BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 04 Apr 12 - 10:53 PM

Joe has put it well. A devotee is a follower, a believer, not someone who cherry picks the writings for one's own ends. Wouldn't you agree pete?

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Joe Offer
Date: 04 Apr 12 - 10:45 PM

Yeah, OK, Pete, "Social Darwinism" and eugenics led to some pretty nasty stuff, to the point were Hitler has been called a social Darwinist - but I don't think Darwin would approve of that perversion of Darwinism any more than Jesus would have approved of the many perversions of Christianity that have done horrible things over the ages.

I think it's wrong to blame an idealist for those who have perverted his/her ideas and used them for evil. Blame them for their evil, not the idealist whose ideas were twisted into the antithesis of their original intent.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Don Firth
Date: 04 Apr 12 - 07:00 PM

I think you need to substantiate that claim, pete.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 04 Apr 12 - 06:59 PM

"i could mention a few very nasty men who were devotees of darwin"

No you cannot. Unless you have your own personal definition of "devotee" which you have declined to share with us, you cannot cite any such devotees who had the ability to order murder on that scale. I would guess that it is just that kind of sloppy thinking, and the teaching of it, that worries the "Ian Mathers's" of this world.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 04 Apr 12 - 06:19 PM

so what great disaster do you think is going to swallow us all up if children are allowed to question darwinism?
i could mention a few very nasty men who were devotees of darwin and and were responsible for more deaths than the whole history of the christian church.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: TheSnail
Date: 04 Apr 12 - 05:41 PM

Penny S.

My point in mentioning the mitochondrial ancestress, whom I have no intention of naming after any assumed personage,

Sorry. It's how she has come to be known in the popular science press. In fact, since it works against my argument that she was really of no significance other than as a statistical oddity, I am happy to drop it.

was to enlarge the point that it wasn't necessary to assume those who did not pass on their genes were either absent, or died earlier than they should.

Hadn't realized that was an issue.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: frogprince
Date: 04 Apr 12 - 04:56 PM

This has been one of those strange instances where a worthless thread has deteriorated into a discussion that some of us have learned some things from.   : )

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Penny S.
Date: 04 Apr 12 - 04:47 PM

My point in mentioning the mitochondrial ancestress, whom I have no intention of naming after any assumed personage, was to enlarge the point that it wasn't necessary to assume those who did not pass on their genes were either absent, or died earlier than they should.

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: TheSnail
Date: 04 Apr 12 - 02:45 PM

MtheGM

Eh?

"Descendant?!"

Ooops! Sorrreeee. Direct ancestor of course.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Bill D
Date: 04 Apr 12 - 02:34 PM

"All the more reason not to give credence to stupidity and superstition. "

It is not a matter of 'giving credence' to it.... it is a matter of recognizing that certain metaphysical concepts will be with us...probably forever. If all mention of religion were removed from mention for a couple of generations, (I have no idea how that would be possible), I am willing to bet it would be re-invented with similar themes. It just appeals to some mindsets as "the answer" to questions that can't otherwise be answered.

I could expand on this idea for several hours, but no one would care to read it all.

What is crucial is that we not allow such thinking to control the
framework of society as it did for several thousand years. *IF* schools begin to teach "how to think" (not 'what to think'), it would not be a serious issue.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 04 Apr 12 - 02:29 PM

"There is nothing special about Mitochondrial Eve other than the fact that she is our direct descendant through the female line."

.,,.,.

Eh?

"Descendant?!"

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 04 Apr 12 - 02:11 PM

And the governor of Tennessee is preparing to sign a law protecting teachers who encourage students to question evolution and global warming.

I just hope he signs it in Dayton, TN.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Musket
Date: 04 Apr 12 - 02:02 PM

Jack, I choose not to understand their psychology.

A few posts up, I said I was not qualified to engage with pete the star.

It IS a serious topic and for governments looking to the future of society, a deep ernest topic. All the more reason not to give credence to stupidity and superstition. Whilst ever politicians pander to them to get votes, whilst ever old bigots with pointy hats are allowed to influence the UK House of Lords, whilst ever the old German who tried brushing kiddy fiddling under the carpet is met at the airports by heads of state...

I find laughing at them and dismissing them as having a mental illness is far better than getting paranoid and confronting them. That's my choice. The choice of many is to say they don't represent the religion of said many, that's their choice. But every nice old lady who arranges the flowers in church gives respectability to medieval (and beyond) methods of controlling people, and that is why they need to be irrelevant. Leaders of religion encourage or fail to control fundamentalist idiots, so they are to blame also in my view.

I take it your light hearted start to the thread was based on what society can do about people who believe nonsense, but it soon degenerated into a reality versus bollocks debate, and that in itself helps prove my point. Give them oxygen and they tend to breathe it...

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: TheSnail
Date: 04 Apr 12 - 01:43 PM

There is nothing special about Mitochondrial Eve other than the fact that she is our direct descendant through the female line. I'm not sure what the population was back then but we are just as descended from many thousands of women who were alive at the same time it's just that male ancestors will have intervened.

There are a couple of ways of looking at this. On the small scale, we all have four great grandmothers. We have inherited all our mitochondrial DNA from our mother's mother's mother. That doesn't mean we are any less the descendants of our other three great grandmothers from whom we will have inherited more or less the same amount of nuclear DNA.

Another way is to start from the time of Mitochondrial Eve. Of all the women in her generation, some will have only had boys and some will not have had children at all. Their mitochondrial DNA will go extinct. The same happens every generation until only the mitochondrial DNA of one of those women is left. There is nothing to say which of them it would be.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 04 Apr 12 - 12:59 PM

"Is it me, or are some people taking this thread seriously? Why?

You only encourage the buggers."

The thread was started light-heartedly but it is a serious topic with very serious economic and geopolitical consequence.

As to "encourage the buggers." You imply that a creationist could be in any way influenced by any argument here. I suspect an indication that you have no understanding of their psychology. None at all.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Penny S.
Date: 04 Apr 12 - 12:53 PM

I remember trying to work out scenarios in which the mitochondrial single female ancestor did not have to be the only human female alive at the time - she only needed to have female offspring slightly more fertile than others at the time in order for all modern females to have descended from her. Or slightly more attractive to mates. Or they needed to have more girl babies than boys, while others had more sons. The same applies to the ancestral Y-chromosome male, who does not even have to have been alive at the same time and in the same place as the mitochondrial ancestor.

It gets a bit boring randomising generations by tossing coins and dice after a while, so I didn't carry on with the exercise, but it was quite clear that the offspring of any one individual could come to dominate the group. Anyone can try it, recording each generation.

1. Choose a number of females to be in the group.
2. For each female, toss a die to determine the number of offspring surviving to breed, replacing six with 0. (If you think that 5 isn't enough breeding offspring, use two dice, but I would think that infant and maternal mortality would tend to keep numbers low in a primitive society.)
3. For each child, toss a coin to determine gender.
4. Repeat the exercise from 2 with the next generation.

You could do the same for males, but you'd need a much bigger difference in offspring numbers if you think that one male might be running a harem. A lot of zeroes, and one male with a huge number of offspring would reduce the number of generations to get down to one male ancestor of all males dramatically.

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: TheSnail
Date: 04 Apr 12 - 11:53 AM

frogprince

how would selection work on non-heritable genetic material? Wouldn't the end result of non-heritable genetic material be one dead mutant, not evolutionary change?.

First, contrary to what Steve says, selection does not work on genetic material at all. It works on organisms and populations of organisms. If a particular gene resulted in "one dead mutant", it would also result in evolutionary change since that gene would be eliminated from the population. Individual organisms don't evolve; populations do. It doesn't have to be as extreme as killing the individual, just making them less successful at breeding.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 04 Apr 12 - 06:45 AM

""Don, frankly I find it a bit scary that I'm part of a minority of 14.09%!""

I wouldn't worry Shimrod, at least you haven't any evangelising fundamentalists in that group, which makes it probably the best place to be.

I'm there too, though not an atheist. I follow no organised religion, but deal direct with the manufacturer, as it were.

I never could see the need to listen to the personal interpretations offered by men in black frocks.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Musket
Date: 04 Apr 12 - 05:35 AM

Is it me, or are some people taking this thread seriously?

Why?

You only encourage the buggers.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Stu
Date: 04 Apr 12 - 05:32 AM

You're talking about natural selection as if it's a single process, and it's not. It's several process (this was the insight that confirms Darwin's genius):

1) Variation

2) Superfecundity

3) Inheritance

I haven't time to go into detail (the day job getting in the way - bah!).

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Mr Happy
Date: 04 Apr 12 - 05:09 AM

BanjoRay,

Best answer I heard to the question; 'Why are we all here?'

was 'Because we're not all there!'

Says it all really! 8-)

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Paul Burke
Date: 04 Apr 12 - 01:56 AM

Full title of Charles Darwin's greatest work:

On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life

Note that "race" in this context would be called "variant" these days.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: frogprince
Date: 03 Apr 12 - 08:43 PM

"I'm glad to see you've abandoned your previous statement that selection acts on heritable material."

If this is a stupid question, so be it: how would selection work on non-heritable genetic material? Wouldn't the end result of non-heritable genetic material be one dead mutant, not evolutionary change?.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Apr 12 - 07:47 PM

Oh Gastropub, I haven't altered any ideas in my recent posts. Do try to find something to do.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 03 Apr 12 - 05:10 PM

Don, frankly I find it a bit scary that I'm part of a minority of 14.09%!

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Don Firth
Date: 03 Apr 12 - 03:24 PM

My, how time flies!!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Paul Burke
Date: 03 Apr 12 - 02:14 PM

Scientists find that the Earth is younger that they thought!!!

In fact, by a whole 700000 years. So far from being 4.5 billion years old, the Earth is only 4.4993 billion years old. Only another 4.499294 billion years of revision to find somewhere.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: TheSnail
Date: 03 Apr 12 - 01:41 PM

Steve, I agree with you that selection is not evolution. I'm not sure that anyone is arguing strongly that it is; just some slightly imprecise language. My "WHAT?!" was directed at your bizarre "though it is certainly a tool in its armoury.". Language like that can only serve to undermine the credibility of scientific argument.

Natural selection (or any selection really) is a non-random process. The heritable material in question is genes (Darwin didn't know that, of course, but we do). When DNA replicates, genes, or sequences of genes can miscopy. We call it mutation. Selection acts in a non-random fashion, differentially if you like, on the different expressions of genes that are brought about by mutation.

Near enough. I'm glad to see you've abandoned your previous statement that selection acts on heritable material.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 03 Apr 12 - 01:26 PM

What is really scary (from the same source material) is that in the USA, 78.4% of the population is Christian, no problem there, but between 45% and 50% is Young Earth Creationist Fundamentalist Christian.

Given the situation vis-a-vis nuclear capability, what an opportunity for these religious nuts to remove all opposition.

I want to buy a ticket on the next Mars flight.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 03 Apr 12 - 01:17 PM

""Why should anyone believe that 'Biblical truth' is the only alternative to science?""

Precisely.

You would have a lot of trouble getting that one passed by a committee consisting of proportional numbers of the world's major religions, and atheists.

The whole of Christianity only accounts for a 33.32% and falling minority worldwide:-

Christian             33.32%       Falling
Muslim                21.01%       Rising
Hindu                13.26%       Stable
Buddhist               5.85%
Other religions       12.48%
No religion          14.09%

Sources were Wikipedia and the Toronto Religious Tolerance website.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 03 Apr 12 - 12:36 PM

On the planes in Greenland -
pete needs to do some research on "regelation".
Quite well understood phenomenon both theoretically and experimentally.
Explains the whole incident. In fact they knew exactly where to look for the planes based on an understanding of regelation and the movement of the Greenland ice sheets.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: BanjoRay
Date: 03 Apr 12 - 12:12 PM

Sugarfoot Jack - absolutely right. God botherers on the other hand are terrified of uncertainty and want answers to questions that don't actually have any, like why are we here? Who made the world? etc. Many people are prepared to provide answers to questions like that that on the basis of no evidence whatsoever - eg the authors of the bible.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Stu
Date: 03 Apr 12 - 07:34 AM

"Science is not a monolithic body of incontrovertible 'truth' like that which some religious zealots believe in."

Sorry Shim, that was my inability to articulate my view ;-)

I agree completely, and would go further. Science is driven by ignorance. As scientists we are looking to find answers to explain what we don't understand. Science is a process of constant revision, a creative process that (as far as I am concerned) has more in common with the arts than with religion.

if a scientist doesn't feel stupid, then it's possibly time for them to hang up their microscope/CT scanner/Synchotron/LHC etc. Scientists want to learn, they welcome uncertainty and a good scientist will be comfortable with their ignorance . . . it's what drives them.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: beardedbruce
Date: 03 Apr 12 - 07:27 AM

"We cannot possibly know which ones they are because they are based on faith, and not fact. But certainly those that are *right* owe it to the world to *show the others the error of their ways* and are willing to do so with hostile rhetoric and weapons, we are guaranteed war until *all* people are converted to the *right* *belief system.*"


This applies to more than religion. Just look at ANY political thread here.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Musket
Date: 03 Apr 12 - 07:26 AM

Try my belief system;

Eat, drink, fart, laugh and shag.

You can join my religion too, I'll get the power of attorney docs emailed to you by return.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: saulgoldie
Date: 03 Apr 12 - 06:21 AM

Once again, science is a *process* of thoroughly testing and retesting hypotheses that yields reproducible results. It is fact-based. Religion is a *belief system* that cares not about facts or reason or reproducible results. It is based on faith. Since there is so much disagreement among the world's *many* religions who *all* think they have the *answers* based on faith at least *some* of them must be wrong.

We cannot possibly know which ones they are because they are based on faith, and not fact. But certainly those that are *right* owe it to the world to *show the others the error of their ways* and are willing to do so with hostile rhetoric and weapons, we are guaranteed war until *all* people are converted to the *right* *belief system.*

Saul

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Mr Happy
Date: 03 Apr 12 - 05:50 AM

I didn't know what Lamarckism was either, here 'tis to share:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamarckism

pete,

What's happened to your fellow delusionist, Iona?

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 03 Apr 12 - 05:44 AM

Sugarfoot Jack, I think that you're missing the point of my last comment. It's unlikely that the science is 'wrong' - although, some details might be - but all scientific knowledge is provisional and could be revised at any time in the light of new evidence. Science is not a monolithic body of incontrovertible 'truth' like that which some religious zealots believe in.

The real point of my comment is that Young Creationists, like pete, seem to think that if they keep picking holes in the 'monolith' that they imagine science to be then it will eventually crumble and 'Biblical truth' will be revealed in all it's glory. But that doesn't logically follow - if they succeed in discrediting science completely (which, of course, they won't - but let's just imagine)then anything could be behind the (imaginary) 'scientific monolith' - not just 'Biblical truth'! Why should anyone believe that 'Biblical truth' is the only alternative to science?

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Apr 12 - 08:01 PM

Spot the left-out comma.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Apr 12 - 08:00 PM

Selection is a major mechanism in evolution but is not the only one. Therefore it can't be correct to say that selection is evolution. Apart from anything else, it's a fairly inane comment that explains nothing to anybody. Thank goodness no-one's saying it. Certainly Darwin didn't say it. Had he thought that selection was evolution he wouldn't have called his theory what he did.

Selection is the non-random action on heritable material which can miscopy.

Er, no it isn't. That's Lamarckism.

You clearly haven't got the faintest idea what Lamarckism is. OK then. Natural selection (or any selection really) is a non-random process. The heritable material in question is genes (Darwin didn't know that, of course, but we do). When DNA replicates, genes, or sequences of genes can miscopy. We call it mutation. Selection acts in a non-random fashion, differentially if you like, on the different expressions of genes that are brought about by mutation. Tell me where Lamarck trumps Darwin in that lot.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: TheSnail
Date: 02 Apr 12 - 07:31 PM

Steve Shaw

But selection is not evolution, though it is certainly a tool in its armoury.

WHAT?!

Selection is the non-random action on heritable material which can miscopy.

Er, no it isn't. That's Lamarckism.

Paul Burke

Steve: I'm not sure what you think IS evolution then.

I've been having the same trouble for some time.

Natural selection is a universal- it works on everything, it's just a description of a process, not a "thing". Biological evolution (to me and I think most scientists) is the change of a population's genome as accumulated changes are acted on by the selection process.

Thank you, Paul.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 02 Apr 12 - 01:22 PM

""I know of at least two world-renowned palaeontologists who have a strong Christian faith. Neither of them are YEC. They've seen way beyond that. Now they would be interesting people to have in this discussion.""

You never will see them in this kind of argument. They are real Scientists and real Christians, and they have reached a conclusion, long ago, which we are only approaching.

They have concluded that arguing with somebody who is deaf, dumb and blind is a futile pursuit.

Don t.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Stu
Date: 02 Apr 12 - 12:10 PM

I know of at least two world-renowned palaeontologists who have a strong Christian faith. Neither of them are YEC. They've seen way beyond that. Now they would be interesting people to have in this discussion.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Mrrzy
Date: 02 Apr 12 - 11:41 AM

The actual empirical evidence for evolution is incontrovertible. There is no empirical evidence for any superstition.

Nuff said, but probably not 'nuff argued...

Anybody familiar with Tim Minchin?

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Musket
Date: 02 Apr 12 - 07:51 AM

I'm not convinced it is pete's best interest that some of us engage with him. I for one am not qualified...

With all the quotes people through the ages slipped into the bible for their own ends during myriad "translations" you'd think there must have been a few doubting Thomas's around to put a line to say this is example and metaphor, the conjuring tricks are to pad the book out and keep it on the best seller lists, but no. The bit about proof and faith being interlinked, that's the fodder for the masses stuff.

You know, if the likes of pete and Iona were put forward as being representative of religion, I doubt there would be a progressive western democracy that would entertain them. So why the Hell do we allow them to influence our upper chamber?

Could it be that their own Bishops are more rational than those who they have to lead? Could it be that politicians know that once they take their pointy hats off, the Bishops see faith as a tool rather than a facet of their creed?

Therefore.. is it that Christianity is in fact nothing to do with this young age creationism after all?

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Stu
Date: 02 Apr 12 - 05:44 AM

The science isn't wrong, pete simply doesn't understand it nor has he made any effort too. His statements on evolution are deeply ignorant and not really worth discussing. If he'd looked into the science and understood it he's come up with something more original than the tired old creationist tropes he does.

I'm sure he's a nice chap in real life, but he knows sod all about the subject he's preaching about and that's disrespectful to those of us that spend our time studying these things.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 02 Apr 12 - 04:31 AM

pete, if, as you maintain, the science is all wrong it still doesn't 'prove' that Genesis is right!

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Penny S.
Date: 02 Apr 12 - 04:27 AM

For some reason I am reminded of the story of the man in the flood who prays for God to help him, but rejects the man in the truck, the man in the boat, and the man in the helicopter, only to accuse God of not helping him when he arrives, inevitably, before Him. "But," says God, "I sent you a truck, a boat and a helicopter."

So stratigraphy, ice cores, dendrochronology, isotopic dating, fossil sequences, DNA similarities et al, are not evidence, as the men in the story were not help.

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Paul Burke
Date: 02 Apr 12 - 01:53 AM

You misunderstand, Ray. Here is a gap in the fossil record. Now a palaeontologist discovers a new, intermediate fossil. Proof positive? Not at all. Now there are TWO gaps in the fossil record.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: BanjoRay
Date: 01 Apr 12 - 08:17 PM

So the Archeopteryx, the platypus, the DNA relationships between similar species prove less than a few paragraphs in a very dubious old book?
No fossil evidence? every fossil found is an intermediate species between something and something else.