fossil record: geologic time scale with major evolutionary events. [Art]. Retrieved September 30, 2006, from Encyclopædia Britannica Online: < http://www.britannica.com/eb/art-1650 >

Hmmmm ... this is my trusty old Encyclopedia Britannica ... 2006 version.  Not sure how you get more mainstream than that.  Looks pretty "ladderish" to me.

Notice the timescale doesn't go all the way back to the first single-celled organism, but if it did, how many years more would that be?

Yes.  Evolutionists NEED Deep Time.  At least a billion years.  Probably more.  How am I wrong about this?

Mike PSS ... you are arguing something I don't even have any disagreement with.  Why are you wasting your keystrokes?  Do something productive ... like convince me that the Mineral Isochron method proves Deep Time.

Improv ... you are making the mistake of assuming that "most scientists" = "most Thumbsters" (you do know what a Thumbster is, right?)

And I can't keep straight what I'm supposed to read to get the REAL story on Evolution.  Some say Dawkins.  Some say others.  I say EB because I subscribe and someone here said they are reliable.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Gimme a break, Dave. Where does that pretty picture show ANY patterns of descent? Does it imply mammals disappeared 1.8 million years ago (just as dinosaurs disappeared 65 mya)?  That we don't have any vascular plants (after all, they're just a 400+ my old stepping stone on the way to humans). When were your ancestors plants, Dave? Go ahead and use that diagram to draw what you predict for cytochrome data. Show us how ludicrous a strawman you are actually building here.

Honestly, Dave. Really? This is the scope of your understanding and your "argument"? And you expect us to take you seriously? You expect me to believe that you will be able to understand the Nature paper I'm going to send you on Monday?
Posted by: improvius on Sep. 30 2006,12:29

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 30 2006,18:18)
Improv ... you are making the mistake of assuming that "most scientists" = "most Thumbsters" (you do know what a Thumbster is, right?)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, at least we're all on the same page now, right?  That is, evolution and deep time are the best logical conclusions that we can make based on observed, testable evidence.

You know, if you'd agreed to that early on, it would have saved us all a lot of time and effort.
Posted by: stevestory on Sep. 30 2006,12:33

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 30 2006,18:18)
Hmmmm ... this is my trusty old Encyclopedia Britannica ... 2006 version.  Not sure how you get more mainstream than that.  Looks pretty "ladderish" to me.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The "evolutionary ladder" is a common misunderstanding about the nature of evolution. In its most common incarnation the ladder shows the evolution of humans from ape-like ancestors, but the idea may go as far as a great chain of being, from bacteria at the bottom up to humans, the "peak" of evolution.

The ladder is based upon the pre-Darwinian scala naturae, founded by Aristotle in a time when species were thought to be static essences created individually by God. The scala naturae organised both living and inanimate objects on a ladder, with Humans, or sometimes supernatural beings at the top.

The idea of the scala naturae was difficult to dispose of, and so was a stumbling block to those trying to understand Darwin's theory, causing misunderstandings such as a belief in teleological evolution. The belief that one existing, essential God-created species, purposefully evolves into another existing species, while special creation adds new simple micro-organisms at the bottom, to start their journey up to the top - humans, of course - was common initially.

There are a number of things which prop up the ladder:


*A belief that intelligence is the "peak" of evolution, and therefore all species can be organised on a ladder of intelligence (the legacy of hundreds of years of the scala naturae).
*Ambiguous phrases like "humans are evolved from apes". Humans are evolved from apes - or at least extinct animals that modern zoologists would classify as apes - just not contemporary apes like Chimpanzees (see Common descent). It would be just as inaccurate to say that Chimpanzees evolved from humans.
*The fact that some ancestral groups of animals are often anatomically very similar to some of their modern descendents, but not others (and we therefore assign them to modern groups), for example, the common ancestor of fish and amphibians is anatomically far more similar to modern fish species than modern amphibians, so it's convenient to say that "amphibians evolved from fish". Attenborough (1979) made a ground breaking television series by using modern groups to represent human ancestors, which led some viewers to believe not just in the ladder, but in a ladder whose purpose was to produce humanity.
*The use of the words "higher" and "lower" to describe different species.

The evolutionary ladder has never been a scientific concept, and Darwin talked of common descent, yet even this 1998 reprint of On The Origin Of Species shows a (rather giant) leap from a modern looking monkey to a reconstruction of a relatively recent possible human ancestor. Yet, despite the fact that the evolutionary ladder has never been a scientific theory, lay people seem to think that it is. When a fossil skull, named [[Touma&#65533;]], was found in Chad in 2002 an article in Nature (Whitfield, 2002) which stated that the fossil prompted a rethink of human evolution was jumped on by creationists as the end of evolutionary theory altogether (Yahya, 2002). The reason was that when scientists were asked to comment about the fact that the find did not fit with the evolutionary ladder their response was that the evolutionary ladder is not a scientific theory and is baseless. The creationists jumped on this because to them the evolutionary ladder is evolution, or even if they don't think that, it's still convenient to pretend that the evolutionary ladder is the prevailing evolutionary theory when there are scientists attacking it.

[edit]References
Attenborough, D., 1978. Life On Earth, London: BBC/Collins books.
Whitfield, J., 2002. Oldest member of human family found, in Nature 2002/Jul/11 [1]
Yahya, H., 2002. New Fossil Doscovery Sinks Evolutionary Theories, Islam Online [2].
[edit]Further Reading
Colby, C., 1996. Introduction to Evolutionary Biology. Talkorigins.org, [3].
Dennett, D., 1995. Darwin's Dangerous Idea, Simon & Schuster. Discusses pre-Darwinian essentialist ideas about kinds.
Mayr, M., 2001. What Evolution Is, BasicBooks. Ch 1 debunks the scala naturae and teleological evolution.
Gould, S.J., 1990. Wonderful Life, Hutchinson. Begins by describing the ladder and teleological evolution, and then shows that evolution is blind and purposeless.
 
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Evolutionary_ladder >
Posted by: deadman_932 on Sep. 30 2006,12:35

And by the way, DaveStupid, if you're going to use Denton, i think you should know he's rejected your creationist view entirely, while accepting evolution as it is. Let me quote his last book:
It is important to emphasize at the outset that the argument presented here is entirely consistent with the basic naturalistic assumption of modern science - that the cosmos is a seamless unity which can be comprehended ultimately in its entirety by human reason and in which all phenomena, including life and evolution and the origin of man, are ultimately explicable in terms of natural processes. This is an assumption which is entirely opposed to that of the so-called "special creationist school...CONTRARY to the creationist position, THE WHOLE ARGUMENT PRESENTED HERE [in his book, Dave] is critically dependent on the presumption of the unbroken continuity of the organic world - that is, on THE REALITY OF ORGANIC EVOLUTION and on the presumption that all living organisms on earth are natural forms in the profoundest sense of the word, no less natural than salt crystals, atoms, waterfalls, or galaxies. ". Nature's Destiny, pp. xvii-xviii
Wow, huh?
Posted by: afdave on Sep. 30 2006,12:47

Improv...

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Well, at least we're all on the same page now, right?  That is, evolution and deep time are the best logical conclusions that we can make based on observed, testable evidence.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

It is, indeed, were it not for that horrifying reality of ...

THE SUPERNATURAL

That is precisely where you and I differ ...

I see overwhelming evidence for the Supernatural element ...

... you do not.

So, no, we're not on the same page.

Deadman, calm down.  I already said Denton believes in Evolution a page or two ago ... read my posts, will you?  He's a man in torment.  He's like "skeptic."  He can't swallow Darwinism, but he has no alternative.  Poor guy!  If only he'd believe Genesis.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Sep. 30 2006,12:50



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I see overwhelming evidence for the Supernatural element ...

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Except you can't show it and answer questions about it, or use anything but fallacies and rhetorical games to defend it. You're not different from any other nutty little conspiracy theorist. At least Denton is honest enough to be a deist and not a literalist like yourself, forced to lie and use the tactics above ...

Added:
I posted a quote from Denton, in which he both accepts evolution and rejects creationism. StupidAssDave replies:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Deadman, calm down. I already said Denton believes in Evolution a page or two ago ... read my posts, will you? He's a man in torment. He's like "skeptic." He can't swallow Darwinism, but he has no alternative. Poor guy! If only he'd believe Genesis.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Uh, wrong. What Stupid actually said was:  


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'm finding it quite difficult to believe that Michael Denton doesn't understand the Theory of Evolution. I actually think he still believes in some form of it, though his book obviously questions the form he believes to be in the mainstream. I will look into this. Far be it from me to intentionally misrepresent mainstream ToE views.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I looked into it for you, Stupid.
Posted by: incorygible on Sep. 30 2006,13:01

Pop quiz, Dave.

"Mainstream" evolutionary theory predicts your ancestors once resembled (choose all that apply; all but bacteria are from your EB picture):

(a) bacteria
(b) fish
© squid
(d) vascular plants
(e) dinosaurs
(f) birds
(g) predatory cats
(h) all of the above

What do you think? And if your answer is not (h), what are they doing on our "ladder"?
Posted by: ericmurphy on Sep. 30 2006,13:16

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 30 2006,17:18)
Yes.  Evolutionists NEED Deep Time.  At least a billion years.  Probably more.  How am I wrong about this?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dave, your hypothesis needs "deep time." At least hundreds of millions of years. How else to explain the solid surface of the globe, Dave? It wouldn't be solid after 6,000 years, and it certainly wouldn't be room temperature.

An earth nine hundred million years old would be surprising, and would undoubtedly present some problems for evolutionary biology. But it wouldn't kill the theory. It would obliterate your "hypothesis," which predicts an age more than five orders of magnitude smaller!

But is that your argument, Dave? That because evolution "needs" billions of years, therefore the earth can't be billions of years old? What kind of nonsensical argument is that? You're spending all your time impugning the motives of scientists, presumably because you can't refute any of their evidence.

The craziness of your argument is that you believe concordances of dates from widely different independent lines of evidence is a weakness! You seem to think it's a strength for your argument that you don't have any "evidence" that converges on any particular date!

But how are scientists any worse off than creationists, Dave? You need an earth 6,000 years old. Should we infer from that need that your "hypothesis" is wrong? A more persuasive reason why your "hypothesis" is wrong is that it's contradicted by simple, straightforward observations about the world, observations a bright elementary school child could come up with.
Posted by: improvius on Sep. 30 2006,13:30

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 30 2006,18:47)
Improv...  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Well, at least we're all on the same page now, right?  That is, evolution and deep time are the best logical conclusions that we can make based on observed, testable evidence.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

It is, indeed, were it not for that horrifying reality of ...

THE SUPERNATURAL

That is precisely where you and I differ ...

I see overwhelming evidence for the Supernatural element ...

... you do not.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Excellent.  So now that you've finally acknowledged the logic and science behind evolution, deep time, and whatever, we can dispense with further discussion along those lines.  At long last, we can return to the stated topic of the thread.

Please, by all menas, get on with presenting your overwhelming supernatural evidence.
Posted by: afdave on Sep. 30 2006,13:40

Incorygible ...

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
What do you think? And if your answer is not (h), what are they doing on our "ladder"?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I get it.  You think that I have this funny idea of plants and such being in the human ancestry?  No.  I just like the "ladder" because it portrays the real need for Deep Time.  I'll read the links though.

Improv ... don't misunderstand me ... it is not logical to believe that RM Dating has proven Deep Time, and it is not logical to believe that Humans evolved from pond scum ... what is logical is to "pick a fairy tale, any fairy tale" that one wants IF you do not believe in the supernatural (in your case, the Evo Fairy Tale is as good as say, the Joseph Smith fairy tale, etc, etc).  Eat, drink, be merry, for tomorrow you die!  Who cares where we came from.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Sep. 30 2006,13:53



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
it is not logical to believe that Humans evolved from pond scum ... what is logical is to "pick a fairy tale, any fairy tale" that one wants IF you do not believe in the supernatural
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yet another example of illogical, fallacious thinking. I see...false dichotomy and begging the question (Stupid is assuming supernaturalism true while offering no means of showing it). Then there is the straw man of "evolving from pond scum" while engaging in the equally stupid "appeal from ridicule" (those crazy evilushunists think we came from pond scum, har, har! )
Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Sep. 30 2006,13:55

Quote (AFDave @ Sep. 30 2006,16:12)

I've explained this already.  But let me turn this around.  How does anyone determine the literalness or figurativeness of ANY text?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



No Dave, you have not "explained this already".  We're waiting for you to tell us how you determine which parts are literal, and which parts are figurative of ANY text.

It was your thought question to the board Dave, let's hear your answer.
Posted by: skeptic on Sep. 30 2006,14:25

Dave, I was just commenting on Denton on another thread and after reading the introduction to his book I believe that he actually accepts a form of intelligent design but refuses to admit it, maybe even to himself.  The idea that anything can be fully comprehended by human reason is just plain foolish and he goes a long way implying that all the necessary variables in the universe to support life signify order or design by their existence.  

Dave, I'm going to recommend "Who was Adam" by Rana because I think it introduces you to some sound scientific concepts that you might be able to accept and get you to drop this YEC idea.  It would at least getting on the same page with some of these guys so you could have a real discussion.  You just have to ignore Rana's claim that Creationism is testable under his model.  Outside of that madness it should be a useful book for you.
Posted by: improvius on Sep. 30 2006,15:16

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 30 2006,19:40)
Improv ... don't misunderstand me ... it is not logical to believe that RM Dating has proven Deep Time, and it is not logical to believe that Humans evolved from pond scum ... what is logical is to "pick a fairy tale, any fairy tale" that one wants IF you do not believe in the supernatural (in your case, the Evo Fairy Tale is as good as say, the Joseph Smith fairy tale, etc, etc).  Eat, drink, be merry, for tomorrow you die!  Who cares where we came from.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You are quite clearly stating here that evolution and "billionsofyearsism" is the logical conclusion based on material evidence:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And if that's all that Joe the Geologist or Bob the Biologist ever does and never considers the Bible, then of course, why would they ever think anything BUT that life evolved, and that the radioactive decay we see is a true age indicator?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: ericmurphy on Sep. 30 2006,15:44

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 30 2006,18:40)
Incorygible ...    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
What do you think? And if your answer is not (h), what are they doing on our "ladder"?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I get it.  You think that I have this funny idea of plants and such being in the human ancestry?  No.  I just like the "ladder" because it portrays the real need for Deep Time.  I'll read the links though.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But Dave, plants and humans have a common ancestor; there can be no doubt of that. Do you deny that plants and humans have a common ancestor?

And again, can you explain how it is that a need for "deep time," all by itself, is a problem for evolutionary theory? If there were no evidence that the earth were billions of years old, there would be a problem. But, in fact, there is a mountain of evidence that the earth is billions of years old; therefore, no problem.

Moreover, Dave, your "hypothesis" needs deep time as much as evolutionary theory does. You still haven't come up with a way for tens of millions of species can have arisen from the few thousand on the ark less than ten thousand years ago. More miracles?

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Improv ... don't misunderstand me ... it is not logical to believe that RM Dating has proven Deep Time…
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Really, Dave? What's illogical about it? If RM dating is accurate, and it is, then Deep Time is proven. Q.E.D. Can you show me the error in the logic? Under no circumstances (even if RM dating is completely wrong) would believing RM dating has proven Deep Time be "illogical." I'm not sure you're using the word "illogical" correctly here.

Dave, we don't even need rm dating to prove "deep time." If there were no "deep time," then where's all the Pu 239? With a half-life of 20,000 years or so, there should be plenty of it.

In fact, other than radioisotopes that are created continuously as a result of natural processes, such as C14, we don't see any radioisotopes with half-lives less than a few million years. What's your explanation for that, Dave? More miracles?

And, why are there any daughter products to U-238? In 6,000 years, essentially none of the U-238 should have decayed.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
and it is not logical to believe that Humans evolved from pond scum ...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Aside from the fact that humans did not evolve from "pond scum," which is mostly plants, Dave, there's nothing illogical about such a belief. It might be (and is) wrong to have such a belief, but there's nothing illogical about it. It's becoming clear you don't have a firm grasp of logic, among all your other deficiencies.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
what is logical is to "pick a fairy tale, any fairy tale" that one wants IF you do not believe in the supernatural (in your case, the Evo Fairy Tale is as good as say, the Joseph Smith fairy tale, etc, etc).  Eat, drink, be merry, for tomorrow you die!  Who cares where we came from.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Nope. The Joseph Smith "fairytale" is no more supported by evidence than your young-earth creationism "fairytale" is. Evolutionary theory, on the other hand, is supported by entire libraries full of evidence.

Why you think evolutionary theory and creationist "theory" are on an equal footing from an evidentiary standpoint baffles me, Dave.
Posted by: ericmurphy on Sep. 30 2006,16:47

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 30 2006,07:25)
EVOLUTIONISTS NEED DEEP TIME TO MAKE THEIR THEORY BELIEVABLE


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


One other thing. There's one critter on this charter that's missing, Dave: the chimpanzee. Humans and chimps have < exactly the same cytochrome c protein sequence. > (theoretically, you should already have known this; did you?) The chances of this happening by chance, given the functional redundancy of the cytochrome c protein, are conservatively estimated at less than one out of 10^93.

Any explanation for this, Dave? Another "miracle?

More generally, this chart confirms the standard evolutionary prediction that all currently-living eukaryote cytochrome proteins should be approximately equally distant from bacterial cytochrome, and contradicts your "ladder of life" misapprehension of evolutionary theory.

Your criticizing your own personal, wrong, version of evolutionary theory, not the actual theory.
Posted by: Mike PSS on Sep. 30 2006,17:14

YEAH!!  AFDAVE WILL NO LONGER ARGUE THAT RB/SR WHOLE ROCK ISOCHRONS ARE MIXING LINES.  BECAUSE HE AGREES WITH MY < SUMMARY. >    
Quote (afdave @ Sep. 30 2006,18:18)
Mike PSS ... you are arguing something I don't even have any disagreement with.  Why are you wasting your keystrokes?  Do something productive ... like convince me that the Mineral Isochron method proves Deep Time.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



O.K. Dave.  We can move on to what is really botherring you which is proving the actual TIME portion of the Isochron.  Now that you accept the METHOD of Isochron construction and sampling, and the resultant linearity of the data we can move on to the actual reason that anyone spends time and effort on these graphs which is to determine the AGE of the samples involved.

I'll assume you need another summary for this subject so I'll think about it for a little.  Off the top of my head I can come up with the following items to show you but I'll probably refine this list over time:
1)  The description of half-lives and how they affect the Isotopes in question.
2)  Measured values of half-lives of Isotopes.
3)  Significance of Rb87 decay to Sr87 decay reflected on the Isochron graph.
4)  Original melt daughter ratio Sr87 determination from the Isochron graph.

AFDave, you can help me out here.  I have one question that will reduce this list.

Here it comes....

Do you agree that measured half-live values of Isotopes are acurate?

This means that scientists have acurately measured the decay rate of Isotopes and that, for example, in 48.8billion years from today (or tomorrow, I'll give you that one) then half of the Rb87 found on earth will undergo decay.  I'm not saying anything (yet) about looking backward in time.

Mike PSS
**************************

ericmurphy,
For a "real" science question regarding the past.  You stated  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Dave, we don't even need rm dating to prove "deep time." If there were no "deep time," then where's all the Pu 239? With a half-life of 20,000 years or so, there should be plenty of it.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If most of the elemental isotopes (stable and radioactive) were formed in the quark furnace of the supernovae in this region of space, How much time passed by between the supernovae and the measured formation of the earth?
I've never seen discussion of this subject.  However, if you want to trace back elemental origins of most of the elements of the earth you have to trace back to the actual supernovae event, not solar systems formation from the nebulae soup.  Earth's formation would reset the radionucleide clock of all elements occurring on the earth (just like the clock is reset slightly earlier with chondrite metorites).  But there may have been zero Pu-239 present in the nebulae when the earth formed since the supernovae happened earlier.
Posted by: Mike PSS on Sep. 30 2006,17:22

I'm no biologist, but I use these ladders to look at the evolutionary tree.  And it also has chutes to accomodate devolution.  This meets all the requirements for the evo/devo discipline.

Posted by: ericmurphy on Sep. 30 2006,18:27

Quote (Mike PSS @ Sep. 30 2006,22:14)
ericmurphy,
For a "real" science question regarding the past.  You stated        

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Dave, we don't even need rm dating to prove "deep time." If there were no "deep time," then where's all the Pu 239? With a half-life of 20,000 years or so, there should be plenty of it.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If most of the elemental isotopes (stable and radioactive) were formed in the quark furnace of the supernovae in this region of space, How much time passed by between the supernovae and the measured formation of the earth?
I've never seen discussion of this subject.  However, if you want to trace back elemental origins of most of the elements of the earth you have to trace back to the actual supernovae event, not solar systems formation from the nebulae soup.  Earth's formation would reset the radionucleide clock of all elements occurring on the earth (just like the clock is reset slightly earlier with chondrite metorites).  But there may have been zero Pu-239 present in the nebulae when the earth formed since the supernovae happened earlier.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Good point. When it comes to parent/daughter ratios, obviously we're looking at the time since whatever system we're talking about became "closed." But when we're talking about the existence of radioisotopes, the relevant time is the time since the creation of that particular isotope. Unlike, say, C14, Pu239 is not created by any natural process on earth. Most likely, it's not formed in significant quantities anywhere except during a supernova event. Same thing with U238, U235, etc.

The problem is (correct me if I'm wrong here), that without a closed system by which we can determine parent/daughter ratios, there's no way to determine exactly how much, e.g., uranium-238 remains from the quantity originally formed in the supernova (or, supernovae) event(s). Hence, I don't think there is any way to date the time of that event using radiometric dating techniques. However, we can set a lower bound on that time by looking at progressively longer- and longer-lived radioisotopes. If the shortest-lived radioisotope still found in significant quantities has a half-life of, say, 400 million years, that sets a lower bound of how old the earth can be, given that ten half-lives would be four billion years ago (I'm not sure how many half-lives would have to go by to render a particular radioisotope undetectable; anyone know?).

In any event, it's extremely unlikely that supernova debris could have recollapsed into an accretion disk and formed a solar system in less than 10,000 half-lives of Pu-239. Therefore, the complete lack of natural Pu-239 is evidence that current theories of, among other things, nucleosynthesis, stellar evolution, and planetary system formation are correct. Not conclusive proof, of course, but it's certainly one observational test that all of those theories have passed. The lack of naturally-occurring Pu-239 is, of course, one of the many, many observational tests that Dave's "hypothesis" has not passed.
Posted by: Henry J on Sep. 30 2006,18:54

Is pond scum (or something like it) thought to be a precursor to animals? (I wouldn't have thought so, but I'm not a biologist.)

Ah, I see Eric already answered the question.

Henry
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Sep. 30 2006,22:38

Quote (Henry J @ Sep. 30 2006,23:54)
Is pond scum (or something like it) thought to be a precursor to animals? (I wouldn't have thought so, but I'm not a biologist.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If humans are descended from pond scum, why do we still have pond scum?
Posted by: jeannot on Sep. 30 2006,23:11

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 30 2006,18:40)
Incorygible ...  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
What do you think? And if your answer is not (h), what are they doing on our "ladder"?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I get it.  You think that I have this funny idea of plants and such being in the human ancestry?  No.  I just like the "ladder" because it portrays the real need for Deep Time.  I'll read the links though.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yet you implicitly used this argument to prove that no species is "transitional to another" (whatever that means).

A little bit more dishonesty, AFDave, please.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 01 2006,00:00



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If humans are descended from pond scum, why do we still have pond scum?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Excellent question, good Sir. From my own unpublished research (thwarted by the modern scientific establishment), I have determined that many creationists, evangelists, lawyers and politicians are in fact recently descended from pond scum or are in fact, ambulating pond scum themselves. You can find pond scum posting under the name "Dave Hawkins" at < http://soundingtrumpet.weblogs.us/2006....-design > where it claims to have read Glenn Morton back in April 2006 , but seemed baffled recently when the name was raised.  God works in mysterious ways.
Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 01 2006,05:48

Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 01 2006,05:00)
You can find pond scum posting under the name "Dave Hawkins" at < http://soundingtrumpet.weblogs.us/2006....-design > where it claims to have read Glenn Morton back in April 2006, but seemed baffled recently when the name was raised.  God works in mysterious ways.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dave, you're utterly unembarrassable. Don't you realize that what you posted yesterday, or a week ago, or a year ago, is still available to be read? Makes denying you said stuff a lot harder.
Posted by: Bing on Oct. 01 2006,07:48

deleted because I didn't read far enough down the thread.
Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Oct. 01 2006,08:02

Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 01 2006,05:00)

You can find pond scum posting under the name "Dave Hawkins" at < http://soundingtrumpet.weblogs.us/2006....-design > where it claims to have read Glenn Morton back in April 2006, but seemed baffled recently when the name was raised.  God works in mysterious ways.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Great catch Deadman.  So not only did Davie-doo know about Glenn Morton, Davie admits to having read and researched quite a bit of Glenn's work.   All that, yet Davie still wonders why everyone here considers him a lying dog turd.

I wonder how Dave Hawkins will respond to this latest case where he was caught in another bare-faced lie?
Posted by: afdave on Oct. 01 2006,12:03

Oh wow.  Here we go again on a "AFDave Witch Hunt".  I guess this will be like those other ones about my career and the Wai wai Indians.  Except this one's about Glenn Morton.  I guess Aftershave and Deadman are bored again.  How many miles will they get out of this one?  We'll see!!
Posted by: TangoJuliett on Oct. 01 2006,12:44

Quote (afdave @ Oct. 01 2006,17:03)
Oh wow.  Here we go again on a "AFDave Witch Hunt".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Let's not drag the witches down to your level Dave.  The witches I know have my respect, mainly because their belief system isn't nearly as toxic as yours and they don't continually lie, obfuscate, and distort reality in an attempt to force their beliefs on others.  

No Davie-poo, this is going to be the "AFDave Liar Liar Pants on Fire Hunt".  Let the laughing begin.
Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 01 2006,13:01

Dave, here's the thing. You claim that you're here in pursuit of the "truth," and that you want to show us "evolutionists" the "truth," and the error of our ways. You claim that we're blind to the "truth," and if we would only open our eyes to the "truth" you're revealing to us, we'll be, oh, I don't know, "saved," I guess.

But then you get caught in clumsy, obvious lies, over and over again. What do you suppose that does to your credibility as a "bringer of truth"? What do you think that does for your credibility as someone who claims to be able to distinguish between "truth" and "falsity"?

You've been caught over and over in outright lies, misrepresentations, lies by omission, overstatements of your case, and denials of having said something when it's easy enough for someone to go back and demonstrate that you actually did say it. At this point, anyone would have to be an idiot to think that you're any sort of source of "truth" on any subject.

It's not a witch hunt, Dave. It's a credibility assessment. And by now, you ain't got any. Credibility, that is.
Posted by: carlsonjok on Oct. 01 2006,13:04

Quote (afdave @ Oct. 01 2006,17:03)
Oh wow.  Here we go again on a "AFDave Witch Hunt".  I guess this will be like those other ones about my career and the Wai wai Indians.  Except this one's about Glenn Morton.  I guess Aftershave and Deadman are bored again.  How many miles will they get out of this one?  We'll see!!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, you could cut the whole thing off at the pass by openly discussing your readings of Morton's work and how you respond to the very detailed explanations he gives as to why he renounced his YEC. Or, I suppose, you could continue to claim that you don't know much about him or his work, even though we all now have seen the proof that you have indeed studied Morton's work.

WWJD?
Posted by: ScaryFacts on Oct. 01 2006,13:26

Quote (carlsonjok @ Oct. 01 2006,19:04)
WWJD?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


...for a Klondike bar?
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Oct. 01 2006,14:03



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
WWJD?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Dave Lies For Jesus routinely, but I haven't seen any evidence that Jesus lied for himself (or Dave).

Dave's not the greatest advertisement for his faith.
Posted by: TangoJuliett on Oct. 01 2006,14:03

[quote=ScaryFacts,Oct. 01 2006,18:26][/quote]


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
...for a Klondike bar?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No... for another one of AFDavie's sweet pungent meadow muffins.
Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Oct. 01 2006,14:12

Quote (Dave Hawkins at SoundingTheTrumpet @ April 19th, 2006 at 11:29)

Answers for Ivy Privy …

GLENN MORTON
I read Glenn Morton’s story … does his 30,000 ft sedimentary layer have a name or an exact location that you could give me for investigation? It appears to me that his main problem with Flood Geology is that he thinks much more time would be required than is available in the Biblical account. At first glance, it appears that he may not realize that the Creationist view of the Flood involves HUGE upheavals including precipitation of some massive quantity of atmospheric water not present today–possibly a vapor canopy, volcanism and seismic upheaval, collapse of massive underground water reservoirs, massive tectonic activity, massive, global sedimentation and fossilization, and uplift of mountains.

I followed his link and got almost there, but to read the article required a subscription.
3-D seismic reflection tomography on top of the GOCAD depth modeler
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



 
Quote (Dave Hawkins @ Sep. 30 2006,16:12)
   
Don't know much about Glenn Morton.  Maybe he encountered somebody obnoxious like those redneck creationists Steve Story grew up with and got turned off of YECs.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Dave, why did you lie about not knowing Glenn Morton's story, or his other geologic evidence for an old Earth articles?

Does your ministry teach it's OK to lie like you continually do Dave?

Is lying a sin Dave?
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 01 2006,14:40

Okay, let me point out some things, LiarDave. First, it was purely by accident that I found your comments on that thread -- the fact of the matter is that I was going to merely post your photo as an illustration of humanoid pond scum, so I was looking for your website and found that. It amused me to post it.
So what's your response? it's to claim martyrdom and persecution, in a typically feeble AirHeadDave ploy:
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I guess this will be like those other ones about my career and the Wai wai Indians.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Now that you're implying that you were somehow persecuted about the WaiWai,  let's review what I just posted a few pages ago in this thread:
 
Quote (deadman_932 @ Sep. 29 2006,14:28)
DumbAssDaveTheHabitualLiar says;
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I had Deadman speculating that my dad never contacted the Wai-wai Indians in Brazil and that I am getting rich off of Kids4Truth.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



The fact is that this entire exchange about "contacting WaiWai indians in Brazil" is on pages 88-93 of the previous "AirHead Dave's Wild-Ass Guess " thread part1. Here is how it went. First, Dave makes a stupid claim:      

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
There is not a single Wai-wai village that my dad has not had contact with. What in the world are you talking about?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I said that I doubted that, for specific reasons:      

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
(p. 91) What I **DID** say was that you lied about me, Dave. You lied about my theistic views, you lied about my charity and social work, you lied about me "never dealing with a jungle tribe" you lied about your father contacting every WaiWai village--How do I know your Dad did NOT contact them? because they were NOT contacted until the 80's-90's, Dave-- You lied about the numbers of CIIPR researchers, you lied about him being the ONLY white person they'd seen " in the 20th century." Your father did not contact every WaiWai group...he could not have. He was not the first white man there in the 20th century, you lied about the CIIPR researchers. Other WaiWai are doing fine without your daddy's help, and in fact your daddy's group would have made it through, too...probably by moving to the highlands as other groups did, from Shefarimo and Masemakari I
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

and
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
(p 93): The fact remains that other villages, uncontacted by your father...survived. You may idolize your father to the point of being willing to lie and exaggerate, Dave, but that won't change the facts there. Your father was not in fact the first white man they had seen in the 20th century. The American Museum of Natural History has collections of WaiWai featherwork and weaving collected in the 1920's from that very village. I'm glad that he tried to help. I am not glad that he completed the destruction of their original belief system for that group. Fortunately, other WaiWai held on to theirs. Your father was simply misguided, as you are, Dave. I doubt that you'd show him these pages of your insane lying, though.
The only one that's off his rocker here is you, Dave. You lied about me for no reason other than sheer hubris, as I said. You came into this thread preening about yourself, you continuously degraded others and then cried foul when people returned it. You then proceeded to lie utterly about me and others.
I challenged you to cite any place that I lied, Dave, and you rightly ignored that because you can't find any such place. You deliberately falsely claimed that you knew about me, my views on theology, my work, my life, my emotions, even --as if your belief system makes you some kind of prophet or psychic. Your alligator ego writes checks your mosquito brain can't cash, Dave, so I advise that you get yourself some genuine professional help.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The reason I said I knew Dave's father had not contacted EVERY Brazilian WaiWai group was precisely because the Human Resource Area Files (HRAF) relied on by every anthropologist in the field...stated clearly that specific villages of WaiWai had NOT been contacted by any whites after moving to the Brazilian Highlands regions. They moved before Davey's daddy got there. He did not contact them.

Did Davey's daddy lie to little Davey? Is this where little Davey LEARNED to lie?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You lied about ME long before you brought up the WaiWai. You lied about knowing my religious views, my work experience, you claimed to know I "didn't care about kids" etc., a whole host of things about me on the pages cited. Then you lied about your father's accomplishments. Multiple times. Now you are caught lying again, blatantly. What do you do? YOU IMPLY PERSECUTION????? How low are you, scumboy? Like others have pointed out, this thread is really about your ego, Dave. It's NOT about honesty, science, your religion, really -- It's about YOU and YOUR self-image. and the image it shows under scrutiny is one of fanatical, lying sickness. Congratulations!!

P.S. How ya like me now, Dave? Bend over and talk to me, baby boy.
Posted by: afdave on Oct. 01 2006,14:50

Argystokes...

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So what's your take on Glenn Morton?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



AFD...

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Don't know much about Glenn Morton.  Maybe he encountered somebody obnoxious like those redneck creationists Steve Story grew up with and got turned off of YECs.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Aftershave...

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Dave, why did you lie about not knowing Glenn Morton's story, or his other geologic evidence for an old Earth articles?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Er ... what lie?  Aftershave you're seeing things again. Where did I say I don't know Glenn Morton's story?  I said I don't know much about Glenn Morton.  I have read his online piece and I have heard your propaganda about him.  I am telling the truth ... I DON'T know much about Glenn Morton.  I know he's a geologist and he used to be a YEC.  Poor confused guy!  Why on earth would I lie about my knowledge of Glenn Morton.  Do you have any idea how much I care about what Glenn Morton says?  Zero.

Hey Deadman, give it up ... your speculations about my father and the Wai wais were crazy ... then you tried to say I was getting rich off Kids4truth.  And then you tried to play mind games with me to make think you were physically threatening me if I came to meet you at the Grand Canyon.  Then you started talking about legal action.  

Besides all that, your a really nice guy.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 01 2006,15:22



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
your speculations about my father and the Wai wais were crazy ... then you tried to say I was getting rich off Kids4truth
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I posted precisely what I DID say. I can repost every bit of it if you wish. It's no big deal to me. And I didn't say "rich," ever. I said you were making money off kids and gullible parents. This happens to be factually true, regardless of how you frame it. It is also a fact that your father could not have contacted every WaiWai group, unless both the WaiWai and every outside researcher is lying, including evangelicals who assist in HRAF reports. Are you going to call your fellow religionists liars now, too, because they disagree with you? Face, it, Stupid, you got caught lying far too many times for me to give you the benefit of the doubt.
Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 01 2006,15:28

Dave, you forgot a quote. This is what your post should look like:

 
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 01 2006,19:50)
Argystokes...    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So what's your take on Glenn Morton?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



AFD...    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Don't know much about Glenn Morton.  Maybe he encountered somebody obnoxious like those redneck creationists Steve Story grew up with and got turned off of YECs.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Aftershave...    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Dave, why did you lie about not knowing Glenn Morton's story, or his other geologic evidence for an old Earth articles?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
GLENN MORTON
I read Glenn Morton’s story … does his 30,000 ft sedimentary layer have a name or an exact location that you could give me for investigation? It appears to me that his main problem with Flood Geology is that he thinks much more time would be required than is available in the Biblical account. At first glance, it appears that he may not realize that the Creationist view of the Flood involves HUGE upheavals including precipitation of some massive quantity of atmospheric water not present today–possibly a vapor canopy, volcanism and seismic upheaval, collapse of massive underground water reservoirs, massive tectonic activity, massive, global sedimentation and fossilization, and uplift of mountains.

I followed his link and got almost there, but to read the article required a subscription.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Er ... what lie?  Aftershave you're seeing things again. Where did I say I don't know Glenn Morton's story?  I said I don't know much about Glenn Morton.  I have read his online piece and I have heard your propaganda about him.  I am telling the truth ... I DON'T know much about Glenn Morton.  I know he's a geologist and he used to be a YEC.  Poor confused guy!  Why on earth would I lie about my knowledge of Glenn Morton.  Do you have any idea how much I care about what Glenn Morton says?  Zero.

Hey Deadman, give it up ... your speculations about my father and the Wai wais were crazy ... then you tried to say I was getting rich off Kids4truth.  And then you tried to play mind games with me to make think you were physically threatening me if I came to meet you at the Grand Canyon.  Then you started talking about legal action.  

Besides all that, your a really nice guy.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Do you see why you have no credibility around here? You even quote-mine yourself. And don't start splitting hairs about not knowing Glenn Morton's story; you do too know what his < story is. >

Quote (Seven Popes @ Jun. 2, 2006,13:36)
While reading about the sad state of "research" conducted by RATE, I found THIS ARTICLE.
It suggests that a few years in the petroleum industry shook Glenn Morton's (a former YEC) belief system rather badly.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Or are you admitting you never read any of the links provided to you?
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 01 2006,15:39



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Besides all that, your a really nice guy.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This is amusing on two levels,AirHead. (1) It's an obvious and patently sickening attempt at manipulation, because (2) You don't KNOW me in the least, other than what I have said here in the forum, or what little you may be able to glean from online posts. Just as you could NOT "know" my emotions, my charity work, my feelings about kids, my religious views, my work with the Maya, or anything else you lyingly claimed to "know." For all you "know," I could be a nice guy, a mean guy, a psychotic guy, or virtually any kind of guy. You have no idea about who I am, and frankly, I prefer to keep it that way, since I personally *don't* view you as a "nice" guy, and I certainly mean each and every insult I give you. There remains the slim possibility that you MIGHT change, but I doubt that, so I also foresee no need to change my view of you as a hypocritical willful liar who thinks he speaks for God.
Posted by: TangoJuliett on Oct. 01 2006,16:06

Quote (afdave @ Oct. 01 2006,19:50)
Why on earth would I lie about my knowledge of Glenn Morton.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So you won't have to deal with the facts of why he is no longer a YEC, of course.  You seem to be much more interested in brown-nosing that dear sweet loving bigoted dictator you worship than dealing with facts.  Poor lying Davie-Delta-Alpha on the run again....
Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Oct. 01 2006,16:31

Quote (AFDave @ Oct. 01 2006,19:50)

Er ... what lie?   I am telling the truth ...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Posted by: Mike PSS on Oct. 01 2006,17:02

AFDave,
Don't be distracted by those mean and nasty people calling you a liar.  Let's talk about real data and evidence.

I'm putting my summary together about the Isochron graph but first, just like a lawyer would do at a trial, I'll show you all my evidence up front.

I'll be refrencing < this site >for my arguments about time interpretation of the Isochron graph.  Pretty good site, found it on a Google search while looking for "abundance of elements on the earth".  It's written for high-school or freshman college level so I think it's in our ballpark for discussion.

But first, with all the other noise about lying going on I think you missed my question earlier.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Do you agree that measured half-live values of Isotopes are acurate?

This means that scientists have acurately measured the decay rate of Isotopes and that, for example, in 48.8billion years from today (or tomorrow, I'll give you that one) then half of the Rb87 found on earth will undergo decay.  I'm not saying anything (yet) about looking backward in time.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Thanks,
Mike PSS
Posted by: afdave on Oct. 01 2006,17:09

Yes, all that nonsense makes the thread long to wade through to get to the substance.  Oh well.  Can a leopard change his spots?

Yes, I think the measured half-lives are accurate.  And remember, my only claim is that whole rock isochrons have the possibility (or likelihood) of being mixing diagrams.  I contend that Deep Timers cannot prove that they are not.

And I am hoping you are going to attempt to show me how mineral isochrons prove Deep Time.
Posted by: Mike PSS on Oct. 01 2006,17:31

Quote (afdave @ Oct. 01 2006,23:09)
Yes, all that nonsense makes the thread long to wade through to get to the substance.  Oh well.  Can a leopard change his spots?

Yes, I think the measured half-lives are accurate.  And remember, my only claim is that whole rock isochrons have the possibility (or likelihood) of being mixing diagrams.  I contend that Deep Timers cannot prove that they are not.

And I am hoping you are going to attempt to show me how mineral isochrons prove Deep Time.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


WAIT AFDAVE.  YOU < AGREED >TO < MY SUMMARY. >    
Quote (afdave @ Sep. 30 2006,18:18)
Mike PSS ... you are arguing something I don't even have any disagreement with.  Why are you wasting your keystrokes?  Do something productive ... like convince me that the Mineral Isochron method proves Deep Time.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

YOU DON'T GET TO ARGUE ABOUT MIXING LINES IF YOU AGREE TO MY SUMMARY.  THAT'S WHAT THE SUMMARY IS ADDRESSING.  IF YOU HAVE A PROBLEM WITH MY SUMMARY THEN PLEASE REREAD IT AND ADDRESS THE PROBLEMS.

Even Deadman liked my summary.  
Quote (deadman_932 @ Sep. 30 2006,17:29)
Mike : That was nicely done. Now watch Dave run. Run, Dave, run. Evilushuns are after you! Eeeeeeee...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Thank you Deadman.

AFDAVE,
What do you find wrong with my summary about whole rock Isochrons?
I can't begin to mention time until you address this issue.  Your assertions about mixing lines doesn't even need time or half-lives mentioned.  Only that the method of testing whole rock samples to create Isochron graphs is valid.

Please review and respond to the summary.  If you have any questions about it then ask.

Mike PSS
Posted by: Ichthyic on Oct. 01 2006,17:34

careful, mike, you're a hairbreadth away from calling AFdumbass a liar!

go figure.
Posted by: Mike PSS on Oct. 01 2006,17:42

Quote (Ichthyic @ Oct. 01 2006,23:34)
careful, mike, you're a hairbreadth away from calling AFdumbass a liar!

go figure.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Is that what I was doing?  :O
{faux innocence}
I thought I was pointing out to AFDave the inconsistant nature of his most recent statement when held next to a statement he made a day ago that totally contradicts his recent statement.
{/faux innocence}
Posted by: Ichthyic on Oct. 01 2006,17:44

*snicker*

I swear, this whole thread feels like throwing balls to dunk the clown.

...and it's gotten to the point where everyone has gotten so practiced at it that it only takes one ball.

everybody gets a prize!

and Dave just gets wetter.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 01 2006,18:23



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
everybody gets a prize!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I want a pony. Or one of those flying butt monkeys everyone was talking about WAYYYY in the beginning of this thread (Pt.1). Speaking of butt monkeys, how's that sphincter, Dave? Still tender and throbbing?
Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 01 2006,18:31

Quote (afdave @ Oct. 01 2006,22:09)
Yes, I think the measured half-lives are accurate.  And remember, my only claim is that whole rock isochrons have the possibility (or likelihood) of being mixing diagrams.  I contend that Deep Timers cannot prove that they are not.

And I am hoping you are going to attempt to show me how mineral isochrons prove Deep Time.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But Dave, as I pointed out, you don't need isochrons to prove deep time. Isochrons can tell you how old a particular rock is, but even if they couldn't, your young-earth "hypothesis" still fails observational tests, because if the earth were only 6,000 years old, we would expect to find detectable levels of short-lived radioisotopes such as Pu239.

So even if isochrons were merely "mixing diagrams," a young earth would still be falsified. You've already admitted that measured half-lives are accurate, so where's your escape hatch this time?

What's your explanation for this lack of short-lived radioisotopes? More "miracles"? Or this going to remain one of the very large number of critical objections to your "hypothesis" you're going to continue to ignore?
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 01 2006,18:40

After intensive research and clandestine x-rays taken at a distance -- I believe we have evidence of AirHeadDave's primary problem.
If that's not proof, I just don't know what IS.
Oh, and thank you, Mike, you do excellent work. Dave's tiny brain is currently racing about the cavernous expanses of his skull, gnawing itself to death.
Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 01 2006,18:41

Mike, I noticed that in your summary which Dave claims he doesn't disagree with, you told him that since he doesn't disagree with your summary, he should instead argue radioactive decay rates. But now he's conceded that radioactive decay rates are accurate as well.

Seems like Dave's sealed off all his own escape routes. No doubt he'll try to unlock those doors, so I suggest you don't let him try the radioactive-decay-rates door unless and until he explains why he was wrong when he said he didn't have a problem with your isochron summary.

I can't compete with you, deadman, and JonF when it comes to radiometric dating methodologies, but at least I can try to keep Dave honest (or at least point out where he's being dishonest, which is most of the time).
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 01 2006,19:08



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I can't compete with you, deadman, and JonF when it comes to radiometric dating methodologies
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Bah, you're too modest, eric. I'm only good at C14; I took some classes with Rainer Berger way back when and did some work with mass spectrometry. Jon and Mike have been handling the load on RM dating, and I'm confident you've got a good handle on it. I'm just enjoying the show. More wine! Bring on the pole dancers! Or Dave in those sweEEeet tidy-whities with the yellow front.
Posted by: Mike PSS on Oct. 02 2006,03:17

Quote (ericmurphy @ Oct. 02 2006,00:41)
Mike, I noticed that in your summary which Dave claims he doesn't disagree with, you told him that since he doesn't disagree with your summary, he should instead argue radioactive decay rates. But now he's conceded that radioactive decay rates are accurate as well.

Seems like Dave's sealed off all his own escape routes. No doubt he'll try to unlock those doors, so I suggest you don't let him try the radioactive-decay-rates door unless and until he explains why he was wrong when he said he didn't have a problem with your isochron summary.

I can't compete with you, deadman, and JonF when it comes to radiometric dating methodologies, but at least I can try to keep Dave honest (or at least point out where he's being dishonest, which is most of the time).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm trying to give AFDave a little slack (enough rope to.... well... you get the picture).  He's not in a corner with his argument yet.  I see his "mixing lines/Deep Time" position this way,

Arguing about how "all Isochrons are (insert favorite non-commital phrase here) mixing lines..." doesn't say anything about time or ages or "millionofyearsism".  It only argues against the physical process of sampling and testing rocks.  All you have to show is that a properly identified sample (whole rock or mineral) can result in a linear data set.  I read the tripe from Arndts and Overn and saw through the logical flaws immediately without referencing talkorigins.  Reading other < smackdowns >of this argument just reinforces how banal is the "mixing" argument.
(Deadman, read through that smackdown, if you haven't already, since it also addresses Humphry's excess Helium halucinations).
Just a reminder, I'm not skilled or detailed with the geology, but the base science that the Isochron method is built upon are used in other areas I am familiar with.

For decay rates, he only agreed that the measured values of decay are accurate.  He didn't say or agree to anything about how to roll these values back in time so this isn't a Catch-22 statement yet.  In fact I don't want to argue that point yet because I need a clear understanding about the present physics before I can show the past.  I don't think Dave understands WHAT arguments are necessary to disprove how physics takes the present measured values of half-lives to validate past time measurements.  His present earth changing events, from initial creation through to the flud, are not the correct arguments against the data.  I don't think AIG or ICR are going to help him on this one with an easy C/P answer.  AFDave will have to fly solo, and we know how skilled he is when that happens. :p

Mike PSS
Posted by: afdave on Oct. 02 2006,04:47

EVOLUTIONISTS NEED DEEP TIME FOR THEIR THEORY TO WORK



This is a great chart from Michael Denton ... in spite of what the Thumbsters here may say.  Let's look at what they say a little more closely.  

First, Incorygible says Michael Denton doesn't understand evolutionary theory because he says that this chart and what it represents should have been considered one of the most astonishing finds of modern science (p. 281 of his "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis" book).  Now this is amazing that Michael Denton, a professional molecular biologist, who still claims to be an evolutionist in spite of his doubts, by the way, would not understand the Theory of Evolution!

In any case, whether Michael Denton understands evolution or not, I would like to understand it ... Soooo ... let's make a nice numbered list which represents the probable steps from Pond Scum to Deadman :-)  We'll disregard all the parts of the "Great Tree of Life" EXCEPT for the line directly from Pond Scum to Humans.  I don't care about plants right now, or anything else that is not in the ancestry of modern humans ...

1) Pond Scum
2) Amino acids
3) Bacterium
4) First Multi-celled organism [example?]
5) Sponges
6) Worms
7) Squids
8) Fish
9) Amphibians
10) Mammals
11) Apes (Deadman)
12) Humans (AFDave)


OK.  Now I am quite sure I DO NOT have this right except for (1), (10), (11) and (12), so that's where YOU come in ...

Help me out, guys.  Help me get this little chart right so I can understand your theory.

Then I will show you why Evolutionists Need Deep Time

************************************

Also, I read Wesley's article which supposedly refutes Denton's conclusions from the above chart.  Now I can see why Evos are losing ground.  His article doesn't make any sense to me.  Best I can tell, he simply asserts that Tetrahymena should have the same amount of sequence difference from modern humans as any other modern organism, then produces a chart which shows that this is so.  Hello?  McFly?  How did you come up with this assertion, Wes?  Maybe one of you can explain this to me in terms my "macaque brain" can handle.

************************************************

For those of you that have not seen my "Watchmaker Dynamation" hop on over to < http://airdave.blogspot.com > for my latest post (this morning) which gives my first piece of evidence for the God of the Bible.  And thanks to all of you that helped me "skeptic proof" my argument.

**********************************

Mike PSS (Alias "Current Torch Bearer for Team Evo")--

I am waiting for you to show me how Mineral Isochrons prove Deep Time.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 02 2006,04:56

Glad to see you're trying hard to strike back with your tiny fists of rage, AirHeadLiar. By the way, Stupid -- "pond scum" = algae, for most thinking humans. Therefore amino acids precede them.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Also, I read Wesley's article which supposedly refutes Denton's conclusions from the above chart...His article doesn't make any sense to me.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That should be a familiar situation for you, Stupid.
Posted by: improvius on Oct. 02 2006,05:09

Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,10:47)
Then I will show you why Evolutionists Need Deep Time.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You need to take a step back at this point and show why evolutionists need evolution.  Right now you have failed to provide evidence of any bias towards evolution.  If there is no "need" for evolution as opposed to any other explanatory theory regarding origins of species, then you still don't have a point.
Posted by: afdave on Oct. 02 2006,05:17

MOLECULES TO MAN EVOLUTION, REV. 1

1) Little pool of chemicals (forget the pond scum)
2) Amino acids
3) Bacterium
4) First Multi-celled organism [example?]
5) Sponges
6) Worms
7) Squids
8) Fish
9) Amphibians
10) Mammals
11) Apes (Deadman)
12) Humans (AFDave)

More revisions, please ... far be it from me to misrepresent ToE.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 02 2006,05:23



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You need to take a step back at this point and show why evolutionists need evolution
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Excellent point. Neither I nor anyone else I know popped out of the womb "needing" evolution. My personal preference for NeoDarwinian theory was simply the result of long hours studying multiple aspects of competing arguments -- religion,philosophy, genetics, fossils, Lamarckism, etc., etc. If creationism actually had greater explanatory value and theoretical/methodological/philosophical substance...I conceivably would have accepted it. Unfortunately for AirHead Dave's stupid-ass hypothesis...it just ain't so. But Dave needs a villain in his little fantasy world, so it's "darwinism,"  just as for Dimsky, it's " philosophical materialism" I honestly think the term "wanker" suits them both perfectly.
Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Oct. 02 2006,05:34

Dave, why did you bail out on your "literalness vs. figurativeness in ANY text" question?

I bumped the Glenn Morton thread to the top just for you.  When will you discuss Glenn's reasons for abandoning YEC?

When will you discuss the C14 calibration evidence like you promised?

When will you discuss the formation and erosion rates for limestone like you promised?

When will you discuss the two dozen sequentially buried forests in Yellowstone that you brought up?

Is lying a sin Dave?
Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 02 2006,05:49

Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,09:47)
Also, I read Wesley's article which supposedly refutes Denton's conclusions from the above chart.  Now I can see why Evos are losing ground.  His article doesn't make any sense to me.  Best I can tell, he simply asserts that Tetrahymena should have the same amount of sequence difference from modern humans as any other modern organism, then produces a chart which shows that this is so.  Hello?  McFly?  How did you come up with this assertion, Wes?  Maybe one of you can explain this to me in terms my "macaque brain" can handle.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dave, has it ever occurred to you that this might actually be the problem? Do you think it's possible that the reason you don't think the theory of evolution is true is because you don't have even a layman's understanding of it?

How many times do I need to tell you that science is hard, Dave? You simply cannot swagger in with no knowledge of it, or even how it works, stagger around, and think you're going to refute whole swaths of it with a few visits to the AiG freakshow.

But let me try this one more time (others have said this before, with little effect, but maybe endless repetition will help):

Every organism alive today is equally "evolved," Dave. Every organism still in existence has been evolving, at one rate or another, for the last almost-four billion years. When you look at your chart, the common ancestor of every organism on it, except for the bacterium at the bottom (you'll note that every single organism on Denton's chart other than the bacterium at the bottom is a Eukaryote, Dave), diverged from bacteria at the same time, probably somewhere around a billion years ago (in very rough terms). Therefore, they're all equally distant from bacteria. Therefore, they all should show roughly the same sequence difference amount (just in different places), which is exactly what Denton's chart shows.

Let's take a real-world example: are you more, less, or equally different from your great-to-the-eighth maternal grandfather as your fifth cousin on your mother's side?
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 02 2006,05:56



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Let's take a real-world example: are you more, less, or equally different from your great-to-the-eighth maternal grandfather as your fifth cousin on your mother's side?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Bwahahaha...I got the mental image of Stupid frowning at that question , then taking off his shoes and socks to try to "calculate" it on his toes.
Posted by: afdave on Oct. 02 2006,05:56

I don't know if evolutionists NEED evolution or not.

What I said was Evolutionist NEED Deep Time.

Genetic sequences prove this.  Why?

Because if it takes 5-8 my to go from the Ape/human LCA to modern humans, then, by extrapolation, knowing that chimps and humans differ by only 1.5%, we know that it must take about 43 times this long to go from bacteria to modern humans.  43 x 5 = 215 my.  43 x 8 = 344 my.  So you need at least 200 MY to get from a bacteria to a modern human.  Eric says that very little evolved in the first 2 billion years or so ... not sure why.  Did it take that long for the bacteria to "get lonely" and wish they had some higher life forms to share the planet with?  Hmmmm...

Anyway, the chart is great because it shouldn't be as it is if evolution were true.  Some of the organisms on that chart should be genetically closer to or farther from bacteria than they are simply because they are supposedly in the line of ancestry leading up to modern humans.

How does this all fit together?

Evos NEED Deep Time to support ToE.

So geochronologists select or reject dates to conform to the Grand Evo Fairy Tale.

Now please ... tell me how am I mistaken?
Posted by: incorygible on Oct. 02 2006,06:02

Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,09:47)
This is a great chart from Michael Denton ... in spite of what the Thumbsters here may say.  Let's look at what they say a little more closely.  

First, Incorygible says Michael Denton doesn't understand evolutionary theory because he says that this chart and what it represents should have been considered one of the most astonishing finds of modern science (p. 281 of his "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis" book).  Now this is amazing that Michael Denton, a professional molecular biologist, who still claims to be an evolutionist in spite of his doubts, by the way, would not understand the Theory of Evolution!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Let's be clear, Dave. I have already told you that I have not read Denton's book. The table you present comes from that book. I am evaluating YOUR claim (which you represent as Denton's) that the bottom row of that chart (nearly equal genetic divergence of all considered eukaryotes from prokaryotes) is an astonishing find because YOU believe we should expect increasing divergence with...what exactly? Anyhow, YOU claim we should expect increasing divergence as we move to the left of the chart. ANYONE who makes such a claim (as YOU have stated it) does NOT understand evolutionary descent. I already know YOU do not understand evolutionary descent.  IF Denton made this claim, that goes for him as well.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In any case, whether Michael Denton understands evolution or not, I would like to understand it ... Soooo ... let's make a nice numbered list which represents the probable steps from Pond Scum to Deadman :-)  We'll disregard all the parts of the "Great Tree of Life" EXCEPT for the line directly from Pond Scum to Humans.  I don't care about plants right now, or anything else that is not in the ancestry of modern humans ...

1) Pond Scum
2) Amino acids
3) Bacterium
4) First Multi-celled organism [example?]
5) Sponges
6) Worms
7) Squids
8) Fish
9) Amphibians
10) Mammals
11) Apes (Deadman)
12) Humans (AFDave)


OK.  Now I am quite sure I DO NOT have this right except for (1), (10), (11) and (12), so that's where YOU come in ...

Help me out, guys.  Help me get this little chart right so I can understand your theory.

Then I will show you why Evolutionists Need Deep Time

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



As has been linked for you before:

< the Tree of Life. >

And once again, no need to show us why we NEED deep time. We have Deep Time. We had Deep Time well before Darwin. Life (on this planet, at least) has been around for much of Deep Time. End of story.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 02 2006,06:07



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Evos NEED Deep Time to support ToE. So geochronologists select or reject dates to conform to the Grand Evo Fairy Tale. Now please ... tell me how am I mistaken?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


1. You're using a fallacy...actually, I could say your claim utilizes several fallacies. This alone negates it.
2. I took lots of geology, because I liked it. Your claim of geologists conforming to a theory in biology is pretty stupid. Remember, dummy, geologists like Lyell and Hutton and many others were citing deep time BEFORE Darwin.
Posted by: afdave on Oct. 02 2006,06:15

Eric...

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Every organism alive today is equally "evolved," Dave. Every organism still in existence has been evolving, at one rate or another, for the last almost-four billion years. When you look at your chart, the common ancestor of every organism on it, except for the bacterium at the bottom (you'll note that every single organism on Denton's chart other than the bacterium at the bottom is a Eukaryote, Dave), diverged from bacteria at the same time, probably somewhere around a billion yealrs ago (in very rough terms). Therefore, they're all equally distant from bacteria. Therefore, they all should show roughly the same sequence difference amount (just in different places), which is exactly what Denton's chart shows.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ah, OK.  We're getting somewhere.  I'm finally getting an insight into your brains.

So you mean to tell me that you think modern bacteria are just as "evolved" as modern humans?

Wow!  This has many implications.  This means that if we were able to compare the earliest bacterial DNA to modern bacterial DNA, we would find the same 65% sequence difference that we see in the chart for all the other organisms, right?   Are we able to do this?  Anyone wanna bet money on the results?  Hmmm... wow...my mind is spinning with all the implications of what you are saying.  This is gonna be great!

Before I go too hog wild with this one, I'd better get some confirmation from Cory and maybe Jeannot.  Do you also agree with this that Eric  is saying?
Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Oct. 02 2006,06:25

Quote (ShitForBrainsDave @ Oct. 02 2006,10:56)
Evos NEED Deep Time to support ToE.

So geochronologists select or reject dates to conform to the Grand Evo Fairy Tale.

Now please ... tell me how am I mistaken?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



No one selected the dates for deep time you moron.  The empirical evidence shows the Earth is 4.55 billion years old, and that life has existed here for 3+ billion of those years.

Your lame-brained claim is like saying pilots selected the ambient density of air to be 1.168 kg/m3 because they NEED that value to make their “heavier than air theory of flight” work.

Every day I don’t see how you can possibly be more stupid Davie, yet every day you give us this


Posted by: incorygible on Oct. 02 2006,06:28



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Also, I read Wesley's article which supposedly refutes Denton's conclusions from the above chart.  Now I can see why Evos are losing ground.  His article doesn't make any sense to me.  Best I can tell, he simply asserts that Tetrahymena should have the same amount of sequence difference from modern humans as any other modern organism, then produces a chart which shows that this is so.  Hello?  McFly?  How did you come up with this assertion, Wes?  Maybe one of you can explain this to me in terms my "macaque brain" can handle.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Okay, Macaque brain, here we go:

Your children all share (on average) 50% (1/2) of their genetic information (in this case, we’re talking exact, inherited genetic material, not identical or similar genetic information, which will, of course, be much higher) with each other (based on chromosomal division in your sperm and your wife’s egg). Your children share (on average) 1/8 of their genetic information with their cousins (e.g., your brother’s children). Your children share about 1/32 with their relatives who are your father’s brother’s grandchildren. Their cousins ALSO share about 1/32 of their genetic information with your father’s brother’s grandchildren. And so on.

Now, replace your children with the different mammal species in that table (nicely surrounded by a box). Replace their cousins with the yeast (or any other box). Replace their more distant relatives (e.g., your father’s brother’s grandchildren) with the bacteria. See how this works? It's pretty simple, Dave.  If not, add as many familial linkages as you need until you figure it out, dunce. You’ll know you’ve figured it out when you understand the boxes on that table and why the values within them are so similar.  And stop insulting the macaques.
Posted by: afdave on Oct. 02 2006,06:33

Ah yes.  I see I may be confusing you by talking about "moving left on the chart."  

I do understand that sunflowers and penguins, for example, are NOT in the "human branch" or "trunk" or whatever you call it.

What I am focusing on is that SOME of the organisms listed on the chart ARE in the "human ancestry" (I think ... worms and fish at least, right?).  And since they are in the "human lineage" I (and Denton) would expect the worm to be closer genetically to the bacterium, and the fish to be farther, and the human to be farther still (he lists humans on the next page of his book and it's the same 65%).  So the chart entry for a worm should be, say, 20%, and the fish entry should be maybe 40%.

Do you see my (and Denton's) point?  If worms and fish really are ancestral to humans, then the DNA should have shown this when it was elucidated.

But it clearly does not!

*******************************

Now maybe you don't say worms and fish are ancestral to humans.  Maybe I have that wrong.  This is why I would like for you to fill in my little numbered list for me, so I could keep it straight.
Posted by: incorygible on Oct. 02 2006,06:36

Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,11:15)
Eric...  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Every organism alive today is equally "evolved," Dave. Every organism still in existence has been evolving, at one rate or another, for the last almost-four billion years. When you look at your chart, the common ancestor of every organism on it, except for the bacterium at the bottom (you'll note that every single organism on Denton's chart other than the bacterium at the bottom is a Eukaryote, Dave), diverged from bacteria at the same time, probably somewhere around a billion yealrs ago (in very rough terms). Therefore, they're all equally distant from bacteria. Therefore, they all should show roughly the same sequence difference amount (just in different places), which is exactly what Denton's chart shows.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ah, OK.  We're getting somewhere.  I'm finally getting an insight into your brains.

So you mean to tell me that you think modern bacteria are just as "evolved" as modern humans?

Wow!  This has many implications.  This means that if we were able to compare the earliest bacterial DNA to modern bacterial DNA, we would find the same 65% sequence difference that we see in the chart for all the other organisms, right?   Are we able to do this?  Anyone wanna bet money on the results?  Hmmm... wow...my mind is spinning with all the implications of what you are saying.  This is gonna be great!

Before I go too hog wild with this one, I'd better get some confirmation from Cory and maybe Jeannot.  Do you also agree with this that Eric  is saying?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I see I didn't read carefully enough and Eric beat me to this.

Dave, 200+ pages later, welcome to the theory of evolution. What a revolutionary discovery you just made. What a joke.

Once again, THIS IS EVOLUTIONARY THEORY. It is not Eric's invention. It can be confirmed from any BASIC textbook.

Yes, if we had bacterial DNA from 500 million years ago (we don't), and we looked at a true molecular clock (i.e., a NEUTRAL marker free to mutate at a relatively consistent rate in all lineages, as opposed to a region of DNA visible to natural selection, and therefore likely to be maintained (or changed) in very un-clock-like fashion), then we would expect to see the same sequence divergence in modern bacteria as in modern yeast or modern humans. I would put money on it.

Now, in all the learning you are doing in your "Truth Search", why have you not learned this most basic fact of evolutionary theory? Hmmm?
Posted by: improvius on Oct. 02 2006,06:43

Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,11:56)
I don't know if evolutionists NEED evolution or not.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So then you agree that there is no bias towards favoring evolution over any other theory in the scientific community?
Posted by: incorygible on Oct. 02 2006,06:44

Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,11:33)
Ah yes.  I see I may be confusing you by talking about "moving left on the chart."  

I do understand that sunflowers and penguins, for example, are NOT in the "human branch" or "trunk" or whatever you call it.

What I am focusing on is that SOME of the organisms listed on the chart ARE in the "human ancestry" (I think ... worms and fish at least, right?).  And since they are in the "human lineage" I (and Denton) would expect the worm to be closer genetically to the bacterium, and the fish to be farther, and the human to be farther still (he lists humans on the next page of his book and it's the same 65%).  So the chart entry for a worm should be, say, 20%, and the fish entry should be maybe 40%.

Do you see my (and Denton's) point?  If worms and fish really are ancestral to humans, then the DNA should have shown this when it was elucidated.

But it clearly does not!

*******************************

Now maybe you don't say worms and fish are ancestral to humans.  Maybe I have that wrong.  This is why I would like for you to fill in my little numbered list for me, so I could keep it straight.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dave, NO MODERN ANIMAL (be it worm or fish or ape) is ancestral to humans. If you read through Eric's and my explanations above (especially what a molecular clock actually is), you'll see why we DO NOT expect the relationships with bacteria that you propose. To see what you (or Denton) propose, we would need (very) historic DNA, not modern DNA. In other words, we would need DNA from the point when worms became worms, amphibians became amphibians, mammals became mammals, etc. If you actually had the DNA from, not only the organism, but the organism and TIME that lineages ancestral to humans branched, then you would see what you expect to see.
Posted by: improvius on Oct. 02 2006,06:48

Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,12:33)
Now maybe you don't say worms and fish are ancestral to humans.  Maybe I have that wrong.  This is why I would like for you to fill in my little numbered list for me, so I could keep it straight.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Your chart represents present-day worms and fish.  No present-day organisms are ancestral to humans.  Everyone keeps telling you this, but you just don't seem to get it.
Posted by: afdave on Oct. 02 2006,06:51

OK.  I understand that no modern organism is ancestral to humans.  However, ToE says that a single celled organism living 500 myo which conceivably is indistinguishable from a modern bacterium IS ancestral to humans.  Ditto for some ancient worm.  Ditto for some ancient fish.  Etc. etc.  Right?
Posted by: improvius on Oct. 02 2006,06:54

Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,12:51)
OK.  I understand that no modern organism is ancestral to humans.  However, ToE says that a single celled organism living 500 myo which conceivably is indistinguishable from a modern bacterium IS ancestral to humans.  Ditto for some ancient worm.  Ditto for some ancient fish.  Etc. etc.  Right?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


None of which are represented on your chart.
Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Oct. 02 2006,06:58



DAVE, READ THE FRIGGIN LINKS THAT PEOPLE HAVE BEEN PROVIDING, YOU MORON
Posted by: incorygible on Oct. 02 2006,07:03

Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,11:51)
OK.  I understand that no modern organism is ancestral to humans.  However, ToE says that a single celled organism living 500 myo which conceivably is indistinguishable from a modern bacterium IS ancestral to humans.  Ditto for some ancient worm.  Ditto for some ancient fish.  Etc. etc.  Right?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Right. Let's work with the fish.

Say we actually had the DNA of the LCA of humans and fish. A very, very old fish-like thing, whose descendants are about to go in two different directions: one that will lead to all mammals (including humans) and one that will lead to all modern fish. (EDIT: thanks to OA, we're talking about point 11 in the figure above. Look at that chart, Dave. The SUM of the VERTICAL line lengths connecting one thing to another is related to the expected genetic divergence. What does that tell you about humans and fish, humans and worms, all animals and bacteria, etc?)

THAT ancestral organism would have had cytochrome much more similar to bacteria (both to ancestral bacteria, and even, to a lesser extent, to modern bacteria) than anything living today. (As a bonus question, see if you can estimate how much more similar it would have been from the information in the table -- this is possible.)

If we compared human DNA and modern fish DNA to that ancestral fish-like-thing's DNA, both would be more similar to it than they are to each other NOW (the human-fish difference in the matrix -- again, see if you can guess how much more similar). Furthermore, the modern fish and humans would be genetically diverged from that old fish-like thing by the SAME amount.

Are you starting to get this yet? Can I hope that it might actually click?
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 02 2006,07:05

"For Denton a demonstration of evolution in proteins is a demonstration that protein-sequences can be arranged in a series of intermediates. He found a dramatic absence of intermediates when comparing the cytochrome C2 of all eucaryotc organisms with bacteria. They all differ 64%-72% with bacteria. He concludes: no eucaryotic cytochrome is closer to bacterial cytochrome than any other. No intermediates. No primitive or advanced. However he fails to point out that necessarily only living species are described. And because they are living now, their proteins are copied from generation to generation and mutations accumulated. Cytochromes of living organisms, however morphologically primitive they may be, are not intermediary, because now-living organisms do not have ancestor-descendant relationships. All are descendants.
All vertebrates have the same molecular distance to all invertebrates, because their ancestors separated only once. Equally, all eucaryotes have in common that their ancestor split at the same time from bacteria. The molecular distance of any group to any other group is of course a measure of time elapsed since their separation. Denton knows that no evolutionist has ever claimed that any of the living representatives of any vertebrate class is directly ancestral with respect to another vertebrate group (p293). So: who is Denton attacking ?"
< http://home.wxs.nl/~gkorthof/korthof56.htm#cytochrome-c >
Matthew J. Brauer and Daniel R. Brumbaugh: 'Biology Remystified: The Scientific Claims of the New Creationists', p308-314 of Pennock(2002) 'Intelligent Design Creationism and its Critics'
Posted by: k.e on Oct. 02 2006,07:07

Bah ....ericmurphy Occam's Aftershave.....that diagram doesn't show AFD's ancestors .....he has a direct link to the weasle.
Posted by: afdave on Oct. 02 2006,07:11

Incorygible...

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Yes, if we had bacterial DNA from 500 million years ago (we don't), and we looked at a true molecular clock (i.e., a NEUTRAL marker free to mutate at a relatively consistent rate in all lineages, as opposed to a region of DNA visible to natural selection, and therefore likely to be maintained (or changed) in very un-clock-like fashion), then we would expect to see the same sequence divergence in modern bacteria as in modern yeast or modern humans. I would put money on it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

OK great.  Now I have at least nailed you down.  I am going to really enjoy hearing the answer to this next question.  Ready?

You guys have been preaching to me about how similar organisms have similar genetic sequences, i.e. chimps and humans are within 1.5% of each other, right?  And you are correct.  Similar homologies yield similar genetics.  I agree with you there.

But now you are telling a new whopper!

You really want me to believe that a 500 myo bacterium (let's say we could get some DNA from a bacterium fossil) is much different than a modern bacterium?  Now all of a sudden, instead of similar homologies yielding similar genetics, you're telling me "Oh yes, ancient bacteria LOOKED very similar to modern bacteria, but we are quite sure that their genetics would be far different ... probably the same 65% difference."

Come on, guys!  This is ridiculous!  You are GUESSING what ancient bacterial genetics might have been like and you are CONTRADICTING the guideline you just finished giving me about similar morphologies=similar genetics.

What in the world?
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 02 2006,07:15

What's amusing is that this is analogous to a guy arguing against ...oh, say algebra...while not knowing the commutative, distributive and associative properties of multiplication. It's surreal.
Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 02 2006,07:15

Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,10:56)
I don't know if evolutionists NEED evolution or not.

What I said was Evolutionist NEED Deep Time.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dave, when are you going to address the fact that you need deep time, too? How does your "hypothesis" account for the supposed ultra-mega-hyper-macroevolution implied by the explosion (which, by the way, dwarfs the "Cambrian Explosion") of diversity from several tens of thousands of species to tens of millions of species in less than five thousand years? Another "miracle"?


And frankly, Dave, I'm not sure where you think you're going with this obsession with evolution "needing" deep time? So what? The time is available; in fact, more time than necessary is available.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Genetic sequences prove this.  Why?

Because if it takes 5-8 my to go from the Ape/human LCA to modern humans, then, by extrapolation, knowing that chimps and humans differ by only 1.5%, we know that it must take about 43 times this long to go from bacteria to modern humans.  43 x 5 = 215 my.  43 x 8 = 344 my.  So you need at least 200 MY to get from a bacteria to a modern human.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dave, you might want to stop posting arguments that refute your other arguments. You claim that you can get from bacteria to humans in 344 my (a number, by the way, that no evolutionary biologist would agree with, because it's way too small). So if you can get from bacteria to humans in less than 500 million years, why do geologists claim the earth is 4.55 billion years old, which nine times older? Just to be on the safe side? If you think geologists conspire with evolutionary biologists in order to make the numbers come out right, why don't they just say the earth is only a billion years old? According to your reasoning, that's way more time than necessary to get from bacteria to humans, right?



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Eric says that very little evolved in the first 2 billion years or so ... not sure why.  Did it take that long for the bacteria to "get lonely" and wish they had some higher life forms to share the planet with?  Hmmmm...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The honest answer here is that no one knows for sure (which I'm sure you see as a huge, gaping hole in the theory, but that's just because you know fuck-all about how science works). But given the simplicity of bacteria, it's not hard to understand how it could take a long time for them to evolve into anything more complicated. Think of it as a learning curve, Dave. Humans developed the wheel when? Several thousand years ago? There were nothing but livestock-powered wheeled vehicles for thousands of years; then, suddenly, in less than a hundred years, we went from horse-and-buggy to 1,000-horsepower Bugatis than can do 250 mph.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Anyway, the chart is great because it shouldn't be as it is if evolution were true.  Some of the organisms on that chart should be genetically closer to or farther from bacteria than they are simply because they are supposedly in the line of ancestry leading up to modern humans.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dave, you dolt, the chart confims evolutionary theory. What it disconfirms is your bad, wrong, broken misunderstanding of evolutionary theory. Yeast and humans diverged not long after all eukaryotes diverged from bacteria. As I just said this morning, every single organism on your chart is equally distant from bacteria! Mushrooms are no more closely related to bacteria than humans are. Is that so hard to understand? Or are you deliberately failing to understand it?



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So geochronologists select or reject dates to conform to the Grand Evo Fairy Tale.

Now please ... tell me how am I mistaken?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Why, Dave? Because they want to support their buddies? If the geochronologists back in the 30s said, gee guys, all the dates we come up all converge on 75 million years, what do you suppose would have happened? Do you think the evolutionary biologists bribed them to change their story?

And are you still under the misapprehension that geologists—any kind of geologists—are "evolutionists"?

And you still haven't explained why all the available dates converge on a value that by your own reasoning is almost an order of magnitude larger than it needs to be.
Posted by: k.e on Oct. 02 2006,07:19



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Come on, guys!  This is ridiculous!  You are GUESSING what ancient bacterial genetics might have been like and you are CONTRADICTING the guideline you just finished giving me about similar morphologies=similar genetics.

What in the world?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



AFD are you truly that simple minded?

Every living thing has a parent is that so hard to grasp?

Even a 4 year old knows that.
Posted by: argystokes on Oct. 02 2006,07:20



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You really want me to believe that a 500 myo bacterium (let's say we could get some DNA from a bacterium fossil) is much different than a modern bacterium?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Well, Dave, how similar or different do you think modern bacteria are?  And how what percentage of living bacterial species do you think we have discovered (putting aside the difficulties in defining bacterial species)?
Posted by: incorygible on Oct. 02 2006,07:21

Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,12:11)
Incorygible...    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Yes, if we had bacterial DNA from 500 million years ago (we don't), and we looked at a true molecular clock (i.e., a NEUTRAL marker free to mutate at a relatively consistent rate in all lineages, as opposed to a region of DNA visible to natural selection, and therefore likely to be maintained (or changed) in very un-clock-like fashion), then we would expect to see the same sequence divergence in modern bacteria as in modern yeast or modern humans. I would put money on it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

OK great.  Now I have at least nailed you down.  I am going to really enjoy hearing the answer to this next question.  Ready?

You guys have been preaching to me about how similar organisms have similar genetic sequences, i.e. chimps and humans are within 1.5% of each other, right?  And you are correct.  Similar homologies yield similar genetics.  I agree with you there.

But now you are telling a new whopper!

You really want me to believe that a 500 myo bacterium (let's say we could get some DNA from a bacterium fossil) is much different than a modern bacterium?  Now all of a sudden, instead of similar homologies yielding similar genetics, you're telling me "Oh yes, ancient bacteria LOOKED very similar to modern bacteria, but we are quite sure that their genetics would be far different ... probably the same 65% difference."

Come on, guys!  This is ridiculous!  You are GUESSING what ancient bacterial genetics might have been like and you are CONTRADICTING the guideline you just finished giving me about similar morphologies=similar genetics.

What in the world?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Idiot Dave, try to figure out why I have kept correcting you on NEUTRAL genetic information vs. SELECTED genetic information (hint: one works as a clock, one doesn't). Read the above quote (e.g., the distinction between "morphologically primitive" and cytochrome in Deadman's quote above).

Yes, in a truly neutral region of DNA (i.e., a molecular clock), a 500 myo bacterium is MUCH different than a modern bacterium. The difference between old bacterium and new bacterium would be very similar to the difference between human and old bacterium IN THIS NEUTRAL REGION.If you want to talk about non-neutral (e.g., coding) regions (does that remind you of a heading in the human-chimp table?) that are under the purview of natural selection, we can expect that modern bacteria are more similar to ancient bacteria than humans are (but we can't know how similar, unless we can study fossil morphologies to make educated guesses about certain genes).

You just don't get it Dave, and it's pretty clear you never will. You keep inventing ill-conceived, misunderstood, no-clue-in-#### strawmen that have nothing to do with evolutionary theory or with what we are telling you.
Posted by: afdave on Oct. 02 2006,07:31

Incorygible...

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Yes, in a truly neutral region of DNA (i.e., a molecular clock), a 500 myo bacterilum is MUCH different than a modern bacterium.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

How do you know this?  Are you just guessing?  How about in the Cytochrome C?  Do you say the same?

To answer Argy's question, I would guess that there is VERY LITTLE sequence difference among modern bacterial DNA.  And I would also guess that there is very little difference between modern and "ancient" bacteria.  ("ancient" in quotes b/c I of course believe that ALL bacteria are only about 6000 years old.)
Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 02 2006,07:36

Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,11:15)
Ah, OK.  We're getting somewhere.  I'm finally getting an insight into your brains.

So you mean to tell me that you think modern bacteria are just as "evolved" as modern humans?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dave, you're not using the term "evolved" in the proper sense. You're using it in the layman's sense (imagine my surprise) that's way too teleological for the way it's used in evolutionary biology. You're making the same mistake that even a lot of biologists make; that life is evolving in some particular direction, with some sort of goal in mind (in your mind, that goal is, of course, yourself).

Bacteria have been "evolving" just as long as everything else on the planet. Every organism alive today is at the end of a long line of organisms that has been evolving for something like four billion years.

Not all organisms evolve at the same rate, or in the same directions. Ants and humans are both descended from a common ancestor that diverged from bacteria something like a billion years ago. They both evolved in different directions, at different rates, but they've both been evolving away from bacteria for the same length of time

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Wow!  This has many implications.  This means that if we were able to compare the earliest bacterial DNA to modern bacterial DNA, we would find the same 65% sequence difference that we see in the chart for all the other organisms, right?   Are we able to do this?  Anyone wanna bet money on the results?  Hmmm... wow...my mind is spinning with all the implications of what you are saying.  This is gonna be great!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



No. Different organisms evolve at different rates. Bacteria have not evolved nearly as rapidly as eukaryotes, for a host of reasons. However, if you could go back in time to the earliest eukaryotes, say a few tens of millions of years after the prokaryote-eukaryote split, you would find that all the eukaryotes of the time were approximately equally diverged from bacteria, but the sequence difference would be much smaller than it is today. As you move ahead in time, and keep sampling different eukaryotes, you would discover that even though the distance from their genotypes to bacterial genotyes was increasing, the distance for all eukaryotes would remain roughly the same. This is exactly what the theory of evolution predicts, and it's exactly what Denton's chart demonstrates. (You did notice, didn't you, that there's a great deal of variation within eukaryotes, but little difference from all eukaryotes to bacteria, didn't you?) If you could come back in another 500 million years (assuming there's still life here on earth) you would discover that the sequence difference was increasing, but it would still be roughly the same over all eukaryotes.

But here's the take-home lesson, Dave: horses are just as distantly-related from bacteria as digger wasps are. Both are just as far from bacteria as bamboo is. All three are as distant from bacteria as baboons are.

There is no "ladder of life," Dave. There's a tree of life. Take two leaves at opposite sides of the tree. Which one is further from the roots?
Posted by: argystokes on Oct. 02 2006,07:36



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Yes, in a truly neutral region of DNA (i.e., a molecular clock), a 500 myo bacterium is MUCH different than a modern bacterium. Exactly as much as a human is. If you want to talk about non-neutral, CODING regions (does that remind you of the human-chimp table?) that are under the purview of natural selection, we can expect that modern bacteria are more similar to ancient bacteria than humans are (but we can't know how similar, unless we can study fossil morphologies to make educated guesses about certain genes).

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Considering the dearth of noncoding DNA in bacteria, I suspect molecular clock techniques would not be particularly useful even if we had 500 myo DNA.
Posted by: k.e on Oct. 02 2006,07:50



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
("ancient" in quotes b/c I of course believe that ALL bacteria are only about 6000 years old.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Don't BS us AFD you don't believe that.

You think it is true because you think a circular arguement is true. Observe

AFD:The world is 6000 years old.
Why?
AFD: Because the Bible (or more correctly some 19th Century theological nutter) says so.
How do you know that is true:
AFD: Because the Bible (or more correctly some 19th Century theological nutter) says its true.

However, the circular arguement is a logical fallacy and by definition false.

You 'believe' something that is false pure and simple, truly a credit to 'stupidanity' there AFD

You know it is wrong, you may not 'believe' that  bacteria have been in existance for billions of years although you know that the evidence supports it, and it must be true, the real test for you AFD is .....does it pass the 'stupidanity' test.... of course it does ...so the earth being 6000 years old MUST BE FALSE.

Stoke that demon AFD.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 02 2006,07:51

Let me try to give you an analogy that even you might be able to see, AirHead.

Suppose some guy comes up to you and wants to argue that the Gospels were all faked, and  he "knows" this.

You listen to his claim and he starts ranting about things that have nothing to do with the gospels, they sound bizarre and twisted, like some weird version of the book of Mormon combined with Wicca.

You question the guy and discover he doesn't KNOW the Gospels and has in fact only looked them over superficially once or twice, flipping through them and not really reading them.

How would you feel about the guy's arguments that the gospels were all fraudulent, given his level of "knowledge?"

This is how most of your arguments sound to me, and I suspect that others here feel pretty much the same.

Your claims about relatedness above...your ignorance about chimp-human relatedness, your claims that fruitflies should "mutate into superfruitflies" or FISH, for Chrissakes...it just screams "stupid." It's a bizarre parody of what evolutionary theory IS, just as you caricatured geology, and #### near everything you've ever tried to pervert in science. Like I said...it's surreal.
Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 02 2006,07:52

Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,12:11)
You guys have been preaching to me about how similar organisms have similar genetic sequences, i.e. chimps and humans are within 1.5% of each other, right?  And you are correct.  Similar homologies yield similar genetics.  I agree with you there.

But now you are telling a new whopper!

You really want me to believe that a 500 myo bacterium (let's say we could get some DNA from a bacterium fossil) is much different than a modern bacterium?  Now all of a sudden, instead of similar homologies yielding similar genetics, you're telling me "Oh yes, ancient bacteria LOOKED very similar to modern bacteria, but we are quite sure that their genetics would be far different ... probably the same 65% difference."

Come on, guys!  This is ridiculous!  You are GUESSING what ancient bacterial genetics might have been like and you are CONTRADICTING the guideline you just finished giving me about similar morphologies=similar genetics.

What in the world?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dave, Dave, Dave. Where are you getting this "looks similar means they have similar genotypes"? What does that have to do with evolutionary theory? No one has said anything at all about similar morphologies here. It's a complete non-sequitor.

What people have been saying is that all eukaryotes living today are equally distantly-related to all bacteria living today. What does that have to do with morphology? Do insects and jellyfish look anything alike? Do either one of them look anything like a redwood? What does appearance have to do with it? The point is, all are descended from a common ancestor that diverged once from bacteria, and therefore all three are equally distant genetically from bacteria.

No wonder everyone here thinks they're talking to, well, not a macaque; that would be insulting to a macaque.
Posted by: carlsonjok on Oct. 02 2006,07:52

Quote (ericmurphy @ Oct. 02 2006,12:36)
There is no "ladder of life," Dave. There's a tree of life. Take two leaves at opposite sides of the tree. Which one is further from the roots?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Forgive me, but I am a simple engineer, but do I understand that it is a matter of distance rather than complexity/similarity?  Would a fair metaphor be:

Dave lives in Kansas City. If he hops on I-70W and drives 600 miles he will be pretty close to Denver..  If he drives the same distance on I-70E he will be in Richmond, IN.  The same distance on I-35N takes him to Duluth, MN.  Lastly, 600 miles on I-35S would land him about half way between Dallas-FortWorth and Waco.  Now, no one would confuse Denver for Duluth or rural Indiana for rural Texas, but all are equidistant from Kansas City?
Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 02 2006,07:58

Quote (carlsonjok @ Oct. 02 2006,12:52)
Forgive me, but I am a simple engineer, but do I understand that it is a matter of distance rather than complexity/similarity?  Would a fair metaphor be:

Dave lives in Kansas City. If he hops on I-70W and drives 600 miles he will be pretty close to Denver..  If he drives the same distance on I-70E he will be in Richmond, IN.  The same distance on I-35N takes him to Duluth, MN.  Lastly, 600 miles on I-35S would land him about half way between Dallas-FortWorth and Waco.  Now, no one would confuse Denver for Duluth or rural Indiana for rural Texas, but all are equidistant from Kansas City?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Bingo!

Get it now, Dave?

No? Well, color me surprised.
Posted by: stevestory on Oct. 02 2006,07:58

Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 02 2006,13:15)
What's amusing is that this is analogous to a guy arguing against ...oh, say algebra...while not knowing the commutative, distributive and associative properties of multiplication. It's surreal.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Isn't it though? This thread could be renamed "A Stubborn Idiot Confronts Freshman Science"

(Somewhere in cyberspace, on a math discussion board...)

ArmyDave: "G A L O I S  W A S  W R O N G"
Occam'sQ-Tip: "Do you know what a group is?"
ArmyDave: "N O  B U T  A S  S O O N  A S  Y O U  T E L L  M E  I ' L L  T E L L  Y O U  W H Y  Y O U ' R E  W R O N G"
Posted by: ScaryFacts on Oct. 02 2006,07:59

Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 02 2006,13:51)
Let me try to give you an analogy that even you might be able to see, AirHead.

Suppose some guy comes up to you and wants to argue that the Gospels were all faked, and  he "knows" this.

You listen to his claim and he starts ranting about things that have nothing to do with the gospels, they sound bizarre and twisted, like some weird version of the book of Mormon combined with Wicca.

You question the guy and discover he doesn't KNOW the Gospels and has in fact only looked them over superficially once or twice, flipping through them and not really reading them.

How would you feel about the guy's arguments that the gospels were all fraudulent, given his level of "knowledge?"

This is how most of your arguments sound to me, and I suspect that others here feel pretty much the same.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Would you mind if I posted a link to this quote (or used this quote with a reference) elsewhere?

This is a huge problem as I try to talk to Christians who seem to think they can easily refute evolution without having the slightest idea what they are talking about.  This analogy is perfect for them.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 02 2006,08:04

Scary : Oh, heck no, feel free to use anything I post.
Posted by: afdave on Oct. 02 2006,08:22

Go ahead ... spin a couple of pages of rhetoric to your heart's content.

I've hit on something here with this crazy (new to me) idea that ...

"Ancient" bacterial DNA is just as different from modern bacterial DNA as modern bacterial DNA is from human DNA.

As far as I can tell ... A TOTAL GUESS!

Wow!  That was worth all the effort today to discover that little gem!  I will look forward to finding out how different strains of modern bacteria compare genetically.  And hearing what justification you have for believing this little bolded statement above.

I think very few people on this thread really understand what a big deal this is.

Outta time!  See you tomorrow!

This will be fun!

******************************

Eric and Carlson ... you're out in left field.  I suggest re-reading carefully.
Posted by: ScaryFacts on Oct. 02 2006,08:23

Thanks Dead_Man.

Just one more thing...I want to encourage you guys and gals to keep this up.  I know many of you are likely frustrated but the lurkers (and pseudo lurkers like me) are learning tons.   With each new volley we get another piece of the puzzle.

And since you are trying to make it understandable to Dave, it's understandable to the rest of us.  Which is pretty cool.
Posted by: incorygible on Oct. 02 2006,08:34

Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,12:31)
Incorygible...  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Yes, in a truly neutral region of DNA (i.e., a molecular clock), a 500 myo bacterilum is MUCH different than a modern bacterium.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

How do you know this?  Are you just guessing?  How about in the Cytochrome C?  Do you say the same?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


How about you read the definition of a molecular clock in that Nature paper I sent you before accusing me of "guessing" regarding something that is a defining characteristic of the term in question.

But seeing as how you don't even have a rudimentary understanding (less than high school biology) of what you're talking about, that's probably as far as you'll be able to get in that paper.

As to how we know that molecular clocks work, that's old ground that I'm not interested in covering again (especially since you don't even know the basics of common descent well enough to understand it). Please pick up a textbook.

As for the specifics of cytochrome C versus a truly neutral clock, I have my reservations (even though the data seem to match up well with everything else we know, including other clocks). As a coding region, cytochrome CANNOT be truly neutral in selection, but because it is a highly conserved protein it seems to work well enough as one of the first clocks (we have more and better clocks now). In any case, the data it provides are consistent with our theoretical expectations.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 02 2006,08:37



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"Ancient" bacterial DNA is just as different from modern bacterial DNA as modern bacterial DNA is from human DNA.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Tell me this guy doesn't have some kind of learning disability.

Scary: You're much too kind, but...it makes it all worthwhile. That's what many of us hoped -- that it would allow for people to get a sense of the topics and make better debaters out of everyone. I've learned stuff from just about everyone here, I can't think of an exception other than Dave, since he's really just parroting arguments from others.
Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 02 2006,08:37

Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,13:22)
I've hit on something here with this crazy (new to me) idea that ...

"Ancient" bacterial DNA is just as different from modern bacterial DNA as modern bacterial DNA is from human DNA.

As far as I can tell ... A TOTAL GUESS!

Wow!  That was worth all the effort today to discover that little gem!  I will look forward to finding out how different strains of modern bacteria compare genetically.  And hearing what justification you have for believing this little bolded statement above.

I think very few people on this thread really understand what a big deal this is.

Outta time!  See you tomorrow!

This will be fun!

******************************

Eric and Carlson ... you're out in left field.  I suggest re-reading carefully.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dave, so what if it's a total guess? So what if it's totally wrong (especially since no one will ever know for sure)? What does it have to do with your point? You expect some living eukaryotes to be more closely related to living bacteria than others are. Therefore, you think that Denton's chart, which shows no such thing, proves that evolutionary theory is wrong.

But you're wrong, Dave, because all living eukaryotes are equally distantly-related to living bacteria. They're also all equally distantly-related to the bacteria of a billion years ago. So even if Incorygible is completely wrong about the sequence difference between ancient and modern bacteria, that helps your case not one iota. So why are you crowing about this statement? It has absolutely nothing to do with anything, whether it's right or wrong.

Dave, everyone on this thread understands that this is a non-issue, except for one person: you.

And Dave, I'm no evolutionary biologist (to put it mildly), but I've forgotten more about evolutionary theory than you'll ever know. You're not just out in left field; you're out of the ballpark, out of the county, shit, you're completely out of the state! (to rougly paraphrase Janice Joplin).

And as I suspected, Carlson's analogy went right over your head, despite the fact that it should have been clear to a bright seven-year-old.
Posted by: k.e on Oct. 02 2006,08:38

AFD is like the little kid waiting for something to fall off a truck.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Go ahead ... spin a couple of pages of rhetoric to your heart's content.

I've hit on something here with this crazy (new to me) idea that ...

"Ancient" bacterial DNA is just as different from modern bacterial DNA as modern bacterial DNA is from human DNA.

As far as I can tell ... A TOTAL GUESS!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Wrong order there AFD lets see how that should go.





---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I've hit on something here with this crazy couple of pages of rhetoric, A TOTAL GUESS

"Ancient" bacterial DNA is just as different from modern bacterial DNA as modern bacterial DNA is from human DNA.

As far as I can ... spin this crazy idea that ...
has gone to my head

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: BWE on Oct. 02 2006,08:39

Quote (argystokes @ Sep. 27 2006,17:09)
Unfortunately, Dave felt compelled to turn off comments (and erase those already there) after BWE said the poop word or something.

But Dave, why did you erase all the existing comments, such as mine?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Is that a problem?

Ice cores?

Portuguese?
Posted by: incorygible on Oct. 02 2006,08:44

Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,13:22)
Go ahead ... spin a couple of pages of rhetoric to your heart's content.

I've hit on something here with this crazy (new to me) idea that ...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dave, with the "Eureka" of a veritable Sherlock Holmes, uncovers (nay, "hits upon" or "nails us down on") the most basic element of what we have been trying to drill into his skull for months now.




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"Ancient" bacterial DNA is just as different from modern bacterial DNA as modern bacterial DNA is from human DNA.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Paging Dave, once again:

Please add the words "selectively neutral" to the appropriate locations in this "little gem". You wouldn't want to misrepresent me, would you? Not when I can easily link to the relevant clarifiers in my statements.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
As far as I can tell ... A TOTAL GUESS!

Wow!  That was worth all the effort today to discover that little gem!  I will look forward to finding out how different strains of modern bacteria compare genetically.  And hearing what justification you have for believing this little bolded statement above.

I think very few people on this thread really understand what a big deal this is.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I can name one in particular who hasn't figured it out yet...
Posted by: k.e on Oct. 02 2006,08:53

It's just occured to me that AFD has never had an original thought.

Note how gleeful he gets when he manages to find something he can twist into his warped reality.

He must have stars in his eyes dreaming of making it big in Demon City.

He knows he's on a hiding to nothing, but like some bottom feeding planton feeder he thinks that by hanging around long enough he will gobble up enough dertritus falling into his dim dark high pressure world he will be able to re-surface like some heroic Greek sea god and claim victory over the surface inhabitants.

AFD I hope your gills clog up.
Posted by: incorygible on Oct. 02 2006,08:55

Quote (argystokes @ Oct. 02 2006,12:36)
Considering the dearth of noncoding DNA in bacteria, I suspect molecular clock techniques would not be particularly useful even if we had 500 myo DNA.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Most definitely. A host of other practical problems would also present itself in calibrating an "ideal" clock, were we to find it.

This is where we run into problems. It would be easy if we merely had to SIMPLIFY things for Dave. But no, we have to SIMPLETON-IFY things, and even then they don't catch.

Hopefully others will note (even if Dave doesn't) that I have tried to include the appropriate caveats (which are certainly neccessary to someone who understands this at a level higher than the EB) when making inevitable gross over-simplifications in the hopes of getting something to stick in Davey's brain.

But yes, in trying to reduce this to terms a 6-year-old could understand, the subtleties of reality get lost.

Dave will no doubt "nail us down" on other (perceived) incongruities (like my use of "evolved" vs. Eric's, for example). I'll just continue to laugh (as I have been all morning), not only at the posts, but at the idea of Dave reading the Nature chimp paper I sent him.
Posted by: k.e on Oct. 02 2006,09:07

Someone here will know this, but don't some bacteria have 'more' DNA than humans?

Also what is the rough count of unique bacteria?

Watch this AFD

My guess is that the tree diagram that OA posted above even if it had every unique fish, animal etc, both alive and extinct individually listed would pale into insignificance compared to a tree with just  bacteria.
Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 02 2006,09:20

Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,11:33)
Ah yes.  I see I may be confusing you by talking about "moving left on the chart."  

I do understand that sunflowers and penguins, for example, are NOT in the "human branch" or "trunk" or whatever you call it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dave, I know I'm wasting my time on you, but let me see if I can at least clear up some confusion for the lurkers, who seem to be getting a lot more out of this than you are.

None of the organisms that you are talking about are on the "'human branch' or 'trunk' or whatever you call it." Do you have brothers or sisters, Dave? Or cousins? Are any of those people on the "Dave branch" or "trunk" or whatever you want to call it? No. You're not descended from any of those people. In the same way, humans are no more decended from "worms or fish" than they are sunflowers or penguins. You're totally looking at this the wrong way, Dave, and until you can get clear what the phylogenetic tree looks like, it's impossible for you to get anywhere with this discussion.

What you need to understand is this. The only difference between sunflowers, penguins, worms, and fish is how far back in time you need to go to find the common ancestor of each of them and humans. None of them is an "ancestor" of humans (or of anything else alive today).

If you go back in time, you'll find that penguins and humans diverged from a common ancestor at some point. So we don't get into quibbles about "deep time," let's just call that x years ago. Now, if you go further back in time, you'll find that humans and fish diverged from a common ancestor at an earlier time, say, x + y years ago. At that point in time, there were no humans or penguins, or anything that looked like either one. There were fish, and that was it for that particular branch on the phylogenetic tree.

Now, if you go back further, you'll find the common ancestor of humans and worms, at a time = x + z years ago, where z > y. You'd have to go back further to find the common ancestor of humans and sunflowers.

But none of these organisms—sunflowers, penguins, worms or fish—is directly ancestral to humans. How could they be? They're no more ancestral to humans than your brothers or sisters or cousins are ancestral to you. And that's the part where your misunderstanding of evolutionary theory really trips you up. You seem to believe that evolutionary theory proposes that at some point, fish stopped evolving, except for those certain fish that continued to evolve towards humans. It doesn't work that way, Dave, and that's a fatal flaw in your understanding of evolutionary theory, and will prevent you from ever constructing an argument against it that won't be immediately shredded and, more to the point, wrong.

You need to get this clear in your head RIGHT NOW, Dave, if you have a prayer of arguing the topic: no organism alive today is in any sense "ancestral" to humans. Or to any other organism, for that matter.

And the sad fact is, Dave, if you'd read the < Theobald article > I sent you five months ago, you'd already understand all of this, and you could be discussing evolutionary theory with some hope of making any sense. Right now, you're not criticizing evolutionary theory at all: you're criticizing your own misapprehended version of it that has essentially nothing to do with the real theory.
Posted by: Mike PSS on Oct. 02 2006,09:35

What the he** happened?  I go away to the dentist this morning and all Evo he** breaks loose.  We went from Isochrons to Eukaryotes pretty quick.
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,10:47)
EVOLUTIONISTS NEED DEEP TIME FOR THEIR THEORY TO WORK

**********************************

Mike PSS (Alias "Current Torch Bearer for Team Evo")--

I am waiting for you to show me how Mineral Isochrons prove Deep Time.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


AFDave,
Well I'm surprised at your attitude here.  I thought I was engaging you.  Instead I'm dealing with a someone that yells "Nyah, Nyah, Nyah!" at people.

First Dave, you haven't indicated any comprehension about Isochrons, radionucleide decay, or anything else for that matter.  Now I'm the torch bearer for a team I never knew existed?  Nowhere in my statements do you find biology, evolution, or genotype arguments.  Just chemistry, physics, geology, mechanics, math, etc.  

So, One last chance to continue engaging in a debate style manner (which you have accused me of not wanting to participate.  i can get that quote if you want).  At present my summary is challanging your "...all Isochrons are best described as mixing lines..." assertion.  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
AFDAVE,
What do you find wrong with my < summary > about whole rock Isochrons?

I can't begin to mention time until you address this issue.  Your assertions about mixing lines doesn't even need time or half-lives mentioned.  Only that the method of testing whole rock samples to create Isochron graphs is valid.

Please review and respond to the summary.  If you have any questions about it then ask.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You don't want people on this board to believe all the nasty things they're saying about you.

I'm engaging you intellectually and your ignoring this chance to raise your game.  I'm not name calling or impugning your character (SHAME k.e, SHAME).  I do use sarcasm and inuendo all the time, but it's not Ad Hominum.  In fact, my last < post > this morning I showed all my cards in how I would challange your assertions.  Pretty fair on my part wouldn't you say?

Mike PSS
Posted by: incorygible on Oct. 02 2006,10:03

Quote (ericmurphy @ Oct. 02 2006,13:37)
Dave, so what if it's a total guess? So what if it's totally wrong (especially since no one will ever know for sure)? What does it have to do with your point? You expect some living eukaryotes to be more closely related to living bacteria than others are. Therefore, you think that Denton's chart, which shows no such thing, proves that evolutionary theory is wrong.

But you're wrong, Dave, because all living eukaryotes are equally distantly-related to living bacteria. They're also all equally distantly-related to the bacteria of a billion years ago. So even if Incorygible is completely wrong about the sequence difference between ancient and modern bacteria, that helps your case not one iota. So why are you crowing about this statement? It has absolutely nothing to do with anything, whether it's right or wrong.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Let's clear up any confusion here (e.g., Re: "even if Incorygible is completely wrong about the sequence difference between ancient and modern bacteria").

What I said was:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Yes, in a truly neutral region of DNA (i.e., a molecular clock), a 500 myo bacterilum is MUCH different than a modern bacterium. The difference between old bacterium and new bacterium would be very similar to the difference between human and old bacterium IN THIS NEUTRAL REGION. If you want to talk about non-neutral (e.g., coding) regions (does that remind you of a heading in the human-chimp table?) that are under the purview of natural selection, we can expect that modern bacteria are more similar to ancient bacteria than humans are (but we can't know how similar, unless we can study fossil morphologies to make educated guesses about certain genes).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



The differences I am speaking of in the second sentence are in the TIMES (they are "clocks", after all) read from the respective molecular clocks (Dave will see something similar -- tau-species and tau-genome -- in the Nature paper I sent him). The amount of genetic divergence would, necessarily, be great enough (and resolved enough) to read these times. Furthermore, there would have to be cause to believe that the region of DNA in question was truly selectively neutral and had remained such since divergence. Finally, there would have to be cause to believe that mutation rates were regular and conserved across comparisons. In other words, I tried to simplify to Dave's grade-school level by omitting any talk about mutation rates (why they would be different for prokaryotes vs. eukaryotes), what would comprise truly neutral DNA, whether it exists in prokaryotes, generation-times, and other considerations. But I was very clear that I was talking about a region of DNA that would constitute a molecular clock -- NOT any region of DNA, and certainly not ALL the DNA.

I did not say that any particular sequence difference (especially across the entire genome!;) between ancient bacteria and modern bacteria vs. human and ancient bacteria would be the same. I did not say that we have such a "true" molecular clock up to the task.

I was illustrating that a molecular clock, in principle, would (practically by definition) reveal the same time since divergence from ancient bacteria for both modern bacteria and humans. This is not a guess.  It is, in fact, a bit of a truism if you understand phylogeny. For Dave, it's a momentous discovery (especially when you misrepresent it!;).

I say this right now, so I can link to it when Dave inevitably claims (AGAIN) that I said something along the lines of "the modern bacterial genome is as different from the ancestral bacterial genome as the human genome is".

I did not say this.  This is detailed clarification that I did not say this.

I accept any responsibility for forgetting that one can have no more subtlety than the average sledghammer when trying to teach Dave anything.

However, following this post, any further claim by AFDave suggesting that I said anything remotely similar to "modern bacteria are as genetically different from ancient bacteria as humans are" will be a deliberate misrepresentation (read: a lie).
Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 02 2006,10:07

Quote (Mike PSS @ Oct. 02 2006,14:35)
What the he** happened?  I go away to the dentist this morning and all Evo he** breaks loose.  We went from Isochrons to Eukaryotes pretty quick.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


All part of the creationist strategy, Mike. It's like a game of whack-a-mole. You keep knocking Dave's arguments down, one by one, and then he circles around to one you previously knocked down three months ago, hoping you'll have forgotten you already knocked it down once.

It can't have escaped Dave's notice that he's boxed in on the Isochron topic (and he hasn't even addressed about three dozen other radiometric techniques), and he's probably getting weary of banging his head against the wall. So now he's switching to another topic he's so ignorant of it's almost physically painful to watch him blundering around in the weeds of his own misunderstandings. He'll trip and tumble, stagger and stumble around in the phylogenetic undergrowth for a few days, and then circle around to another topic that's already been covered: maybe human/chimp phylogeny, maybe biblical prophesies, maybe Grand Canyon stratigraphy. Or maybe he'll try something brand new, like c decay or something.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'm engaging you intellectually and your ignoring this chance to raise your game.  I'm not name calling or impugning your character (SHAME k.e, SHAME).  I do use sarcasm and inuendo all the time, but it's not Ad Hominum.  In fact, my last < post > this morning I showed all my cards in how I would challange your assertions.  Pretty fair on my part wouldn't you say?

Mike PSS
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You have my admiration for your restraint in dealing with Dave, Mike. But in others' (and, occasionally, my) defense, keep in mind that we've been listening to Dave's exasperating drivel for five months now, and endured his incredible, breathtaking intellectual dishonesty that whole time. Occasionally, tempers flare. Unless you're a person of preternatural patience, I predict that if you continue to engage Dave, you'll eventually reach the same state of ennervated impatience. Think of that the next time you find yourself asking Dave the same exact question twenty times in a row, and having him ignore it every single time, and then finally saying, "Mike, you're such a broken record. Why don't you ask me something new?"
Posted by: Russell on Oct. 02 2006,10:14



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Someone here will know this, but don't some bacteria have 'more' DNA than humans?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I don't think so. DaveIQ153Scot made this claim in a comment on Panda's Thumb, thinking it supported his ridiculous "frontloading" version of ID. It turns out he failed to recognize a misplaced decimal point in a table he found on "the internets". I had a lot of fun rubbing his nose in that.
Posted by: edmund on Oct. 02 2006,10:31

afdave wrote:  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
To answer Argy's question, I would guess that there is VERY LITTLE sequence difference among modern bacterial DNA.  And I would also guess that there is very little difference between modern and "ancient" bacteria.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Since we can't know what ancient bacteria were like genetically, we can't test that second guess. But we can certainly test the first one.

My guess, afdave, based on evolutionary theory and what I know about the history of life on Earth, is that there is an immense amount of sequence difference among bacteria-- as much, or more than, the variation among all other living organisms put together.

I did a little Googling and found this:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
...the animal cytochromes are all very similar to one another and so are the plant sequences (0-30% difference), but cross-comparison of plant and animal sequences results in an average 46% difference....It is seen that few of the bacterial proteins are very similar to one another and that most comparisons show 60% difference.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


(courtesy of T. E. MEYER*, M. A. CUSANOVICH*, AND M. D. KAMEN. 1986. Evidence against use of bacterial amino acid sequence data for construction of all-inclusive phylogenetic trees. Proc. Nad. Acad. Sci. USA Vol. 83, pp. 217-220.)

It's an older reference-- I'd prefer something more recent-- but it makes its point: there's a bigger difference between some modern bacteria species than there is between an animal and a plant.

So how did I know that, Dave? Am I psychic? Am I just lucky? Or does evolutionary theory make accurate predictions?
Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 02 2006,10:41

Quote (incorygible @ Oct. 02 2006,15:03)
Let's clear up any confusion here (e.g., Re: "even if Incorygible is completely wrong about the sequence difference between ancient and modern bacteria").

What I said was:

     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Yes, in a truly neutral region of DNA (i.e., a molecular clock), a 500 myo bacterilum is MUCH different than a modern bacterium. The difference between old bacterium and new bacterium would be very similar to the difference between human and old bacterium IN THIS NEUTRAL REGION. If you want to talk about non-neutral (e.g., coding) regions (does that remind you of a heading in the human-chimp table?) that are under the purview of natural selection, we can expect that modern bacteria are more similar to ancient bacteria than humans are (but we can't know how similar, unless we can study fossil morphologies to make educated guesses about certain genes).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Good explanation, Incorygible, for why you and I gave Dave different answers as to whether modern bacterial genomes would be as different from ancient bacterial genomes as modern eukaryotic genomes would be.

I should also clarify that I had, and have, no reason to suspect that you are in any way wrong about your assertion—your actual assertion, not Dave's caricatured misunderstanding of it. My point was that, even if you were wrong, and that even in neutral regions modern bacteria are much more similar to ancient bacteria than eukaryotes are, that would help Dave's argument not even a tiny bit.

What Dave will never grasp, no matter how many times we spell it out to him, is that the reason all eukaryotes are approximately equally distant genetically from bacteria is because they all diverged from bacteria at the same time. One more time for the learning-impaired, Dave: worms and fish are no more closely related to bacteria than humans are. Would it help if I also put it in all caps and expanded the spacing, or are we clear now?

In other words, Dave, and to quote Wolfgang Pauli, your argument isn't even wrong.
Posted by: Mike PSS on Oct. 02 2006,10:41

Quote (ericmurphy Posted on Oct. 02 2006 @ 16:07)
You have my admiration for your restraint in dealing with Dave, Mike. But in others' (and, occasionally, my) defense, keep in mind that we've been listening to Dave's exasperating drivel for five months now, and endured his incredible, breathtaking intellectual dishonesty that whole time. Occasionally, tempers flare. Unless you're a person of preternatural patience, I predict that if you continue to engage Dave, you'll eventually reach the same state of ennervated impatience. Think of that the next time you find yourself asking Dave the same exact question twenty times in a row, and having him ignore it every single time, and then finally saying, "Mike, you're such a broken record. Why don't you ask me something new?"
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Thanks Eric.  I learned some classic restraint a long time ago.  I was in Air Force maintenance overseas for 6 years before I got my chemEng degree.  The flightline was staffed at half levels so everyone chipped in to get all the jobs done to get to the bar sooner.  All work done on the planes needed documentation that was read and reviewed by all the base staff.  If a pilot consistently wrote up garbage problems on an aircraft you still had to carry out a full operational check which would take time and effort.  We didn't want to waste time with the garbage so for corrective actions we never attacked the idiot pilots name or character, just his intellectual capacity.  Honestly, I've written up a corrective action that says "Switched mode to O-N position, ops ck good."  Sooner, rather than later, the idiot pilot gets ridiculed by HIS peers and stops the garbage write-ups.  And the world regains is ethereal balance.

I've been viewing this thread since its inception.  And PT since before Dover.  I'm not an "evolutionist" or a scientist, but have a well educated family and have been around universities since I was young (stealing laughing gas in lung bags from my grandfathers lab at UW-Madison Hospital for instance).  I've learned a lot from being a lurker.  The one area I find woefully lacking in any ID/C argument is the lack of actual math or data.  Even for the stuff they claim supports their notions.  If AFDave cannot even address and defend basic rebuttals to his arguments then I get to declare victory and move on to counter his next point.  I'm fair and will give him a few chances in front of this forum (even though he doesn't do the same thing back).

At the end of the day, it's all about the beer.
Posted by: incorygible on Oct. 02 2006,10:46

Start your own AFDave TRUTH Search!

Now, you too can convert truth into TRUTH in your spare time from the comfort of your own home. Here's how!

Step 1. Misrepresent a scientific fact or theory. Present this new TRUTH in a bold-capped slogan. Ensure that it contains at least one egregious error in comprehension that no one with a 10th-grade education would make. For extra TRUTH, find a "credentialed" creationist who has made the same error.

Step 2. Get roundly corrected and ridiculed by people who know better.

Step 3. Play dumb. Demand simplification. Repeat your slogan. Ignore any detailed text, references, etc. Instead, demand answers contained within a few simple sentences. Deny the existence of any other replies.

Step 4. Repeat Step 3 as many times as is necessary to ensure that the replies you receive: (1) have reduced all knowledge to simplistic analogies a 6-year-old could understand; (2) have largely removed all qualifiers, footnotes, complications, matters of interest, or suggestions of the larger body of knowledge involved; (3) are dripping with the frustration experienced by teachers of dull pupils.

Step 5. From these latter replies, pick one presented concept you can distort by either: (a) reducing it to your slogan from Step 1; or (b) presenting it as a new misrepresentative slogan with an equal or greater magnitude of error. Note: To do this, you will need to remove any remaining qualifiers and equivocate non-equivocal concepts. You may even have to lie. (For example, if someone writes a simple sentence referring to a selectively neutral region of DNA that can function as a molecular clock, substitute "DNA".) If you choose (a), present your TRUTH as something a vast cabal of misled scientists is trying to hide from prying eyes. If you choose (b), present your new slogan as though this is a "discovery" that you have uncovered against the will of that same cabal. In either case, return to Step 1.

Congratulations! You have brought your very own TRUTH into the world!
Posted by: Russell on Oct. 02 2006,10:54



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
To answer Argy's question, I would guess that there is VERY LITTLE sequence difference among modern bacterial DNA
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Why guess? There's tons of sequence data freely available. And - as Edmund pointed out -  the differences between fruitflies' and human's DNAs are minor, compared with the differences between two divergent bacteria.

So, Dave, how come your Ultimate Science Textbook didn't prevent you from making that gaffe?
Posted by: incorygible on Oct. 02 2006,11:00

Quote (ericmurphy @ Oct. 02 2006,15:41)
Good explanation, Incorygible, for why you and I gave Dave different answers as to whether modern bacterial genomes would be as different from ancient bacterial genomes as modern eukaryotic genomes would be.

I should also clarify that I had, and have, no reason to suspect that you are in any way wrong about your assertion—your actual assertion, not Dave's caricatured misunderstanding of it. My point was that, even if you were wrong, and that even in neutral regions modern bacteria are much more similar to ancient bacteria than eukaryotes are, that would help Dave's argument not even a tiny bit.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No worries -- I figured as much. And your actual point is a valid one. I just wanted to get everyone (except the ever-absent Dave) on the same page regarding what was actually said in advance of the inevitable lying distortions.
Posted by: Diogenes on Oct. 02 2006,11:30



Because a sense of scale may help.
Posted by: incorygible on Oct. 02 2006,11:38

Quote (Diogenes @ Oct. 02 2006,16:30)
Because a sense of scale may help.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Indeed it does. Too bad Davey doesn't have one of those. Thanks anyway. I wonder if that picture will look, to Dave, like a tree as much as the EB one looked like a ladder? Because Dave's Rorschach-like inklings regarding evidence seem to be all we have to work with here.
Posted by: improvius on Oct. 02 2006,12:09

Points of agreement.

I'd still like to acknowledge and explore what I think was a huge leap for Dave just a couple of days ago:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Thirdly, I do not think that geochronologists sit around dreaming up ways to bash Christians and "exalt Satan."  

I think they simply have not considered the Bible.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


As I stated previously, I see this as tremendous progress from his previous position that biologists, geologsts, anthropologists, etc. were "blinded by what they want to believe."

Dave then follows up by affirming the evidence and logic behind evolution and radiometric dating:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And if that's all that Joe the Geologist or Bob the Biologist ever does and never considers the Bible, then of course, why would they ever think anything BUT that life evolved, and that the radioactive decay we see is a true age indicator?  

Of course he would think this.  What else CAN he think?  He has no other outside information.  He's not conspiring to defeat the Christian worldview.  The truth is that he is walking in "Comfortable Oblivion", just as many Jews were in Germany.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Now, aside from the bizzarely inexplicable Holocaust reference, I think we can all agree with Dave on this point.  Indeed, without the influence of religious belief, what else would Joe and Bob do other than follow the physical evidence at hand?  Without something like the Bible to contradict the evidence, they have no reason whatsoever to doubt or disregard whatever conclusions they may arrive at by way of methodological naturalism.  Again, unless I am very much mistaken, we can all safely go along with this assesment.

At this point, it seems that we only disagree when it comes to methodology:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Improv...  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Well, at least we're all on the same page now, right?  That is, evolution and deep time are the best logical conclusions that we can make based on observed, testable evidence.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

It is, indeed, were it not for that horrifying reality of ...

THE SUPERNATURAL

That is precisely where you and I differ ...
I see overwhelming evidence for the Supernatural element ...
... you do not.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Again, I think we can all agree that this is a major point (if not the point) of disagreement between Dave and, well, the world of science.

What I am proposing now is that we begin from this common ground.  We should accept Dave's implicit concession to the "materialistic" science behind evolution and "deep time", and allow him to get on with presenting his Supernatural evidence.  Now, Dave has previously defined "supernatural" as "simply natural things which we don't presently understand," so I'm not entirely sure on where and how he is trying to break from methodoligcal naturalism.  But that's Dave's problem, not mine.

I am proposing a shortcut.  We could continue arguing the finer "sciencey" points to Dave, but I think we all know where that's going to end up.  As Mike PSS is demonstrating, ultimately Dave will have to formally concede on all of the technical, materialistic elements of your theories.  So why don't we just take that as a given and get right to the heart of Dave's "hypothesis": positive evidence of natural things which we don't presently understand.  Once again, I think everyone here will agree that, eventually, that's what Dave's "hypothesis" boils down to.  It's only a matter of time before he ends up there, so why don't we just jump right to it?
Posted by: Mike PSS on Oct. 02 2006,12:21

Here's some subject areas.

Materialistic -
"String theory."

Ponderable -
"If a bear sh*ts in the woods, does it smell?"
(of course with this we could enter the linguistic ground just like "eats shoots and leaves")

Zen -
"What is the sound of one hand clapping?

Theological -
"Angels, Pin, you get it."
Posted by: stevestory on Oct. 02 2006,12:27



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
To answer Argy's question, I would guess that there is VERY LITTLE sequence difference among modern bacterial DNA.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



AfDave's Imagination: 0
Biology: 827,485,712
Posted by: afdave on Oct. 02 2006,12:37

Mmmm ... not so fast.  I'm not done with Denton and his (and my) belief that sequence comparisons were a surprise to ToE.  More tomorrow on this.

Isochrons ... any time, Mike.  Convince me.

I think the "blinded by what they want to believe" applies to, er ... let's see ... what can we call them?  "anti-Biblicists" ? "skeptics" ?  ... you know ... folks like Russell who are going to school board meetings fighting people like me.  So I have not really made any leaps that I am aware of.  Just describing different groups.

Comfortable oblivion:

Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late.

Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

Get it now?

******************

Improv ... you can pretend I agree with you that RM Dating and Deep Time is valid, but it doesn't make it true ... any more than pretending Humans evolved from Pond Scum makes that true.

Again, RM dating has nothing to do with the real age of rocks.  My comment was intended to mean that if you don't believe in God, then why not pick a good fairy tale and pretend it's true?  Perfectly logical course of action.
Posted by: improvius on Oct. 02 2006,12:38

Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37)
Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late.

Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Your God is like Hitler?  WTF.
Posted by: stevestory on Oct. 02 2006,12:39

Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37)
Comfortable oblivion:

Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late.

Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


God is like Hitler.

Got that? Write that down.
Posted by: improvius on Oct. 02 2006,12:42

Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37)
Improv ... you can pretend I agree with you that RM Dating and Deep Time is valid, but it doesn't make it true ... any more than pretending Humans evolved from Pond Scum makes that true.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, obviously I know you don't think it's "true", but you agreed that evolution and "deep time" were the best logical conclusions that we can make based on observed, testable evidence.  That was really my point.
Posted by: Mike PSS on Oct. 02 2006,12:51

AFDave,
Are you dropping your argument about ". .all Isochrons are best described as mixing lines..."?

If you cede this point then Ipso facto, you agree with my summary that countered that claim.  I can then show you aging arguments.

Mike PSS
Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 02 2006,12:54

Quote (improvius @ Oct. 02 2006,17:09)
Points of agreement.
I am proposing a shortcut.  We could continue arguing the finer "sciencey" points to Dave, but I think we all know where that's going to end up.  As Mike PSS is demonstrating, ultimately Dave will have to formally concede on all of the technical, materialistic elements of your theories.  So why don't we just take that as a given and get right to the heart of Dave's "hypothesis": positive evidence of natural things which we don't presently understand.  Once again, I think everyone here will agree that, eventually, that's what Dave's "hypothesis" boils down to.  It's only a matter of time before he ends up there, so why don't we just jump right to it?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I wholeheartedly agree, Improv, and in fact that's exactly what I've been trying to get Dave to do for the past five months. I've repeatedly admonished him to stop trying to find holes in the evidence supporting evolution, an old age for the earth, etc., and get on with providing "positive evidence" in support of his "hypothesis."

If you can think of a way to get him to do this, please, for the love of god, do so. I've been trying to get him to do it for months. The rest of this thread is just one giant detour around the issue.

And another point about "supernatural" causes, by which Dave appears to mean "causes the nature of which we don't yet have an understanding." Obviously, this is not what most people mean by the term, but I can work with it.

If that's what you mean by "supernatural," Dave, no scientist is going to dispute that various things could have "supernatural" causes.  What gives an electron its mass? Well, probably the Higgs boson, but no one knows for sure, so maybe the source of mass is "supernatural." Scientists don't rule out "supernatural" (in this sense of the term) causes because they're supernatural, but because there's no evidence (yet) for them.

But they are going to have a problem with "hypotheses" which can be ruled out right out of the gate because they conflict with simple, basic observation. Your young-earth "hypothesis" falls into this category. A 6,000-year-old cosmos "hypothesis" falls afoul of so many observational tests I could fill up an entire page with just a list of them.

Scientists don't fail to consider the Bible (specifically, Genesis) because they don't know any better, Dave. They don't consider it because it is clearly (and I do mean clearly, like any bright nine year old can see the problems with it) erroneous.

Now, if you want to propose some "supernatural" mechanism by which we can see a galaxy that's 2 million lightyears away in a cosmos that's only 6,000 years old, go right ahead. We'd be happy (no, fascinated) to hear your proposal. But unless you come up with some actual, affirmative evidence to support the existence of such a mechanism, we're going to laugh at you just the way we've been laughing at you all along. Some statement like, "Relativity theory makes it reasonable to suppose that God can exist outside of time and space and therefore he could make the galaxies only look like they're that far away" simply isn't going to cut it.

But again, Improv, if you can get Dave to actually focus on providing actual, affirmative evidence supporting the existence of these various "supernatural" mechanisms, I'll buy you a fifth of single-malt (if that's your thing).
Posted by: stevestory on Oct. 02 2006,12:59



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Thirdly, I do not think that geochronologists sit around dreaming up ways to bash Christians and "exalt Satan."  

I think they simply have not considered the Bible.

Let me say that again ... louder.

I think they have simply never considered the Bible.

And people who have never considered the Bible and its supernatural claims, simply operate in the material world.  They never even consider that there is an immaterial world out there.  They are naturalistic simply because ALL of us are BORN naturalistic.  In other words, we do what comes natural.  What comes natural?  Well, you eat, sleep, work, play, you go to school, get married, have kids, get old and die.  And if that's all that Joe the Geologist or Bob the Biologist ever does and never considers the Bible, then of course, why would they ever think anything BUT that life evolved, and that the radioactive decay we see is a true age indicator?  

Of course he would think this.  What else CAN he think?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I need to look for an image of Elmer Fudd accidently blasting himself.
Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 02 2006,13:15

Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,17:37)
Mmmm ... not so fast.  I'm not done with Denton and his (and my) belief that sequence comparisons were a surprise to ToE.  More tomorrow on this.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


How's this going to work, Dave? We've already explained ad nasueum that Denton's chart of sequence comparisons confirms evolutionary theory, disconfirms your mangled misunderstanding of evolutionary theory, and why. What more is there to discuss? It's clear that you have completely ignored every single post on the topic, and there have been dozens. It seems to me that your only way out of this quagmire is to come up with convincing evidence that eukaryotes are not all equally distantly related to prokaryotes, i.e., that they did not diverge from prokaryotes at the same time. Would you care to lay out your proposed method for even showing this?

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Isochrons ... any time, Mike.  Convince me.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Now. Mike has asked you several times why you disagree with his summary re isochrons, after you already stated quite plainly that you do not disagree with it. First of all: which is it? Even you seem confused as to whether you agree with his summary or not.

If you do not agree with his summary, then why do you disagree with it? Please be specific. You're not fooling anyone with your "prove it to me" arms-folded pretense. You either have a specific disagreement with his summary or you don't. If you do, please let us know what it is. If you don't, then you can no longer claim that you disagree with it. You have to have a reason to disagree with it. You can't merely disagree with it without reason.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Improv ... you can pretend I agree with you that RM Dating and Deep Time is valid, but it doesn't make it true ... any more than pretending Humans evolved from Pond Scum makes that true.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Paging Strawman Dave? Is there a Strawman Dave in the house?

Of course there is. Are you going to ignore the multiple posts pointing out to you that no one, not one evolutionary biologist out there, believes that humans evolved from plants?

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Again, RM dating has nothing to do with the real age of rocks.  My comment was intended to mean that if you don't believe in God, then why not pick a good fairy tale and pretend it's true?  Perfectly logical course of action.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dave, you personally don't think RM dating has anything to do with the age of rocks, but you've given no one here the tiniest reason to believe that. It's nice that you've managed to persuade yourself that you're right, since clearly thinking otherwise would cause your head to explode, but you haven't exactly supported your position with reference to actual facts.

And in the meantime, your belief in god is way more a fairy tale than a belief in an old earth or the theory of evolution, because you simply don't have any evidence for it. I'm not saying god does not exist for a fact—there certainly could be a god. But you don't have any evidence for its existence. On the other hand, there's plenty of evidence for an old earth and for the theory of evolution. It doesn't matter whether you believe that evidence or not; it still exists. But where's your evidence for the existence of God? No need to re-post your UPDATED Creator God "Hypothesis"; I've already read it.
Posted by: afdave on Oct. 02 2006,13:31

Mike-- That wasn't what I said exactly, but no, I'm not dropping anything.  Whaddya got?
Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 02 2006,13:34

Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,17:37)
Improv ... you can pretend I agree with you that RM Dating and Deep Time is valid, but it doesn't make it true ... any more than pretending Humans evolved from Pond Scum makes that true.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dave, we don't need to "pretend" you agree that RM Dating and Deep Time "are the best logical conclusions that we can make based on observed, testable evidence." You've already admitted that they are:

 
Quote (afdave @ Sep. 30 2006,17:47)
Improv...    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Well, at least we're all on the same page now, right?  That is, evolution and deep time are the best logical conclusions that we can make based on observed, testable evidence.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

It is, indeed, were it not for that horrifying reality of ...

THE SUPERNATURAL

That is precisely where you and I differ ...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



In other words, Dave, for evolution and deep time not to be the best explanations for what we observe, you need yet more "miracles."

Okay, you say you see evidence for all these supernatural causes. Where is that evidence?
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 02 2006,13:40

Dave said:      

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I would guess that there is VERY LITTLE sequence difference among modern bacterial DNA.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Bacteria are spectacularly diverse genetically --Just as an example --
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Microbial genomes are being sequenced at an increasing pace, and we are rapidly building a detailed molecular picture of the microbial world that is yielding new biological paradigms on a weekly basis. With over 140 finished bacterial genomes now publicly available, and a larger number in progress, these data are scientific touchstones for their respective communities, in addition to establishing the molecular basis for microbial diversity studies. Improvements to sequencing technologies have reduced the cost of whole-genome sequencing, bestowing less-well-studied microbes with sequence data sets and the modern analysis approaches they engender. Microbial genomes, however, are characterized by extensive intraspecific variation, in that different strains or types within the same species can vary by as much as 20% in gene content
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

(My Emphasis)...see: < http://jb.asm.org/cgi....9733676 >
< http://jb.asm.org/cgi/content/full/186/22/7773 >
The differences INTERspecifically are great as well:        

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The typical interdivisional rRNA sequence difference is 20 to 25%. For comparison, the 16S rRNAs of Escherichia coli and Pseudomonas aeruginosa, both representatives of the  group of Proteobacteria, differ overall by about 15%; the 16S rRNAs of E. coli and Bacillus subtilis ("low-G+C gram-positive bacterial" division) differ by about 23%.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
more than 78,000 16S rRNA gene sequences have been deposited in GenBank and the Ribosomal Database Project, making the 16S rRNA gene the most widely studied gene for reconstructing bacterial phylogeny
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

< http://mmbr.asm.org/cgi/content/abstract/68/4/686 >
rRNA = ribosomalRNA, DippyDave, just as an example of interspecific diversity.The metabolisms of bacteria are often SO radically different that "universal" probes couldn't detect them (as with hydrothermal vent bacteria)

K.E :The following page has the best "guesstimates" and information I've seen so far in my limited browsing on bacterial diversity and numbers of species. Basically, they say this: "the smallest drop of temperate seawater or a grain of agricultural soil will also yield myriad 16S rRNA sequences that are new to science"
< http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/99/16/10234 >
THAT paper basically says we have no models to determine the actual diversity and it cites an older paper that says " the entire bacterial diversity of the sea may be unlikely to exceed 2 x 10^6, while a ton of soil could contain 4 x 10^6 different taxa. These are preliminary estimates that may change as we gain a greater understanding of the nature of prokaryotic species abundance curves." < http://www.pnas.org/cgi....psecsha >
Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 02 2006,13:41

Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:31)
Mike-- That wasn't what I said exactly, but no, I'm not dropping anything.  Whaddya got?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dave, read my < post. > It's your turn. You are now saying you disagree with Mike's summary re isochrons. Well, what about it do you disagree with? Unless and until you explain exactly what you disagree with, what do you think Mike can do with your "whaddya got" question? Just repost his summary?

What's your problem with his summary, Dave? Do you know? Or do you just disagree for the sake of being disagreeable?
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 02 2006,14:02



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's what I really despise about jerkoffs like StupidDave. He is implying "you're going to die and MY  god is going to burn you for eternity for disbelief or even mere doubt "... it makes your god  look insane, evil, selfish, childish, insecure and petty, DaveTard2.

Apparently you think you're going to convince people by "threats." You think an all-loving god thinks as evilly as YOU. This alone makes you a wanker, Dave. This explains why you accept a God that kills innocent children, then claimed it was because "God knew they were going to do evil in the future." You're truly laughable.
Posted by: Mike PSS on Oct. 02 2006,14:04

Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,19:31)
Mike-- That wasn't what I said exactly, but no, I'm not dropping anything.  Whaddya got?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


AFDave,
I got my summary (you can find it I'm sure) that addresses your "mixing" argument.  Nothing about time yet, just mixing.

What part of my summary do you disagree with?
Posted by: Russell on Oct. 02 2006,14:31



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I think the "blinded by what they want to believe" applies to, er ... let's see ... what can we call them?  "anti-Biblicists" ? "skeptics" ?  ... you know ... folks like Russell who are going to school board meetings fighting people like me.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Oh, I can hardly wait to find out... what do I want to believe?

And, tell me, why do I drag myself to school board meetings? Is it because I don't want kids to learn "the truth"? Is it because I hate Jesus?

I wonder if dave's psychological insights come with the same level of certainty as his biological, geological, chemical and physical insights.
Posted by: Mike PSS on Oct. 02 2006,15:00

AFDave,
When I started explaining to you how your "Isochron's are mixing lines" argument was wrong you asked for an "executive summary" for you to review (I can find that quote if you want).  I complied with your request and formed an executive summary rebutting your mixing claim on page 6 of this thread.

Please read, comprehend, and comment on this summary.  If you have any questions please ask.  It doesn't bother me at all that you could disagree with the summary.  I need to know what part(s) you disagree with so we can discover further where you (or I) are wrong.

This is how a debate works in a civil environment.  Point, counter-point with supporting evidence.  Claim, counter-claim with supporting reasoning.  Or do you not want to debate this topic.  Your the one who said to me that you doubted I wanted to debate you (I can find that quote too).
Posted by: afdave on Oct. 02 2006,15:25

Mike--  Once again, my statement is that Deep Timers cannot prove that whole rock isochron diagrams are not merely mixing diagrams because all COULD be.  There is no way to tell for sure.  Your turn.

Russell-- Just a guess, but my guess is that you want to believe that Evolution is true and that Genesis 1 & 2 are merely nice, religious myths.  How close did I get?

Deadman-- Not only does the Bible speak of God as a loving  heavenly father, but it also says He is a "consuming fire."  Would I be doing you a favor if I did not warn you of the danger of not submitting yourself to the Great Creator and Judge of Mankind?



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Microbial genomes, however, are characterized by extensive intraspecific variation, in that different strains or types within the same species can vary by as much as 20% in gene content
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Great.  And a far cry from 64% ... and that's overall.  Now how about their Cytochrome C, which is what Denton was comparing.
Posted by: argystokes on Oct. 02 2006,15:30



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Would I be doing you a favor if I did not warn you of the danger of not submitting yourself to the Great Creator and Judge of Mankind?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Who?  Hitler?
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 02 2006,15:37



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Not only does the Bible speak of God as a loving  heavenly father, but it also says He is a "consuming fire."  Would I be doing you a favor if I did not warn you of the danger of not submitting yourself to the Great Creator and Judge of Mankind?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If the "Judge of Mankind" is anything worth following, it is not insane, petty and vicious. Your version of God is evil, as you described it. Keep your God. I prefer to avoid such concepts.

And on your view of genetic distances..I suggest you get off your lazy ass and quit begging others to spoonfeed you data. You're as wrong in this as you were in virtually all your claims.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Mike--  Once again, my statement is that Deep Timers cannot prove that whole rock isochron diagrams are not merely mixing diagrams because all COULD be.  There is no way to tell for sure.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I patiently explained to you how the laws of physics and chemistry show that the meteorites mentioned could not have been the result of mixing. Of course, you didn't bother to look that up, despite me giving you references. Again...typical of your dishonesty.
Posted by: afdave on Oct. 02 2006,15:50



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If the "Judge of Mankind" is anything worth following, it is not insane, petty and vicious. Your version of God is evil, as you described it. Keep your God. I prefer to avoid such concepts.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Read the Bible for yourself.  Maybe you'll get a different picture than I have painted.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And on your view of genetic distances..I suggest you get off your lazy ass and quit begging others to spoonfeed you data. You're as wrong in this as you were in virtually all your claims.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I already did.  I went out and bought a book ... just like you always tell me to.  Problem for you is that it was written by a top notch molecular biologist who happens to disagree with you.  He's made his case very clearly.  You are trying to refute him so the burden is on you.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I patiently explained to you how the laws of physics and chemistry show that the meteorites mentioned could not have been the result of mixing.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

And I patiently showed you in detail how you are wrong ... complete with pictures.
Posted by: argystokes on Oct. 02 2006,15:52



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Great.  And a far cry from 64% ... and that's overall.  Now how about their Cytochrome C, which is what Denton was comparing.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hoo, boy, are you in for a surprise!
Posted by: improvius on Oct. 02 2006,15:59

Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,21:25)
Mike--  Once again, my statement is that Deep Timers cannot prove that whole rock isochron diagrams are not merely mixing diagrams because all COULD be.  There is no way to tell for sure.  Your turn.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think Dave is implicitly conceding that, based on scientific evidence, they are not results of mixing.  Most likely he is referring to the possibility of unkown "supernatural" forces that could have somehow caused mixing.  In other words, Mike, you can't rule out that your crystals were not formed by miracles.
Posted by: incorygible on Oct. 02 2006,16:27

Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,20:25)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Microbial genomes, however, are characterized by extensive intraspecific variation, in that different strains or types within the same species can vary by as much as 20% in gene content
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Great.  And a far cry from 64% ... and that's overall.  Now how about their Cytochrome C, which is what Denton was comparing.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Read more carefully, Dave.  Phrases such as “WITHIN THE SAME SPECIES” are important here. (Or do you think there is only one species of bacteria?) That beautiful phylogenetic tree Diogenes presented will give you an idea of how genetically different bacteria are at levels above the "species". Compare the lengths of the lines connecting different groups of bacteria with, say, the length of the lines connecting animals and plants.

Anyhow, since Dave is merely going to spurt and sputter about how “ridiculous” our “whoppers” are (no matter what the evidence, and no matter how that evidence casts our whoppers relative to Dave's big, all-consuming God), I humbly suggest we just blow his mind with random biological (or other scientific) facts he hasn’t bothered to learn yet.

I’ll start.

Dave, you know those mushrooms you put in your salad tonight? Did you know that you are more closely related to them than the lettuce you mixed them with is? Didn’t think so.
Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 02 2006,16:28

Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,20:25)
Mike--  Once again, my statement is that Deep Timers cannot prove that whole rock isochron diagrams are not merely mixing diagrams because all COULD be.  There is no way to tell for sure.  Your turn.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dave, is it physically impossible for you to answer Mike's question? He asked you, what is it specifically about his < summary > that you disagree with?

Mike asked you a very simple question. It's got nothing to do with deep time, and nothing, particularly, to do with whether isochrons are mixing diagrams or not. It has to do with what it is about his "executive summary"—you know, the one you asked for?—that you disagree with. What about Mike's summary in particular is wrong, which allows you to claim that all whole-rock isochrons could be just mixing diagrams?

Until you answer this simple, basic question, there's no way your debate with Mike can proceed. So what's the hold-up?
Posted by: incorygible on Oct. 02 2006,16:36

Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,20:50)
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If the "Judge of Mankind" is anything worth following, it is not insane, petty and vicious. Your version of God is evil, as you described it. Keep your God. I prefer to avoid such concepts.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Read the Bible for yourself.  Maybe you'll get a different picture than I have painted.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I recommend Judges, Deadman. After that, it's hard to cast God in such a flattering light as you have.

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And on your view of genetic distances..I suggest you get off your lazy ass and quit begging others to spoonfeed you data. You're as wrong in this as you were in virtually all your claims.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I already did.  I went out and bought a book ... just like you always tell me to.  Problem for you is that it was written by a top notch molecular biologist who happens to disagree with you.  He's made his case very clearly.  You are trying to refute him so the burden is on you.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Interesting concept of burden of proof, Dave. If only we could reference the work of thousands upon thousands of top-notch scientists who knew what they were talking about when it came to evolution... Maybe the very same papers Denton ripped his cyctochrome C data from, for example? Ah, fie, to be crushed by a popular book and the massive weight of the Encyclopedia Britannica!

I know with that purchase you're probably over your book quota for the decade, Dave, but maybe you could borrow an elementary text on evolution. Check the index for an entry on cytochrome C. Read what it has to say. See if it confirms that, as we are trying to tell you, Denton made a boneheaded mistake here in his interpretation of evolutionary descent. (Again, I am taking you at face value that he -- not you -- made these claims as you portray them.) Even if the burden of proof was on us, Davey, it's been hoisted easily. As it turns out, the categorically wrong (stupendously so!;) claims of our opponent are as light as a feather. In fact, they make our point for us so well, we don't even need to be here -- your "burden of proof" carries itself, Dave.
Posted by: afdave on Oct. 02 2006,16:54

You guys aren't going to get off that easy.  I have a hard time believing that Denton made a "bone-headed mistake."  And we have ONLY been discussing bacteria.  Denton's claim covers many other organisms in addition to bacteria.
Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 02 2006,17:04

Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,20:25)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Microbial genomes, however, are characterized by extensive intraspecific variation, in that different strains or types within the same species can vary by as much as 20% in gene content
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Great.  And a far cry from 64% ... and that's overall.  Now how about their Cytochrome C, which is what Denton was comparing.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dave, read the quote. Did you notice where it says "intraspecific." You do know what "intraspecific" means, don't you? Given the "half a lousy percent" you derided about the difference between humans and chimps, which aren't even in the same genus, you'd think that 20% figure would give you pause.
Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 02 2006,17:20

Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,21:54)
You guys aren't going to get off that easy.  I have a hard time believing that Denton made a "bone-headed mistake."  And we have ONLY been discussing bacteria.  Denton's claim covers many other organisms in addition to bacteria.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But it is that easy, Dave. Denton (and you) both seem to believe that conventional evolutionary theory posits that different eukaryotes should be more or less closely related to prokaryotes depending on how long ago they diverged from prokaryotes. This is, in fact, a boneheaded mistake, because all eukaryotes diverged from prokaryotes at the same time. Therefore, conventional evolutionary theory posits that all eukaryotes should be equally distantly related to prokaryotes. This is what your chart (within the margins of error inherent in using a coding DNA sequence like that for cytochrome) actually shows.

You'll note that when you're talking about eukaryotes, all organisms are not equally related to each other. If your "hypothesis" about special creation were true, we would have no reason to expect any pattern at all in cytochrome c (they should either all be the same, or they should all be different), because the protein is highly conserved. The Theobald < paper > I cited to you five months ago discusses all this in great detail, but I'm not surprised you're not familiar with it, because there's no way you ever read that paper.

This pattern of differing distances among various eukaryotes, but all the same distances between all eukaryotes and all prokaryotes, is exactly what evolutionary theory predicts, and you still haven't shown otherwise. This pattern is definitely not remotely surprising to anyone who knows anything about evolutionary theory. Which is why you find it surprising, Dave.

So—yet another question Dave can't answer: how are you going to go about showing that it's not true that all eukaryotes diverged from prokaryotes at the same time?

One other point, Dave: by comparison to the prokaryotic world, eukaryotes are a minor offshoot. So saying you're talking about only bacteria is like saying you're talking about only the irrational numbers.
Posted by: k.e on Oct. 02 2006,17:32

Mike PSS


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
SHAME k.e SHAME
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


OK one of rare ad hominems.....snicker

alright then AFD's ancestors weren't weasles...

....ack ack cognitive disonance...mind imploding

nup can't take that back he must have at least 99.9% common DNA with a weasle....
Posted by: incorygible on Oct. 02 2006,17:52

Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,21:54)
You guys aren't going to get off that easy.  I have a hard time believing that Denton made a "bone-headed mistake."  And we have ONLY been discussing bacteria.  Denton's claim covers many other organisms in addition to bacteria.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Uh huh. The more things change, the more they stay the same. Way back when, you had a "hard time believing" Wieland (a medical doctor, no less!;) could make a "bone-headed mistake" regarding chromosomal fusion. But back then, you at least checked the claim and accepted the weight of evidence that a credentialed writer just simply got it wrong. (By the way, I see that artcle is still posted in its entirety, glaring mistakes and all. Didn't have any luck pointing that out to AIG, eh?) Anyhow, Deadman referenced one example of the resounding "what the fuck?!" from the scientific community regarding Denton's gaffe.

So you can accept the opinion of thousands of scientists working in the field. And that of tens of thousands of high school and undergraduate students of biology who would know enough to see Denton's mistake. And that of hundreds of thousands of educated lay people who could point out the same. And that of millions of papers and books on evolutionary theory. Or you can keep having a hard time believing that Denton is off the mark here, and choose instead to believe that the rest of the world is.

What were you saying about comfortable oblivion, Dave?

(Cue the references to Copernicus and Galileo from someone with a scientific background that would be considered poor among grade-schoolers.)
Posted by: edmund on Oct. 02 2006,18:40

from incorygible:  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So you can accept the opinion of thousands of scientists working in the field. And that of tens of thousands of high school and undergraduate students of biology who would know enough to see Denton's mistake. And that of hundreds of thousands of educated lay people who could point out the same. And that of millions of papers and books on evolutionary theory. Or you can keep having a hard time believing that Denton is off the mark here, and choose instead to believe that the rest of the world is.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


For that matter, Denton himself no longer seems to believe that he was on the mark. At least as I understand it, he's embraced mainstream evolutionary theory.

As for the statement that we're "only discussing bacteria", you'll find the same nested hierarchical pattern no matter which organisms you look at, and (within limits) no matter which gene you examine. That nested pattern is the signature of descent from a common ancestor, and the same pattern seems to appear no matter which critters you choose.
Posted by: BWE on Oct. 02 2006,21:35

Wow, you miss a few days and the little monkey boy gets even weirder.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Comfortable oblivion:

Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late.

Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

Get it now?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So precious.

Dave, I didn't believe in christians until I went to college. That's a fact. I was shocked. I thought of like, the middle ages and such when I thought of christians. I figured that people just wanted the company of the church.

So... This is getting good. Prokaryotes and Eukaryotes. Um, I might point out some obvious stuff but it will be better when Dave figures it out for himself.

Dave- you lost the portuguese thing.


Man, I just gotta do it again...


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Comfortable oblivion:

Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late.

Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

Get it now?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Go get 'em jEsus boy. Give 'em he!!.
Posted by: BWE on Oct. 02 2006,21:40

Hey Dave, what do ya guess the genomic difference between, say, Influenza and Strep might be?
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Oct. 02 2006,21:58

so why is it that Denton is right and everybody else is wrong? Is it because you *agree* with his claims?
After all, he claims to be a scientist, as do ALL the other people who do research, who happen to contradict you/him.

So, what's different about Denton to all the others? To me, it appears as if you are doing exactly what you claim everybody else is doing - closing your eyes to the actual evidence because of what you *believe*. Is that not the case? You claim that rocks are *chosen* before they are dated and this makes dating invalid. Are you not doing the same by picking and choosing who you believe because of their conclusion?
If I only ever dated rocks under 6000 years old then of course they'd say earth<6000 years old! So what?!

When does the earth become 6001 years old Dave? If you can *prove* it's 6000, presumably your error margin is less then a year? So WHAT DATE DOES THE EARTH BECOME 6001 years old Dave?
Posted by: Ross_UK on Oct. 02 2006,23:28

Oldmanintheskydidn'tdoit,

Ah, the old Goon Show joke:

How old is that dinosaur skeleton?
200 million and two years old.
How do you know?
Well, it was 200 million years old when I started working here two years ago...

Of course this leads to my new hypothesis that AFDave is Eccles (a spectacularly stupid character from the Goon Show - a British Radio Comedy of the 50s) and as my first piece of 'evidence' I offer the following exchange from "The Mysterious Punch Up the Conker":

Bluebottle: What time is it Eccles?
Eccles: Err, just a minute. I've got it written down on a piece of paper. A nice man wrote the time down for me this morning.
Bluebottle: Ooooh, then why do you carry it around with you Eccles?
Eccles: Welll, um, if a anybody asks me the time, I can show it to dem.
Bluebottle: Wait a minute Eccles, my good man.
Eccles: What is it fellow?
Bluebottle: It's writted on this bit of paper, what is eight o'clock, is writted.
Eccles: I know that my good fellow. That's right, um, when I asked the fella to write it down, it was eight o'clock.
Bluebottle: Well then. Supposing when somebody asks you the time, it isn't eight o'clock?
Eccles: Well den, I don't show it to 'em.
Bluebottle: Well how do you know when it's eight o'clock?
Eccles: I've got it written down on a piece of paper.
Posted by: Mike PSS on Oct. 03 2006,02:21

Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,21:25)
Mike--  Once again, my statement is that Deep Timers cannot prove that whole rock isochron diagrams are not merely mixing diagrams because all COULD be.  There is no way to tell for sure.  Your turn.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


AFDave,
This was your ORIGINAL claim BEFORE I posted my summary that REFUTED this claim.  Therefore you have to READ AND REVIEW my summary and address the points made in the summary.  Otherwise, my refutation of your claim is valid and you admit that your "mixing" argument is wrong.  That's how it works.

Now, I have a choice.  
EITHER I can create a detailed and cross-referenced post pointing to your past messages with proper time stamps that show the following chronological sequence
  • AFDave makes the above claim.
  • JonF and Mike PSS point out the inconsistencies of that claim and reference numerous sources.
  • AFDave holds his head in his hands and says "too much information" and asks for an "executive summary".
  • Mike PSS agrees to that under the condition that we start with the mixing claim first before we even talk about time.
  • Mike PSS posts his summary that refutes the "mixing" claim mentioned above.
  • AFDave repeats his original claim over and over and over.
  • Many people point out that AFDave has not addressed the information in the summary.


OR, I can create a detailed and cross-referenced post that shows AFDave arguing with many other posters about the following point:
Dalrymple rebutted Arndts and Overns paper about Isochrons with five points.  Arndts and Overn replied to Dalrymples rebuttal point for point.  Since Dalrymple didn't respond to the counter-points then Arndts and Overn (and AFDave) claimed victory about the point.
Does that situation seem eerily similar to what is going on above, but just in reverse?

AFDave, just read my summary that refutes your ORIGINAL claim you so graciously repeated above and respond to it.

Mike PSS
Posted by: Mike PSS on Oct. 03 2006,02:28

Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,21:50)
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I patiently explained to you how the laws of physics and chemistry show that the meteorites mentioned could not have been the result of mixing.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

And I patiently showed you in detail how you are wrong ... complete with pictures.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


AFDave,
You have yet to post a proper rebuttal to the meteorite graph.  The only """"data"""" (extra scare quotes around that word in this context) you posted is below.  And we all know how that turned out.

Posted by: TangoJuliett on Oct. 03 2006,02:31

Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,17:37)
Comfortable oblivion:

Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late.

Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

Get it now?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Don't ya just love it when the loonies play the violence/fear card?  Yeah, I get it Davey-dumbell.  You will note that his petty little impotent wanker god never does anything NOW.  The threats of violence and retribution are always after death, which is, very conveniently, not verifyable.  However, this tactic is very good at generating fear and uncertainty in susceptible people.  And, of course, people who are in a perpetual state of fear and uncertainty tend to be more compliant and easier to control.... and fleece.  It's a very common tactic used to control behavior throughout history.  The xtian implementation has got to be one of the best hooks ever invented, but it's also a truly psychotic demonstration of love.  Try pulling it on your significant other, "I love you dearly my darling, but if you fail to return my love I'll arrange for you to burn in ####."  That kind of 'loving' sentiment can land you in jail.

I would rather not exist in a universe controlled the petty narcissistic and dictatorial bastard that you happen to call god, Davey-poo.  So please, do me a favor and get your beloved impotent sky-daddy SOB to take action NOW!!!  Thanks.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Oct. 03 2006,02:42

dont forget the financial scandal rocking Dave's church at the moment, boy do they love their $$$. big part of the old religion it seems - no money, no entrance into heaven.

And darker things have been hinted at too......

You know, i'd pay for somebody to stand outside Davie's church and hand out flyers to people with a tinyurl to this discussion. Or radio ads in his town or whatever. Davie's told us that everybody he knows already is aware of his great victory's so there's no big deal in making sure. Paypal ok? :) I'm sure somebody on craiglist would help out for $$!

The odd thing is that nobody's ever signed in and given Davie his support. You'd expect that if his fundy buddies really did know about this "discussion" they've be over here leaving us "Jebus did it and you are all going to h@ll" posts (and then leaving without further ado).


But they are not. So Davie Lies again it seems. Where's all your support Davie? It does not exist, much like your Evil Jebus who's going to make us all bow down to him.
Posted by: afdave on Oct. 03 2006,04:31

Oldman...

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The odd thing is that nobody's ever signed in and given Davie his support. You'd expect that if his fundy buddies really did know about this "discussion" they've be over here leaving us "Jebus did it and you are all going to h@ll" posts (and then leaving without further ado).


But they are not. So Davie Lies again it seems.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Interesting ... more Darwinist Truth Search methods on display.  Mark that one down with the Darwinist Truth Searches about my career, my dad, my church ... and of course ... Origins.
Posted by: Mike PSS on Oct. 03 2006,04:51

Dave,
Don't get distracted by the culture warriors.  I'm offerring you real science.  Objective science.  Hard science.  Nothing political.  Just the facts type of science.

But the science I'm offerring has nothing to do with Darwinism or Darwinist Truth Searching.  Just physics and chemistry and math and geology and geography and cosmology.  You know, those areas of science that came before Darwin.
Posted by: improvius on Oct. 03 2006,04:54

Quote (afdave @ Oct. 03 2006,10:31)
Oldman...

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The odd thing is that nobody's ever signed in and given Davie his support. You'd expect that if his fundy buddies really did know about this "discussion" they've be over here leaving us "Jebus did it and you are all going to h@ll" posts (and then leaving without further ado).


But they are not. So Davie Lies again it seems.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Interesting ... more Darwinist Truth Search methods on display.  Mark that one down with the Darwinist Truth Searches about my career, my dad, my church ... and of course ... Origins.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I know you didn't really mean that, Dave.  I mean, you wouldn't want to conflate "darwinists" with "thumbers" now, would you?
Posted by: k.e on Oct. 03 2006,05:18

Ross_UK : With that classic illustration  of circular reasoning...



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Bluebottle: What time is it Eccles?....
Eccles: Err, just a minute. I've got it written down on a piece of paper. A nice man wrote the time down for me this morning.
Bluebottle: Ooooh, then why do you carry it around with you Eccles?
Eccles: Welll, um, if a anybody asks me the time, I can show it to dem.
Bluebottle: Wait a minute Eccles, my good man.
Eccles: What is it fellow?
Bluebottle: It's writted on this bit of paper, what is eight o'clock, is writted.
Eccles: I know that my good fellow. That's right, um, when I asked the fella to write it down, it was eight o'clock.
Bluebottle: Well then. Supposing when somebody asks you the time, it isn't eight o'clock?
Eccles: Well den, I don't show it to 'em.
Bluebottle: Well how do you know when it's eight o'clock?
Eccles: I've got it written down on a piece of paper.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Did you know Spike Milligan understood evolution?

"Legs are hereditary and run in most families."
Spike Milligan




Thanks Deadman_932 for the following info


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
K.E :The following page has the best "guesstimates" and information I've seen so far in my limited browsing on bacterial diversity and numbers of species. Basically, they say this: "the smallest drop of temperate seawater or a grain of agricultural soil will also yield myriad 16S rRNA sequences that are new to science"
< http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/99/16/10234 >
THAT paper basically says we have no models to determine the actual diversity and it cites an older paper that says " the entire bacterial diversity of the sea may be unlikely to exceed 2 x 10^6, while a ton of soil could contain 4 x 10^6 different taxa. These are preliminary estimates that may change as we gain a greater understanding of the nature of prokaryotic species abundance curves." < http://www.pnas.org/cgi....psecsha >

---------------------QUOTE-------------------





So AFD since you accept that science says that all life on earth started as simple cellular life can your creation science explain why there is such abundant diversity of bacteria without using the Theory of Evolution ?
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Oct. 03 2006,05:20

Quote (afdave @ Oct. 03 2006,09:31)
Oldman...

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The odd thing is that nobody's ever signed in and given Davie his support. You'd expect that if his fundy buddies really did know about this "discussion" they've be over here leaving us "Jebus did it and you are all going to h@ll" posts (and then leaving without further ado).


But they are not. So Davie Lies again it seems.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Interesting ... more Darwinist Truth Search methods on display.  Mark that one down with the Darwinist Truth Searches about my career, my dad, my church ... and of course ... Origins.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


yeah, whatever. Show us your science then Davey.

When will the earth be 6001 years old?

And as far as "Darwinist truth search methods go"

1: Dave says all his buddies know about this particular thread
2: nobody has ever come into this thread to give Davie their support.
3: We know fundies love to say " you are all going to ####" unless you believe *a really quite specific set of beliefs*
4: Nobody has ever done this, to my knowledge

Therefore, Davie has never told any of his fundie buddies about this thread. A reasonable conclusion from the available evidence if you ask me. It's not science, but i bet i'm right!

Davie, it's quite obvous that you want to talk about anything other then the facts, so i'll bow out now and leave you to discuss the actual *science* behind your claims with the others.
Posted by: k.e on Oct. 03 2006,05:32



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Interesting ... more Darwinist Truth Search methods on display.  Mark that one down with the Darwinist Truth Searches about my career, my dad, my church ... and of course ... Origins.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So you figured it out .....you clever boy...when I said



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
....nup can't take that back he must have at least 99.9% common DNA with a weasle....

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Yes AFD that weasle had two legs.
Posted by: incorygible on Oct. 03 2006,05:36

Quote (afdave @ Oct. 03 2006,09:31)
Oldman...

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The odd thing is that nobody's ever signed in and given Davie his support. You'd expect that if his fundy buddies really did know about this "discussion" they've be over here leaving us "Jebus did it and you are all going to h@ll" posts (and then leaving without further ado).


But they are not. So Davie Lies again it seems.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Interesting ... more Darwinist Truth Search methods on display.  Mark that one down with the Darwinist Truth Searches about my career, my dad, my church ... and of course ... Origins.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hypothesis: Dave has advertised the intellectual whupping he's laying on us Darwinists in this forum among his family, friends and fellow church-goers.

Prediction from Hypothesis: His family, friends and fellow church-goers would have a detectable presence on this board.

Method: Examine all posts in Dave's threads for supportive comments made by Dave's family, friends and fellow church-goers.

Results: No such supportive comments exist.

Conclusion: The prediction of a detectable presence of Dave's cheerleaders fails, and the hypothesis is refuted.

Hypothesis for Future Research: Dave is lying.

Now, one could argue how appropriate the prediction, method, results and conclusion are. But Dave's talking about methods. Dave, there's a name for the above method, and it ain't the "Darwinist Truth Search" method. In fact, it's the defining method of a certain body of knowledge from which you claim to accept "90%" of findings, and further claim to be a largely Christian/Creationist innovation.

Maybe you haven't figured it out yet. Here are a few more examples of it in action in relation to your Creator God Hypothesis. (Most interestingly, NONE of these examples -- nor anything remotely similar in methodology -- were provided by you.)

Hypothesis: Humans and apes (the latter including modern chimpanzees and gorillas) were created as separate "kinds".

Predictions from Hypothesis: (1) Humans will form a phylogenetic out-group to an in-group containing chimpanzees and gorillas. (2) The genetic distance between humans and chimpanzees or humans and gorillas will exceed the genetic distance between chimpanzees and gorillas.

Methods: (1) Examine sequence data for hundreds of loci and develop the relevant phylogenetic dendrograms. (2) Examine sequence data across the genomes of each species and measure overall genetic distance.

Results (see the first few pages of this thread for a recap): (1) The ((CH)G) phylogeny is by far the most prevalent and parsimonious, and matches very well with hypothesized times of divergence obtained through other methods. (2) The genetic distance between humans and gorillas and between chimpanzees and gorillas is far greater than (nearly double) that between chimpanzees and gorillas.

Conclusion: Both indpendent predictions fail, and the hypothesis is refuted.

Hypothesis for Future Research: Humans are an in-group to the African apes, descended from a common ancestor.



Prediction: The geographic region known as Tyre has been barren and uninhabitable for at least two thousand years in fulfillment of Biblical prophecy.

Prediction from Hypothesis: There will be no evidence of human habitation in the region of Tyre at any time during the past two milennia.

Methods: Examine current and historical data on human habitation in the region of Tyre. First and easiest, take a quick peak at Google Earth.

Results: Tyre is currently inhabited by many thousands of of humans.

Conclusion: The prediction fails, and the hypothesis is refuted.

Hypotheses for Future Research: Biblical prophecies are not always fulfilled as stated, ergo the Bible is not inerrant.


Dave, do you really want us to relabel this method (nameless here for ever more) the "Darwinist Truth Search" Method? Would that make you happy? Would it change its history of effectiveness?

Do you deny the method, Dave? If not, could you please present an example, outlined in simple fashion like above, where you have applied it appropriately and effectively anywhere in your five months of inane rambling on this board?
Posted by: improvius on Oct. 03 2006,05:38

I have a "feeling" that Dave is full of crap.  Does that count as positive supernatural evidence?
Posted by: Diogenes on Oct. 03 2006,05:44

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Oct. 03 2006,02:58)
[snip]
When does the earth become 6001 years old Dave? If you can *prove* it's 6000, presumably your error margin is less then a year? So WHAT DATE DOES THE EARTH BECOME 6001 years old Dave?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The earth was created on October 23, 4004 B.C.E.  That means we're just about to complete year 6010.  "6000 years old" is an approximation.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Oct. 03 2006,05:47



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Comfortable oblivion:

Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late.

Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

Get it now?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Um, no.

Glenn Morton is a devout Christian but he doesn't believe in a Young Earth anymore. Is he going to he11?

Also, please tell me where in the Bible Jesus said one goes to he11 for believing in evolution or failing to think the Earth is 6,000 years old. Is it, as Homer Simpson once said, "somewhere in the back"?

Moreover, remember that you are quite incapable of showing us why your Christian beliefs are any more true than any other religious beliefs, or no religious beliefs. Except for GoP and RO'B, everyone else here understands that, so the 'you're all going to he11' arguments aren't really going to work here.

If all you're here to do is to convert people, don't pretend to do science. Not that it really matters to ME, but it makes Christians look very stupid, and I know some very nice, intelligent moderate Christians who are extremely irritated by your kind of behavior.

Get it now?
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Oct. 03 2006,05:56

Quote (Diogenes @ Oct. 03 2006,10:44)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Oct. 03 2006,02:58)
[snip]
When does the earth become 6001 years old Dave? If you can *prove* it's 6000, presumably your error margin is less then a year? So WHAT DATE DOES THE EARTH BECOME 6001 years old Dave?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The earth was created on October 23, 4004 B.C.E.  That means we're just about to complete year 6010.  "6000 years old" is an approximation.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Then why don't fundamentalists celebrate 'Earth Day' every October 23rd?
Posted by: incorygible on Oct. 03 2006,06:11

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Oct. 03 2006,10:56)
Then why don't fundamentalists celebrate 'Earth Day' every October 23rd?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


They've got their heads in other places and on other matters.

(Where's that illustration of this that Steve posted way back when?)
Posted by: Russell on Oct. 03 2006,06:14



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Russell-- Just a guess, but my guess is that you want to believe that Evolution is true and that Genesis 1 & 2 are merely nice, religious myths.  How close did I get?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Not very.

Do I believe that massive objects attract other massive objects - a phenomenon known as "gravity" - because I want to believe it? Or because I find the evidence pretty persuasive?

Do I believe "Evolution is true", or that the development of life was an extremely complex and almost unimaginably long process, and that the description of it by mainstream science is considerably more accurate and informative than deductions tortured out of ancient religious documents?

Now, when I go to school board meetings, believe it or not, no actually elected members are rushing to embrace the YEC position. They understand that to actually endorse, out loud, the nonsense you endorse would be to political suicide. No, what they're trying to do is to what politicians do: have it both ways.  They're trying to straddle the gulf between reality and religious fundamentalism with the imaginary bridge called "intelligent design". They're trying to say "sure, we support science, and technology, and medicine, all the cool toys and drugs and all, but there's this complicated dodge - way too complicated for me to explain right now (heck, I barely understand it myself! - but these distinguished gentlemen from the Discovery Institute assure me it's legit) - whereby up can simultaneously be down, negative is actually positive, and saying otherwise is the rankest form of viewpoint discrimination".

What would I like to believe? That's kind of a foreign concept to me. I want my perceptions and understanding of the universe to be as accurate and complete as possible, and not to be clouded by unwarranted assumptions, wishful thinking, and superstition. I suppose if I could arrange my "fantasy reality", I might entertain notions of being immortal, of getting having loved ones who have died resurrected and we could hang out indefinitely together enjoying good food and good times... oh, and can I keep my cat?  I might want an all-knowing Big Daddy in the Sky to intervene at key moments to save me and my fellow Homo sapiens from our short-sightedness, and to assure me that even though I am appalled at some of my own deviations from my idea of proper conduct over the years, that all is forgiven, no need to worry about it.

I might like to believe there's no need to challenge ignorance and backwardness, because knowledge and understanding, being inherently more powerful, will always prevail with or without my input.

What I actually believe is that a new round of Dark Ages is entirely possible, and it's advent would look a whole lot like this morning's newspaper.
Posted by: Diogenes on Oct. 03 2006,06:24

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Oct. 03 2006,10:56)
Quote (Diogenes @ Oct. 03 2006,10:44)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Oct. 03 2006,02:58)
[snip]
When does the earth become 6001 years old Dave? If you can *prove* it's 6000, presumably your error margin is less then a year? So WHAT DATE DOES THE EARTH BECOME 6001 years old Dave?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The earth was created on October 23, 4004 B.C.E.  That means we're just about to complete year 6010.  "6000 years old" is an approximation.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Then why don't fundamentalists celebrate 'Earth Day' every October 23rd?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Maybe they are using Lightfoots chronology which places it on Sept. 12th (or October 22 or October 25) 3929 B.C.E. or Scaliger's Jan. 1, 4713 BC, or mabye one of the hundreds of other such dates.
Posted by: Mike PSS on Oct. 03 2006,06:29

Quote (Russell @ Oct. 03 2006,12:14)
[snip]  I might want an all-knowing Big Daddy [snip]
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Did someone mention < Big Daddy >?
Posted by: stevestory on Oct. 03 2006,06:33

Quote (Russell @ Oct. 03 2006,12:14)
What I actually believe is that a new round of Dark Ages is entirely possible, and it's advent would look a whole lot like this morning's newspaper.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


A former physics professor of mine believes it's not just possible, it's likely. He argues that most of human history has been ruled by religious and tribal affiliations, that humans revert to that in times of crisis, and that some crisis in the future would pop our effervescent bubble of secularism and peace.
Posted by: BWE on Oct. 03 2006,06:56

-Someone's always got to bring up big daddy.-

(quote): Russell
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
...I want my perceptions and understanding of the universe to be as accurate and complete as possible, and not to be clouded by unwarranted assumptions, wishful thinking, and superstition.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Main Entry: re·li·gion
Pronunciation: ri-'li-j&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English religioun, from Anglo-French religiun, Latin religion-, religio supernatural constraint, sanction, religious practice, perhaps from religare to restrain, tie back

1 : The path from an unwarranted assumption to a foregone conclusion

2 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith rather than reason and evidence <Religion is one of the few things people will kill and die for without considering the risks and benefits beforehand.>
Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 03 2006,07:04

Dave, this morning's discussion is getting pretty far afield, so I'd like to yank things back on track, if I might. There are currently two very current outstanding issues you need to address (on top of the 70 or so other issues that are there in the backlog of unanswered questions and unaddressed objections). Here they are:

  • You need to address Mike's "executive summary" of his refutation of your "mixing lines" argument. So far, all you've done is repeat your argument that he claims he's defeated. In other words, you're just repeating yourself. It's as if you made a  claim that 2 + 2 != 4, and then Mike posted a mathematical proof demonstrating that 2 + 2 = 4, and when he asked you to point to places in his proof where you disagree, you merely repeat your claim that 2 + 2 != 4. So it's not his move, Dave: it's yours. What about his executive summary do you disagree with, and why?
  • You claim that Denton's chart showing that all eukaryotes are equally distantly-related to all prokaryotes (actually, his chart only has one prokaryote on it, but that's the gist of his, and therefore your, claim) refutes the theory of evolution. Actually, it supports it, but that's another issue. Your claim is that if the theory of evolution were correct, then the longer ago a eukaryote shared a common ancestor with (I guess it doesn't matter with what, but for the sake of argument let's just say) humans, the more closely related that organism should be to prokaryotes. This amounts to a claim that eukaryotes did not diverge from prokaryotes all at the same time, but have continued to do so up until—when?—the present time? Or, conversely, it could amount to a claim that once an organism first appeared, it sort of, well, stopped evolving, so that, say, a worm stopped evolving a thousand million years ago, but a horse only stopped evolving a few tens of millions of years ago.

Either way, this last claim is so wrong, Dave, that it's difficult for me even to phrase it in a way that makes sense. As I said yesterday, in reality this claim doesn't even rise to the level of being wrong. It's so orthagonal to the real state of affairs that it's hard for me get my mind around it. But in any event, you haven't even begun to support your claim that this chart refutes evolution, let alone show it follows from or in any way supports your hypothesis.

So, get crackin,' Dave. The number of unanswered questions and objections to your "hypothesis" has grown so large that SteveStory has asked me not to post it all in one message, so as to avoid problems with the software. I guess I'll have to restrict myself to just posting the questions that are germaine to whatever particular quagmire you find yourself in at any given time.
Posted by: afdave on Oct. 03 2006,07:09

EVOLUTIONISTS, AKA DARWINISTS, AKA THUMBSTERS NEED DEEP TIME (continued)

(Thus explaining why rocks are carefully selected for RM "Dating")



OK, Dave, what in the world does a lungfish have to do with the present conversation?  A lot!  Are you ready?  Brains engaged?

Michael Denton, author of the much-feared-by-Darwinists-book entitled, Evolution:  A Theory in Crisishas claimed that this chart ...



... comes as a serious disappointment to Darwinists because it shouldn't be this way.  He says that amphibian cytochrome should be closer to bacterial cytochrome than human cytochrome is, and fish should be closer still and fungi should be closer still, if the ToE were true.  But it is not as this chart clearly shows.

Now the Thumbsters here are in high gear throwing all kinds of mud at Denton, saying he made a "bone-headed" mistake and "he doesn't understand Evolution" etc, etc, ad nauseum.  I like Ashby Camp's response to Theobald in this regard ...  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Next, Dr. Theobald chides me for quoting "another confused anti-evolutionist," Michael Denton. As an aside, I find it fascinating that, according to Dr. Theobald, Denton "doesn't understand even the most fundamental evolutionary concepts." It is fascinating because one often hears that nothing in biology makes sense except in light of evolution. And yet, Denton, being ignorant of the most fundamental evolutionary concepts, managed to earn a Ph.D. in developmental biology (in addition to an M. D.), to write or co-author over seventy articles in professional journals, and to work for decades as a genetics researcher. Apparently knowledge of evolution is irrelevant to a career in science.< http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/camp.html >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

 Who was that that was trying to tell me how vital it is to scientific careers to understand evolution?  Wasn't there some bongo here trying to tell me "Dave, the oil companies all use evolutionary theory to find oil!!  See isn't Darwinism great??!!"  What a riot!

Anyway, Darwinists want to paint Denton as a dummy, but, as usual, this is vacuous.  Denton understands ToE just fine and he has the guts to write a book showing it's fatal flaws, that's all.

Back to the chart, lungfish and Darwinists NEED for Deep Time.  

If Evolution were true, this chart would be far different as I said above.  Now ... Incorygible here is trying to tell me ...

"Well, Dave, you (and Denton) just don't understand evolution.  You have this dorky idea that ANCIENT bacteria would have the same cytochrome sequence as MODERN bacteria.  Poor naive little Davey!  That chart is exactly what we Darwinists would predict!  Isn't it wonderful!!"

Mmmm ... don't think so, boys ... Denton probably anticipated people like you when he shows the prevailing view of Darwinists back in 1963 ...  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Contemporary organisms that look much like ancient ancestral organism probably contain a majority of polypeptide chains that resemble quite closely those of ancient organisms.  In other words, certain animals said to be "living fossils", such as the cockroach, the horseshoe crab, [the lungfish shown above] the shark and, among mammals, the lemur, probably manufacture a great many polypeptide molecules that differ only slightly from those manufactured by their ancestors millions of years ago. Zuckerkandl, E., "The Evolution of Haemoglobin", Scientific American, 213(5): 110-18, see p111.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



This was before the full impact of the new comparative studies was realized.  So you see.  Incorygible is wrong.  Darwinists DID expect genetic studies to confirm their views, but, sadly for them, they did not.

So what we have is Darwinists themselves EXPECTING molecular biology to confirm their views back in the early 60's, but what really happened is that they were refuted.  Now of course they will never admit defeat, so what did they do?  Start backpedaling and writing all kinds of stupid articles like Wesley's which tries to say that Darwinism PREDICTS the chart above.  What a joke!

So if Incorygible really believes his "Ancient Bacterial Cytochrome is Far Different that Modern Bacterial Cytochrome" statement, then maybe he also believes that the modern lungfish--pictured above--also have much different cytochrome than the fossil lungfish that supposedly lived 400 Million years ago.

Yeah, pretty likely, Cory!  You really want me to believe that some ancestor of this nice lungfish evolved for 400 million years on one branch to produce modern humans, yet didn't evolve at all on another branch and basically stayed the same for 400 million years, yet you would have me believe that the cytochrome in the ancient and modern lungfish are vastly different??  I bet you have some great exp dlanation for how this can be, but Denton anticipates these as well and nukes them.  He relates how the evolutionary community is basically divided into two camps--the Selectionist and the Neutralist camps ... and both are destroying each other.  I like it!  My ideological enemies are doing my work for me!

Oh man ... you guys are hilarious!  How can you keep swallowing this Darwinist tripe year after year?  Denton's book has been out for over 20 years, rings true as ever, yet most of you haven't even read it and you are blindly wandering around in a fog, totally unaware that the Darwinist ship is sinking.

I feel for you ... I truly do!

So ... to wrap up ... what we have is that Evolutionists NEED DEEP TIME to make all those tiny changes that supposedly accumulate to magically transform a single celled organism into ... Voila!  A human being!

How do they get the Deep Time they need?  Simple ... they have George the Geochronologist who doesn't mind ignoring pesky "little" details like "discordances are the rule, not the exception", excess Argon, Argon loss, isochrons can be mixing diagrams, Helium loss in zircons shows a young earth, etc. etc. etc.

It all makes perfect sense!
Posted by: afdave on Oct. 03 2006,07:16

Almost forgot ...

HAIL, DARWIN !!!!
Posted by: stevestory on Oct. 03 2006,07:27

Quote (afdave @ Oct. 03 2006,13:16)
Almost forgot ...

HAIL, DARWIN !!!!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Praise be His name.
Posted by: improvius on Oct. 03 2006,07:33

Quote (afdave @ Oct. 03 2006,13:09)
So if Incorygible really believes his "Ancient Bacterial Cytochrome is Far Different that Modern Bacterial Cytochrome" statement, then maybe he also believes that the modern lungfish--pictured above--also have much different cytochrome than the fossil lungfish that supposedly lived 400 Million years ago.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hypothetically, Dave, would you shut up and admit Denton is wrong if someone here were to show you that modern bacterial cytochrome is far different than other modern bacterial cytochrome?
Posted by: jeannot on Oct. 03 2006,07:33

Dave, we told you why Denton and yourself don't understand squat about molecular evolution and phylogenetics.
Are you dishonest or just dumb? I can't tell.
Posted by: jeannot on Oct. 03 2006,07:36

Quote (afdave @ Oct. 03 2006,12:16)
Almost forgot ...

HAIL, DARWIN !!!!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Praise Satan!  :D
Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 03 2006,07:36

Quote (afdave @ Oct. 03 2006,12:09)
Michael Denton, author of the much-feared-by-Darwinists-book entitled, Evolution:  A Theory in Crisishas claimed that this chart ... comes as a serious disappointment to Darwinists because it shouldn't be this way.  He says that amphibian cytochrome should be closer to bacterial cytochrome than human cytochrome is, and fish should be closer still and fungi should be closer still, if the ToE were true.  But it is not as this chart clearly shows.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dave, normally I'd cut you some slack because you couldn't have read my post before you posted your latest, but I won't this time, because I and others have already raised this issue with you multiple times, and you've ignored it every single time.

One more time, Dave: EVOLUTIONARY THEORY PREDICTS THAT ALL EUKARYOTES ARE EQUALLY DISTANTLY RELATED TO ALL PROKARYOTES. Strangely enough, that's exactly what Denton's chart shows. His claim that "amphibian cytochrome should be closer to bacterial cytochrome than human cytochrome is, and fish should be closer still and fungi should be closer still, if the ToE were true" is simply false, and I've shown you exactly why it's false.

So what's your response, Dave? There are essentially two possibilities for your claim, that different eukaryotes should be unequally related to prokaryotes it the ToE is true, to be correct: it could either be true that eukaryotes have diverged from prokaryotes at different times, possibly right up to the present. In other words, fungi diverged from bacteria at one point in time, fish at a later time, and amphibians at a still later time. Or, it could be true that once fungi first appeared, they stopped evolving completely. Then, later, fish first appeared, and they stopped evolving. Even later still, amphibians appeared, and then they stopped evolving too.

Neither of these scenarios is a prediction of the theory of evolution, Dave. If you can think of some other scenario that could produce the pattern Denton claims should be there "if the ToE is true," i.e., with more recently-appearing eukaryotes being more distantly related to prokaryotes than  eukaryotes that appeared earlier, feel free to post it. But it won't matter if you do, because whatever that scenario is, it is not one that is proposed by the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution predicts exactly the pattern that Denton says it doesn't predict: that all eukaryotes should be equally distantly related to all prokaryotes.

Now, before you go an refer to this as my theory, Dave: it's not. It is the currently accepted theory of evolution, the one that's accepted by every evolutionary biologist out there. Not one evolutionary biologist out there is remotely surprised by Denton's chart. What is surprising is that Denton was ever surprised by it.
Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 03 2006,07:47

You know, even after Incorygible < warned > Dave about lying and misrepresenting his statements, Dave went right ahead and did it anyway.
   
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 03 2006,12:09)
So if Incorygible really believes his "Ancient Bacterial Cytochrome is Far Different that Modern Bacterial Cytochrome" statement, then maybe he also believes that the modern lungfish--pictured above--also have much different cytochrome than the fossil lungfish that supposedly lived 400 Million years ago.

Yeah, pretty likely, Cory!  You really want me to believe that some ancestor of this nice lungfish evolved for 400 million years on one branch to produce modern humans, yet didn't evolve at all on another branch and basically stayed the same for 400 million years, yet you would have me believe that the cytochrome in the ancient and modern lungfish are vastly different??  I bet you have some great exp dlanation for how this can be, but Denton anticipates these as well and nukes them.  He relates how the evolutionary community is basically divided into two camps--the Selectionist and the Neutralist camps ... and both are destroying each other.  I like it!  My ideological enemies are doing my work for me!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Oh, really, Dave?

   
Quote (incorygible @ Oct. 02 2006,15:03)
I did not say that any particular sequence difference (especially across the entire genome!) between ancient bacteria and modern bacteria vs. human and ancient bacteria would be the same. I did not say that we have such a "true" molecular clock up to the task.

I was illustrating that a molecular clock, in principle, would (practically by definition) reveal the same time since divergence from ancient bacteria for both modern bacteria and humans. This is not a guess.  It is, in fact, a bit of a truism if you understand phylogeny. For Dave, it's a momentous discovery (especially when you misrepresent it!).

I say this right now, so I can link to it when Dave inevitably claims (AGAIN) that I said something along the lines of "the modern bacterial genome is as different from the ancestral bacterial genome as the human genome is".

I did not say this.  This is detailed clarification that I did not say this.

I accept any responsibility for forgetting that one can have no more subtlety than the average sledghammer when trying to teach Dave anything.

However, following this post, any further claim by AFDave suggesting that I said anything remotely similar to "modern bacteria are as genetically different from ancient bacteria as humans are" will be a deliberate misrepresentation (read: a lie).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



God, Dave, catching you in a lie is like shooting fish in a barrel, when you're already in the barrel.

Which brings us to the inevitable question: what would Jesus lie about?
Posted by: Diogenes on Oct. 03 2006,07:53

Dave, who is more closely related to your cousins, you or your brother?  If you look more like your grandfather than your brother does, what affect does that have?

Same question, but back a generation, who is more closely related to your great uncles grandchildren, you or your cousin?

Same question, but back many generation, who is more closely related to modern bacteria, humans or fish?
Posted by: Mike PSS on Oct. 03 2006,07:55

Quote (afdave @ Oct. 03 2006,13:09)
EVOLUTIONISTS, AKA DARWINISTS, AKA THUMBSTERS NEED DEEP TIME (continued)

(Thus explaining why rocks are carefully selected for RM "Dating")
[snip]
How do they get the Deep Time they need?  Simple ... they have George the Geochronologist who doesn't mind ignoring pesky "little" details like "discordances are the rule, not the exception", excess Argon, Argon loss, isochrons can be mixing diagrams, Helium loss in zircons shows a young earth, etc. etc. etc.

It all makes perfect (non)sense!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


AFDave,
Ignoring my summary again.  Your latest arguments with Denton had references and arguments and counter-points, but nothing about my summary.

Having trouble digging up some copy/paste counter-points to my summary that refutes your "mixing" argument?  Try reading it yourself and finding the flaws yourself.  It's an executive summary written for CEO-like characters like yourself.

Please review my summary.  (now I sound like the Video Professor)
Posted by: afdave on Oct. 03 2006,08:11

Improv...  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Hypothetically, Dave, would you shut up and admit Denton is wrong if someone here were to show you that modern bacterial cytochrome is far different than other modern bacterial cytochrome?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

He's NOT wrong, even if modern bacteria have quite a bit of difference.  That would only call into question the bacteria.  But it says nothing of all the other organisms supposedly in the "human ancestry".

How are you Darwinists going to get around all of them?  You cannot!

Jeannot...

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Dave, we told you why Denton and yourself don't understand squat about molecular evolution and phylogenetics.  Are you dishonest or just dumb? I can't tell.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

IOW ... "My name is Fidel Castro and I AM RIGHT!!  You citizens of Cuba are stupid!  I know what's right and what's wrong because I AM THE RULER OF THIS COUNTRY!!  Why do you stupid citizens question my policies?  Off with your heads!" (Ok. I exaggerated that last part just a bit :-) )

******************************

Mike-- Hate to tell you, but your "summary" is so far back, I'm not going to try and find it.  If you want me to consider it ... repost it.  Then try to keep up and state your case quickly and succinctly.  I have yet to figure out what exactly you are trying to tell me.  If you have not noticed, this is a fast moving thread.  I have things to accomplish and I cannot waste time searching for your stuff.

Diogenes-- I suggest you go back to talking about the Bible and Christianity.  You made a lot more sense back when you were doing that.
Posted by: Russell on Oct. 03 2006,08:14

ericmurphy wrote:  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Dave, this morning's discussion is getting pretty far afield, so I'd like to yank things back on track, if I might. There are currently two very current outstanding issues you need to address (on top of the 70 or so other issues that are there in the backlog of unanswered questions and unaddressed objections).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Eric must be young and idealistic, and think there's actually a chance Dave's going to seriously engage scientific facts. I admire that. Hope springs eternal, and all that. Me, I figure that since this whole thread is all about religion, and nothing about science, maybe there's a better chance to get Dave to engage in religious questions.

But on another note...

Denton can't be fundamentally wrong about evolution, because he has a PhD in developmental biology (oh, and a MD). But then,  99.99% of molecular biologists with PhDs can't be fundamentally wrong when they say Denton is fundamentally wrong, because, well, they have PhDs (in the actual subject areas, by the way, that Denton is writing about).

Oh no! My head just exploded! Again!
Posted by: incorygible on Oct. 03 2006,08:14



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If Evolution were true, this chart would be far different as I said above.  Now ... Incorygible here is trying to tell me ...

"Well, Dave, you (and Denton) just don't understand evolution.  You have this dorky idea that ANCIENT bacteria would have the same cytochrome sequence as MODERN bacteria.  Poor naive little Davey!  That chart is exactly what we Darwinists would predict!  Isn't it wonderful!!"

Mmmm ... don't think so, boys ... Denton probably anticipated people like you when he shows the prevailing view of Darwinists back in 1963 ...  
Quote
Contemporary organisms that look much like ancient ancestral organism probably contain a majority of polypeptide chains that resemble quite closely those of ancient organisms.  In other words, certain animals said to be "living fossils", such as the cockroach, the horseshoe crab, [the lungfish shown above] the shark and, among mammals, the lemur, probably manufacture a great many polypeptide molecules that differ only slightly from those manufactured by their ancestors millions of years ago. Zuckerkandl, E., "The Evolution of Haemoglobin", Scientific American, 213(5): 110-18, see p111.


This was before the full impact of the new comparative studies was realized.  So you see.  Incorygible is wrong.  Darwinists DID expect genetic studies to confirm their views, but, sadly for them, they did not.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Dave, Denton's observation that, "Contemporary organisms that look much like ancient ancestral organism probably contain a majority of polypeptide chains that resemble quite closely those of ancient organisms." is what allows us to use cytochrome to go all the way back to bacteria in the first place! Have you not noticed us throwing the term "conserved" around a lot when it comes to Cytochrome C? If it changed rapidly over time, we would not be able to use it to compare distantly related taxa at all!

Your argument has NOTHING to do with the pattern in the chart. Whether or not ancestral bacterial cytochrome resembles modern bacterial cytochrome was a hypothetical (which you asked for!;) and is IRRELEVANT to the phenomenon you are woefully misinterpreting. EVEN IF bacterial cytochrome had not changed AT ALL since its ancestral state, we would STILL SEE the pattern of similar divergence among all eukaryotes in the table. That pattern is produced by the single divergence of prokaryotes and eukaryotes. Capiche?

No, you don't. Your misrepresentations and misunderstandings speak for themselves.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So what we have is Darwinists themselves EXPECTING molecular biology to confirm their views back in the early 60's, but what really happened is that they were refuted.  Now of course they will never admit defeat, so what did they do?  Start backpedaling and writing all kinds of stupid articles like Wesley's which tries to say that Darwinism PREDICTS the chart above.  What a joke!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Bullshit, Dave. Pure, unadulterated bullshit. I dare you to find an evolutionary textbook (even one prior to the "refuting" findings of molecular biology) that shows multiple divergences between prokaryotes and eukaryotes. Because, as Eric points out, that's what you would need to expect what you expect.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So if Incorygible really believes his "Ancient Bacterial Cytochrome is Far Different that Modern Bacterial Cytochrome" statement, then maybe he also believes that the modern lungfish--pictured above--also have much different cytochrome than the fossil lungfish that supposedly lived 400 Million years ago.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Yup. Even in a highly conserved coding sequence, hundreds of millions of years is going to produce changes.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Yeah, pretty likely, Cory!  You really want me to believe that some ancestor of this nice lungfish evolved for 400 million years on one branch to produce modern humans, yet didn't evolve at all on another branch and basically stayed the same for 400 million years, yet you would have me believe that the cytochrome in the ancient and modern lungfish are vastly different??  I bet you have some great exp dlanation for how this can be, but Denton anticipates these as well and nukes them.  He relates how the evolutionary community is basically divided into two camps--the Selectionist and the Neutralist camps ... and both are destroying each other.  I like it!  My ideological enemies are doing my work for me!

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I've emphasized the part of your question that reveals your (and Denton's) spectaculary terrible understanding of evolution. Why has been explained ad nauseam. No further answer is necessary, other than to point out the Selectionist vs. Neutralist battle is, like most  everything you rant, completely irrelevant to the topic at hand.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Oh man ... you guys are hilarious!  How can you keep swallowing this Darwinist tripe year after year?  Denton's book has been out for over 20 years, rings true as ever, yet most of you haven't even read it and you are blindly wandering around in a fog, totally unaware that the Darwinist ship is sinking.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Indeed.
Posted by: incorygible on Oct. 03 2006,08:21

Quote (afdave @ Oct. 03 2006,13:11)
Improv...    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Hypothetically, Dave, would you shut up and admit Denton is wrong if someone here were to show you that modern bacterial cytochrome is far different than other modern bacterial cytochrome?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

He's NOT wrong, even if modern bacteria have quite a bit of difference.  That would only call into question the bacteria.  But it says nothing of all the other organisms supposedly in the "human ancestry".

How are you Darwinists going to get around all of them?  You cannot!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Jebus, have you ever seen the "God of the Gaps" argument stated so explicitly? In bold?

Oh, and here is Dave's amazing unchanging ancestral bacterium:

< [img=http://img441.imageshack.us/img441/4423/bacteriaqw8.th.gif] >
Posted by: k.e on Oct. 03 2006,08:25

AFD with the old creationist double step



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Mike-- Hate to tell you, but your "summary" is so far back, I'm not going to try and find it.  If you want me to consider it ... repost it.  Then try to keep up and state your case quickly and succinctly.  I have yet to figure out what exactly you are trying to tell me.  If you have not noticed, this is a fast moving thread.  I have things to accomplish and I cannot waste time searching for your stuff.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Duck and weave AFD , did you hang around school yards handing out "I lie for Jesus" pamphlets?

That's the last time I heard that cheap, useless, cop out.

After that, if I saw one of you coming, you were asked if you liked sex and travel.
Posted by: Mike PSS on Oct. 03 2006,08:28

Quote (afdave @ Oct. 03 2006,14:11)
Mike-- Hate to tell you, but your "summary" is so far back, I'm not going to try and find it.  If you want me to consider it ... repost it.  Then try to keep up and state your case quickly and succinctly.  I have yet to figure out what exactly you are trying to tell me.  If you have not noticed, this is a fast moving thread.  I have things to accomplish and I cannot waste time searching for your stuff.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dave,
You show the efforts of a couch potato.  Click on the word < summary > to find my referenced permalink.

Not to say, however, that I think Eric and I linked my summary in our messages at least six times in the past few days.

Do you need instructions in the ikonboard tools?  I see you've masterred CAPS, BOLDING and image imprints.  An underlined word could be an underlined word OR a < URL > reference.
Posted by: improvius on Oct. 03 2006,08:29

Quote (afdave @ Oct. 03 2006,14:11)
Improv...  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Hypothetically, Dave, would you shut up and admit Denton is wrong if someone here were to show you that modern bacterial cytochrome is far different than other modern bacterial cytochrome?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

He's NOT wrong, even if modern bacteria have quite a bit of difference.  That would only call into question the bacteria.  But it says nothing of all the other organisms supposedly in the "human ancestry".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dave... the bacteria is the basis for that entire table.  If it's useless for comparison, then the rest of the table is useless as well.
Posted by: BWE on Oct. 03 2006,08:30

Dave, you are misunderestimating.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
This was before the full impact of the new comparative studies was realized.  So you see.  Incorygible is wrong.  Darwinists DID expect genetic studies to confirm their views, but, sadly for them, they did not.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Dave, I made this chart. Does it roughly correspond to your theory? If not, What part is in error? (or errant as the case may be)

Posted by: Russell on Oct. 03 2006,08:30



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Denton's book has been out for over 20 years, rings true as ever, yet most of you haven't even read it
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Just for the record, I have read it. Having actually studied this stuff extensively in many years of schooling, I had no trouble in instantly determining that it was ridiculous, for exactly the reasons the inexplicably patient people on this board have been trying to explain to you.

Have you read Denton's followup book, "Nature's Destiny", in which he quietly abandons the whole thesis of the earlier book, and accepts common descent? Probably because inexplicably patient people who actually understand molecular biology were able, finally, to show him how fundamentally wrong he had been?  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
and you are blindly wandering around in a fog, totally unaware that the Darwinist ship is sinking.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Motes and beams, Dave. Motes and beams.
Posted by: improvius on Oct. 03 2006,08:34

Quote (BWE @ Oct. 03 2006,14:30)
Dave, I made this chart. Does it roughly correspond to your theory? If not, What part is in error? (or errant as the case may be)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Your image is not displaying.  Although I do find the "red x" as a representation of Dave's theory quite amusing.
Posted by: incorygible on Oct. 03 2006,08:46

Speaking of motes and beams, Davey, exactly what is the YEC explanation for why the cytochrome c of such diverse critters as yeast, fish and humans is genetically equidistant from bacteria?

For example, apparently you think yeast is much more similar to bacteria than to humans. It's your basis for claiming we should see decreasing genetic distance as we move from left to right in that last row.

Now, with common design and all that, why did God painstakingly see to it that cytochrome c would present a pattern of nested hierarchies consistent with that ol' bogus evolutionary phylogeny? If the pattern in the table fit anything BUT nested hierarchies, it would scream "common design" rather than common descent. Is that why He didn't do this? To fool us? Given your latest analogy, was this his way of marking which of us would be destined for the camps?
Posted by: BWE on Oct. 03 2006,08:46

Aargg < My Webpage >

I uploaded it to my blog and used the view image to find the link. maybe I can see it because I'm logged in or something.

I'll try to fix it.
Posted by: improvius on Oct. 03 2006,08:59

Quote (BWE @ Oct. 03 2006,14:30)
Dave, you are misunderestimating.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
This was before the full impact of the new comparative studies was realized.  So you see.  Incorygible is wrong.  Darwinists DID expect genetic studies to confirm their views, but, sadly for them, they did not.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Dave, I made this chart. Does it roughly correspond to your theory? If not, What part is in error? (or errant as the case may be)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I set it up on imageshack for you.
Posted by: afdave on Oct. 03 2006,09:03

Russell...  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Have you read Denton's followup book, "Nature's Destiny", in which he quietly abandons the whole thesis of the earlier book, and accepts common descent?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Of course.  It's also one of my favorite books because it shows how finely tuned the universe is for mankind.  He has not "abandoned his whole thesis."  He simply cannot think of another alternative to evolution, so he reluctantly accepts it.  Too bad he's too proud (or too something) to read some AIG stuff.  He'd have the answer he's looking for.

One of my favorite quotes ever is from this book ...  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"In Nature's Destiny, Michael Denton marshals a stunning range of biological, chemical, and physical evidence to answer systematically a simple question:  Could life elsewhere in the universe be significantly different from life on earth?  Must it rely on carbon, water, DNA, amino acids, and proteins?  COuld there be an alternative to DNA, or could DNA be constructed out of different components?  Could cells be designed differently?  From these building blocks he dares to ask the boldest questions:  Is it possible there are life forms radically different from those realized during the course of evolution on Earth?  And even:  Is a Homo sapiens--like creature the only possible highly intelligent species, given the laws of biology that exist throughout the universe?

The stunning answer to this last question is yes.  Life is highly constrained by the laws of nature.  If, for example, the ratio between strong and weak chemical bonds had not been what it is, if the thermal properties of water were not precisely what they are, if the atmosphere of the Earth had not had just the right properties to filter out harmful radiation, then a flourishing biosphere such as exists on Earth would be impossible.  For life to develop beyond the most primitive stage hinted at by the famous Mars fossils requires an earthlike planet, with earthlike atmosphere and oceans.

Over the past twenty years, such physicists as Freeman Dyson, Fred Hoyle, Martin Rees and Paul Davies have argued that the universe is fine-tuned for carbon-based life.  Now, Michael Denton extends their argument all the way from the carbon atom to advanced and complex life forms closely resembling ourselves, showing that our biosphere is central to nature's destiny.  Though we may have six-fingered cousins elsewhere, the laws of nature are tuned to reach an endpoint in mankind."

and ...

"All the evidence available in the biological sciences supports the core proposition of traditional natural theology--that the cosmos is a specially designed whole with life and mankind as its fundamental goal and purpose, a whole in which all facets of reality, from the size of galaxies to the thermal capacity of water, have their meaning and explanation in this central fact ... As I hope the evidence presented in this book has shown, science, which has been for centuries the great ally of atheism and skepticism, has become at last, in these final days of the second millenium, what Newton and many of its early advocates had so fervently wished--the "defender of the anthropocentric faith."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I don't think this guy has suddenly become your ideological ally, Russell, as you seem to imagine.
Posted by: incorygible on Oct. 03 2006,09:06

< 20 years, and true as it ever was: >



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Denton attempts to build a broad case for his typological perspective. I shall confine attention to his treatment of molecular data, which his editors specifically tout in the blurbs on the dust jacket. (Readers interested in problems with Denton's treatment of other areas should see the chapters by Joel Cracraft, Laurie Godfrey, and C. Loring Brace in Scientists Confront Creationism.) Advances in molecular biology during the past thirty years opened a new window for viewing genealogical relations among organisms. The results are close to spectacular. Embedded in the structures of common proteins are telltale clues of genealogical relationships that provide overwhelming, independent, corroboration of the principle of biological evolution. Typological thinking in biology died long ago; molecular data have sealed the coffin. Denton, however, contends that molecular biology provides new evidence for a typological view of organisms. Inspection of Denton's arguments in Chapter 12-A Biochemical Echo of Typology"-reveal that his conclusions are based upon an artifact produced by faulty interpretation of the data. Since Denton's professional training is said to be in molecular biology, a detailed look at the situation is in order.

Biochemists have elucidated detailed structures of a variety of proteins obtained from a diverse array of organisms. (Anyone unfamiliar with rudimentary molecular genetics can read, with confidence, Denton's Chapter 11.) Some of the proteins studied are found only in certain kinds of organisms; others occur in virtually all organisms. In the latter case, the molecular structure of a specific protein-cytochrome C is a classic example and the one used by Denton-can be determined in each of many different organisms. It turns out that the structures of the same protein in two different organisms are rarely identical and in some cases quite dissimilar. The amount of difference can be quantified.

Denton provides representative data in Table 12.1. The data are extracted from the leading biochemical reference on the subject and are good; Denton's analysis and conclusions are not. Denton builds his arguments upon a phenomenon that he calls "molecular equidistance." He uses this phrase to refer to empirical results such as the observation that cytochrome C in bacteria, for example, differs by approximately the same amount (roughly 65-70 percent) from the cytochrome C's found in each one of the other organisms listed in the table (vertebrates, insects, plants, and yeasts). Denton uses such observations to infer (erroneously) distinct typological classes. Discussing the data, he makes statements such as: "The bacterial kingdom has no neighbour in any of the fantastically diverse eucaryotic types. The 'missing links' are well and truely missing" (p. 281); and "There is not a trace at a molecular level of the traditional evolutionary series: cyclostome --> fish --> amphibian --> reptile --> mammal. Incredibly, man is as close to lamprey as are fish!" (p. 284).

These conclusions are erroneous: in his interpretation of 'molecular equidistance," Denton has confused ancestor-descendant relationships with cousin relationships. The telltale clues of molecular data are not, directly, concerned with parents and offspring, intermediate forms, and "missing links." They are, instead, reflections of relative relatedness between contemporary cousins. Twentieth-century bacteria are not ancestors of twentieth-century turtles and dogs: they are very distant cousins, and, as the data in Denton's presentation show, the bacteria are roughly equally distant cousins of both turtles and dogs (and all the other organisms that Denton included in Table 12.1).

Cousin relationships between contemporary individuals are governed by the number of generations since there last was an ancestor in common to the individuals. Different members of a group of close relatives always have the same relationship to a more distantly related individual who stands outside the group. Two sisters are equally related to a mutual first cousin. Members of a group of siblings and first cousins are all equally related to a mutual fifth cousin. Lampreys are equally distant cousins of both fish and humans because the last ancestor that lampreys had in common with humans was the same ancestor lampreys had in common with fish. The "molecular equidistance" argument that Denton invokes is invalid, resulting from making comparisons between a single distantly related organism and various members of a more closely related group.

There is an irony in Denton's presentation to anyone familiar with the data of molecular evolution. Reflections of genealogical relationships are so strong in molecular data that Denton, in spite of his arguments to the contrary, is unable to hide them. The missing "trace" of which he speaks is not a trace; it is a shout. Simple inspection of the data in Table 12.1 will reveal that cytochrome C found in horses, for example, is quite similar in its molecular structure to that found in turtles, slightly less similar to that in fish, still less similar to that in insects, and very much less similar to that in bacteria. The traditional evolutionary series is very much in evidence.

Denton provides a series of diagrams (pp. 282-87) in which nested e[l]lipses, arranged on the basis of molecular data, are used to illustrate his spurious "molecular equidistance" thesis. In these delightful figures organisms are seen to cluster fully in accord with the genealogical relationships that evolutionary biologists deduced from comparative anatomy and paleontological evidence long before molecular data were available. In the final figure, humans and chimps are seen side by side as each other's closest cousin. Anyone who wants to argue that these nested groups of organisms constitute separate, distinct, and unbridg[e]able groups has to contend with obvious hierarchical patterns of relatedness among the various groups. Notions of relatedness are, of course, antithetical to a typological view of organisms.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: incorygible on Oct. 03 2006,09:13

Quote (afdave @ Oct. 03 2006,14:03)
Russell...    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Have you read Denton's followup book, "Nature's Destiny", in which he quietly abandons the whole thesis of the earlier book, and accepts common descent?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Of course.  It's also one of my favorite books because it shows how finely tuned the universe is for mankind.  He has not "abandoned his whole thesis."  He simply cannot think of another alternative to evolution, so he reluctantly accepts it.  Too bad he's too proud (or too something) to read some AIG stuff.  He'd have the answer he's looking for.

One of my favorite quotes ever is from this book ...    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"In Nature's Destiny, Michael Denton marshals a stunning range of biological, chemical, and physical evidence to answer systematically a simple question:  Could life elsewhere in the universe be significantly different from life on earth?  Must it rely on carbon, water, DNA, amino acids, and proteins?  COuld there be an alternative to DNA, or could DNA be constructed out of different components?  Could cells be designed differently?  From these building blocks he dares to ask the boldest questions:  Is it possible there are life forms radically different from those realized during the course of evolution on Earth?  And even:  Is a Homo sapiens--like creature the only possible highly intelligent species, given the laws of biology that exist throughout the universe?

The stunning answer to this last question is yes.  Life is highly constrained by the laws of nature.  If, for example, the ratio between strong and weak chemical bonds had not been what it is, if the thermal properties of water were not precisely what they are, if the atmosphere of the Earth had not had just the right properties to filter out harmful radiation, then a flourishing biosphere such as exists on Earth would be impossible.  For life to develop beyond the most primitive stage hinted at by the famous Mars fossils requires an earthlike planet, with earthlike atmosphere and oceans.


Over the past twenty years, such physicists as Freeman Dyson, Fred Hoyle, Martin Rees and Paul Davies have argued that the universe is fine-tuned for carbon-based life.  Now, Michael Denton extends their argument all the way from the carbon atom to advanced and complex life forms closely resembling ourselves, showing that our biosphere is central to nature's destiny.  Though we may have six-fingered cousins elsewhere, the laws of nature are tuned to reach an endpoint in mankind.

and ...

"All the evidence available in the biological sciences supports the core proposition of traditional natural theology--that the cosmos is a specially designed whole with life and mankind as its fundamental goal and purpose, a whole in which all facets of reality, from the size of galaxies to the thermal capacity of water, have their meaning and explanation in this central fact ... As I hope the evidence presented in this book has shown, science, which has been for centuries the great ally of atheism and skepticism, has become at last, in these final days of the second millenium, what Newton and many of its early advocates had so fervently wished--the "defender of the anthropocentric faith."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I don't think this guy has suddenly become your ideological ally, Russell, as you seem to imagine.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Let me get this straight:

Define all known life (carbon-based, DNA, chemical bonds, thermal properties of water, etc.) as "Homo-sapiens like creatures". Demonstrate that such creatures, newly defined, are the only life we know. Conclude that the universe was designed "with life and mankind as its fundamental goal and purpose" and that "the laws of nature are tuned to reach an endpoint in mankind".

Hoooohhh boy.

Ignoring the fallacy overload for a second, Dave, if mankind was made at the same time as everything else, why an "endpoint"? Surely this can't refer to evolution, albeit in a deeply erroneous teleological manner? Was this "finely tuned" universe's "endpoint" six days after its creation? Not much of an "endpoint", is it? I mean, I'm already reving up for the Canuck Thanksgiving weekend, but I wouldn't call Saturday an "endpoint".
Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 03 2006,09:15

Quote (afdave @ Oct. 03 2006,13:11)


Mike-- Hate to tell you, but your "summary" is so far back, I'm not going to try and find it.  If you want me to consider it ... repost it.  Then try to keep up and state your case quickly and succinctly.  I have yet to figure out what exactly you are trying to tell me.  If you have not noticed, this is a fast moving thread.  I have things to accomplish and I cannot waste time searching for your stuff.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dave, it's not so far back, and you don't need to look for it; < here it is. > And if it's too much trouble to follow the link, I'll just repost it, to eliminate yet another excuse for why you can't answer simple, basic questions posed to you:

   
Quote (Mike PSS @ Sep. 30 2006,15:03)
OK AFDave,  Here comes the summary....

Ready????

I'm going summarize "How crystallised olivine, originating from a homogeneous source, that contains Rb and Sr constituents can be tested using the Rb/Sr whole rock Isochron method and result in a data set forming a linear relation."

First let's find out what Olivine really is.  I think the 72nd Edition of my Handbook of Chemistry and Physics has some mineral tables.  I won that book in freshman chemistry with the highest grade in the class.  Chapter 4 - Page 4-150 - Physical Constants of Minerals.
Olivine has a chemical formula of (Mg,Fe)SiO4.  It must be a polymetalic mineral with an SiO4 crystal backbone.
The X-Ray Crystallographic Data of Minerals on pg. 4-157 lists all the different chemically pure crystaline minerals, but the geologic mineral olivine is made up of numerous different crystaline minerals.  Starting on pg 4-167 we have the following crystals that ALL are classified as Olivine since they ALL have an (xx)SiO4 chemical make-up.
Forsterite  Mg2SiO4
Fayalite    Fe2SiO4
Tephroite  Mn2SiO4
Lime Olivine  Ca2SiO4
Nickel Olivine Ni2SiO4
Cobalt Olivine  Co2SiO4
Monticellite  CaMgSiO4
Kerchsteinite  CaFeSiO4
Knebelite  MnFeSiO4
Glauchroite  CaMnSiO4

A chemically mixed homogenous melt that contains, say, Mg Fe and Ni (and Rb and Sr of course) will solidify with a crystal structure that is not only uneven in crystal size but also crystal distribution.  I won't go into the mechanics of this right now.  It is easier to show you a pertinent example of this.  Review this < advertisement > for an elemental analysis machine.  The pictures on page 2 clearly indicate              

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
XGT-5000 analysis of a 4x3 cm² section of kimberlite quickly allowed the rock’s mineral distribution to be visualised. The rock contains abundant crystals of olivine (Mg,Fe,Ni)2SiO4 and one zoned, partially altered crystal of garnet. The garnet crystal is immediately identified by its alteration rim comprised of potassium rich mica. High potassium content also shows the locations of mica crystals within the matrix.

The olivine crystals are black in the potassium and calcium images but have various shades in the iron and nickel images. These variations indicate the remarkable extent to which the compositions of these elements vary from crystal to crystal. In the Fe image, the olivine grains are seen to have thin Fe-rich rims. Notice also the additional information on physical structure provided by the transmission x-ray imaging.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Since the crystal distribution is somewhat randomized, and the Rb and Sr atoms are substitued in different quantities depending on if the crystal is Forsterite, Fayelite, or Nickel Olivine then we can clearly see how even a whole rock sample can give various Rb/Sr ratios if tested.  There is no part of that 4x3cm sample that has the same crystal distribution as any other part (unless you gerrymander the sample like congressional districts, which geologists don't do).  Also, I feel confident in stating that another 4x3cm sample will have a different crystal distribution and compisition that would give a different Rb/Sr ratio if tested.

There's my summary.  Pick it apart if you can OR drop your statements about mixing.  I think the above summary is enough to counteract Arndts and Overns argument that        

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
What is needed but missing in the whole rock isochron is a mechanism to establish initial homogeneity, and then to extract heterogeneous samples. The mineral crystals do the job in an elegant way. Each type accepts a different level of contamination of the parent isotope, chemically determined. One cannot rationally extend this process back to the whole rock. It has been tried, but there is a fallacy .
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

 I don't think they, or you, were looking critically on how crystal formation is actually done.

We could actually use the analysis machine to identify and extract the seperate minerals and accomplish a mineral Isochron analysis too.  Neat!!!:D

Mike PSS

p.s. AFDave,  Just say you were mistaken about the whole rock thingy and start arguing about radioactive decay.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



There you go, Dave. So, one more time; WHAT PART OF THIS "EXECUTIVE SUMMARY" DO YOU DISAGREE WITH, AND WHY?

You claim you have "refuted" radiometric dating in its totality, and yet you can't even support your claim that all isochrons are merely mixing diagrams. You think you can just keep going, claiming you've disproven something when you've done no such thing. Well, it's my self-appointed task to call you on it every time you try it.

And, also, to point out about once a day that you have yet to post any affirmative evidence in support of your own damned "hypothesis."
Posted by: k.e on Oct. 03 2006,09:20



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Of course(I have read Dentons Book).  It's also one of my favorite books because it shows how finely tuned the universe is for mankind.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Bwhhahahahahahahahahaha

Here let me fix that for you Bible boy.




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Of course(I have read Dentons Book).  It's also one of my favorite books because it shows how mankind Denton finely tuned his view of the universe for what his projected ego aka god is.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



hand out more 'I lie for Jesus' pamphlets AFD.
Posted by: BWE on Oct. 03 2006,09:21

Quote (improvius @ Oct. 03 2006,13:59)
Quote (BWE @ Oct. 03 2006,14:30)
Dave, you are misunderestimating.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
This was before the full impact of the new comparative studies was realized.  So you see.  Incorygible is wrong.  Darwinists DID expect genetic studies to confirm their views, but, sadly for them, they did not.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Dave, I made this chart. Does it roughly correspond to your theory? If not, What part is in error? (or errant as the case may be)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I set it up on imageshack for you.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Thank you. Do you like it? (I'm considering a new career as a computer graphics guy)
Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 03 2006,10:01

Dave, this snippet alone, all by itself, demonstrates the complete, utter lack of understanding of evolutionary theory you possess.
     
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 03 2006,13:11)
But it says nothing of all the other organisms supposedly in the "human ancestry".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The phrase "other organisms supposedly in the 'human ancestry'" is utterly without meaning, in the sense in which you are trying to use it.

There isn't some evolutionary branch that extends all the way back into time, with some organisms on it and others not. It simply isn't true that, e.g., "worms" are "on the road to humanity" and "penguins" are not. The only difference is that the ancestral line leading to humans and the one leading to worms diverged longer ago than the lines leading to humans and penguins. And, as Incorygible pointed out in his incomparable < post earlier today, > nothing alive today has an ancestral relationship to anything else alive today (other than, of course, its own progeny). Therefore, to talk about "worms" being on the ancestral line to humans, and penguins not being on the ancestral line to humans, again, isn't even wrong. It's just completely nonsensical.

So again, Dave: you've ignored this question enough, and it's time to answer it: do you believe that the theory of evolution predicts that different eukaryotes diverged from prokaryotes at different times, or that different eukaryotes "stopped evolving" at the times they first diverged from the ancestral line? Which one is it?

Neither one is an actual prediction of the theory of evolution, but I'm curious to know which one you think is. Because they're the only two predictions which would be fulfilled if Denton's chart showed that different eukaryotes were unequally related to prokaryotes.
Posted by: incorygible on Oct. 03 2006,10:18

Quote (ericmurphy @ Oct. 03 2006,15:01)
And, as Incorygible pointed out in his incomparable < post earlier today, > nothing alive today has an ancestral relationship to anything else alive today (other than, of course, its own progeny).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Incomparable it is, but it's not mine. It's one long quote from the link at the top (Spieth's 1987 review hosted by the NCSE). I've edited the tags to more clearly indicate this.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Oct. 03 2006,10:48

This might have already been addressed, but doesn't the rebuttal of Denton's cytochrome c chart assume the mutation rates are purely neutral and therefore independent of sexual generation times? For example, a quickly reproducing species can be expected to accumulate more mutations due to recombination than one who has a longer lifespan and fewer offspring. I think Theobald cited some papers showing that generation times are a minor factor, but if they do play a role, Denton's mystery remains.
Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 03 2006,11:04

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Oct. 03 2006,15:48)
This might have already been addressed, but doesn't the rebuttal of Denton's cytochrome c chart assume the mutation rates are purely neutral and therefore independent of sexual generation times? For example, a quickly reproducing species can be expected to accumulate more mutations due to recombination than one who has a longer lifespan and fewer offspring. I think Theobald cited some papers showing that generation times are a minor factor, but if they do play a role, Denton's mystery remains.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, it doesn't assume anything of the sort and Denton has not come upon any sort of inexplicable "mystery." Denton is making a claim that the cytochrome c results are a problem for the ToE, because the ToE predicts that eukaryotes that appeared earlier should be more closely related to prokaryotes than ones that appeared later. This is the opposite of what the ToE really predicts, which is that all eukaryotes should be equally related to bacteria, and unequally related to each other. This is exactly what Denton's chart shows, which means it confirms the ToE, not disconfirms it.

Therefore, nothing about differential mutation rates, and no assumption about whether mutations are neutral or not, has any bearing whatsoever on Denton's chart.

Dave is trying to claim that Denton's chart, and not the underlying data, presents a huge problem for the theory. In fact, the chart, as it stands, confirms the predictions of evolutionary theory. Whether the actual data underlying the chart is accurate, and whether cytochrome is conserved, whether the mutations in question are neutral, whether mutation rates are constant over time or constant among taxa, has any effect whatsoever on whether the chart confirms a prediction of the theory, or disconfirms it.

Now you can argue over the assumptions Denton made with the chart, and you can argue over whether his data is accurate or not, or whether his assumptions (or the theory of evolution's assumptions) are warranted, but all of that is completely irrelevant to the issue of whether Denton's chart, as it stands, confirms or disconfirms the ToE. It is clear that the chart does confirm the predictions of the theory.
Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 03 2006,11:14

And, to cut Bill off at the pass, here's Dave's original < claim > about Denton's chart:

 
Quote (afdave @ Sep. 30 2006,07:25)
Now ... a question for Incorygible.  Seeing the chart above, do you not question the Theory of Evolution even a little bit?  How can a biologist such as yourself look at a chart like that, which totally violates everything Darwin predicted, and not have any questions in your mind about the whole Theory?  I mean this chart should have some really small numbers in the lower right hand corner, but it doesn't!  Those numbers should get bigger and bigger as we move to the left on the bottom row, but they don't!  Incredible!  And yet you still do not question Darwin's theory even a little bit?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: incorygible on Oct. 03 2006,11:32

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Oct. 03 2006,15:48)
This might have already been addressed, but doesn't the rebuttal of Denton's cytochrome c chart assume the mutation rates are purely neutral and therefore independent of sexual generation times? For example, a quickly reproducing species can be expected to accumulate more mutations due to recombination than one who has a longer lifespan and fewer offspring. I think Theobald cited some papers showing that generation times are a minor factor, but if they do play a role, Denton's mystery remains.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The contribution of short generation times would be exponentially greater than that of long generation times. In other words, the average generation time of any one of those lineages is likely close to that of bacteria, and the (likely) recent and rare innovation of many-year generation times would have almost zero effect.

For example, as an extreme case to illustrate, compare the elapsed generations of two lineages: one (a) that maintained a one-day generation-time for 1 billion years, and one (b) that had a one-day generation time for 600 million years and a 100-year generation time for 400 million years. This is a 36,500-fold difference in generation times between the two lineages over 40% of their history.

# of generations in 1 billion years:
(a): 3.65 x 10^11
(b): 2.19 x 10^11

average generation time:
(a) 1 day
(b) 1.67 days

Obviously we don't have the complete map of generation times for any of the lineages, so we can only make guesses and relatively safe assumptions. The results (i.e, a predicted pattern of equidistance to bacteria within a small margin of error for evolutionary lineages that we might guess had vastly different generation maps -- fish vs. yeast for example) suggests they are, in fact, safe.

However, even if they weren't safe assumptions, this is all one huge non sequitur to the "equidistance" phenomenon at hand. Denton's mystery is blown out of the water regardless of generation times. Follow through on the logic of a quickly reproducing vs. a slowly reproducing lineage -- the former would be predicted to be more different from bacteria than the latter. Note that not only is this not observed, if we take the fish lineage as our "slow" example and the yeast lineage as our "fast" example, this is the exact OPPOSITE of what Denton says we should find (he says LESS difference for yeast-bacteria than fish-bacteria). Whatever you believe about which lineage was slow and which was fast (reverse fish and yeast if you want), there is no reason to expect this to conform to Denton's predicted typological distances.

At best (for your argument), we could posit that the rapid generation times of bacteria might swamp evidence of multiple divergences between prokaryotes and eukaryotes. However, this would swamp Denton's claim as well, as his expected typological results would be similarly undetectable for the same reason.

Generation times are accounted for in more sensitive (and data rich) molecular clocks examining contemporary evolution.
Posted by: BWE on Oct. 03 2006,11:51

Dammit, I work so hard on my beautiful graphic, improvius goes to all the work of making it work for me and no one even says yay or boo. I am not going into computer graphics now and it is all your faults.

Also, there is a different mutation rate when you are dealing with sexual selection as opposed to cloning.
Posted by: incorygible on Oct. 03 2006,11:59

Quote (BWE @ Oct. 03 2006,16:51)
Also, there is a different mutation rate when you are dealing with sexual selection as opposed to cloning.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You know, I was just thinking that Dave has exceeded all expectations in his comprehension of the simple stuff and thereby demonstrated that his intellect is ready for something closer to the complicated reality...

:p

P.S. I liked the graphic. I was actually waiting for Dave's answer (but not holding my breath), since it seems a fair and accurate representation of his CGH.
Posted by: afdave on Oct. 03 2006,12:04

Eric...

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
One more time, Dave: EVOLUTIONARY THEORY PREDICTS THAT ALL EUKARYOTES ARE EQUALLY DISTANTLY RELATED TO ALL PROKARYOTES.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Oh really?  Was it predicting this in the 50's also before genomes were elucidated?  Please explain to me why this (what you are saying) would be a prediction of ToE?  The most logical prediction of ToE should be that single celled organism should be closer genetically to simpler life forms (worms for instance) than to humans if, in fact, ToE is true.  Why?  Simply because ToE says that some wormlike creature is ancestral to humans.  And it supposedly is a very ancient ancestor.  So this should put it much closer to a single celled organism than say, a chimp.

Why don't you just tell me in plain English, Eric, how you think it happened over the past 500 million years or so.  I want to see that nice little numbered list which begins with a single-celled organism and evolves all the way up to humans.  Can you do it?

You seem to think I don't understand ToE, but the fact is I do ... probably better than you. In fact, I understand it well enough to realize it is not plausible.
Posted by: ScaryFacts on Oct. 03 2006,12:07

Quote (BWE @ Oct. 03 2006,17:51)
Dammit, I work so hard on my beautiful graphic, improvius goes to all the work of making it work for me and no one even says yay or boo. I am not going into computer graphics now and it is all your faults.

Also, there is a different mutation rate when you are dealing with sexual selection as opposed to cloning.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Awww...the pretty colors...
Posted by: incorygible on Oct. 03 2006,12:15

Quote (afdave @ Oct. 03 2006,17:04)
Eric: One more time, Dave: EVOLUTIONARY THEORY PREDICTS THAT ALL EUKARYOTES ARE EQUALLY DISTANTLY RELATED TO ALL PROKARYOTES.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------





---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Oh really?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Yes.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Was it predicting this in the 50's also before genomes were elucidated?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Yes.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Please explain to me why this (what you are saying) would be a prediction of ToE?  The most logical prediction of ToE should be that single celled organism should be closer genetically to simpler life forms (worms for instance) than to humans if, in fact, ToE is true.  Why?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Because most of the MAJOR differences between life forms are not a question of how many cells you have. Genetics confirmed this (and offered a few surprises along the way), but it was well known from cellular biology long before. Dave, your imagination as to what constitutes "same" and "different" (see the Dawkins/chimp picture from way back when) is irrelevant to biology.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Simply because ToE says that some wormlike creature is ancestral to humans.  And it supposedly is a very ancient ancestor.  So this should put it much closer to a single celled organism than say, a chimp.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Nope.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You seem to think I don't understand ToE, but the fact is I do ... probably better than you. In fact, I understand it well enough to realize it is not plausible.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Bwahahaha. Ah, man, that's some good tard.
Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 03 2006,12:39

Quote (afdave @ Oct. 03 2006,17:04)
Eric...    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
One more time, Dave: EVOLUTIONARY THEORY PREDICTS THAT ALL EUKARYOTES ARE EQUALLY DISTANTLY RELATED TO ALL PROKARYOTES.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Oh really?  Was it predicting this in the 50's also before genomes were elucidated?  Please explain to me why this (what you are saying) would be a prediction of ToE?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes, Dave, it sure was. No one has ever, ever, in the entire history of evolutionary theory, ever proposed that 1) first yeast diverged from bacteria, then 2) worms diverged from bacteria, then later 3) fish diverged from bacteria, then even later 4) amphibians diverged from bacteria, then even later than that 5) reptiles diverged from bacteria, etc. etc. etc. Yet this is exactly what Denton, and you, are supposing happened, if you think evolutionary theory does not predict what is on Denton's chart.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The most logical prediction of ToE should be that single celled organism should be closer genetically to simpler life forms (worms for instance) than to humans if, in fact, ToE is true.  Why?  Simply because ToE says that some wormlike creature is ancestral to humans.  And it supposedly is a very ancient ancestor.  So this should put it much closer to a single celled organism than say, a chimp.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, Dave, that's not the most logical prediction! How many times do I have to repeat the same thing over and over to you. No wormlike creature is ancestral to humans! Nothing alive today is "ancestral" to humans!

The common ancestor of all humans, all worms, all fish, all birds, all reptiles, all eukaryotes, diverged from bacteria at one time in the distant past. This is why all of those organisms are equally distantly related to bacteria. How many different ways can I say this?

Dave, think of all your cousins who are alive today. Are some of those cousins more closely related to their common great-great-great-great grandfather, or not? Take a complete stranger on the street, completely unrelated to you. Does it make any sense to ask whether you, or your brother, is more closely related to this stranger?

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Why don't you just tell me in plain English, Eric, how you think it happened over the past 500 million years or so.  I want to see that nice little numbered list which begins with a single-celled organism and evolves all the way up to humans.  Can you do it?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dave, get this through your thick, brainless skull: THERE IS NO SUCH LIST. Your belief that there is such a list is an artifact of your completely broken misunderstanding of phylogeny, and your belief that there is some sort of "ladder" of evolution.

The only thing you can say is that worms appeared earlier than fish, which appeared earlier than reptiles, which appeared earlier than apes. None of these organisms is any more closely-related, or more distantly-related, to bacteria than any other is.

What you are not getting, Dave, no matter how often is repeated to you, is that all eukaryotes—yeast, worms, fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, mammals—diverged from bacteria at the same time. Thus, all eukaryotes—yeast, worms, fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, mammals—are equally unrelated to bacteria.

I just don't know how much more simply I can put this, Dave. There really isn't any other way to state it. Humans are no more distantly related to bacteria than yeast are. I know you have  hard time believing it, but regardless of whether you believe it or not, you shouldn't have this much trouble understanding it. Whether you think the theory of evolution should predict that all eukaryotes are equally distantly related to bacteria or not is irrelevant. In fact, that is what it predicts, and it's what Denton's chart shows.


 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You seem to think I don't understand ToE, but the fact is I do ... probably better than you. In fact, I understand it well enough to realize it is not plausible.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




No you don't, Dave, and your request that I put together a little list of which eukaryotes I think are more closely related to bacteria than others, even after I've told you there's no way to construct such a list, because they would all appear at the same location on the list, is proof positive that you don't have the vaguest understanding of evolution at all. You insist that evolution predicts that various eukaryotes are more closely related to bacteria than others, despite having been told at least a dozen times now by different people that evolutionary theory makes no such prediction.

Just out of curiosity, Dave: do you think evolutionary theory predicts that humans diverged from bacteria before, after, or at the same time as, say, penguins? And of those possibilities, which one is confirmed by Denton's chart?

(Note to others: I know the question I asked Dave about humans and penguins makes no sense in the context of evolutionary theory. This is why I say that Dave's argument isn't even wrong.)
Posted by: Diogenes on Oct. 03 2006,12:52

Quote (BWE @ Oct. 03 2006,16:51)
Dammit, I work so hard on my beautiful graphic, improvius goes to all the work of making it work for me and no one even says yay or boo. I am not going into computer graphics now and it is all your faults.

Also, there is a different mutation rate when you are dealing with sexual selection as opposed to cloning.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, I wasn't going to say anything, but since you asked, I think it sucks.  

Firstly, notice that after the flood both the lines that denote animals and plants continue at their current size for quite some period of time.  This is patently ridiculous.  While an exponetial growth situation makes sense, we've only got 4500 years to go from 1 beetle kind to the 5-8 million beetle species currently estimated, so we better start that massive speciation immediately after the flood (also we need dogs to become dingos and hop on future australia before it departs for it's current location, and that happens really soon after the flood).  

Secondly, you need the branching to stop at some point before the modern day to explain the lack of massive speciation in modern times.  I suggest using November 23, 1859 as the date when it stopped, after that the lines should all be perfectly straight and horizontal.  

Thirdly, why do the animal  and plant curve back at the edges.  Are you suggesting that animals can go backwards in time?  This is just sillyness. (Note: would time traveling animals help explain the ordliness of the fossil record?).

Fourthly, who the #### is the guy in the picture that's used to represent all of mankind?  You should have picked someone that embodies all the best qualities of humanity.  Someone with both the mental agility and physique of a man that typifies the pinnacle of the human form.  The only modern person I can think of that has all these qualities is Ronald Reagan.
Posted by: incorygible on Oct. 03 2006,13:04

Okay, we’ve had our fun. We’ve witnessed Dave, parroting Denton, presume to tell us – contrary to all available evidence -- what evolutionary theory tells us we should expect in direct comparisons of currently existing organisms. Recall that, according to Dave (a la Denton), we should expect intermediates. When corrected with the obvious ramifications of nested hierarchies of descent, we watched him claim that these were ad hoc explanations developed by evolutionists to rescue a “theory in crisis” that had been “refuted” by molecular biology. We watched him stand by Denton as his lone, inerrant authority on interpreting evolutionary theory, despite the weight of opinion against him. Finally, we have witnessed him claim to know evolution better than those of us who would argue this point.

Fun’s over. It’s time to turn the floor over to Chuck (praise be his name!;).

Charles Darwin, Origin of Species, First Edition, Chapter IX, p. 280-82:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In the first place it should always be borne in mind what sort of intermediate forms must, on my theory, have formerly existed. I have found it difficult, when looking at any two species, to avoid picturing to myself, forms directly intermediate between them. But this is a wholly false view; we should always look for forms intermediate between each species and a common but unknown progenitor; and the progenitor will generally have differed in some respects from all its modified descendants. To give a simple illustration: the fantail and pouter pigeons have both descended from the rock-pigeon; if we possessed all the intermediate varieties which have ever existed, we should have an extremely close series between both and the rock-pigeon; but we should have no varieties directly intermediate between the fantail and pouter; none, for instance, combining a tail somewhat expanded with a crop somewhat enlarged, the characteristic features of these two breeds. These two breeds, moreover, have become so much modified, that if we had no historical or indirect evidence regarding their origin, it would not have been possible to have determined from a mere comparison of their structure with that of the rock-pigeon, whether they had descended from this species or from some other allied species, such as C. oenas.

So with natural species, if we look to forms very distinct, for instance to the horse and tapir, we have no reason to suppose that links ever existed directly intermediate between them, but between each and an unknown common parent. The common parent will have had in its whole organisation much general resemblance to the tapir and to the horse; but in some points of structure may have differed considerably from both, even perhaps more than they differ from each other. Hence in all such cases, we should be unable to recognise the parent-form of any two or more species, even if we closely compared the structure of the parent with that of its modified descendants, unless at the same time we had a nearly perfect chain of the intermediate links.

It is just possible by my theory, that one of two living forms might have descended from the other; for instance, a horse from a tapir; and in this case direct intermediate links will have existed between them. But such a case would imply that one form had remained for a very long period unaltered, whilst its descendants had undergone a vast amount of change; and the principle of competition between organism and organism, between child and parent, will render this a very rare event; for in all cases the new and improved forms of life will tend to supplant the old and unimproved.

By the theory of natural selection all living species have been connected with the parent-species of each genus, by differences not greater than we see between the varieties of the same species at the present day; and these parent-species, now generally extinct, have in their turn been similarly connected with more ancient species; and so on backwards, always converging to the common ancestor of each great class. So that the number of intermediate and transitional links, between all living and extinct species, must have been inconceivably great. But assuredly, if this theory be true, such have lived upon this earth.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: edmund on Oct. 03 2006,13:13



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
One more time, Dave: EVOLUTIONARY THEORY PREDICTS THAT ALL EUKARYOTES ARE EQUALLY DISTANTLY RELATED TO ALL PROKARYOTES.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh really?  Was it predicting this in the 50's also before genomes were elucidated?  Please explain to me why this (what you are saying) would be a prediction of ToE?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think what Dave has latched onto here is a claim by Denton, who says that evolutionary biologists expected (in the 1950's and 1960's) that similar-looking organisms should have similar DNA sequences. This would be the expectation, if you assumed that all molecular variation is under selection. And that wasn't a bad assumption back in the '50's or early '60's. However, since neutral theory was developed in the early 1970's, we've come to realize that much of the genetic variation out there is neutral variation, which should drift at a more or less constant rate regardless of how morphology is or isn't changing.

Neutral genetic variation, by the way, is not something that biologists came up with in order to salvage evolutionary theory. We now know enough about genes to be confident that a lot of variation should be neutral or nearly so-- silent substitutions, pseudogenes, and so forth.

So, Dave, the argument that you are using might have been a plausible one in the 1950's. It is certainly not plausible today, not in light of what geneticists have learned about genes in the last 50 years. Given what we know today about genetics, that chart in Denton's book is exactly what we'd expect to see if all of those organisms share common ancestry.

from GoP:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
This might have already been addressed, but doesn't the rebuttal of Denton's cytochrome c chart assume the mutation rates are purely neutral and therefore independent of sexual generation times? For example, a quickly reproducing species can be expected to accumulate more mutations due to recombination than one who has a longer lifespan and fewer offspring.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If mutations occur mostly during meiosis, then, yes, you'd expect strictly neutral divergence to accumulate on a per-generation basis. However, 1) organisms with short generation times tend to have large population sizes, and 2) scientists have discovered that a lot of variation is not precisely neutral. As population size increases, selection gets better and better at weeding out these very faintly harmful mutations. This reduces the observed divergence from other taxa. The increased rate of mutation in short-lived organisms and the increased efficiency of selection tend to balance one another out, leaving a "molecular clock" with a rate that's roughly proportional to absolute time rather than the number of generations that have passed.
Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 03 2006,14:05

Quote (edmund @ Oct. 03 2006,18:13)
I think what Dave has latched onto here is a claim by Denton, who says that evolutionary biologists expected (in the 1950's and 1960's) that similar-looking organisms should have similar DNA sequences. This would be the expectation, if you assumed that all molecular variation is under selection. And that wasn't a bad assumption back in the '50's or early '60's. However, since neutral theory was developed in the early 1970's, we've come to realize that much of the genetic variation out there is neutral variation, which should drift at a more or less constant rate regardless of how morphology is or isn't changing.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But keep in mind that this is only an implication of Dave's claim, not Dave's claim itself. Dave claims that evolutionary theory predicts that as one looks at organisms that appeared earlier and earlier in geologic time, those organisms should be more closely related to bacteria. But this is not at all what evolutionary theory predicts. Quite the opposite, in fact. As long as the existence of prokaryotes and eukaryotes as separate taxa has been known, it's been a prediction that all eukaryotes diverged from all prokaryotes exactly once, and therefore all eukaryotes are equally distant phylogenentically from bacteria. This is true in the same sense that it's true that Dave and all his syblings are equally related to a distant cousin. Just because Dave might be older or younger than one of his syblings doesn't make him closer more more distantly related to the cousin.

And this is true regardless of what the genes actually show. The genes are only an artifact of what actually happened.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 03 2006,14:15

Cytochrome c is conservative. It is essential to respiration in eukaryotes and for electron transport, catalysis, etc.. Interestingly, Archeans like Sulfolobus don't neccesarily use cytochrome c, but precursor type "a" and "b" cytochromes. Denton wants to just talk about "percentages" (which, as we all know can sometimes be misleading.) Variations in which the cytochrome protein wasn't folded correctly results in decreased "reproductive success" or death. Despite it being "conservative," it can allow for phylogenetic studies, and is indicative of relatedness and LCA's of groups. Below is a "chart"  with each letter representing a specific amino acid taken from < http://members.cox.net/ardipithecus/evol/lies/lie010.html >  and   < http://members.cox.net/ardipithecus/evol/seq.html > . You can click on the species name in the first page referred to and find the studies the sequences were taken from. The "key" for which amino acid each letter stands for is found at < http://www.hgu.mrc.ac.uk/Softdata/Misc/aacode.htm >
Notice how the amino sequences group nicely and reflect evolution.  

human               mgdvekgkki fimkcsqcht vekggkhktg pnlhglfgrk tgqapgysyt aanknkgiiw gedtlmeyle npkkyipgtk mifvgikkke eradliaylk katne  
chimpanzee       mgdvekgkki fimkcsqcht vekggkhktg pnlhglfgrk tgqapgysyt aanknkgiiw gedtlmeyle npkkyipgtk mifvgikkke eradliaylk katne  
rhesus monkey  gdvekgkkif imkcsqchtv ekggkhktgp nlhglfgrkt gqapgysyta anknkgitwg edtlmeylen pkkyipgtkm ifvgikkkee radliaylkk atne  

rabbit                gdvekgkkif vqkcaqchtv ekggkhktgp nlhglfgrkt gqavgfsytd anknkgitwg edtlmeylen pkkyipgtkm ifagikkkde radliaylkk atne  
mouse               mgdvekgkki fvqkcaqcht vekggkhktg pnlhglfgrk tgqaagfsyt danknkgitw gedtlmeyle npkkyipgtk mifagikkkg eradliaylk katne  
rat                     mgdvekgkki fvqkcaqcht vekggkhktg pnlhglfgrk tgqaagfsyt danknkgitw gedtlmeyle npkkyipgtk mifagikkkg eradliaylk katne  
guinea pig         gdvekgkkif vqkcaqchtv ekggkhktgp nlhglfgrkt gqaagfsytd anknkgitwg edtlmeylen pkkyipgtkm ifagikkkge radliaylkk atne  
gray whale        gdvekgkkif vqkcaqchtv ekggkhktgp nlhglfgrkt gqavgfsytd anknkgitwg eetlmeylen pkkyipgtkm ifagikkkge radliaylkk atne  
camel                gdvekgkkif vqkcaqchtv ekggkhktgp nlhglfgrkt gqavgfsytd anknkgitwg eetlmeylen pkkyipgtkm ifagikkkge radliaylkk atne  
pig                    gdvekgkkif vqkcaqchtv ekggkhktgp nlhglfgrkt gqapgfsytd anknkgitwg eetlmeylen pkkyipgtkm ifagikkkge redliaylkk atne  

chicken              mgdiekgkki fvqkcsqcht vekggkhktg pnlhglfgrk tgqaegfsyt danknkgitw gedtlmeyle npkkyipgtk mifagikkks ervdliaylk datsk  
duck                  gdvekgkkif vqkcsqchtv ekggkhktgp nlhglfgrkt gqaegfsytd anknkgitwg edtlmeylen pkkyipgtkm ifagikkkse radliaylkd atak  
pigeon              gdiekgkkif vqkcsqchtv ekggkhktgp nlhglfgrkt gqaegfsytd anknkgitwg edtlmeylen pkkyipgtkm ifagikkkae radliaylkq atak  
penguin            gdiekgkkif vqkcsqchtv ekggkhktgp nlhgifgrkt gqaegfsytd anknkgitwg edtlmeylen pkkyipgtkm ifagikkkse radliaylkd atsk  
ostrich              gdiekgkkif vqkcsqchtv ekggkhktgp nldglfgrkt gqaegfsytd anknkgitwg edtlmeylen pkkyipgtkm ifagikkkse radliaylkd atsk  

alligator            gdvekgkkif vqkcaqchtv ekggkhktgp nlhgligrkt gqapgfsyte anknkgitwg eetlmeylen pkkyipgtkm ifagikkkpe radliaylke atsn  
turtle                gdvekgkkif vqkcaqchtv ekggkhktgp nlngligrkt gqaegfsyte anknkgitwg eetlmeylen pkkyipgtkm ifagikkkae radliaylkd atsk  
rattlesnake      gdvekgkkif smkcgtchtv eeggkhktgp nlhglfgrkt gqavgysyta anknkgiiwg ddtlmeylen pkkyipgtkm vftglkskke rtdliaylke atak  
monitor            gdvekgkkif vqkcsqchtv ekggkhktgp nlhqlfgrkt geaegfsyta anknkgitwg edtlfeylen pkkyipgtkm ifagikkkte rddliaylke atak  
bullfrog            gdvekgkkif vqkcaqchtc ekggkhkvgp nlygligrkt gqaagfsytd anknkgitwg edtlmeylen pkkyipgtkm ifagikkkge rqdliaylks acsk  

tuna                gdvakgkktf vqkcaqchtv enggkhkvgp nlwglfgrkt gqaegysytd ankskgivwn entlmeylen pkkyipgtkm ifagikkkge rqdlvaylks ats  
carp                 gdvekgkkvf vqkcaqchtv zbggkhkvgp nlwglfgrkt gqapgfsytb abkskgivwb zztlmeylzb pkkyipgtkm ifagikkkge radliaylks ats
 
starfish            gqvekgkkif vqrcaqchtv ekagkhktgp nlngilgrkt gqaagfsytd anrnkgitwk netlfeylen pkkyipgtkm vfaglkkqke rqdliaylea atk  
flesh fly           gvpagdvekg kkifvqrcaq chtveaggkh kvgpnlhglf grktgqapgf aytdankakg itwnedtlfe ylenpkkyip gtkmifaglk kpnergdlia ylksatk  
fruit fly            mgvpagdvek gkklfvqrca qchtveaggk hkvgpnlhgl igrktgqaag faytdankak gitwnedtlf eylenpkkyi pgtkmifagl kkpnergdli aylksatk  

corn                asfseappgn pkagekifkt kcaqchtvek gaghkqgpnl nglfgrqsgt tagysysaan knkavvween tlydyllnpk kyipgtkmvf pglkkpqera dliaylkeat a  
sunflower        asfaeapagd pttgakifkt kcaqchtvek gaghkqgpnl nglfgrqsgt tagysysaan knmaviween tlydyllnpk kyipgtkmvf pglkkpqera dliaylktst a


By the way, DaveStupid, I simplified my presentation here knowing that not only are you a likely dyslexic, but also dumb as a box of hair. And yeah, I'd match my knowledge of the Bible against yours any day, DumbAss. It's not OUR fault you're ignorant, Dave, but it IS yours.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Oct. 03 2006,14:50

Thanks for the answers, everyone.
Posted by: incorygible on Oct. 03 2006,15:18

[quote=edmund,Oct. 03 2006,18:13]

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
One more time, Dave: EVOLUTIONARY THEORY PREDICTS THAT ALL EUKARYOTES ARE EQUALLY DISTANTLY RELATED TO ALL PROKARYOTES.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think what Dave has latched onto here is a claim by Denton, who says that evolutionary biologists expected (in the 1950's and 1960's) that similar-looking organisms should have similar DNA sequences. This would be the expectation, if you assumed that all molecular variation is under selection. And that wasn't a bad assumption back in the '50's or early '60's. However, since neutral theory was developed in the early 1970's, we've come to realize that much of the genetic variation out there is neutral variation, which should drift at a more or less constant rate regardless of how morphology is or isn't changing.

Neutral genetic variation, by the way, is not something that biologists came up with in order to salvage evolutionary theory. We now know enough about genes to be confident that a lot of variation should be neutral or nearly so-- silent substitutions, pseudogenes, and so forth.

So, Dave, the argument that you are using might have been a plausible one in the 1950's. It is certainly not plausible today, not in light of what geneticists have learned about genes in the last 50 years. Given what we know today about genetics, that chart in Denton's book is exactly what we'd expect to see if all of those organisms share common ancestry.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Edmund, with all due respect and no doubt with VERY understandable reason (i.e., disbelief that it could be as bad as it sounds), I think you are vastly overestimating the sophistication of Dave's (and even Denton's) argument.

This isn't ye olde neutralist vs. selectionist debate (despite Dave's reference to it); this is a contention that the genetic distance between modern species directly recapitulates phylogenetic intermediates. Whether neutralist or selectionist, that's a grievous error. Furthermore, when Dave or Denton talk about "similar-looking organisms", they're talking aobut organisms as biologically "similar-looking" as yeast and bacteria -- in other words, practically not at all. You don't need to have a horse in the Kimura vs. Darwin race to see that this is ridiculous, even if you were considering it prior to 1950. You really just have to go as far as seeing the biological relevance of the presence/absence of a nuclear envelope.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 03 2006,15:20

BWE: Your chart is stupendalicious, magnelephantine in its granderrificness. It immediately arrested my eyes. After I bailed them out, I was struck by the laserlike wit, the contra-post-modernist subtext and the Joycean playfulness. I am HUMBLED and grateful for each day that I am alive to bask in the glory of your creations.
Posted by: Seven Popes on Oct. 03 2006,15:49

Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 03 2006,20:20)
BWE: Your chart is stupendalicious, magnelephantine in its granderrificness. It immediately arrested my eyes. After I bailed them out, I was struck by the laserlike wit, the contra-post-modernist subtext and the Joycean playfulness. I am HUMBLED and grateful for each day that I am alive to bask in the glory of your creations.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


BWE, Deadman d@mns you with faint praise.  Kidding, this has gotta be your new sig.  I found the chart squee worthy, it restored sight in my bad eye.
Oh, and Dave:
Tyre.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 03 2006,15:58

7Popes: that's nothing. After viewing BWE's sacred chart, I felt a sudden glowing warming glow enveloping me, and I can now read Etruscan. I can divide by zero. I have squared the circle and played the "Goldberg Variations" on the xylophone with my toes. Praise BwE!!
Posted by: afdave on Oct. 03 2006,16:41

Uh ... Deadman ... you might want to actually read what my (and Denton's) claim is, OK?

I have no argument with the observation that similar organisms have similar sequences.  I think it's strange how you think this proves evolution, but I certainly agree that humans and apes have similar sequences, corn and sunflowers do also, etc, etc.

However, this has exactly NOTHING to do with what we are talking about.

Edmund...

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I think what Dave has latched onto here is a claim by Denton, who says that evolutionary biologists expected (in the 1950's and 1960's) that similar-looking organisms should have similar DNA sequences.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

No.  Cory is right.  This is NOT what I think.  And Denton did not claim that.

I'll tell you what, guys ... I'll explain my claim again in the morning very simply so everyone can understand it (I think Cory does already ... we have that going for us at least.)
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 03 2006,16:59

Uh, Dave, I have read Denton, just as I have read the Bible, you dumbass. Try reading for comprehension, you pithecine pinhead
Posted by: argystokes on Oct. 03 2006,17:00

Quote (afdave @ Oct. 03 2006,19:41)
Uh ... Deadman ... you might want to actually read what my (and Denton's) claim is, OK?

I have no argument with the observation that similar organisms have similar sequences.  I think it's strange how you think this proves evolution, but I certainly agree that humans and apes have similar sequences, corn and sunflowers do also, etc, etc.

However, this has exactly NOTHING to do with what we are talking about.

Edmund...  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I think what Dave has latched onto here is a claim by Denton, who says that evolutionary biologists expected (in the 1950's and 1960's) that similar-looking organisms should have similar DNA sequences.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

No.  Cory is right.  This is NOT what I think.  And Denton did not claim that.

I'll tell you what, guys ... I'll explain my claim again in the morning very simply so everyone can understand it (I think Cory does already ... we have that going for us at least.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Instead, why don't you answer Mike question about what your objections are to his executive summary?  He's been politely asking for days now.
Posted by: k.e on Oct. 03 2006,17:14



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I have no argument with the observation that similar organisms have similar sequences.  I think it's strange how you think this proves evolution, but I certainly agree that humans and apes have similar sequences, corn and sunflowers do also, etc, etc.

However, this has exactly NOTHING to do with what we are talking about.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



AFD the Excrable Obscurantist blurts out another of his Freudian faux pas.

ah ...AFD

I think it's strange how YOU think that proves the BIBLE,


Come on AFD explain how Denton proves Genisis, it's your theory remember?

ALSO disparaging the Theory of Evolution DOES NOT prove the BIBLE.

Do you actually believe the comic book version of Noah's Ark? I thought you were joking...and you call yourself an Engineer? You couldn't calculate your way out of wet paper bag.
Posted by: improvius on Oct. 03 2006,17:44

I'm still trying to figure out what the supernatural part of Denton's claim is.
Posted by: incorygible on Oct. 03 2006,18:37

Quote (afdave @ Oct. 03 2006,21:41)
Cory is right.  This is NOT what I think.  And Denton did not claim that.

I'll tell you what, guys ... I'll explain my claim again in the morning very simply so everyone can understand it (I think Cory does already ... we have that going for us at least.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Uh huh, I understand your contention, erroneous as it may be. I think I also did pretty well interpreting Wieland's chromosome argument (and his probable source of error) to you in our first interaction months ago. I seem to have a knack for following the minds of Creationists through their twisted up-is-down mazes. Probably a sign I'm in serious need of meds.

Anyhow, I want you to do something for me, Dave (if you're not going to answer Mike as Argy et al. have requested).

Your claim is basically this (although I know you don't believe it, but think evolutionists should): currently existing organisms represent different phylogenetic intermediate stages on the path to humans. Bacteria is the earliest. You think yeast should serve as a good, relatively unchanged model for another very early stage when we were still unicellular blobs many hundreds of millions of years ago. As vertebrates, modern fish are much further up the scale, giving us a good idea of what we were like 300 million years ago (and they have remained practically unchanged since then). And finally, there's us. (For simplicity, I've omitted all but these four: bacteria, yeast, fish, humans.)

If that is a pretty good representation of your argument, please do the following:

You have suggested that yeast are biologically similar to bacteria. Fish are much more different, but less so than humans, which are the most different of all. Present what you believe to be the MAJOR biological similarities and differences between these four representative organisms.  What do you think were the major biological stepping stones from bacteria to yeast, yeast to fish, fish to humans?

In all of these comparisons, the one I'm most interested in is bacteria vs. yeast. What cause do you have -- and what criteria do you use -- to present these as similar organisms?
Posted by: BWE on Oct. 03 2006,18:59

Quote (Diogenes @ Oct. 03 2006,17:52)
Well, I wasn't going to say anything, but since you asked, I think it sucks.  

Firstly, notice that after the flood both the lines that denote animals and plants continue at their current size for quite some period of time.  This is patently ridiculous.  While an exponetial growth situation makes sense, we've only got 4500 years to go from 1 beetle kind to the 5-8 million beetle species currently estimated, so we better start that massive speciation immediately after the flood (also we need dogs to become dingos and hop on future australia before it departs for it's current location, and that happens really soon after the flood).  

Secondly, you need the branching to stop at some point before the modern day to explain the lack of massive speciation in modern times.  I suggest using November 23, 1859 as the date when it stopped, after that the lines should all be perfectly straight and horizontal.  

Thirdly, why do the animal  and plant curve back at the edges.  Are you suggesting that animals can go backwards in time?  This is just sillyness. (Note: would time traveling animals help explain the ordliness of the fossil record?).

Fourthly, who the #### is the guy in the picture that's used to represent all of mankind?  You should have picked someone that embodies all the best qualities of humanity.  Someone with both the mental agility and physique of a man that typifies the pinnacle of the human form.  The only modern person I can think of that has all these qualities is Ronald Reagan.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Firstly, time is relative in quantum mechanics. And for Gob's sake, you think they wanted to screw after being stuck with their husbands and wives for 40 days? Took a while before they got up the urge again. But when it did,well, it musta been like the movie, the wagon train, the valley, the sunset, "Honey, we're home. Let's make us a passel of youngens."

Have you ever grown a Bonsai fruit tree?

< Arthur Brown > was carefully considered. You may be too young but, believe me, he's closer than Ronnie.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 03 2006,19:17

Since I'm NOT a biologist, just a lowly archaeologist and paleoanth guy, I'd like some criticism of the following from those familiar with the field:
************************************************
DumbAssDave, earlier in the thread you claimed to know "better" than others about evolutionary theory. Biology and biochem and genetics are all part of that.

Criticism One
The use of "percentage" as a criteria --IN A CONSERVED PROTEIN...is duplicitious, underhanded and wrong. When put in terms of amino acid sequences, you see that contrary to your claim, phylogeny is observable, and the differences are plain. Yet the percentages are the same...why? Because organisms need the protein to live. Knock out sections or otherwise disrupt it and you have a non-functioning, non-folding protein...the only thing that can happen is substitutions (and some accumulation?) around a "core" of amino sequences  -- and that is what happens, as shown in the data I gave you.    
Read what I posted just a few pages back:  he[ Denton] fails to point out that necessarily only living species are described...Cytochromes of living organisms, are not intermediary (between bacteria and other living critters), because all are descendants.
The bacterium he cites is a living species. Denton apparently thinks because a bacterium "looks" primitive, then any modern bacterium can be used as a "model" for an ancestral bacterium. But it cannot be an ancestor. It is not a 2-3 billion-year-old ancestor, but a descendant of a 2-3 billion-year-old ancestor. Yes, the bacterium still looks 'simple', but it was not trapped in a time warp from the moment it branched off from an Ur-bacterium. That means that its proteins must have accumulated mutations from the moment it separated from the common ancestor.

[b]Criticism Two

Given the theory of common descent in evolution, we would predict that chimps and man, being closely related ...would have similar cytochrome c sequences. They do. Explain how it is that humans and chimps have essentially the same sequence.

A null hypothesis would predict that the sequences would be randomly vastly different, given the potential variational space...Hubert Yockey estimated that there are 2.3 x 10^93 possible functional cytochrome sequences --  they all would theoretically fold into the same three-dimensional structure, and all perform the same biological role -- even though a protein sequence folds into a unique three-dimensional protein structure, different sequences can fold into similar structures.
Humans and chimpanzees have the exact same cytochrome c protein sequence. The "null hypothesis" given above is false.
In the absence of common descent, the chance of this occurrence is conservatively less than 1 out of 10^93. Thus, the high degree of similarity in these proteins is a spectacular corroboration of the theory of common descent. Furthermore, human and chimpanzee cytochrome c proteins differ by ~10 amino acids from all other mammals. The chance of this occurring in the absence of a hereditary mechanism is less than 1 out of 10 ^29.
Criticism Three
Okay, now let's look at another aspect of this. I'll try a different approach here--this is a test of Denton, too. If Denton were correct about his assumption ( Man should differ MORE than a modern lamprey does from a  bacterium) then we should expect that bacteria and OTHER bacteria should differ LESS in terms of percentages, since "bacteria are more closely related to each other"...correct?  
R P Ambler, R G Bartsch, M Daniel, M D Kamen, L McLellan, T E Meyer, and J Van Beeumen (1981) Amino acid sequences of bacterial cytochromes c' and c-556.
"The cytochrome c' are electron transport proteins widely distributed in photosynthetic and aerobic bacteria. We report the amino acid sequences of the proteins from 12 different bacterial species, and we show by sequences that the cytochromes c-556 from 2 different bacteria are structurally related to the cytochromes c'... Quantitative comparison of cytochrome c' and c-556 sequences indicates a relatively low 28% average [sequence] identity."  Now, the question I'd like you to answer is WHY, Dave ???
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 03 2006,19:41

Nota Bene : Obviously, I stole a bunch of that from online sources, but I feel uneasy about how I stated/framed things, and I'd like to know where I went wrong.
Posted by: jeannot on Oct. 03 2006,21:28

Quote (afdave @ Oct. 03 2006,21:41)
Edmund...  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I think what Dave has latched onto here is a claim by Denton, who says that evolutionary biologists expected (in the 1950's and 1960's) that similar-looking organisms should have similar DNA sequences.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

No.  Cory is right.  This is NOT what I think.  And Denton did not claim that.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If that's not your claim. Please explain us why you expect a  modern yeast to be closer to a bacterium than a human is.

Methinks you don't even understand your own arguments.
Posted by: Grey_Wolf_c on Oct. 03 2006,21:53

Maybe it will help everyone involved if I give a little comparison of the reality of ToE vs Dave's understanding of it

Dave version of the ToE:
Bacteria existed at the start. At some point, yeast evolved from it, and bacteria remained bacteria. Then worms evolved from yeast, and yeast remained yeast. Then fish evolved from worms, and worms remained worms. etc.

Actual ToE:
Unevolved unicellular creatures (UUC)* existed. If we could see them today, they would look bacteria-like to us, but human-like to modern bacterias. UUC speciated into two brothers - brother a's descendants became modern bacteria, brother b's descendants, modern non-bacteria.

Brother b's descendants did so by dividing into two family trees, b1 and b2, that we call Archaea and Eucaryota, and whose ultimate grandfathers were brothers. Etc.

I.e. Dave simply thinks that once a worm speciated from the bacteria, it stopped evolving. ToE tells us that nothing stops evolving, and thus that modern bacteria are as evolved as modern humans. Which is the part that Dave cannot accept - and the part that he is trying to discredit.

Oh, and since it is my first posting to the thread, let me state that as a lurker I am firmly in the camp of "Dave is getting his @ss kicked". You know, for the record.

Hope that helps,

Grey Wolf

* Just came up with the name. It may help Dave understand what "ancient bacteria" are. But I doubt it.

Note: I realise everyone but one person knows this already. Mostly I post this so that one person looks even more of an idiot when he continues to misrepresent the Theory of Evolution. It is amazing how he continues to find new depths to stupidity. It is a scientific enquiry, in fact - is there a bottom to the pit of human stupidity? can it be reached?
Posted by: Ichthyic on Oct. 03 2006,22:31



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
is there a bottom to the pit of human stupidity? can it be reached?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



only when employing extreme force of will.  You can't stumble on the depths of stupidity shown by AFD by accident.
Posted by: Grey_Wolf_c on Oct. 03 2006,22:47

Quote (Ichthyic @ Oct. 04 2006,03:31)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
only when employing extreme force of will.  You can't stumble on the depths of stupidity shown by AFD by accident.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Yes, I agree. In fact, it has long been my belief that Dave is actually *digging*. I.e. purposedly reaching further into abject mindlessness. He started off a simple ignorant, but as this thread grows he is necessarily learning things and distorting them on purpose to fit his objectives. That takes a lot of work.

But while Russians may have managed to dig two kilometres into the Earth and had to give up for the difficulty of it all, Dave continues to dig, has passed the incandescent rock section, somehow ignores the preasure (of knowledge and expertise) and must be getting close to the metallic core.

Or so I would think - except evidence seems to indicate that the "Stupidity End" hypothesis is wrong and that (as in so many things) Einstein was right when he possited:
"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.". Further observation is, of course, necessary.

Hope that helps,

Grey Wolf
Posted by: Mike PSS on Oct. 04 2006,03:34

Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 04 2006,01:41)
Nota Bene : Obviously, I stole a bunch of that from online sources, but I feel uneasy about how I stated/framed things, and I'd like to know where I went wrong.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Deadman,
I've been enjoying the smackdown on the evolutionary biology front.  I don't have the knowledge or background to participate much in the biology field, but there is enough knowledge on the board for me to read and learn.  I'll stick my own neck out if I see an angle or aspect of the information that no one has presented yet.

In the mean time, kick my feet up, eat some popcorn, and enjoy the show.  AFDave's misinformed ideas are like this house in the < video >.
Posted by: improvius on Oct. 04 2006,03:40

Quote (incorygible @ Oct. 04 2006,00:37)
In all of these comparisons, the one I'm most interested in is bacteria vs. yeast. What cause do you have -- and what criteria do you use -- to present these as similar organisms?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Predicted Dave response:

They're both so tiny!  I mean, just look at them.  Ah-ha!  You can't, can you?  Not without your sciencey equipment that filters out the important unknown supernatural stuff that you don't want to see.  But to a person with the true worldview, they appear almost identical.
Posted by: incorygible on Oct. 04 2006,05:19

Quote (improvius @ Oct. 04 2006,08:40)
Quote (incorygible @ Oct. 04 2006,00:37)
In all of these comparisons, the one I'm most interested in is bacteria vs. yeast. What cause do you have -- and what criteria do you use -- to present these as similar organisms?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Predicted Dave response:

They're both so tiny!  I mean, just look at them.  Ah-ha!  You can't, can you?  Not without your sciencey equipment that filters out the important unknown supernatural stuff that you don't want to see.  But to a person with the true worldview, they appear almost identical.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's what I'm expecting, too. But for Dave to throw up comparable microscopic pictures (or diagrams) of a bacterium and a yeast cell (i.e., as he did with Dawkins and a gorilla, only this time to demonstrate how similar they are), he will at least have to see the differences, won't he? Not all the differences, to be sure, but enough to give him pause. Right?

Nah.
Posted by: Chris Hyland on Oct. 04 2006,05:28



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
He says that amphibian cytochrome should be closer to bacterial cytochrome than human cytochrome is, and fish should be closer still and fungi should be closer still, if the ToE were true.  But it is not as this chart clearly shows.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I cant be bothered to read through the posts but has Dave admitted that this is a load of nonsense yet?
Posted by: afdave on Oct. 04 2006,05:38

ALRIGHT, LET'S NAIL DOWN WHAT YOU REALLY BELIEVE ABOUT THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION



I see that you guys think I don't understand ToE and that is arguable, but I certainly think Michael Denton understands it ...  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Next, Dr. Theobald chides me for quoting "another confused anti-evolutionist," Michael Denton. As an aside, I find it fascinating that, according to Dr. Theobald, Denton "doesn't understand even the most fundamental evolutionary concepts." It is fascinating because one often hears that nothing in biology makes sense except in light of evolution. And yet, Denton, being ignorant of the most fundamental evolutionary concepts, managed to earn a Ph.D. in developmental biology (in addition to an M. D.), to write or co-author over seventy articles in professional journals, and to work for decades as a genetics researcher. Apparently knowledge of evolution is irrelevant to a career in science.< http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/camp.html >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



...and I think Zuckerkandl understood it in 1963 ...  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Contemporary organisms that look much like ancient ancestral organism probably contain a majority of polypeptide chains that resemble quite closely those of ancient organisms.  In other words, certain animals said to be "living fossils", such as the cockroach, the horseshoe crab, [the lungfish shown above] the shark and, among mammals, the lemur, probably manufacture a great many polypeptide molecules that differ only slightly from those manufactured by their ancestors millions of years ago. Zuckerkandl, E., "The Evolution of Haemoglobin",Scientific American,213(5): 110-18, see p111.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Now ... Grey Wolf said that UUC's started the whole process and he said that the UUC would look like a bacteria--how about we say it looked like the "coccus" in the upper LH corner above, OK?  Now what I am most interested in learning about ToE is about [b]Human Evolution
.  So I think I can safely say that I can at least identify the endpoints of ToE regarding humans: namely, a UUC at the beginning and a Human at the end.  Now calm down, calm down ... I know there are MANY "endpoints" in your theory ... zillions of them, namely, all the modern organisms we see today.  I realize that.  But I am not interested in all of those.  I am ONLY interested in the single line of ancestry which "connects the dots" from the UUC to the Human, OK?  Are we clear?  Somewhere in the distant past, I have a "grandpa" who looks like an ape, right?  According to Cory, this guy lived about 5 MY ago.  And somewhere in the distant past I have another "grandpa" (I'm omitting all the "greats" for simplicity) who resembles a lemur? (help me out here ... this gets fuzzy) and then another even more distant "grandpa" that looks like maybe a bullfrog, a fish, a worm, and ultimately my first "grandpa" was a bacterium like this nice little "coccus" pictured above.  How am I doing?

Now one of my statements is that this wonderful progression from a UUC to a Human ...

REQUIRES LOTS AND LOTS AND LOTS AND LOTS OF TIME

Translation:  Evolutionists Need Deep Time for their theory to be plausible.  

(It still is not plausible even given eons of time, but at least it is more plausible than if the time scale was only thousands of years instead of billions.)

And of course, George the Geochronologist "dates" rocks for Evos and they select the "correct" dates which fit in with the Deep Time Scale.

So that is one major point I am making.

**************************************************

Now to the other point ...

DENTON'S CHART WAS A SURPRISE TO EVOLUTIONISTS AND TRULY DELIVERS A DEATH BLOW TO THE WHOLE THEORY OF EVOLUTION

Now Denton's chart can ONLY be a prediction of ToE IF certain conditions are met.  And Denton goes on to show that these conditions are quite inconceivable.  He says...

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Only if the degree of evolution in a family of molecules such as the cytochromes had been constrained by some kind of time constant mechanism, so that in any one class the degree of change which occurs is always proportional to the lapse of absolute time.  Only in this way can the ordered pattern of molecular diversity be explained. This remarkable concept is widely known as that of the 'molecular clock hypothesis'.  But although such a clock is perfectly capable of accounting for the observed equal divergence of, say, all vertebrate cytochromes from those of insects, no one has been able to explain in precise terms exactly how such a time constant would work.  Rather than being a true explanation, the hypothesis of the molecular clock is really a tautology, no more than a restatement of the fact that at a molecular level the representatives of any one class are wqually isolated from the representatives of another class.
    The tautological nature of the molecular clock hypothesis is reminiscent of the explanations of the gaps in the fossil record.  The proposal put forward to save evolution in the face of the missing links--that connecting links are missing from the fossil record because transitional species are very rare--is essentially tautological.  If evolution is true then indeed the intermediates must be very rare.  But unfortunately we can only know that evolution is true after we have found the transitional types!  The explanation relies on belief in evolution in the first place.  Similarly, if evolution is true then, yes indeed, the clock hypothesis must also be true.  Again the hypothesis gets us nowhere.  We save evolution because we believed in it in the first place.(pp. 295-296 of Evolution: A Theory in Crisis)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Denton then goes on to explain an additional twist to the Clock Hypothesis, namely, different proteins exhibit different degrees of interspecies variation.  He illustrates this by comparing haemoglobin and cytochrome.  He shows that what you would really have to have is different "clocks" for each of several hundred protein families, each ticking at its own unique and highly specific rate!

Not very likely, guys.

Denton points out that ...  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Unfortunately, neither evolution by genetic drift nor evolution by positive selection is likely to have generated anything remotely resembling a uniform rate of evolution in a family of homologous proteins.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

He goes on to talk about genetic drift rates, mutation rates and generation times for diverse organisms--very interesting reading--and concludes on p. 301 ...  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Again, it is the sheer universality of the phenomenon--the necessity to believe that the functional constraints in all the members of a particular protein family, say A, in all diverse phylogenetic lines for all of hundreds of millions of years have remained precisely five times as stringent as those operating on the members of another protein family, say B--which fatally weakens the theory.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Let's simplify that sentence for Denton ...

It is the sheer universality of the phenomenon which fatally weakens the theory.

Again, here's the chart ...



What Denton has just discussed above is called the Neutral Drift Theory and represents one "camp" of evolutionists.  The other "camp" is the Selectionist Camp and he goes on to show how selectionist explanations fare no better than neutral drift explanations.  He explains why this is so by considering "living fossils" such as lungfish, opossums and such, then concludes, as in the case of neutralist explanations ...  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
As in the case of uniform drift it is the sheer universality of the phenomenon -- the necessity to believe that since their common divergence every single family of homologous proteins have suffered the same number of adaptive substitutions over the same period of time in all phylogenetic lines -- which fatally weakens selectionist explanations.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

 Denton notes that  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The difficulties associated with attempting to explain how a family of homologous proteins could have evolved at constant rates has created chaos in evolutionary thought.  The evolutionary community has divided into two camps -- those still adhering to the selectionist position, and those rejecting it in favor of the neutralist. The devastating aspect of this controversy is that neither side can adequately account for the constancy of the rate of molecular evolution, yet each side fatally weakens the other ... both sides win valid points, but in the process the credibility of the molecular clock hypothesis is severely strained and with it the whole paradigm of evolution itself is endangered.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Thanks Mr. Denton, but I would have used a different word, like "DOA."

************************************************

In case anyone is keeping track, we have now moved to Points C & D on AFDave's Creator God Hypothesis.  We have now covered A, B, G, H, K, L, & M (not that we won't periodically return to these points some).   You can see all the points at my blog site at < http://airdave.blogspot.com, > or on page 1 of this thread.

**************************************************

Deadman...  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The use of "percentage" as a criteria --IN A CONSERVED PROTEIN...is duplicitious, underhanded and wrong.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Hey, I wasn't the one that came up with using percentages.  As far as I know, this is standard practice.  This is not something that Denton just made up to try to prove a point.  Cory used them to show me how close Chimps and Humans are.

Deadman...  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
he[ Denton] fails to point out that necessarily only living species are described...Cytochromes of living organisms, are not intermediary (between bacteria and other living critters), because all are descendants.
The bacterium he cites is a living species. Denton apparently thinks because a bacterium "looks" primitive, then any modern bacterium can be used as a "model" for an ancestral bacterium.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

He is simply revealing the prevailing view of evolutionists in the early 60's.  They thought this exact thing and fully expected that molecular biology would confirm their expectations of nice, ordered, transitional picture of the protein sequences of various organisms.  Boy were they wrong!  Here's the quote again from Zuckerkandl in 1963 ...  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Contemporary organisms that look much like ancient ancestral organism probably contain a majority of polypeptide chains that resemble quite closely those of ancient organisms.  In other words, certain animals said to be "living fossils", such as the cockroach, the horseshoe crab, [the lungfish shown above] the shark and, among mammals, the lemur, [b]probably manufacture a great many polypeptide molecules that differ only slightly from those manufactured by their ancestors millions of years ago. Zuckerkandl, E., "The Evolution of Haemoglobin",Scientific American,213(5): 110-18, see p111.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Deadman...  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
That means that its proteins must have accumulated mutations from the moment it separated from the common ancestor.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Yes, it's true that mutations accumulate with time, but do you really believe that a 400 myo lungfish had very different sequences than a modern lungfish?  They look identical, remember.  Remember also, "Similar Morphology=Similar Sequences."  (You said this yourself and I agree) We also see this readily from Denton's chart, we have seen it with chimps and humans, and I just showed you a leading evolutionist from the early 60's who says it's probably true when comparing ancient and modern forms.  Guess what ... he's probably right!  And that is fatal for ToE, which is what Denton is pointing out.  The truth is that our friend the lungfish did not get buried 400 MY ago as you think.  He got buried about 4300 years ago in the Flood.  And mutations can't facilitate "macroevolution."  All they do is either nothing or something harmful.  So today's lungfish population is essentially the same as it was 4300 years ago ... sure they've accumulated some neutral and some harmful mutations, but that's about it.

Deadman...  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Given the theory of common descent in evolution, we would predict that chimps and man, being closely related ...would have similar cytochrome c sequences. They do. Explain how it is that humans and chimps have essentially the same sequence.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Common Design and Common descent both predict this.  Observing that they do have this supports both views equally.  We have to look at other things to determine between the two views.

Deadman...  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Quantitative comparison of cytochrome c' and c-556 sequences indicates a relatively low 28% average [sequence] identity."  Now, the question I'd like you to answer is WHY, Dave
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Denton's chart just specifies Cytochrome C comparisons.  I am not familiar with the C' and the C-556 sequences.  I would like to learn more about bacteria and see some sequence comparisons of Cytochrome C among bacteria.  Anyone have free access to an online atlas? (like the Dayhoff one referred to already).  My guess is that there is much greater variation than we find between, say, dogs and mice.  Why?  Not sure, but a really wild, layman guess would be that any two different species of bacteria are far more different fundamentally (in both form and function) from each other than dogs and mice.  Dogs and mice are actually quite similar in both form and function when you really think about it.  Now I don't know how this impacts either the Creationist view or the Naturalistic view, but that's what I am here for ... to investigate this.  But I do know this ... you can whack off the bacteria part of Denton's chart and still have a fatal problem for ToE.


Mike PSS...  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'm going summarize "How crystallised olivine, originating from a homogeneous source, that contains Rb and Sr constituents can be tested using the Rb/Sr whole rock Isochron method and result in a data set forming a linear relation."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Mike, I think if you test single mineral within the rock, it is referred to as a mineral isochron, not a whole rock isochron.  The method of testing is the same as I understand it, it is just that they isolate the individual minerals first and test them separately.  With the whole rock method, I think they just crush the whole rock and analyze it.

What point of mine exactly are you attempting to refute?  The statement about "Deep Timers cannot prove that whole rock isochron charts are not merely mixing diagrams" ??  Is that the one?
Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 04 2006,05:41

Quote (afdave @ Oct. 03 2006,21:41)
Uh ... Deadman ... you might want to actually read what my (and Denton's) claim is, OK?

I have no argument with the observation that similar organisms have similar sequences.  I think it's strange how you think this proves evolution, but I certainly agree that humans and apes have similar sequences, corn and sunflowers do also, etc, etc.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dave, you utter, fucking moron (if you'll pardon my French). You're the one who thinks similar-looking organisms should have similar sequences, not deadman. You're the one who thinks this idea is some sort of proof of evolution. Weren't you the idiot who slapped up pictures of humans, chimps, and gorillas, and used the superficial similarity of chimps and gorillas to argue they're more closely related than either is to humans?

You can't even remember which side of the fence you're supposedly on in your arguments.
Posted by: Mike PSS on Oct. 04 2006,05:46

Quote (Chris Hyland @ Oct. 04 2006,11:28)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
He says that amphibian cytochrome should be closer to bacterial cytochrome than human cytochrome is, and fish should be closer still and fungi should be closer still, if the ToE were true.  But it is not as this chart clearly shows.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I cant be bothered to read through the posts but has Dave admitted that this is a load of nonsense yet?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Is this what Dave is trying to do?

Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 04 2006,05:48

Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 04 2006,00:17)
Criticism Two
Given the theory of common descent in evolution, we would predict that chimps and man, being closely related ...would have similar cytochrome c sequences. They do. Explain how it is that humans and chimps have essentially the same sequence.

A null hypothesis would predict that the sequences would be randomly vastly different, given the potential variational space...Hubert Yockey estimated that there are 2.3 x 10^93 possible functional cytochrome sequences --  they all would theoretically fold into the same three-dimensional structure, and all perform the same biological role -- even though a protein sequence folds into a unique three-dimensional protein structure, different sequences can fold into similar structures.
Humans and chimpanzees have the exact same cytochrome c protein sequence. The "null hypothesis" given above is false.
In the absence of common descent, the chance of this occurrence is conservatively less than 1 out of 10^93. Thus, the high degree of similarity in these proteins is a spectacular corroboration of the theory of common descent. Furthermore, human and chimpanzee cytochrome c proteins differ by ~10 amino acids from all other mammals. The chance of this occurring in the absence of a hereditary mechanism is less than 1 out of 10 ^29.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I made this argument to Dave, via the same Theobald article I've linked to countless times, five months ago. He didn't answer it then, he didn't answer it a few days ago when I raised it again, and I guarantee he won't answer it now.

Why? Because he can't.
Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 04 2006,05:58

Dave, one more time, just for the record: DENTON'S CHART WAS NOT A SURPRISE TO EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGISTS, AND CONFIRMS A KEY PREDICTION OF EVOLUTIONARY THEORY: THAT ALL EUKARYOTES ARE EQUALLY DISTANTLY RELATED TO ALL PROKARYOTES. Half a dozen people have explained this to you in minute detail already, but you're too much of a half-wit to understand it. Either that, or you simply and adamantly refuse to get it.

You can keep repeating the same bad, wrong claim that Denton's chart somehow "disproves" evolutionary theory, but it doesn't. It disproves your bad, wrong, broken, mistaken misapprehension of evolutionary theory.

Got it yet? No? Didn't think so. But I thought I'd post this for the record anyway.
Posted by: afdave on Oct. 04 2006,06:00

Eric...

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Dave, you utter, fucking moron (if you'll pardon my French). You're the one who thinks similar-looking organisms should have similar sequences, not deadman. You're the one who thinks this idea is some sort of proof of evolution. Weren't you the idiot who slapped up pictures of humans, chimps, and gorillas, and used the superficial similarity of chimps and gorillas to argue they're more closely related than either is to humans?

You can't even remember which side of the fence you're supposedly on in your arguments.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Actually we BOTH think that similar looking organisms should have similar sequences.  

Yes, I did put up those pictures and you can see them here ... < http://airdave.blogspot.com > ... and they show precisely what I wanted them to show.  Go re-read it and you may understand.

And I know exactly which side of the fence I am on.

YOU are the confused one.  Wow, are you confused!!
Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 04 2006,06:11

Quote (afdave @ Oct. 04 2006,11:00)
Eric...    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Dave, you utter, fucking moron (if you'll pardon my French). You're the one who thinks similar-looking organisms should have similar sequences, not deadman. You're the one who thinks this idea is some sort of proof of evolution. Weren't you the idiot who slapped up pictures of humans, chimps, and gorillas, and used the superficial similarity of chimps and gorillas to argue they're more closely related than either is to humans?

You can't even remember which side of the fence you're supposedly on in your arguments.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Actually we BOTH think that similar looking organisms should have similar sequences.  

Yes, I did put up those pictures and you can see them here ... < http://airdave.blogspot.com > ... and they show precisely what I wanted them to show.  Go re-read it and you may understand.

And I know exactly which side of the fence I am on.

YOU are the confused one.  Wow, are you confused!!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dave, does deadman agree with you that because chimps look more like gorillas than they do humans, therefore chimps should have more sequence similarity to gorillas than they do to humans?

Duh.

Dave, you're not even sure where the fence is, let alone which side of it you're on.
Posted by: Chris Hyland on Oct. 04 2006,06:14



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Yes, it's true that mutations accumulate with time, but do you really believe that a 400 myo lungfish had very different sequences than a modern lungfish?  They look identical, remember.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Im pretty sure cyctochrome C doesn't determine what an organism looks like. And yes to your question by the way.

Denton's analysis gives this tree:

The distance between bacteria and all the other species should be approximately (as you said mutation rates etc are not exactly equal) the same, as the divergence times are equal. It just so happens that they are between 64%-72%, which leads Denton to conclude that they are all equally similar to the bacteria. You're going to have to explian slightly harder why this isn't what evolution would predict.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
One of my favorite quotes ever is from this book ...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Allow me to share a few of mine:  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
One of the most surprising discoveries which has arisen from DNA sequencing has been the remarkable finding that the genomes of all organisms are clustered very close together in a tiny region of DNA sequence space forming a tree of related sequences that can all be interconverted via a series of tiny incremental natural steps
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So the sharp discontinuities, referred to above, between different organs and adaptations and different types of organisms, which have been the bedrock of antievolutionary arguments for the past century (3), have now greatly diminished at the DNA level. Organisms which seem very different at a morphological level can be very close together at the DNA level
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Thus, new organs and structures that cannot be reached via a series of functional morphological intermediates can still be reached by change in DNA sequence space
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 04 2006,06:15

Dave, what I really don't understand about you is that you don't think 4 billion years is enough time to get from a few thousand species to 10 million species, but at the same time you think 4,500 years is enough time to get from a few thousand species to ten million species.

Could you possibly explain, using short, easy-to-understand words—an "executive summary," if you will—how this makes any sense at all?
Posted by: afdave on Oct. 04 2006,06:37

Christ Hyland...

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Quote  
Yes, it's true that mutations accumulate with time, but do you really believe that a 400 myo lungfish had very different sequences than a modern lungfish?  They look identical, remember.
Im pretty sure cyctochrome C doesn't determine what an organism looks like. An yes to your question by the way.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

So you actually believe that a 400 MYO lungfish had significantly different sequences that the modern lungfish which is still living today?  How much different?  Can you hazard a guess?  20%?  40%?  And yet you agree with me that identical homologies in modern species have identical sequences?  IOW my golden retriever here in Missouri would have identical sequences to your golden retriever in England, right?  Yet the 400 MYO old lungfish--which is just as identical to the modern lungfish as the two golden retrievers--you think would have very different sequences?  And you base this on what logic?

Eric...

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Dave, what I really don't understand about you is that you don't think 4 billion years is enough time to get from a few thousand species to 10 million species, but at the same time you think 4,500 years is enough time to get from a few thousand species to ten million species.

Could you possibly explain, using short, easy-to-understand words—an "executive summary," if you will—how this makes any sense at all?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

We will get to that.  Easy answer.  Let's stick with the topic we are on though so we don't confuse everyone.
Posted by: Mike PSS on Oct. 04 2006,06:44

Quote (afdave @ Oct. 04 2006,11:38)
ALRIGHT, LET'S NAIL DOWN WHAT YOU REALLY BELIEVE ABOUT THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION

Mike PSS...   Mike, I think if you test single mineral within the rock, it is referred to as a mineral isochron, not a whole rock isochron.  The method of testing is the same as I understand it, it is just that they isolate the individual minerals first and test them separately.  With the whole rock method, I think they just crush the whole rock and analyze it.{explanation below}

What point of mine exactly are you attempting to refute?  The statement about "Deep Timers cannot prove that whole rock isochron charts are not merely mixing diagrams" ??  Is that the one?{yes, except I'm not saying anything about time, only your mixing falacy}
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


AFDave,
If you have an olivine sample, it's made up of numerous crystal forms as outlined in my summary.  A whole rock isochron test will grind up the various crystal forms while a mineral isochron test will seperate the crystal forms and test each seperately.  Even if you have a sample of olivine and grind it up, your sample will statistacally contain different quantities of the crystal forms present, thus giving you a spread of Rb/Sr data.

Plus you may get a mixture of minerals or even amorphous areas of the rock.  The mineral mix depends on the magma constituents, temperature, pressure, etc.  Look over these charts for example

Figure 10e-1: The classification of igneous rocks. This graphic model describes the difference between nine common igneous rocks based on texture of mineral grains, temperature of crystallization, relative amounts of typical rock forming elements, and relative proportions of silica and some common minerals.


Figure 10e-2: Bowen reaction series.

All this from a homogenous magma source.  The rock samples must be from a co-genetic source.

Now, the only card (canard??) you have left to play is to poo-poo every geologic sample ever taken and say it isn't co-genetic, because if only one geologic source is shown to be co-genetic then the Isochron testing becomes valid.  This becomes a game of whack-a-mole with the geologist.  If this is your stance then please state it right up front.  You've already accused all geochronologists of collusion in some underground cabal of "Evilutionists", why not all geologists too (except of course Humphreys, Snelling, Woodmorappe and Austin)

"How about them maggot filled stinkin' apples!"
JAD.... errr... Mike PSS
Posted by: afdave on Oct. 04 2006,06:52

Eric ... you are losing it, my friend ... you said  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Dave, you utter, fucking moron (if you'll pardon my French). You're the one who thinks similar-looking organisms should have similar sequences, not deadman.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

And I answered your question with  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Actually we BOTH think that similar looking organisms should have similar sequences.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Which is true.  We do.  Then you changed your question to this ...  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Dave, does deadman agree with you that because chimps look more like gorillas than they do humans, therefore chimps should have more sequence similarity to gorillas than they do to humans?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

And the answer to this DIFFERENT question is "No" ... Then you act as if my answer would be "Yes" or something to this question by throwing mud ...  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Duh. Dave, you're not even sure where the fence is, let alone which side of it you're on.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

... You are the confused one.   Kindly get off my thread if you can't even keep things straight.  All you are doing is wasting everyone's time. There are plenty of people here who have intelligent things to say such as Incorygible and Deadman and JonF and Chris Hyland and others.

Or if you are going to say stupid things, kindly keep them short and seldom ... you know ... like K.E does.
Posted by: Chris Hyland on Oct. 04 2006,06:54



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So you actually believe that a 400 MYO lungfish had significantly different sequences that the modern lungfish which is still living today?  How much different?  Can you hazard a guess?  20%?  40%?  And yet you agree with me that identical homologies in modern species have identical sequences?  IOW my golden retriever here in Missouri would have identical sequences to your golden retriever in England, right?  Yet the 400 MYO old lungfish--which is just as identical to the modern lungfish as the two golden retrievers--you think would have very different sequences?  And you base this on what logic?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Short answer: There has only been a relatively short time since the two dogs had a common ancestor for mutations to occur, whereas there have been 400MY for mutations to occur in the lungfish lineage, mutations that are neutral as far as the phenotype of 'being a lungfish' goes, which I suspect is the majority of nucleotides in the genome.
Posted by: jeannot on Oct. 04 2006,06:55

Quote (afdave @ Oct. 04 2006,11:37)
Christ Hyland...  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Quote  
Yes, it's true that mutations accumulate with time, but do you really believe that a 400 myo lungfish had very different sequences than a modern lungfish?  They look identical, remember.
Im pretty sure cyctochrome C doesn't determine what an organism looks like. An yes to your question by the way.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

So you actually believe that a 400 MYO lungfish had significantly different sequences that the modern lungfish which is still living today?  How much different?  Can you hazard a guess?  20%?  40%?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's not a guess, dude.

With cladistics (not based on genetic distance, BTW), we can infer the molecular states of extinct ancestors. The genetic distance between this ancestral "lungfish" and its descendent can be calculated. And it goes further, we could predict which point mutations occured in its lineages.
Posted by: incorygible on Oct. 04 2006,06:58

Quote (afdave @ Oct. 04 2006,11:37)
Christ Hyland...  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Quote  
Yes, it's true that mutations accumulate with time, but do you really believe that a 400 myo lungfish had very different sequences than a modern lungfish?  They look identical, remember.
Im pretty sure cyctochrome C doesn't determine what an organism looks like. An yes to your question by the way.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

So you actually believe that a 400 MYO lungfish had significantly different sequences that the modern lungfish which is still living today?  How much different?  Can you hazard a guess?  20%?  40%?  And yet you agree with me that identical homologies in modern species have identical sequences?  IOW my golden retriever here in Missouri would have identical sequences to your golden retriever in England, right?  Yet the 400 MYO old lungfish--which is just as identical to the modern lungfish as the two golden retrievers--you think would have very different sequences?  And you base this on what logic?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Re: the bolded part: And YOU base THIS on what logic?
Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 04 2006,07:04

Quote (afdave @ Oct. 04 2006,11:37)
So you actually believe that a 400 MYO lungfish had significantly different sequences that the modern lungfish which is still living today?  How much different?  Can you hazard a guess?  20%?  40%?  And yet you agree with me that identical homologies in modern species have identical sequences?  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dave, do you understand what is meant by "non-coding sequences"? Do you understand that they are not subject to selective pressure? Do you understand that there's nothing to stop mutations from piling up in non-coding lungfish DNA over 400 million years? Do you therefore understand that it's entirely likely, to the point of a virtual certainty, that the non-coding sections of lungfish DNA today probably barely even resemble non-coding sections of lungfish DNA from 400 million years ago?

Of course you don't.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Eric...    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Dave, what I really don't understand about you is that you don't think 4 billion years is enough time to get from a few thousand species to 10 million species, but at the same time you think 4,500 years is enough time to get from a few thousand species to ten million species.

Could you possibly explain, using short, easy-to-understand words—an "executive summary," if you will—how this makes any sense at all?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

We will get to that.  Easy answer.  Let's stick with the topic we are on though so we don't confuse everyone.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


How is that not the topic now, Dave? You claim that 4 billion years is not nearly enough time for life to evolved to the diversity we see today, but 4,500 years is plenty of time for life to have evolved to the diversity we see today. Do you see the problem with this reasoning?

Or is this going to require another of your "miracles"?
Posted by: afdave on Oct. 04 2006,07:04

Jeannot...

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
With cladistics (not based on genetic distance, BTW), we can infer the molecular states of extinct ancestors.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

How do you infer this? On what basis?  We have strong reason for believing that the golden retrievers have virtually identical sequences because they LOOK similar.  Why would we not apply the same logic to modern and fossil lungfish which ALSO look virtually identical?  

Chris...

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Short answer: There has only been a relatively short time since the two dogs had a common ancestor for mutations to occur, whereas there have been 400MY for mutations to occur in the lungfish lineage, mutations that are neutral as far as the phenotype of 'being a lungfish' goes, which I suspect is the majority of nucleotides in the genome.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

How do you know there has been 400 MY?  RM dating?  Or the "fact" that evolution has occurred?
Posted by: jeannot on Oct. 04 2006,07:15

Quote (afdave @ Oct. 04 2006,12:04)
Jeannot...    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
With cladistics (not based on genetic distance, BTW), we can infer the molecular states of extinct ancestors.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

How do you infer this? On what basis?  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


On the principle of descent with modification, that you refuse to admit. I won't waste my time again trying to educate you on this. Go read a book.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
We have strong reason for believing that the golden retrievers have virtually identical sequences because they LOOK similar.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Not because they look similar, because we know they have a very recent common ancestor (which explain why they look similar).
Do you know the genetic distance between the common troot and a lungfish? They sure look similar to some degree.
Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 04 2006,07:15

Quote (afdave @ Oct. 04 2006,11:52)
You are the confused one.   Kindly get off my thread if you can't even keep things straight.  All you are doing is wasting everyone's time. There are plenty of people here who have intelligent things to say such as Incorygible and Deadman and JonF and Chris Hyland and others.

Or if you are going to say stupid things, kindly keep them short and seldom ... you know ... like K.E does.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dave, I'm beginning to think you don't understand what "morphology" means. Organisms with similar morphologies may have similar sequences, or they may not. Birds and bats have similar morphologies, and wildly different sequences.

On the other hand, organisms that have very different morphologies can have very similar morphologies. Take-home lesson? Morphology is not an indicator of sequence similarity. This is the part you are totally, completely wrong about.

This is also why you believe that because chimps are more similar morphologically to gorillas than to humans, therefore they must have greater sequence similarity to gorillas than to humans. This is what you have always been wrong about, and it's what everyone here has been trying to tell you.

Yeast is not more closely related to bacteria than it is to humans, just because it more closely resembles bacteria. This is the whole point you simply cannot and will not grasp.

Try this, Dave: ask Incorygible, Deadman, JonF and Chris Hyland if they think you know more about evolutionary theory than I do. Ask them if they think I am more confused about this stuff than you are.

If you kept stupid statements off this thread, Dave, you'd have nothing left to say.
Posted by: afdave on Oct. 04 2006,07:19

Incorygible...  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Yet the 400 MYO old lungfish--which is just as identical to the modern lungfish as the two golden retrievers--you think would have very different sequences?  And you base this on what logic?

Re: the bolded part: And YOU base THIS on what logic?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

 My view is that the "400MYO" lungfish would have identical sequences to modern lungfish based on two very powerful evidences ...

1)  The prevailing expectation of evolutionists in the 60's (pre-molecular biology),  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Contemporary organisms that look much like ancient ancestral organism probably contain a majority of polypeptide chains that resemble quite closely those of ancient organisms.  In other words, certain animals said to be "living fossils", such as the cockroach, the horseshoe crab, [the lungfish shown above] the shark and, among mammals, the lemur, probably manufacture a great many polypeptide molecules that differ only slightly from those manufactured by their ancestors millions of years ago. Zuckerkandl, E., "The Evolution of Haemoglobin",Scientific American,213(5): 110-18, see p111.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

and ...
2)  The observed fact (agreed upon by Creos and Evos) that Similar Morphology = Similar Sequences

These are two very powerful pieces of evidence.  It seems to me that the ONLY basis you have for saying otherwise in the case of the lungfish is the NEED to say so to try to protect the ToE from a fatal problem.

But this, of course, doesn't work because the present discussion is about WHICH view is correct.  You need to show independently why it is reasonable to believe that the sequences would truly be different in the face of contrary evidence.
Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 04 2006,07:37

Quote (afdave @ Oct. 04 2006,12:19)
My view is that the "400MYO" lungfish would have identical sequences to modern lungfish based on two very powerful evidences ...

1)  The prevailing expectation of evolutionists in the 60's (pre-molecular biology),      

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Contemporary organisms that look much like ancient ancestral organism probably contain a majority of polypeptide chains that resemble quite closely those of ancient organisms.  In other words, certain animals said to be "living fossils", such as the cockroach, the horseshoe crab, [the lungfish shown above] the shark and, among mammals, the lemur, probably manufacture a great many polypeptide molecules that differ only slightly from those manufactured by their ancestors millions of years ago. Zuckerkandl, E., "The Evolution of Haemoglobin",Scientific American,213(5): 110-18, see p111.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

and ...
2)  The observed fact (agreed upon by Creos and Evos) that Similar Morphology = Similar Sequences

These are two very powerful pieces of evidence.  It seems to me that the ONLY basis you have for saying otherwise in the case of the lungfish is the NEED to say so to try to protect the ToE from a fatal problem.

But this, of course, doesn't work because the present discussion is about WHICH view is correct.  You need to show independently why it is reasonable to believe that the sequences would truly be different in the face of contrary evidence.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dave, I just did. Did you miss it?

There is no selective pressure on non-coding sections of DNA. Therefore, mutations pile up there. They pile up pretty extensively over 400 million years. A significant fraction of lungfish DNA (like any other eukaryotic DNA) is non-coding. Therefore, one would expect to see a great deal of sequence differences in non-coding lungfish DNA over 400 million years.

Your first piece of "evidence" is entirely inapplicable, because your quote is not discussing non-coding DNA.

Your second piece of evidence is simply wrong, as I pointed out earlier. Morphological similarity is not an indicator of sequence homology. Yeast look much more like bacteria than like humans, yet their DNA is more similar to humans than it is to bacteria.

In other words, Dave, you have no evidence for your assertion that 400 million year old lungfish should be identical to modern lungfish. That you think so is entirely due to your bad, wrong idea that organisms that first appeared millions of years in the past stopped evolving as soon as they appeared. This is wrong, and your whole argument, which is really Denton's whole argument, falls apart as a result.
Posted by: incorygible on Oct. 04 2006,07:47

Quote (afdave @ Oct. 04 2006,10:38)
ALRIGHT, LET'S NAIL DOWN WHAT YOU REALLY BELIEVE ABOUT THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION

I see that you guys think I don't understand ToE and that is arguable, but I certainly think Michael Denton understands it ...  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So did Charles Darwin, as I already < posted >.

Dave quotes talkorigins:  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Next, Dr. Theobald chides me for quoting "another confused anti-evolutionist," Michael Denton. As an aside, I find it fascinating that, according to Dr. Theobald, Denton "doesn't understand even the most fundamental evolutionary concepts." It is fascinating because one often hears that nothing in biology makes sense except in light of evolution. And yet, Denton, being ignorant of the most fundamental evolutionary concepts, managed to earn a Ph.D. in developmental biology (in addition to an M. D.), to write or co-author over seventy articles in professional journals, and to work for decades as a genetics researcher. Apparently knowledge of evolution is irrelevant to a career in science.< http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/camp.html >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Did Dobzhansky say "No careers or credentials or valuable work in biology are possible except in light of evolution"? Don't think so. So let's look at this again. Dobzhansky says (paraphrase) "nothing MAKES SENSE in biology except in light of evolution". Denton has demonstrated that he does NOT understand evolution (or at least did not in 1985). Denton looks at the patterns of divergence in cytochrome-c. and shrieks, "This doesn't make any sense!" People who do understand evolution reply, "Uh, yeah it does." Me, I'm chalking another one up for Theodosius, Dave.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
...and I think Zuckerkandl understood it in 1963 ...    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Contemporary organisms that look much like ancient ancestral organism probably contain a majority of polypeptide chains that resemble quite closely those of ancient organisms.  In other words, certain animals said to be "living fossils", such as the cockroach, the horseshoe crab, [the lungfish shown above] the shark and, among mammals, the lemur, probably manufacture a great many polypeptide molecules that differ only slightly from those manufactured by their ancestors millions of years ago. Zuckerkandl, E., "The Evolution of Haemoglobin",Scientific American,213(5): 110-18, see p111.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------



From
< Talk Origins >:  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
At the molecular level, Denton discredits himself by quoting Emile Zuckerkandl to show that "it is now generally conceded by protein chemists that most functional proteins would be difficult to reach or interconvert through a series of successive individual amino acid mutations"(Denton, 1985, p. 320). Zuckerkandl's quote (Zuckerkandl, 1975, p. 21) seems quite damning to the casual reader, but when one reads the entire article, one finds out that Zuckerkandl largely contradicts Denton. By Zuckerkandl's analysis, most advanced functional proteins cannot interconvert directly, and cannot be reached by some saltational mechanisms, but that they certainly can each be reached through gradual evolution from a common ancestor.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Now ... Grey Wolf said that UUC's started the whole process and he said that the UUC would look like a bacteria--how about we say it looked like the "coccus" in the upper LH corner above, OK?  Now what I am most interested in learning about ToE is about [b]Human Evolution</b>.  So I think I can safely say that I can at least identify the endpoints of ToE regarding humans: namely, a UUC at the beginning and a Human at the end.  Now calm down, calm down ... I know there are MANY "endpoints" in your theory ... zillions of them, namely, all the modern organisms we see today.  I realize that.  But I am not interested in all of those.  I am ONLY interested in the single line of ancestry which "connects the dots" from the UUC to the Human, OK?  Are we clear?  Somewhere in the distant past, I have a "grandpa" who looks like an ape, right?  According to Cory, this guy lived about 5 MY ago.  And somewhere in the distant past I have another "grandpa" (I'm omitting all the "greats" for simplicity) who resembles a lemur? (help me out here ... this gets fuzzy) and then another even more distant "grandpa" that looks like maybe a bullfrog, a fish, a worm, and ultimately my first "grandpa" was a bacterium like this nice little "coccus" pictured above.  How am I doing?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Not as piss-poor as usual, Dave (at least you're adding the very subjective and anthropocentrically-coloured "looks like"). You know, one of the coolest parts of Dawkins' Ancestor's Tale is the inclusion of an artist's conception of each LCA at the beginning of each chapter. These beautiful (and fanciful!;) drawings inspire the imagination, though we will probably never know how accurate they are. Sure, some of them look like current organisms (you might think the ur-simian looks like today's monkeys, perhaps) and some of them look like fossil organisms we have found from around that time, but where else is an artist to start? For the time being (fundamentally, not much has changed since Darwin describes his penchant for doing the same in that Origins quote I provide), speculating on the features of LCA is an exercise in imagination.

However, speculating on their genomic sequence is not (or at least, not NEARLY to the same degree). We've been talking a lot about yeast, for example. There was a fascinating experiment not too long ago examining the evolution of sex (a very costly investment from the perspective of your genes and their propagation). Now, yeast can reproduce both sexually and asexually, and the authors wanted to uncover the adaptive advantages of the former over the latter. To do this (and I won't get into why), they actually ENGINEERED a hypothetical ancestral yeast genome, which was the most parsimonious genetic "mid-way" point between two current yeast genomes. Pretty cool. Probably pretty different from the real ancestor, but still a close-enough model, and a good illustration of what Jeannot is trying to explain to you.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Now one of my statements is that this wonderful progression from a UUC to a Human ...

[b]REQUIRES LOTS AND LOTS AND LOTS AND LOTS OF TIME</b>

Translation:  Evolutionists Need Deep Time for their theory to be plausible.  

(It still is not plausible even given eons of time, but at least it is more plausible than if the time scale was only thousands of years instead of billions.)

And of course, George the Geochronologist "dates" rocks for Evos and they select the "correct" dates which fit in with the Deep Time Scale.

So that is one major point I am making.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



*yawn*

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
**************************************************

Now to the other point ...

[b]DENTON'S CHART WAS A SURPRISE TO EVOLUTIONISTS AND TRULY DELIVERS A DEATH BLOW TO THE WHOLE THEORY OF EVOLUTION

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Alive and kicking 20 years later, Dave. Denton's "argument" was stillborn, not to mention anticipated (and appropriately cautioned) by Darwin a century earlier.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Now Denton's chart can ONLY be a prediction of ToE IF certain conditions are met.  And Denton goes on to show that these conditions are quite inconceivable.  He says...    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Only if the degree of evolution in a family of molecules such as the cytochromes had been constrained by some kind of time constant mechanism, so that in any one class the degree of change which occurs is always proportional to the lapse of absolute time.  Only in this way can the ordered pattern of molecular diversity be explained. This remarkable concept is widely known as that of the 'molecular clock hypothesis'.  But although such a clock is perfectly capable of accounting for the observed equal divergence of, say, all vertebrate cytochromes from those of insects, no one has been able to explain in precise terms exactly how such a time constant would work.  Rather than being a true explanation, the hypothesis of the molecular clock is really a tautology, no more than a restatement of the fact that at a molecular level the representatives of any one class are wqually isolated from the representatives of another class.
    The tautological nature of the molecular clock hypothesis is reminiscent of the explanations of the gaps in the fossil record.  The proposal put forward to save evolution in the face of the missing links--that connecting links are missing from the fossil record because transitional species are very rare--is essentially tautological.  If evolution is true then indeed the intermediates must be very rare.  But unfortunately we can only know that evolution is true after we have found the transitional types!  The explanation relies on belief in evolution in the first place.  Similarly, if evolution is true then, yes indeed, the clock hypothesis must also be true.  Again the hypothesis gets us nowhere.  We save evolution because we believed in it in the first place.(pp. 295-296 of Evolution: A Theory in Crisis)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Denton then goes on to explain an additional twist to the Clock Hypothesis, namely, different proteins exhibit different degrees of interspecies variation.  He illustrates this by comparing haemoglobin and cytochrome.  He shows that what you would really have to have is different "clocks" for each of several hundred protein families, each ticking at its own unique and highly specific rate!

Not very likely, guys.

Denton points out that ...    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Unfortunately, neither evolution by genetic drift nor evolution by positive selection is likely to have generated anything remotely resembling a uniform rate of evolution in a family of homologous proteins.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

He goes on to talk about genetic drift rates, mutation rates and generation times for diverse organisms--very interesting reading--and concludes on p. 301 ...    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Again, it is the sheer universality of the phenomenon--the necessity to believe that the functional constraints in all the members of a particular protein family, say A, in all diverse phylogenetic lines for all of hundreds of millions of years have remained precisely five times as stringent as those operating on the members of another protein family, say B--which fatally weakens the theory.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Let's simplify that sentence for Denton ...

It is the sheer universality of the phenomenon which fatally weakens the theory.
Again, here's the chart [snip]...

What Denton has just discussed above is called the Neutral Drift Theory and represents one "camp" of evolutionists.  The other "camp" is the Selectionist Camp and he goes on to show how selectionist explanations fare no better than neutral drift explanations.  He explains why this is so by considering "living fossils" such as lungfish, opossums and such, then concludes, as in the case of neutralist explanations ...    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
As in the case of uniform drift it is the sheer universality of the phenomenon -- the necessity to believe that since their common divergence every single family of homologous proteins have suffered the same number of adaptive substitutions over the same period of time in all phylogenetic lines -- which fatally weakens selectionist explanations.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

 Denton notes that      

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The difficulties associated with attempting to explain how a family of homologous proteins could have evolved at constant rates has created chaos in evolutionary thought.  The evolutionary community has divided into two camps -- those still adhering to the selectionist position, and those rejecting it in favor of the neutralist. The devastating aspect of this controversy is that neither side can adequately account for the constancy of the rate of molecular evolution, yet each side fatally weakens the other ... both sides win valid points, but in the process the credibility of the molecular clock hypothesis is severely strained and with it the whole paradigm of evolution itself is endangered.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Thanks Mr. Denton, but I would have used a different word, like "DOA."

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Oh, I COULD go into all the major errors here, but I'm jut going to briefly treat a few. First, compare Denton's "If evolution is true then indeed the intermediates must be very rare" with Darwin's "So that the number of intermediate and transitional links, between all living and extinct species, must have been inconceivably great." Second, apparently "different molecular clocks...each ticking  at its own unique and highly specific rate" is supposed to be a problem?! ####, Dave, that's what allows us to use cytochrome (a very SLOW ticking clock) in the first place! But I'm just going to ignore the overwhelming errors (someone else can tackle them), let them stand, and focus on your (and Denton's) conclusion.

But first, I'm going to interject and highlight your dishonesty, Dave. You said that you were going to "restate" your argument this morning. Instead, you have presented an entirely new one that omits (without comment) the obvious errors your first argument was challenged on. Very dishonest, Dave. Your first argument was that evolutionary theory should predict a DIFFERENT PATTERN in the cytochrome data than we see (i.e., one in which genetic distance between current organisms directly recapitulates phylogenetic intermediates). Your new argument is that the pattern we observe, although it EXACTLY corresponds to what we expect from evolutionary theory (i.e., nested hierarchies), shouldn't have actually been produced by natural selection (or neutral drift).

Nevertheless and most importantly, Dave, if your (and Denton's) contention is really:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It is the sheer universality of the phenomenon which fatally weakens the theory.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



then I just don't know what to say. If you think the strikingly similar nested hierarchies of descent suggested by morphology (contemporary and paleontological), microbiology (comparison of thousands of diffferent proteins, for example, right down to comparison of the presumably neutral introns and non-neutral exons in cytochrome-c) and genetics WEAKENS the theory of evolution, then you have entered some kind of Orwellian thought process that even I can't follow.

Up is down, God is Hitler, and identical nested hierarchies at all levels of comparison disprove evolution.

If you say so, big guy.
Posted by: jeannot on Oct. 04 2006,07:49

Quote (afdave @ Oct. 04 2006,12:19)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Contemporary organisms that look much like ancient ancestral organism probably contain a majority of polypeptide chains that resemble quite closely those of ancient organisms.  In other words, certain animals said to be "living fossils", such as the cockroach, the horseshoe crab, [the lungfish shown above] the shark and, among mammals, the lemur, probably manufacture a great many polypeptide molecules that differ only slightly from those manufactured by their ancestors millions of years ago. Zuckerkandl, E., "The Evolution of Haemoglobin",Scientific American,213(5): 110-18, see p111.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

and ...
2)  The observed fact (agreed upon by Creos and Evos) that Similar Morphology = Similar Sequences
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


... Only in genes that control morphology, which is not the case of cytochrome C.
For other sequences that prediction does not apply. The authors didn't have any reason to think that the whole genome of a lineage should stop evolving.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Oct. 04 2006,07:56

I think even I get this.
Davie, think of DNA like a vinyl record. The label (non-coding) you can mark and scribble all you like on, but if you try and do that on the record (the part that's played) itself it's really unlikely that you'll make it sound better (more fit) by accident (the random bit). The sound that comes out does not depend on the state of the label.

So, perhaps 400billion year old crocs might look like modern crocs but their "label" will be different. And, if you can only move one step at a time in mutation space then it'll take you a minimum amount of time to get to another part of that space (new label to old, worn label).

Not that the "new/worn"  analogy means much here I would imagine, more like state X to Y?
Posted by: afdave on Oct. 04 2006,08:00

Zuckerkandl didn't specify which type of proteins he was talking about.  It is clear that he thought "ancient" forms had similar sequences of ALL types.

Similar morphology unquestionably DOES yield similar sequences in larger organisms.  I agree, they get more dissimilar when comparing things that are very small like yeast and bacteria.  And you will note that I have hazarded a layman's guess as to why this is so.

Remember, the "Similar Morphology=Similar Sequences" (at least for larger organisms) is something agreed upon by Creos and Evos alike.

The fact remains, like it or not, that the information which comprises Denton's chart was a surprise to the evolutionary community.  You can be sure that if the molecular data had been "transitional looking" instead of "typological looking" (possibly I'm using incorrect terminology here) evolutionists would have jumped on this as supportive of their theory.

Eric-- Here's an exercise just for you, since you seem to have so much time on your hands ...

Type out for me the whole sequence of human evolutionary history.  Start with the "UUC" then fill in the whole sequence like this:

UUC-A-B-C-D-E-F-G-Fish-Amphibian-Reptile-H-I-J-Ape-Human.

I've never been too clear on the "ABCDEFG" and "HIJ" part of the sequence, so maybe you could fill in those blanks for me.  I do realize that things like penguins that you referred to supposedly branch off somewhere after "Reptile" but help me out here.  Set me straight.  Explain this whole thing to me.
Posted by: Chris Hyland on Oct. 04 2006,08:08



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The fact remains, like it or not, that the information which comprises Denton's chart was a surprise to the evolutionary community.  You can be sure that if the molecular data had been "transitional looking" instead of "typological looking" (possibly I'm using incorrect terminology here) evolutionists would have jumped on this as supportive of their theory.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

This is simply wrong Dave sorry. If the graph showed what Denton thought it should, ie (bacteria to snails) > (bacteria to birds) > (bacteria to humans), that would have forced some major rethinks.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
How do you know there has been 400MY?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Because you said so.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
probably manufacture a great many polypeptide molecules that differ only slightly from those manufactured by their ancestors millions of years ago
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

So what, humans manufacture a great many polypeptide sequences that differ only slightly from chimps, and your assertion

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
 My view is that the "400MYO" lungfish would have identical sequences to modern lungfish
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

certainly does not follow from the quote. Also

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Similar Morphology = Similar Sequences
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

certainly doesn't apply to cytochrome c.
Posted by: k.e on Oct. 04 2006,08:09

Why thank you AFT about.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Or if you are going to say stupid things, kindly keep them short and seldom ... you know ... like K.E does.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You have noticed I don't blather on about things I know very little about, unlike your good self, who seems to take a pathological pleasure in being whipped for being...well stupid.


However, I can safely say that I know more about how evolution works than you do even though you have devoured what appears to be a mountain of books mostly the work of fiction by your own reports.

Why is that AFT wipe?

Well the theory of evolution is so simple even a child can understand it, they can use it straight away if they are taught problem solving using the scientific method.

( as an aside that is why the Bible boys are so sh*t scared of it)

The ToE allows a scientist to make predictions about what will happen to say a virus if people over medicate on anti-virals or this AFUD..

Since each Human has enough unique DNA to allow a forensic identification with enough reliability to be used in a court of law and AT THE SAME TIME inherited DNA that allows identification of distant family members then there should be a method to identify common DNA among various ethnic groups of Humans  and or common ancestors ..right?





---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Mitochondrial Eve
From Wikipedia,
Mitochondrial Eve (mt-mrca) is the name given by researchers to the woman who is the matrilineal most recent common ancestor for all living humans, from whom all mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) in living humans is derived. Mitochondrial Eve is the female counterpart of the Y-chromosomal Adam, the patrilineal most recent common ancestor.

She is believed by some to have lived about 150,000 years ago in what is now Ethiopia, Kenya or Tanzania. The time she lived is calculated based on the molecular clock technique of correlating elapsed time with observed genetic drift.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Now Bible  boy what does the Bible say about 150,000 year old African and presumably Black Eve?
Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 04 2006,08:18

Quote (incorygible @ Oct. 04 2006,12:47)
Nevertheless and most importantly, Dave, if your (and Denton's) contention is really:

     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It is the sheer universality of the phenomenon which fatally weakens the theory.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



then I just don't know what to say. If you think the strikingly similar nested hierarchies of descent suggested by morphology (contemporary and paleontological), microbiology (comparison of thousands of diffferent proteins, for example, right down to comparison of the presumably neutral introns and non-neutral exons in cytochrome-c) and genetics WEAKENS the theory of evolution, then you have entered some kind of Orwellian thought process that even I can't follow.

Up is down, God is Hitler, and identical nested hierarchies at all levels of comparison disprove evolution.

If you say so, big guy.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


…but somehow I'm the one who doesn't know anything about evolutionary theory.
Posted by: incorygible on Oct. 04 2006,08:22

Quote (afdave @ Oct. 04 2006,13:00)
UUC-A-B-C-D-E-F-G-Fish-Amphibian-Reptile-H-I-J-Ape-Human.

I've never been too clear on the "ABCDEFG" and "HIJ" part of the sequence, so maybe you could fill in those blanks for me.  I do realize that things like penguins that you referred to supposedly branch off somewhere after "Reptile" but help me out here.  Set me straight.  Explain this whole thing to me.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Using the faulty direct-descendancy logic you're using here (with no room for unknown common ancestors), this is as far as we can go:

UUC - ancient jawed fish (not a shark or a lamprey) - ancient reptile (not a dinosaur) - ape (Human)

The rest (birds, amphibians*, plants, etc., including every other living thing on this planet) are cousins connected by an unknown common ancestor, Dave.

*Note that we would have passed through an "amphibious" phase (i.e., living on both land and in water), but the we are not a part of the Class Amphibia -- we are indirectly related to them by some unknown common ancestor, which isn't allowed in Dave's scheme.
Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 04 2006,08:45

Quote (afdave @ Oct. 04 2006,13:00)
Eric-- Here's an exercise just for you, since you seem to have so much time on your hands ...

Type out for me the whole sequence of human evolutionary history.  Start with the "UUC" then fill in the whole sequence like this:

UUC-A-B-C-D-E-F-G-Fish-Amphibian-Reptile-H-I-J-Ape-Human.

I've never been too clear on the "ABCDEFG" and "HIJ" part of the sequence, so maybe you could fill in those blanks for me.  I do realize that things like penguins that you referred to supposedly branch off somewhere after "Reptile" but help me out here.  Set me straight.  Explain this whole thing to me.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sure, no problem:

  • All Life
  • Eukaryota
  • Metazoa
  • Bilateria
  • Deuterostomia
  • Chordata
  • Craniata
  • Vertebrata
  • Gnathostomata
  • Sarcopterygii
  • Stegocephalia
  • Amniota
  • Synapsida
  • Therapsida
  • Mammalia
  • Eutheria
  • Primates
  • Catarrhini
  • Hominidae
  • Homo

    Are we clear now?

    You'll note something interesting about this list, if you compare it to Denton's chart. Every single organism on that chart is on my list, except for one: prokaryota (that's the bacterium at the bottom of the chart). Does that give you pause in your original claim that Denton's chart demonstrates a "fatal flaw" in evolutionary theory?

    I'm guessing not. But that's your problem, Dave, not the theory's problem.
    Posted by: afdave on Oct. 04 2006,08:49



    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
    Zuckerkandl's quote (Zuckerkandl, 1975, p. 21) seems quite damning to the casual reader, but when one reads the entire article, one finds out that Zuckerkandl largely contradicts Denton.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

    Oh really?  And have you read the entire article?  And yes, it does sound pretty damning to me.

     

    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
    But first, I'm going to interject and highlight your dishonesty, Dave. You said that you were going to "restate" your argument this morning. Instead, you have presented an entirely new one that omits (without comment) the obvious errors your first argument was challenged on. Very dishonest, Dave.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

    New one?  How in the world have I not restated my argument?  I thought I went to great lengths to restate and explain it.

     

    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
    I think even I get this.
    Davie, think of DNA like a vinyl record. The label (non-coding) you can mark and scribble all you like on, but if you try and do that on the record (the part that's played) itself it's really unlikely that you'll make it sound better (more fit) by accident (the random bit). The sound that comes out does not depend on the state of the label.

    So, perhaps 400billion year old crocs might look like modern crocs but their "label" will be different. And, if you can only move one step at a time in mutation space then it'll take you a minimum amount of time to get to another part of that space (new label to old, worn label).

    Not that the "new/worn"  analogy means much here I would imagine, more like state X to Y?
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

    Great in theory.  You can speculate all day long that 400 MYO crocs or lungfish or what have you had different non-coding DNA, but the fact remains ...

    YOU ARE SPECULATING

    You have no evidence to support your speculation.  You have a theory.  IOW another Speculation to support your first Speculation.

    I, on the other hand, have firm evidence to support my speculation that ...

    Ancient lungfish had similar sequences to modern lungfish, namely "Similar Morphologies=Similar Sequences in Modern lifeforms" ... and, the Evo community used to think that ancient lifeforms should have similar sequences to modern similar forms ...

    and ...

    This being quite probable, we can also say that ...

    Fish, for example (to simplify the argument) should be closer genetically to bacteria than they are to humans if evolution is true because fish (or fish-like creatures which are indistinguishable from modern fish ... there ... are you happy?) are in the direct ancestry of humans. BUT THEY ARE NOT CLOSER.  They are EQUIDISTANT genetically as Denton clearly shows.

    Quick!  Get off the sinking Ship of Darwin before it's too late!!!  Hurry!  There's still time!
    Posted by: incorygible on Oct. 04 2006,08:52

    Actually, I'm pretty sure Dave's going to need yet another analogy to understand the above here.

    Dave, as we have told you many times, by analogy you have asked us to describe your family tree by inserting currently living members (actually, the most recent generation) as ancestors. It simply can't be done.

    However, there are defining features of classes, and we can use these to craft a similar analogy that might help you out. Bear with me.

    You are a Hawkins, but pretend that your family had (very early on) really run with that horribly liberal trend of hyphenating surnames.

    So in the beginning we have Hawkins (=UUC, by the way). Well into the Hawkins line, we got the Hawkins-Fish hyphenation. (We've actually skipped over many generations and the many, many potential Hawkins-Eukaryote, Hawkins-Eukaryote-Chordata, and similar hyphenations that could have been your name, as well as other hyphenations that wouldn't be in your name: one of your Hawkins-Eukaryote ancestors went on to eventually spawn the Hawkins-Eukaryote-Plant family, of which you have never been a member, for example.)

    The members of the Hawkins-Fish family spawned a number of separate families, one of which (yours) was Hawkins-Fish-Reptile, another of which (not yours) was Hawkins-Fish-Amphibian.

    Hawkins-Fish-Reptile gave rise to Hawkins-Fish-Reptile-Mammal (your family) and Hawkins-Fish-Reptile-Dinosaur (not your family). (Hawkins-Fish-Reptile-Dinosaur later gave rise to Hawkins-Fish-Reptile-Dinosaur-Bird, many of which still attend your reunions, although you haven't shared the Hawkins-Fish-Reptile name for a long time.)

    Hawkins-Fish-Reptile-Mammal gave rise to Hawkins-Fish-Reptile-Mammal-Ape (you), as well as Hawkins-Fish-Reptile-Mammal-Dog (not you).

    You are still Dave Hawkins-Fish-Reptile-Mammal-Ape, albeit of the of the Human Hawkins-Fish-Reptile-Mammal-Apes (picture the question "are you one of the Massachusetts Kennedy's?"), as opposed to the Chimpanzee ("Connecticut"?) Hawkins-Fish-Reptile-Mammal-Apes. However, your Human Hawkins-etc. great-great-great granddaughter has an eye on adding another hyphen, as does a great-great-great granddaughter of the Chimpanzee Hawkins-etc. clan, so eventually you will be recognized as different families by different names (and not just "Connecticut Kennedy's" vs. "New York Kennedy's").

    Edit (after Dave continues to spout the bullshit above): You GO to a family reunion tomorrow, Dave. Of the following existing family names, which CHILDREN AT THE REUNINON are MORE related to the last known just-plain "Hawkins":

    Hawkins-Yeast
    Hawkins-Fish-Trout
    Hawkins-Fish-Reptile-Crocodile
    Hawkins-Fish-Amphibian-Frog
    Hawkins-Fish-Reptile-Dinosaur-Bird-Eagle
    Hawkins-Fish-Reptile-Mammal-Dog
    Hawkins-Fish-Reptile-Mammal-Ape

    NOW do you get it?
    Posted by: k.e on Oct. 04 2006,08:55

    Hey hAFDopey why so strident?

    You are such a fake....
    you say the earth is 6000 years old and you are using evidence from a 400myo fish????




    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
    I, on the other hand, have firm evidence to support my speculation that ...

    Ancient lungfish had similar sequences to modern lungfish, namely "Similar Morphologies=Similar Sequences in Modern lifeforms" ... and, the Evo community used to think that ancient lifeforms should have similar sequences to modern similar forms ...


    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    well OK .......now I see why you are acting crazy.

    Get off the Bible drug AFD ....seek help....its not firm evidence.
    Posted by: afdave on Oct. 04 2006,08:58

    Eric--Excellent.  Now put an example of each of those by each name you have given.  I think you should also include bacteria at the top of your list ... at least according to Grey Wolf.
    Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Oct. 04 2006,08:59

    sure, quote me when there's a 1000 points you have not answered at all. That's my understanding of other peoples answers to you , my summary is alot easier to pick holes in then the actual real scientific arguments themselves made in this very forum in answer to you. So i'm not surprised you've done that, dishonesty is your daily bread.

    so, when the world's scientists jump from the sinking ship of darwinism, what exactly are you picking them up with?

    "Right, so on Monday we'll all bring a bible to the lab and have a nice chat about how wonderfull we all are and how all those horrible people outside our little circle here are going to he*l"
    Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 04 2006,09:01

    Quote (afdave @ Oct. 04 2006,13:49)
    This being quite probable, we can also say that ...

    Fish, for example (to simplify the argument) should be closer genetically to bacteria than they are to humans if evolution is true because fish (or fish-like creatures which are indistinguishable from modern fish ... there ... are you happy?) are in the direct ancestry of humans. BUT THEY ARE NOT CLOSER.  They are EQUIDISTANT genetically as Denton clearly shows.

    Quick!  Get off the sinking Ship of Darwin before it's too late!!!  Hurry!  There's still time!
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    Dave, I simply cannot believe you are still making this same stupid claim. It's been explained to you over, and over, and over, and over again why it's wrong, but it just doesn't penetrate. How many times do we need to explain to you that evolutionary theory predicts exactly what Denton's chart shows: that fish and humans are equidistant from bacteria, "as Denton clearly shows."

    What is up with that? Are you actually mentally retarded? Or do you just play one on TV?

    God, you're an idiot.
    Posted by: creeky belly on Oct. 04 2006,09:06

    Hehe, Dave's turned common ancestry into ancestry. Go on Dave, beat that strawman!
    Posted by: improvius on Oct. 04 2006,09:06

    Quote (ericmurphy @ Oct. 04 2006,15:01)
    What is up with that? Are you actually mentally retarded? Or do you just play one on TV?
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    Well, one thing I've noticed is that Dave doesn't seem to acknowledge the difference between coding and non-coding sequences.  I'll bet he doesn't believe that such a distinction is valid.
    Posted by: Grey_Wolf_c on Oct. 04 2006,09:07

    Dave said:


    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
    2)  The observed fact (agreed upon by Creos and Evos) that Similar Morphology = Similar Sequences

    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    Counterexample: dolphins and sharks. Same body shape, similar snout, similar fin, similar eating patterns, similar senses, similar swimming. Similar as you can get. And their sequences look nowhere near. Ergo, Dave is lying.

    Second counterexample: dogs and dingos: look similar, but are further apart than dogs and rhinos. Or dogs and giraffes.

    So you better find better "facts", Dave.

    And in regards to my poor UUC, I see that you have managed to ignore the bit about "looks human-like to modern bacteria", which was the important part. I'll repeat, just so you can continue to look an ignorant:

    Pick *any* common antecessor. Say the one between yeast and humans: it will look yeast-like to you, but human-like to yeast.

    The LCA between you and gorillas may look like a "tail-less monkey" to you, but gorillas would see it as "human" - the lack of size, for example ("so small!", thought the gorilla, "must be a puny human"). Equally, the LCA between apes and monkeys *also* looks like a monkey to you, but it would look like an ape to any self-respecting monkey.

    And why is that? Because LCAs have characteristics belonging to both groups. One of the families took some of those chracteristics and built upon them ("Those with tails survive more often"/"Tails are in the way and kill you"/"Tails are handy if they are prensible"), and added a few that the LCA didn't have. The other did precisely the same, but with some other characteristics.

    All your talk about modern lungfish having the same DNA as the LCA between humans and lungfish is BS. Same with modern bacteria having the same DNA as UUC. Just because they look similar to your untrained and ignorant eye, it doesn't mean they are. Dolphins and sharks, Dave. Dolphins and sharks.

    Hope that helps,

    Grey Wolf
    Posted by: jeannot on Oct. 04 2006,09:07

    Quote (afdave @ Oct. 04 2006,13:58)
    Eric--Excellent.  Now put an example of each of those by each name you have given.  I think you should also include bacteria at the top of your list ... at least according to Grey Wolf.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    Dave, you obviously didn't understand anything of this discussion.
    Posted by: k.e on Oct. 04 2006,09:16

    Sharks and Dolphins/Whales good point GW.

    Now here is a trick question AFUD

    where did mamals first evolve on land or in the sea?

    and how many millions of years ago?

    And where in the Bible does it give that information?
    Posted by: incorygible on Oct. 04 2006,09:19



    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
    You GO to a family reunion tomorrow, Dave. Of the following existing family names, which CHILDREN AT THE REUNINON are MORE related to the last known just-plain "Hawkins":

    Hawkins-Yeast
    Hawkins-Fish-Trout
    Hawkins-Fish-Reptile-Crocodile
    Hawkins-Fish-Amphibian-Frog
    Hawkins-Fish-Reptile-Dinosaur-Bird-Eagle
    Hawkins-Fish-Reptile-Mammal-Dog
    Hawkins-Fish-Reptile-Mammal-Ape

    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    I WANT an ANSWER to this, Dave, and I want to add a related question.

    1. (as asked above) Of those family names, which of the children at the reunion are most related to the last original "Hawkins" (with no hyphenation)?

    2. Of those family names, which of the children at the reunion are most related to YOU? Rank them all. (Hint: there's a tie, and not everybody hyphenated strictly according to the family tradition.)

    It shouldn't take you long to come up with or type (not nearly as long as it took me to type), and I've done my best to answer your questions. So please be sure to answer these two question soon, mmkay?
    Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 04 2006,09:20

    Quote (afdave @ Oct. 04 2006,13:58)
    Eric--Excellent.  Now put an example of each of those by each name you have given.  I think you should also include bacteria at the top of your list ... at least according to Grey Wolf.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    Sure, no problem

    • All Life - bacteria
    • Eukaryota - yeasts, plants
    • Metazoa
    • Bilateria - insects
    • Deuterostomia
    • Chordata -
    • Craniata
    • Vertebrata - lamprey
    • Gnathostomata - carp, bonito, tuna
    • Sarcopterygii
    • Stegocephalia
    • Amniota - snapping turtle, birds
    • Synapsida -
    • Therapsida
    • Mammalia - kangaroo
    • Eutheria - dog, horse
    • Primates
    • Catarrhini
    • Hominidae
    • Homo

      It will help you to figure this out if you stop looking at my list as some sort of evolutionary "ladder." It's not; it's a list of nested hierarchies. Each entry on the list contains all the entries below it. You'll note that bacteria are at the top of the list, which is "all life." That means that bacteria are not a member of any of the clades listed below, but all of the organisms listed at eukaryotes and below are contained within the eukaryote clade. What this means, Dave, is that yeasts are members of the same clade as humans. Bacteria are not. Bacteria are an "outgroup," in the same sense that gorillas are an "outgroup" of humans and chimps.

      Again, Dave, note that all of these organisms except for bacteria are contained within the eukaryote clade. What does that tell you? I'll give you another hint. It tells you this: that bacteria are an outgroup from all the other organisms on Denton's chart.

      What does that tell you, Dave? What can you say about the relative relatedness of all members of a clade with an outgroup from that clade? It tells you that all members of that clade are equally unrelated to the outgroup.

      Straightforward theory of evolution, Dave.
      Posted by: Chris Hyland on Oct. 04 2006,09:21



      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      I, on the other hand, have firm evidence to support my speculation that ...

      Ancient lungfish had similar sequences to modern lungfish, namely "Similar Morphologies=Similar Sequences in Modern lifeforms" ... and, the Evo community used to think that ancient lifeforms should have similar sequences to modern similar forms ...
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

      No you don't you havent provided any evidence. You seem to have no idea what you're talking about. Modern fish and modern humans have spent equal time diverging from bacteria. The cytochrome C gene has nothing to do with morphology, so your argument makes no sense.
      Posted by: Grey_Wolf_c on Oct. 04 2006,09:25

      Dave lies again:
       

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      Eric--Excellent.  Now put an example of each of those by each name you have given.  I think you should also include bacteria at the top of your list ... at least according to Grey Wolf.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



      Dave, you are lying/distorting facts/misrepresenting my position/dense (take your pick).

      I called that creature "UUC" so you could tell it apart from bacteria. It was not a bacteria. It is as far from bacteria as from humans, according to the ToE. Dolphins and sharks - it looks bacterial to you, but it looks human to them. The UUC's "descendants" branches into two families. The modern descendants of one of those families are the thousands (millions?) of species of bacteria. The other is the thousands of species of everything else.

      Eric cannot give you an example of any of those groups except the last one because, for every other group, the LCA is dead and was never named*. Or else, if you want a modern animal whose LCA is the same as the human, then "gorilla" is ok for every level except the last one:

      All Life - Gorilla
      Eukaryota - Gorilla
      Metazoa - Gorilla
      Bilateria - Gorilla
      Deuterostomia - Gorilla
      Chordata - Gorilla
      Craniata - Gorilla
      Vertebrata - Gorilla
      Gnathostomata - Gorilla
      Sarcopterygii - Gorilla
      Stegocephalia - Gorilla
      Amniota - Gorilla
      Synapsida - Gorilla
      Therapsida - Gorilla
      Mammalia - Gorilla
      Eutheria - Gorilla
      Primates - Gorilla
      Catarrhini - Gorilla
      Hominidae - Gorilla
      Homo - Not Gorilla

      Of course, the easiest is:
      All Life - Einstein
      Eukaryota - Einstein
      Metazoa - Einstein
      Bilateria - Einstein
      Deuterostomia - Einstein
      Chordata - Einstein
      Craniata - Einstein
      Vertebrata - Einstein
      Gnathostomata - Einstein
      Sarcopterygii - Einstein
      Stegocephalia - Einstein
      Amniota - Einstein
      Synapsida - Einstein
      Therapsida - Einstein
      Mammalia - Einstein
      Eutheria - Einstein
      Primates - Einstein
      Catarrhini - Einstein
      Hominidae - Einstein
      Homo - Einstein

      Easy enough. But what you want is the name of the LCA? Can't give it to you. But I can tell you that it is not "bacteria" or "lungfish". And until you realise that just because it looks like a lungfish to you it doesn't make it a modern lungfish, you won't begin to understand ToE.

      Hope that helps,

      Grey Wolf

      *Edit: Actually, Eric (or someone else) may know the name of intermediary fossils close enough to the LCA of any of those groups that he can give it to you.
      Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 04 2006,09:27

      One more analogy for Dave. I've been using hammers, the back of a shovel, a sledgehammer; now I'm reaching for the wrecking ball.

      Let's say you've got a brother and a sister, Dave. So your biological family is your mom, your dad, your brother, your sister, and you.

      Now, your mom gets a divorce, or maybe your dad dies. Then your mom remarries.

      So—among you, your brother, and your sister, who is most unrelated to your stepdad (biologically, not legally), and who is least unrelated?
      Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Oct. 04 2006,09:28

      Dave, a better approach might be to compare cytochrome c phlogenies with evolutionist's predictions. < Here's one paper. > I remember another one that had humans branching off the mammal line before kangaroos! If I recall correctly, the evos had to remove the viper early on cause it kept clustering with humans. "Mistakes" like this leave evos scratching their heads....
      Posted by: Grey_Wolf_c on Oct. 04 2006,09:32

      For extra points, We have given you three different versions of the "example list":



      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

      All Life - bacteria
      Eukaryota - yeasts, plants
      Metazoa
      Bilateria - insects
      Deuterostomia
      Chordata -
      Craniata
      Vertebrata - lamprey
      Gnathostomata - carp, bonito, tuna
      Sarcopterygii
      Stegocephalia
      Amniota - snapping turtle, birds
      Synapsida -
      Therapsida
      Mammalia - kangaroo
      Eutheria - dog, horse
      Primates
      Catarrhini
      Hominidae
      Homo

      All Life - Gorilla
      Eukaryota - Gorilla
      Metazoa - Gorilla
      Bilateria - Gorilla
      Deuterostomia - Gorilla
      Chordata - Gorilla
      Craniata - Gorilla
      Vertebrata - Gorilla
      Gnathostomata - Gorilla
      Sarcopterygii - Gorilla
      Stegocephalia - Gorilla
      Amniota - Gorilla
      Synapsida - Gorilla
      Therapsida - Gorilla
      Mammalia - Gorilla
      Eutheria - Gorilla
      Primates - Gorilla
      Catarrhini - Gorilla
      Hominidae - Gorilla
      Homo - Not Gorilla

      All Life - Einstein
      Eukaryota - Einstein
      Metazoa - Einstein
      Bilateria - Einstein
      Deuterostomia - Einstein
      Chordata - Einstein
      Craniata - Einstein
      Vertebrata - Einstein
      Gnathostomata - Einstein
      Sarcopterygii - Einstein
      Stegocephalia - Einstein
      Amniota - Einstein
      Synapsida - Einstein
      Therapsida - Einstein
      Mammalia - Einstein
      Eutheria - Einstein
      Primates - Einstein
      Catarrhini - Einstein
      Hominidae - Einstein
      Homo - Einstein

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



      Notice the three are different - are they all correct, Dave? If yes, why? if not, why not?

      Hope that helps,

      Grey Wolf
      Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 04 2006,10:31

      Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Oct. 04 2006,14:28)
      Dave, a better approach might be to compare cytochrome c phlogenies with evolutionist's predictions. < Here's one paper. > I remember another one that had humans branching off the mammal line before kangaroos! If I recall correctly, the evos had to remove the viper early on cause it kept clustering with humans. "Mistakes" like this leave evos scratching their heads....
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


      No they don't, Bill, and you know better. We thrashed this out almost a year ago. You cannot expect to construct an entire phylogenetic tree of every organism from one section of coding DNA. You need many, many genes, along with  non-coding sections of DNA, combined with a great deal of other data: morphology, fossil record, protein analysis, etc.

      Weird results for one protein don't have evolutionists scratching their heads, and as I also pointed out to you months ago, the consensus phylogenetic tree has been established beyond any possibility of doubt. This doesn't mean that the location of every single known organism on that tree has been established, but that in no way undermines the structure, to say nothing of the existence, of the tree.

      Also, since neither humans nor kangaroos have "branched off" the mammal line (both are mammals), your statement on that topic makes no sense.
      Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 04 2006,10:41

      Quote (Grey_Wolf_c @ Oct. 04 2006,14:32)
      For extra points, We have given you three different versions of the "example list":

      ...

      Notice the three are different - are they all correct, Dave? If yes, why? if not, why not?

      Hope that helps,

      Grey Wolf
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


      I'll even give you a hint, Dave. In the list Grey Wolf gave you, both the gorilla and Einstein are members of every clade listed. In the list I gave you, each organism is listed in the most specific clade of which it is not a member of an outgroup.

      If you really do understand the Theory of Evolution, you should understand what that means. Do you?

      I could also make a list that looks like this:

      • Milky Way
      • Solar System
      • Earth
      • North America
      • United States
      • Missouri

      Now I could make two additional lists:

      • Milky Way - Arcturus
      • Solar System - Mars
      • Earth - Australia
      • North America - Canada
      • United States - Nebraska
      • Missouri - Dave Hawkins

      and this:

      • Milky Way - Dave Hawkins
      • Solar System - Dave Hawkins
      • Earth - Dave Hawkins
      • North America - Dave Hawkins
      • United States - Dave Hawkins
      • Missouri - Dave Hawkins


      Hope this helps,

      em
      Posted by: incorygible on Oct. 04 2006,10:52

      Quote (ericmurphy @ Oct. 04 2006,15:31)
      Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Oct. 04 2006,14:28)
      Dave, a better approach might be to compare cytochrome c phlogenies with evolutionist's predictions. < Here's one paper. > I remember another one that had humans branching off the mammal line before kangaroos! If I recall correctly, the evos had to remove the viper early on cause it kept clustering with humans. "Mistakes" like this leave evos scratching their heads....
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


      No they don't, Bill, and you know better. We thrashed this out almost a year ago. You cannot expect to construct an entire phylogenetic tree of every organism from one section of coding DNA. You need many, many genes, along with  non-coding sections of DNA, combined with a great deal of other data: morphology, fossil record, protein analysis, etc.

      Weird results for one protein don't have evolutionists scratching their heads, and as I also pointed out to you months ago, the consensus phylogenetic tree has been established beyond any possibility of doubt. This doesn't mean that the location of every single known organism on that tree has been established, but that in no way undermines the structure, to say nothing of the existence, of the tree.

      Also, since neither humans nor kangaroos have "branched off" the mammal line (both are mammals), your statement on that topic makes no sense.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


      Indeed, Dave already tried Paley's suggestion by arguing that Gulo (vitamin C) sequencing data meant "evolutionists" should classify guinea pigs and humans together. That was way back at the beginning of the last thread.

      Round and round and round we go. If Dave takes Paley's suggestion, we will have gotten no further than exchanging guinea pigs and Gulo for vipers and cytochrome-c. Maybe that's where we are now, for all I can tell.

      Except for the fact that I believe I might finally be approaching the point where I'm willing to "call it" and declare a winner in AFDave Indecision 2006: Dishonest vs. Ignorant. It's been a long, tough race, with both contenders putting up a good show and landing some knock-out blows. (Sorry for the mixed metaphor.) But with 90% of polls reporting, it looks like Dishonest will be my Descriptor-In-Chief for AFDave in the coming term.
      Posted by: Russell on Oct. 04 2006,11:51



      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      I don't think this guy has suddenly become your ideological ally, Russell, as you seem to imagine.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

      I imagine no such thing. The guy is flailing, clearly had to abandon his earlier thesis, but couldn't very well publish a brand new book saying, "oops... sorry about the boneheadedness".

      No. It's the same dodge - "somehow evolution is wrong". But he had to abandon the molecular biology angle because he had no answer to the very criticisms you are so thoroughly failing to deal with here. So he found a new set of arcane sciencey words, now having to do more with physics - in which his claim to expertise is even more suspect.

      Believe or not, dave, even though you and Muqtada al Sadr probably disagree on just about everything, neither of you is closer to being my "ideological ally" than the other. It's a lot like the relationship between streptococcus, salmonella, and chimpanzees that way.
      Posted by: afdave on Oct. 04 2006,11:54

      OK.  ONE LAST TRY TO GET YOU TO SEE HOW FOOLISH EVOLUTION IS FROM THE SEQUENCE DATA ANGLE.

      (There are many other angles which I will show you)

      Again, this whole segment started with my statement that Evolutionists NEED Deep Time.  This is quite true as we have seen that enough time has to be available to go from a single celled organism all the way up to a modern human.  Of course, this is ridiculous given ANY amount of time, but at least it SOUNDS less ridiculous if you say there were billions of years available for the required transformations to occur.  So this explains quite nicely why paleontologists turn a blind eye to the HUGE problems with RM Dating (which I have already discussed) and latch onto "correct dates" when trying to determine ages of fossil bearing rock strata.

      Now, let me say one more time why molecular sequence data deals a death blow to ToE.  Better yet, let Denton say it ... ready?



      Hopefully this will make everything more clear to you.  I think many of you got confused because the first Denton chart had many organism which are not like anything in the supposed ancestry of humans.  I think somehow you guys thought that I thought many of those things WERE in the human lineage, but I do not.  Never did. (I do realize that you don't believe sunflowers and wheat are in the human lineage) I simply posted the chart and hoped we had a common understanding -- guess not.

      Anyway, this chart should help you understand Denton's contention.

      The numbers on this chart SHOULD be something like Carp 35, Frog 55 Human 75 (not sure what chicken and kangaroo should be) if Evolution is really true.

      Now do you get it?

      To say otherwise means you have to take the ridiculous position of assuming that things like fossil lungfish (which look identical to modern lungfish) somehow have far different sequences.

      Pretty crazy, now, don't you think?

      *******************************************************

      Greywolf...

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      Counterexample: dolphins and sharks. Same body shape, similar snout, similar fin, similar eating patterns, similar senses, similar swimming. Similar as you can get. And their sequences look nowhere near. Ergo, Dave is lying.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

      Oh I see. So now you're telling me that comparing fossil lungfish with modern lungfish (virtually identical and undoubtedly the same species) is the same a comparing sharks and dolphins.

      Boy are you guys confused!

      GW...

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      Second counterexample: dogs and dingos: look similar, but are further apart than dogs and rhinos.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

      Really?  Are you sure about this one?

      GW...

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      Pick *any* common antecessor. Say the one between yeast and humans: it will look yeast-like to you, but human-like to yeast.

      The LCA between you and gorillas may look like a "tail-less monkey" to you, but gorillas would see it as "human" - the lack of size, for example ("so small!", thought the gorilla, "must be a puny human"). Equally, the LCA between apes and monkeys *also* looks like a monkey to you, but it would look like an ape to any self-respecting monkey.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

      Holy mackerel!  Mark this one down as a classic for posterity!  

      Pick *any* common antecessor. Say the one between yeast and humans: it will look yeast-like to you, but human-like to yeast.

      Wow.  This one even top's BWE's classic of several months ago.  Does anyone here remember that one?

      Eric-- Great.  How about examples of Metazoa, Deuterostomia, Chordata, Craniata, Sarco-whatever, Stego-whatever, and the rest you didn't give an example for, eh?

      GW...

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      Easy enough. But what you want is the name of the LCA? Can't give it to you. But I can tell you that it is not "bacteria" or "lungfish". And until you realise that just because it looks like a lungfish to you it doesn't make it a modern lungfish, you won't begin to understand ToE.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

       YES.  YES.  Give me an example of all the LCA's from your blessed UUC all the way up to ME!  I understand that they are not the same as modern organisms.  But surely they looked similar to many extant forms, no?  Go ahead.  Give it a shot.  I'm sure you can do it.  If you like, use this terminology:  UUC - Worm like critter (WLC?) - Squid like critter (SLC?) - Fish like critter (FLC?) etc.  Get the idea now?

      Cory...

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      Indeed, Dave already tried Paley's suggestion by arguing that Gulo (vitamin C) sequencing data meant "evolutionists" should classify guinea pigs and humans together.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

      Huh?  Boy are you dreaming.  No.  That's been a long time ago, but as I recall, I simply showed you that the gene was "broken" in two very distantly related (I would say unrelated) groups, thus showing that Dr. Max's contention that the "copied mistake" proves common descent was wrong.
      Posted by: jeannot on Oct. 04 2006,12:10

      Quote (afdave @ Oct. 04 2006,16:54)
      OK.  ONE LAST TRY BLAHBLAHBLAH....
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


      Dave, posting Denton's idiotic ideas over and over won't make them true.
      Posted by: incorygible on Oct. 04 2006,12:15

      Quote (afdave @ Oct. 04 2006,13:49)
         

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      Zuckerkandl's quote (Zuckerkandl, 1975, p. 21) seems quite damning to the casual reader, but when one reads the entire article, one finds out that Zuckerkandl largely contradicts Denton.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

      Oh really?  And have you read the entire article?  And yes, it does sound pretty damning to me.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


      No. Maybe I will when I get the chance, Dave. If I do, given my knowledge of Zuckerkandl's work, I anticipate that I will stand by the Talk Origins review. But let's suppose, having not read the paper in question, I'm wrong. Let's suppose the highly unlikely possibility that Zuckerkandl actually did claim that evolutionary mechanisms could not have produced most proteins. Even then, Dave -- even on that outside chance -- what one researcher (even one as esteemed and prolific as Zuckerkandl) wrote about the evolution of hemoglobin in a Sci-Am article more than 40 years ago and well before the advent of genetic sequence comparisons would not be "damning" to evolutionary theory. ####, I could refute it by Zuckerkandl's more recent work and words alone. Maybe his 1992 editorial in the Journal of Molecular Evolution, titled "Evolution under the fire of toy guns", would be a good place to start, eh?

         

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
           

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      But first, I'm going to interject and highlight your dishonesty, Dave. You said that you were going to "restate" your argument this morning. Instead, you have presented an entirely new one that omits (without comment) the obvious errors your first argument was challenged on. Very dishonest, Dave.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

      New one?  How in the world have I not restated my argument?  I thought I went to great lengths to restate and explain it.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



      Dave, I suspect your "how am I dishonest?" is, itself, dishonest. Compare this (taken from the same post as the quote above):

         

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      Fish, for example (to simplify the argument) should be closer genetically to bacteria than they are to humans if evolution is true because fish (or fish-like creatures which are indistinguishable from modern fish ... there ... are you happy?) are in the direct ancestry of humans. BUT THEY ARE NOT CLOSER.  They are EQUIDISTANT genetically as Denton clearly shows.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



      with this (taken from your post this morning):



      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      Now Denton's chart can ONLY be a prediction of ToE IF certain conditions are met.  And Denton goes on to show that these conditions are quite inconceivable.  He says...    
      Quote
      Only if the degree of evolution in a family of molecules such as the cytochromes had been constrained by some kind of time constant mechanism, so that in any one class the degree of change which occurs is always proportional to the lapse of absolute time.  Only in this way can the ordered pattern of molecular diversity be explained. This remarkable concept is widely known as that of the 'molecular clock hypothesis'.  But although such a clock is perfectly capable of accounting for the observed equal divergence of, say, all vertebrate cytochromes from those of insects, no one has been able to explain in precise terms exactly how such a time constant would work.  Rather than being a true explanation, the hypothesis of the molecular clock is really a tautology, no more than a restatement of the fact that at a molecular level the representatives of any one class are wqually isolated from the representatives of another class.
         The tautological nature of the molecular clock hypothesis is reminiscent of the explanations of the gaps in the fossil record.  The proposal put forward to save evolution in the face of the missing links--that connecting links are missing from the fossil record because transitional species are very rare--is essentially tautological.  If evolution is true then indeed the intermediates must be very rare.  But unfortunately we can only know that evolution is true after we have found the transitional types!  The explanation relies on belief in evolution in the first place.  Similarly, if evolution is true then, yes indeed, the clock hypothesis must also be true.  Again the hypothesis gets us nowhere.  We save evolution because we believed in it in the first place.(pp. 295-296 of Evolution: A Theory in Crisis)


      Denton then goes on to explain an additional twist to the Clock Hypothesis, namely, different proteins exhibit different degrees of interspecies variation.  He illustrates this by comparing haemoglobin and cytochrome.  He shows that what you would really have to have is different "clocks" for each of several hundred protein families, each ticking at its own unique and highly specific rate!

      Not very likely, guys.

      Denton points out that ...    
      Quote
      Unfortunately, neither evolution by genetic drift nor evolution by positive selection is likely to have generated anything remotely resembling a uniform rate of evolution in a family of homologous proteins.
      He goes on to talk about genetic drift rates, mutation rates and generation times for diverse organisms--very interesting reading--and concludes on p. 301 ...    
      Quote
      Again, it is the sheer universality of the phenomenon--the necessity to believe that the functional constraints in all the members of a particular protein family, say A, in all diverse phylogenetic lines for all of hundreds of millions of years have remained precisely five times as stringent as those operating on the members of another protein family, say B--which fatally weakens the theory.


      Let's simplify that sentence for Denton ...

      It is the sheer universality of the phenomenon which fatally weakens the theory.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



      Argument 1 is that evolution predicts fish should be genetically closer to bacteria than humans. We don't observe this in cytochrome-c comparisons.

      Argument 2 is that evolution predicts a molecular clock will generate nested hierarchies, including genetic equidistance from bacteria for fish and humans. We observe this in cytochrome-c comparisons. However, because of the error introduced through the assumptions made for molecular clocks (constant rates, similar generation times, etc.), we should expect ANYTHING BUT a neat and orderly table showing nested hierarchies that align with evolutionary theory. The fact that we can measure cytochrome-c and observe these nested hierarchies despite our terrible assumptions proves that they don't exist. Do you see how ridiculous this claim actually is?

      Maybe you really don't know which arguments you're actually making (since I see we are reverting back to "fish should be more genetically similar to bacteria because me and Denton say so!"). Are you that much of an idiot, Dave? Or are you a liar?
      Posted by: Drew Headley on Oct. 04 2006,12:16

      The posters on this board might find this 1961 (the SciAm article is from 1965) paper by Zuckerkandl helpful, particularly the discussion section.

      < http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/46/10/1349 >

      He interprets his findings mainly in terms of the last common ancestor between species, the same rationale that has been made by others on this board.
      Posted by: improvius on Oct. 04 2006,12:21



      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      None of the higher jawed vertebrate groups is an [sic] any sense intermediate between the jawless vertebrates and other jawed vertebrate groups.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


      This is EXACTLY what everyone here has been trying to tell you, Dave, but you just don't get it.  And I'm sure by now everyone here thinks you never will.  So why don't you just move on to your supernatural evidence?  At least that would be a different flavor of tard from you.
      Posted by: Mike PSS on Oct. 04 2006,12:27

      Quote (afdave @ Oct. 04 2006,17:54)
      OK.  ONE LAST TRY TO GET YOU TO SEE HOW FOOLISH EVOLUTION IS FROM THE SEQUENCE DATA ANGLE.

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


      Dave takes his raw material...

             

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      The numbers on this chart SHOULD be something like Carp 35, Frog 55 Human 75 (not sure what chicken and kangaroo should be) if Evolution is really true.

      Now do you get it?
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



      Weaves a story with his hands....

             

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      To say otherwise means you have to take the ridiculous position of assuming that things like fossil lungfish (which look identical to modern lungfish) somehow have far different sequences.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



      And proceeds to vanquish his creation...


      Ahhhhh.....  Tell me another story Dave.
      Posted by: Chris Hyland on Oct. 04 2006,12:28

      Dave you are still wrong, I will try again to explain why. Here is the picture I posted before:

      You can clearly see from this tree that the distance between bacterium and yeast is the same as between bacterium and horse, because yeast and horse share the same common ancestor. Even if you don't accept that they share a common ancestor I'm not sure why you can't see that this is what the tree should look like if they do.
      Posted by: Grey_Wolf_c on Oct. 04 2006,12:33



      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      Second counterexample: dogs and dingos: look similar, but are further apart than dogs and rhinos.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



      Correction: I meant to say dogs and tasmanian wolves. Dingos are closer to dogs than to rhinos. My point stands, however: dogs are closer to rhinos than to tasmanian woves, even though they are far similar to the latter.

      Sorry,

      Grey Wolf
      Posted by: incorygible on Oct. 04 2006,12:33

      Quote (Chris Hyland @ Oct. 04 2006,17:28)
      Dave you are still wrong, I will try again to explain why. Here is the picture I posted before:

      You can clearly see from this tree that the distance between bacterium and yeast should be the same as between bacterium and horse. Im not sure what your problem is with this.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


      Won't help. He's taking a man who says this:



      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      There is not a trace at a molecular level of the traditional evolutionary series: cyclostome -> fish -> amphibian -> reptile -> mammal. Incredibly, man is as close to lamprey as are fish! None of the higher jawed vertebrate groups is an [sic] any sense intermediate between the jawless vertebrates and other jawed vertebrate groups.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



      as his authority on what evolution predicts.

      Hopeless.

      Dave, you still haven't answered my easy "family-reunion" question.
      Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 04 2006,12:35

      Quote (afdave @ Oct. 04 2006,16:54)
      OK.  ONE LAST TRY TO GET YOU TO SEE HOW FOOLISH EVOLUTION IS FROM THE SEQUENCE DATA ANGLE.

      (There are many other angles which I will show you)

      Now, let me say one more time why molecular sequence data deals a death blow to ToE.  Better yet, let Denton say it ... ready?

      ...

      Hopefully this will make everything more clear to you.  I think many of you got confused because the first Denton chart had many organism which are not like anything in the supposed ancestry of humans.  I think somehow you guys thought that I thought many of those things WERE in the human lineage, but I do not.  Never did. (I do realize that you don't believe sunflowers and wheat are in the human lineage) I simply posted the chart and hoped we had a common understanding -- guess not.

      Anyway, this chart should help you understand Denton's contention.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


      Same problem, Dave. You're wrong for exactly the same reasons. All of those organisms—carp, frog, chicken, kangaroo, human, diverged from the the common ancestor of the lamprey at the same time. If you look at the same list I posted earlier, you will note that the lamprey is a member of an outgroup of all the other organisms. This means, as we have pointed out to you to the point of stupidity, that all of those organisms are exactly equally distant from the lamprey.

      All you've done is moved further up the tree. If you chose, say, a dog, and compared the differences humans, baboons, and rhesus monkeys each have with a dog, you'd see the exact same pattern.

      That you don't get this is symptomatic of your utter ignorance of evolutionary theory in general and cladistics in particular. It's not a problem for evolutionary theory, Dave; it's a problem for your bad, wrong, broken misunderstanding of evolutionary theory.

      Further, Dave, carp, fish, frogs, chickens, and kangaroos are no more, nor less, "in the human lineage" than sunflowers and wheat are. The only difference is how long ago the  organism in question shared a common ancestor with humans. The common ancestor of humans and kangaroos is more recent than the common ancestor of humans and wheat. That's the only difference.

      And, you know, I'm pretty sure I've pointed this out to you more than once, Dave. But somehow (and this is less and less surprising every time), you just don't get it.
      Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 04 2006,12:45

      I explained carefully why we do not expect to see large "percentage" differences in a conserved protein.  Dave keeps ignoring responses along that line and continues to create a straw man argument , just as Denton once did.

      Dave: "Look how similar they are in percentages - evolution says they should be very different, mutated and changed!!!"

      Biologist : "No, those proteins are essential to life and cannot be altered hugely -- they must remain basically the same to function, which is why human cytochrome c can be used by yeast."

      Dave: "but they are similar in percentages and evolution says they must be different!! The numbers on this chart SHOULD be something like Carp 35, Frog 55 Human 75 (not sure what chicken and kangaroo should be) if Evolution is really true!!"
      Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 04 2006,12:49

      Quote (afdave @ Oct. 04 2006,16:54)
      Eric-- Great.  How about examples of Metazoa, Deuterostomia, Chordata, Craniata, Sarco-whatever, Stego-whatever, and the rest you didn't give an example for, eh?
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


      I don't need to, Dave. I only placed the organisms on Denton's chart in the proper clade. To add additional organisms adds nothing to my list, other than confusion. After all, you will notice that proterostomia is not on my list, nor is there an example of a proterostome.

      My point was to show the relationships between in-groups and out-groups, which is central to the error of your argument, Dave. No useful purpose is served by providing an example of an organism in each clade.

      Oh, wait a minute—are you inferring that my list is an exhaustive list of all phylogenetic clades? I'm hoping you didn't want an example of an organism in every single phylogenetic taxon, do you?

      Your request for additional examples is giving me the distinct impression that you are not even aware of what my list is a list of, dave.
      Posted by: incorygible on Oct. 04 2006,13:08

      Quote (afdave @ Oct. 04 2006,16:54)
      Cory...  

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      Indeed, Dave already tried Paley's suggestion by arguing that Gulo (vitamin C) sequencing data meant "evolutionists" should classify guinea pigs and humans together.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

      Huh?  Boy are you dreaming.  No.  That's been a long time ago, but as I recall, I simply showed you that the gene was "broken" in two very distantly related (I would say unrelated) groups, thus showing that Dr. Max's contention that the "copied mistake" proves common descent was wrong.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


      Liar. You < referenced here > an < AIG page > which used an Inai et al. paper to claim exactly what I said. To quote that AIG article:



      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      Let us now take the pseudogene ‘shared mistake’ argument to its logical conclusion. The unexpected degree of identicalness between the ‘lesions’ of the guinea pig GULO pseudogene and those of its counterpart in the higher primates (including humans) leads to the preposterous conclusion that humans are more closely related to guinea pigs than to prosimian primates!
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



      Whatever apology you make for how "preposterous" that claim is, or whether you waiver in your support for that claim (as you do in your references to this issue, presented below), you cannot avoid that this argument contends that humans and guinea pigs should be classified together as an evolutionary unit on the basis of GLO. Which is what I said.

      < #1 >



      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      This scenario also seems to me to be supported by the 2003 Inai study comparing guinea pig and human pseudo-GLO.  Guinea pigs and humans are obviously not in sister groups, but they both have pseudo-GLO, which actually has 36% "identicalness" according to the report.  Are we to conclude that humans are more closely related to guinea pigs who (like humans) have pseudo-GLO, than to pro-simians who have functional GLO?  It seems that the guinea pig-human pseudo GLO similarity all by itself falsifies common descent for apes and humans.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------





      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      You have the problem of the appearance that humans are more closely related to guinea pigs than to the pro-simians! (who have functional GLO)
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



      < #2: >



      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      It appears that they [Inai et al.? AiG?] are saying that humans would be more closely related to guinea pigs (because humans also have broken GLO) than to pro-simians (functional GLO) if we followed evolutionary logic, but this is obviously absurd, because they are not related.  Again, I don't know if I agree with this or not.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



      < #3: >


      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      We went through some logic exercises comparing the DNA code to relatively unknown languages, and we went down a small rabbit trail with the AIG article and the whole "humans are more closely related to guinea pigs since they both have broken GULO and 36% similar substitutions" idea that AIG seems to be promoting.  To tell you the truth, I honestly don't even know what AIG is asserting exactly, but to me it has very little bearing (if any) on the main issue that we are discussing.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


      Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Oct. 04 2006,13:22

      You guys should all win perseverance awards for continuing to deal with Dave Hawkins, the Tard's tard.

      All the technical detail is great for the lurkers, but never forget what Davie-poo has filling his lying little Fundie cranium:
      Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Oct. 04 2006,14:45

      Speaking of the GULO gene, lookie at what I just < found: >

       

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      In my last post, Common Design Errors, I proposed a problem for biblical creation.  I received one response from a creationist, who cited Inai et al. (2003).  This paper compared the largest set of homologous exons between humans, guinea pigs, and rats.  You see, guinea pigs, like most primates and a few other taxa, lack L-guluno-gamma-lactone oxidase.  Two sections were quoted to me.
       

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      When the human and guinea pig sequences (647 nucleotides in total) of the regions of exons 4, 7, 9, 10, and 12 were compared, we found 129 and 96 substitutions in humans and guinea pigs, respectively, when compared with the rat sequences (Fig. 2).  The same substitutions from rats to both human and guinea pigs occurred at 47 nucleotide positions among the 129 positions where substitutions occurred in the human sequences.  A high percentage of the same substitutions in the total substitutions (36%) indicates that there were many hot spots for nucleotide substitution throughout the sequences examined.

      (p. 316)

      Assuming an equal chance of substitution throughout the sequences, the probability of the same substitutions in both humans and guinea pigs occurring at the observed number of positions and more was calculated to be 1.84 x 10-12.  This extremely small probability indicates the presence of many mutational hot spots in the sequences.

      (p. 317)
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------





      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



      The poster then begins to outline what he feels is a fatal flaw in the paper:

       

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      However, the sections quoted from Inai et al. (2003) suffer from a major methodological error; they failed to consider that substitutions could have occured in the rat lineage after the splits from the other two.  The researchers actually clustered substitutions that are specific to the rat lineage with separate substitutions shared by guinea pigs and humans.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



      He then proceeds to compare a nucleotide sequence from rat exon 10 to ten other species, and finds that:

       

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      When we look at this larger data table, only one position of the ten, 81, stands out as a possible case of a shared derived trait, one position, 97, is inconclusive, and the other eight positions are more than likely shared ancestral sites.  With this additional phylogenetic information, I have shown that the “hot spots” Inai et al. (2003) found are not well supported.  Therefore, the explaination given to me by the creationist who responded does not work.

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



      Thus was the creationist claim destroyed. Or was it? A lurker begged to differ:

       

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      You are looking at a tiny fraction of the data analyzed in the Inai paper. I’m not defending the Inai paper as I have not read it. However, the sequence segment you selected is quite different from other segments. In your segment there is high similarity. This is not characteristic, and more species doesn’t help. Elsewhere one finds a hodge-podge: poor alignments, segments with high human-guinea pig similarity but low similarity to the rat, etc. There are various possible explanations. The substitutions occurred in the rat lineage, insertions and deletions, etc.

      This all makes interpreting the data a bit difficult. I suspect things will become clearer with more research, but, as you are probably aware, pseudogenes in general have not proven to be as straightforward as once thought. The Inai paper may be in error, but the idea of mutational hotspots is not controversial.
      [....]
      Following up on my previous message, note for example the multiple alignments just up and downstream of the segment you show in your above post. Just upstream, we have the rat, mouse, cow, pig and chicken all with “CATCCC”, but human ang guinea pig with “TGAGTG”. Just downstream we see the same groups with “CCCT” and “TGAC”, respectively. This is not unusual and, for these cases, evolution is left with the explanation that while the ancestral sequence was preserved in the rat, mouse, cow, pig and chicken, the human and guinea pig independently made identical changes. The pattern, and especially its dependence on segment location is rather striking.

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



      When asked to support his claim, the skeptic provided this data:

       

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      Here is an alignment that is a superset of your alignment (there are roughly an additional 90 residues upstream and 40 downstream). Of course you’ll need to format with a monospace font (~ represents inserts).

      204149GGAAGAAGGAAAACTGCAACCTCAGCCATAAGATCTTC~~ACCTACGAGTGCCGCTTCAA_Cow
      14994234_CAAAGGCTGAGCAGGTCAAGCGCAGTGATAAGGCTTTC~~AACTTTGACTGTCTCTTCAA_Shrk
      46425804_~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~CAATGTCAGCTACAAGATCTTC~~AACTACGAGTGCCGCTTCAA_Chkn
      220300_AGGCTGGGAACCTGTGCAGAGTCTTGAGGGAGGGCACCCAGCGGTCCCTTCCCACCCTGA_Humn
      _*_G~~~CAGCATGTACAAGACTGGGCCATCCCTAGGGAGAAGACCAAGGAGGCCCTACTGGA
      38325769_G~~~CAGCATGTCCAAGACTGGGCCATCCCCAGGGAGAAGACCAAGGAGGCCCTGCTGGA
      24637282_G~~~CAGCATGTCCAGGACTGGGCCATCCCCAGAGAGAAGACCAAGGAGGCCCTCCTGGA
      5924388_GGTCCAGATGGCATCCCC~TGCCCTGAGTGCAGAGAGAAGACCAAGGAGGCCCTGCTGGA
      493656_****_*_*

      204149GCTGAAGGCCATGCTGGAGGCGAGCCCCAAGGTAGTGGCCCACTACCCCGTGGAGGTACG
      14994234_GCTGAAGGATTGGCTGGACAACAATCCTAATGTGCGAGCACATTTTCCTGTCGAGGTTCG
      46425804_GCTGAAGGCTGCCCTGGAGAACAACCCCAAGATGGTGGCCCACTACCCTGTGGAGGTGCG
      220300_GCTGAAGGCCGTGCTGGAGGCCCACCCTGAGGTGGTGTCCCACTACCTGGTGGGGGTACG
      ****_**_***_*_***_**

      204149CTTCACTCGCGGGGACGACATCCTGCTGAGCCCCTGCTTCCAGCGAGACAGCTGCTACAT
      14994234_GTTTGTTCGTGCAGACGATATTCTGCTCAGCCCCTGTTACAGACAGGACAGCTGCTACAT
      46425804_CTTTGCTCGAGCGGATGAGATCTGGCTGAGCCCCTGCTTCCAGAGGGACAGCTGCTACAT
      220300_CTTCACCTGGAGG~ATGACATCCTACTGAGCCCCTGCTTCCAGTGGGACAGCCGCTACCT
      ****_**_***_*_******_*****_*

      204149GAACGTCATCATGTACAGGCCCTATGGCAAGGACGTACCGCGGCTGGACTACTGGCTGGC
      14994234_TAACATCATCATGTACAGACCCTACGGGAAGGAGGTGCCACGCGAGGGGTACTGGGCAAT
      46425804_GAACATCATCATGTACAGGCCCTATGGGAAGAACGTGCCCCGGCTCAACTACTGGCTGAC
      220300_GAACATCAACCTGTACAGGTGACAGCTCACTGGGAGGTGGAGATGGGCCTGGGAGCCGGC
      ***_**___


      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



      Then the thread starter (Reed Cartwright) responded with:

       

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      I haven’t had time to look at your larger dataset.

      However, certain additional points need to be made about using phylogenetic data to estimate hotspots.

      1)The macroevolutionary comparisons that are being done tell us about substitutions not mutations.
      2)Long branch attraction

      [...]

      I’m going through the GULO data and producing an alignment of the cds region. Some of the genebank files are a little confusing. For instance the cavie exon sequences include introns. I suspect that the upstream and downstream regions that Responder is refering to are places where the alignment is wrong because introns are being aligned with exons.

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



      But has not answered the claim. Why? No one knows.
      Posted by: Russell on Oct. 04 2006,15:37

      Davey - simple question:

      Does your hero, Michael Denton, as of his most recent book, accept the notion of "common descent"? Yes or no.
      Posted by: skeptic on Oct. 04 2006,15:57

      I need a little clarification here.  There's a lot of talk about coding and non-coding DNA so when we're talking about divergence and conservation are we talking about only the coding regions or both the coding and non-coding regions?
      Posted by: Ichthyic on Oct. 04 2006,16:45

      skeptic-

      you're thinking in terms of whole genome, rather than specific marker sequences.

      yes, these are coding sequences, but very specific ones.

      we don't have enough whole genome studies to make gross comparisons, but of the ones we have so far, we see the same patterns as exhibited by specific marker sequences.
      Posted by: stevestory on Oct. 04 2006,17:20

      A picture of feces has been removed from Occam's post. -st
      Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Oct. 04 2006,18:13

      steveS, your "inconsistant moderator" act is wearing kinda thin.  

      You wanna give the board your rationale for why today you allowed Richardthughes to post this about DaveScot

      It was DaveScot,


      but you deleted my picture of a dog turd?
      Posted by: stevestory on Oct. 04 2006,18:20

      1 an obviously faked latex mask of a deformed person didn't disgust me.

      2 your photo did.

      3 No one emailed me about Richard's photo.

      4 Some people emailed me about yours.

      If that's not good enough, send further complaints to me or Wes in private messages.

      UPDATE: Just FYI, I saw your photo hours ago. I didn't delete it, but I was close. When some people emailed complaining about it, you might say there was a tipping point.
      Posted by: BWE on Oct. 04 2006,18:30



      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      Wow.  This one even top's BWE's classic of several months ago.  Does anyone here remember that one?
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



      no. refresh my memory please.
      Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Oct. 04 2006,19:17

      So an an obviously faked latex mask of a terribly deformed and mutilated human being is OK, but an obviously faked latex mold of a dog turd is verbotten.  Wow, just...wow.

      Mea culpa.  Will all those who emailed stevestory (he tells me it was more than one) and complained because they couldn't stand a photo of fake dog poo please identify yourselves here, and I will issue each a personal apology.

      Thanks in advance

      ETA: Please respond to this request by PM - I have no desire to waste board space or distract from AFDave's regularly scheduled floggings  ;)
      Posted by: Drew Headley on Oct. 04 2006,19:26

      AFDave says that evolutionists before the advent of molecular methods thought that animals with similar morhpologies would have similar genetic sequences or protein sequences. He bases this on a quote by Zuckerkandl from Scientific American. I decided to read the article that AFDave cited, and found that it does not back this assertion.

      Before I present the quote, I also want to correct AFDaves citation. His citation is Zuckerkandl, E., "The Evolution of Haemoglobin",Scientific American,213(5): 110-18, see p111. In fact, the correct citation is Zuckerkandl, E; Sci Am 1965, v. 212 iss 5, pg111. He also states that the article is from 1963,  

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      ...and I think Zuckerkandl understood it in 1963 ...    
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

      , when in fact is is from 1965.

      With that out of the way I give the full paragraph which AFDave's quote was taken from, with AFDave's quote in italics.
       

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      In addition to these three postulates I would like to suggest a fourth that is much more contraversial: Contemporary organisms that look much like ancient ancestral organism probably contain a majority of polypeptide chains that resemble quite closely those of ancient organisms.  In other words, certain animals said to be "living fossils", such as the cockroach, the horseshoe crab, [the lungfish shown above] the shark and, among mammals, the lemur, probably manufacture a great many polypeptide molecules that differ only slightly from those manufactured by their ancestors millions of years ago. This postulate is contraversial because it is often said that evolution has been just as long for organisms that appear to have changed little as for those that have changed much; consequently it is held that the biochemistry of living fossils is probably very different from that of their remote ancestors. My own view is that it is unlikely that selective forces would favor the stability of morphological characteristics without at the same time favoring the stability of biochemical characteristics, which is more fundamental.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



      Notice how Zuckerkandl qualifies this statement as contraversial and not representing the mainstream view of the field. It just so happens that the mainstream view as given by Zuckerkandl is the same view espoused today by posters in this thread.
      Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 04 2006,20:37

      Bagged again quote-mining, Dave. What is this, the tenth time you've been caught so far?
      Posted by: bfish on Oct. 04 2006,20:38

      [quote=afdave,Oct. 02 2006,12:31][/quote]
      Dave on October 2:
       

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      To answer Argy's question, I would guess that there is VERY LITTLE sequence difference among modern bacterial DNA.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



      Dave on October 4:
       

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      I am not familiar with the C' and the C-556 sequences.  I would like to learn more about bacteria and see some sequence comparisons of Cytochrome C among bacteria.  Anyone have free access to an online atlas? (like the Dayhoff one referred to already).  My guess is that there is much greater variation than we find between, say, dogs and mice.  Why?  
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



      Um, because many people corrected you after your October 2 stab in the dark?


      Since the subject of sequence similarity versus morphological similarity came up, I thought some of you might be interested in a Nature paper from last week:
      Nature 443, 401-402(28 September 2006) | doi:10.1038/443401a; Published online 27 September 2006
      Evolution: Different paths to the same end

      "Genetic dissection of a yeast gene-regulatory pathway shows that the logical output of such a pathway can remain the same even though the molecular mechanisms underlying the output have diverged remarkably.

      From penguins to mushrooms and baobabs, the world around us harbours a bewildering diversity of life forms. Much of the evolution of this diversity is due to changes in the under-lying genetic regulatory architecture1. But what happens to such architecture when organisms that diverged long ago retain the same traits (or 'phenotypes';)? Can this regulatory architecture diverge while the overlying phenotypes remain similar? On page 415 of this issue, Tsong et al.2 examine the gene-regulatory circuit that governs mating type in several yeast species, and they identify a remarkable example of divergence at the genotypic level (the DNA sequence) despite conservation at the phenotypic level."
      Posted by: Grey_Wolf_c on Oct. 04 2006,20:59

      Dave said:


      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      Oh I see. So now you're telling me that comparing fossil lungfish with modern lungfish (virtually identical and undoubtedly the same species) is the same a comparing sharks and dolphins
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



      a) I was putting the stake in your "if they are similar, their sequence is similar" stupidity. You made a blanket statement that is false, and I gave you a counterexample to show it was false. If you had the morality or reading ability that God gave the pistachio, you'd admit it.

      b) Only you claim that the ancient and modern lungfish are the same species. Lets see some evidence for that. You do know that the modern coelacanths and ancient one are not the same species either, do you?

      Hope that helps,

      Grey Wolf

      Edit: typo
      Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 04 2006,21:18

      Incorygible posed this question for Dave:


      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      Are you that much of an idiot, Dave? Or are you a liar?
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


      Ever since I joined this forum back in June -- I think it was -- I've felt that Dave was a deliberate liar. He proved it (to me) by lying directly about me. My vote is for "b" : AirHead is a deliberate, calculating liar.

      **ack, I just checked. It was May. Six months of watching this idiot lie his ass off, quote-mine, spew fallacies and shred logic, reason and human knowledge. What a maroon, as Bugs used to say.
      Posted by: Grey_Wolf_c on Oct. 04 2006,21:30

      Quote (afdave @ Oct. 04 2006,16:54)
      I think many of you got confused because the first Denton chart had many organism which are not like anything in the supposed ancestry of humans.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



      None of the organisms in the chart are in the ancestry of humans, since they are all modern. Remember, the whole "they look similar, they have similar sequences" is something you came up with, not something that ToE says (aka "dolphins and sharks").

       
      Quote (afdave @ Oct. 04 2006,16:54)
      The numbers on this chart SHOULD be something like Carp 35, Frog 55 Human 75 (not sure what chicken and kangaroo should be) if Evolution is really true.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



      You are the only one that claims that. The ToE says that two modern animals will be equally distant from their LCA. I will repeat that until you get it or show evidence to the contrary (things you pulled out of creationist propagando do not count for this purpose - maybe you could try quoting a biology textbook, though).

       
      Quote (afdave @ Oct. 04 2006,16:54)
      Now do you get it?
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



      Oh, we get it all right. You build a strawman version of ToE ("bacteria are closer to yeast than to men") and then you beat it. But since what ToE says is "Bacteria are as close to yeast as to man", your chart only confirms ToE.

       
      Quote (afdave @ Oct. 04 2006,16:54)
      To say otherwise means you have to take the ridiculous position of assuming that things like fossil lungfish (which look identical to modern lungfish) somehow have far different sequences.

      Pretty crazy, now, don't you think?
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



      You cannot tell bacteria apart, either, and nevertheless they have wildly different sequences and DNA. Just because to your untrained and ignorant eye look the same it doesn't mean that their DNA are the same. Dolphins and Sharks.

       
      Quote (afdave @ Oct. 04 2006,16:54)
      Boy are you guys confused!
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



      <sarcasm>Yes, all of the biology experts in the world are confused. It cannot possibly be that you are wrong. Nooooo.</sarcasm>

       
      Quote (afdave @ Oct. 04 2006,16:54)
      Eric-- Great.  How about examples of Metazoa, Deuterostomia, Chordata, Craniata, Sarco-whatever, Stego-whatever, and the rest you didn't give an example for, eh?
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



      I gave you two examples of each. How many do you need, Dave?

       
      Quote (afdave @ Oct. 04 2006,16:54)
      YES.  YES.  Give me an example of all the LCA's from your blessed UUC all the way up to ME!  I understand that they are not the same as modern organisms.  But surely they looked similar to many extant forms, no?  Go ahead.  Give it a shot.  I'm sure you can do it.  If you like, use this terminology:  UUC - Worm like critter (WLC?) - Squid like critter (SLC?) - Fish like critter (FLC?) etc.  Get the idea now?
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



      All Life - Human-like critter (it is alive)

      Eukaryota - Human-like critter (has complex cells)

      Metazoa - Human-like critter (has many cells)

      Bilateria - Human-like critter (has two symetrical sides)

      Deuterostomia - Human-like critter

      Chordata - Human-like critter (has a notocord)

      Craniata - Human-like critter (has a skull)

      Vertebrata - Human-like critter (has vertebra)

      Gnathostomata - Human-like critter

      Sarcopterygii - Human-like critter (has four limbs)

      Stegocephalia - Human-like critter

      Amniota - Human-like critter (development of embrio in amniotic liquid

      Synapsida - Human-like critter (has fused arches)

      Therapsida - Human-like critter

      Mammalia - Human-like critter (has mammary glands)

      Eutheria - Human-like critter (has placenta)

      Primates - Human-like critter

      Catarrhini - Human-like critter (has a narrow nose)

      Hominidae - Human-like critter (doesn't have a tail?)

      Homo - Human-like critter

      I've left out some descriptions, for those I wasn't sure. I'm sure Eric can complete it, though.

      Hope that helps,

      Grey Wolf
      Posted by: jeannot on Oct. 04 2006,23:43

      Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 04 2006,17:45)
      Dave: "Look how similar they are in percentages - evolution says they should be very different, mutated and changed!!!"

      Biologist : "No, those proteins are essential to life and cannot be altered hugely -- they must remain basically the same to function, which is why human cytochrome c can be used by yeast."
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


      This is not the best explanation. Sequence divergence is mostly correlated with time of divergence, not morphology.
      The divergence in protein sequence can be rather large and the data remain the same for neutral mutations.
      Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 05 2006,01:39

      Jeannot: Agreed.  Dave has been told about...what..10 different times about cousin/cousin versus ancestor-descendant relationships. He just isn't getting it or he's being deliberately obtuse.

      I hoped he might "understand " that a core sequence coding for a vital protein would be conserved, and that  Cytochrome C Oxidase Deficiency is fatal in kids, for instance. But I guess he'd just find a way to reject that, too.
      Posted by: Mike PSS on Oct. 05 2006,03:20

      AFDave,
      Still waiting for your response to my < reply > to your questions.  I'm claiming victory soon if you can't come up with any challange to my summary and response.  So far you've countered with whinging and requests for restatements, but no actual counter points to the arguments presented.
      **********************
      I also remember that you wrote....  
      Quote (afdave @ Oct. 04 2006,11:38)
      In case anyone is keeping track, we have now moved to Points C & D on AFDave's Creator God Hypothesis.  We have now covered A, B, G, H, K, L, & M (not that we won't periodically return to these points some).   You can see all the points at my blog site at < http://airdave.blogspot.com, > or on page 1 of this thread.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


      Ummmmmm....... We haven't "covered" all these < points > yet.  Here's my scorecard so far:
      (A) is fine.  You can believe what you want.
      (B) is fine.  Except for the fundamental goal statement.  We haven't covered that yet.
      (C&D) MANY items left to hash out in these two points.  From whizzing continents to 900 year old men to genetically rich Adam and Eve.  And don't forget the incestual claims.  And can you at least give a definition of a "kind"?
      (G&H) are DOA.  Da Flud.  No points for you, and we certainly haven't "covered" this topic.  MANY questions left for you on this one.
      (K&L) aren't covered either.  The only thing you've done on this point is restate your original hypothesis.  We haven't "covered" this one at all.
      (M) seems to be the basis for your 6000 year old earth claim.  You haven't covered how Graf-Wellhausen theory has been discredited either.  And RM dating can fit into this point so we haven't "covered" this yet, we are still in discussion.

      AFDave,
      Please define the term "covered" so we can come to terms with what your trying to state in the quote above.  My take on your claim runs counter to what your claiming.

      Mike PSS
      __
      Edit: typo in first statement (add 'my';).  thx Grey Wolf c
      Posted by: afdave on Oct. 05 2006,05:04

      My own view is that it is unlikely that selective forces would favor the stability of morphological characteristics without at the same time favoring the stability of biochemical characteristics, which is more fundamental.

      --Emile Zuckerkandl, Scientific American, 1965




      I hate to tell you this, but in an attempt to accuse me (and Michael Denton) of quote mining, you have, like the Kamikaze pilot above, destroyed your own position.  Many of you, including Incorygible, have bought into Mark Vuletic's lie on Talk Origins that Michael Denton doesn't understand evolutionary theory.  At least two of you (I won't embarrass you by naming you) also read this quote wrong and thought it helped your position.

      Let me give you the quote again ...    

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      In addition to these three postulates I would like to suggest a fourth that is much more contraversial: Contemporary organisms that look much like ancient ancestral organism probably contain a maj