lundi 7 septembre 2015

Sandwalk blogger does not get what "observed" means?

Hint, it does not mean "deduced". It does not even mean "deduced beyond reasonable doubt". It does not even mean "deduced with mathematical certainty amounting to that of 2+2=4".

Other hint: observed means seen, heard, smelled, tasted, felt-by-touch.

Now, let us go to the relevant quote. A creationist has, as usual, claimed that "macroevolution has not been observed". Here is his quote from creationist and his answer:

Kirk Durston
The definition of macroevolution is surprisingly non-precise for a scientific discipline. Macroevolution can be defined as evolution above the species level, or evolution on a "grand scale," or microevolution + 3.8 billion years. It has never been observed, but a theoretical example is the evolution from a chordate eel-like creature to a human being. Many people who embrace Darwinian evolution confidently state that evolution is a proven fact. They say this on the basis of thousands of papers discussing microevolution. Herein lies the second mistake ... the assumption that because variation/microevolution is such an overwhelmingly proven fact that, therefore, macroevolution must be as well.

Larry Moran/Sandwalk
I have my own explanation of Macroevolution but Durston's description is good enough for now.

A good example of macroevolution is the evolution of modern humans and chimpanzees from a common ancestor that lived about five million years ago. This example has been well established by multiple lines of evidence including fossils, comparative morphology, and molecular data. It is a fact. It is as much of a fact as most things in science.

We do not assume that chimps and human share a common ancestor just because microevolution is a fact. We have evidence. It is foolish to deny the overwhelming scientific evidence that humans and chimpanzees evolved from a common ancestor.

I think, after all, he does know what "observed" means.

Because he totally avoids the issue about macroevolution not having been observed. Kirk gave him sth else to answer and he answered that instead.

Kirk did also say of macroevolution "overwhelmingly proven", which Larry does answer. But here the "overwhelmingly proven" is not same kind of "overwhelmingly", and his answer about man and chimp evolving from a common ancestor being "overwhelmingly proven" (in a much less strict sense) is an allegation which does not get into what these "overwhelming proofs" are.

Microevolution has been observed over connected generations of observers. Cauliflower and brussel sprouts have a common ancestor. Breeders and plant growers have been preserving new varieties as they come up and even directed the criteria from which they come up.

Even in cases where not all of the process is available as observations, any more, certain deductions make more sense than others. Collies descending from wolves or from some common ancestor with wolves does make more sense than man and chimp descending from same ancestor - due to problem of when the soul with its rational faculties came in, as well as human feet shape. But wolves and collies having had a common ancestor in Eden or on the Ark is a deduction, not an observation. So is chimps and man descending from ramapithecus (8 mill. years ago? 20 mill. years ago? - unreliable K-Ar dating either way).

Now, supposing for a little moment Larry Moran were right. It would at least kill the "genetical clock" since chimps are so much closer to ramapithecus than men are. For this to work, mutations would have needed to go faster on human side than on chimp side, and that means "genetic clock" is useless, there is no set pace of genetic change.

But either way, first of all man and chimp descending from ramapithecus is not observed, and second, for its being overwhelmingly proven, we only have Larry's word and none of the overwhelming proof.

I don't call that "debating" - at least not "debating well".

And before he gets to answer "every stage of the development was observed by ramapitheci, by chimps, by human ancestors and by early men", that would of course be true if the deduction were a valid one, but these observations are none of them, if they even happened, observations of the process as a whole and also each step was on this view pretty soon lost from tradition. It is not as if we had the gardeners' version of the brussel sprout coming from the green cawl brassica.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Vigil of the Birthday
of the Blessed Virgin Mary

Stone Age Noah?

I was just following a redirect from CMI to :

ABC : A grandmother confronts creationist beliefs in her family
Sunday 22 July 2012 9:45AM / Transcript

And here is some rub I think this granny got wrong:

How many humans were on board, any children or slaves? ‘There were eight as the bible states’. How did Noah fit everything? Were there cages, could birds fly about? Did creatures fight or try to eat one another? ‘Everything fitted somehow. The ark was very big’. How big? I did the maths myself. It was huge, up to 1.2 hectares of floor space in three decks and it was roofed. I asked how Stone Age Noah could build it. No iron, no bronze, no horses, no wheels. They didn’t know but thought he could manage.

Stone Age Noah?

According to lots of articles on CMI, as well as Kent Hovind, Stone Age was post-Flood. It started with technological loss, perhaps not in the minds, but in the available possibilities. "After the Flood, they found themselves in a Gilligan's Island situation" (KH).

No iron, no bronze?

Wait a second:

Genesis 4: [18] And Henoch begot Irad, and Irad begot Maviael, and Maviael begot Mathusael, and Mathusael begot Lamech: [19] Who took two wives: the name of the one was Ada, and the name of the other Sella. [20] And Ada brought forth Jabel: who was the father of such as dwell in tents, and of herdsmen. [21] And his brother' s name was Jubal; he was the father of them that play upon the harp and the organs. [22] Sella also brought forth Tubalcain, who was a hammerer and artificer in every work of brass and iron. And the sister of Tubalcain was Noema.

Now, there are fewer generations in the Cain genealogy up to Tubalcain than in the Seth genealogy next chapter up to Noah and the Flood. This means Tubalcain - a hammerer and artificer in every work of brass and iron - was already around by the time Noah started the Ark.

No horses?

I don't know if horses were tamed or not before the Flood, but I do know that there were horses (or possibly "horse-donkeys", not mules but common ancestors) on the Ark. And if after the Flood it took some time taming horses again - or simply the horsetamers were lost out of sight for the centuries archaeologists identify as stone age millennia - that would be why stone age people had no horses tame along them, even if they had been tamed pre-Flood.

No wheels?

Probably did have those. When Americas were settled, wheels were known in the Old World, and it seems figurines with wheels served as toys have been found in Americas (pre-Columbian sites) too.

Her next question is about the feasibility study that Woodmmorappe has made already, I am not doubling it here.

Merely saying the Oceans are a lot deeper now than during the Flood.

Back to history.

The last question took the form of a history lesson mentioning Magellan, Wallace and Mendel’s garden peas. If Darwin had not published about evolution someone else would have. Knowledge had reached that stage. Now more is known about so much: fossils, DNA, radiometric dating, astronomy, genetics. We live in the best time ever for access to information. I asked if they are willing to consider results of research. Four said ‘yes’ – perhaps they will.

Magellan, Wallace, Mendel's peas ... Magellan had proven the Earth was round. This is not an obstacle to Young Earth Creationism. Magellan was a Geocentric and a Young Earth Creationist.

Wallace? As misled by evolutionist and old age ideas (both were already around, he nad Darwin just shifted the mechanism), as Darwin himself was.

Mendel's peas? Well, they prove there are chromosomes. Genes are not just an infinitely variable number of genes, one more or one less, no big deal. They come in packages known as chromsomes, and these are a small finite number which does not easily vary, and especially does not easily vary upwards. See my:

[Creation vs. Evolution/this blog :] Letter to Nature on Karyotype Evolution in Mammals

Fossils came from mainly the Flood.

DNA changes do not develop new chromosomes and do also not develop new organs. They sometimes delete organs. The blind fish that live in caves without daylight probably developed from seeing fish - it does not work the other way round. Though perhaps reconstituting seeing fish from diverse strains of blind which had lost different gene functionalities might be an option.

Radiometric dating - the most used methods are K-Ar (Potassium-Argon), which was proven worthless (Mount St Helens), and C14 the useful calibration of which depends on how long C14 has had the same concentration in atmosphere.

Astronomy? Heliocentrism with stars or objects 13.5 billion light years distant and Distant Star Light Problem do pose a problem for Young Earth - unless you are Geocentric, which is an option.

Triviū, Quadriviū, 7 cætera : Distant Starlight Problem - Answered by Geocentrism

Welcome to the Geocentric Wikia

By the way, a Round Earth, while not an obstacle to YEC, is certainly one problem for a limited Flood. Not for limited floods occurring, but for such a one to cover the highest mountains. Also, a limited Flood is not a solution for food supply if they were one year on the Ark.

Genetics - well, yes, what about it? Perhaps things like "genetic clock"? I already answered Mendel and DNA, what is left of the subject? Genetic closk is the idea that "genetic change has been observed to have a constant rate" and therefore the real and undisputed cases of common ancestry would take too long. No, not quite so. The genetic clock depends in part on how far back in time the geneticists place the common ancestor.

One thing is certain, when a granny has a bee in her bonnet, she can be ornery. Especially if getting endorsement against her Christian family members from things like ABC or doctors or whatever.

Back to building of the Ark (process feasability, not feasability of product as Ark).

Genesis 5 : [31] And all the days of Lamech came to seven hundred and seventy-seven years, and he died. And Noe, when he was five hundred years old, begot Sem, Cham, and Japheth.

Genesis 6 : [8] But Noe found grace before the Lord. [9] These are the generations of Noe: Noe was a just and perfect man in his generations, he walked with God. [10] And he begot three sons, Sem, Cham, and Japheth. [11] And the earth was corrupted before God, and was filled with iniquity. [12] And when God had seen that the earth was corrupted (for all flesh had corrupted its way upon the earth,) [13] He said to Noe: The end of all flesh is come before me, the earth is filled with iniquity through them, and I will destroy them with the earth. [14] Make thee an ark ...

Genesis 7 : [1] And the Lord said to him: Go in thou and all thy house into the ark: for thee I have seen just before me in this generation. ... [5] And Noe did all things which the Lord had commanded him. [6] And he was six hundred years old, when the waters of the flood overflowed the earth.

Noah was five hundred years old when begetting Sem, Cham and Japheth. Noah was ordered to build the Ark after begetting Sem, Cham and Japheth. And Noah was six hundred years old when the Ark was ready to be stepped in to. He had about a hundred years to build it. Sem, Cham and Japheth grew up as Ark builders. Even without tame horses, even without wheels, there would have been plenty of time to get it ready. However, cranes, pullies and ramps, I think Noah did use, even if Stone Age Men after his days didn't.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Vigil of the Birthday
of the Blessed Virgin Mary