Two challenges for KL – (fossil) Lucy’s defender

Indium: I have pointed out the specific limitations on epistemic warrant for projections into the past beyond record. These, you may dismiss but you cannot confute. In tight summary: we were not there, and so we need to recognise that even if our methods "agree" -- if they did not we would not use them [and we know that "bad" results routinely get tossed] -- they give us a model past without truly independent check against reality. That is an inevitable consequence of the challenge of dealing with a past we did not and cannot observe. I have given you an explanation, on a warrant that is sound. I do not owe you an understanding, if you refuse to seriously think about the limitations of our knowledge base. In particular, the common assumption, assertion or pretence that the timeline of the remote past is known to practical certainty, is at best mistaken; at worst, it is deceptive. Indeed, it does not amount to the level of well warranted and credibly true beyond reasonable doubt or that degree of moral certainty where one would be irresponsible to act as though it were not true. In short, it is not knowledge, not even in the weaker provisional sense used in science. And, the key sign of that is our inability to do a direct observational test to compare the model past timeline with the actual remote past of origins. hence, my position: geochronological agnosticism. (By contrast cosmological timeline projections are subject to observational tests on known good dynamics so they are at least subject to an external test.) You may not like that, and you may wish to point out how the lines of generally accepted evidence and models line up, but they are not at all independent of one another, nor are they subject to a truly independent external test. And, you have been given a crucial test case of that. Good day. GEM of TKIkairosfocus

April 11, 2011

April

04

Apr

11

11

2011

04:45 AM

4

04

45

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

kf As expected, you once again try to use lots of words to conceal the fact that you evade my question. Denying the value of the different dating methods is selective hyperscepticism, oiled in words ad nauseam only to not let your fragile beliefs be burned like straw by the hot flame of empirical evidence. I onclude that you have no explanation for the overall agreement of independent dating methods (even before calibration). And I´m talking about the several-10ky-range, not about KNMER1470. Out of interest, can you provide a link to the claim that the Lascaux cave paintings are only 9k years old? Thanks. BTW, do you know this article from a christian perspective: http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/wiens.html You will find uncalibrated raw data from tree rings and stalagmites there, going back about 40ky. Denying that is just open hypermegascepticism. But maybe you can point me to the circularity there?Indium

April 11, 2011

April

04

Apr

11

11

2011

03:18 AM

3

03

18

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

5: What about C-14? Basically, N is converted into a radioactive form of C by cosmic ray bombardment and this more or less pervades the C-cycle in the biological world. The naive presentation suggests that this is in equilibrium, so there is a straightforward method of comparing activity to C from currently living organisms, and counting up number of half-lives based on decay curves. I actually recall doing 6th form physical chemistry calculations on this model. And yet, for decades, we have known that there is not an atmospheric equilibrium, and that many individual cases are divergent from the assumption of being well mixed. In short, the C-14 dating system has to be calibrated, including especially against tree rings, lake deposits, stalagmites, etc. These are basically held to give annual depositional patterns; itself an extrapolation from the present era to the remote past. (The same holds for ice cored, BTW.) But also, it immediately means that C-14 dates are not an absolute and independent cross-check or yardstick. We are here dealing with a model timeline, and once we go beyond the limits of the real independent cross-check, credible record, we should be increasingly cautious. For instance, I have recently looked at the dates for he Lascaux cave; noticing dates suggested as from about 17,000 or more to about 13,000 or even 9,000 years ago. This, for a cavern that was among the first C-14 dated sites. 4,000 years is about the span from us to Hammurabi or Abraham; and yet, just a decade or so of regular visits by crowds, was visibly damaging the paintings by the mid 1950's. (And BTW, Picasso IIRC, observed that these ancient artists had mastered all the techniques. Including it seems a good idea of perspective, not fully recovered until the 1500's or so of our era. Not so crude and brutish "cave men," nuh?) 6: Lucy and kin . . . As we project ever deeper into the model past, our caution should be ever more prominent. For, we were not there. In the case of Lucy and co, the caution in NWE is well taken:

There are two major scientific challenges in deducing the pattern of human evolution. For one, the fossil record remains fragmentary. Mayr (2001) notes that no fossils of hominids have been found for the period between 6 and 13 million years ago (mya), the time when branching between the chimpanzee and human lineages is expected to have taken place. (While hominid refers to members of the "great ape" family, Hominidae, consisting of extinct and extant gorillas, chimpanzees, orangutans, and humans, Mayr appears to use it in the common anthropological content of animals more closely related to humans than other great apes, such as australopithecines.) Furthermore, as Mayr notes "most hominid fossils are extremely incomplete. They may consist of part of a mandible, or the upper part of a skull without face and teeth, or only part of the extremities." Even the famous "Lucy" finding (Australopithecus afarensis) was only a 40 percent complete female skeleton and lacked a head (Gould 1994). Coupled with this is a recurrent problem that interpretation of fossil evidence is heavily influenced by personal beliefs and prejudices. Fossil evidence often allows a variety of interpretations, since the individual specimens may be reconstructed in a variety of ways (Wells 2000). As Mayr (2001) notes, "subjectivity is inevitable in the reconstruction of the missing parts," and virtually all hominid finds and interpretations are "somewhat controversial!" Wells (2000) recounts several examples where the pieces of fossils found offered a variety of reconstructions that were sometimes dramatically different, such as long face versus a short face, a heavy brow, a missing forehead. Different interpretations of two sections of a fossil skull and how to place one of those pieces led Roger Lewin to recount, "How you held it really depended on your preconceptions. It was very interesting what people did with it" (Wells 2000).

Lucy's date is on a model timeline, not a fact of observation and record. She[?] is reconstructed form a partial skeleton, and there are significant questions on whether the rib cage is more barrel-like [human] or more conical [chimp], and the arms arguably are rather chimp like also. If the arguments that the pelvis points to a male are sound, then it is the most credible conclusion that this is little more than a variety of chimp. Remember, the red deer cluster of today runs from [US-style] elks to tiny dwarf deer, and the "species" apparently can interbreed with fertility to the point where red deer and elks introduced to New Zealand have hybridised. Indeed, the Elk was only recently promoted from a red deer sub-species to full species, and was deemed closer yet to other distinct deer from Eurasia, on mitochondrial DNA. I draw from this that considerable morphological variation is consistent with fairly close genetic links. That would put a lot of the comparative anatomy and related deductions about evolutionary developments under a cloud of questions, on top of the problems of how the fossils are reconstructed into representations of the living animals. But my real bottomline problem remains that there is no dynamical answer as to how blind watchmaker, chance and necessity, variation and selection on differential reproductive success can originate FSCO/I. In this case, the human linguistic and vocal apparatus is a crucial case study. We are biologically, physically equipped for vocal communication using articulate language based on acoustic symbols, i.e phonemes strung in linear data structures in time: we speak languages, and it is clear that the deep structures of language are biologically in-built in infants. Apes are not. Until the proponents of evolutionary materialism can show a sound dynamic, with observational support that allows an ape like Lucy to become a human equipped to speak, in 6 - 10 MY, then every time they speak or write to propound or argue their theories, their very voices and speech or writing are evidence that their position is ill-supported. The only empirically and analytically well supported explanation of FSCO/I -- such as is deeply embedded in our bodily language and speech apparatus -- is design. So, I am well warranted to take language ability as a sign of design of the body plan of human beings. If you object, kindly provide empirical, observational evidence that blind watchmaker chance and necessity through variation and differential reproductive success, did transform something like Lucy into something like me. And if your "observations" are on events in the deep reconstructed past, kindly warrant your degree of certainty, noting on limitations. GEM of TKIkairosfocus

April 11, 2011

April

04

Apr

11

11

2011

01:33 AM

1

01

33

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Onlookers: Let us review, in the context of the degree of warrant that is possible for empirical facts, and for matters regarding the past, especially the past beyond record. In particular, I wish to correct Indium's resort to strawmanism, as well as to highlight that our claimed knowledge of the deep past is far more limited and problematic than is often acknowledged. Worse, it is the case that here is often a selective hyperskepticism that will demand unreasonable standards of warrant in the teeth of the best class of record from 2,000 years ago, whilst thinking that reconstructions of model timelines form the far more remote past which are riddled with circularities, are all but certain. That is why I keep on emphasising the point made in Job 38: were you there? If not, have the epistemological humility to admit the limitations of our claims regarding geochronology. 1: Lord Russellism In his 5-minute universe cosmos paradox, he pointed out that if the world had been instantly created 5 mins back, with the things, apparent memories, etc as we observe them, it would be empirically indistinguishable from the world as we think it was. Brains in vats and similar scenarios make much the same point. Our knowledge of the external world is not absolutely certain. We may choose that we will reject a worldview that implies the general unreality of our senses, memories etc, but that is a decision on a forced, momentous option, not an indisputable fact. In short, it stands reasonably established that our general worldviews are all faith positions. (This can be elaborated, as once we have to warrant a claim A, we face the issue of iteration: B warrants A but demands C, etc. So, we are forced to accept certain things as true without further warrant, the first plausibles of our worldviews; i.e. our faith-points.) 2: Warrant for the cosmological past You will note above, a point that is repeatedly dodged. Namely, that I have a much higher estimate of the degree of warrant attaching to cosmological evidence of the past than geochronological. This is, first, because H-ball models correlate very well with the H-R diagram, and with the cases of clusters with the main sequence branching off to the giants branches. This gives us a reasonable but not absolute case based on stellar dynamics that points to cluster ages of up to about 6 - 10 BY. Second, Hubble expansion and the microwave background 2.7 K radiation, with the ladder of distance metrics [Delta Cepheid variables being a crucial key to this, and the Hipparcos satellite parallax measures come up in support] point to a general cosmological age of order 10 - 20 BY, 13.& BY being the typical refined value. here we have cross checks between well established nuclear physics, the existence of giant molecular clouds, the dynamics of collapsing and heating up balls of Hydrogen, and the observations captured in the HR diagram/plot, etc. But equally, on the recent issues of extrasolar planets and longstanding concerns on things like angular momentum, we do not have any satisfactory model of solar system formation. We have satisfactory, empirically well supported theories of how planets orbit stars, but no good solar system origins models. However, the same models for cosmological origins point to cosmological fine tuning that sets up a cosmos fitted for C-chemistry, cell based intelligent life. That points to design as the best explanation for the origin of a contingent and fine-tuned cosmos, but that is stoutly resisted by the same objectors to design inferences, that often present much less warranted geochronological inferences as though they were all but certain fact. That is, I am pointing to selective hyperskepticism; usually in the form of Sagan's evidentialist fallacy that highlights what one would be inclined to reject as "extraordinary," and then demands not adequate and reasonable warrant with the limitations that we must face, but "extraordinary" proof. Not even in mathematics, post Godel, can we find systems that are provable beyond dispute or doubt. 3: Warrant and history The historic past is that past for which we have the cross check of reasonable record, based on eyewitness testimony and/or living tradition. In this context the highest form of evidence is multiple, eyewitness lifetime records, backed up by archaeological or similar remains. (And, M, kindly cf here on some of the ways in which we can conclude that testimony and record are credible, based on courtroom experience and the hard test of making the decisions in court rooms and getting them sufficently right suffciently often that courts are sustainable and a means of dispute settlement.) Ironically, once we look at the founding era of the Christian faith, we again see the situation where much superior warrant is stoutly -- even, stubbornly -- disputed and dismissed, while reconstructions on a much lower degree of warrant are presented as though they were practically certain. Now, when it comes to record, once we move back a further millennium or so [David and beyond], to the window from about 1,000 - 2,000 BC -- and notice the above strawman misrepresentation -- the precision of the timeline of events, and sometimes the sequence and the correlations between regions, begin to get increasingly fuzzy; even where there are supposed to be astronomical correlations. Beyond 2,000 BC, the fuzziness is increasingly significant, e.g. notice how the date of Hammurabi has moved several centuries over recent years. We are now at 4,000 or so years ago, about the time of Abraham. IIRC, the last records are from about 3,000 BC, i.e about 5,000 YA. Beyond, we are dealing with geochronological reconstructions of the remote past that we did not observe, and cannot observe; nor do we have cross checks based on generally accepted record. 4: The strengths and limitations of geochronological timelines We have an insatiable desire to know our deep past of origins, but as just seen, once we run past about 4,000 years ago, things get very fuzzy on records, and fade out 1,000 or so years beyond that. Various means of relative dating exist, and there are calibrations to convert them into timelines. In addition, techniques based on radioactivity, correlations with various stratigraphic and periodic data like tree rings, lake deposits and ice deposits, are used to project a deep timeline for the timeline of origins. Beyond a certain point, index fossils come into play, and these are correlated with radioactive dates for rocks etc. Unfortunately, there is a tendency to present such as though they were practically certain, even above things for eras where we have multiple, contemporary and archaeologically cross-checked sources. This tendency to exaggerate degree of certainty is at best an error, at worst a deception, Plato's cave shadow show myth-casting in support of a worldview agenda. And when the myths are dressed up in the holy lab coat, they become particularly potentially dangerous. So, let us give Jack his jacket, and cite the man with nothing to lose, Milton; who in reporting on what men of medicine and science were slipping him on the quiet regarding limitations of today's dominant account of the deep past of biological origins, raised a cluster of significant concerns about our dating techniques, that we need to acknowledge. Four key limitations can easily account for how dating schemes line up -- how do we know what gives "good" dates, other than we pick the things that fit with the scheme we tend to already accept, unless there is "extraordinary" evidence that the accepted scheme is wrong? -- as Milton (remember, the man with nothing to lose can say what others cannot . . . ) aptly highlights:

[[1 Untestability/ Circularity:] . . . the overwhelming majority of [[radioactive] dates could never be challenged or found to be flawed since there is no genuinely independent evidence that can contradict those dates . . . . [[2 Ballpark thinking:] Any dating scientist who suggested looking outside of [[the standard] ballpark . . . would be looked on as a crackpot by his colleagues. More significantly, he would not be able to get any funding for his research . . . . [[3 Intellectual phase-locking:] . . . all scientists make experimental errors that they have to correct. They naturally prefer to correct them in the direction of the currently accepted value thus giving an unconscious trend to measured values . . . . [[Emphasis original] [[4 Conformity to consensus:] Take for example a rock sample from the late Cretaceous, a period which is universally believed to date from some 65 million years ago. Any dating scientist who obtained a date from the sample of, say, 10 million years or 150 million years, would not publish such a result because he or she will, quite sincerely, assume it was in error. On the other hand, any dating scientist who did obtain a date of 65 million years would hasten to publish it . . . [[Shattering the Myths of Darwinism (Park Street Press, 1997), pp. 50 – 51.]

It is easy to try the attack the man rebuttal, but that is a fallacy. The issue is, is this sound on the merits. Unfortunately, yes. For, when we look at the notorious case of KNM-ER 1470, we see exactly this pattern in action, and the picture of the sausage factory in action -- remember, documented in Nature etc -- is not particularly pretty. Recall, we had a first date of 212 - 230 MYA ago -- presumably an isochron -- tossed on not correlating to the fossil fauna, then cherry-picking of "juvenile" samples, then 2.6 - 3 MYA ago "firm" dates, correlated with paleomagnetism, and then finally "corrected" to 1.9 MYA basically on correlation with fossils from over 100 miles away; locking in the a priori assumption of evolution into the scheme. All of this is consistent with he concerns Milton summarised, and with challenges and concerns from other cases; including problems with the most impressive of the methods, isochron dating. (Cf my timeline discussion here.) [ . . . ]kairosfocus

April 11, 2011

April

04

Apr

11

11

2011

01:28 AM

1

01

28

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

kf I´ll see your "Where you there?" and raise you one "How do you know we don´t live in the Matrix?". Both of which don´t get us anywhere and I consider yours to be the last and most desperate defence of somebody who has no real arguments concerning the evidence left. The question is: What do we make of the evidence we have now. For the forth time you now evaded this question. So, for the fifth time: What is your explanation for the evidence, that we find a more or less congruent timescale (give or take 10-15%) in tree rings, ice cores, C14 and U/Th before calibration/alignment? A simple "I don´t have any" would be enough to end this discussion, you know... In any case, your viewpoint that we can´t really know anything beyond the past couple of thousend years has been noted. This more or less renders any discussion with you about origins and the early stages of life moot.Indium

April 10, 2011

April

04

Apr

10

10

2011

11:18 PM

11

11

18

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

KF: How do you determine the validity of an ancient text. All you can really figure out is that a text is old. In 2000 years, if someone digs up a copy of Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone they would be incorrect to assume that it was a factual representation of the British school system.Muramasa

April 10, 2011

April

04

Apr

10

10

2011

08:12 PM

8

08

12

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

"You are studying the present and extrapolating to the past." So, in your paradigm, what happened "in the past"? Do you have an explanation for the independent lines of dating reaching the same age? Kinda like the age, features and distributions of hominid fossils? The details matter!KL

April 10, 2011

April

04

Apr

10

10

2011

02:59 PM

2

02

59

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

PS: Your correlations are in the present, after the data has been processed and (doubtless, and in all sincerity) "bad" data tossed -- that is how experiments are done, "flyers get tossed. That is the problem. You are studying the present and extrapolating to the past. Extrapolations, are not facts. We are dealing with a model past, not the reality of the past. We may be inclined to believe it, but there is a difference. A big one.kairosfocus

April 10, 2011

April

04

Apr

10

10

2011

02:46 PM

2

02

46

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Indium: Again: were you there? In short: the distant past is beyond our ability to observe, and we have no observations of it. WE DO NOT KNOW, AND CANNOT KNOW THE ACTUAL FACTS OF THE REMOTE PAST. So, by force of logic, we do not have knowledge of the past beyond credible record. Again: do you have contemporaneous records that will pass the ancient documents rule? In short: when we have the best grade of history, multiple contemporary records (NT) we see severe dismissive skepticism, but when there are no records, not even of later generations [and the evidence is that for prominent people up to several centuries will give enough that we can have at least some reasonable idea, e.g. Alexander], we see a willingness to treat constructed model timelines on projections and correlations as though they were all but certain fact. Also: we have clear record of what is happening in the sausage factory. I am not interested in sausage for lunch, thank you. Do you see the selective hyperskepticism and the mirror image credulity on what fits with the imposed a priori materialism? All I am asking for is some acknowledgement of the limitations, that we have a model timeline, not certain or nearly certain fact. Shouldn't that be easy enough to acknowledge? GEM of TKIkairosfocus

April 10, 2011

April

04

Apr

10

10

2011

02:39 PM

2

02

39

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

kf The "where you there"-defence is quite amusing, but what I would really like to know is: What is your explanation for the consilience of different dating methods (ice core, tree rings, C14 and U/Th), even before calibration/alignment? This only concerns the evidence we can all (in principle) verify now, so there is no need at all to be "there".Indium

April 10, 2011

April

04

Apr

10

10

2011

02:05 PM

2

02

05

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Indium: Were you there to know? Do you have credible, contemporaneous records that will pass the ancient documents rule test? Where also: "correlation is not causation." Do you appreciate the difference between a model of the past as filtered through the prevalent schools of thought and the real past? And, do you see the significant parallels to other related topics where your side of the main issue is selectively very skeptical on much stronger correlations and KNOWN causal patterns? GEM of TKIkairosfocus

April 10, 2011

April

04

Apr

10

10

2011

01:48 PM

1

01

48

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

kf Please focus. There is a very simple question on the table from me: Why do ice core dates, tree ring dates, C14 dates and U/Th dates show a good agreement before alignment/calibration?Indium

April 10, 2011

April

04

Apr

10

10

2011

01:26 PM

1

01

26

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Jemima: "Or “immaterial” becomes “material" I am so glad you brought that up! It seems that the fundamental constituents of the "material" world are themselves immaterial according to quantum theory and that the laws of physics and the physical regularities are not the product the of intrinsic properties of nature.Nature cant seem to account for the laws of nature in principle! Wow! Thats a whopper! It seems something else is going on here.Something else is responsible. So much for naturalism and materialism. Quantum physics completely disproves these philosophies. Read, "A Quantum-Theoretic Argument against Naturalism" by Bruce Gordon in the new book "The nature of nature". Also check out Dr. Robert A. Herrmann's theory of General Intelligent Design. "Science declares our universe is intelligently designed" at barnes and noble: http://search.barnesandnoble.com/Science-Declares-Our-Universe-Is-Intelligently-Designed/Robert-A-Herrmann/e/9781591600466?userid=2V1iSSQAQ3 Also see: http://www.raherrmann.com/introduction.htm http://www.raherrmann.com/gidt.htm http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j23_1/j23_1_62-69.pdfkuartus

April 10, 2011

April

04

Apr

10

10

2011

01:14 PM

1

01

14

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

"If their paradigm and premise is evolution, then yes. If you think this tragic, I agree with you." Since Mr. Focus, after some 250 posts on this thread, still can't answer, perhaps you can? If evolution is not the correct paradigm, then offer an explanation of the features, ages and distribution of the hominid fossils using another paradigm, one that explains the details better than evolutionary theory. Of course, assuming this EVER makes it out of moderation.KL

April 10, 2011

April

04

Apr

10

10

2011

01:14 PM

1

01

14

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

JemimaRacktouey,

On C.S Lewis Keith Parsons said: “surely Lewis cannot mean that if naturalism is true, then there is no such thing as valid reasoning. If he really thought this, he would have to endorse the hypothetical ‘If naturalism is true, then modus ponens is invalid.’ But since the consequent is necessarily false, then the hypothetical is false if we suppose naturalism is true (which is what the antecedent asserts), and Lewis has no argument.”

Modus ponens doesn't physically exist, and Lewis was perfectly right to consider movements of matter the wrong explanation for explanations.Clive Hayden

April 10, 2011

April

04

Apr

10

10

2011

12:59 PM

12

12

59

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

JemimaRacktouey,

In fact the question at hand is if primate researchers, physical anthropologists, geologists and archeologists are all wasting their lives because they have started from an invalid premise. What do you think? Have they wasted their lives Clive?

If their paradigm and premise is evolution, then yes. If you think this tragic, I agree with you. Clive Hayden

April 10, 2011

April

04

Apr

10

10

2011

12:56 PM

12

12

56

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Indium: If this were not so saddening, it would be amusing. Most of the calibration and ballpark thinking that phase locks results is happening long before we ever see formally reported results. Recall, what happened to the 212 - 230 MY result for the strata on lake Rudolf. Didn't match the fossils, so out it goes. Next, cherry-pick samples -- subjectivity and plenty of opportunity to silently toss "bad" results. Then, when the evo narrative on the fossils demand a younger age, use fossils from over 100 miles away to recalibrate again. Presto, we have the required 1.9 MYA. And Wiki dismissed the older 2.6 MY age as an error. The difference is, in this case, it took years to get to the "consensus," and the results in stages were published in Nature etc. In significant part, thanks to Richard Leakey's theory. So, we can see the sausage factory in action. Do you understand why I am no longer so eager for sausage for lunch? GEM of TKIkairosfocus

April 10, 2011

April

04

Apr

10

10

2011

11:47 AM

11

11

47

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Onlookers: Observe the basic problem resurfacing. We were not there, but we have traces from the past. Without the cross checks of observation or credible generally accepted record, we construct metrics and tools that project form the present to the past, on an inference of uniformity and on correlations between things that we pull together in a more or less mutually supportive circle. And, no we will not acknowledge the limitations on our investigations of the unobserved, unobservable deep past but will present findings that -- as I showed on actual case -- are not independent as though they were, and with results presented as though they were practically certain. At the same time, many of these same people are utterly unwilling to accept archaeologically backed up records from C1, and are unwilling to allow the strongly reliable pattern that FSCO/I is a sign of intelligent cause, to speak to cases where their preferred narrative of origins might be thrown into question. That selective hyperskepticism is what is ever so telling. Back on the main topic for the thread, the same folks are unable to account for the origin of language capacity on chance plus necessity, but will not allow the FSCI-rich transformation required to turn an ape into a human, to point to the only empirically credible, observationally warranted source for FSCO/I: intelligence. Philip Johnson was right:

For scientific materialists the materialism comes first; the science comes thereafter. [[Emphasis original] We might more accurately term them "materialists employing science." And if materialism is true, then some materialistic theory of evolution has to be true simply as a matter of logical deduction, regardless of the evidence. That theory will necessarily be at least roughly like neo-Darwinism, in that it will have to involve some combination of random changes and law-like processes capable of producing complicated organisms that (in Dawkins’ words) "give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose." . . . . The debate about creation and evolution is not deadlocked . . . Biblical literalism is not the issue. The issue is whether materialism and rationality are the same thing. Darwinism is based on an a priori commitment to materialism, not on a philosophically neutral assessment of the evidence. Separate the philosophy from the science, and the proud tower collapses. [[Emphasis added.] [[The Unraveling of Scientific Materialism, First Things, 77 (Nov. 1997), pp. 22 – 25.]

(And, maybe the reason for my declaring myself a geochronological agnostic is clearer. Isn't the revealed inconsistency in standards of warrant ever so telling. For me, all I am saying is that the models and timelines of the past are just that, not practically certain fact.) GEM of TKIkairosfocus

April 10, 2011

April

04

Apr

10

10

2011

11:38 AM

11

11

38

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

kf

Once we are calibrating C14 vs other things, we are out of the province of independent evidence, and the same applies to the other methods.

Unfortunately the internet doesn´t allow for telling you anything really slowly so I am forced to just repeat myself: Even before/without calibration or alignment many independent methods show a good agreement. What´s your explanation?Indium

April 10, 2011

April

04

Apr

10

10

2011

11:15 AM

11

11

15

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

That is the whole point Jemi, we don't see ANY evolution whatsoever in the present in the lab; The GS (genetic selection) Principle – David L. Abel – 2009 Excerpt: Stunningly, information has been shown not to increase in the coding regions of DNA with evolution. Mutations do not produce increased information. Mira et al (65) showed that the amount of coding in DNA actually decreases with evolution of bacterial genomes, not increases. This paper parallels Petrov’s papers starting with (66) showing a net DNA loss with Drosophila evolution (67). Konopka (68) found strong evidence against the contention of Subba Rao et al (69, 70) that information increases with mutations. The information content of the coding regions in DNA does not tend to increase with evolution as hypothesized. Konopka also found Shannon complexity not to be a suitable indicator of evolutionary progress over a wide range of evolving genes. Konopka’s work applies Shannon theory to known functional text. Kok et al. (71) also found that information does not increase in DNA with evolution. As with Konopka, this finding is in the context of the change in mere Shannon uncertainty. The latter is a far more forgiving definition of information than that required for prescriptive information (PI) (21, 22, 33, 72). It is all the more significant that mutations do not program increased PI. Prescriptive information either instructs or directly produces formal function. No increase in Shannon or Prescriptive information occurs in duplication. What the above papers show is that not even variation of the duplication produces new information, not even Shannon “information.” http://www.bioscience.org/2009/v14/af/3426/3426.pdf The Law of Physicodynamic Insufficiency - Dr David L. Abel - November 2010 Excerpt: “If decision-node programming selections are made randomly or by law rather than with purposeful intent, no non-trivial (sophisticated) function will spontaneously arise.”,,, After ten years of continual republication of the null hypothesis with appeals for falsification, no falsification has been provided. The time has come to extend this null hypothesis into a formal scientific prediction: “No non trivial algorithmic/computational utility will ever arise from chance and/or necessity alone.” http://www.scitopics.com/The_Law_of_Physicodynamic_Insufficiency.html Testing Evolution in the Lab With Biologic Institute's Ann Gauger - podcast with link to peer-reviewed paper Excerpt: Dr. Gauger experimentally tested two-step adaptive paths that should have been within easy reach for bacterial populations. Listen in and learn what Dr. Gauger was surprised to find as she discusses the implications of these experiments for Darwinian evolution. Dr. Gauger's paper, "Reductive Evolution Can Prevent Populations from Taking Simple Adaptive Paths to High Fitness,". http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2010-05-10T15_24_13-07_00 The following study surveys four decades of experimental work, and solidly backs up the preceding conclusion that there has never been any observed violations of genetic entropy: “The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain - Michael Behe - December 2010 Excerpt: In its most recent issue The Quarterly Review of Biology has published a review by myself of laboratory evolution experiments of microbes going back four decades.,,, The gist of the paper is that so far the overwhelming number of adaptive (that is, helpful) mutations seen in laboratory evolution experiments are either loss or modification of function. Of course we had already known that the great majority of mutations that have a visible effect on an organism are deleterious. Now, surprisingly, it seems that even the great majority of helpful mutations degrade the genome to a greater or lesser extent.,,, I dub it “The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain.(that is a net 'fitness gain' within a 'stressed' environment i.e. remove the stress from the environment and the parent strain is always more 'fit') http://behe.uncommondescent.com/2010/12/the-first-rule-of-adaptive-evolution/ Michael Behe talks about the preceding paper on this podcast: Michael Behe: Challenging Darwin, One Peer-Reviewed Paper at a Time - December 2010 http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/player/web/2010-12-23T11_53_46-08_00 Stephen C. Meyer – What is the origin of the digital information found in DNA? – August 2010 - video http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/08/stephen_meyer_on_intelligent_d037271.html To top that off, and despite your vehement protestations to the contrary, the fossil record is overwhelmingly characterized by 'suddenness then overall stability'. Thus Jemi, since you have no evidence whatsoever of evolution in the lab, nor warrant to extrapolate to the ancient past, why do you play silly games?? Do you think that God will be any less real just because you choose to live in a fantasy land and deny reality???;bornagain77

April 10, 2011

April

04

Apr

10

10

2011

09:31 AM

9

09

31

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

KF

A favorite creationist argument is to challenge evidence for evolution by asking "Were you there?" The faulty logic behind this approach is the assumption that unless evolution (assumed to be evolution in the distant past) was observed and recorded by human beings, there is no evidence to support it. Of course evolution proceeded, and is still proceeding, much too slowly for any large changes to be observed in a single lifetime. The "were you there?" argument is especially espoused by Kent Hovind, who coaches young persons to challenge their science teachers by demanding in class "Were you there, teacher?" Of course, one could counter by asking if the student if he believes that the Titanic hit an iceberg, and then asking "were you there?" [Or asking the student if her parents had sex when they conceived her: if she was not there, how can she claim her parents copulated? The answer for that is the same as the answer for evolution.--- ed]

http://www.holysmoke.org/hovind.htmJemimaRacktouey

April 10, 2011

April

04

Apr

10

10

2011

08:23 AM

8

08

23

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

KF

Did you see the deep past of origins? If not, do you have the record of those who were?

We have the physical evidence. The rocks, the stones. The relative ratio of isotopes. etc etc. None of which you've challenged.

As to publishing this, that has been done. Many times. (Cf for instance my excerpt on the situation with isochrons, probably the soundest RA dating approach. In principle.)

Anybody can write anything they want on their own website. That you expect to be taken seriously is amusing. Get your work reviewed by experts in the fields you are claiming to critique, perhaps they'll spot something that you missed what with you not being an expert and all. Unless of course you mean you've published already in such a way? Citation please!JemimaRacktouey

April 10, 2011

April

04

Apr

10

10

2011

08:21 AM

8

08

21

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

KF,

PPS: Also, I notice that, after derision at the first, there has been a conspicuous silence on my point that once we hit the window 1,000 – 2,000 BC, we begin to fuzz out on dates and timelines. And beyond that, we run out of steam about 5,000 years ago.

Perhaps it's because nobody wanted to shame you that badly. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aurignacian The Aurignacian culture (pronounced /?r???ne???n/ or /?r?n?je???n/) is an archaeological culture of the Upper Palaeolithic, located in Europe and southwest Asia. It lasted broadly within the period from ca. 45,000 to 35,000 years ago in terms of conventional radiocarbon dating, or between ca. 47,000 and 41,000 years ago in terms of the most recent calibration of the radiocarbon timescale. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cave_of_Swimmers The Cave of Swimmers is a cave in southwest Egypt, near the border with Libya, in the mountainous Gilf Kebir region of the Sahara Desert. It was discovered in October 1933 by the Hungarian explorer László Almásy. It contains rock painting images of people swimming estimated to have been created 10,000 years ago during the time of the most recent Ice Age. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cave_of_Niaux Later it was established that the paintings had been emerging on the cave walls during a long period between 11500 and 10500 years BC. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pharaohs The First Dynasty ruled from approximately 3050 BC to 2890 BC, by some chronological schemes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neolithic_Revolution The Neolithic Revolution is the first agricultural revolution—the transition from hunting and gathering to agriculture and settlement. Archaeological data indicate that various forms of domestication of plants and animals arose independently in six separate locales worldwide ca. 10,000–7000 years BP (8,000–5000 BC), http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesopotamia he indigenous Sumerians and Akkadians (including Assyrians and Babylonians) dominated Mesopotamia from the beginning of written history (c. 3100 BC) to the fall of Babylon in 539 BC, when it was conquered by the Achaemenid Empire. It fell to Alexander the Great in 332 BC and after his death it became part of the Greek Seleucid Empire. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080416104320.htm The world's oldest recorded tree is a 9,550 year old spruce in the Dalarna province of Sweden. The spruce tree has shown to be a tenacious survivor that has endured by growing between erect trees and smaller bushes in pace with the dramatic climate changes over time.JemimaRacktouey

April 10, 2011

April

04

Apr

10

10

2011

08:08 AM

8

08

08

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

PPS: Also, I notice that, after derision at the first, there has been a conspicuous silence on my point that once we hit the window 1,000 - 2,000 BC, we begin to fuzz out on dates and timelines. And beyond that, we run out of steam about 5,000 years ago. Beyond that, we are relying on model reconstructions to create a more or less synthetic timeline. So, let us at least be humble enough to acknowledge the degree of provisional warrant and inescapable limitations on working without independent cross-checks against the direct reality we face for such. Hence, my agnosticism. (Ironic isn't it? I am not saying there is no past nor no evidence of a past, just that it is limited and cannot deliver grounds for full certitude. But, such doubts cannot be tolerated, it seems. And yet, the self same people are often found dismissing record and evidence on matters where we DO have direct and strongly supportive checks! For instance, the dismissive attitude to the NT is amazing, as is the rejection of the significance of the point that FSCI is meaningful, observable, a commonplace, and a reliable sign of intelligent cause . . . 8) ! )kairosfocus

April 10, 2011

April

04

Apr

10

10

2011

07:14 AM

7

07

14

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

PS: Putting that another way: Indium were you there? Did you see the deep past of origins? If not, do you have the record of those who were? Are we then dealing with that which is testable based on observation? So, then are not our results inherently tentative and untestable against reality, i.e. necessarily circular? And in that context, do we not see significant reason to be concerned that there is intellectual phase locking, and non-independence of methods, in a context that we already pick "good" methods and "good" results on . . . conformity to the consensus? A consensus that on origins science has been subjected to imposed a priori Sagan-Lewontin materialism?kairosfocus

April 10, 2011

April

04

Apr

10

10

2011

07:05 AM

7

07

05

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

KF

Once we are calibrating C14 vs other things, we are out of the province of independent evidence, and the same applies to the other methods.

Can't you read? The point is that they all agree before calibration! Dissembler.JemimaRacktouey

April 10, 2011

April

04

Apr

10

10

2011

07:02 AM

7

07

02

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Indium: You are simply repeating the circle. I have pointed out that there is a problem where there is an intellectual phase locking [notice how "incorrect" values are defined], with a famous case in point. Once we are calibrating C14 vs other things, we are out of the province of independent evidence, and the same applies to the other methods. We have a cluster of models that have been correlated to give a timeline based on a consensus school of thought, but we have no truly independent check on the past, especially as we go beyond records. As to publishing this, that has been done. Many times. (Cf for instance my excerpt on the situation with isochrons, probably the soundest RA dating approach. In principle.) We must not confuse models for reality. And again, you manage to skip the comparison to where we do have a much more well warranted approach, on cosmological timelines and their implications. Or, at any rate, the best explanation we have. That glide by in silence is as telling as the point you do want to push. GEM of TKIkairosfocus

April 10, 2011

April

04

Apr

10

10

2011

06:58 AM

6

06

58

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

kf This all very interesting (please write more about it, maybe even publish your critique), but it doesn´t answer my question. Even without any alignment ice cores, tree rings, C14, U/Th and so on have a very good agreement. What is your explanation?Indium

April 10, 2011

April

04

Apr

10

10

2011

06:02 AM

6

06

02

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

material,

All you can do is be certain beyond reason that the explanations all rest exclusively in the interaction between physical objects, and that someday you’ll be vindicated.

I don't think it's an unreasonable starting point to assume that the explanations all rest exclusively in the interaction between physical objects (and energy). After all, it's been the case for every single other thing that started off as mysterious. Every other time what started out as "designed" turned out to be "not designed". Or "supernatural" becomes "natural". Or "immaterial" becomes "material". Why should it be any different this time? When you come up with some actual evidence that is not the case then the investigation can incorporate that evidence. Until then, it's just wish fulfillment on your behalf.

That wasn’t very hard. See, if we don’t assume materialist philosophy right off the bat, we can posit more than one cause for a given effect and evaluate the evidence objectively.

Please do so. And when you come up with something that enables you to make a prediction that can actually be tested or explain something that cannot currently be explained then you have done something that has progressed the state of the art.

And he’s talking to somebody who believes that particles in motion can poof a mind into existence via Time + Chaos

And I'm now talking to somebody who believes that "poof" on it's own is an acceptable explanation.

All you have accomplished here is to show that which you believe: there is no burden of evidence on those who believe beyond reason that Time + Chaos gives rise to extraordinary order and sophistication.

The burden of evidence is on my side to provide evidence for my claims. And we do. And we are. http://astrobiology.nasa.gov/nai/ool-www/program/ What does ID do that is any way similar?JemimaRacktouey

April 10, 2011

April

04

Apr

10

10

2011

05:12 AM

5

05

12

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

OOPS: ouch on a run on effect on clips! WP is doing some odd things with clips from a PDF this morning.kairosfocus

April 10, 2011

April

04

Apr

10

10

2011

04:04 AM

4

04

04

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link