Information and Evolutionary Mechanisms

Millions and Billions of years ago, you have a lot of certainties you know what occurred back then, or are you piecing it together by what you see and attempting to come up with something that makes sense?

In post 99, TruthMuse wrote and MindWalk replies in red: I'm more than happy to stand corrected where I'm wrong and it is shown to me that I am, I've admitted mistakes here and have had to apologize more than a few times. Excellent--not that you've been wrong (everybody is sometimes) but that your beliefs are subject to rational revision. That said, I know no one is infallible, we all can error, even grandmasters have said "I didn't see that", Quite so. Experts sometimes get things wrong. Even the consensus of experts can be wrong. But when the consensus of experts is overwhelming, and when it is well-established (it hasn't just been formed in the last few years and doesn't have only a little evidence in support of it), the way to bet is that it is, at least in its broad outlines and probably in some detail, correct. If you show me and a grandmaster a thousand positions, there might be one where he misses some complication or misevaluates a resulting position and where I, not seeing as much as he does, nevertheless pick the best move. But that will not mean that I knew better than the grandmaster; it will mean that I got lucky. And on any position given, you should bet on his move, not mine, to be the best move. (Of course, if he and I disagree, and if we both explain why we're picking our moves, and if you understand both explanations but find mine more convincing--oh, that's different. Then you *should* pick my move over the grandmaster's. But *only* if you understand his explanation and know why you reject it.)  if I don't agree and don't accept something as possible I'm going to question it, wouldn't you? Sure. But if I'm disagreeing with an expert, I'm probably not going to think that definitely, I'm right--I'm going to view the expert's opinion as worthy of some intellectual deference. Wouldn't the best place to be corrected is by someone be someone who is supposed to know to show you, where you're wrong? Good point. Yet, if all get when I'm pressing a point is what a joke, makes me think this more about personalities and has nothing to do with topics. I understand, and I sympathize with your predicament. I wonder how I can explain this? I'll give it a try. It sometimes seems that you are simply rejecting out of hand the most basic findings of science. And that can be exasperating to people who understand and accept those basic findings. It's the exasperation that is coming through, I think--a sort of "Look, if you won't even accept the basics, how can we possibly talk about what *isn't* basic?" attitude.

But I think we might have fundamental issues we ought to address before going into the details about evolutionary theory or the Big Bang theory. For one: How can we gain knowledge about the past? (Not with an answer like "Well, by looking at fossils," but rather with an answer like "By observing this or that feature of a fossil or by observing this or that feature of the fossil record"--and maybe first with an answer like "Here's why we trust that the Earth is old.") For another: How sure do we have to be in order to say that we "know" something? For another: Why does the whole of science simply assume the naturalistic method? (Not metaphysical naturalism; rather, the naturalistic method. I grant that the latter can seem like the former.) I hope that I've answered that last question (possibly in another thread) by talking about how we learn about the world. But I do think that differences in underlying assumptions or views of how scientists' and historians' work is done when investigating the past need to be cleared up.

Maybe I'll begin a "How can we gain knowledge about the past" thread. 

You're still trying to change the subject.  We weren't talking about cosmology (the origin of the universe) or geochronology (the age of the earth), but paleontology.  Imho you are being intellectually dishonest and this isn't the first time.  

Knowingly or unknowingly, intentionally or not: You advocate fair-mindedness, but are not always fair-minded.  You pretend to answer questions while not answering them.  You say things that don't make sense while pretending that they do.  For example:

(1) You dismiss the evidence for human-chimp common ancestry from endogenous retroviruses (ERVs) outright without providing a plausible alternate explanation.  You recognize the statistical impossibility of >100,000 ERVs from viral infections randomly inserting themselves in the same corresponding locations in the human and chimp genomes independently by luck, and you further acknowledge that this viral DNA in human and chimp genomes is secondary and not part of any original creation.  Yet you refuse to acknowledge how this then evidences common ancestry as opposed to independent origin, and instead insist the impossible must be true: i.e., that the ERVs must have *non-randomly* inserted themselves into the human and chimp genomes independently of each other, when that is not a possibility: ERVs do *not* non-randomly insert into genomes, but randomly insert in 1 of 10,000 different locations on average. 

(2) Regardless of the age of the earth, as we physically go up through the layers of the fossil record we encounter different types of life.  Yet you refuse to acknowledge this simple indisputable *fact*.

(3) You recognize that viral DNA in the human genome must have come from viruses, but refuse to acknowledge the related corollary that bacterial DNA in plant cells must have come from bacteria, saying "maybe it did, maybe it didn't."

(4) You pretend to know more about biology, genetics, paleontology, etc., then you actually do; refusing to address evidence in research articles I've given you, and insisting that your erroneous "understandings" are still true, despite the fact they've been discredited.  You won't even update your knowledge on these subjects, and insist instead on attacking strawmen.

Intellectual honesty means acknowledging not just the supporting evidence for our positions but the problems as well, just like I have done on your behalf by pointing out, for example, the problem the origin of life poses for naturalism.  But it goes both ways.  ID/YEC has its own set of problems and pretending otherwise is intellectually dishonest.  I've asked you before and I'll ask you again: every position has its problems, so what are the problems with your position? 

Calling me a liar now, that an upgrade from what I say is a joke? How you must see yourself and those that don't see the world the way you do. A conjecture is simply forming an opinion or conclusion on incomplete information; you have all the information of a million or billion of years at your disposal? If the universe is or is not that old, you have all the information available for any topic that you can say all of your conclusions are based on infallible knowledge?  The difference between you and me, I know I cannot call what I cannot prove a fact like what MUST HAVE HAPPEN millions or billions of years ago, then call those that disagree with me liars just because they can look at the same information and draw different conclusions. HAVE A NICE DAY!

Wow, I even spelled it out for you and literally gave you a diagram to explain what I mean so there would be no misunderstanding and yet you still misunderstand and conveniently fail to address my specific points.  I never called you a liar.  More importantly, I would love it if you prove me wrong.  So by all means please do so by addressing the specific points I raised, and indicating what the strengths and weaknesses of your position are.

Your spelling out needs some work, but maybe I'm just being, "Imho you are being intellectually dishonest and this isn't the first time."  

And maybe you're just pretending again?  Pretending that you don't see my clearly numbered points?

"If an object is a raven, then it is black." This is logically equivalent to "If an object is nonblack, then it is a nonraven." Now, the statement "All ravens are black" is typically rendered by logicians as "For all x, if x is a raven, then x is black." This is logically equivalent to "For all x, if x is not black, then x is not a raven." 

For what follows, let us assume that there are only finitely many ravens and that there are only finitely many objects. (Infinitudes merely complicate matters and get in the way of the point I want to end up making.)

Now, how do you gain evidence for the proposition that all ravens are black? Well, you start looking at ravens. If the first one you look at is black, that raises, slightly, the probability that all ravens are black. (How slightly depends on how many ravens there are.) If the first two you look at are black, that raises the probability that all ravens are black a bit more. If the first fifty you look at are black, that raises the probability more. And looking at fifty black ravens raises the probability that they're all black more than you'd think, for this reason: If you randomly choose a raven to look at and if there are nonblack ravens, then there's a certain positive probability that the one you look at will be black; if it turns out not to be, that's evidence, though weak, that none are. If you randomly choose fifty ravens and they turn out all to be black, and if there were nonblack ravens, there's a certain probability that at least one of the fifty would have turned out to be nonblack. And that probability is considerably bigger than just 50/N, where N is the number of ravens. It doesn't actually take all that many ravens before you're ninety percent sure that all of them are black.

Anyway, you gain evidence that all ravens are black by examining ravens.

But if "All ravens are black" is logically equivalent to "All nonblack objects are nonravens," then you ought equally well to be able to gain evidence for its truth by randomly examining nonblack objects that turn out to be nonravens. Randomly choosing a nonblack baseball bat and finding it not to be a raven...gives evidence that all ravens are black?

But in fact, it does, although it's very weak. If you choose fifty nonblack objects and find that they're all nonravens--well, if there were nonblack ravens, then there's a certain positive probability that at least one of your nonblack objects, *randomly chosen*, would have turned out to be one of those nonblack ravens. The fact that none did increases the likelihood that there really are no nonblack ravens--i.e., that all ravens are black.

OK, so what's the point? Well, life scientists have done a lot of looking--at fossils, at genetic codes, at embryological development, at molecular biology, at the development of bacteria in test tubes, and lizards on islands, and on and on. Had there been strong evidence against evolution's having happened, the odds are overwhelmingly high that life scientists would have turned it up by now. A few fossils, randomly discovered, might make it look like evolution happened, just by chance--but the multitude of fossils found? A little genetic evidence might make it look as though evolution had occurred, just by chance--but the great mass of genetic evidence found? A little embryological evidence might make it look as though evolution had happened--but the great mass of embryological evidence found? And so on. If evolution had not happened, you'd expect there to be contrary evidence--and in vast amounts, of various kinds. But I gather that that's not what we've found.

1. All life is designed; all life shares a percentage of design features; the closer they are to one another in the form, they will share more. We share less with a rose bush than we do an ape, but that sharing doesn't change that there are also percentages that make each lifeform unique from al others. This is true even if we share some of the same features, and an example would be all of the various eye types we see. I believe I have said these types of things numerous times.

2. We see fossils in layers of rocks, yippie

3. I don't care about the topic; I typically don't write about things I don't care enough to write about and have told you several times. I don't keep screaming bloody murder when you don't address things you have no desire to talk about. I'm completely baffled why you don't extend the same courtesy to me, but then again, I don't write posts about you declaring all of your character flaws as you seem to have done to me, so we are different in that respect.

4. I'm not pretending anything, my discussions revolve around what it takes to design and operate things, and I'm applying what I know to biology and other things. If what is being presented doesn't align with what I know about designing and writing, I talk about it. If that doesn't fit your worldview, maybe you should educate yourself.

To date, things you have said to me and about me, you have said you don't care what I think, you have said the things I have said is a joke, you have made claims about my knowledge being lacking on topics, and now you have written a post on my intellectual dishonesty complete with pictures. I'm more than a little unhappy with you; I am asking nicely for you to dial it down a little if you please. 

We see a galaxy or quasar 13 billion light years away.

We know it takes light 13 billion years to travel that far.

Stands to reason that galaxy must have been there, at at time.

So in a way, we actually do have that TARDIS.

Not one we can travel with. But one we can see with.

As I said earlier we don't know how the universe came into existence, we can believe what we will. Biblically speaking the starlight showed up when they were created, does that mean the light between here and where they were was also created between the two places immediately, I doubt everyone had to wait billions of years to see them. If we don't know, we don't know we can believe what we will, rates and distance tell us rates and distance nothing more when speaking of the beginning.

So God just created that light to make it appear the Universe was really older than it is???

There can only be one conclusion. God is is part of the Conspiracy. He is an Evolutionist!!!

God created light before He did the stars. You saying "to make it appear" assumes it was done to deceive which is nonsense, you are attaching reasoning to God's acts, disapproving because you clearly have no idea why He did it that way, and if it were you, you would have done it differently. When He did make the stars they were for signs, difficult to have a sign that was going to take billions of years to see.

By that logic, how can you be sure God didn't create the Universe, last Thursday?

True, you remember days before that. But what if he put those memories in your head last Thursday as well?

You can make any leap you want; I'm talking about how do you know? I'm not suggesting God is a liar; I believe He is not a God of confusion; therefore, fake memories are no different that saying God lies, which I reject out of hand. On the other hand, you have a different issue; without God being a liar or even a truth only teller, how do you know the shape of the universe at its beginning or by what mechanism it came into being?

Just looking at the material universe, what does it show you, so you know how it began and what shape did it have at its beginning? I have no issue saying God created it and did it so that light then stars appeared, and stars were created as a sign, so they were seen as soon as they showed up in the creation story. Ignoring that story, you want to suggest the universe is billions of years old because of what you see now? I suppose you believe it started at someplace, in some manner, that you can project backward time. It's easy to calculate how far a car could have traveled on a highway by finding out its current speed. Still, without more information, you'll not know where it was an hour before on just the rate of speed, no matter how accurate your ability to know its speed. You have plenty of assumptions!

There are a number of problems.  First, the sun, moon, and (visible) stars used for "signs, seasons, festivals" (like stars of annual zodiac constellations and planets which were called "stars"--planet means "wandering star")...these were all local in our galaxy...The stars and galaxies and other phenomenon in deep space Hubble field billions of light years away were not visible (until fairly recently and only via the Hubble Telescope) so these stars/galaxies could NOT have been used for "signs, seasons, festivals," etc.  And it is these most distant stars/galaxies that indicate the need for billions of years for light travel.

Second, there was no need, then, to create these deep space stars/galaxies with the "appearance of age," which therefore *does* make it look like God is a deceiver if we can't take things at face value.

Three, even YEC organizations like Creation Ministries International acknowledge this along with other related problems posed by physics and therefore recommend that the "light created in transit" argument should no longer be used.  See for example, https://creation.com/arguments-we-think-creationists-should-not-use#transit where they write:

"Light was created in transit.’ Some older creationist works, as a solution to the distant starlight problem, proposed that God may have created the light in transit. But CMI long ago pointed out the problems with this idea. It would entail that we would be seeing light from heavenly bodies that don’t really exist; and even light that seems to indicate precise sequences of events predictable by the laws of physics, but which never actually happened. This, in effect, suggests that God is a deceiver.

For example, when a large star explodes as a supernova, we see a neutrino burst before we see the electromagnetic radiation. This is because most neutrinos pass through solid matter as if it were not there, while light is slowed down. This sequence of events carries information recording an apparently real event. So astronomers are perfectly justified in interpreting this ‘message’ as a real supernova that exploded according to the laws of physics, with observations as predicted by those same laws."

You know how it was done, you know the starting formation when it was done, you know the mechanisms used to do it and maintain it? This knowledge of yours if you say yes was arrived at how?

Based on current science, I have no reason to doubt that the sunlight I see is about 8 minutes old; nor do I see any reason to doubt that when I look at Alpha Centauri four light years away that I am seeing how Alpha Centauri looked four years ago; nor do I have any reason to doubt that when we look at the Orion Arm of our Milky Way Galaxy which is 1,000 light years away that we are seeing how the Orion Arm looked 1,000 years ago...Following the same line of reasoning, I see no reason to doubt that when we look at galaxies in the Deep Hubble Field that are 13 billion light years away that we are seeing those galaxies how they looked 13 billion years ago.  If we accept more "local" light year distances, but question the rest without providing justification for doing so, then that is arbitrary and capricious, and where precisely do we draw the line between light year distances we accept and those we reject?

I asked specific questions, do you know the form of the universe was in at its beginning? Do you know the mechanisms for how it came to be and for its maintenance? What you doubt or don't doubt wasn't part of my questions; if you don't know, say so; it isn't difficult. If you don't know, then when dating the universe without those pieces of information, regardless of what we see today, cannot be considered factual, and without question, can they? NO ONE really knows, but they sure act as if they do! Proving something wrong or in error isn't my responsibility, but without question, I don't have to accept something as a fact that isn't. Again, your math can be spot on with the wrong assumptions; because even correct math will give you the wrong answer when your assumptions are not true.