Originally posted by KellyJayI can use cladistics, mitochondrial DNA, as well as DNA sequences to provide a very strong case for the approximate time at which it happened, and the relatives which diverged along with these groups.
Can you show me where birds and trees had the same ancestor?
Kelly
So, yes, I can.
2 edits
That is supposition based upon axioms, it is not empirical in any way. So no you can't, you can just postulate a theory based upon (very) incomplete, and highly circumstantial evidence that is wide open to interpretation. And THAT postulation is made based upon the presupposition that evolution is correct in the first place.
You can't use theory and supposition to create proofs. All you can do is put it forward as theory. I wish evolutionists would play by the same rules they shove down creationists throats as often as they get the chance (they're good rules by the way, it would just be nice if those swinging them like weapons observed them consistently as well).
8 edits
Originally posted by KellyJayThat word translated "day" is actually the root word from which we derive the word "aeon". Nowhere does it say it represented 24 literal hours. That exegesis is up for debate.
Yes, a day equals a day and I am a young earthier too.
Kelly
BTW Kelly, a young earth is extremely difficult to maintain as a plausible truth. Geology contains conclusive evidence the earth is *at least* several hundreds of thousands of years old - and that's just taking into account the yearly layers in shale laid down on lake beds. Biology contains similar, incontrovertible evidence. If you say "well, God created the earth with that 'evidence' there already", then you make him deceitful and fall into an old theological heresy (it has a name which escapes me right now).
I know YEC's appeal to the flood as producing all this varying evidence, but that is scientifically nonsense, and can't explain the biological evidence anyway (yearly tree rings for one, but there are many others).
Young Earth Creationism is a very new development (only since the late 1800's I think). There is no record of the belief being held before that... and that includes the church fathers.
That's not to say there aren't either scientific or theological problems either way - there are, and if we're going to be honest we have to admit that. But our understanding of the Bible is growing, just as our understanding of the natural world is growing. We don't have all the evidence, or all the knowledge.
Originally posted by t0lkienWell, it is based upon a prediction of the theory of evolution. The theory predicts that things which are closely related will have a higher degree of genetic homology than those more widely separated in what Dennett calls "Design Space". It is the basis for all genetic cladistics.
That is supposition based upon axioms, it is not empirical in any way. So no you can't, you can just postulate a theory based upon (very) incomplete, and highly circumstantial evidence that is wide open to interpretation. And THAT postulation is made based upon the presupposition that evolution is correct in the first place.
You can't use theory and suppo ...[text shortened]... t would just be nice if those swinging them like weapons observed them consistently as well).
This has been exceptionally successful in the past to determine the relationships between things. The point being, it is an empirical technique based upon testable assumptions that have been verified numerous times.
I do not think there can be a "wide degree of interpretation", since the analysis is a mathematical one, based upon a huge amount of data.
Originally posted by t0lkienCan you back up your claims? Explain how cladistics based on DNA is "highly circumstantial evidence" and can you suggest any other interpretation.
That is supposition based upon axioms, it is not empirical in any way. So no you can't, you can just postulate a theory based upon (very) incomplete, and highly circumstantial evidence that is wide open to interpretation.
You can't use theory and supposition to create proofs.
Nobody has claimed to have prooved anything.
All you can do is put it forward as theory.
And in science a Theory is effectively a proof though the word proof is more properly only applied within the domains of mathematics and logic.
I wish evolutionists would play by the same rules they shove down creationists throats as often as they get the chance (they're good rules by the way, it would just be nice if those swinging them like weapons observed them consistently as well).
Who hasn't observed them?
3 edits
As I understand it, Cladistics isn't based on DNA. Cladistics is a methodology of classification, which itself assumes the theory of evolution. Mitochondrial DNA is then used to show the veracity or otherwise of the Cladistic classification (vs. taxonomical classification).
http://jhered.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/97/6/581
Googling around will bring up a lot more links to scholarly opposition to both the assumptions and science of the methodology. There is always another side, and the jury is out, which is my point. Using big words and terms authoritatively does not a truth make (that's as much a jibe at myself as anyone else 😉)
P.S. Turning "proof" into a synonym of "theory" is semantic sleight of hand. A theory is never "proven", else it is no longer a theory. If you make proof interchangable with theory, all you have done is make the word useless and we have to find another one that means the same thing. But also, it is pertinent to always remember how many "proven" theories have been debunked when new evidence was discovered.
1 edit
Originally posted by t0lkienCladistics can be used on many things, but it's often used on DNA. It's also called phylogenetic analysis. It can also be used on morphological traits (although some would say that this is less useful, due to convergent evolution, etc), protein sequences and other physiologically defined traits.
As I understand it, Cladistics isn't based on DNA. Cladistics is a methodology of classification, which itself assumes the theory of evolution. Mitochondrial DNA is then used to show the veracity or otherwise of the Cladistic classification (vs. taxonomical classification).
http://jhered.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/97/6/581
Googling around ...[text shortened]... erms authoritatively does not a truth make (that's as much a jibe at myself as anyone else 😉)
It DOES NOT assume the theory of evolution to be correct. it is merely a mathematical tool. The theory of evolution can make predictions that may be proved or disproved by cladistic analysis, but it doesn't require evolution to be true to work.
[edit; Phylogenetics could work in special creationism, for example, although there is no reason to suspect it would, neither is there any evidence for special creationism.]
Originally posted by t0lkienSince the Theory of Evolution is one of the most successful and solid scientific theories of all time, there should be no problem in "assuming" it when coming up with a methodology of classification. After all, classification is not a theory and cannot therefore be true or false so even if the Theory of Evolution is wrong, the methodology of classification called Cladistics would still be somewhat viable.
As I understand it, Cladistics isn't based on DNA. Cladistics is a methodology of classification, which itself assumes the theory of evolution.
Googling around will bring up a lot more links to scholarly opposition to both the assumptions and science of the methodology. There is always another side, and the jury is out, which is my point. Using big words and terms authoritatively does not a truth make (that's as much a jibe at myself as anyone else 😉)
That is what science is all about. But in general, the idea of using mitochondrial DNA or other DNA to establish relationships between species is a good one and has conclusively verifies the Theory of Evolutions predictions in the area.
For example in the July Scientific american there is an article about a study done on the DNA of the various cat species (lions, tigers etc). And they were able to show the links between relationships based on DNA evidence and fossil records and current species distribution. Now if all these cat species are actually not related (ie the Theory of Evolution is wrong) then the probability of such a pattern occurring is so minuscule that one would really have to conclude that it was put there by God to fool us.
Originally posted by t0lkienAre you making assumptions here?
That word translated "day" is actually the root word from which we derive the word "aeon". Nowhere does it say it represented 24 literal hours. That exegesis is up for debate.
BTW Kelly, a young earth is extremely difficult to maintain as a plausible truth. Geology contains conclusive evidence the earth is *at least* several hundreds of thousands of year ...[text shortened]... natural world is growing. We don't have all the evidence, or all the knowledge.
"Geology contains conclusive evidence the earth is ..."
For example you are assuming you know how the earth was put
together, were you there? The assumption of how the earth was
put together leads you to assume that when you look at a variety
of layers these mean ages of X, you are assuming a great many
things when you start putting them altogether to form the picture
you are painting for you view of the universe, and its history all
of which occurred long before you, and I ever walked on this
planet. Yes, I admit I have faith it is just on in the same thing
many other are putting theirs into.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayKelly, we've been over this before.
Are you making assumptions here?
"Geology contains conclusive evidence the earth is ..."
For example you are assuming you know how the earth was put
together, were you there? The assumption of how the earth was
put together leads you to assume that when you look at a variety
of layers these mean ages of X, you are assuming a great many
things when you ...[text shortened]... admit I have faith it is just on in the same thing
many other are putting theirs into.
Kelly
We're assuming that God was not so deceptive as to arrange things as having the appearance of
being billions of years old. Yes, we take for granted that repeated experiments yielding the same
result aren't mere coincidences. Yes, we're taking for granted the laws of physics haven't changed.
Why wouldn't we take these things for granted? Why would you choose to disbelieve repeatable
conclusions? Why would you choose to believe that the speed of light has changed? Why would you
choose to believe that physics itself only locked down its rules in the past few thousand years?
Evidence has weight. That weight is determined by how it accords with those things we can test.
The evidence is overwhelming that radioactive isotope decay is the same as ever. What reason do you
have to disbelieve it?
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioThe universe is the way the universe is, you looking at it and making
Kelly, we've been over this before.
We're assuming that God was not so deceptive as to arrange things as having the appearance of
being billions of years old. Yes, we take for granted that repeated experiments yielding the same
result aren't mere coincidences. Yes, we're taking for granted the laws of physics haven't changed.
Why wouldn't we take t ...[text shortened]... isotope decay is the same as ever. What reason do you
have to disbelieve it?
Nemesio
your assumptions does not mean that you were being tricked by God,
only that you took it upon yourself to write meaning into what you
see before you. You cannot blame God for that which you do without
direction from God to do it.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayWell, Kelly, we know that had the universal constants changed much, the universe wouldn't be the way it is. Heavy elements wouldn't have formed, galaxies wouldn't spiral the way they do. But hey, stick with your "magic" defence.
The universe is the way the universe is, you looking at it and making
your assumptions does not mean that you were being tricked by God,
only that you took it upon yourself to write meaning into what you
see before you. You cannot blame God for that which you do without
direction from God to do it.
Kelly
As for needing to be somewhere when something happened to work out what happened, this is clearly fallacious thinking. Does a detective need to be in a room when a murder is committed to work out who did it?
Originally posted by KellyJayHow does being there make a difference. You will still have to believe your eyes, which by the way are not fool proof. You repeatedly claim that the age of evidence and whether or not you are present at the time the evidence was 'created' affects its validity. Yet you have not provided one shred of reasoning to back that up other than personally opinion.
Are you making assumptions here?
"Geology contains conclusive evidence the earth is ..."
For example you are assuming you know how the earth was put
together, were you there?
Do you think that the existence of the stars is mere belief because the evidence that they exist is billions of years old? Were you there when the light from the sun left the surface of the sun? If not, how can you possibly know that the sun exists? That light travels in a straight line when it is coming from the sun is clearly nothing but an assumption and believing that it is moving based on various readings of the direction of sunlight is just 'joining the dots' - clearly nothing more than personal opinion. Anyone who says that there is conclusive evidence for the sun is clearly according to Kelly just "making assumptions".