Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Two challenges for KL – (fossil) Lucy’s defender

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

A most interesting discussion has got started here at “But ‘Lucy’ herself is mostly an artifact”. Commenter KL got it going, I suspect, by observing that

I certainly don’t consider you hicks. However, my spouse and associates are primate researchers, physical anthropologists, geologists and archeologists. It’s strange to come here and see their work dismissed as a just so story. Some of them have been in the field extensively and have published many, many papers. Are you guys saying that somehow all these people are simply mistaken?

Yes, it  is quite possible.

My question is, is there anything fronted by “evolution researchers” that KL wouldn’t believe? How about the Big Bazooms theory of human evolution? Or Marc “Well, the monkeys talk to me!” Hauser? How about any single item on this list? Is there nothing that KL would even wonder about? Does he know that E. O. Wilson has retracted his own kin selection theory?

Two things: The public of a free society is not stupid. When we see a parade of amazing nonsense – marketed as evolution – we wisely don’t believe any of it. I don’t bother sorting through it for the same reason as I don’t scan the tabloids to see if anything in them is true.

It is no use berating us, let alone blaming us for low science scores. Revisit your strategy.

And second, would KL be willing to read The Nature of Nature, to understand what the controversy is really about? Then we could have a serious discussion.

(Note: KL has a spouse and associates in primate research, and I have a number of relatives and friends in medicine. That does not commit me to any particular theory, no matter how widely espoused, and a good thing too: Look how much medicine has changed. )

Comments
PS: If you spot a talking point or a swarm of talking points on the MG challenge to CSI here at UD or elsewhere, why not at least link your answer in the CSI caught in the act thread, or if you want someone to provide an answer, why not post it over in that CSI caught in the act thread? The new UD style of multiple posts per day will tend to make discussions on something like this very disjoint and hard to follow. Already I can think of coming on ten threads on this and linked topics. (Anyone care to collect the collective set of threads?)kairosfocus
April 15, 2011
April
04
Apr
15
15
2011
04:42 AM
4
04
42
AM
PDT
Onlookers: I have answered Indium's latest wave of talking points here. The talking point line is bending back and about to snap . . . I think there is advantage in building one post on the MG challenge and thread as a talking point rebuttal repository. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
April 15, 2011
April
04
Apr
15
15
2011
04:36 AM
4
04
36
AM
PDT
Indium, You are using a standard argument that is in itself a straw man. We have only one realisation of the world, we do not have multiverses we can reliably/scientifically test. So your argumentation is non-scientific. But, having a single realisation of something we can still figure something out analysing its complexity. As far as I know, the idea of analysing complexity of single events goes back to the work of Kolmogorov. Bio-complexity research shows that of all this horrendous number of paths only a marginal number are feasible in practice. What's more, there are tight bounds on the number of simultaneous mutations possible for paralogous genes you are talking about. If I am not mistaken, for bacteria only 2 bases can be changed simultaneously if the new protein functionality is maladaptational, only 6 if it is neutral.Eugene S
April 15, 2011
April
04
Apr
15
15
2011
03:21 AM
3
03
21
AM
PDT
But evolution could have went along 10^150 different paths, rendering all your calculations useless. There's still a tremendous amount of work left to figure out with what and how (and, I suppose, "if") the *actual* path took place by variation and selection. But you know it could have went along 10^150 different paths? I'd love to hear how you know this, from an answer that doesn't melt down to "well that's the dogma." And if there were 10^150 paths available for ape-like creatures' evolutionary trajectory, I imagine so much more for any other trajectory. Why, we can rule out the possibility of convergent evolution with numbers like that! What a relief.nullasalus
April 15, 2011
April
04
Apr
15
15
2011
02:56 AM
2
02
56
AM
PDT
These islands of functionality don´t exist. Binding efficiency is a continuos parameter for example. Evolution can escape local maxima of the fintness landscape quity easily by standard evolutionary processes (recombination, gene duplication etc). You are attacking a straw man, not me. All your xxx-bit calculations are only relevant for tornado in the junkyard scenarios. Also very often you assume that evolution *had* to proceed along a *certain* path, for example from ape-like creatures to humans. Of course you can calculate some amazingly low probability values then. But evolution could have went along 10^150 different paths, rendering all your calculations useless.Indium
April 15, 2011
April
04
Apr
15
15
2011
02:37 AM
2
02
37
AM
PDT
PS: Onlookers, notice how the dynamic landscape in an island of function misdirected and strawmannish talking point is suddenly cropping up all over. This is the fever swamp effect; whereby clouds of propagators of talking points tank up at the sources and spread the points all over. But, there is typically not a sober assessment of its cogency, just an exploitation of its persuasiveness to the uninformed. Repeat: the core problem is that the moving around in an island of function -- regardless of its variable landscape [a point raised by Dembski in NFL, Ch 4 BTW] and how variations within a general island of function may fit you for a niche that is there for a time -- does not explain how you got there on the island in the first place. As has been pointed out from the outset, the real challenge raised by the threshold of 4 or 500 - 1,000 bits of functionally specific info is to get to the shores of islands of function. First life credibly requires 100k+ bits of DNA info, and the dozens of body plans each require 10+ millions of bits. Hoyle's tornado in a junkyard problem does not start at the level of constructing the jumbo from components [the megabits problem], but with constructing the gauges on the dashboard -- the kilobits problem. So, do not allow your attention to be diverted, and do not be taken in by the spectacular pummelling of strawmen; anyone can win a boxing match against a strawman. Focus on the real and unanswered challenge: origin of body plans. (Cf, more detailed discussion here.)kairosfocus
April 15, 2011
April
04
Apr
15
15
2011
01:45 AM
1
01
45
AM
PDT
Indium: You are playing at strawman games, and insistently repeating an already adequately answered talking point. The tornado in the junkyard example was for the Jumbo Jet, I have pointed out that the problem starts long before you get to a very large and complex entity like that [millions of bits of info], i.e 125 bytes worth of functionally specific info -- a short paragraph's worth -- is beyond the credible search resources of the cosmos. In short the problem is to get to islands of function, starting with their basic components. Variation within an island of comp0lex funciton is possible, on chance plus hill climbing, but the real and unanswered problem for evolutionary materialism is to get to the shores of such an island. And, elaborations on how such islands have dynamic terrain of fitness, do not answer the problem: getting to the shorelines in the first place to begin any hill climbing at all. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
April 15, 2011
April
04
Apr
15
15
2011
01:13 AM
1
01
13
AM
PDT
You haven´t answered Mathgrrls relatively straightforward answers. You still misrepresent evolution as a tornado in the junkyard.Indium
April 15, 2011
April
04
Apr
15
15
2011
12:29 AM
12
12
29
AM
PDT
BREAKING: The collapse of MG's claimskairosfocus
April 14, 2011
April
04
Apr
14
14
2011
05:32 AM
5
05
32
AM
PDT
kf
I have pointed out with concrete examples, why attempts to date the remote past beyond observation are inherently incapable of cross-checking independent of the system.
No you haven´t. I have repeatedly asked you, but so far you haven´t told me why I can´t cross check C14 data with tree rings or with U/Th. Or C14 with Be10. Varves with C14 or whatever combination you want. Nor have you explained why all these methods show a relatively good agreement even before calibration/alignment (+-20%). Nor have you acknowledged that we have to look at the evidence *now*. So, either quit this burning of soaked straw men or specifically name the circularity. Otherwise this is just an exercise in hyperscepticism as you should really recognise yourself. And even if you would be right and we would have to have been *there* to really know anything about the past (and this is utterly wrong, otherwise crimes without eyewitnesses would never be punished), this would be true for your design inference, too. It seems I have to ask this also a couple of times before you not answer: Could you please link me to the measurement that the same Lascauy cave paintings have been dated to 9ky and 17ky? And please also give me a quick link to the claim that relatively fresh lava has been dated to be millions of years old. With regard to all the FICS stuff: This is only relevant if you assume a tornado in the junkyard scenario. And believe it or not everybody agrees with you that a human being cannot be generated by stringing together random strings of DNA! Natural selection is not a random process, it transfers information from the environment to the organism and from parent- to daughter populations. It rewards those members of the population that "work well" (most of the time) and reduces uncertainty. Anyway, as far as I understand Durston in some complicated way compares the number of sequences that "work" with the total number of possible sequences for a given protein family. Is that right? If so, how does he compute the number of possible sequences that "work"? Or the minimum number of base pairs that would also more or less work? Thanks for your help, I am not really an expert for this stuff.Indium
April 12, 2011
April
04
Apr
12
12
2011
07:46 AM
7
07
46
AM
PDT
F/N: I just created a blank Word 97 file. 19.0 KB (19,456 bytes), or 155,648 bits. This -- which obviously does not do much more than come up as a valid word doc is comparable to the number of bits stored in the DNA of the simplest life forms. The contents, on inspection, look like repetitive gibberish, to the uninitiated, with isolated phrases in English; I do note that there seems to be a deeply embedded user identification. Here is the beginning and the end: __________________ >> ÐÏ#ࡱ#á > # þÿ # # ! # # # þÿÿÿ ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿì¥Á Y # #¿ # # ## # bjbjóWóW ## # . . . . þÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ# þÿ# ÿÿÿÿ# # À F# Microsoft Word Document MSWordDoc # Word.Document.8 ô9²q >> [Here's hoping symbols like y with double dots and D with slash reproduce] _______________ H'mm all that stuff about meaningless, functionless repetitive strings in DNA as junk may need to be revised, nuh?kairosfocus
April 12, 2011
April
04
Apr
12
12
2011
05:28 AM
5
05
28
AM
PDT
OOPS: extrapolations or ON observations . . .kairosfocus
April 12, 2011
April
04
Apr
12
12
2011
05:11 AM
5
05
11
AM
PDT
Indium: Please, stop trying to make up and knock over ad hominem laced strawmen. I have pointed out with concrete examples, why attempts to date the remote past beyond observation are inherently incapable of cross-checking independent of the system. I have also pointed out specific cases of blatant errors and cherry picking of samples. In short, there is no ability to cross-check by direct comparison to actual experienced reality and/or generally accepted record, which I note peters out about 5,000 YA. And recall: WHAT I HAVE POINTED OUT AND APPEALED FOR IS THAT MODEL TIMELINES OF THE REMOTE PAST BEYOND OBSERVATION AND RECORD BE PRESENTED AS JUST THAT, MODELS THAT ARE NOT CAPABLE OF INDEPENDENT TEST ON DIRECT OBSERVATIONS. That is not a disrespect to investigators or their work, it is a statement that there are inherent, inescapable limitations on findings. So, such findings should not be presented as though they are the next best thing to absolute, unquesitonable truth. Indeed, I have long since pointed out as well -- you dismissed it without even pausing to reflect on it -- that scientific investigations and empirical knowledge more broadly are incapable of delivering warranted truth beyond correction. Indeed, post Godel, Mathematics is not capable of proof beyond possibility of correction on discovery of inconsistencies in the system. I cannot stop you from closed-mindedly ignoring or dismissing the hard limits of epistemology [which is the discipline that inter alia identifies the limits of scientific knowledge claims], but I can point them out. By utterly sharpest contrast to model timelines of the earth's deep past, the inference to design on FSCI (or wider CSI) is DIRECTLY cross checkable on direct observation of cases in our present. In every case (100%) of known origin -- known by direct observation -- across literally billions of examples (call to witness the entire Internet and the libraries across the world as easy cases in point), FSCI is confirmed consistently as a reliable sign of design. On that direct test of being a reliable sign, without need to make extrapolations or observations, it is inferred that the best explanation for FSCI is that it is designed. This, in turn remains cross-checkable, i.e. provide a credible counter example and it collapses. Just like the second law of thermodynamics in the form that a perpetual motion machine of the second kind is not feasible. I repeat, the extrapolation of various geochronological dating methods to the past beyond record is NOT subject to independent cross-checking, and is INHERENTLY circular. As to the false and refuted talking point that FSCI cannot be defined or measured, this is an insistent talking point in the teeth of facts available and pointed out all along, as is being corrected in two current threads here at UD. I cannot stop people from being insistent on falsehoods they know or should know are false and/or being resistant to correction on mere easily accessible but willfully ignored or denied facts, but I can expose the intellectual irresponsibility involved: 1 --> Definition: despite the fulminations of MG and ATBC habituees, as well as an obvious rising wave of drumbeat talking point propagation, this was provided in 1979 by that ill-informed commenter online, J S Wicken (with backup on CSI by that foolish online ignoramus, L Orgel, in 1973). Such meaningless verbiage! Such nonsense from the ill-informed! What utter unscientific creationist rot! NOT. 2 --> As to successful, peer reviewed quantification, we can start with the published table of FSC metrics for 35 protein families by Durston et al in 2007, as you can read in the UD weak argument correctives no 27 which has sat there top right this and every UD page for years, and you can follow the link to the original paper and the table. You will also see Dembski's Chi-metric there (which applies to the material case where the relevant probabilities on chance hyps are rather low; as the metric will not hit the threshold value 1 until there are at least 398 bits of information, or a probability on a chance hyp of order 1 in 10^120 or so; which in any reasonable mind is "low"). 3 --> Now, Durston et al used an extension of the Shannon H-metric of average information per symbol. Other metrics boil down to [read the triple comment] measuring information in Hartley negative log probability units, typically bits, and imposing a threshold of reasonable complexity in a context of specificity that will sufficiently isolate hot or target zones or islands of function in large config spaces, that it is unreasonable to infer to chance and blind mechanical forces. 4 --> This holds for Dembski's Chi-metric [which naturally approaches a threshold of 1 in 10^150 or 500 bits from a baseline of just shy of 400 bits . . . ], and it holds for the brute force simple X-metric. 5 --> That brute force X-metric works on the observation that in science we have just that, observers who make judgements. So, on the reasonable judgement that we have complex contingency of at least 1,000 bits [C = 1] and specificity [S = 1], and a certain number of bits, B, we define X:
X = C*S*B, in functionally specific bits
6 --> That is, once we have 1,000 bits or 125 bytes or 143 ASCII characters worth of functionally specific information, it is maximally unlikely that such arises by chance, on grounds that the search resources of the observed cosmos could not sample as much as 1 in 10^150 of the configuration space. That is, it is beyond reasonable sampling. The only routine, reliable source of such FSCI, is intelligence, AKA the semiotic agent. 7 --> This common-sense metric, which has been put forth for some years now, is simple, quantitative and based on the well known use of bits in software. That say a large Word file is functionally specific and complex is obvious, but can be easily demonstrated by comparing the undisturbed file with one corrupted by injection of random noise. 8 --> That DNA in life forms is similarly a case of FSCI, is plain. We also now have cases where we see DNA being manipulated or even created intelligently, so we know agents are capable of designing and implementing DNA. So, we have excellent reason to apply the FSCI threshold to DNA and infer its design by way of art, for which a sufficiently advanced version of Venter's lab would be adequate. 9 --> In short, it is FALSE that FSCI and CSI cannot be or have not been adequately conceptually defined or provided with good enough metrics to use. 10 --> As of this notice, I take it that you know or should know the truth on such facts; before which you are responsible. _________ GEM of TKIkairosfocus
April 12, 2011
April
04
Apr
12
12
2011
05:07 AM
5
05
07
AM
PDT
Collin, I agree. I am sorry, what are you referring to? English is not my first language and sometimes I make mistakes.Indium
April 12, 2011
April
04
Apr
12
12
2011
03:56 AM
3
03
56
AM
PDT
Collin, a debater with extraordinary claims that has the detailed evidence to back it up and a better explanation than the existing paradigm need not resort to evasion, philosophical arguments or changing the topic. I suspect that not only does this paradigm not explain the evidence, the folks here don't know anything about the evidence. I have yet to see any details about the hominid fossils explained here using any other paradigm, which was the extraordinary claim on the original thread that spawned THIS thread. The posters here dismiss the work of countless scientists as fantasy and delusion, yet show no knowledge of the fossil record. I've had Plato, the Bible, and quotemines from Gould tossed my way but after almost 280 posts, no explanation regarding the specifics of the fossil record. Anthropologists use dating, biometrics, geology, and comparisons to existing species and other fossils in their explanation; I expect nothing less from someone who claims to have a better paradigm. Oh, and my posts are held in moderation for hours, but that seems to be getting a bit better.KL
April 12, 2011
April
04
Apr
12
12
2011
03:44 AM
3
03
44
AM
PDT
Indium, a debater with a strong case doesn't need to resort to insults.Collin
April 12, 2011
April
04
Apr
12
12
2011
03:29 AM
3
03
29
AM
PDT
So radiometric dating, which has demonstrated its usefulness thousands of times, which has been tested for objects with known ages probably hundreds of times, which gives results that are consistent with many completely independend methods, which has an amazingly large body of knowledge and supporting theory behind it, with papers being published almost on a daily basis, which has been the topic of complete text books (Dalrymple and many more) with lots of examples and fully worked out test cases is not a good tool and the incredibly weak "where you there" argument applies. FSCI however, a term somebody on the internet invented, a term that can´t really be defined let alone be demonstrated for various theoretical or practical test cases and which in any case just calculates the chance hypotheses for the tornado in the junkyard scenario, that is a reliable tool and "where you there" does not apply? The mind boggles. Oh, and sorry if I really pushed
"ridiculous things into your mouth that don´t belong there."
There really is no need to. My apologies. If you don´t mind, I am still interested in the link to the paper mentioning the 9ky age for the Lascaux cave. Also, please back up your claim that 200y old lava has been dated to be millions of years old. This is a well known creationist misrepresentation as far as I know.Indium
April 12, 2011
April
04
Apr
12
12
2011
02:50 AM
2
02
50
AM
PDT
"FSCI is a well tested, empirically and analytically reliable sign of intelligent design, for reasons long since discussed in great details." Great. Apply this please to the hominid fossil record! Show me that ID or another paradigm explains the record better than evolution.KL
April 11, 2011
April
04
Apr
11
11
2011
04:43 PM
4
04
43
PM
PDT
Indium: FSCI is a well tested, empirically and analytically reliable sign of intelligent design, for reasons long since discussed in great details. We have abundant direct observational support for that, so the cases you want to force into being parallel are not. Next talking point . . . GEM of TKIkairosfocus
April 11, 2011
April
04
Apr
11
11
2011
03:52 PM
3
03
52
PM
PDT
Clive
Intelligent Design.
Where you there?Indium
April 11, 2011
April
04
Apr
11
11
2011
11:05 AM
11
11
05
AM
PDT
CH: KL distorts. One would have thought that there would be a concern to be fair and accurate, but plainly, there is not. I don't doubt that the picture being painted of us over at ATBC etc is not even faintly recognisable. I took a considerable time to point out the particular case of FSCO INVOLVED IN TRANSFORMING SAY Lucy and kin to human language capacity. There has been a lot of bobbing and weaving, strawmannising and dismissal but no observationally based, empirically credible evidence that such FSCO/I can come from blind watchmaker processes. FSCO/I in every observed case is from design, and it is also -- on the infinite monkeys analysis -- analytically well grounded that the only credible explanation for such FSCO/I is DESIGN. And, of course our language capacity is central to our mental capacity, so what makes us minded men is credibly designed. Right from the beginning KL was challenged to provide evidence on Lucy and for the general thesis of blind watchmaker macroevo origin of humanity. To date there are a lot of assertions and turnabouts etc, but no evidence from that side on the main point. On what we know, the FSCO/I itself is a strong sign pointing to design as the best explanation of our origin. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
April 11, 2011
April
04
Apr
11
11
2011
09:50 AM
9
09
50
AM
PDT
–Jemima Racktouey, about the quality justice [or love] you wrote, “The eyes you see it with and convert into electricity and feed it into your brain, all physical. The brain that is stimulated, the electricity that does the stimulating." —All physical. All measureable.” I wrote: "Well, let’s put your novel claim to the test. If, as you say, the concepts of justice, mercy, and love can be measured, tell me this: How much does each quality weigh? Or, if you like, tell me how much mass in involved." Perhaps you didn't understand. I am calling your bluff. Please answer the question.StephenB
April 11, 2011
April
04
Apr
11
11
2011
09:08 AM
9
09
08
AM
PDT
That isn't an explanation, but the title of a paradigm. Use "intelligent design to explain the specifics of the ages, distribution and features of the fossil record (let's keep it to hominids, shall we? the original reason for this post) In science, if your paradigm does a better job, you must demonstrate this. Use it to explain the evidence. The details of the evidence have been explained by evolution (granted, it must be modified to fit new evidence but it does very well). Just telling me the paradigm is not enough. Use it. KL
April 11, 2011
April
04
Apr
11
11
2011
09:06 AM
9
09
06
AM
PDT
KL,
Since Mr. Focus, after some 250 posts on this thread, still can’t answer, perhaps you can? If evolution is not the correct paradigm, then offer an explanation of the features, ages and distribution of the hominid fossils using another paradigm, one that explains the details better than evolutionary theory.
Intelligent Design.Clive Hayden
April 11, 2011
April
04
Apr
11
11
2011
08:06 AM
8
08
06
AM
PDT
PS: I add, please, don't push ridiculous words in my mouth that don't belong there. I am not a silly laughable strawman. My concern is not that results and methods agree but that there are no truly independent external controls on direct observation. Again: were you there to see what specifically did happen? No. And there are no generally accepted records for the relevant times. So, no truly independent cross checks. Therefore, we should understand the gap between model timelines and actual reality. Yes, we may need to use the timeline models for particular purposes [they are better than having nothing], as proxies for the past in effect, but we should not treat them or promote them as if they were practically certain knowledge of the deep past.kairosfocus
April 11, 2011
April
04
Apr
11
11
2011
08:02 AM
8
08
02
AM
PDT
Indium: I am not "hiding" behind general principles. I am pointing out fairly serious limitations on methods, metrics and models that must be borne in mind. Timelines for the cultural and natural history of the earth, once we go beyond the independent cross check of record, are inherently bound by that lack of independent observation. Do you want me to underscore again, as a simple case that the dates for the Lascaux caves raise a few questions on consistency within C-14 [as in if 10 years of regular visits did so much damage, were these caves really in active use for the period from 17 kya to 13 kya]? That I live in a place where in 15 years we saw a comparable amount of activity to what was dated largely on C14 as 10 kYA to 26 kYA? In one eruptive episode? That there are infamous cases of samples having wildly discordant dates for different parts? That C14 haws had to be calibrated against other techniques to bring it into alignment, on the argument that the C14 levels in the atmosphere have not been in equilibrium? That there are significant coal samples have measurable C-14 dates well above the floor of the measurement technique? That lava flows known to have happened about 200 YA have ancient radio-dates? That even isochron methods run into serious questions? That there are questions on the tree ring methods and especially a major problem of open access to data? With of course the major case of KNM-ER 1470 telling us a lot about the inner workings of the sausage factory. And so on? All of these could be discussed, but that is hardly necessary to make the main point: we are dealing with models where we do not have truly independent external tests, so we have to be careful even when we think the alignment of methods looks promising. Let us simply accept that the methods have limitations and one of these is a lack of independent, direct observational cross checks, once we go beyond the era of records. So, they do not constitute practically certain knowledge or firm results, or even results cross checked against direct observation. GEM of TKI PS: I forgot to say earlier, that even where we have more or less well known initial conditions and dynamics, if we have sensitive dependence on initial conditions due to the wrong kind of nonlinearities, small differences are so amplified that we lose ability to "control" the path we project on outcomes across any serious length. For instance that is a constraint on weather prediction.kairosfocus
April 11, 2011
April
04
Apr
11
11
2011
07:43 AM
7
07
43
AM
PDT
You are hiding behind general principles again. When you look at a simple C14/tree ring calibration curve (by definition before calibration) where is the circularity? Be specific, please. I had to laugh a bit about your "accusation" that scientists tend to use methods that agree with each other. Take note, scientists: Don´t use complementary methods that agree with each other! And it seems I have to remind you again that we have to make best use of our available evidence now. No need to be "there"! Otherwise trying to detect design based on patterns we observe today would be rather pointless don´t you think? The "where you there?" argument is so incredible weak and desperate that I thought nobody would use it anymore. Can crimes only be solved by eyewitnesses now? Btw, thanks for restraining yourself to short answers recently. Time problems?Indium
April 11, 2011
April
04
Apr
11
11
2011
07:02 AM
7
07
02
AM
PDT
Indium: You are not Torquemada, and I am not on inquisition as a suspect heretic. I have already laid out, repeatedly, the ways that circularity enters, and the treacherous nature of consistency among a consensus school of thought. Where also, (i) we do not have direct and independent access to observations and (ii) we do not have in hand tested controlling dynamics that we can lock things up to: initial conds X dynamics --> unfolding across time. I repeat: were you there? If not, and if we are beyond the control of records, then we are running into a domain where what we are going off is a projection, using methods that in part are selected because they agree, and using results that are accepted because they line up in general. I have already pointed out that we have known cases of "bad" data tossed, and we have calibration/ coordination of methods the one against the other. That is enough to highlight that we are dealing with MODELS of the past that are not independently testable, and we should therefore use with caution, not present as though they have delivered practical certainty. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
April 11, 2011
April
04
Apr
11
11
2011
06:30 AM
6
06
30
AM
PDT
F/N: Maybe a lesson from history of Physics will help. From the 1680's on, Newton's laws of motion were consistent with results for 200 years, across all sorts of observations, including some very surprising ones; to amazing degrees of precision. Many thought them as pretty much absolutely true, never mind Newton's philosophical reservations on the capacity of inductive reasoning such as in Optics, Query 31. Then, from the 1880's to the 1930's, a new world arrived. And, that is for something that we CAN make direct observational checks. What, then, are we to make of cases where we do not have such direct reality checks? At minimum, we need to keep some reservations in mind on the gap between models and reality and the limits of empirical investigations and knowledge claims.kairosfocus
April 11, 2011
April
04
Apr
11
11
2011
06:22 AM
6
06
22
AM
PDT
kf
but they are not at all independent of one another
C14, tree rings, ice cores, varves, U/Th, Be10 and many other methods more or less agree on a consistent timesacale for the last several 10ky. Show me the circularity of the gathered raw data or retract this statement. Or go on with your selective hypermegascepticism, it´s fun to see you squirming.Indium
April 11, 2011
April
04
Apr
11
11
2011
05:38 AM
5
05
38
AM
PDT
1 2 3 10

Leave a Reply