Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
How Religion Drives Science and Why it Matters
Cornelius Hunter
Blog Archive
-
▼
2013
(148)
-
▼
July
(20)
- Here’s The One Dan Graur Slide You Have to Understand
- Here’s That New Fossil Study That Found a Crack in...
- Here’s One Reason Why Evolution is No Ordinary Sci...
- Squid and Octopus Coloration is Way More Complex T...
- Podcast: Professor Graur, ENCODE and Junk DNA
- Biomemetics This Time: Tunable Photonic Materials
- Octopus Perfectly Mimics a Plant
- Evolution’s Brand New Idea of Random Variation Isn...
- Evolutionist on Complexity: “To some extent, it ju...
- This New Paper on How Innovations Evolved Raises M...
- Evolutionist: We know very little about how evolut...
- Oops: “A Large Proportion of the Mammalian Genome ...
- Dan Graur Gave a Great Talk This Week
- Did a Rag-Tag Team Stumble On a Magnificent RNA?
- Here’s a New Paper on a Long Non Coding RNA
- Evolutionist: I Follow the Evidence
- Here is Carl Sagan’s Proof of Evolution
- Classic Quotes: “The Cosmos is all that is, or eve...
- Meet Professor Pedersen: Turning Science on its Head
- When I Pointed Out the Problem of Moralizing Evolu...
-
▼
July
(20)
To put that quote in its original context, here is the passage from which it has been mined:
ReplyDeleteThis Abstract, which I now publish, must necessarily be imperfect. I cannot here give references and authorities for my several statements; and I must trust to the reader reposing some confidence in my accuracy. No doubt errors have crept in, though I hope I have always been cautious in trusting to good authorities alone. I can here give only the general conclusions at which I have arrived, with a few facts in illustration, but which, I hope, in most cases will suffice. No one can feel more sensible than I do of the necessity of hereafter publishing in detail all the facts; with references on which my conclusions have been grounded; and I hope in a future work to do this. For I am well aware that scarcely a single point is discussed in this volume on which facts cannot be adduced, often apparently leading to conclusions directly opposite to those at which I have arrived. A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question; and this cannot possibly be here done
Charles Darwin, 1859, On the Origin of Species
So CH, when will the Creationists you lobby for start fully stating the facts that support evolutionary theory instead of the continuous stream of quote-mined quotes, misrepresentations, and outright lies?
ReplyDeleteThe second Tuesday of next week?
Ian, can we agree with any truth unless we agree with all conclusions made by those who employ it? Why aren't we allowed to think for ourselves? Haven't you ever thought critically about the argument of your opponents? Must everything be accepted or discarded together? Why not pick the good out of the bad?
ReplyDeleteJohn
ReplyDeleteWhy not pick the good out of the bad?
What is the scientific 'good' in Biblical Creationism? I can't think of a single thing, can you?
Yes, in fact on this very topic it would have helped prevent the assumption that DNA is just junk now wouldn't it?
ReplyDeleteIs there anything more you wanted to say about the "quote mine"?
John
DeleteYes, in fact on this very topic it would have helped prevent the assumption that DNA is just junk now wouldn't it?
What in the world does that have to do with Biblical Creationism? Scientists have known for over 30 years that some areas of non-coding DNA have a function. Ignoring ENCODE's self-serving way too inclusive definition of 'function' there is actually about 25-30% of non-coding DNA that does something useful. There's still a metric boatload of genome that does absolutely nothing, just long strings of duplicated over and over sequences. Even the IDiots won't touch them.
Creationists would still think that most of the DNA sequence is intended.
DeleteIf you disagree with ENCODE, then what is your theory for why these regions are "conserved"? If they don't do anything then how can they do anything to affect being selected? Wouldn't an organism's energy reserves be greatly enhanced by letting these useless regions build up stop codons? All other things being equal, wouldn't an organism with more energy be considered more fit in almost any scenario?
And are you distancing yourself from the quote mine complaint now?
John
DeleteCreationists would still think that most of the DNA sequence is intended.
Again, what's the scientific good in that? Creationists haven't proposed or tested any hypotheses, have nothing at all to do with ENCODE or anyone's genetic research.
If you disagree with ENCODE, then what is your theory for why these regions are "conserved"? If they don't do anything then how can they do anything to affect being selected?
Non-functional segments are carried along the same way neutral mutations are carried along. The energy cost to the organism is virtually nil, in the noise way below the level that would be affected by selection.
Thorton: "Again, what's the scientific good in that?"
ReplyDeleteIt might have kept people from believing a lie.
Thorton: "Creationists haven't proposed or tested any hypotheses"
So are you willing to admit to lying if I give you just one? Or do you wish to move your goalposts first? Russ Humphreys has made many predictions based on a number of different hypotheses (and they've borne out quite well by my count)
Thorton: "have nothing at all to do with ENCODE or anyone's genetic research."
I never claimed they had anything to do with ENCODE, which by the way you were just attacking as self serving. But I know personally two PhDs one who I know got his degree in genetics research and published in Biochemical Genetics, and the other published in Nucleic Acids Research about mitochondrial DNA research. I've read the work of many others who I haven't met. So, I'll have to sacrifice your imaginations and go with what I know already. Maybe you meant to say you just didn't know of any in your circle of friends?
Thorton: "Non-functional segments are carried along the same way neutral mutations are carried along"
again which does what to prevent the accumulation of stop codons? Why not think about it?
Thorton: "The energy cost to the organism is virtually nil, in the noise way below the level that would be affected by selection."
Personally, I don't think natural selection can select anything coherently from all the competing genes over very many generations of most metazoa, but I didn't think you were on board with that. There's another creation scientist who talks about that in his princess and pea analogy - John Sanford. (btw, it seems he also got his PhD in genetics)
John
DeleteThorton: "Again, what's the scientific good in that?"
It might have kept people from believing a lie.
What lie is that John? Seems like the only one propagating lies here is you.
Russ Humphreys has made many predictions based on a number of different hypotheses (and they've borne out quite well by my count)
Go ahead and list the ones based on and which support Biblical Creationism.
I never claimed they had anything to do with ENCODE, which by the way you were just attacking as self serving. But I know personally two PhDs one who I know got his degree in genetics research and published in Biochemical Genetics, and the other published in Nucleic Acids Research about mitochondrial DNA research. I've read the work of many others who I haven't met. So, I'll have to sacrifice your imaginations and go with what I know already. Maybe you meant to say you just didn't know of any in your circle of friends?
Go ahead and list all their scientific achievements that were based on Biblical Creationism. Or keep blithering and ignoring the point.
There's another creation scientist who talks about that in his princess and pea analogy - John Sanford. (btw, it seems he also got his PhD in genetics)
LOL! Good old born-again YEC Sanford who's managed to make himself a laughingstock of the entire scientific community with his ridiculous attempts to prove YEC timelines through 'genetic entropy'. That was sure good for science.
Thorton: "What lie is that John? Seems like the only one propagating lies here is you."
ReplyDeleteThe lie that nearly everything outside the protein coding genes is junk. Why do you keep telling demonstrable lies and then accusing others of doing it?
Thorton: "Go ahead and list the ones based on and which support Biblical Creationism."
He based his predictions on the magnetic fields of different planets on 2 Peter 3:5.
Thorton: "Go ahead and list all their scientific achievements that were based on Biblical Creationism. Or keep blithering and ignoring the point."
Oh you had a point you were going to make beyond what was refuted? Let me help you, your original lies were: 1.)Creationists haven't proposed or tested any hypotheses and now 2.) "have nothing at all to do with ENCODE or anyone's genetic research". Apparently you are the only one blithering.
Thorton: "LOL! Good old born-again YEC Sanford who's managed to make himself a laughingstock of the entire scientific community with his ridiculous attempts to prove YEC timelines through 'genetic entropy'. That was sure good for science."
It does seem that you think that laughing somehow creates truth.
John
DeleteThe lie that nearly everything outside the protein coding genes is junk.
Why is that a lie? Seems you've been caught lying about what science actually says again.
He based his predictions on the magnetic fields of different planets on 2 Peter 3:5.
2 Peter 3:5 doesn't mention magnetic fields or different planets.
2 Peter 3:5 "For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water"
Not even close. You want to explain where the 'prediction' came from?
1.)Creationists haven't proposed or tested any hypotheses and now 2.) "have nothing at all to do with ENCODE or anyone's genetic research".
You're still lying about what I wrote John.
Creationists haven't tested any hypotheses that have to do with Biblical Creationism.
Biblical Creationism had nothing to do with ENCODE or genetics.
But do keep lying for the Creationist cause John. Everyone knows lying makes Baby Jesus smile.
It does seem that you think that laughing somehow creates truth.
Since all you Creationist clowns are good for is comic relief why is laughing unexpected?
You willing to defend Sanford's blithering YEC nonsense? Didn't think so.
John: "The lie that nearly everything outside the protein coding genes is junk"
ReplyDeleteThorton: "Why is that a lie? Seems you've been caught lying about what science actually says again."
You yourself admitted that "Ignoring ENCODE's self-serving way too inclusive definition of 'function' there is actually about 25-30% of non-coding DNA that does something useful." So it's Thorton vs Thornton again I guess. Let me know which one you decide on.
Thorton: "2 Peter 3:5 doesn't mention magnetic fields or different planets."
I didn't say it mentioned magnetic fields. It does however mention earth, and Humphreys developed his theory of how earth's (and his predictions of Uranus' and Neptune's) magnetic fields would have developed if they were created from water as he believes the verse says. You can look it up for yourself if you really want to know.
Thorton: "You're still lying about what I wrote John."
No those were copy and pasted quotes from you. You decided to move the goalposts like you often do once your flippant comments were yet again exposed as lies.
Thorton: "Creationists haven't tested any hypotheses that have to do with Biblical Creationism"
Even if that's what you MEANT to say, DESPITE the original context of "ENCODE" and "genetic research", you STILL FAIL re Humphreys hypothesis I mentioned above.
Thorton: "Biblical Creationism had nothing to do with ENCODE or genetics."
unless it's true, then it may explain why the data from those areas don't seem to support evolution very well.
Thorton: "But do keep lying for the Creationist cause John. Everyone knows lying makes Baby Jesus smile."
if that were true, Baby Jesus would be very happy with you.
Thorton:"Since all you Creationist clowns are good for is comic relief why is laughing unexpected?"
I fully expect laughter instead of reason from the side that is failed by reason. That and complaints about quote mining.
Thorton: "You willing to defend Sanford's blithering YEC nonsense? Didn't think so."
There were at least a few ideas in his book that I thought were quite good. I think the princess and pea analogy was a good insight. Can you explain how an environment can remain stable enough for millions of years to coherently refine tens of thousands of traits at the same time when their cross competing requirements are basically presented as noise?
Oh, and have you conceded yet that CH did not "quote mine" Darwin in this thread?
John
DeleteYou yourself admitted that "Ignoring ENCODE's self-serving way too inclusive definition of 'function' there is actually about 25-30% of non-coding DNA that does something useful."
Which means the statement is not a lie. It's you who are lying about what science actually said. Again.
I didn't say it mentioned magnetic fields.
Yes, you did when defending Humphreys:
John: "He based his predictions on the magnetic fields of different planets on 2 Peter 3:5."
You really shouldn't lie when your words are right above for all to see.
No those were copy and pasted quotes from you.
LOL! No they weren't liar. They were hatchet jobs where you cut phrases out of whole sentences to change the meaning. Why do you fools think lying solves everything? Oh, that's right, you're Creationists. Lying is what you guys do.
There were at least a few ideas in his book that I thought were quite good.
OK, so you're not willing to defend Sanford's YEC stupidity. Probably the smartest move by you yet on this thread.
Thorton: "Which means the statement is not a lie. It's you who are lying about what science actually said. Again."
ReplyDeleteNo because if even just your assessment of 25-30% of the rest has function, then clearly not "nearly everything outside the protein coding regions is junk".
John:" I didn't say it mentioned magnetic fields."
Thorton: "Yes, you did when defending Humphreys:
John: 'He based his predictions on the magnetic fields of different planets on 2 Peter 3:5."'
This statement does not require that 2 Peter 3:5 mention magnetic fields. If you don't understand how language and logic work, how can you understand science which uses both?
Thorton: "You really shouldn't lie when your words are right above for all to see."
You're projecting again, since the only one here trying to weasel their way of of their own words is you. Re below.
Thorton: "You're still lying about what I wrote John."
John: "No those were copy and pasted quotes from you. You decided to move the goalposts like you often do once your flippant comments were yet again exposed as lies.
Thorton: "LOL! No they weren't liar. They were hatchet jobs where you cut phrases out of whole sentences to change the meaning."
Nope, check my original quote if you need to be sure. I dealt with the first and second part separately but the whole thing was there, Here's what you wrote; "Creationists haven't proposed or tested any hypotheses, have nothing at all to do with ENCODE or anyone's genetic research."
and here's my quote, "Let me help you, your original lies were: 1.)Creationists haven't proposed or tested any hypotheses and now 2.) "have nothing at all to do with ENCODE or anyone's genetic research". Apparently you are the only one blithering.
care to mention the part of the sentence I left out? Maybe you forgot that you didn't move the goal posts until after you were refuted and you are referring to your own restatement in confusion?
Thorton: "Why do you fools think lying solves everything? "
I don't, it's certainly not working for you. Lies get people all trapped up in trying to remember what they said and pretending they said other things.
Thorton: "OK, so you're not willing to defend Sanford's YEC stupidity. Probably the smartest move by you yet on this thread."
you're welcome to rebut the princess and pea analogy that I defended at any time. Still, wouldn't it be more appropriate though to deal with the first question I posed about the OP which was, "Is there anything more you wanted to say about the "quote mine"?"
but I could understand why you would want to move on.
to be clear, I am willing to defend the YEC part I remember about lifespans decaying over time. I don't remember everything he said that he applied to defending YEC.
ReplyDeleteJohn
ReplyDeleteto be clear, I am willing to defend the YEC part I remember about lifespans decaying over time.
That would be the claims Sanford supported with 'evidence' from the Bible listing the ages of Noah and his descendants.
Sanford: Noah's Descendants Declining Lifespan
Go ahead John, I'd love to see your scientific evidence to support Sanford's YEC idiocy.
Oh well, looks like John has reneged on his offer to defend Sanford' s YEC claims about lifespans decaying over time.
DeleteWhat a surprise.
Why do you think I reneged? Did you forget to post a specific objection or was I to understand that your challenge was of the "nuhuh" sort?
DeleteOn the other hand, is your silence on all of your demonstrated lies in just this thread to be taken as reneging?
1.) do you want to claim that your statement about "quote-mined quotes" doesn't apply to CH in this thread?
2.) do you admit to lying by saying, "Creationists haven't proposed or tested any hypotheses,"?
3.) do you admit to lying by saying that creationists "have nothing at all to do with ENCODE or anyone's genetic research"?
4.) do you admit to lying by saying, "You're still lying about what I wrote John.", when I directly copied your statements?
5.) do you admit to lying by saying, "They were hatchet jobs where you cut phrases out of whole sentences to change the meaning." Or would you like to show me the part of your sentence I left out yet?
you're a real glutton for punishment aren't you?
John
DeleteWhy do you think I reneged?
Because you're a coward?
Because you don't have any scientific evidence to present?
Because you realized your mouth wrote a check your data couldn't cash?
Do I have to pick just one?
Nope, because you quote mined. If you hadn't quote mined, you'd realize that we're still waiting for you argument against.
ReplyDeleteBut it's good to see you won't defend your multiple lies on just this thread.
Are you now willing to admit to being a hypocrite also now that you've been caught quote mining?
Isn't if interesting that the only person on this page quote mining is you?
Nice own goal there Thorton!
Thorton being disnigenuous? Impossible! Oh wait, that really just more lying isn't it?
DeleteI guess that's what we've come to expect from you.
Feel free to put forward a scientific criticism at any time. Or you could keep on blustering and hand waiving about calling a bluff when you did nothing but add willful ignorance to your documented lies and documented hypocrisy. Maybe the internet ate your argument? Please cite it for us. Is it in the same place as the rest of the sentence you accused me of not quoting?
Poor Thorton, always shooting off his mouth before thinking things through.
LOL! Don't worry John. We'll send the WAAAAAAAAMbulance over to your place ASAP!
DeleteFeel free to put forward a scientific criticism at any time.
Feel free to explain why citing the Biblical ages of Noah and his offspring is scientific evidence for declining lifespans.
Or keep up the bluster and posturing. Your choice
Thorton: "Feel free to explain why citing the Biblical ages of Noah and his offspring is scientific evidence for declining lifespans."
ReplyDeleteIt is certainly compatible with the idea. It is also compatible with the effects of severe inbreeding depression as the next few generations would be producing offspring with very close relatives. I think it is interesting to note that Shem would have still been alive when Abraham was alive and that Jacob actually mentions that his life is much more difficult at this point than those of his fathers.
John
Deletet is certainly compatible with the idea. It is also compatible with the effects of severe inbreeding depression as the next few generations would be producing offspring with very close relatives. I think it is interesting to note that Shem would have still been alive when Abraham was alive and that Jacob actually mentions that his life is much more difficult at this point than those of his fathers.
"Compatible" with the idea doesn't equal scientific evidence. H.G.Wells War Of The Worlds is compatible with Martians having advanced technology and attacking our planet, but that doesn't make it evidence.
Why don't you start by providing your evidence that Noah and his immediate descendants were real people, let alone real people with 900+ year life spans.
Then explain why the genetic data on the human species shows no signs of ever undergoing a bottleneck down to just 8 people (4 of whom were already closely genetically related), especially only 4500 years ago. Actually no species show such a bottleneck, but that's a different problem for Creationists.
Thorton: "'Compatible' with the idea doesn't equal scientific evidence."
ReplyDeleteyes it does. That is what evidence is.
Thorton: "H.G.Wells War Of The Worlds is compatible with Martians having advanced technology and attacking our planet, but that doesn't make it evidence."
that is because we know it was made up because those alive at the time looked around and realized it wasn't happening. It's ironic that you mention that because at the time, I hear there were many people who heard it on the radio and actually began to panic.
Thorton: "Why don't you start by providing your evidence that Noah and his immediate descendants were real people, let alone real people with 900+ year life spans."
Well, according to the geneologies, Shem would still have been alive at the time of Abraham, so it's not that far removed from figures that science can show did exist (at least genetically). Also consider the number of people still marrying close relatives - Abraham married his own half sister, Nahor married his niece, Isaac married his cousins daughter, and Jacob married his cousin. Can you think of a reason that God would have allowed this early on, but prohibited it later?
Thorton: "Then explain why the genetic data on the human species shows no signs of ever undergoing a bottleneck down to just 8 people (4 of whom were already closely genetically related), especially only 4500 years ago. Actually no species show such a bottleneck, but that's a different problem for Creationists."
actually a paper came out just last year which strengthens the creationist case for Mitochondrial Eve. They measured a real mutation rate of 1.24 x 10-6 per site per year. With about a 16.5k size that's about .02 mutations per year which is about .6 every 30 years. While most people are only about 22-23 mutations away from the consensus sequence, some are close to 100. Assuming there would be some people who could accumulate 100 mutations most of which are still viable, we could take that number to represent the "luckiest" combination of mutations to survive. Dividing 100 mutations by .6 per generation gives 167 generations which at about 30 years per generation comes out to about 5000 years. This is quite compatible with the idea of a bottleneck somewhere around the time the flood was supposed to be.
Also, in other news, they figured out that the human y chromosome shares about as much similarity with a chimp's as it does with a chicken's. Since we all know that chickens came from reptiles, I guess that pushes back our common ancestor to that of reptiles and apes... whatever that was. Or maybe evolutionists will instead see trouble with the mutations rates they assumed based on the differences from chimps.
John
Deleteyes it does. That is what evidence is.
LOL! No John, works of fiction aren't scientific evidence. I keep forgetting that to Creationists "The Flintstones" was a documentary.
Well, according to the geneologies, Shem would still have been alive at the time of Abraham, so it's not that far removed from figures that science can show did exist (at least genetically).
It's those genealogies that are in question. You're just offering the completely circular "the Bible is true because the Bible says it is true". FAIL.
actually a paper came out just last year which strengthens the creationist case for Mitochondrial Eve.
Oh FFS, not this stupidity again. "Mitochondrial Eve" wasn't the only woman alive at one time, just the one of the hundreds of thousands alive back then that everyone today is maternally related to. I do wish Creationists would learn at least the basics before trotting out this amazingly dumb argument.
The rest of your "calculations" have absolutely nothing to do with how geneticists determine if a population bottleneck has occurred. What about the rest of the animal kingdom where the data shows no genetic bottleneck?
All this is a long ways away from your assertion you could scientifically support Sanford's claim of declining lifespans. Did you forget about that one?
BTW John, looks like you got your "calculations' above from Creationist Ministries biologist Dr. Robert Carter here.
DeleteThat's what you get for C&Ping YEC crap you don't understand from paid Creatitionist liars.
Thorton: "LOL! No John, works of fiction aren't scientific evidence."
Deleteyou're getting mixed up again. You do not know that it is a work of fiction. That is circular reasoning. The point is that it is compatible with the negative effects of inbreeding depression and it is unlikely that the author would have done this to somehow add legitimacy to the account.
Thorton: "It's those genealogies that are in question. You're just offering the completely circular "the Bible is true because the Bible says it is true". FAIL"
using internal evidence is not circular reasoning if the evidence comes from things the author would not be likely to consider or would not have known to account for.
Thorton: "Oh FFS, not this stupidity again. "Mitochondrial Eve" wasn't the only woman alive at one time, just the one of the hundreds of thousands alive back then that everyone today is maternally related to."
that's just your theory driven reaction to the data. On the other hand, Genesis was written before these studies.
Thorton: "The rest of your "calculations" have absolutely nothing to do with how geneticists determine if a population bottleneck has occurred."
Rob Carter is a published geneticist (try to stop lying just for a minute). But you are also allowed to use your own brain and realize that mutations might have occurred with the frequency we see them occurring today. You can do your own math if you would like and present how many generations you think are represented.
Thorton: "What about the rest of the animal kingdom where the data shows no genetic bottleneck?"
it sounds like you are having trouble deciding if a bottleneck has occurred. It really looks like you're conceding and then asking to move the goalposts.
that said, I'm not sure why there would be as much of a bottleneck in "the rest of the animal kingdom". There are many factors to consider.
1.) How many were initially created?
2.) Were none or 2 or 7 brought on the ark?
3.) What is the mutation rate for a particular species and at the locus under consideration?
4.) How long did those first families stay together before being dispersed at Babel?
5.) Where all of the type of animal under consideration domesticated during that time or were some or all free to roam?
All of these would have an effect on the amount of genetic diversity that we should see today.
Thorton: "All this is a long ways away from your assertion you could scientifically support Sanford's claim of declining lifespans. Did you forget about that one?"
Presenting evidence of the reality of the scarcity of a mate as well as the evidence of limited genetic diversity in humans I think supports the reason why there was such a drop in longevity. Your position seems to be that the lifespans couldn't drop because we know they weren't real people.
Thorton: "That's what you get for C&Ping YEC crap you don't understand from paid Creatitionist liars."
it seemed like it convinced you enough to ask about other animals instead. ^_-
John
Deleteyou're getting mixed up again. You do not know that it is a work of fiction. That is circular reasoning.
LOL! More "the Bible is true because the Bible says it is true". FAIL.
The point is that it is compatible with the negative effects of inbreeding depression and it is unlikely that the author would have done this to somehow add legitimacy to the account.
No John, the data for mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosome Adam is NOT compatible with the a literal Noah's Ark bottleneck. Not even a little.
using internal evidence is not circular reasoning if the evidence comes from things the author would not be likely to consider or would not have known to account for.
You're using the Bible to 'prove' the Bible. That's 100% circular.
that's just your theory driven reaction to the data.
No John, that's the scientific evidence. Here's another study that just came out this week.
Sequencing Y Chromosomes Resolves Discrepancy in Time to Common Ancestor of Males Versus Females
Poznik et al
Science 2 August 2013: Vol. 341 no. 6145 pp. 562-565
Abstract: The Y chromosome and the mitochondrial genome have been used to estimate when the common patrilineal and matrilineal ancestors of humans lived. We sequenced the genomes of 69 males from nine populations, including two in which we find basal branches of the Y-chromosome tree. We identify ancient phylogenetic structure within African haplogroups and resolve a long-standing ambiguity deep within the tree. Applying equivalent methodologies to the Y chromosome and the mitochondrial genome, we estimate the time to the most recent common ancestor (TMRCA) of the Y chromosome to be 120 to 156 thousand years and the mitochondrial genome TMRCA to be 99 to 148 thousand years. Our findings suggest that, contrary to previous claims, male lineages do not coalesce significantly more recently than female lineages."
On the other hand, Genesis was written before these studies.
LOL! So was The Epic of Gilgamesh. Does age somehow make it more 'truthy"?
Rob Carter is a published geneticist
Biologist, not geneticist. He's also a paid professional liar for CMI. Where are the papers he's published in the primary literature on mitochondrial Eve?
There are many factors to consider.
Nope. Science has to consider none of those 'factors' until you demonstrate a literal Genesis Noah's Flood actually happened and the factors are real.
Presenting evidence of the reality of the scarcity of a mate as well as the evidence of limited genetic diversity in humans I think supports the reason why there was such a drop in longevity.
You haven't established any drop in longevity, only asserted it. You're still failing big time here John.
John, I offer this as constructive criticism:
DeleteYou'll never get anywhere in this until you grasp that the data for mitochondrial Eve doesn't mean she was the only woman alive at one time. Please read and learn.
Common misconceptions about Mitochondrial Eve
I don't fault you for not knowing this as lots of non-Creationist laymen are confused by the name 'Eve' too. In hindsight it was a poor choice of nomenclature.
All the new data for faster mtDNA mutations rates did is move the estimated time for ME's existence to more recently than previously thought, but still way more than any Biblical scenarios.
Also, the data for ME is not used to establish a population bottleneck, although it is consistent with a bottleneck. Population bottlenecks are determined by measuring the allelic diversity in a species across the entire genome.
Population bottlenecks
There are a few extant species that do show signs of a severe genetic bottleneck (i.e cheetahs) but nothing that indicates a global one of all species 4500 years ago.
the marriage of close relatives would also serve to show the paucity of choices available at the time.
ReplyDeleteThorton: "LOL! More "the Bible is true because the Bible says it is true". FAIL."
ReplyDeletethe evidence I presented didn't come from the Bible, it just helps corroborate it.
Thorton: "No John, the data for mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosome Adam is NOT compatible with the a literal Noah's Ark bottleneck. Not even a little."
You're welcome to present your own calculations instead of simple assertions.
Thorton: "You're using the Bible to 'prove' the Bible. That's 100% circular."
no sir, I'm using the claims of the Bible and comparing them to known phenomenon to look for corroboration. That's not circular.
Thorton: "No John, that's the scientific evidence. Here's another study that just came out this week."
that paper does not use measured mutation rates. They estimate a rate based on a point they think the Americas were settled along with other assumptions. For some reason, they don't like the measured rates for mtDNA. I wonder why.
Thorton: "LOL! So was The Epic of Gilgamesh. Does age somehow make it more 'truthy"?"
if that account pointed to a bottleneck around that time, it would also be in accord with the data I presented.
Thorton: "Biologist, not geneticist. He's also a paid professional liar for CMI. Where are the papers he's published in the primary literature on mitochondrial Eve?"
here: http://nar.oxfordjournals.org/content/35/9/3039.full
Thorton: "Nope. Science has to consider none of those 'factors' until you demonstrate a literal Genesis Noah's Flood actually happened and the factors are real."
you don't have to measure anything you don't want to.
Thorton: "You haven't established any drop in longevity, only asserted it. You're still failing big time here John."
I did not assert it. I presented evidence that would corroborate it.
Thorton: "You'll never get anywhere in this until you grasp that the data for mitochondrial Eve doesn't mean she was the only woman alive at one time. Please read and learn."
it's compatible with both ideas. It's just that one idea was made up after the facts were known.
Thorton: "There are a few extant species that do show signs of a severe genetic bottleneck (i.e cheetahs) but nothing that indicates a global one of all species 4500 years ago."
as I said, not all species were taken on to the ark. Also 7 of all clean animals were taken, and it doesn't seem if God created just one pair of each animal when he created. Factors like this would have very great effects on the amount of diversity found today.
John
Deletethe evidence I presented didn't come from the Bible, it just helps corroborate it.
LOL! So the story of Noah's Ark and the Great Flood didn't come from the Bible. That must be some good stuff you're smoking John.
You're welcome to present your own calculations instead of simple assertions.
I just presented the latest technical paper on the topic. You hand-waved it away. Nothing I can do for willful ignorance.
For some reason, they don't like the measured rates for mtDNA. I wonder why.
They used a more accurate method based on the latest data.
"The global TMRCA estimate for any locus constitutes an upper bound for the time of human population divergence under models without gene flow. We estimate the Y-chromosome TMRCA to be 138 ky (120 to 156 ky) and the mtDNA TMRCA to be 124 ky (99 to 148 ky) (Table 1) (11). Our mtDNA estimate is more recent than many previous studies, the majority of which used mutation rates extrapolated from between-species divergence. However, mtDNA mutation rates are subject to a time-dependent decline, with pedigree-based estimates on the faster end of the spectrum and species-based estimates on the slower. Because of this time dependency and the need to calibrate the Y and mtDNA in a comparable manner, it is more appropriate here to use within-human clade estimates of the mutation rate"
You didn't read the paper, did you?
here: http://nar.oxfordjournals.org/content/35/9/3039.full
Nothing in there casts the least doubt on the estimated coalescence dates of well over 100K years.
you don't have to measure anything you don't want to.
Science especially doesn't have to measure fictional global floods, imaginary wooden boats, and the ages of mythical people.
I did not assert it. I presented evidence that would corroborate it.
Yeah yeah - Fred and Wilma and Pebbles and Bam Bam were real people too.
it's compatible with both ideas. It's just that one idea was made up after the facts were known.
LOL! You still just can't get past "The Bible is true because the Bible says it is true!", can you? But I'm glad you agree that The Epic Of Gilgamesh is truer than the Bible because EoG was written first.
as I said, not all species were taken on to the ark.
No species were taken on the Ark because the Noah's Flood story is mythology, not fact.
Factors like this would have very great effects on the amount of diversity found today.
LOL! Oh well, I tried. I gave you some good references for what "Mitochondrial Eve" really represents and how population bottlenecks are measures. You completely ignored them. Like so many 'born again' Fundies the price of admission was that you check your critical thinking skills at the door. Enjoy your willful ignorance John.
Thorton: "LOL! So the story of Noah's Ark and the Great Flood didn't come from the Bible."
ReplyDeletethe Bible doesn't talk about inbreeding depression or mitochondrial DNA. Nice try though.
Thorton: "I just presented the latest technical paper on the topic."
you presented an abstract for a paper behind a pay wall. Then you quoted a part that doesn't show the calculations that the author admits elsewhere are based on dates they believe the America's where settled. But actual mutation rates (the ones he's calling "pedigree-based estimates") have been measured now anyway, so it's a moot point.
Thorton: "They used a more accurate method based on the latest data"
LOL, more accurate than a direct measurement? Tell me more! Their "uncertainty" only comes from their own manufactured controversy. They assume common ancestry with chimps millions of years ago, then they notice those "rates" don't match the observed rates, then claim, OH NOES, since evolution must be true, and the measured rate must be true, then the rate must be slowing down! RUH ROH!
Thorton: "You didn't read the paper, did you?"
I saw only the abstract you linked to. You're welcome to post the part of the paper you believe supports your position. Until then, I'll just go with what the author himself said, that it was an estimate based on estimates of migrations to the Americas. Even if his estimates seem reasonable, why use estimates when direct measurements are now available? Maybe the data isn't cooperating enough for you?
Thorton: "Nothing in there casts the least doubt on the estimated coalescence dates of well over 100K years."
Dude, that's because establishing a "coalescence" date at 5k years ago wouldn't say anything about what might have coalesced 100k years ago. At this point it's pretty obvious that you have no idea what you are talking about.
The point, is that the average sequence diverges by only 23 bases from the consensus sequence. When using the ACTUALLY MEASURED rate of 1.24 x 10-6 per site per year, you get a date drastically younger than 100k for the most recent "coalescence".
Thorton: "Science especially doesn't have to measure fictional global floods, imaginary wooden boats, and the ages of mythical people."
...because it already knows they aren't real from unscientific measurements?
John: "it's compatible with both ideas. It's just that one idea was made up after the facts were known"
Thorton: "LOL! You still just can't get past "The Bible is true because the Bible says it is true!", can you?"
if I had used the expression "penned" would that have disallowed your latest misunderstanding? Perhaps you should read again before commenting. And you have a subscription to Science, what a waste. It's obvious that you never misunderstand anything you read in there isn't it!
Thorton: "But I'm glad you agree that The Epic Of Gilgamesh is truer than the Bible because EoG was written first."
Ahh, this was to be your follow up punch if you hadn't wiffed with "Does age somehow make it more 'truthy"?" Might as well follow on through for show, huh?
The point is that because it was written before the data was known, the only way it could "know" is if it was characterizing actual events - or getting very lucky. If EoG predicted a genetic bottleneck at the same time and of the same type that the Bible does, then it also would not need drastic revision like the latest evolutionary fairy tales. Do you understand yet, or is there a third strike in your irresistible combo?
Thorton: "No species were taken on the Ark because the Noah's Flood story is mythology, not fact."
which we know because we won't measure it using Science. Got it.
LOL! Poor John. If you can't wrap your Fundy brain around the concept Mitochondrial Eve wasn't the only woman alive in her time any science I explain to you is wasted. It would be like trying to explain tensor calculus to my cat.
DeleteThe point is that because it was written before the data was known, the only way it could "know" is if it was characterizing actual events - or getting very lucky.
John, read this slowly. Follow with your finger if it helps. There is no evidence - NONE - for a massive population bottleneck in humans or any other species 5K years ago.
Just like there is no evidence for a global covering massive flood 5K years ago, and tons of evidence that such an event didn't occur.
Just like there is no evidence that humans lived 900 years at one time.
That's reality John. Deal with it.
which we know because we won't measure it using Science.
We have measured John. We have sciences like geology and paleontology and physics and genetics to measure. All say Noah's Ark and the Flood is mythology. That's reality too.
Thorton: "LOL! Oh well, I tried. I gave you some good references for what "Mitochondrial Eve" really represents and how population bottlenecks are measures."
ReplyDeleteNot really, you just sloppily pasted sections that had no calculations from a paper that uses estimates (according to the author) instead of the actual measured data along with a link to Wikipedia in place of doing any of your own critical thinking.
Thorton: "You completely ignored them."
No, but apparently you did. It seems you don't think very critically. Maybe if you tried harder, you could carry on coherent conversations, not misunderstand every other thing people tell you, and reach more accurate conclusions.
Thorton: "Like so many 'born again' Fundies the price of admission was that you check your critical thinking skills at the door. Enjoy your willful ignorance John."
I've presented you with measurements and calculations that show a "coalescence", that is much more recent than what you want to believe. You have done none of your own thinking, and you don't even know how to borrow the thinking of the links you paste.
Please explain with your own "critical thinking" why I should reject the actual measurements from these two papers in favor of your new estimates;
http://nar.oxfordjournals.org/content/35/9/3039.full
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3377850/
Thorton: "Mitochondrial Eve wasn't the only woman alive in her time.."
ReplyDeleteWas this maybe a victory for you in one of your rants against someone else? You do realize I never claimed this right? Even so, just because that is required for common ancestry to be true, doesn't mean it is required by the data. Yes the data does allow for there to be more than one if the genetic diversity was very low, but evolutionary fairy tales could have been anything (and were) before the data came out and now they will just have to look a little closer to the Bible. Boo hoo!
Seems like you don't have anything of substance to offer and are off to hand waiving, sticking your fingers in your ears, and making grandiose claims. So I guess I'll stick with the actual data.
And while we're at it, I guess the y-chromosome data isn't being very cooperative either. It seems that 99% can sometimes mean 70% when we check more closely. I think the author of that paper claimed it had the same level of similarity with chimps as it has with chickens? So, you know 6 million years, 300 million years, no biggie, sometimes evolution moves quickly. Another paper claimed that to get so little diversity today on the Y chromosome, the selection coefficient on the coding genes would have to be so high that even if EVERY ONE OF THEM was undergoing purifying selection, the effects would still have to be 30 FOLD HIGHER (of course, to be fair, they were comparing us to chimps again). Their conclusion? Weeeell, maybe the "junk" DNA is also undergoing purifying selection - in other words, and as you said earlier in this thread, the "strings of duplicated" DNA must be making up the difference! It seems like there's no other way to die as a man these days but because your Y chromosome is messed up. The first method they tried was imagining 60% fewer men, but they seemed to think that was unrealistic. Yeah.
John
DeleteYou do realize I never claimed this right?
LOL! You just spent the past week arguing for a literal Genesis and a literal Noah's Ark / Flood. If Noah's wife and the wives of his 3 sons didn't directly descend from Genesis Eve just a few generations earlier, where did they come from?
That's the nice thing about being a Fundy I suppose. You can make up crap as you go, then when called on it just lie your ass off. Apparently Jesus doesn't care if you lie as long as you lie in his name.
So I guess I'll stick with the actual data.
Would that be the data from the paper you admitted you never read and just skimmed the abstract for quotes to mine?
Guess we're never going to see your scientific evidence for humans having decreasing life spans. All this bluster and BS slinging by you and you can't produce. What a pity.
Thorton: "LOL! You just spent the past week arguing for a literal Genesis and a literal Noah's Ark / Flood"
DeleteYou need to be more careful, I never claimed that the mtDNA PROVED that Eve was the Biblical Eve, only that it is consistent with it.
Thorton: "Would that be the data from the paper you admitted you never read and just skimmed the abstract for quotes to mine?"
It would be the two full text papers I linked to. That's as opposed to your paysite article that even the author claims is based on assumptions of when a certain migration to the Americas happened. Since you won't dispute that, your point is worthless.
Thorton: "Guess we're never going to see your scientific evidence for humans having decreasing life spans. All this bluster and BS slinging by you and you can't produce. What a pity."
I can't help if you won't read or want to stick your head in the sand.
John
DeleteYou need to be more careful, I never claimed that the mtDNA PROVED that Eve was the Biblical Eve, only that it is consistent with it.
An exceptionally stupid claim made by a naive scientifically illiterate Fundy. A claim that's already been beaten into a fine pink mist.
It would be the two full text papers I linked to.
Ah, that would be the claims from Carter that you based your asinine "calculations" on. Let's look at your "calculations" again, shall we"
You claimed this:
John: "While most people are only about 22-23 mutations away from the consensus sequence, some are close to 100."
The used the 100 number as your norm. What Carter actually wrote was
Carter: "most all people in the world are only about 22 or 23 mutations removed from the concensus mitochondrial sequence and almost all are less than 100."
So you cherry picked a number, assumed an exceptional small probability event occurred 167 times in a row just to finagle a number close to your already decided "correct" answer.
What happens when you use Carter's nominal value of 22-23 John? You get a date well over 20K years. Why didn't you use that in your Noah's Ark scenario?
The simple fact is your "decide on the answer you want then fudge the data accordingly" is both unscientific and amazingly dishonest. It's just one more reason you ignorant Fundies get laughed at then ignored.
I can't help if you won't read
What should I read John? The only "evidence' you offered is "the Bible says it is true!!" I know that's all an ignorant Fundy like you needs but it just doesn't fly with the scientific community.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteAre you sure you don't want a mulligan?
ReplyDelete23 mutations / 0.6 mutations per generation = 38.3 generations. 38.3 generations * 30 years per generation = 1,150 not 20,000.
Is your position really that by using the lower number of mutations from consensus we should get an OLDER DATE? You're not raving mad are you? Try again Mr Tensor Calculus sir! You could have at least checked the direction of your calculations before launching your missiles.
Using a higher number is actually a more reasonable assumption because natural selection only serves to subtract mutations. It is not unreasonable to assume that the highest numbers we can find represent the best number of sequential viable mutations (remember it's only a 16k length region). And even those numbers obviously have likely had nonviable mutations that were subtracted from them. We are also pretty sure that there were quite a few people alive 1150 years ago...so there's that. After a bit of thinking, I think you'll realize that your theories depend MUCH more on this being true than mine do. So try to be a little more gentle right?
Thorton :"The simple fact is your "decide on the answer you want then fudge the data accordingly" is both unscientific and amazingly dishonest. It's just one more reason you ignorant Fundies get laughed at then ignored."
You know I can't hear you very well, maybe there's a foot in your mouth? :D
Thorton: "What should I read John? The only "evidence' you offered is "the Bible says it is true!!""
No, but you should read about the effects of inbreeding and also about the current amounts of genetic diversity in mitochondrial DNA. They both help corroborate claims of the decreasing lifespans made in the Bible.
Thorton: "An exceptionally stupid claim made by a naive scientifically illiterate Fundy. A claim that's already been beaten into a fine pink mist."
hey, you made the accusation, so obviously I'm going to point out that I never said that. If you think it's stupid, well then don't make straw man arguments. As for scientifically illiterate, I'm not the one with the position that 23 mutations away from consensus would give an older coalescence date than 100.
John
DeleteIs your position really that by using the lower number of mutations from consensus we should get an OLDER DATE?
(facepalm) A lower mutation rate gives you an older value for the M-Eve date. That's the whole Creationist argument, that estimates of the mtDNA mutation rate are too low so the date is too old. Is there any part of this topic you actually understand? You're making my cat look like a genius.
natural selection only serves to subtract mutations.
LOL! Another amazingly stupid thing to claim. That NS also serves to allow beneficial mutations to accumulate in a population has been known to science for the better part of a century now. You really need to stop mindlessly regurgitating your science "facts" from Fundy Creationist sites.
No, but you should read about the effects of inbreeding and also about the current amounts of genetic diversity in mitochondrial DNA. They both help corroborate claims of the decreasing lifespans made in the Bible.
LOL again! The data for Mitochondrial Eve has nothing at all to do with average lifespan John. Absolutely nothing at all. Where do you get these dumb ideas?
Sorry John, but like lots of clueless Fundies you're just desperately seeking some sort of scientific justification for your 'born again' beliefs. Which is why you lie, finagle numbers, and make these ridiculous claims.
Thorton: "(facepalm) A lower mutation rate gives you an older value for the M-Eve date. That's the whole Creationist argument, that estimates of the mtDNA mutation rate are too low so the date is too old. Is there any part of this topic you actually understand? You're making my cat look like a genius."
ReplyDeleteThen maybe you should ask your cat for help with math. You confused your units. "23" was not a mutation rate, it was a number of mutations over an UNKNOWN period of time (that's the point remember?). If you want to say the mutation rate was 4 times slower (the study calculates one that is roughly half if hotspots are eliminated) but you still want to use the 23 figure, you would go from from 1.24 x 10-6 to 3.1 x 10-7. times 16500 sites = .005115 mutations per year. 23/.005115 = 4497 years. Just to let you know their lower limit at 95% confidence is 2.7 x 10-7. Running that will get you 5163 years. But of course this assumes no effects from natural selection.
Thorton: "LOL! Another amazingly stupid thing to claim. That NS also serves to allow beneficial mutations to accumulate in a population has been known to science for the better part of a century now. You really need to stop mindlessly regurgitating your science "facts" from Fundy Creationist sites."
you know what dude, your knee jerk reaction to a claim I'm not making aside, after the original 2 Parsons studies came out, and then Howell finally conceded after tabulating like 11 studies, it was YOUR GUYS who were all about purifying selection accounting for the inaccuracies of phylogenetic comparisons. So cry me a river about how my claim is stupid, and then check out the link below.
Their reasoning is the same as mine was - 4th entire paragraph of the introduction;
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002929709001633
So I think I'll stick with my original 100 and the measured rate and use evolutionist's own claims of the effects of natural selection to back me up. This whole thing is hilarious because you need this excuse so much more than I do. But whatever. Keep hitting yourself.
Thorton: "LOL again! The data for Mitochondrial Eve has nothing at all to do with average lifespan John. Absolutely nothing at all. Where do you get these dumb ideas?"
It does however corroborate the decrease in lifespans mentioned in Genesis by showing a bottleneck around that time.
Thorton: "Sorry John, but like lots of clueless Fundies you're just desperately seeking some sort of scientific justification for your 'born again' beliefs. Which is why you lie, finagle numbers, and make these ridiculous claims."
I can't hear you, there seems to be a crow in your mouth.
John
DeleteSo I think I'll stick with my original 100 and the measured rate and use evolutionist's own claims of the effects of natural selection to back me up.
LOL! You do that John. Keep using the "Creation Science" method. Decide ahead of time the answer you want, cherry pick numbers or make them up whole cloth until you get those results. I'm sure you'll understand when the scientific community just laughs at your approach.
It does however corroborate the decrease in lifespans mentioned in Genesis by showing a bottleneck around that time.
Now you're just being stupid. The M-Eve data still doesn't say anything about average lifespans. You still can't get past your "the Bible is true because the Bible says it is true" blinders. More power to you if it floats your boat, but it makes you look like an idiot when you transfer that to the scientific realm and try justify your religious preconceptions.
For interested readers, here is a recent paper with a detailed analysis of past human population bottlenecks that uses whole genome sequences, not just mtDNA.
DeleteInference of human population history from individual whole-genome sequences
Li, Durbin
Nature 475, 493–496 (28 July 2011)
"Abstract: The history of human population size is important for understanding human evolution. Various studies have found evidence for a founder event (bottleneck) in East Asian and European populations, associated with the human dispersal out-of-Africa event around 60 thousand years (kyr) ago. However, these studies have had to assume simplified demographic models with few parameters, and they do not provide a precise date for the start and stop times of the bottleneck. Here, with fewer assumptions on population size changes, we present a more detailed history of human population sizes between approximately ten thousand and a million years ago, using the pairwise sequentially Markovian coalescent model applied to the complete diploid genome sequences of a Chinese male (YH)6, a Korean male (SJK)7, three European individuals (J. C. Venter8, NA12891 and NA12878 (ref. 9)) and two Yoruba males (NA18507 (ref. 10) and NA19239). We infer that European and Chinese populations had very similar population-size histories before 10–20 kyr ago. Both populations experienced a severe bottleneck 10–60 kyr ago, whereas African populations experienced a milder bottleneck from which they recovered earlier. All three populations have an elevated effective population size between 60 and 250 kyr ago, possibly due to population substructure11. We also infer that the differentiation of genetically modern humans may have started as early as 100–120 kyr ago12, but considerable genetic exchanges may still have occurred until 20–40 kyr ago"
The data show there have been several bottlenecks in different segments of the human population (European, African, Asian) over the last 200K years. The absolute worst case smallest population size indicated is 1200 individuals in European and East Asian populations between 20K-40K years ago during the ice age. African effective population size never dropped below a minimum of 5700 about 50K years ago
John won't read the paper of course because as a Creationist he already knows everything. But I'm sure we'll hear from him how this paper supports a literal Adam and Eve and Noah's Flood too.
Thorton: "LOL! You do that John. Keep using the "Creation Science" method. Decide ahead of time the answer you want, cherry pick numbers or make them up whole cloth until you get those results. I'm sure you'll understand when the scientific community just laughs at your approach."
DeleteHah! I used your assumptions so cry me a river.
Thorton: "Now you're just being stupid. The M-Eve data still doesn't say anything about average lifespans."
I'm sure you have a point in there somewhere, but as I've said, I only brought it up to corroborate the decrease in lifespans mentioned in Genesis.
Thorton: "For interested readers, here is a recent paper with a detailed analysis of past human population bottlenecks that uses whole genome sequences, not just mtDNA"
well it seems that after your last math disaster you are done with mtDNA and are now moving on again and want me to give credence to a study based on SEVEN PEOPLE?!? And you wanted to talk about cherry picking? Unbelievable.
Sometimes I just think you are CH trying to drum up activity on this blog.
John
DeleteHah! I used your assumptions so cry me a river.
Those are tears of laughter John, at your Creationist cherry-picking ham-fisted attempts at science.
I'm sure you have a point in there somewhere, but as I've said, I only brought it up to corroborate the decrease in lifespans mentioned in Genesis.
Which it didn't, not at all. You may as well claim "the sky is blue corroborate the decrease in lifespans mentioned in Genesis." Why don't you find me a scientific paper that says evidence for a common female mitochondrial ancestor shows a decrease in human lifespan. Just one will do.
Oh, that's right. You don't read scientific papers. My bad.
well it seems that after your last math disaster you are done with mtDNA and are now moving on again and want me to give credence to a study based on SEVEN PEOPLE?!?
LOL! Sorry this science stuff scares you so badly John. If you holler loud enough and wave your hands harder all that mean old scientific evidence will go away. Well, maybe not.
Why don't you give your explanation of what the scientists got wrong and why, then give us the proper interpretation for their data. C'mon John, don't let us down! You've been making up all sorts of amusing bovine feces as you go, no reason to stop now.
Thorton: "Those are tears of laughter John, at your Creationist cherry-picking ham-fisted attempts at science."
ReplyDeleteyou can't even do short division and now you just linked to a paper with a sample size of 7 people. You wouldn't recognize cherry picking or ham fistedness to save your life.
Thorton: "Which it didn't, not at all. You may as well claim "the sky is blue corroborate the decrease in lifespans mentioned in Genesis.""
The sky is blue wouldn't establish a bottleneck and the associated inbreeding.
Thorton: "Why don't you find me a scientific paper that says evidence for a common female mitochondrial ancestor shows a decrease in human lifespan. Just one will do."
Because most people understand the effects of inbreeding depression. Most people understand how to use a calculator. But you understand neither apparently. Why should you be damage by more research when you don't understand the basics?
Thorton: "Oh, that's right. You don't read scientific papers. My bad."
wow, it sounded like you said, "help me get this foot out of my mouth".
Thorton: "LOL! Sorry this science stuff scares you so badly John. If you holler loud enough and wave your hands harder all that mean old scientific evidence will go away. Well, maybe not."
call me when you learn how to do division Mr science.
Thorton: "Why don't you give your explanation of what the scientists got wrong and why, then give us the proper interpretation for their data."
because I agree with their measurements. I'm using their actual mutation rates. It seems to work out just fine. Let me know when you learn how to do basic math or if you still think that lower diversity means a more distant bottleneck.
John
Deleteyou can't even do short division and now you just linked to a paper with a sample size of 7 people. You wouldn't recognize cherry picking or ham fistedness to save your life.
Oh dear, I guess you're not going to tell us what the scientists got wrong or what the correct interpretation of their data is. All that blustering and posturing by you for nothing.
The sky is blue wouldn't establish a bottleneck and the associated inbreeding.
Except the data shows the 'bottleneck' was a human population never less than 10,000 individuals. You haven't shown a single piece of evidence for inbreeding OR any decrease in lifespans.
Because most people understand the effects of inbreeding depression.
OK, you can't find a single paper that supports your claims about M-Eve causing reduced lifespans You do have the posturing bullshit part down pat though.
wow, it sounded like you said, "help me get this foot out of my mouth".
LOL! But John, you're the Bozo cherry picking data and twisting science beyond all recognition to prop up your literal Noah's Flood stupidity. Not me.
because I agree with their measurements. I'm using their actual mutation rates.
So you can point to nothing wrong with their bottleneck figures. Why are you crying like a little girl then?
Thorton: "Oh dear, I guess you're not going to tell us what the scientists got wrong or what the correct interpretation of their data is. All that blustering and posturing by you for nothing."
ReplyDeletenot from the studies I listed, no. I would assume from the study you won't paste that they probably just relied on carbon dating something to get a date of about 15,000 years old. Of course all kinds of dinosaur bones have now been carbon dated at around 20k-40k years ago (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QbdH3l1UjPQ), so maybe the human migration was 65 million years ago. And for your sample size of 7 paper, what the "scientists" got wrong was using a sample size of 7.
Thorton: "Except the data shows the 'bottleneck' was a human population never less than 10,000 individuals."
With only 100 differences from a consensus, it is clearly compatible with there being just one. Anyway, you've been invited to show your figures and the one time you tried you failed terribly. Are you going to try again?
Thorton: "You haven't shown a single piece of evidence for inbreeding OR any decrease in lifespans."
Yes I have. I have shown evidence for a population bottleneck which corroborates the Genesis account of a population bottleneck. This would have resulted in more inbreeding. Decreased lifespans is a common effect of inbreeding.
Thorton: "OK, you can't find a single paper that supports your claims about M-Eve causing reduced lifespans You do have the posturing bullshit part down pat though."
It's a well known effect that loss of heterozygosity reduces fitness markers including longevity. Here's a paper for that if you need it; http://www.genetics.org/content/172/1/317.full.pdf
Thorton: "LOL! But John, you're the Bozo cherry picking data and twisting science beyond all recognition to prop up your literal Noah's Flood stupidity. Not me."
don't cry because the numbers you cherry picked blew up in your face. And you call me a cherry picker for picking the oldest likely lineage. LOL, pick a younger one John! What a riot.
Thorton: "So you can point to nothing wrong with their bottleneck figures. Why are you crying like a little girl then?"
Asks the one that's now started cursing and calling people "Bozo". But no, I can't find anything wrong with the bottleneck figures derived from the measured mutation rates and the measured mtDNA diversity. As I showed above, they line up pretty well with Biblical chronology. Glad you finally agree.
John
DeleteI would assume from the study you won't paste that they probably just relied on carbon dating something to get a date of about 15,000 years old.
Of course you could read the studies and know for sure. But you won't. Much easier to argue from ignorance.
Of course all kinds of dinosaur bones have now been carbon dated at around 20k-40k years ago
LOL! You're just a fountain of Creationist PRATT stupidity these days. What's next, too much moon dust? Not enough salt in the ocean? Polystrate trees?
And for your sample size of 7 paper, what the "scientists" got wrong was using a sample size of 7.
But why is it wrong? Be specific and show your work. Have you considered writing to Nature and telling them one of the top science journals in the world published a bogus study?
It's a well known effect that loss of heterozygosity reduces fitness markers including longevity. Here's a paper for that if you need it
You haven't shown any close inbreeding. Your paper is for from 2 to 10 breeding pairs over 60+ generations. The actual scientific data for humans shows the human bottleneck was never less than 10,000 individuals. FAIL again John.
And you call me a cherry picker for picking the oldest likely lineage.
LOL! John the Fundy "scientist". Fudge the numbers until you get the result you want. Great thinking there John. You'lll be nominated for the next Nobel for sure.
But no, I can't find anything wrong with the bottleneck figures derived from the measured mutation rates and the measured mtDNA diversity.
You didn't show any bottleneck figures about population size John. I'm the only one who did that.
Keep squirming John. Watching Fundies like you butcher science is still highly amusing.
Thorton: "Of course you could read the studies and know for sure. But you won't. Much easier to argue from ignorance."
ReplyDeleteThanks to you keeping your data from view, just like your calculations. I guess we'll just have to trust your secret evidence.
Thorton: "LOL! You're just a fountain of Creationist PRATT stupidity these days. What's next, too much moon dust? Not enough salt in the ocean? Polystrate trees?"
Sorry you're still so worked up. Why not calm down and ask for help with the math?
Thorton: "But why is it wrong? Be specific and show your work. Have you considered writing to Nature and telling them one of the top science journals in the world published a bogus study?"
It's wrong because low sample sizes can give widely varying values from the mean. You can just look at any standard distribution if you need help with understanding that. Actually it's worse for the paper you cited because he's discriminating between populations so his largest effective population size is 3.
Thorton: "You haven't shown any close inbreeding. Your paper is for from 2 to 10 breeding pairs over 60+ generations."
the largest constant population size in that time was 20. Look at the effects even over a short period of time.
Thorton: "LOL! John the Fundy "scientist". Fudge the numbers until you get the result you want. Great thinking there John. You'lll be nominated for the next Nobel for sure"
I used the measured mutation rate against the most mutated individuals still able to survive. This should establish a rough upper boundary for a date of coalescence. You didn't like this and believed the lower number would have represented a lower mutation rate. When running that we discovered the results are close to the same. That is why you are crying like a little girl. Sorry that basic math isn't your strong suit.
Thorton: "You didn't show any bottleneck figures about population size John. I'm the only one who did that."
The data is obviously consistent with one individual, since it is based off of A CONSENSUS SEQUENCE.
John
DeleteThanks to you keeping your data from view, just like your calculations. I guess we'll just have to trust your secret evidence.
The data's not secret John, it's right there in the public domain. That you're too cheap to subscribe to the journal or too lazy to get a free copy at your public library isn't my problem.
Sorry you're still so worked up.
LOL! C'mon John, give us your best Fundy Creationist idiocy! Polonium halos? Paluxy human-dino footprints?
It's wrong because low sample sizes can give widely varying values from the mean. You can just look at any standard distribution if you need help with understanding that. Actually it's worse for the paper you cited because he's discriminating between populations so his largest effective population size is 3.
They didn't "use a sample size of 7" John. They took 100 30Mb samples from each of the seven complete genomic sequences and analyzed them using a pairwise sequentially Markovian coalescent (PSMC) model. The statistical technique is well know in population genetics and the results are completely statistically significant.
That's what you get when you shoot your mouth off without reading the paper John. You just look like a clueless idiot.
the largest constant population size in that time was 20. Look at the effects even over a short period of time.
Which matters not one iota since the data shows the human population never dropped below 10,000.
I used the measured mutation rate against the most mutated individuals still able to survive.
You cherry picked a number just to get your preconceived "Biblical" value. That's not science John.
The data is obviously consistent with one individual, since it is based off of A CONSENSUS SEQUENCE.
Of course M-Eve was one individual, that's the whole point of doing the MRCA analysis. But she still wasn't the ONLY woman alive at that time. You need to look at ALL the available genetic data like the Li/Durbin study, not just cherry pick little bits you can spin. Damn but you're a dumb one.
You're pretty hopeless at this science stuff John. Maybe you should stick to just damning all those evil Evos to hell like the rest of the Fundy idiots do.
Thorton: "The data's not secret John, it's right there in the public domain. That you're too cheap to subscribe to the journal or too lazy to get a free copy at your public library isn't my problem."
ReplyDeleteyou're welcome to present the part you think supports your theory. Is it your claim that the mrca would be completely homozygous? What would happen to the numbers in your study if that wasn't the case?
Thorton: "They didn't "use a sample size of 7" John. They took 100 30Mb samples from each of the seven complete genomic sequences and analyzed them using a pairwise sequentially Markovian coalescent (PSMC) model. The statistical technique is well know in population genetics and the results are completely statistically significant."
Actually it's even worse. It seems there is really no attempt to characterize the types of diversity in those genomes beyond the most likely recombination event at each step that would be needed to get back to a homozygous individual, which is obviously theory laden.
Thorton: "Which matters not one iota since the data shows the human population never dropped below 10,000"
Thorton: "Of course M-Eve was one individual, that's the whole point of doing the MRCA analysis."
Sounds like you're having some trouble there.
Thorton: "But she still wasn't the ONLY woman alive at that time. You need to look at ALL the available genetic data like the Li/Durbin study, not just cherry pick little bits you can spin."
again, that study assumes a consensus sequence as a simplifying assumption which is unreasonable if Adam was heterozygous for many genes.
John
Deleteagain, that study assumes a consensus sequence as a simplifying assumption which is unreasonable if Adam was heterozygous for many genes.
Get back to me when you actually read the paper and can intelligently discuss it instead of just pulling ridiculous unsubstantiated claims out of your ass.
Thorton: "Get back to me when you actually read the paper and can intelligently discuss it instead of just pulling ridiculous unsubstantiated claims out of your ass."
ReplyDeleteIt's in the appendix. You could even have figured it out from Figure 1. Nice bluff.
Thorton: "LOL! Go ahead and show me where the appendix says Adam was heterozygous for many genes."
DeleteNo, I never claimed it did. The figure and the appendix simply show that they are comparing to a consensus sequence. My claim is that it would be unreasonable to claim that every locus that is heterozygous represents a mutation if Adam was heterozygous for many locations. How can you possibly misunderstand this?
Thorton: "Not only are you an ignorant dumbass, you're a lying ignorant dumbass."
Not only have you been caught lying again, you did so based on ignorance that could have been avoided if you just read a little more carefully.
Link to figure: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3154645/figure/F1/
ReplyDeleteAnd in the appendix: "The diploid consensus sequence for an autosome was obtained by..."
It's in pubmed, so you can stop bluffing now. But is there a point continuing this conversation since you obviously have no qualms about lying in such a bald faced manner?
John
DeleteIt's in pubmed, so you can stop bluffing now.
LOL! Go ahead and C&P the part that says says Adam was heterozygous for many genes. Or go ahead and cite ANY paper that says one individual human was heterozygous and carried the thousands of known human alleles.
Another different day, same clown.
Thorton: "LOL! Go ahead and C&P the part that says says Adam was heterozygous for many genes."
ReplyDeleteNo, you're confused. That's the point, they haven't accounted for the level of heterozygosity that could have existed in just one individual.
Thorton: "Or go ahead and cite ANY paper that says one individual human was heterozygous and carried the thousands of known human alleles."
If you mean known alleles per gene, then obviously that is a contradiction in terms since humans are diploid and can only carry two. But at the population level, there are usually only 2 versions and when there are more, they usually are just found within subpopulations.
John
DeleteIf you mean known alleles per gene, then obviously that is a contradiction in terms since humans are diploid and can only carry two.
But according to you Adam carried thousands.
See, that's exactly the pulled-out-of-your-ass nonsense that gets you Creationists laughed out of science classrooms.
Thorton: "But according to you Adam carried thousands."
DeleteNope, I never said anything like this. Why don't you just read what I wrote? Try the last paragraph of my last post.
John, one day
Delete"My claim is that it would be unreasonable to claim that every locus that is heterozygous represents a mutation if Adam was heterozygous for many locations."
John, the next day
"Nope, I never said anything like this. "
Pants on fire.
How many locations was Adam heterozygous for John? Please cite the scientific research which determined that information.
Thorton: "Pants on fire."
DeleteThorton, in humans, being heterozygous at many locations does not mean you have thousands of different alleles of one gene or locus, it means you would have two different copies at many different places. If you don't understand the basics of biology, why are you even here causing trouble?
Thorton: "How many locations was Adam heterozygous for John?"
Probably not that many since modern humans are not either. That's pretty much text book level information. Do you really need a research paper to explain it?
John
DeleteThorton, in humans, being heterozygous at many locations does not mean you have thousands of different alleles of one gene or locus, it means you would have two different copies at many different places.
But you weren't talking about a normal human. You were making claims about Adam, that sooper-dooper first created human who carried ALL the genetic variation seen in the 7 billion human population today.
Keep squirming John. The Creationist stupidity you keep regurgitating is priceless.
Thorton: "that sooper-dooper first created human who carried ALL the genetic variation seen in the 7 billion human population today"
ReplyDeleteWhy would he have to carry all the variation? Or why would someone assume he would carry alleles only found in subpopulations? That doesn't make sense.
You tell me John. Where did the incredible genetic diversity we see in the current human population come from in your claimed 6K years from only *one* human, Adam, or 4.5K years from Noah?
DeleteYou're the guy making up this incredibly dumb Creationist shite as you go. Might as well make up some more.
Who's "we"? There is an incredibly LOW amount of genetic diversity seen in humans if you assume Adam would have been heterozygous for many genes. That's the point you've been painfully avoiding for like the last 5 posts.
DeleteJohn
Deleteif you assume Adam would have been heterozygous for many genes.
There's no need for science to pay attention to your pulled-out-of-your-ass ridiculous Creationist assumptions. That's the point you YEC morons have been avoiding for the last 5 decades.
Oh man, I can barely hear you with my fingers in my ears. It sounds like your saying that it would be ridiculous to create a diploid organism to take advantage of being diploid.
DeleteWere you preparing a harumph exit? I really don't think anyone else is reading this now. You could probably just quit. Or do you really care that much about what I think?
John
DeleteOh man, I can barely hear you with my fingers in my ears. It sounds like your saying that it would be ridiculous to create a diploid organism to take advantage of being diploid.
That's just me laughing at the continued inanity of your YEC apologetics. "If you assume griffins are real animals then evolution is refuted!!!"
See John, science just doesn't care about how many alleles you "assume" a fictional character carried. Serious, it just doesn't give a shit at all about your Adam & Eve or Noah's Ark fantasies.
Were you preparing a harumph exit? I really don't think anyone else is reading this now. You could probably just quit. Or do you really care that much about what I think?
I really don't care what you think John. I just keep poking you with a stick to see what incredibly stupid Creationist claim you'll belch up next. You're apparently too slow to catch on.
Thorton :""If you assume griffins are real animals then evolution is refuted!!!""
Deletebut you are ostensibly arguing against creationism, not griffins.
Thorton: "See John, science just doesn't care about how many alleles you "assume" a fictional character carried."
that explains all your shoddy work up till this point I guess.
Thorton: "I really don't care what you think John. I just keep poking you with a stick to see what incredibly stupid Creationist claim you'll belch up next."
stuff like "Where did the incredible genetic diversity we see in the current human population come from..." Since you don't have the first clue about biology, who's laughing now?
John
DeleteSince you don't have the first clue about biology, who's laughing now?
LOL! I am John. I'm laughing at the ignoramus who thinks the data for Mitochondrial Eve shows she was the only woman alive at her time. At the ignoramus who thinks Adam was a real person with thousands of alleles. At the ignoramus who thinks Biblical "kinds" are an actual biological category.
C'mon John, tell us more about the "science" that supports the Garden Of Eden and Noah's Ark. Or how about the Tower of Babel? I bet you're gullible enough to think that's a literal story too, right?
Poke poke poke John. Cough up more Creationist stupidity for us.
Thorton, I know you feel like it's all fairy tales, but if you can't respond with reason, then, even if you're right, it just means your losing an argument to a person who believes in fairy tales.
DeleteThorton: "I'm laughing at the ignoramus who thinks the data for Mitochondrial Eve shows she was the only woman alive at her time."
Sigh.. as I keep saying, it is just evidence, not proof. Should I get used to nuances of this type being lost on you? You're still welcome to give any reason as to why I shouldn't use the actual data and instead use your theory laden data.
Thorton: "At the ignoramus who thinks Adam was a real person with thousands of alleles."
So you now have standards for people you believe are fictional? In other words, you *know* he wasn't real, but if he was, then you also know he would just be homozygous everywhere! Is that about right? Are you the type that are mad at the god they know doesn't exist?
Thorton: "At the ignoramus who thinks Biblical "kinds" are an actual biological category."
It's almost as if you think it was a category made up by people!
Thorton: "C'mon John, tell us more about the "science" that supports the Garden Of Eden and Noah's Ark. Or how about the Tower of Babel?"
I can only deal with so much of your failure at once. We could go back to the mtDNA exercise and you could try your hand at basic division again if you would like.
John
DeleteThorton, I know you feel like it's all fairy tales, but if you can't respond with reason, then, even if you're right, it just means your losing an argument to a person who believes in fairy tales.
Ridicule *is* the proper response to a willfully ignorant doofus who never learns from his mistakes. One who's too lazy to read the scientific literature and educate himself but just keeps regurgitating the same Creationist PRATT stupidity over and over and over.
I'm sure in your reality-denying tiny Fundy brain you think YEC is winning the argument over empirical science. Gee, who am I to burst your delusional bubble?
Now John, how old is the Earth? How do you know?
Thorton: "Ridicule *is* the proper response to a willfully ignorant doofus who never learns from his mistakes."
Deletelike being unable to divide numbers properly?
Thorton: "One who's too lazy to read the scientific literature and educate himself..."
like you? Will you admit yet that the paper you cited generated and used a consensus sequence to reach it's conclusions? Are you going to tell me why I should assume Adam was homozygous so that the study you cited means he couldn't exist?
Thorton: "I'm sure in your reality-denying tiny Fundy brain you think YEC is winning the argument over empirical science."
I'm sure by "winning" you mean popular, and so by that definition, no I do not believe that YEC is winning.
Thorton: "Now John, how old is the Earth?"
I don't know.
John
DeleteThorton: "Now John, how old is the Earth?"
I don't know
Oh c'mon John, don't get all shy on us!
You "know" Adam and Eve were real people, right?
You "know" Noah's Ark was a real boat that held "kinds" while the whole Earth was flooded, right?
You "know" all languages started at the Tower of Babel, right?
In for a penny in for a pound John. Why get cold feet on your YEC stupidity now?
It's not cold feet, it's just the difference between knowledge and belief. I also feel bad about the bickering and I'm tired of doing it. I don't mind being candid with you.
DeleteNo, I don't know any of those things. I believe those things are true largely because they seem to be endorsed by Christ and Christ seems to match the god that nature "speaks" of (which opens the door to things we would consider "miraculous"). Given what we know about the brain, it seems very likely that our memories and emotions of love and kindness and many other things like even the appreciation of art very likely have a largely physical basis, i.e., a large part of what presents those feelings to our consciousness are likely protein machinery of the sort we are discovering every day. This signals to me that the products of these machines are also intended... as Psalm 94:9 says, "Does he who implanted the ear not hear? Does he who formed the eye not see?" What this causes me to look for is not just a god of extreme intelligence and power (the primary requirement of such evidence), but also a God of love, kindness, and even artistry or personal involvement and caring. It's like Plato's Forms but coherent because of intention and the mechanical nature of the incident. Again, I do not know any of this since I was not there. I believe it because it has the potential to be a true witness (I don't know that the person who wrote it was lying) and it describes a cause of great power and intelligence that seems to be necessary. If the God of the Bible was not a creator god, then I almost certainly would not believe in him probably for most of the reasons you don't.
John
DeleteNo, I don't know any of those things. I believe those things are true largely because they seem to be endorsed by Christ and Christ seems to match the god that nature "speaks" of (which opens the door to things we would consider "miraculous").
Thank you for finally admitting you don't have any scientific reasons for your YEC position and attacks on honest evolutionary scientists, just your personal religious beliefs. I knew that from day 1 of this Charlie Foxtrot, but it's nice to see you finally man up and put it on the record.
I think we're through here. Take care and have a good evening.
I just look for corroboration from science. I consider such corroboration "scientific reasons". You also seem to have a different definition for knowledge than me. For example, I think you would say that you "know" that common ancestry is true, while I would say that you believe it is true.
DeleteJohn
ReplyDeleteI just look for corroboration from science. I consider such corroboration "scientific reasons".
Of course you don't look to science. You look to Creationist "cartoon science": misstatement and outright lies about actual scientific work told at places like ICR, AIG, and the Discovery Institute. When you're shown papers from the primary scientific literature you refuse to read them and only skim the abstracts for snippets to quote-mine. You ignore 99% of the evidence and focus on the 1% you can twist and spin. You trot out the same tired Creationist hand waving excuses of "bad assumptions!!" or "different interpretation!!" When evidence is presented that you can't ignore you claim the researchers were either hopelessly incompetent or deliberate frauds.
If that's what passes for intellectual honesty in your circles you can keep it. More power to you if that's what it takes to prop up your weak faith, but don't go onto public discussion boards slinging that anti-science horse manure and expect to be taken seriously. Especially by science professionals who study and work with the data every day.
You also seem to have a different definition for knowledge than me. For example, I think you would say that you "know" that common ancestry is true, while I would say that you believe it is true.
No John, I accept that common ancestry is true due to the quality and quantity of scientific positive evidence it has. I form my conclusions based on the evidence; you cherry pick the evidence trying to justify your already decided upon conclusion. My way is better and a lot more honest.
I could say you look to evolutionary cartoon science (remember it changes so it can stay up to date), but that's just name calling. I could say evolutionists make misstatements and outright lies and document those as well. It seems that we've gone through mtDNA, Y chromosome, and now autosomal DNA and it seems quite compatible with a young Adam, so I don't see where I'm cherry picking. In fact, I think after you made that claim you tried to show me how it should work when you said, "What happens when you use Carter's nominal value of 22-23 John? You get a date well over 20K years." Did you care to revisit that calculation yet and admit you were wrong? Or do you understand the logic behind choosing the largest extant number?
ReplyDeleteI didn't refuse to read anything you presented, nor did I claim the authors were "hopelessly incompetent" or "deliberate frauds". I just showed their work was based on a priori assumptions of common ancestry with chimps and did not consider whether Adam was real. When I was able to find the last source, you were unable to answer my objection and were caught bluffing. Why would anyone listen to your cries for intellectual honesty?
Thorton: "...you cherry pick the evidence trying to justify your already decided upon conclusion. My way is better and a lot more honest."
Thorton: "Science especially doesn't have to measure fictional global floods, imaginary wooden boats, and the ages of mythical people."
Sounds like you have a few "already decided upon conclusion"s there, doesn't it? As I said at the time, you don't have to test anything you don't want to.
John
ReplyDeleteIt seems that we've gone through mtDNA, Y chromosome, and now autosomal DNA and it seems quite compatible with a young Adam, so I don't see where I'm cherry picking.
LOL! Ignore 99% of the available scientific evidence, twist and spin the remaining 1%. Check!
I just showed their work was based on a priori assumptions of common ancestry with chimps and did not consider whether Adam was real.
Scream "BAD ASSUMPTIONS!!" without showing why they're wrong.Check!
Are you going to go after NASA too? Their Gravity Probe B experiments didn't consider whether gravity relativistic effects are caused by magic invisible pixies either. If you're going to be a flaming anti-science nutcase you should at least be consistent.
When I was able to find the last source, you were unable to answer my objection and were caught bluffing.
Lie about finding evidence for Adam carrying thousands of alleles. Check!
As I said at the time, you don't have to test anything you don't want to.
Then what's stopping you or any other Creationist from testing and providing positive scientific evidence for a literal Adam and Eve, Noah's Flood, and a 6K year old Earth? Besides that nasty old reality I mean?
Go for it John, you'll be a YEC hero! Come back when you get some positive results, K?
Thorton: "LOL! Ignore 99% of the available scientific evidence, twist and spin the remaining 1%. Check!"
ReplyDeleteYou're welcome to present more if you want to move the goal posts again.
Thorton: "Scream "BAD ASSUMPTIONS!!" without showing why they're wrong.Check!"
Even in an evolutionary scenario, it's a bad assumption. There is no reason why before even their earliest supposed bottleneck that humans would be homozygous at every location. It wouldn't even happen if there was only one man in your small group. So why would you assume it would happen with more than one?
Thorton: "Are you going to go after NASA too? Their Gravity Probe B experiments didn't consider whether gravity relativistic effects are caused by magic invisible pixies either. If you're going to be a flaming anti-science nutcase you should at least be consistent."
Even you believe in common ancestry though. The irony of this situation is that we know about as much about the UCA as you know about magic invisible pixies. Would you agree we know more about human males than about the UCA? Would it be easier to model Adam or your UCA?
Thorton: "Lie about finding evidence for Adam carrying thousands of alleles. Check!"
You're welcome to go copy and paste my lie. Otherwise, it seems you just lied. What I said is there is no reason to assume Adam was completely homozygous.
Thorton : "Then what's stopping you or any other Creationist from testing and providing positive scientific evidence for a literal Adam and Eve, Noah's Flood, and a 6K year old Earth?"
Nothing, what's stopping you from believing the results? What's stopping evolutionists from using their own measured mutation rates instead of their theories about what the rates should be? I guess reality is too nasty?
John!
DeleteYou're welcome to present more if you want to move the goal posts again.
LOL! Sure thing John. I'll quit my job and spend all day spoon feeding a willfully ignorant Creationist demanding to see THE paper or THE fossil that fully validates evolution.
I can't help you with your desire to hide from reality John. There are thousands of colleges and universities where you could take classes, natural history museums where you can see specimens, hundreds of professional science journals that publish new evidence every week. There's also this thing called the internet where you can find petabytes of information on the topic.
But no, not for willfully ignorant John!
You're what I call a Jigsaw Creationist. Scientists have an excellent idea of the history of life on Earth over deep time by assembling millions of pieces of evidence into one coherent picture, like the world's largest jigsaw. There are still some empty holes to fill but we have way more than enough to clearly see the overall result. Then here comes the dopey Creationist demanding we consider every piece all by itself with no regard to the other interlocking parts. That way they can wave their hands and deny any specific data. It's one of CH's favorite tactics in his anti-science OP tirades. Problem for Creationists is they never can explain away the whole big picture, so they don't even try.
Ignoring 99% of the evidence isn't how science works John, no matter how much you yell and stomp your feet.
Nothing, what's stopping you from believing the results?
I do accept the results of all the honest scientific research I've seen. I accept that the earth is 4.5 BYO. I accept that life has been here evolving for over 3 BY. I accept that the Earth wasn't covered by some mythological megaflood only a few thousand years ago, and that the Earth wasn't repopulated by mythical people who survived on a mythical boat.
If you have any scientific evidence for your mythology, feel free to present it. Otherwise you're just fooling yourself.
Thorton: "I'll quit my job and spend all day spoon feeding a willfully ignorant Creationist demanding to see THE paper or THE fossil that fully validates evolution."
ReplyDeleteI'll just take over when it comes to division and other basic math ok?
Thorton: "Scientists have an excellent idea of the history of life on Earth over deep time by assembling millions of pieces of evidence into one coherent picture"
It's the ones they don't assemble that bother me, like being able to carbon date dinosaur bones, or finding soft tissue and proteins in TRex bones. That might throw another wrench into their tree of life.
John
ReplyDeleteIt's the ones they don't assemble that bother me, like being able to carbon date dinosaur bones, or finding soft tissue and proteins in TRex bones. That might throw another wrench into their tree of life.
No one has ever produced C14 dated dinosaur fossils. A few incompetent and dishonest Creationists claim to have done so but never submitted their actual work for any type of scientific review. Things like following proper protocols to limit contamination. In fact, their output was so bad they published dates varying by 10K years for different pieces of the same fossilized animal.
No one has found soft tissue in dino fossils either. What has been found are trace remnants of collagen and proteins that have been preserved under some extraordinary conditions. A surprising discovery for sure, but nothing that would overturn all our knowledge of physic and radiometric dating.
But do keep clutching one puzzle piece at a time John while ignoring the millions of others. It will make your reality denial quite a bit easier.
Thorton: "A few incompetent and dishonest Creationists claim to have done so but never submitted their actual work for any type of scientific review. Things like following proper protocols to limit contamination."
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QbdH3l1UjPQ at 10:57
Please explain how you know they did not follow "proper protocols to limit contamination." Why then would they obtain concordant values at for the substances measured in the same locations of bone as described at 9:57 in the video? Why would the amount of "contamination" drop off in areas around the bones if their technique was flawed?
Thorton: "In fact, their output was so bad they published dates varying by 10K years for different pieces of the same fossilized animal."
When you get older C14 dates, why wouldn't the results fluctuate by that much? And wouldn't you need a model of how much C14 had even formed since creation (perhaps there was not very much at the beginning) to evaluate? Or is this more "science doesn't need to evalutate" that reasoning? Evolutionary models assume a uniformitarian distribution of C14 over time. Even by that measure, the results are incongruous with standard evolutionary stories (at least the current ones).
Thorton: "No one has found soft tissue in dino fossils either."
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/7285683/#.Uk2h-9K-qGg
just to be clear, you believe that "returns to its original shape." is hard. It once was stretchy, then it became hard, and now it's stretchy again due to some unknown, terribly unfortunate coincidence. Got it!
Thorton: "What has been found are trace remnants of collagen and proteins that have been preserved under some extraordinary conditions."
I would say that it is extraordinary that they even checked. Again, I'll have to keep reminding myself that collagen and proteins are hard, non tissue material.
Thorton: "A surprising discovery for sure, but nothing that would overturn all our knowledge of physic and radiometric dating."
Of which C14 is now no longer part of. Got it. Man this is a lot of exceptions to remember, but I'll try!
Thorton: "But do keep clutching one puzzle piece at a time John while ignoring the millions of others."
Well, unlike people that have read about millions of others in their 30,000 days of life, I'll have to settle for trusting you I guess. Seems like that should be easy since you hang around here commenting on every new puzzle piece.