Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8951 total)
545 online now:
DrJones*, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), Percy (Admin) (3 members, 542 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 866,803 Year: 21,839/19,786 Month: 402/1,834 Week: 402/315 Day: 80/78 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Abiogenisis by the Numbers
dshortt
Inactive Member


Message 196 of 206 (161032)
11-18-2004 11:07 AM
Reply to: Message 194 by PaulK
11-18-2004 11:01 AM


Re: conditions and assumptions
Exactly!!!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by PaulK, posted 11-18-2004 11:01 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 198 by PaulK, posted 11-18-2004 11:14 AM dshortt has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15624
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 197 of 206 (161036)
11-18-2004 11:13 AM
Reply to: Message 195 by dshortt
11-18-2004 11:03 AM


Re: conditions and assumptions
It is not a possible conclusion from the actual evidence. And so if you were to claim that the studies did support it you would be wrong. And that is precisely the problem with what Ross says.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 195 by dshortt, posted 11-18-2004 11:03 AM dshortt has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 202 by dshortt, posted 11-18-2004 11:30 AM PaulK has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15624
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 198 of 206 (161037)
11-18-2004 11:14 AM
Reply to: Message 196 by dshortt
11-18-2004 11:07 AM


Re: conditions and assumptions
So you agree that Ross is just jumping to conclusions that are not supported by the evidence he cites ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 196 by dshortt, posted 11-18-2004 11:07 AM dshortt has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 205 by dshortt, posted 11-18-2004 11:41 AM PaulK has responded

  
Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5410
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002
Member Rating: 5.9


Message 199 of 206 (161038)
11-18-2004 11:16 AM
Reply to: Message 193 by dshortt
11-18-2004 10:56 AM


Re: conditions and assumptions
What if we were just to say that, yes there were many human like creatures alive, but this "Eve" was the first to be endowed with a spiritual component?

That's what Pope John Paul implied in his official statement on evolution being "compatible" with Christianity a few years ago, and seems to be the position adopted by lots of theists. My only problem with that is trying to identify a "spiritual component."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by dshortt, posted 11-18-2004 10:56 AM dshortt has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 201 by jar, posted 11-18-2004 11:22 AM Coragyps has not yet responded

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 3369 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 200 of 206 (161039)
11-18-2004 11:21 AM
Reply to: Message 194 by PaulK
11-18-2004 11:01 AM


Re: conditions and assumptions
I could give a few pages-

INSTEAD I WOULD RECOMMED ONE TRY TO FIGURE OUT in its stead HOW PHYSICAL I WOULD DISPUTE THESE TWO LINES OF TEXT rather than trying to pay for making EVC part of every school boys lunch box image.

quote:

The philosophy is in the tradition of Leibniz. Wright's view is that there is no material basis for a mysterious "emergence" of new properties as systems become more complex.
.

The philosophy DOES MATTER. Where is any one teaching students what Kant thought of Leibniz AFTER viewing AN INSECT in the microscope? I will go kicking and screaming over the first sentence. While the second is a attempt to parly the creative reading necessary to write the first with a revisionist provision in the second. It matters a mite not if I might explain with programmed cell death how we ate the answer to the spirit needed to disscuss the different IDEAS on time mitocondira might afford the thought speculator but alas even creation science must get practical. Let us not tilt at the marketer's windmill if we insist on the philosophy else we must not dismiss the metaphyical repose that EVC already afFORDANCes society. IT DOES and did! Sure the transfinites in Robinsonian infintesimals might span the formed gap but who knows....

Alos DO NOTE that JAD's TEACHER Crow did not eat this but said IN THES SAME

quote:

Wright’s intellectual life extended far beyond the normal range in both directions. He was also a precocious child.
For Will Provine who needed to scope the space of UChicago into a the door of the Jehova's Witness entrance this was just the difference of the Ag quad and the Engineering Quadrangle TIMED walk at Cornell WHICH USED TO BE A FARM before it was taken from the indians as a cornfield.
Info from
http://www.harvardsquarelibrary.org/unitarians/wright-sewall.html
note to admins- that is my attempt to stop -off topic posting as it is not at all clear to me that a NUMBER will provide the SPIRIT of a difference between Kant and Newton as to the diffusion or electricity involved.

This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 11-18-2004 11:22 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by PaulK, posted 11-18-2004 11:01 AM PaulK has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 31753
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 201 of 206 (161040)
11-18-2004 11:22 AM
Reply to: Message 199 by Coragyps
11-18-2004 11:16 AM


Re: conditions and assumptions
My only problem with that is trying to identify a "spiritual component."

I think that is a very important point and a great one for a thread. Thanks for bringing it up and if you start such I thread I'll try to convince AdminJar to promote it.


Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by Coragyps, posted 11-18-2004 11:16 AM Coragyps has not yet responded

  
dshortt
Inactive Member


Message 202 of 206 (161047)
11-18-2004 11:30 AM
Reply to: Message 197 by PaulK
11-18-2004 11:13 AM


Re: conditions and assumptions
I thought one of the possible conclusions was a recent origin for modern Homo sapiens?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by PaulK, posted 11-18-2004 11:13 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 203 by PaulK, posted 11-18-2004 11:37 AM dshortt has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15624
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 203 of 206 (161050)
11-18-2004 11:37 AM
Reply to: Message 202 by dshortt
11-18-2004 11:30 AM


Re: conditions and assumptions
A recent origin of modern Homo sapiens is one of the possible explanations offered. That Homo sapiens is unrelated to other hominid species is not. They are completely different.

This message has been edited by PaulK, 11-18-2004 11:39 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 202 by dshortt, posted 11-18-2004 11:30 AM dshortt has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 19061
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 204 of 206 (161051)
11-18-2004 11:39 AM
Reply to: Message 188 by dshortt
11-18-2004 10:37 AM


Re: conditions and assumptions
dshortt writes:

Unless I am missing something, the study is saying...

Yes, you are missing something, which is that it isn't the study saying this, but the Reasons to Believe article about the study (Chromosome Study Stuns Evolutionists). PaulK referenced this article to point out a few of its serious errors. And so...

that none of these long gone species had any affect on modern man because there was found to be "no nucleotide differences at all in the non-recombinant part of the Y chromosomes of the 38 men. This non-variation suggests no evolution has occurred in male ancestry." quote from the referenced article

...you're just quoting more erroneous statements from the same Reasons to Believe article about the study. I assume that you also uncritically accepted the next sentence that said, "The researchers, apparently committed to Darwinism, back-pedaled...etc...", and so you're at the same time buying into the conspiracy nonsense that the evidence is against evolution, but thousands and thousands of scientists for decades and decades are covering it up and continuing to accept evolution anyway.

Here's the abstract for the actual paper Absence of polymorphism at the ZFY locus on the human Y chromosome by R. L. Dorit, H. Akashi and W. Gilbert that I found at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=7761836&dopt=Abstract:

DNA polymorphism in the Y chromosome, examined at a 729-base pair intron located immediately upstream of the ZFY zinc-finger exon, revealed no sequence variation in a worldwide sample of 38 human males. This finding cannot be explained by global constraint on the intron sequence, because interspecific comparisons with other nonhuman primates revealed phylogenetically informative sequence changes. The invariance likely results from either a recent selective sweep, a recent origin for modern Homo sapiens, recurrent male population bottlenecks, or historically small effective male population sizes. A coalescence model predicts an expected time to a most recent common ancestral male lineage of 270,000 years (95 percent confidence limits: 0 to 800,000 years).

Note that the paper covers a "729 base-pair intron", while the Y chromosome contains over 50 million base pairs. Even if the study had any contradictory results (which it doesn't), a single study's results on such a tiny portion of the Y chromosome wouldn't be considered stunning. The Reasons to Believe article is wrong to say scientists are stunned, since the results weren't stunning but were fairly consistent with other studies. Note also that Ross mentions only one of the four possibilities that the study lists for the cause of the invariance. And note also that Ross critisizes them for using a statistical approach when no other approach is possible when the sample size is 38. All these types of studies use statistical approaches.

You would be poorly served to put much reliance on Reasons to Believe to accurately represent the results of any genetic study. Magazines and newspapers like the New York Times, Newsweek, Time, the Boston Globe, and so on, all have science sections that love to follow this Adam/Eve research, and I suggest you wait until they report on stunned scientists before believing it.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by dshortt, posted 11-18-2004 10:37 AM dshortt has not yet responded

  
dshortt
Inactive Member


Message 205 of 206 (161052)
11-18-2004 11:41 AM
Reply to: Message 198 by PaulK
11-18-2004 11:14 AM


Re: conditions and assumptions
Perhaps the misconception here is in what Dr. Ross is trying to show. He is not saying that this study and many like it prove the Biblical story. He is saying it doesn't contradict it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by PaulK, posted 11-18-2004 11:14 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 206 by PaulK, posted 11-18-2004 11:54 AM dshortt has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15624
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 206 of 206 (161057)
11-18-2004 11:54 AM
Reply to: Message 205 by dshortt
11-18-2004 11:41 AM


Re: conditions and assumptions
Your misconception, maybe. Ross is not claiming that the studies are merely consistent with the Bible - in fact on the only point on which they could be inconsistent theey ARE inconsistent.

But look at what Ross REALLY says

quote:

...the results of both studies rule out homo erectus (0.5 to 1.5 million years ago) as a possible progenitor of modern humans

Which is completely and utterly false.

And Ross explciitly identifies these two individuals as the Biblical Adam and Eve and indicates that he requires them to have lived more recently than the cited studies indicate.

quote:

If this is the case, we should see biologists' date for "Adam and Eve" drop from a maximum of about 200,000 years ago to a date within the biblical range of about 10,000 to 60,000 years ago.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 205 by dshortt, posted 11-18-2004 11:41 AM dshortt has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019