and what will change venema opinion about evolution? i can guess that the answer will be “nothing” since evolution cant be tested.
No, that isn’t what he said. It was much more nuanced and longer than that.
This is the last few minutes of the video. He says the all of the data has to fit better within a different model.
That is what he said because his “much more nuanced and longer” answer amounted to that. He also did say, quite literally, that his hermeneutics would have to change first. So that really does mean his answer is no, evidence could not change his mind, he’d have to first change his view of the Bible.
1 Like
I explained how he is wrong with his answer to the pseudogene question. But you don’t understand my answer (and thus you don’t understand his argument either), so you’re literally just taking his assertions on faith because he is ostensibly in “your camp”.
Thus this isn’t about “until someone shows you he’s wrong” because that’s already happened and yet here you are. So the real criterion here is “until you take the time to bother to educate yourself to such a level that you can competently understand and criticize both Jeanson’s argument and the arguments we respond with”. Which will probably never happen.
1 Like
this is a problematic claim. who determines what is “better”? the creation scientists do think for instance that the data fit better with their view. and i dont see that prof venema changing his mind. so this depend on the personal view, and not on the scientific method.
Yes, he does say that, and it’s up there with his most ridiculous claims. Based solely on the fact that he’s done molecular biology work (as have many of us) involving storing purified DNA in solution in freezers and having its quality degrade over time, he concludes that it’s impossible for DNA to survive in totally different conditions for hundreds or thousands of years. That’s literally his entire reasoning. No studies on DNA degradation, nothing.
Meanwhile, sequencing ancient DNA is an entire field of productive research, and people in that field are well aware that DNA degrades over time - that’s not a profound insight of Jeanson’s. In the field, there are complex protocols in place to avoid contamination and for detecting DNA damage such that the final sequencing product is a reliable sequence of the ancient DNA as it was when the organism in question was alive. And then it just so happens that these DNA sequences usually fit perfectly with independent dating methods and previously-supported population genetics models of migrations, admixture, etc.
Jeanson hasn’t even so much as attempted to engage with any of this research, he just dismisses it all out hand. Does that sound like a good scientific approach to you?
7 Likes
Models are usually evaluated in terms of some combination of simplicity, goodness of fit, and/or explanatory power.
For example one model A can be said to be better than another model B if model A explains all the same data (or more data) with fewer parameters(it’s thus a simpler, or more parsimonious model), and/or if it is able to accurately predict future, yet-to-be-discovered data (it has greater explanatory power and scope) .
Your personal total ignorance about these concepts doesn’t mean there are no good, objective criteria that scientists can use to choose among competing models.
1 Like
Everyone else? Yeaaaaaaah no. My worldview is irrelevant to my scientific investigation.
1 Like
No, that’s still enough. Like Jeanson, @thoughtful’s understanding of science only goes to the extent that it does not contradict anything here religion requires her to beliefe is true. So she does not only need to improve her scientific understanding. She also needs to improve her theology.
Exactly. You should speak for yourself, @thoughtful. Just because you cannot overcome your personal biases when assessing evidence does not mean no one else can.
2 Likes
But that slide shows that how we create doesn’t match how God created. It’s an argument against design!
2 Likes
It’s impossible to show you anything if you don’t want to see it. There have been many threads right here that would have shown any open-minded person that he’s wrong. Many of us here have degrees, most of them more relevant to the subject than Jeanson’s. So really, it all comes down to worldview. You’re a YEC, so you believe what YECs say. That’s your choice, but please don’t pretend it has anything to do with evidence.
4 Likes
@John_Harshman, and I suspect that those who opt for your choice must do a fair bit of pretending themselves.
I’m happy to inform you that your suspicions are unwarranted, which must be a relief to you.
1 Like
Got it. Got the whole picture.
can you make a prediction about the most ancient DNA that we can find in any given fossil?
nonsense. if this is true then can you tell me what we should find if evolution isnt true? for instance: a classic example is out of place fossil. do you agree with biologists who are saying that even a single out of place fossil should falsify evolution?
No it’s really true. It’s called model selection.
Poor fit of the model to data?
No. I think it would have to take more than that.
I don’t. It would help to adopt a Bayesian perspective. All the data we have previously collected contributes to the prior probability of evolution. One out of place fossil, even a Cambrian rabbit, wouldn’t move the posterior probability by much. Anomalies are interesting, but they don’t outweigh the great preponderance of data, and the likelihood is that they have some explanation other than “everything you knew before is wrong”.
Consider what our expectations would have been in advance of the data: given evolution, we would expect fossils to be ordered stratigraphically: those in lower strata should look very different from modern species, and should become progressively more like modern species as we proceed higher in the column. Consider the YEC alternative: fossils should be randomly mixed by the flood and should include modern species at all levels of the column. Now, what do we actually see?
2 Likes
IOW, evidence is all but meaningless. It’s all about supporting the tribe.
Do you see how you’re doing exactly what I said you are doing? One side has all the evidence, so you reduce both sides to mere rhetoric, then you choose the rhetoric you merely WISH was correct.
Why don’t you go deeper?
Some sources are wrong far more often than others. Jeanson is one of those. For really important things, you can go directly to the evidence. You don’t seem to be interested in evidence.
I actively avoid doing that. Most scientists are like me in that way. That’s yet another way in which you are setting up false equivalence between science and pseudoscience.
2 Likes