Gravity and the Expanding Universe

[ppp]

if you accept that little changes can happen, then why do you think they can't build up into arbitrarily large ones?

@rrobs Do you have an answer for this question? It's such a basic and IMHO, obvious, question that never seems to get directly answered.

 

[rrobs]

Evolution News is not a reliable source. It is a creationist site. It is not science based.

Vet your sources. You failed on your article that you were all excited about. You failed here.

Your article came from a non-creationist. So what?

Here is Evolution New's second point:

"Dr. Venema’s argument depends on the standard evolutionary presumption that synonymous mutations are phenotypically equivalent. This is a good example of how evolutionary biologists use molecular biology that is outdated; while synonymous codons do encode the same amino acids, they can have different, and important phenotypic or functional effects relating to gene expression."
​

As I said, it is a bit over my head, but it sure sounds like science. Could you explain to me in simple terms why the above quote is wrong? Is it true or false?

Would you say unequivocally that any scientist who holds to ID is not a real scientist?

 

[rrobs]

The fossils and DNA are consistent, predictable and confirmed observations of evolution. The consistent and predictable observations of the history of life is objective in nature. Science is based on the consistency and predictability of observations is the criteria for science, and not your non-scientific 'direct observations' in all the science. Also Physics and Cosmology are based on this same definition, and by your ancient definition, much of the knowledge of physics and cosmology is not based on 'direct observations.' Your definition of 'direct observation' does not work in all sciences. It is based on a religious agenda and not science.

Again your definition of 'theory' concerning science is not correct.

Also your lack of education and experience in actual science clouded by a religious agenda is an issue here.

I would say your lack of experience in scriptural matters is clouded by science. The first thing for the scientific method is observation. Why would my pointing that out be based on a religious agenda, or any agenda at all. It is what it is apart from anybody's agenda.

Consistency and predictability are not as solid as observation. We observe apples falling at 32 fet/sec/sec. We know that by direct observation.

Would you say that evolution is predictable? If so, what Genus will Homo eventually become?

 

[rrobs]

@rrobs Do you have an answer for this question? It's such a basic and IMHO, obvious, question that never seems to get directly answered.

I did give you and answer. Genesis says all things created after its genus. Also there is the matter of never having seen any quantity of changes whatsoever causing one genus to evolve into another.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Your article came from a non-creationist. So what?

Here is Evolution New's second point:

"Dr. Venema’s argument depends on the standard evolutionary presumption that synonymous mutations are phenotypically equivalent. This is a good example of how evolutionary biologists use molecular biology that is outdated; while synonymous codons do encode the same amino acids, they can have different, and important phenotypic or functional effects relating to gene expression."
​

As I said, it is a bit over my head, but it sure sounds like science. Could you explain to me in simple terms why the above quote is wrong? Is it true or false?

Would you say unequivocally that any scientist who holds to ID is not a real scientist?

When one uses lying sites one looks like a liar. Why not try to rely on the actual science?

Just in case you did not know real science follows the scientific method. Part of that is publishing one's work using a reliable source. Currently that would mean well respected professional journals.

By the way, they need to substantiate the claim that "the standard evolutionary presumption that synonymous mutations are phenotypically equivalent". That is an example of a sciency sounding claim that is not substantiated by evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I did give you and answer. Genesis says all things created after its genus. Also there is the matter of never having seen any quantity of changes whatsoever causing one genus to evolve into another.

No, it says "after its kind". Your substitution of "genus" is an equivocation fallacy at best.

 

[ppp]

That's okay, @rrobs. I expected you to evade the question. I wish you had surprised me.

 

[shunyadragon]

I would say your lack of experience in scriptural matters is clouded by science. The first thing for the scientific method is observation. Why would my pointing that out be based on a religious agenda, or any agenda at all. It is what it is apart from anybody's agenda.

Again your definition of 'theory' and evidence concerning science is not correct.

Also your lack of education and experience in actual science clouded by a religious agenda is an issue here.

Consistency and predictability are not as solid as observation. We observe apples falling at 32 fet/sec/sec. We know that by direct observation.

Objective verifiable observations of fossils and DNA evidence is consistent and predictable. Your simplistic Newtonian physics is living in the ancient past watching apples falling from trees.

Would you say that evolution is predictable? If so, what Genus will Homo eventually become?

That is not what the consistent and predictable nature of fossil and geologic evidence means.

Again your definition of 'theory' and what evidence is concerning science is not correct.

Also your lack of education and experience in actual science clouded by a religious agenda is an issue here.

Your ignorance of science is self inflicted.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I would say your lack of experience in scriptural matters is clouded by science. The first thing for the scientific method is observation. Why would my pointing that out be based on a religious agenda, or any agenda at all. It is what it is apart from anybody's agenda.

Consistency and predictability are not as solid as observation. We observe apples falling at 32 fet/sec/sec. We know that by direct observation.

Would you say that evolution is predictable? If so, what Genus will Homo eventually become?

A theory is testable, and it will make predictions, but those predictions can be limited. Making the sort of predictions that you are asking for is not within its ability since we have no idea how the environment may change. That alone keeps us from making those sorts of predictions.

Evolution can be observed in the fossil record. This is the most obvious evidence to a person that is unfamiliar with the sciences. It is not the strongest evidence for evolution. But even it is more than enough to confirm the theory. All observations to date of the fossil record confirm and have helped to refine the theory. There is still no scientific evidence for creationism in the fossil record. The strongest evidence is genetic. One has to understand a bit more of evolution and the scientific method to understand this. If you want to go over this I will gladly do so, but first we do have to go over the basics of science. Scientific evidence is undeniable when one understands the concept. In fact let's go over the concept very quickly heare:

Scientific evidence is evidence that serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis. Such evidence is expected to be empirical evidence and interpretable in accordance with scientific method

Scientific evidence - Wikipedia.

That is from Wikipedia, but there are countless other sources that will use the same definition. Creationist sites try to redefine evidence because they know that they have none, but this has been the standard for quite some time.

So to determine if something is scientific evidence or not you only need to ask two questions about an observation. First and foremost you need to ask if the concept is testable, or falsifiable. If a concept cannot be tested on its own merits and conceivably be shown to be wrong it is not a scientific hypothesis or theory and the observation is moot. One cannot have scientific evidence if one does not have at least a testable hypothesis, by definition. Creation "scientists" avoid this since it is anathema to them and the few times that they have had actual testable ideas they failed badly. And if your hypothesis fails of course you no longer have evidence either.

The second question one needs to ask is "does it support the theory or hypothesis"? If it is what the theory or hypothesis predicts then obviously it is a yes. If it agrees with the hypothesis it is a yes. By the way, an observation could also be evidence against a theory or hypothesis. Yet creationists cannot seem to find any such evidence either. They have to try to distort the science to make it seem that way which is why creationists are widely held in contempt by the scientific community. Being wrong in the sciences is acceptable. It is going to happen to almost every scientist. But dishonesty is not. And it is hard in fact it might be impossible, to find an honest and informed creationist. Time after time it can be shown with actual scientists that push the creationist agenda that they are lying.

 

[shunyadragon]

Would you say unequivocally that any scientist who holds to ID is not a real scientist?

Nothing is unequivocally in terms of what scientist 'believe' outside of science. Intelligent Design is a philosophical/theological belief, and not science.

No a 'real' scientist may believe in ID, but the belief in ID is a belief with no basis in science. Many 'real' scientists believe in things that are not based on science.

 

[gnostic]

It can be helpful for all, anyone, to review the definition of a common word at times:

Superstition: excessively credulous belief; unjustified belief in supernatural causation leading to certain consequences of an action or event.

So to believe over time, without any unique to the cause confirming evidence -- that kind of belief would be 'superstitious'.

I don't have that, but instead the kind of faith I think most Christians that believe all their lives have: faith that proves out over time, gets confirmed.

halbhh...I thinking you are missing the points in the definition.

Yes, superstition is unsubstantiated belief in supernatural, but you need to understand that word SUPERNATURAL, which is clearly what you have overlooked when you copy-and-paste the definition to “superstition”.

Supernatural is anything to do that isn’t “natural” and that defied the “laws of nature” or the “laws of physics”.

Supernatural may include entities or events, but it can also be both - where you could associate supernatural events to supernatural entities.

But more often than not, it can be also be associating natural events to supernatural being.

For instances, in the Book of Job, there are passages of many natural phenomena (eg rain, snow, lightning, thunder, cloud, moon, sun, stars/constellations, sea tides, etc, that were only given the claim of “God did it”. Not a single event or phenomena was ever given natural explanation. All those passages are just filled with archaic superstitions.

The person who wrote Job, was clearly superstition man, with no understanding of how nature work. To give you an example of the author’s lack of education, look at this passage:

31 “Can you bind the chains of the Pleiades? Can you loosen Orion's belt?

Clearly, the author was well aware of the Greek myth about the hunter Orion and the Pleiades, and with their myth relating to the star constellation Orion and star cluster Pleiades. According to the myth Orion chase 7 sisters who were nymphs, trying to rape them, but the gods helped them escape from their would-be rapist, by turning them into stars.

The thing is, the imagery used to describe the Pleiades with chain and Orion wearing belt, were man-made description of the star constellations, but none of them are real, there are no real chain or belt.

And yet the author stupidity think these pattern of the constellations were real. And the worse the author did, was putting this superstition in God’s mouth, which would make god sounds like uneducated superstitious fool.

But superstitions can also be mortals performing supernatural events, such as turning water into wine, walking on water, stopping storm with few spoken words, healing the sicks by touching people with his hands or through spoken words like “Go and sin no more”, bringing the dead back to life (eg Lazarus), or raising whole bunch of dead saints and prophets from their graves/tombs, etc.

All these miracles of Jesus, would be considered as superstitions, all of them defying the law of nature.

 

[ratiocinator]

Observation happens to be the first step in the scientific method. Not sure why pointing that out makes me obsessive. Do you think it is not important?

It is what happened first. We observed that small changes happen and we now know how that works genetically. We observed the morphological relationship between species and later the genetic relationship, we observed the fossil record. All these lines of evidence tell us that these little changes we observe built up into very large changes over long periods of time. The evidence for that from all these sources is overwhelming.

Then you come along and firstly complain that we can't observe things that take millions of years to happen and insist that changes can't go beyond this nebulous idea of 'kinds'. But you can't say how else to explain the evidence we have and you can't say why all these little changes can't build up into large changes, as the evidence tells us they did, or what mechanism would prevent them crossing a 'kind' boundary (however you are going to define them).

 

[ratiocinator]

Maybe you would be able to glean information the article that I was unable to do. If so, would you be able to boil the arguments down into layman terms? Here it is: Does Genome Evidence Support Human-Ape Common Ancestry? | Evolution News

Well, as has been pointed out, Evolution News is an ID propaganda site (and ID is not science - as has been tested in court). Its arguments are vacuous but lets just take pseudo-genes (genes that are mutated so they no longer work). The article I gave you gives two examples.

The first is that a mutated version of the gene for making egg yoke was found in the human genome by looking in the same place (relative to functioning genes) as in the chicken genome.

The second was that humans, chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans all have mutated versions of olfactory receptor genes (for sense of smell) and, if we use the exact way in which the genes are mutated we can construct a 'family tree'. So, for example, if one gene is mutated the same way in humans and chimpanzees but differently in gorillas and orangutans, that suggests that if we evolved from a common ancestor then humans and chimpanzees diverged later than that ancestor did from gorillas and orangutans. If we do that, not only do we get the same relationship that had already been deduced from other evidence, but the fit is perfect, there are no 'out of place' mutations that don't fit the pattern.

Now, the Evolution News response to that was that mutated genes may be functional after all - err, so what? It doesn't really change the evidence and if they do have a function, then that's exactly how evolution works; with mutated genes taking on new functions in a new context.

 

[rrobs]

First off it is garbage because it is not a research paper. Part of the scientific method is to publish your article where other scientists can criticize it. And the first step is to go through peer review in a well respected professional journal. It does not appear that they did this.

Second they attempt to replace relativi

First off it screams "garbage" because it was not properly published. We get that far before we even begin to read it. Real scientists publish in well respected peer reviewed professional journals. This is not even close to that. In fact this paper would probably be rejected by any such sources. He apparently knows this since he did not even go the vanity press route. That alone should set off large alarms.

Second, it is rather vague in its terminology. He does not appear to have any valid problems with Special Relativity nor does he appear to answer some very important questions that SR does. He only deals with geometric problems, such as light curvature and orbital precession. He does not touch at all upon time or space dilation. Both of which have been tested and confirmed countless times. By the way, do you use a cell phone? The GPS that helps you to navigate in a smart phone refutes this paper since it relies upon the time dilation of SR and GR.

Once again, this is the sort of article that a person with no scientific education would refer to. It is not scientific since it fails at following the scientific method. Proper publishing is a very important part of the scientific method.

By your standards, everything both you and I are saying is garbage. None of it has been pee

No, it says "after its kind". Your substitution of "genus" is an equivocation fallacy at best.

The Bible was not written in English. Check the Hebrew word before declaring equivocation fallacy.

Do you understand the difference between ancient Semite thought and more modern (4th century BC) and Greek thought? Do you think it may be relevant in understanding the scriptures? You might pursue that line of thinking in order to get a better understanding. You appear to think the ancients were ignorant people. If so, that's rather narrow thinking.

 

[rrobs]

Nothing is unequivocally in terms of what scientist 'believe' outside of science. Intelligent Design is a philosophical/theological belief, and not science.

No a 'real' scientist may believe in ID, but the belief in ID is a belief with no basis in science. Many 'real' scientists believe in things that are not based on science.

Look at DNA. If you think it came by chance, then I would understand why you think your great-great-great....great grandpa was an ape.

 

[ratiocinator]

Look at DNA. If you think it came by chance, then I would understand why you think your great-great-great....great grandpa was an ape.

Humans are apes.

 

[shunyadragon]

Look at DNA. If you think it came by chance, then I would understand why you think your great-great-great....great grandpa was an ape.

As I have reminded you at least several times before. Science does not support the old notion that the origins and the the evolution of life came about by chance nor randomness. The current definition of evolution does not include chance nor randomness.

You have also repeatedly proposed old and incorrect definitions for "theory and evidence," which do not reflect science, and I provided the current correct definitions and concepts concerning science today.

Evolution (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
"[biological evolution] is change in the properties of groups of organisms over the course of generations…it embraces everything from slight changes in the proportions of different forms of a gene within a population to the alterations that led from the earliest organism to dinosaurs, bees, oaks, and humans. (2005: 2)

Note also that Futuyma’s definition, unlike the population genetics’ definition, does not limit itself to changes in alleles; John Endler’s definition is similar in this respect:

Evolution may be defined as any net directional change or any cumulative change in the characteristics of organisms or populations over many generations—in other words, descent with modification… It explicitly includes the origin as well as the spread of alleles, variants, trait values, or character states. (Endler 1986: 5)"



So let's begin again with an honest and correct understanding of what science is, and not what you believe what science is based on a religious agenda.

Also your lack of education and experience in actual science clouded by a religious agenda is an issue here.

Your ignorance of science is self inflicted.

 

[Subduction Zone]

By your standards, everything both you and I are saying is garbage. None of it has been pee

Not by my standards. Please, now you are beginning to look dishonest. By the standards of the scientific method. I explained why that article failed. An honest person would have owned up to his error and would have dropped it. I see that you could not raise one valid disagreement with my reasoning so you went the personal attack route. Classy.

The Bible was not written in English. Check the Hebrew word before declaring equivocation fallacy.

Do you understand the difference between ancient Semite thought and more modern (4th century BC) and Greek thought? Do you think it may be relevant in understanding the scriptures? You might pursue that line of thinking in order to get a better understanding. You appear to think the ancients were ignorant people. If so, that's rather narrow thinking.

No, no need. You are trying to use modern classifications for people that did not have them. At the very best you only have an equivocation fallacy. And please, never accuse others of not understanding when you refuse to learn. That makes your last claim laughable.

Let's get back on track. You were supposed to post some scientific evidence for creationism. I tried to help by defining the term for you. Do you have anything yet?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Look at DNA. If you think it came by chance, then I would understand why you think your great-great-great....great grandpa was an ape.

You still are an ape. That is not an insult since we are all apes.

What is a bit hypocritical is that you, hopefully, have no problem admitting that we are mammals. An even bigger group. And that we are vertebrates. An even much larger group. And yet it is the tiny group that bothers you.

 

[rrobs]

Humans are apes.

I've met humans that might seem to be apes, but all humans are in fact of the genus homo and apes are not.