Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 83 (8942 total)
29 online now:
PaulK, vimesey (2 members, 27 visitors)
Newest Member: John Sullivan
Post Volume: Total: 863,626 Year: 18,662/19,786 Month: 1,082/1,705 Week: 334/518 Day: 10/88 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   secularists do not want the truth
Percy
Member
Posts: 18872
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 46 of 85 (576877)
08-26-2010 8:22 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by slevesque
08-25-2010 10:41 PM


Hi Slevesque,

In case you want more detail, and I'm sure it gets much more sophisticated than this, but you analyze the DNA from a group of people where you know how they are related, usually a family grouping like Mr Jack suggested. That way you'll know who is 1 generation removed (father to son), 2 generations removed (grandfather to grandson, the grandson's will be siblings or cousins), and so forth. You calculate the number of mutations per generation and average over many family groups to get a reliable general estimate.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by slevesque, posted 08-25-2010 10:41 PM slevesque has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by slevesque, posted 08-26-2010 12:44 PM Percy has responded

    
slevesque
Member (Idle past 2927 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 47 of 85 (576916)
08-26-2010 12:44 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Percy
08-26-2010 8:22 AM


In the original link given by archaeo, it only says ''scientists know the average rate of mutations'' but doesn't link to any particular study or even give the actual mutation rate they used.

What I'm really asking is, in the study giving a 200k year age to Mit-Eve, what mutation rate did they use, and how was it deduced ?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Percy, posted 08-26-2010 8:22 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Dr Jack, posted 08-26-2010 1:01 PM slevesque has not yet responded
 Message 52 by Percy, posted 08-26-2010 8:19 PM slevesque has responded

  
Dr Jack
Member (Idle past 391 days)
Posts: 3507
From: Leicester, England
Joined: 07-14-2003


Message 48 of 85 (576920)
08-26-2010 1:01 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by slevesque
08-26-2010 12:44 PM


Wikipedia has quite a few details (with references) on what the mutation rate is and how it was determined.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by slevesque, posted 08-26-2010 12:44 PM slevesque has not yet responded

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 984 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


(1)
Message 49 of 85 (576931)
08-26-2010 2:02 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by archaeologist
08-23-2010 4:35 AM


Hi, Archaeologist.

archaeologist writes:

you mean the same peer review system where scientists do not replicate experiments...

You mean I just imagined the approximately 100 papers that tried to test the exact same phenomenon I am currently trying to test, whose results were brought into question because newer techniques exposed a number of flaws in older techniques?

-----

archaeologist writes:

...do not read the reports or papers sent them...

They don’t even read them!?

For people who haven’t read my papers, they sure are good at finding and marking all the mistakes I make in them.

-----

archaeologist writes:

...is easily manipulated...

Easily manipulated by whom?

I haven’t had any success in manipulating it yet. Maybe you could show me how, or at least direct me to the people who could show me how.

-----

archaeologist writes:

...biased, prejudiced...

This is probably true: all of the professors on my graduate committee are biased. One of them thinks I should focus on ecosystem-level dynamics, another one wants me to focus on food webs, another wants me to focus on behavioral interactions between organisms, and the other one is going to drill me on everything the rest of them miss.

With all these rampant biases, clearly I’m going to get a prejudicially well-rounded education in ecology and biology.

Now, just imagine how prejudicially well-rounded all of science will be when we have all these conflicting biases and prejudices running wild.

-----

archaeologist writes:

...does not confirm anything about the original report...

If it makes you feel any better, I’m currently trying to publish a paper that ultimately agrees with what the very first paper on my topic proposed.

Edited by Bluejay, : Addition: "Now just imagine..."


-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)

Darwin loves you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by archaeologist, posted 08-23-2010 4:35 AM archaeologist has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by archaeologist, posted 08-26-2010 5:26 PM Blue Jay has not yet responded

  
archaeologist
Inactive Member


Message 50 of 85 (576962)
08-26-2010 5:26 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by Blue Jay
08-26-2010 2:02 PM


Hiding unsupported assertions. --Admin

do the research, it is there. i do not care if you were one of the lucky ones who got reviewed, all that does is show that you use limited samples to prove your point against mine and it is not broad enough to be valid.

Edited by Admin, : Add hide.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Blue Jay, posted 08-26-2010 2:02 PM Blue Jay has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Taq, posted 08-26-2010 5:47 PM archaeologist has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8095
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.4


Message 51 of 85 (576969)
08-26-2010 5:47 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by archaeologist
08-26-2010 5:26 PM


do the research, it is there.

If it is there then you should be able to point to it. Where is it?

i do not care if you were one of the lucky ones who got reviewed, all that does is show that you use limited samples to prove your point against mine and it is not broad enough to be valid.

From what we can tell, your argument is based on zero samples, so a limited sampling is still better than your complete lack of samples.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by archaeologist, posted 08-26-2010 5:26 PM archaeologist has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18872
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 52 of 85 (577008)
08-26-2010 8:19 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by slevesque
08-26-2010 12:44 PM


slevesque writes:

In the original link given by archaeo, it only says ''scientists know the average rate of mutations'' but doesn't link to any particular study or even give the actual mutation rate they used.

What I'm really asking is, in the study giving a 200k year age to Mit-Eve, what mutation rate did they use, and how was it deduced ?

Mr Jack already provided you a reference, so I'm replying only because I'm curious why you ask. Do you doubt that it can be calculated? Or do you accept that it can be calculated, but doubt that they calculated it? Or do you accept that they calculated it, but doubt that they calculated it correctly? I can't think of any reason you would ask that isn't because you think they're lying or incompetent.

Once any group of scientists gains credit for discovering mitochondrial Eve, other groups would immediately check that research trying to disprove it, some perhaps for no other reason than to gain the credit and attention for themselves. What in the world would lead you to think that the research got out there without the kind of intense vetting that would detect any trivially simple errors like the ones you're asking about?

If you read enough about mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosome Adam you'll discover that there isn't unanimous agreement scientists, though these studies are widely accepted. But the studies aren't perfect. For instance, some of the complaints are about data gathering techniques. Some are about the particular markers that were chosen for comparison and analysis. If all you want is an admission that the studies aren't perfect, then you've got it. But if you think imperfect means wrong then you've gone way off the deep end, because no human endeavor is ever perfect and yet our knowledge grows. Science doesn't seek or require perfection. What it seeks is an ever improving understanding of the world we live in.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by slevesque, posted 08-26-2010 12:44 PM slevesque has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by Dr Jack, posted 08-27-2010 4:36 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply
 Message 58 by slevesque, posted 08-27-2010 1:59 PM Percy has responded

    
Dr Jack
Member (Idle past 391 days)
Posts: 3507
From: Leicester, England
Joined: 07-14-2003


Message 53 of 85 (577079)
08-27-2010 4:36 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by Percy
08-26-2010 8:19 PM


Robustness of the date
One of the problems with the mitochondrial Eve date is that its calculation involves making a number of assumptions. Now, if we followed the Creationist fantasy of what Scientists do everyone would now gather round and have a big back patting session about how we've proved the Bible is wrong again. What actually happened is that people have set out to limit the impact of those assumptions.

A very recent paper looked at how the date changes if you vary the assumptions and thus investigate how confident we can be in the date. They found the date was robust under variation of modelling assumptions, the paper in question is here.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Percy, posted 08-26-2010 8:19 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by archaeologist, posted 08-27-2010 7:53 AM Dr Jack has not yet responded
 Message 56 by slevesque, posted 08-27-2010 1:22 PM Dr Jack has responded

  
archaeologist
Inactive Member


Message 54 of 85 (577098)
08-27-2010 7:53 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by Dr Jack
08-27-2010 4:36 AM


Re: Robustness of the date
i can already see in the abstract that it is not going to be a genuine conclusion:

We perform extensive simulations

These results are used to estimate

so in reality you just have more of the same.

What actually happened is that people have set out to limit the impact of those assumptions.
A very recent paper looked at how the date changes if you vary the assumptions

my question is how can you limit the impact of assumptions by using more assumptions?

i can't access the rest of the article and it is certainly NOT worth 31 dollars to read.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Dr Jack, posted 08-27-2010 4:36 AM Dr Jack has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by caffeine, posted 08-27-2010 8:04 AM archaeologist has responded

  
caffeine
Member
Posts: 1702
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 55 of 85 (577100)
08-27-2010 8:04 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by archaeologist
08-27-2010 7:53 AM


Re: Robustness of the date
my question is how can you limit the impact of assumptions by using more assumptions?

Because you use different assumptions and see if it varies the results significantly.

Imagine that we're doing a calculation, but there's a variable A that we're not sure of. You take what seems to be a reasonable figure for A, and do your calculation to get an estimate of whatever it is you're trying to calculate.

But somebody could rightly point out that, since you don't know what number A should really have been, you don't know how likely your estimate is to be correct. It could turn out to be way off.

So, you vary the assumption and try a bunch of different numbers for A. If it turns out that you get a very similar answer, even with very diferent numbers for A, then the estimate is robust. You can be confident in it, because it's approximately right even if you got A quite significantly wrong.

Edited by caffeine, : punctuation and typos


This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by archaeologist, posted 08-27-2010 7:53 AM archaeologist has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by archaeologist, posted 08-27-2010 7:05 PM caffeine has not yet responded

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 2927 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 56 of 85 (577194)
08-27-2010 1:22 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by Dr Jack
08-27-2010 4:36 AM


Re: Robustness of the date
Have you read the abstract of that paper ? Because it is testing the modelling assumptions of population demography, while I am asking about the assumptions behind the calculation of the mutation rates.

And This:

Now, if we followed the Creationist fantasy of what Scientists do everyone would now gather round and have a big back patting session about how we've proved the Bible is wrong again.

Is typical strawman, and I'll hope you'll cut down on those if you want to discuss with me. Don't pretend to know how creationists think.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Dr Jack, posted 08-27-2010 4:36 AM Dr Jack has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Dr Jack, posted 08-27-2010 1:37 PM slevesque has not yet responded

  
Dr Jack
Member (Idle past 391 days)
Posts: 3507
From: Leicester, England
Joined: 07-14-2003


Message 57 of 85 (577198)
08-27-2010 1:37 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by slevesque
08-27-2010 1:22 PM


Re: Robustness of the date
Yes, I know what the paper was about. I was replying to Percy, not you. The paper tests the assumptions behind the calculation of the date, not the measurement of the rate.

Is typical strawman, and I'll hope you'll cut down on those if you want to discuss with me. Don't pretend to know how creationists think.

It's no strawman. It's a direct description of how Evolutionary science is described by the likes of Archaeologist. I have no pretence that you would say something so ridiculous.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by slevesque, posted 08-27-2010 1:22 PM slevesque has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by archaeologist, posted 08-27-2010 7:10 PM Dr Jack has responded

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 2927 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 58 of 85 (577201)
08-27-2010 1:59 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by Percy
08-26-2010 8:19 PM


I ask because Mit-Eve is an interesting subject but I haven't had the time to really read on it.

I looked into the wiki article, and there seems to be two methods of calculating the mutation rate. The first one beign the one you described earlier, which they call pedigree based. Taking groups of parent/offspring pairs and calculating the mutation rate. In other words, you are calculating the mutation ''in real time'' as they happen.

The other method, however seems to be begging the question. They assume that chimps and humans had a common ancestor 6M years ago, then calculate the mutation rate and apply it to humans. (the circle is completed when someone uses these dates as evidence against the biblical account of human origins). They call this Phylogeny based.

In short, the phylogeny based method is really just getting the Theory of Evolution to make a prediction: it states that if ToE is correct, then the mutation rate should be x. The problem is that when we actually calculate the mutation rate ''in real time'', it turns out to be 10x according to the wiki article.

Now, the 200k date seems to be what comes out when you use the phylogeny based estimation.

But what comes out when you use a pedigree based estimations ? There's at least one study who gets a mutation rate 20 times higher, which would bring down Mit-Eve to around 6k years old. (Parsons, T.J. et al ‘A high observed substitution rate in the human mitochondrial DNA control region’, Nature Genetics Vol. 15: 363–368, 1997)

Of course, no researcher in that study actually think they got the right answer. But still.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Percy, posted 08-26-2010 8:19 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-27-2010 9:37 PM slevesque has responded
 Message 71 by Dr Jack, posted 08-28-2010 5:10 AM slevesque has not yet responded
 Message 72 by Percy, posted 08-28-2010 7:34 AM slevesque has responded

  
Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5826
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 59 of 85 (577203)
08-27-2010 2:10 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by archaeologist
08-20-2010 4:58 PM


even when secularists have the evidence rightin frontof them, they will not accept it. it becomes pointless for christians to present any evidence because if it is not what the secularist wants to hear, then it is ignored, dismissed, rejected and followed by more calls for more evidence.

*sigh*

That DNA can be traced back to a single woman doesn't mean that it is "Eve" from the bible. It means that it was traced back as far as the earliest known SURVIVOR who successfully passed on her genes.


"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by archaeologist, posted 08-20-2010 4:58 PM archaeologist has not yet responded

    
archaeologist
Inactive Member


Message 60 of 85 (577250)
08-27-2010 7:05 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by caffeine
08-27-2010 8:04 AM


Re: Robustness of the date
Hiding unsupported assertions. --Admin

So, you vary the assumption and try a bunch of different numbers for A. If it turns out that you get a very similar answer, even with very diferent numbers for A, then the estimate is robust. You can be confident in it, because it's approximately right even if you got A quite significantly wrong.

but that still doesn't mean you are correct. because populations have not been around for 200,000 years the whole equation is still off.

if you are looking for natural answers, you will never get it right because you are using the wrong variables and the wrong equation.

you are also assuming that secularists are on the right track when they are far from it.

Edited by archaeologist, : No reason given.

Edited by Admin, : Add hide.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by caffeine, posted 08-27-2010 8:04 AM caffeine 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