Originally posted by TheLurch
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Natural Science 301 Guidelines
This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.
As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.
Forum Rules: Here
As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.
Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less
Nice defense of Evolution
Collapse
X
-
I'm always still in trouble again
"You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
"Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
"Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman
-
Originally posted by rogue06 View PostAxe's work reminds me of some of the shenanigans that YEC geologists like Steve Austin play like grinding up rocks that include xenoliths and sending them into have them dated knowing full well that will result in a nonsensical result (GIGO) and then publishing it with the claim that the testing methods are faulty and cannot be trusted.
Radiometric dating is one area that Andrew Snelling has been exceptionally disingenuous and duplicitous to the point of extreme dishonesty. For instance, take a look at Snelling's faux "dating" of lava from Mt. Ngauruhoe, the youngest and most active vent in the Tongariro volcanic complex on the Central Plateau of New Zealand's North Island. which he detailed in ANDESITE FLOWS AT MT NGAURUHOE, NEW ZEALAND, AND THE IMPLICATIONS FOR POTASSIUM-ARGON "DATING".
Snelling states that a
set of representative pieces from each sample (approximately 100 g) was then despatched to the AMDEL Laboratory in Adelaide, South Australia, for whole-rock major, minor and trace element analyses. A second representative set (50-100 g from each sample) was sent progressively to Geochron Laboratories in Cambridge (Boston), Massachusetts, for whole-rock potassium-argon (K-Ar) dating.
[*Emphasis added by rogue06*]
It should be emphasized here that when a "whole rock" is to be tested this means that the entire rock is crushed to powder, mixed together, and a sample removed from the mix and tested.
That this is the case is confirmed by Snelling when he states that
"Because the sample pieces were submitted as whole rocks, the K-Ar laboratory undertook the crushing and pulverising preparatory work."
All of this means that no effort is made to separate any minerals or other intrusive material within the rock from the igneous rock itself. Why is this important? Because as Snelling acknowledges all of the samples contain xenoliths[1]
All samples in this study contained xenoliths, including those from the 1975 avalanche material.
Xenoliths, which is Greek for "foreign rock" (coming from xenos ("foreign") and lithos ("stone") in ancient Greek), are fragments of much older stone not melted in the magma chamber and which subsequently get incorporated into the magma while it was still fluid but cooling.
As George H. Davis' Structural Geology of Rocks and Regions succinctly explains it:
A xenolith is a rock fragment which becomes enveloped in a larger rock during the latter's development and hardening. In geology, the term xenolith is almost exclusively used to describe inclusions in igneous rock during magma emplacement and eruption.
IOW Snelling deliberately had samples "dated" that consisted of a mixture of old and young material, and then acted astonished when the results obtained did not match the known age of the young material. It is a classic case of the GIGO (Garbage In, Garbage Out) principle except in this case the garbage put in was purposefully done.
While he did attempt to dismiss the xenoliths present in the samples as being "minor" and not important but provides no measurements or reasoning as to why that's is the case. According to Table 2 the xenoliths constituted between 2.6 to 4.5% of the material -- which is more than enough to throw the dating far off.
This sort of trickery is something that Snelling has engaged more than once.
More recently in November 2012 at the 64th annual meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, Snelling appears to have played the same duplicitous game again but this time with samples from the Grand Canyon. Greg Davidson (who with Snelling, delivered back-to-back presentations) confirmed that Snelling again had whole rocks tested, making no effort to separate young rock from old inclusions, in a discussion with OEC physicist Kirk Bertsche (who used to post here as KBertsche) after the presentations.
And he isn't the only one who has committed this sort of fraudulent trickery.
For example, Steve Austin[2] (who I mentioned in the previous post) has also dishonestly played fast and loose with his attempts at radiometric dating rocks with some samples from Mount St. Helens after its eruption.
When he tested the samples from Mount St. Helens he made sure to send it to a lab that still used Potassium-Argon (K/Ar) testing. Keep in mind that the half-life of potassium-40 is around 1.25 B40Ar/39Ar) method.
So why would anyone deliberately pick an inferior method and use a lab that tells them that their equipment "cannot analyze samples expected to be younger than 2 M.Y." to analyze rocks only a few years old? Could it be for the same reason that they had whole rocks that contained xenoliths in them to be tested? That they wanted to get garbage results and took great pains to make sure they got them?[3]
1. While most xenoliths aren't particularly noticeable to the naked eye there is at least one sort that is. Dalmatian Stone, or orbicular Rhyolite (and sometimes incorrectly referred to Dalmatian Jasper), is a cream-colored to dark tan igneous rock (being porous they are often easily dyed an assortment of colors) with black spots that is found in Chihuahua, Mexico, and has easy to identify inclusions.
They were named Dalmatian Stones because (as seen in the image above) the xenoliths resemble the spots on the dog known as a dalmatian.
2. Austin is notorious for his false claim that it was his research on the after effects of the eruption of Mount St. Helens in 1980 that caused him to become a YEC but in truth was already writing YEC tracts for the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) such as "The Origin of Coal" under the name of Stuart E. Nevins several years before (1976).
3. It should also be noted that the Mount St. Helens' rocks also are known to have an abundance of pyroxene, which makes dating them even more problematic even if you weren't sending in whole rocks loaded with xenoliths in for testing at a lab chosen for their use of an out-dating technique. At this point the only thing that one can conclude is that they wanted bad dates.Last edited by rogue06; 10-28-2019, 05:37 AM.
I'm always still in trouble again
"You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
"Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
"Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman
Comment
-
Originally posted by TheLurch View PostNo, what he showed was that if you have no selection on intermediate steps, then proteins frequently get disabled after several mutations. But nobody's proposing that proteins stop being under selection when evolving - with a few exceptions, the exact opposite occurs.
I.e. tested for selection, correct?
On a more general note: don't argue based on material from the Discovery Institute - they are invariably wrong.
Blessings,
Lee"What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)
Comment
-
Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
I.e. tested for selection, correct?
I find that their material holds up pretty well when I take it for a spin...
Blessings,
Lee
That is because you are a devoted believer in the Discovery Institute, and not the science. Absolutely none of his work is supported by the scientific community outside the Discovery Institute, nor has he published anything in peer reviewed journals on evolution or organic chemistry related to evolution..
His work reflects the same dishonest misuse of probability and and statistics I previously described in detail here and in all previous threads including citations. There is no actual research by the Axe outside this.Last edited by shunyadragon; 10-28-2019, 09:32 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by lee_merrill View PostOn a more general note: don't argue based on material from the Discovery Institute - they are invariably wrong.Last edited by Roy; 10-29-2019, 06:05 AM.Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.
MM: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
MM on covid-19: We're talking about an illness with a better than 99.9% rate of survival.
seer: I believe that so called 'compassion' [for starving Palestinian kids] maybe a cover for anti Semitism, ...
Comment
-
"Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."
Comment
-
Originally posted by TheLurch View PostNo, not even close.
Blessings,
Lee"What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)
Comment
-
Originally posted by lee_merrill View PostWell, how so? Function being what is selectable...
And you haven't answered my question. Given that you've repeatedly demonstrated that you don't understand biology and make frequent errors (like the one just here), why do you think you're able to determine whether someone's providing you accurate information about biology?"Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."
Comment
-
Originally posted by TheLurch View PostThey didn't, as you say, test for section. There was no selection in the experiment at all. They simply tested for function, and found (to no one's surprise) that introducing a bunch of mutations inhibited function. Had they selected for function, then they almost certainly would have found combinations of mutations that were consistent with function. But they didn't so the results are completely irrelevant to any discussion of selection.
Given that you've repeatedly demonstrated that you don't understand biology and make frequent errors (like the one just here), why do you think you're able to determine whether someone's providing you accurate information about biology?
Blessings,
Lee"What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)
Comment
-
Originally posted by lee_merrill View PostWell, the discussion in Axe's paper is about the frequency of viable proteins in protein space. And my point is that function is what evolution selects for, which should be rather indisputable. So measuring function would be measuring selectability. Now are you saying they didn't check the right combinations of mutations?
Testing for function is not testing for selection.
Axe's experiment only tested for function after making multiple point mutations, something that would normally happen so rarely as to be irrelevant to evolution.
Therefore, the experiment tells us nothing relevant to evolutionary selection. It's also completely unlike the experiment to test evolutionary pathways that this whole discussion started out with, which involves testing intermediate mutations, rather than making a bunch of changes at once.
The fact that you brought up something that's irrelevant to the experiments i described indicates that you neither understand evolution nor this particular approach to studying it. Which brings us to this:
Originally posted by lee_merrill View PostI think I understand biology well enough to discuss it, and Discovery Institute's points have held up pretty well here.
(Axe's general approach to his work - making a huge cluster of mutations at once - is also just kind of stupid. It's effectively guaranteed to disrupt protein structure, and thus produce nulls, which makes me suspicious he's just stacking the deck to favor his intended results. His approach to "protein space" is also not relevant to evolution or the origin of life, again because it's not a realistic approximation of actual biology. But those points are neither here nor there for this discussion.)"Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."
Comment
-
Originally posted by TheLurch View PostI'm saying two things:
Testing for function is not testing for selection.
Axe's experiment only tested for function after making multiple point mutations, something that would normally happen so rarely as to be irrelevant to evolution.
Therefore, the experiment tells us nothing relevant to evolutionary selection. It's also completely unlike the experiment to test evolutionary pathways that this whole discussion started out with, which involves testing intermediate mutations, rather than making a bunch of changes at once.
The fact that you brought up something that's irrelevant to the experiments i described indicates that you neither understand evolution nor this particular approach to studying it. Which brings us to this:
I've just presented evidence that, in fact, you don't. I have done the same in multiple other threads now. Why do you persist in your belief despite extensive contrary evidence?
(Axe's general approach to his work - making a huge cluster of mutations at once - is also just kind of stupid. It's effectively guaranteed to disrupt protein structure, and thus produce nulls, which makes me suspicious he's just stacking the deck to favor his intended results. His approach to "protein space" is also not relevant to evolution or the origin of life, again because it's not a realistic approximation of actual biology. But those points are neither here nor there for this discussion.)
I'm always still in trouble again
"You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
"Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
"Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman
Comment
-
Originally posted by TheLurch View Post(Axe's general approach to his work - making a huge cluster of mutations at once - is also just kind of stupid. It's effectively guaranteed to disrupt protein structure, and thus produce nulls, which makes me suspicious he's just stacking the deck to favor his intended results. His approach to "protein space" is also not relevant to evolution or the origin of life, again because it's not a realistic approximation of actual biology. But those points are neither here nor there for this discussion.)
Comment
-
Originally posted by TheLurch View PostTesting for function is not testing for selection.
Axe's experiment only tested for function after making multiple point mutations, something that would normally happen so rarely as to be irrelevant to evolution.
It's also completely unlike the experiment to test evolutionary pathways that this whole discussion started out with, which involves testing intermediate mutations, rather than making a bunch of changes at once.
Axe's general approach to his work - making a huge cluster of mutations at once - is also just kind of stupid. It's effectively guaranteed to disrupt protein structure, and thus produce nulls, which makes me suspicious he's just stacking the deck to favor his intended results. His approach to "protein space" is also not relevant to evolution or the origin of life, again because it's not a realistic approximation of actual biology.Originally posted by shunyadragonThis is the problem of dishonestly misusing probability and statistics to justify a religious agenda...
Blessings,
LeeLast edited by lee_merrill; 11-01-2019, 10:10 PM."What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)
Comment
-
Originally posted by lee_merrill View PostWell, it's close enough, if you started with function, which presumably was selected.
Multiple point mutations are rare?! I must be misunderstanding you, because a number of genes have multiple point mutations.
I think it's relevant, since Axe showed that protein space is sparsely populated, making a random walk to another viable protein/enzyme improbable. Selection doesn't save the day, since it is unlikely that there is a selectable path to every new protein.
Which is why his research was published in a peer-reviewed journal while he was at Cambridge?
Blessings,
Lee
His publications attacking evolution have been published in Discovery Institute and Biologic Institute associated journals and marginal academic journals. The Biologic Institute is created by Axe himself.Last edited by shunyadragon; 11-02-2019, 08:36 AM.
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by rogue06, 05-03-2024, 02:47 PM
|
3 responses
32 views
1 like
|
Last Post
by shunyadragon
05-07-2024, 08:07 PM
|
||
Started by rogue06, 05-03-2024, 12:33 PM
|
5 responses
52 views
2 likes
|
Last Post
by shunyadragon
05-14-2024, 11:35 AM
|
||
Started by rogue06, 04-27-2024, 09:38 AM
|
0 responses
14 views
1 like
|
Last Post
by rogue06
04-27-2024, 09:38 AM
|
||
Started by shunyadragon, 04-26-2024, 10:10 PM
|
5 responses
26 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by shunyadragon
04-28-2024, 08:10 AM
|
||
Started by shunyadragon, 04-25-2024, 08:37 PM
|
2 responses
14 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by shunyadragon
04-25-2024, 10:21 PM
|
Comment