Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 48 (9179 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,243 Year: 5,500/9,624 Month: 525/323 Week: 22/143 Day: 12/10 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creationist inconsistency when inferring relatedness
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 400 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 11 of 78 (711299)
11-17-2013 5:41 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Atheos canadensis
11-15-2013 9:32 AM


I asked this of Aaron.
Dr A writes:
So would you like to explain how you draw the line in any particular case?
Is there a reason why you would say: "Yes, using their methods the evolutionists are right to unite this beetle species with that species, and using their methods they are right to unite this beetle genus with this beetle genus with that beetle genus, but, dammit, when they use the exact same methods to unite this beetle family with that beetle family they've gone too damn far"?
I didn't get an answer though.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Atheos canadensis, posted 11-15-2013 9:32 AM Atheos canadensis has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Atheos canadensis, posted 11-17-2013 10:07 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 400 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 32 of 78 (715445)
01-05-2014 3:30 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by AndrewPD
01-05-2014 1:59 PM


"Ultimately, there is no way to measure whether a particular phylogenetic hypothesis is accurate or not, unless the true relationships among the taxa being examined are already known (which may happen with bacteria or viruses under laboratory conditions). The best result an empirical phylogeneticist can hope to attain is a tree with branches that are well supported by the available evidence. Several potential pitfalls have been identified:"
Whoever wrote it seems to be making a distinction without a difference. What's the difference, really, between knowing that something is accurate, and knowing that it's well-supported by the evidence? Evidence is how we know things.
There is a limit to how much I could refute genetic claims but I would not surprised that similar body parts require similar DNA arrangements to cause them.
That hardly explains why a crocodile is genetically closer to a hummingbird than it is to a Komodo dragon, or why a coelacanth is more like a dog than it is like a dogfish.
Take for example the Jack The Ripper case. It happened relatively recently in history but we are unlikely to be able to prove the perpetrator despite quite a lot of preserved evidence.
The reasoning, such as it is, seems to be "If we can't know one thing, concerning which we have no evidence, then we can't know something else, completely different, about which we have a lot of evidence". That hardly seems to hold water, does it?
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by AndrewPD, posted 01-05-2014 1:59 PM AndrewPD has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 400 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 33 of 78 (715446)
01-05-2014 3:34 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by AndrewPD
01-05-2014 2:39 PM


I don't see why we must have an explanation for the origin of species and why it would be possible.
I can accept that there may be truths that are hard or impossible to access I don't think we have permission to concoct a theory on the grounds that somehow a theory is demanded.
I don't have to believe the moon is made of cheese just because I haven't proffered an alternate explanation.
Sure, sometimes we have to learn to live with our ignorance. But also, sometimes we have to learn to live with our knowledge. This is one of those times.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by AndrewPD, posted 01-05-2014 2:39 PM AndrewPD has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 400 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 43 of 78 (715576)
01-07-2014 1:19 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by AndrewPD
01-07-2014 6:13 AM


Re: Permission?
Logical or rational permission.
Well, we always have permission to construct a theory about anything. The question is, do we have "permission" to believe it? Does the theory fit the facts? In the case of evolution, yes, it does. The question would be, when a few simple premises explain all the observations, is it rational not to believe it?
By analogy, suppose someone denied the theory that lightning causes thunder. If we ask him, then, why they are found in association, he replies that it's just one of those things, it's a coincidence. Is that a rational stance?
Getting back to the actual topic, we have a method which produces the right answer when we can test it. Genetic analysis reveals that I'm closely related to my brother, less closely related to a white person chosen at random, still less closely to a Japanese person. It tells me that dogs are related to wolves, it tells me that domesticated strawberries are related to wild strawberries, things that no-one doubts. It tells me that donkeys are related to horses, a proposition which is even believed by about 50% of creationists. So, is it rational to refuse to believe the results of the exact same method when it tells creationists something they don't want to hear? On what basis?
By analogy (I like analogies, sue me) suppose someone acknowledged that trigonometric methods of surveying are perfectly accurate every time we use them to measure the distance to a mountain peak or a church spire, that in these cases they are always correct, and always give the same answer as we get when we use a tape measure; but then he insists that the same method is always wrong when we use it to measure the distance to the stars, which he is convinced are very close to us. Now, does he have "rational permission" to reject this method when it starts giving him answers he doesn't like? Or do we have "rational permission" to follow this method where it leads us?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by AndrewPD, posted 01-07-2014 6:13 AM AndrewPD has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 400 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 49 of 78 (716490)
01-17-2014 4:29 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by AndrewPD
01-17-2014 12:20 PM


Re: approximation of reality vs known truths
The link I quoted says
"Ultimately, THERE IS NO WAY to measure whether a particular phylogenetic hypothesis is accurate or not.."
Then it is wrong.
You wouldn't convict a killer based on the DNA being that of a male or being that of and African male. The DNA has to be actually their DNA to make a claim with that kind or level of ramification.
Well yes, to say that person A is the same person as person B, you need the DNA to be identical. You need less similarity for "is the brother of", less still for "is the same race as", less still for "is the same species as". If biologists propose that you need less still for "is the same Linnaean familiy as", then why would you draw the line there?
Wider genetic similarities are seriously diluted of relevance so that we begin to have similar sequences to a Banana.
That is not an indication that these similarities lack relevance, but rather an indication that we're distantly related to bananas.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by AndrewPD, posted 01-17-2014 12:20 PM AndrewPD has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 400 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 55 of 78 (716977)
01-22-2014 9:37 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by AndrewPD
01-22-2014 9:05 PM


What is the value of making a claim about what happened a million years ago? You would need a time machine to validate it.
Or ... evidence.
Am I supposed to start scratching my bottom, swinging in trees and eating bananas?
Also, these so-called "scientists", not content with telling you about your ancestors, tell you that you yourself were once an infant. Are you supposed to start shitting yourself and crying when you want to be fed?
The implications attached to the ramifications of evolution are largely negative and derogatory to human status.
Well, things can be true even if you don't like the sound of them.
What would a Christian apologist say, I wonder, if someone used the exact same argument against (for example) the doctrine of original sin, calling it "derogatory to human status"?
Is it not, after all, derogatory to humans to say that "the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth" (Gen. 8:21) and that "The human heart is the most deceitful of all things, and desperately wicked" (Jer. 17:9)? If being derogatory is the test of truth, we can throw the Bible away right now and look for something better.
But surely the apologist would say that human pride is a sin inspired by the devil, rather than a yardstick to discover the truth of things.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by AndrewPD, posted 01-22-2014 9:05 PM AndrewPD has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024