A question for Ken Ham last week and a question about debates

Faith & Science Conversation
142

Can probably use either in this context. I was just using the terminology Richard used.

Yes, I think you are missing something. The timeline held by science is based on observations. We measure the distance to galaxies based on known and established physical observations and consistent with the properties of physical reality as expressed by physics. We measure the time it takes the light to reach us from those galaxies and the speed they are traveling away from us. We measure the rate of radioactive decay and use those observations to calculate age. We can measure erosion rates and sediment deposition rates to get a rough calculation of age. We can measure mutation rates to get an idea of how long it has been since species diverged. All those things have limitations and error bars, but they are all consistent with an ancient universe and an old earth. The killer asteroids and volcanic eruptions can also be dated by physical measurement, and those events are consistent with the known laws of physics, and do not alter the physical properties of matter, but rather conform to them. We can observe the layers left by the Dino killer asteroid, we see evidence of its impact site, we see no non-avian dinosaur fossils above that layer. We were not there, but the remains of the event are still here with us and can be studied. As for ID, I really don’t know how you could prove design, so can’t really blame them for their lack of evidence. If I am not mistaken, I think Behe accepts an old earth and common descent, but holds to some sort of divine intervention on the molecular level directing mutations and such from what I can tell. And philosophically, I am OK with that as it conforms with my idea of God’s providence, but do not agree that it is something that can be scientifically proven.

5 Likes
143

Sorry, I was not talking about all science although anyone who reads what I write should know that.
I do wish I could refute and be believed once and for all that I distinguish Evolutionary theory from all other science.

Richard
.

144

That is always the question. It is always down to me to demonstrate a specific system that is too complex to reduce or two systems within the evolutionary line that cannot be simply interchanged or progressed from one to the other. I have thrown in a few suggestions over the years but they get a summary dismissal. It seems that Physiology and Ecology are not part of the Evolutionary syllabus and can therefore be dismissed as irrelevant.
Time can do anything? Nothing is impossible (for Evolution)? I wonder whose faith is stronger, mine or the Evolutionary scientist?

Richard

145

The term was authorative, particularly as concerns genetics.

My children watched Nye, who created engaging educational scientific content. But if you are comparing Luskin to Nye, I’m afraid that neither represent authorities who would be held in high regard by geneticists. Nye, however, at least has the advantage of not being contrary to biology in general.

Because Luskin has not earned any relevant significance. Opinions are a dime a dozen in the discount bin - I care little what Taylor Swift thinks of junk DNA either. Recognized specialists, often senior researchers, aggregate knowledge in their field to publish peer reviewed survey papers, designed to summarize the state of knowledge on particular topics rather than present original work. Those are worth paying attention to.

2 Likes
146

If you look up endothermic metabolism you will find when it was supposedly first seen and various nonmammalian creatures that seem to display it. You read about the advantages as opposed to ectothermic systems, What you do not read is how they came into existence. It just appeared.
It is generally agreed that the first metabolic system were ectothermic. They still regulate but the parameters are very different.
So, how does one “develop” endothermic control? What comes first? The insulation? The ability to dissipate heat? Both are needed for a fully functional endotherm. You also need a guaranteed source of heat (self generated) which involves digestion and energy conversion and so on. The endocrine system? is governed by the metabolic system (and vise versa)
Does the existence of temporary endothermic control during pregnancy in some creatures prove that you can actually have both systems present? Does that actually answer how the system developed?
One of the main characteristics of Mammals is hair rather than scales. Was that an instant change? A complete recovering? One creature has scales and it gives birth to a hairy one?
I do not think a creature with hair could not be endothermic…
It would seem that we do not need to understand or catalogue step by step changes. All we need to do is to record their existence. From a purely cynical viewpoint, God could easily be inserted into this void (But that would be the God of the Gaps)
I get accused of excessive incredulity. Hmm.
What I see is blind faith in the ability of nature to just change and adapt without worrying about the mechanics involved or the number of changes to the physiology necessary to achieve these changes. Not to mention the compatibility issue between the developed creature and the doner or parent one. These things seem to get glossed over. (herd dynamics for instance) I wonder if anyone has ever attempted to catalogue the minutia? Or is it deemed unnecessary?
(the Devil is in the details!)

Richard

147

There are some fish that have partial endothermy. Also, as a system that preserves extremely rarely, we shouldn’t expect much fossil evidence.

2 Likes
148

Some insulation shows up in most large-bodied endotherms in cold environments, so probably yes.

2 Likes
149

The only requirements I’m aware of relative to ectothermy are eating more and eating regularly.

No. Probably something a bit reminiscent of moonrat hairs would be intermediate, but we have no evidence to go on, so we don’t know.

Well, recording existence is required as a start, and there’s lots of data we don’t have.

Those issues all disappear if the process is spread across a large enough amount of time.

2 Likes
150

That is a fallacy. Some things are impossible. Perhaps you would like to walk to the moon?

But you are convinced that it can be found.

But it must have happened!

So simple. Have you ever compared the digestive system of Reptiles and Mammals? Or the Blood systems?

Like I said, you just assume…

Gain, vague and wooly. Partial enothermy? Using movement to gain heat is partial endothermy.

For mammals exercise is a two edge sword. They need it to get their prey but doing it changes their internal temperature. They need energy to move but they get energy from their prey. This is not as simple as taking a quick run to warm up, or the human use of exercise to control weight.
So simple!

Naive does not cover half of it. But, to be fair, it is symptomatic of evolutionary theory as a whole.

Richard

151

Design, but of what? YEC appropriates ID arguments to present the world as a static entity that came about as is, where is. Little happens, and what change has transpired is attributed to decay and to tortured contortions of evidence to fit a global flood. Science advances not by cataloging isolated facts as seems to be the creationist mindset, but by understanding the processes by which the world operates. Science seeks the fundamental principles which underlay a dynamic universe. Our planet, particularly life, always has and ever will be changing. That process is called evolution.

Vikings and Polynesians also found paths in the seas, utterly unaware of scripture.

Maury may have been inspired by his Bible reading, but his contributions to oceanography were informed by empirical observations, just as for scientists of the entire gamut of philosophical and religious convictions.

Modern science also seeks to elucidate the paths of the sea, what drives those currents and how they have changed over geological time. The rise and fall of sea level due to ice ages, the isolation and reconnection of the Mediterranean as evidenced by salt deposits, estuaries flowing into the inland sea that once bisected North America, the biogeography of Austrailia, climate variation recorded in tree rings, the progression of microfossils in chalk formations such as Dover, and the drift of continents, all involve paths in the seas over deep time that science has uncovered.

3 Likes
152

Design is not the sole property of YECs.Neither is irreducible complexity or any other criticism of Evolution.

Even that summary is simplistic and naive. There are more pressures or influences on life than just Evolution. And that is without the influence of humanity. Perhaps a convenient meteorite would help the current crises?

Richard

153

True, I said appropriation, which is selective and can be inconsistent.

Evolution, in both the broad sense of the word which encompasses change from cosmology to society, and the more specific macro-biological sense of the word, are not in opposition. They both happen.

1 Like
154

Sorry, but that is not Evolution in the sense that we are discussing.

Evolution is the development of creatures from simple to complex.or just to adapt to changes in the environment. The environment might cause the need for the change but it is not part of the Evolutionary process.

Richard

155

That is what was meant and I hope was what I said. In any case, they are not exclusive and both happen.

You cannot separate the warp from the woof; it’s all of a cloth.

1 Like
156

Richard it has been rather clear to me, at least, that your only concern was with evolutionary theory. So a hopefully simple question for you. Why do you consider biology to be different from the other sciences? Evolution is just biology over time.

Oh but it is. A change in the environment can result in a change in the survival rate for different groups in the population. What was once a group that was at a disadvantage might now have an advantage. Over time that group will grow faster and the genetic change gets passed down to future generations.

3 Likes
157

I can.

Richard

159

Evolution is not the only part of Biology as I have been trying to explain for a very long time. Evolution is a unique part of science.inasmuch as it relies on theory as opposed to raw data. Te evidence from fossils is comparatively limited . Most of the theory assumes that time can do anythingand is therefore more faith than science. I have a solid grounding in Biology haveing studied it to Collegic level and appear to know more about physiology and Ecology than the majority of claimed scientists here.

Absolutely not. The basic Evolutionary process and influence can be demonstrated. The ability to completely develop nature is pure speculation and assumption and as such is not pure science.

Time neither heals nor creates. It just blurs the edges of perception.

Richard

160

That’s either wrong – evolutionary biology has no goal with respect to God – or true of every other field of science, not to mention the notably atheistic fields of auto repair and plumbing, all of which ignore the role of God

I’m not a stickler for good theology, but that strikes me as terrible theology.

The conclusion that much DNA is nonfunctional is based on what we know about DNA – what it does, how it varies between similar species, and where a lot of it comes from – rather than some simplistic assumption that if we don’t know what it does, it must not have a function.

There certainly are such nuances yet to be discovered. What does that have to do with the reasons biologists think most human DNA is nonfunctional? Do you even know why they think that?

This is completely wrong. Like any field of science, evolutionary biology relies on data (most of which comes from genetics, not fossils) and relies on theory as well.

5 Likes
161

Ancestry was concluded, not assumed, well before scientists knew anything about genetics. Detailed genetic comparison has long since cemented that conclusion.

If you recall, the question was about how evolution we used within biology, not whether evolution was the only way to draw the same conclusion. Let’s consider the creationist claim here, though. Did any creationist actually predict that comparison with similar species should tell us which genetic variants in humans are new mutations? If so, what was the reasoning? When apparent examples of poor design are pointed out, the response I’ve seen from creationists is that we don’t know the goals of the designer. If we don’t, why we would assume that the designer would use the same DNA sequence in different organisms? More importantly, why does this apply less and less as you compare species that are (according to biologists) more and more distantly related, even when the DNA in question does exactly the same thing in all the species? Why is the rate of genetic differences between species correlated with the rate of genetic variation within those species?

To me, this creationist argument looks like an attempt to explain away data rather than to explain it.

Based on his remarks when the ENCODE papers came out, no, he didn’t seem particularly well informed on this topic. Why is that surprising? No one knows everything and this isn’t exactly in his wheelhouse.

Ignorance is entirely excusable. Choosing to remain ignorant when offered an opportunity to learn is on less solid ground.

Yes, really.

Have you never met humans? We’re a quarrelsome lot.

Thanks – you’re clarifying things nicely here. I would refine that definition of functional a little, but it’s certainly in the right ballpark. The problem is that this is nothing like the definition that the ENCODE folks used, which you’re using as the basis of your claim here. Based on their definition, any stretch of DNA that was biochemically active in cells was ‘functional’. So if a piece of DNA was transcribed into RNA and then that RNA was immediately degraded and recycled, or if it was excised from the RNA (and again recycled) because it was part of an intron, then they called it functional, even if its existence made no difference to the appearance, functioning, or fitness of the organism.

No, it doesn’t. That’s the point. By that test, most mammalian DNA is nonfunctional. (Actually, by that test even a good deal of functional DNA is nonfunctional. When researchers removed large chunks of mouse DNA, including parts that very likely do have function, they couldn’t detect any difference in the mice. Natural selection is a much more sensitive probe of functionality than lab experiments.)

After decades spent seeing these arguments, I have not found that to be true. For example, I have yet to see a ‘common design’ explanation for the quite basic genetic data described here.

3 Likes
162

This is an argument from incredulity. The second and third points absolutely disappear if the process is spread out over time, the first one is the only one with any pertinent issues. And that one is usually a matter of “No one knows what all the intermediates were, so we can’t know exactly how it happened.”

Some of it at least. It’s kind of hard not to find additional data, if that’s what one primarily does in research.

Given that no one has proposed a better explanation of the scientific process by which organisms ended up with their current forms, some sort of evolutionary transition between scales and hair seems quite likely.

Not in detail: I work on mollusks, not vertebrates, and those are separate issues from just generating more heat.

I assume that the only scientific theory on the subject that fits the vast majority evidence we have is the best scientific explanation at present? Yes, and it seems like a pretty safe assumption.

By that I meant maintaining a partially regulated body temperature somewhat above the environmental water temperature, through metabolic heat and pumping less blood to extremities. I forget which large cold-water fish group it was that does that. Maybe tuna?

About what?

1 Like