"Where's the evidence?" Ask and ye shall receive!

[Alceste]

I often hear ID proponents insist there is no evidence for evolution, an old earth, the impossibility of a global flood, abiogenesis, the big bang, and all sorts of other concepts rooted in an empirical naturalist world view.

Here's your chance, folks! Ask me about any conclusion we have drawn from science that you feel skeptical about and I'll deliver 3 pieces of high quality evidence and a brief overview of why the evidence leads to a firm, naturalistic conclusion. And as a bonus prize for playing I'll answer any follow up questions about the evidence.

There are some ground rules, though. You must only ask about the evidence for one reasonably simple question at a time, and we will not move on to the next question until we have thoroughly explored your first. No jumping around from subject to subject just when things are starting to get interesting!

Also, this is not a thread for presenting your own counter-evidence. You can critique the evidence I provide on its faults or merits to your heart's content, but you may not simply copy and paste lengthy paragraphs from creationist websites or magazines that give the phenomenon in question a passing reference and call it a rebuttal.

Alright, let's do this! Fire away!

 

[Quintessence]

Oh, oh! Can we start with a primer on carbon dating and how it works? We gotta start them with some basic science education, and I'm curious to see what resources you're going to pull out for us.

 

[Alceste]

Oh, oh! Can we start with a primer on carbon dating and how it works? We gotta start them with some basic science education, and I'm curious to see what resources you're going to pull out for us.

Sure! That's a job for a laptop though. I'll get on it when I finish running errands.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

I often hear ID proponents insist there is no evidence for evolution, an old earth, the impossibility of a global flood, abiogenesis, the big bang, and all sorts of other concepts rooted in an empirical naturalist world view.

Here's your chance, folks! Ask me about any conclusion we have drawn from science that you feel skeptical about and I'll deliver 3 pieces of high quality evidence and a brief overview of why the evidence leads to a firm, naturalistic conclusion. And as a bonus prize for playing I'll answer any follow up questions about the evidence.

There are some ground rules, though. You must only ask about the evidence for one reasonably simple question at a time, and we will not move on to the next question until we have thoroughly explored your first. No jumping around from subject to subject just when things are starting to get interesting!

Also, this is not a thread for presenting your own counter-evidence. You can critique the evidence I provide on its faults or merits to your heart's content, but you may not simply copy and paste lengthy paragraphs from creationist websites or magazines that give the phenomenon in question a passing reference and call it a rebuttal.

Alright, let's do this! Fire away!

I will definitely play this game. What is the evidence for mind/body naturalism? The view that consciousness is the product of natural phenomena.

 

[allright]

The amount of information in human DNA is equivalent to 12 volumes of the Encyclopedia Britanica, Each piece of information is two millionths of a millimeter thick. Please show how nature could miniaturize such information and place this enormous number of letters in their proper sequence as a genetic instruction manual without intelligence and not having conscious existence of its own.

 

[fantome profane]

There are some ground rules, though. You must only ask about the evidence for one reasonably simple question at a time, and we will not move on to the next question until we have thoroughly explored your first. No jumping around from subject to subject just when things are starting to get interesting!

I believe Carbon dating was the first topic. So it would be polite to wait until Alceste has time to respond properly to that one before raising other questions.

 

[Alceste]

I believe Carbon dating was the first topic. So it would be polite to wait until Alceste has time to respond properly to that one before raising other questions.

I don't mind if the questions stack up a little, as long as we stick with one topic per asker until each topic is thoroughly addressed.

 

[Quintessence]

Oh, you can feel free to ignore my question. I'm a biologist by training, have a decent grasp of science and evolution, and I asked the question mostly because I think it'll provide some useful context.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Oh, you can feel free to ignore my question. I'm a biologist by training, have a decent grasp of science and evolution, and I asked the question mostly because I think it'll provide some useful context.

Yeah, ignore that question and focus on mines, please.

 

[Alceste]

The amount of information in human DNA is equivalent to 12 volumes of the Encyclopedia Britanica, Each piece of information is two millionths of a millimeter thick. Please show how nature could miniaturize such information and place this enormous number of letters in their proper sequence as a genetic instruction manual without intelligence and not having conscious existence of its own.

That's not a question, that's a claim of a "fact" that is not scientific in nature and a follow up question that really didn't make any sense unless you accept the unscientific claim.

I think I will have to address your unscientific claim rather than your follow up question, if that's ok.

I'm still out doing errands, but I'm looking forward to getting into this thread later today.

 

[Alceste]

I will definitely play this game. What is the evidence for mind/body naturalism? The view that consciousness is the product of natural phenomena.

For you, there are neurological studies on the way that show every type of thought and perception we know of correlates with a measurable, observable change in brain chemistry. The type of thought sensation produces fairly consistent observable changes in the brain in every test subject. The logical conclusion is that thoughts, feelings, perceptions and the presence of a brain are utterly interdependent. Particularly given the absence of evidence to the contrary.

For your 3 supporting studies, you'll have to wait until I'm back on a PC.

 

[LuisDantas]

I will definitely play this game. What is the evidence for mind/body naturalism? The view that consciousness is the product of natural phenomena.

That is not really much related to Biological Evolution, if at all. But if you and Alceste will both allow me, I recommend this article:

A Ghost in the Machine

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

For you, there are neurological studies on the way that show every type of thought and perception we know of correlates with a measurable, observable change in brain chemistry.

Correlation does not imply identity.

The type of thought sensation produces fairly consistent observable changes in the brain in every test subject.

But that doesn't imply that consciousness and the brain are the same thing. Certainly, they correlate, but are they independent of one another? If they are the same thing, then you would have to explain how the consicousness can ORIGINATE from a material substance (the brain).

The logical conclusion is that thoughts, feelings, perceptions and the presence of a brain are utterly interdependent. Particularly given the absence of evidence to the contrary.

I don't think it is a "logical conclusion" that consciousness and the brain are interdependent...for the simple fact that I can imagine a scenario where a scientists takes a clunk of matter and shape it to form a brain...but I can't think of a scenario where this science will be able to make this brain produce thoughts..or experiences, since these things are personal.

For your 3 supporting studies, you'll have to wait until I'm back on a PC.

:beach: Good luck

 

[columbus]

The amount of information in human DNA is equivalent to 12 volumes of the Encyclopedia Britanica, Each piece of information is two millionths of a millimeter thick. Please show how nature could miniaturize such information and place this enormous number of letters in their proper sequence as a genetic instruction manual without intelligence and not having conscious existence of its own.

God knows I don't want to annoy Alceste by slobbering on her new chew toys. But my nephew does nanotechnology at Purdue University.

We could already insert the equivalent of an encyclopedia set into a cell. And nanotechnology is in its infancy. Frankly, what he talks about doing, or at least working on, terrifies me.

Tom
ETA ~ that's just what he talks about. He is very discrete. What he won't talk about scares me even more. ~

 

[Alceste]

Oh, oh! Can we start with a primer on carbon dating and how it works? We gotta start them with some basic science education, and I'm curious to see what resources you're going to pull out for us.

OK, here we go!

I'll start out by recapping what I remember from the Greatest Show on Earth's chapter on radiometric dating, (supplemented by a little bit of wiki memory refreshment).

The complaint is often heard that carbon dating is only accurate over a relatively short period of history, so cannot accurately pinpoint the age of objects that are millions or billions of years old.

This is true, but scientists are not using carbon isotopes to date objects that are millions of years old.

Geologists and paleontologists well understand carbon's limitations. With the shortest half-life of all the isotopes used for dating (5000 years or so) and vulnerability to inaccuracies caused by pollution, volcanic activity, nuclear contamination, etc, carbon is pretty much useless for dating anything older than about 60,000 years and should always be cross-referenced with other lines of evidence.

Apart from C14 (carbon) there are over a dozen other isotopes scientists can use to pinpoint the age of rocks, each with a different decay rate. The accuracy range of many of these isotopes overlap with one another, so multiple methods of radiometric dating using different isotopes with different half-lives are used on any given sample to confirm its age.

Several other isotopes used for dating, such as K40 (potassium) have a half life of over a billion years. Those are the isotopes scientists use to date the oldest rocks and moon samples.

Now, I promised 3 pieces of evidence, which is kind of tough for such a broad subject, but I'll have a go anyway!

We can start with the wiki: Radiometric dating - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Here is a pretty straight-forward example of lead (half life: 700,000,000 years) being used to date a limestone deposit in Zimbabwe: First direct radiometric dating of Archaean stromatolitic limestone

Here is a fairly straightforward example of how radiometric dating (not to be confused with carbon dating) can be used in conjunction with other lines of evidence (in this case, biological sedimentary layering) to pinpoint the age of a fossil deposit. Radiometric Dating of Ignimbrite from Inner Mongolia Provides no Indication of a Post-Middle Jurassic Age for the Daohugou Beds - Ke-Qin - 2010 - Acta Geologica Sinica - English Edition - Wiley Online Library

 

[kashmir]

Once you get the time, give your perspective on the fact its said the earth was a ball of ice at one time, at least once, perhaps more than once.
I myself just go with this and find fascination on all the factors involved that caused it, revered it and also how it carved out the earth.
Snowball Earth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I think this is outside what you make this thread about.
It's nothing about religion vrs non-religion, to me anyway.
If you wish, when you have time, just start a topic on it, if you feel it warrants alot of discussion, which I feel it does.
If you wish to not even discuss it, that is fine too.
I would create the topic, but think it will fail.
some here seem to view me as OMG< FLAT EARTHER YEC DENIER OF EVERYTHING!!!
Not even close, I deny nothing that has evidence, am not a YEC or flat earther, the earth is star shaped, just like the sun, its a star too.

 

[Alceste]

I will definitely play this game. What is the evidence for mind/body naturalism? The view that consciousness is the product of natural phenomena.

For you, there are neurological studies on the way that show every type of thought and perception we know of correlates with a measurable, observable change in brain chemistry. The type of thought sensation produces fairly consistent observable changes in the brain in every test subject. The logical conclusion is that thoughts, feelings, perceptions and the presence of a brain are utterly interdependent. Particularly given the absence of evidence to the contrary.

For your 3 supporting studies, you'll have to wait until I'm back on a PC.

OK, so you already have the logic that leads to a naturalistic conclusion, here are your three pieces of empirical evidence that the premises upon which I based the above post are true.

First, everybody here should listen to this totally awesome BBC lecture series on neurology. BBC - Radio 4 - Reith Lectures 2003 - The Emerging Mind

Seriously, it's awesome. It's referenced here to illustrate that whatever it is your "consciousness" is experiencing, from art appreciation to the sensation of a phantom limb, the experience has an observable relationship with brain activity.

Here is a study that artificially and predictably produced "OBE" experiences by electrically stimulating a certain area of the brain: Neuropsychology: Stimulating illusory own-body perceptions : Abstract : Nature

Here is an Oxford study that correlates particular observable, consistent changes in brain activity with the re-establishment of conscious awareness after sleep: The process of awakening: a PET study of regional brain activity patterns mediating the re

 

[Riverwolf]

I don't think it is a "logical conclusion" that consciousness and the brain are interdependent...for the simple fact that I can imagine a scenario where a scientists takes a clunk of matter and shape it to form a brain...but I can't think of a scenario where this science will be able to make this brain produce thoughts..or experiences, since these things are personal.

'Course they won't. The brain (any brain, not just the human one) is a highly complex piece of anatomy that's a lot more than just its shape.

There's also lots of tiny cells called neurons that react electrically to each other and chemicals via signals. These are highly complex and not yet fully understood. There's dozens of other components, microscopic and subatomic, that make up the wonder that is the brain.

And like I said, we're still talking about any brain, which means even the lowest common denominator of insect brains. We haven't even started talking about the intricacies of the human brain.

Even animals without brains have neurons. Jellyfish have over 800.

 

[columbus]

Once you get the time, give your perspective on the fact its said the earth was a ball of ice at one time, at least once, perhaps more than once.

The earth is still mostly molten. It was never a ball of ice. The top few feet never even completely dropped below the freezing point of water since life began. Everywhere, on the surface or there wouldn't be life as we know it.
The earth is a ball of molten rock, iron largely. Never been an ice ball.

Ever

Tom

 

[Alceste]

The amount of information in human DNA is equivalent to 12 volumes of the Encyclopedia Britanica, Each piece of information is two millionths of a millimeter thick. Please show how nature could miniaturize such information and place this enormous number of letters in their proper sequence as a genetic instruction manual without intelligence and not having conscious existence of its own.

First off, I prefer not to describe a gene or a base pair as a "piece of information". I find that unnecessarily confusing, since our own method for communicating or absorbing "information" is so inefficient. To begin with, the Encyclopedia uses 26 letters that can be mixed in a huge variety of ways. DNA uses 4 letters, each of which can only be paired with one of the others. IOW, there are only 4 "words" in the DNA of every organism on earth. AC, TG, GT, and CA.

It's natural for people to suppose that "information" has some kind of mass or substance that would make it impossible to cram a huge amount of it into a microscopic particle. Nevertheless, we know it's doable because folks like Tom's nephew at Purdue are doing it.

Your belief that there is a "correct sequence" for DNA assumes the conclusions of intelligent design. IOW, it infers that the appearance of animals like the the naked mole rat, the jellyfish, the flounder and the mosquito was predetermined, but the DNA had to be put together "right" to deliver the goods.

In fact, the properties of every organism are the consequence of whatever sequence their DNA happened to line up in over the course of thousands or millions of generations. There was never "supposed to be" a flounder, so there was never a "wrong" way to assemble the DNA of a flounder.

Picture break:

^ A flounder.

As for how it happens that flounder DNA lines up in the "right" sequence every time a new flounder is born, that is the consequence of the innate chemical properties of DNA.

DNA strands are a double helix of two strands wound together - the letters of one half of each base pair are on one strand and the other half of the base pair is on the second.

When DNA replicates, it "unzips", forming 2 strands. Various enzymes kick in to assemble a new double helix from each strand. Since each base can only pair with one other base, both strands of the "unzipped" DNA string become a brand new DNA string identical to the first.

Your toenails are perpetually self-replicating your DNA in order to grow despite the fact that you're not doing it on purpose. Likewise, a flounder becomes a flounder without anybody making it on purpose.

Again, with such a broad subject, it's hard to figure out what to give you for evidence, but here goes!

First, this is a pretty good explanation of how DNA replicates, showing that it is not nearly as improbable as your question suggests: Understanding Genetics

I'm gonna add in something outside the box and hope it makes sense to you in the context of your question - how do you pack a vast amount of information into a tiny space?

A microchip is an example of a tiny thing that contains a ridiculous amount of information. The fact that conventional computing uses only two "letters" (0 and 1) is similar to the fact that DNA uses only 4 - both methods of information transmission are vastly more efficient than an encyclopedia. Quantum computing (a very new field of technology), like DNA uses 4 "letters" instead of 2. As a result, the amount of information that can be processed is exponentially greater than your PC or your phone.

[youtube]g_IaVepNDT4[/youtube]
How Does a Quantum Computer Work? - YouTube

Let's see... what else?

Here is a collection of articles about DNA from Nature's archives: http://www.nature.com/nature/dna50/archive.html

I'm not gonna lie, I haven't read them yet, although I'm familiar with Watson and Crick. I'm pooped, since I knew nothing whatsoever about DNA before tackling your question. Thanks for handing me a challenge!