Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
insane_alien

A creationism challenge

Recommended Posts

no. i'm God. i am not bound by physical laws, and i am not bound by grammatical ones! :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
no. i'm God. i am not bound by physical laws, and i am not bound by grammatical ones! :P

 

If you were God, your avatar would be a little more intimidating.

 

I know it's not a law, but it's just common sense! ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wouldn't most scientists (or people using scientific method) agree that in the case you just described that it is in fact falsifiable, to a "reasonable" degree and is therefore unsupportable? The "God did it" weaseling out should not hold up in an honest scientific sense. If it did you could base all of science on it, not just creation.

 

It's falsifiable, and falsified, if you remove the supernatural part of it. The earth is not ~10,000 years old, there was no global flood, and our lineage cannot be traced back to two specific individuals who started it all as the first humans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's falsifiable, and falsified, if you remove the supernatural part of it. The earth is not ~10,000 years old, there was no global flood, and our lineage cannot be traced back to two specific individuals who started it all as the first humans.

 

I think that's a fairly safe conclusion. From my limited perspective 99%+ of even regular church going "Christians" would agree with that; That a creationist model based on taking the Old Testament literally is flawed inspite of there being some evidence of historical correlation. I think the number would get smaller, less would agree that it is falsified, the closer the creationist model approached the evolution theory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Science and the theory of evolution makes more sense. Religion is not only an opiate for societies, but it's also a hallucinogenic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and our lineage cannot be traced back to two specific individuals who started it all as the first humans.

 

Well that is not entirely correct. Spencer Wells NGS showed that there is mutation of the male chromosome that can be used to trace human ancestry and he used it to show that ll liveing humans are decended form one man who lived in Africa about 60,000 years ago, they call this man the scientific Adam. A very fascinating development but certainly no proof of the Bible. I think there was an earlier study that traced the female lineage back to one women around 120,000 years ago in Africa. So if you can accept a nonliteral intepretation of the Bible there was an Adam and and Eve.

 

Also Swansont I think you are sort of insisting that the only Christian arguments out are ones that say the Earth is young. Its not true. I knew a geologist who was an old earth Christian (obviously right). I try never to knock someones belief system unless they use it to hurt people. Sincerely believing the gospel did not become a militant activity until at least two centuries after the time of the Apostles. The first Christians were hated for being different and little else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well that is not entirely correct. Spencer Wells NGS showed that there is mutation of the male chromosome that can be used to trace human ancestry and he used it to show that ll liveing humans are decended form one man who lived in Africa about 60,000 years ago, they call this man the scientific Adam. A very fascinating development but certainly no proof of the Bible. I think there was an earlier study that traced the female lineage back to one women around 120,000 years ago in Africa. So if you can accept a nonliteral intepretation of the Bible there was an Adam and and Eve.

 

 

That's why I was careful to say "two specific individuals who started it all as the first humans". And you are incorrect; these studies are often misunderstood. The implications of the Y-chromosome Adam is not that we are all descended from him, it is that he is the most recent common ancestor through the male lineage. Similarly, the Motochondrial Eve analysis does not say we are all descended from that female.

 

Mitochondrial Eve traces female lines only, and Y-chromosome Adam traces male only. The Mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosome Adam were not the only female and male, respectively, alive at the time. While one can trace a lineage back through them, they were not the first humans, and others alive at the time have descendants who are alive today. A bottleneck in the lineage is a mathematical certainty, as not all males have male offspring, and not all females have female offspring.

 

Also Swansont I think you are sort of insisting that the only Christian arguments out are ones that say the Earth is young. Its not true. I knew a geologist who was an old earth Christian (obviously right).

 

 

YEC was the topic at hand, is all. But any part of "God did it" is unscientific.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And you are incorrect; these studies are often misunderstood. The implications of the Y-chromosome Adam is not that we are all descended from him, it is that he is the most recent common ancestor through the male lineage.

 

 

What is your definition of a common ancestor? of descendant? I am descended from my ancestors. I see your point though it does not mean that he was the only living man at the time it is more about the verility of his gene line. Basically his sons mated with everybody eventually and his DNA gave them some survival trait that has abided the ages. Perhaps he was the first man to conceive of empire and build advanced weapons.

 

The problem with trying to attack peoples faith is that good scientists don't do it. All true science arises from a rational observation of the world, this 'rationality' is limited by human ability but is best defined by formal logic which cannot deny the existence of God. Maybe I should turn the attack around and say that since physical science cannot answer every question it must be somehow inferior to faith which has been able to bring deep and abiding satisfaction to far more people over the centuries than science is likely ever to do. And yes I know men who are true scientists and have deep religious experiences as well. Also pick a name from the science history book and you are likely to have picked the name of a Christian.

 

So yes, everyone is impressed because we know that 'God did it' is not scientific, but 'God did it' is not tied to a particular cosmogeny. And recognizing that 'God did it' is not validated by current science is not a proof that God does not exist. It is the folly of some scientists which moves them to say that it does or that since science cannot prove His existence they should act as though He does not.

 

Lets take this a step further. Suppose I have a piece of paper in front of me and on that paper live the flatlanders. They cannot percieve anything beyond the paper on which they live, they are two dimensional beings bound by the edges of the paper. I find myself then in the position of a god being able to move in three dimensions. If I place my fingertip through their plane of existence I can deny them the ability to pass through a given area, but my full shape they cannot know from only the circular outline of my finger. Perhaps in their own way they will develop a mathematics and a science allowing them to infer that the strange events are caused by inteference from another dimension. But perhaps I could influence their world in ways they could not percieve. If for instance their minds were only able to stay focused on problems of a certain level of complexity. Certainly then if my friend and I were to stand back and examine them and make calculated decisions about how to intervene in their world they would not percieve us as a scientific reproducable fact. Our actions would be the anomolies that their science wonders about but always lacks sufficient evidence to come to a conclusion on.

 

In short, the universe may still contain far more things than are written about in your books or are describable by your science Horatio.

 

:rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What is your definition of a common ancestor? of descendant? I am descended from my ancestors. I see your point though it does not mean that he was the only living man at the time it is more about the verility of his gene line. Basically his sons mated with everybody eventually and his DNA gave them some survival trait that has abided the ages. Perhaps he was the first man to conceive of empire and build advanced weapons.

 

I don't think that's a valid conclusion from the data. His sons didn't have to "mate with everyone," they just had to each have a son that mated and had a son, etc. It's possible, though admittedly unlikely, that each one along that line had but one offspring - a male. And the analysis is only sons, so it is incorrect to say that we are all descended from him, and to say or imply that nobody is descended from Y-Adam's contemporaries is also incorrect.

 

 

The problem with trying to attack peoples faith is that good scientists don't do it. All true science arises from a rational observation of the world, this 'rationality' is limited by human ability but is best defined by formal logic which cannot deny the existence of God. Maybe I should turn the attack around and say that since physical science cannot answer every question it must be somehow inferior to faith which has been able to bring deep and abiding satisfaction to far more people over the centuries than science is likely ever to do. And yes I know men who are true scientists and have deep religious experiences as well. Also pick a name from the science history book and you are likely to have picked the name of a Christian.

 

I wasn't attacking anyone's faith, and never denied the existence of God. A problem with YECs is they want to say God did it, and also say how God did it, and demand that the evidence back them up. But that's not faith, and it isn't science, either. I'm attacking the part that isn't science.

 

So yes, everyone is impressed because we know that 'God did it' is not scientific, but 'God did it' is not tied to a particular cosmogeny. And recognizing that 'God did it' is not validated by current science is not a proof that God does not exist. It is the folly of some scientists which moves them to say that it does or that since science cannot prove His existence they should act as though He does not.

 

Again, you are arguing against something that is not my position. You need to pick a fight with someone else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, a bit of clarification about the Mitochondrian Eve and Y-chromosomal Adam:

 

Basically, all living humans are descendants of these two, who a) Did *not* live at the same time and b) were *not* the only humans alive at their respective times.

 

Imagine we have a troop of primates. One male has an *exceptionally* good gene, which allows more survival and reproductive success for his offspring compared to others. The population is stable. Over time, the mutant male will compose more and more of the population, until the last remnants of the non-mutant lineage die out. At that point (and from then onwards) that original mutant male will be the common ancestor of all those primates. But there *were* other primates around; they just lost the evolution game.

 

Another analogy: All birds are desendants of Archaeopteryx (for the sake of arguement). But that doesn't mean Archaeopteryx was the only theropod dinosaur, or even proto-bird, alive at the time. It just means that all the *other* family lines are dead.

 

This doesn't mean diddly-squat about faith, or interpreting Genesis more broadly or narrowly. Personally, I think Adam and Eve is a story based on the knowledge of the time, which didn't include things like the effects on inbreeding. If we went back in time, showed them a Chihuahua and said "inbreeding will do *this* to wolves", they'd've burned that section of Genesis faster than you can say "Horrifying rat-like, bug-eyed abomination".

 

Heh, we should use that as an arguement for selection causing major morphological change. We turned a dog into a rat. A bug-eyed, bald, Parkinsonian rat.

 

Mokele

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ok' date=' a bit of clarification about the Mitochondrian Eve and Y-chromosomal Adam:

 

Basically, all living humans are descendants of these two, who a) Did *not* live at the same time and b) were *not* the only humans alive at their respective times.

 

Imagine we have a troop of primates. One male has an *exceptionally* good gene, which allows more survival and reproductive success for his offspring compared to others. The population is stable. Over time, the mutant male will compose more and more of the population, [b']until the last remnants of the non-mutant lineage die out.[/b] At that point (and from then onwards) that original mutant male will be the common ancestor of all those primates. But there *were* other primates around; they just lost the evolution game.

 

Another analogy: All birds are desendants of Archaeopteryx (for the sake of arguement). But that doesn't mean Archaeopteryx was the only theropod dinosaur, or even proto-bird, alive at the time. It just means that all the *other* family lines are dead.

 

This doesn't mean diddly-squat about faith, or interpreting Genesis more broadly or narrowly. Personally, I think Adam and Eve is a story based on the knowledge of the time, which didn't include things like the effects on inbreeding. If we went back in time, showed them a Chihuahua and said "inbreeding will do *this* to wolves", they'd've burned that section of Genesis faster than you can say "Horrifying rat-like, bug-eyed abomination".

 

Heh, we should use that as an arguement for selection causing major morphological change. We turned a dog into a rat. A bug-eyed, bald, Parkinsonian rat.

 

Mokele

 

Why? 100% can be reached without any of the lineage "dying out".

 

Adam could have been the weakest "link" of the troop who "lost" the evolution game on the gene scoreboard (relative to his troop mates) yet still be a common ancestor to everyone alive today.

 

Or am I misinterpreting what you said?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i have one question. how is the protiens in DNA effected by EM fields?

supposidly the earth had a really strong EM field when it was young. and also since the earth is a sphere, it would be symetrical, and so is DNA.

 

just a thought.

i won't say weather either creation or evolution is true, because nither have suffishent evadence(at least not enough for me, tho i am studing both). i do beleave that the limit to adeptation is infinite. or at least to big to measure. just look at the way humanity has adapted or evolved over the past few centries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why? 100% can be reached without any of the lineage "dying out".

 

Adam could have been the weakest "link" of the troop who "lost" the evolution game on the gene scoreboard (relative to his troop mates) yet still be a common ancestor to everyone alive today.

 

Or am I misinterpreting what you said?

 

I think so. Let me try again.

 

You have a family tree, as do I. If we trace it back far enough, we share a common ancestor. But Bill isn't in that group, we have to trace our lineage further back still until we find the common ancestor of you, me and Bill.

 

Now imagine you, me and bill are the last people on earth, and Bill dies. Now the most recent common ancestor of humanity is *our* shared relative, since Bill no longer matters. That doesn't mean that Bill never existed, or that his family didn't exist alongside ours, but only that our common ancestor is the common ancestor of all *living* humans.

 

So, the Y-chromosomal Adam is the last common ancestor of all living males. Other males lived alongside him, but their lines eventually died out (like bill), otherwise we'd have to push back the common ancestor further (like we did when finding the ancestor of you, me, and Bill).

 

Does that help?

 

i have one question. how is the protiens in DNA effected by EM fields?

supposidly the earth had a really strong EM field when it was young. and also since the earth is a sphere, it would be symetrical, and so is DNA.

 

Protiens can be affected, depending on their charge, but, so far as we know, DNA is not. There seems to be little or no mutagenic power of EM, though, at least not until it reaches an insanely high level (beyond 'head in the microwave' level).

 

i won't say weather either creation or evolution is true, because nither have suffishent evadence(at least not enough for me, tho i am studing both).

 

I recommend both this site and http://www.talkorigins.org

 

In the latter, you can find all the evidence you want, and in the former, you can ask questions about anything you might be unclear on.

 

Just remember to weigh all the evidence before committing.

 

i do beleave that the limit to adeptation is infinite. or at least to big to measure. just look at the way humanity has adapted or evolved over the past few centries.

 

Great, but not infinite. There are constraints on evolution and adaptation.

 

An excellent example is the evolution of fast-moving herbivores in the Cenozonic (aka 'Age of Mammals'). Both Perisodactyls (odd-toes, like horses and rhinos) and Artiodactyls (even toed, like deer) evolved in North America, Europe, Asian, and Africa to fill the niche of a herbivore who can run fast to escape predators. In South America, which was isolated, a nearly identical, but unrelated lineage, the litopterans, evolved (and only went extinct when their isolation ended).

 

But Australia never evolved a fast-running quadrupedal herbivore, especially with hooves, like everywhere else. Instead they got the kangaroo, which is fast, but less efficient. Why? Becuase kangaroos are marsupials, and evolved from marsupials. And marsupial babies must crawl, with their arms, through their mother's fur into her pounch. A baby with legs modified for fast running would not be able to make such a climb, and would die. So in this way, developmental biology and past evolutionary history constrained and limited the possible adaptations of a group of organisms. in layman's terms, they got stuck in a catch-22.

 

For more on this *very* interesting sub-field of biology, look at some of Gould's essays.

 

Mokele

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Right. Mainly because the creationist model is not based on a scientific theory - there is no way one could falsify it. From that viewpoint, everything is supporting evidence.

Pretty clever, eh? :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

reyam I would advise you and everyone around to take a look at the evolution side of things first, as it gives you a far better idea of what evolution is and is not (a mistake made by many creationists, who practicly try to tear down all of science) also if you really want to see how impossible the creationist argument is, look into molecular biology, most of that stuff isn't even called evolution but thats what alot of it describes in some way or anouther. This will all act to show you how molecular biology is tied directly into evolution even though they aren't the same thing. the two are both proven facts and are shown to be true in labs every day (to the extent that asking the question "is evolution real?" is like asking "do atoms exist?"

 

since you are in highschool just read the sections of your bio textbook on molecular biology, (you can get one from the science department or in the library if your not in bio)

 

 

after reading this stuff (should only take an hour or two to skim over the relevant chapters) you can then go and read the stuff on creationism, you will then see how impossible all of the arguments they give are.

 

That all being said I do in fact believe in god just not in an organised religion. THe two are not conflicting, I believe that god created the universe and all the relevant perameters and all and then let us have it. (by perameters I mean the fundamental laws of physics at the big bang).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think so. Let me try again.

 

You have a family tree' date=' as do I. If we trace it back far enough, we share a common ancestor. But Bill isn't in that group, we have to trace our lineage further back still until we find the common ancestor of you, me and Bill.

 

Now imagine you, me and bill are the last people on earth, and Bill dies. Now the most recent common ancestor of humanity is *our* shared relative, since Bill no longer matters. That doesn't mean that Bill never existed, or that his family didn't exist alongside ours, but only that our common ancestor is the common ancestor of all *living* humans.

 

So, the Y-chromosomal Adam is the [b']last common ancestor of all living males[/b]. Other males lived alongside him, but their lines eventually died out (like bill), otherwise we'd have to push back the common ancestor further (like we did when finding the ancestor of you, me, and Bill).

 

Does that help?

 

 

Mokele

 

It makes sense if you, Bill and I were amoebas.

 

Can the Y chromosone only be passed on from father to son and not "carried" by a female? Then it would make sense but not make Adam the last common ancestor. If that is the case you would know that, but are using "ancestor" and "lineage" for lack of better terms or in a very restricted way.

 

Does that make sense?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I challenge any creationist(or anybody else for that matter) to attempt to find a single peice of logical and/or empirical evidence that suggests that creationism is true.

 

I DO NOT WANT attacks on belief(this is not about belief but science)' date=' references to the bible(it can be made to agree with anything) or statements such as "i think evolution is a bunch of crap so creationism must be true"(if something is not A it does not necessarily mean that B is true).

 

If this erupts into a flame war or personal attacks of any kind are made then i will ask for this thread to be closed by the moderators.[/quote']

 

 

I'm not a creationist but when I saw "What we still don't know" ( http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/W/what_we_still_don't_know/ ) they left out the attack on the simulation hypothesis which must be the grand daddy of ID.

 

I have my own answer to this but it's equally hard to refute as finding all life in the universe as to get evidence of "divine intervention". Maybe we are too insignificant to pay attention to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It makes sense if you, Bill and I were amoebas.

 

Of course. I was simplifying for ease of explanation.

 

Can the Y chromosone only be passed on from father to son and not "carried" by a female? Then it would make sense but not make Adam the last common ancestor. If that is the case you would know that, but are using "ancestor" and "lineage" for lack of better terms or in a very restricted way.

 

Only males have the Y chromosome, which they can only inherit from their fathers. Similary, for the mitochondrial eve, while both males and females have mitochondria, only the female contributes them to the offspring.

 

How would this not make adam the most recent common ancestor? By definition, the term means he's the most recent human ancestor which all living human males are descended from. Ditto for the mitochondrial eve.

 

As for the usage of "most recent common ancestor", I'm not really sure how the term can be unclear. It's the most recent person who's on the family tree of *everyone*. Like the most recent common ancestor of me and my cousin is my grandparents.

 

Mokele

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Of course. I was simplifying for ease of explanation.

 

 

 

Only males have the Y chromosome' date=' which they can only inherit from their fathers. Similary, for the mitochondrial eve, while both males and females have mitochondria, only the female contributes them to the offspring.

 

How would this not make adam the most recent common ancestor? [b']By definition, the term means he's the most recent human ancestor which all living human males are descended from[/b]. Ditto for the mitochondrial eve.As for the usage of "most recent common ancestor", I'm not really sure how the term can be unclear. It's the most recent person who's on the family tree of *everyone*. Like the most recent common ancestor of me and my cousin is my grandparents.

 

Mokele

 

I can give you an example of a more recent common ancestor that does not fit the definition of a Y chromosone Adam.

 

Similarly Y chromosone Adam's mother would (almost certainly) fit the definition of a more recent female common ancestor (of every female alive as well as the males) even though she would not fit the definition of mitochondrial Eve. They just wouldn't all have her mitochondria. In fact it's possible none of them do. (she may not have had any girls)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Similarly Y chromosone Adam's mother would (almost certainly) fit the definition of a more recent female common ancestor even though she would not fit the definition of mitochondrial Eve.

 

Hrm, you know, you're right (at least about me not being correct). Because I focus so much on a macroevolutionary time scale, most recent common ancestor usually refers to a species in my experience, and I forgot that, because of independent assortment of alleles during gametogenesis, there would quite possibly be a different 'common ancestor' for each chromosome (and possibly each gene, depending on recombination frequency).

 

Perhaps a better term for them is in order...

 

Whoopsie...

 

Mokele

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hrm' date=' you know, you're right (at least about me not being correct). Because I focus so much on a macroevolutionary time scale, most recent common ancestor usually refers to a species in my experience, and I forgot that, because of independent assortment of alleles during [b']gametogenesis[/b], there would quite possibly be a different 'common ancestor' for each chromosome (and possibly each gene, depending on recombination frequency).

 

Perhaps a better term for them is in order...

 

Whoopsie...

 

Mokele

 

Game to Genesis? Don't worry, Evolution will win the next round! :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, more like Game to Terminology Screw-ups... The results still mean that those were not the only humans alive at the time (otherwise we'd all be so inbred that 'Dueling Banjos' would be the most popular tune on earth), just that the 'most recent common ancestor' is going to be different for every chromosome and possibly every gene.

 

Mokele

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ok' date=' a bit of clarification about the Mitochondrian Eve and Y-chromosomal Adam:

 

Basically, all living humans are descendants of these two, who a) Did *not* live at the same time and b) were *not* the only humans alive at their respective times.[/quote']

 

But females are not necessarily descendents of Adam, and males not of Eve.

 

Imagine we have a troop of primates. One male has an *exceptionally* good gene' date=' which allows more survival and reproductive success for his offspring compared to others. The population is stable. Over time, the mutant male will compose more and more of the population, until the last remnants of the non-mutant lineage die out. At that point (and from then onwards) that original mutant male will be the common ancestor of all those primates. But there *were* other primates around; they just lost the evolution game.

[/quote']

 

The other family lines aren't necessarily dead, though. 99% of the males could also count Adam's next-door-neighbor "Phil" as an ancestor, too, it's just that Phil only had daughters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:D

No' date=' more like Game to Terminology Screw-ups... The results still mean that those were not the only humans alive at the time (otherwise we'd all be so inbred that 'Dueling Banjos' would be the most popular tune on earth), just that the 'most recent common ancestor' is going to be different for every chromosome and possibly every gene.

 

Mokele[/quote']

 

Just kidding. I have no idea what gametogenesis is but thought it was ironic coming from you (in my twisted way).

 

I think these two chromosones/mitochondria must go back farther than most to find a "most common ancestor" due to the particular way they are carried (or cannot be carried) as male only or female only lines are a smaller and smaller fraction the further back you go making the branches less likely to converge. Of course migrations and isolation etc. would play a huge role also, the details of which I'm sure you know much better than I. I just picked up on your thought that we couldn't all share some genetic material or lineage from Adam's troop mates and it didn't seem right.

 

So you're right, no game to Genesis.

 

(We'll call it a draw :D )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Perhaps a better term for them is in order...

The Y-chromosome patrilineal MRCA is called Y-MRCA (it's fun to be in the..), I suppose the mitochondrial matrilineal MRCA could be called mt-MRCA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.