In Six Days (A Biology PHD looks at Evolution)

In Six Days ^ | 02/17/05 | Timothy G. Standish, PHD biology

[DannyTN]

"Nehemiah 2:13 - And I went out by night by the gate of the valley, even before the dragon well, and to the dung port, and viewed the walls of Jerusalem, which were broken down, and the gates thereof were consumed with fire. "

As I said, I don't know what it means. It may have nothing to do with animals at all.

[Ichneumon]

One of the BIG ASSUMPTIONS for Carbon dating is that the modern value is only 1 out of every trillion or so carbon atoms is a Carbon 14. Therefore if the ratio was more or less in the past our dating can be way off. Say if the original ratio was 1 to ever 10 trillion atoms, then our assumption that the modern value was valid in the past, would give dates that are almost twice as old as real. Carbon-14's half life is 5700 years. Based on current values 1 in a trillion carbon atoms are Carbon 14. BIG ASSUMPTION is that ratio was the same thousands of years ago.

Sigh... So much creationist ignorance, so little time...

No, scientists do *NOT* just "assume" that past 14C concentrations were the same as today's -- you have only *ASSUMED* that they make such an assumption. They do not. They *know* that atmospheric concentrations likely varied to some degree over time, so they expend a lot of effort to FIND OUT what the past concentrations have been, and use those results to refine the radiocarbon dating methods.

Did you just make up that bit about them making a "BIG ASSUMPTION" of 14C constancy yourself, or did you just swallow and then parrot some creationist source's lie about it? Please answer.

Here's a post I wrote earlier in response to yet another person making the same WRONG assertion:

Yet can you answer with certainty the amount of carbon at any given time? As in, were the levels constant? The answer is no.

Very wrong. The answer is yes. There are many, many samples of known age (e.g. tree rings, arctic ice layers, lake bottom layers, etc.) which can be used to multiply and independently determine how much carbon-14 was in the atmosphere in any given year, and thus be used to calibrate Carbon-14 dating methods.

For a quick article on one such study, see http://more.abcnews.go.com/sections/science/dailynews/carbon0220.html

A much more technical treatment: Atmospheric Radiocarbon Calibration to 45,000 yr B.P.: Late Glacial Fluctuations and Cosmogenic Isotope Production

Such studies produce calibration results such as the following:

If the amount of Carbon-14 in the atmosphere had been exactly constant throughout time (and no one expects that it has been), then the results would fall on the straight diagonal line. Instead, the wiggly line indicates how much the actual amount of C-14 in the atmosphere deviated from the "base" amount, and from this we can know how much C-14 was actually present in any given year in the past 50,000 years.

Note that the above graph includes C-14 data from *two* completely independent sources (Lake Suigetsu varves, and ocean corals), and yet the results overlap beautifully, confirming each other. There is similar match from C-14 studies based on tree-ring data and other sources.

From this, we can build a Carbon-14 dating calibration or "correction" curve which can be used to confidently produce an accurate date from a given Carbon-14 measurement. These calibration curves look like this:

There are many databases available which are used to compile massive amounts of data to ensure the proper calibration of carbon-dating. For just one example, Marine Reservoir Correction Database.

Other methods are used to cross-check and calibrate other dating methods to ensure accuracy.

[Ichneumon]

If that is the same program I've seen before, it is invalid as it correlates a pseudo-random selection to the known content of a position and then fixes it and moves onward to the next position. That is not random by any definition or stretch of the imagination.

Please see my post #144 in this thread. Your impression of how the program proceeds is *not* accurate.

[D Rider]

Lesson: Even simple evolutionary processes are *incredibly* more efficient and effective than simple randomness alone. Evolution can *easily* accomplish things which would be *impossibly* improbable by purely random means.

All you need to add is information. (which is the point, silly)

[Ichneumon]

You'd swear those wings evolved, without any proof at all.

No, he'd swear they did, because of the huge amount of evidence that they had.

[Ichneumon]

All you need to add is information. (which is the point, silly)

Wrong, but thanks for playing.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for your reply!

Your impression of how the program proceeds is *not* accurate.

It is somewhat different from the first one that was floating around the internet. But it is still not happenstance.

Here is the source code: Source Code Java Script.

Of particular import is the subroutine String repl(String s1, String s2, int start, int end) which replaces a segment of the string.

That is more like the Schneider model - it is not however, happenstance in that it applies boundaries at each iteration.

It also has a starting configuration and rules (an algorithm if you'll recall our discussion on another thread). Thus both this applet and the Schneider model are more supportive of Intelligent Design than Evolution by happenstance.

Remove the "happenstance" from evolution theory and either model could support either ID or Evolution.

[DannyTN]

"No, he'd swear they did, because of the huge amount of evidence that they had."

ROFLMAO. Yes you are right. That's exactly what he would claim.

[Ichneumon]

It is somewhat different from the first one that was floating around the internet.

No, I don't believe that it is.

But it is still not happenstance.

Yes it is.

Here is the source code: Source Code Java Script. Of particular import is the subroutine String repl(String s1, String s2, int start, int end) which replaces a segment of the string. That is more like the Schneider model - it is not however, happenstance in that it applies boundaries at each iteration.

What you're misunderstanding is that the "boundaries" (the range of replacement) is COMPLETELY RANDOM. Here is where the "repl" function is invoked:

    // Return the result of breeding myself with the supplied
    // (Weasel)Critter.  This is a simple crossover technique.
public Critter breedWith(Critter c_)
    {
        WeaselCritter c = (WeaselCritter) c_;
        return new WeaselCritter(repl(rep, c.rep, randomPos(), randomPos()));
    }

As the comment implies, this is just mimicking what happens to DNA during sexual reproduction -- paired strands of DNA have sequences "swapped" at random locations. It's called "crossover". See for example: Crossing Over and Genetic Recombination in Meiosis. But if including *random* crossover bothers you for some reason, it can be removed and the model will still converge upon the solution via evolution (it will just do so in the manner of asexual reproduction instead of sexual reproduction).

It also has a starting configuration

The "starting configuration" is COMPLETELY RANDOM. Here's the relevant section of the code:

        // Use our prototype Critter to randomly create a population
        // of Critters.  Since this is often slow, show our progress
        // as we go.
        population = new Critter[nCritters];
        for (int i = 0; i < population.length; ++i)
        {
            population[i] = prototype.spawn();
            if ((i % 10) == 0)
                reporter.progress(i, population.length);
        }
[...]
    // Return a randomly generated (Weasel)Critter.
public Critter spawn()
    {
        return new WeaselCritter(randomStringOfLength(rep.length()));
    }

and rules (an algorithm if you'll recall our discussion on another thread).

The only "rules" are the bare requirements of the process of evolution: Reproduction, (random)variation, and selection (the "warmer/colder" rating, which grants the "warmer" individuals in the population a higher probability of producing offspring in the next generation).

Thus both this applet and the Schneider model are more supportive of Intelligent Design than Evolution by happenstance.

Nonsense. The fact that the applet itself is "designed" is no more an indication that the modeled process "requires" design than does the fact that Galileo purposely built ramps in order to study the effects of gravity upon rolling objects indicates that "intelligent design" must be involved for objects to roll down inclines.

Remove the "happenstance" from evolution theory and either model could support either ID or Evolution.

False. Remove the "happenstance" (random variation) from the "Weasel" applet, and the endpoint will never be achieved.

[bondserv]

My question, then, is why would God try to trick us like that? Seems a bit cruel to me, and conflicts with my understanding of a God who loves those he created in his image.

It is about perspective.

Adam was created as a mature adult. God describes stretching the heavens like a curtain. When He stretched the light waves across space instantaneously He wasn't trying to trick us. He explained how He did it.

Isa 40:22 [It is] he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof [are] as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:

In this scientific passage God describes how the earth is a sphere, and that from His enormous capacity the living things on the earth are insignificant. Letting us understand that creating a universe is no more difficult for Him, than stretching out a curtain would be for us. Billions of light years instantly. Hurling galaxies 200,000 miles per hour, like a Nolan Ryan fastball.

Why limit His capacity when He says otherwise.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for your reply and for your replies over the last few days. They have been very instructive, revealing some things about your approach which I had not previously considered.

You are notorious for large posts and exhaustive research and sources - a property we share.

But the debate needs to be constructive:

I said: Remove the "happenstance" from evolution theory and either model could support either ID or Evolution.

You replied: False. Remove the "happenstance" (random variation) from the "Weasel" applet, and the endpoint will never be achieved.

I never said to remove "happenstance" from the applet, I said to remove it from evolution theory.

I said: Thus both this applet and the Schneider model are more supportive of Intelligent Design than Evolution by happenstance.

You replied: Nonsense. The fact that the applet itself is "designed" is no more an indication that the modeled process "requires" design than does the fact that Galileo purposely built ramps in order to study the effects of gravity upon rolling objects indicates that "intelligent design" must be involved for objects to roll down inclines.

I never even mentioned that the applet was designed. My point had to do with the logic in the source code vis-a-vis Schneider's evolution model. Both of them have a starting point and apply rules, i.e. an algorithm - and both of them use replacment scenarios.

That is not randomness, that is directed. Randomness has a strict meaning in mathematics.

Direction however would not necessary speak in favor of Intelligent Design were it not for the original formulation of "random mutations + natural selection > species". The issue is the freedom of movement - the boundaries. All mutations were not created equal, or conversely some genes are resistent to mutation.

Moreover, if you look at links provided elsewhere wrt to eyeness (Weiss, Gerhling) and the work of many others - naturally including the mathematicians (Rocha, etc.) - you will notice a strong shift away from "randomness" and towards other explanations - such as autonomous biological self-organizing complexity.

[shubi]

I couldn't find the exact page walsh copied from. Could you post the link?

I suspected this was probably bogus. I don't know any biologist who includes origin of life in teaching ToE. They might mention the abiogensis experiments, but not as a theory.

[shubi]

C14 is used more in archeology than paleontology. Other methods that measure millions of years are used more often for fossils. I don't know why creationists get hung up on C14, when it is past 6000 years anyway and thus in their fevered minds could not exist.

[Ichneumon]

I did post the link to the exact page. Those quotes are just *way* down the page, in the rightmost column.

I suspected this was probably bogus. I don't know any biologist who includes origin of life in teaching ToE. They might mention the abiogensis experiments, but not as a theory.

That's one possibility, another is that they actually appear in the textbooks, but with introductory material about how they are scenarios suggested by evidence, etc., which Spetner "forgot" to include as the relevant context.

For example, on amazon.com they show the table of contents of Miller & Levine's "Biology" textbook, which shows an entry for "1-3 Science: "Facts" and "Truth", pages 15-18". Want to bet that this introductory material puts all later claims in the book into perspect with regard to how statements of scientific "truth" are always prefaced by an implicit, "the known scenario which best fits the available evidence is..."?

[Ichneumon]

["No, he'd swear they did, because of the huge amount of evidence that they had."]

ROFLMAO. Yes you are right. That's exactly what he would claim.

Okay, I'll bite -- why do you find it hilarious that he would make a statement based on the evidence which supports it?

[Ichneumon]

But the debate needs to be constructive:

It is constructive -- I have already corrected several of your misconceptions. Unless you don't consider learning to be constructive.

I said: Remove the "happenstance" from evolution theory and either model could support either ID or Evolution.

You replied: False. Remove the "happenstance" (random variation) from the "Weasel" applet, and the endpoint will never be achieved.

I never said to remove "happenstance" from the applet,

We were discussing the applet as a model of evolution. Thus my interpretation of your comment.

I said to remove it from evolution theory.

My statement still stands: Remove the "happenstance" from evolution itself, and evolution will not occur (without direct and constant intervention).

I said: Thus both this applet and the Schneider model are more supportive of Intelligent Design than Evolution by happenstance.

You replied: Nonsense. The fact that the applet itself is "designed" is no more an indication that the modeled process "requires" design than does the fact that Galileo purposely built ramps in order to study the effects of gravity upon rolling objects indicates that "intelligent design" must be involved for objects to roll down inclines.

I never even mentioned that the applet was designed.

That is the most common objection leveled against such models in an attempt to deny the lessons they provide. Thus my interpretation of your remark. I'm glad to hear that's not your objection after all.

My point had to do with the logic in the source code vis-a-vis Schneider's evolution model. Both of them have a starting point and apply rules, i.e. an algorithm - and both of them use replacment scenarios.

And so does natural Darwinian evolution. Thus the value of the applet as a model.

That is not randomness, that is directed. Randomness has a strict meaning in mathematics.

By that hairsplitting, then so is natural Darwinian evolution "directed".

Direction however would not necessary speak in favor of Intelligent Design

Nor does it.

were it not for the original formulation of "random mutations + natural selection > species". The issue is the freedom of movement - the boundaries. All mutations were not created equal, or conversely some genes are resistent to mutation.

I fail to see any significance in this observation. Darwinian evolution does not require "pure" randomness in a "strict" mathematical sense. Nor does it require the complete absence of any "boundaries", nor equal mutation rates in all genes, or any of the other issues you raise. So what might your point be?

Moreover, if you look at links provided elsewhere wrt to eyeness (Weiss, Gerhling) and the work of many others - naturally including the mathematicians (Rocha, etc.) - you will notice a strong shift away from "randomness" and towards other explanations - such as autonomous biological self-organizing complexity.

i.e., selection. And if you think I've missed your point or am oversimplifying it by encompassing it in "selection", then I ask you to pause and reconsider for a while before responding.

[shubi]

"why do you find it hilarious that he would make a statement based on the evidence which supports it?"

I think they took off their aluminum hats again.

[shubi]

Thanks, I found the quotes. It looks like another quote mine project alright.

[DannyTN]

"why do you find it hilarious"

We are talking about "pigs with wings". He would claim as evolutionists always do, that he has tons of evidence, when in fact he has none.

No doubt he would line up pictures of pot bellied pigs next to large pigs, and winged pigs to support his case. He'd bring out the list of "29 evidences" in favor of evolution, most of which either refute evolution or are neutral.

He would go on and on about how wings evolved in birds and bats and how it's not surprising that wings evolved on pigs.

It's like watching the Iraqi Information Minister come out and with all confidence and seriousness say they are winning the war.

[stylin19a]

am i reading this right ? you are starting with an already defined answer. ("If you can look into the seeds of time, and say which grain will grow and which will not, speak then unto me.") and a preselected universe of elements.. and that's proof the evolutionary process is "intelligent" ? Nice Try.

Start with the letter "A" then throw all known letters\numbers\characters etc..into your applet and see if you can come up with that sentence.

Why didn't the "evolution process" find a less perfect match and accept it? like:

"If you can say, which grain will grow and which will not, speak then unto me and look into the seeds of time."