Public discourse in origins: here be dragons

Conversation Side Conversation
1

Everyone who replied to me just gave it to you. :wink:

Seriously everyone thanks for the replies. But it’s very tiresome to see “outliers” or odd things in the evolutionary model always put into neat boxes in biology and given the only explanation that fits the model instead of offering alternatives. At least in physics scientists admit things are held in tension, right? And I suppose they have to because there are mathematical equations that can’t be reconciled, yet both describe reality and make predictions. :slight_smile: Because I’m a skeptic, I can take the position that the model has strengths but it also stinks like it might just be a pile of doo. But a lay person cannot convince scientists that their model smells a bit - your knowledge is 100 times mine. And I like all of you guys so what I was trying to say is, I hope you don’t hold it too tightly.

1 Like
2

You certainly won’t convince us by avoiding the evidence as you do. It’s not a matter of knowledge at all. As far as I can tell, we are infinitely more engaged with the evidence itself than you choose to be.

1 Like
3

Sometimes. Try finding a physicist who can’t decide between F=ma and F=m2a, and you will have a better analogy to the current situation.

No, you aren’t a skeptic. You’re a creationist, which is very different. You are stacking the deck in your head. The fault, dear Brutus, is not in your stars but in yourself, that you are a creationist.

6 Likes
4

MercerJohn MercerMolecular Biologist

1

thoughtful

9h

You certainly won’t convince us by avoiding the evidence as you do. It’s not a matter of knowledge at all. As far as I can tell, we are infinitely more engaged with the evidence itself than you choose to be.

Knowledge is one thing, application is another :point_up_2:

5

Which has the larger and more numerous outliers / odd things: the evolutionary model, or the YEC model?

Radiometric data

The RATE project stated that the the only way that the YEC model can account for geological, radiometric observations is by postulating a change in physics constants that would have had a few unpleasant side-effects:

  • The temperature on the earth’s surface would have risen to 22,000o C.
  • But Noah and his family would not have survived to enjoy the balmy weather. They would have been incinerated instantaneously by spontaneous combustion from the decay of naturally-occurring potassium.
  • But would the earth even have existed, considering that every element other than hydrogen (and possibly helium) would have dissolved?

Since geology labs have made literally millions of radiometric dating observations, you could say that there are millions of observations that massively contradict the YEC model. Unless, of course, you subscribe to the enhanced radioactive decay model and its side-effects proposed by the RATE project.

Fossil sorting by geological strata

Almost 200 years ago, geologists began noticing that fossils were not randomly distributed through the geological column. They instead seemed to be assorted into layers.

Animals

Trilobites could only be found in the Cambrian through Permian. T. Rex was only in the late Cretaceous. Mammals were never in the Cambrian or Devonian. And so forth.

Plants

This was also true of plants. For example, flowering plants did not exist prior the Lower Mesozoic.

Microfossils

This is also true of microfossils. According to the paleontologist David Campbell:

Microfossils are a good example of something incompatible with young-earth and global flood claims, largely neglected by young-earth advocates because the public is ignorant about them. They do not have significant differences in escape ability or hydrodynamic properties. Various types of microfossils do reflect different habitats, but such occur at various levels through the geologic column - there is no pattern of lower elevation to higher elevation habitats. But the types of microfossils change over time, with hundreds of totally different sets of microfossils being found in different layers.

Astronomical data

The stars in the Milky Way Galaxy

The Milky Way, populated by 400 billion stars, is 100,000 light-years across. That implies that the photons reaching us today from 370 billion or so of the stars started their journey prior to 8000 years ago.

The Andromeda Galaxy

M31 is 2.5 million light years distant from us. Photons reaching us today from its trillion or so stars began their journey 2.5 million years ago. Every photon from M31 is a contradiction with YEC

Correlation between redshift and distance

The velocity of an object with respect to the Earth can be measured by the Doppler Effect. In astronomy, this is referred to as redshift because – outside of our local galaxy cluster – pretty much everything is moving away from us, causing spectral lines to shift toward the red end of the visible spectrum.

One of the most interesting discoveries of the previous centuries is that the farther away objects are in deep space, the greater the redshift. This relationship is beyond dispute among astronomers, even though the exact math (the Hubble Constant) is still the subject of debate. This relationship lends strong support to the Big Bang model of cosmology, which yields a universe that is 13.8 billion years old.

I am aware of some YEC attempts to explain the distant starlight problem by positing that light travels instantaneously toward the earth and one-half the standard speed of light away from the earth. This hypothesis has numerous and severe problems, but I will not delve into those here. The point I am making in this paragraph is that the only explanation YEC astronomy has given us (to the best of my knowledge) for the relationship between increasing distance and increasing redshift is the notion that light from farther away passes through more interstellar dust clouds. However, this explains nothing at all, because the deep red you see at sunset when there’s more dust or clouds is the result of reflection and refraction of the various wavelengths of light. The sky does not become red at sunset due to Doppler shift.

I could go on and on…

…but I won’t. Others have trodden this ground before me, and I and others would be happy to refer you to good sources that will help you fill in some gaps in your knowledge of the scientific evidence.

Besides, it can be tiresome, to use a word you like, to repeat these same glaring and massive problems with YEC “science” , but not have their force and implications acknowledged by YEC advocates.

I am hoping that what I wrote in this post has whetted your appetite to explore some aspects of science that had previously escaped your notice, Valerie. God’s blessings on you in your journey.

Chris

EDIT: Trilobites are found up to the Permian, as noted by @John_Harshman after my initial post. And likewise, T. Rex is in the Cretaceous. That’s what I get for relying on the Hollywood version of paleontology. Mea culpa, maxima mea culpa.

6 Likes
6

Say what? They’re found from the Cambrian through the Permian. Though it doesn’t affect your point, it’s an odd thing to say.

1 Like
7

Sorry, just noticed this. That should be “Cretaceous”. And Late Cretaceous at that, in fact only the very latest Cretaceous, the Maastrichtian. Still doesn’t affect your point, but you should really be more careful, even when talking to creationists.

1 Like
8

Thanks for the catch! I have edited my post and credited your contribution.

Especially when talking to creationists. :slight_smile:

Chris

1 Like
9

Notice I said “BIOLOGY” in what you quoted of my post above (and also those aspects of science you listed are only part of a larger model that can be separated from a common ancestry model, which is specifically what I was referring to) and it’s slightly irksome that you didn’t give me the benefit of the doubt by looking at my profile to see how long I’ve been part of the forum, what threads I’ve been a part of, or my read time to know that…

…this isn’t true or would very likely not be true. But also I’m letting you know you don’t have to waste your time writing all of that again.

10

That’s a surprising claim. I’ve watched YT videos and successfully tiled a shower (applying the knowledge and producing evidence!), but it is inconceivable that I would ever claim to know 1% of what a professional does.

Do you really think that you relatively know that much?

I’m not sure how that constitutes a response to my pointing out that evidence is the key, not knowledge. Can you explain what you are trying to convey with that?

11

Referring to it isn’t convincing. Please demonstrate how they can be separated, using evidence, not by cut/pasting quotes.

If you truly believe that you have 1% of the knowledge of professionals in science, you definitely should know all of the things Chris mentioned, as well as their remarkable consilience.

4 Likes
12

MercerJohn MercerMolecular Biologist

thoughtful

2m

That’s a surprising claim. I’ve watched YT videos and successfully tiled a shower (applying the knowledge and producing evidence!), but it is inconceivable that I would ever claim to know 1% of what a professional does.

Do you really think that you relatively know that much?

I’m not sure how that constitutes a response to my pointing out that evidence is the key, not knowledge. Can you explain what you are trying to convey with that?

Knowledge of what? What I said was superficial…one can have the knowledge of Belchy, for example, and not apply it correctly, and therefore arrive at ID conclusions. One can know several good peer-reviewed papers here and there on biology, but applying that knowledge appropriately in the context of more specialized experience (as you guys who are biologists, biochemists, etc.) is entirely another level. Same applies for Biblical Studies: one can have the knowledge of variants and textual criticism at a certain level, but that doesn’t mean you will actually know how to sort manuscripts by text-types and which variants are actually meaningful and how to fully interpret an NT apparatus. One can study computers and networking via YouTube and practice a little, that doesn’t turn one into a trusted technician who knows how to troubleshoot or a network administrator on which the network’s operations rest.
Take for instance Nicholas Wades, of whom we discussed in the SARS-CoV-2 Origins thread, who knows enough about the subject to publish something about it: knowledge is one thing, but application of it is yet another.
Professor Larry W. Hurtado (Emeritus Prof. of New Testament who passed away in 2019) said the same about Jesus Mythicists who deny that Jesus of Nazareth ever existed: they know enough to posit something untenable, but they are misapplying the textual, historical and archaeological Greco-Roman, Judeo-Christian textual corpora.

13

But again, I’m pointing out that evidence, not knowledge, is the key.

14

MercerJohn MercerMolecular Biologist

BrianLopez

6m

But again, I’m pointing out that evidence, not knowledge, is the key.

Well, that is splitting hairs. I would agree with you, but that is another angle of the same thing I said: knowledge of the evidence to you will not be knowledge of the evidence to Michael Behe. LOL. Everybody says that there is no evidence for their opponent’s views!

1 Like
15

You know, this is a point which I’ve had a hard time getting across to people. I find that when I access the primary scientific literature, I have not the least difficulty in concluding that I know less than 1% about, say, paleontology, of what a professor who is a practicing paleontologist knows. If I get it into my head that I do know more than 1%, all it takes is a quick spin through the latest issue of the JVP to disabuse me of that notion.

I think the difficulty here sometimes is that we are prone, lacking depth in others’ fields, to mistake the knowledge of a person who has a pretty good summary of major concepts for the knowledge of a person who is an expert in the field. A person who reads a treatise on constitutional law is liable to think he understands it. And, of course, he very likely DOES understand it, after that read, much better than anyone else who lives on his particular city block. But if a potential client were interviewed by this newly-minted self-considered expert, and by an experienced constitutional litigator, about a potential claim, the comparison would be extreme: the failure of real depth and nuanced understanding on the part of the guy who has just read the treatise would be evident.

Of course, with creationism one is often dealing with people who do not even a good grasp of general concepts. Worse, one is often dealing with people who have latched on to one or another of the various deceptions of creationism (“genetic entropy,” “irreducible complexity,” Axe’s impossibility of useful mutations, et cetera) and so they know a good deal that ain’t so.

Alas, it’s hard to have humility when your dogma needs to relieve itself, and so there are a good many attempts at critique of evolutionary biology which, at best, get someone’s pants leg wet.

4 Likes
16

Hi Valerie (@thoughtful),

It is true that the astronomical data are only indirectly related to questions of biology. The other two subjects I addressed (radiometric dating and fossil stratification), however, relate quite directly and prominently with evolution because they support the chronology and general outlines of historical evolutionary processes. Does that make sense?

Actually, I am very aware from your posts and profile that you are keenly interested in learning about the various branches of science! What I was not sure of was how much you were aware of these particular aspects of geochronology and paleontology and their relationship to evolution. It seemed quite improbable that you knew them well, in light of your statement about smells.

If, however, you feel you know those domains intimately, you should of course pursue other inquiries.

The vast majority of scientists would vigorously disagree with your assertion. Do you understand why?

Before I close, I would like to again suggest that you take up the modeling of stochastic processes. Without an understanding of stochastic models, it is extremely difficult to understand the evidentiary support for the theory of evolution, which entails non-trivial, stochastic mathematics and probability.

Best,
Chris

EDIT: Linked @thoughtful because I inadvertently wrote my response to her by clicking respond to @Mercer 's post. I obviously didn’t drink enough coffee today!

7 Likes
17

Is Belchy one of the 7 dwarfs, perhaps? Not familiar. I know Dopey, Grumpy, Sneezy, and Happy, but not this one.

3 Likes
18

Belchy and Sleazy, for some reason, never get the attention that the others do.

2 Likes
19

No, it really isn’t. It’s the way that laypeople can most easily distinguish between real science and pseudoscience. The former points to evidence. The latter points to what some people say/write about the evidence, while ignoring most of the evidence and typically misrepresenting critical pieces of it.

For example, in evolution denialism, the strongest evidence supporting the RNA World hypothesis is that the enzymatic center of the ribosome is a ribozyme. That’s stone-cold evidence, and ID leaders simply claim the opposite of the fact–that it is a protein.

No, Behe routinely misrepresents the evidence itself and falsely portrays mere interpretations as the evidence itself. That’s why his primary “evidence” for his claims about malaria is a quote-mine of a single sentence from a review, whose author points out that it doesn’t mean what Behe says it does. Behe neither cites nor explains the many papers, full of evidence, that contradict his claims.

So no, it’s not even close to different sides interpreting the evidence differently. The pseudoscientific side is ignoring almost all of the evidence.

I wouldn’t say that. I’m saying that there’s massive amounts of evidence they’re ignoring, while cherry-picking a tiny minority of the evidence, and objectively misrepresenting the evidence they can’t explain.

As scientists, we are held to the standard of addressing ALL of the extant evidence; if we don’t have a firm conclusion, we are honest about it.

4 Likes
20

MercerJohn MercerMolecular Biologist

BrianLopez

2h

No, it really isn’t. It’s the way that laypeople can most easily distinguish between real science and pseudoscience. The former points to evidence. The latter points to what some people say/write about the evidence, while ignoring most of the evidence and typically misrepresenting critical pieces of it.

For example, in evolution denialism, the strongest evidence supporting the RNA World hypothesis is that the enzymatic center of the ribosome is a ribozyme. That’s stone-cold evidence, and ID leaders simply claim the opposite of the fact–that it is a protein.

No, Behe routinely misrepresents the evidence itself and falsely portrays mere interpretations as the evidence itself. That’s why his primary “evidence” for his claims about malaria is a quote-mine of a single sentence from a review, whose author points out that it doesn’t mean what Behe says it does. Behe neither cites nor explains the many papers, full of evidence, that contradict his claims.

So no, it’s not even close to different sides interpreting the evidence differently. The pseudoscientific side is ignoring almost all of the evidence.

I wouldn’t say that. I’m saying that there’s massive amounts of evidence they’re ignoring, while cherry-picking a tiny minority of the evidence, and objectively misrepresenting the evidence they can’t explain.

As scientists, we are held to the standard of addressing ALL of the extant evidence; if we don’t have a firm conclusion, we are honest about it.

Cheese wheeze. You are still splitting hairs. I don’t understand why what I said is framed on its head with your explanation, with which I agree. When I said what I said, I simply meant to say that knowledge in general of a particular subject (of whatever, and at whatever level you are) is not the same as applying it correctly in the context of the field of study at large–that requires not only knowledge of the evidence, but knowledge and experience on how to interpret it at large overall. I’ve seen this for the past 13 years in Nutrition Science (veganism vs paleo / does dietary cholesterol raise blood cholesterol, does saturated fat cause heart disease, etc.), Biblical Studies (among scholars themselves and scholars vs amateurs vs laypeople). You’re splitting hairs because your explanation is not representative of what I was thinking of when I said that. Take what I said not as a contradiction of what you said about evidence but as a superficial supplementary comment.