... on Who is Too Presuppositional, Plus Telomeres and Chromosome Numbers (The Debate PZM Finally Refused Me on His Blog)

See A note on "Presuppositional"

Religion Reverses Everything
AronRa
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vquOuWx6NlA

My comments on video itself are upcoming. Especially once I shall have heard all of it. If, that is.

The Dungeon Master

I have a question: Is it creationists' presupposition that Earth is 6,000 years old that makes them unable to understand evolution, or is it their presupposition that evolution is wrong that forces them to believe Earth is 6,000 years old?

johnflux1

The presupposition is the bible.

VIIflegias

in many cases what drives a creationist is the pleasure that derives from basking in confirmation bias and that is clearly visible ( it's most evident in the case of nephilimfree ). in other words ''i'm right because i fell good about the fact that i fell good because i'm right''. in other other words, they perform mental masturbation with circular reasoning. this happens to everybody, but creationist tend to be hardcore about it. if by some miracle you manage to take that out of the picture and begin a discussion, the creationist mind is trained to follow specific thought patterns in response to specific stimuli and those programmed responses usually make them incapable of accepting new information or recognizing a valid argument, even if it's just a variation of their own arguments ( again this happens to everybody, that's how we work, and it's a bad habbit). finally, if you strip away all that, you should be capable of opening a proper discussion and having him/her actually listen to you. at that point, when all they have is a mind with a few fundamental presupposition ( finally here is my answer :P ) i think the main presupposition is : ''i know that my mindset is flawless, therefore the accuracy of any piece of information or reasoning that would force me into a stream of consciousness that i detect to be conflicting with my model of thought does not need to be ascertained and can be dismissed as a irrelevant fallacy''. in other words, and of course this is just an hypothesis, as soon as their brains detect anything that might in the end force them to admit they are wrong not only regarding the subject but wrong in their way of thinking, their primary and last line of defence is activated, like a firewall, instantly halting the process of elaboration of the information they were just presented. and this does not happen to everybody, not to people who have an idea of what intellectual honesty is.

Bolan Meek

+johnflux1 There's actually a supposition that precedes "the bible [is true]": that those who promote that book are trustworthy. People don't believe 'The Bible' because they've read it; they believe it because someone has endorsed it to be true, with appeals to emotion. With few possible exceptions, those promoters were trusted loved ones.

After believing 'the Bible', the convinced then read it with filters of confirmation bias, ignoring or belittling all external and internal evidence of its nature as a collection of myths.

Jordan Novak

+The Dungeon Master I would say that for the majority its the presupposition of the Earth's age. Then they fish for reasons to make evolution wrong. Hence the giant list of creationist claims.. they keep searching..

Claim List: The TalkOrigins Archive
Index to Creationist Claims
edited by Mark Isaak
Copyright © 2006
[Last update: 5 Nov 2006]
http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

Tobias Hagström

Probably mostly the former.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

+The Dungeon Master , as a creationist, I would say we consider both wrong on its own merits. We have Biblical - both Historical and Theological, if you like - evidence against Billions of Years. We have scientific evidence evolution won't work even with Billions of Years, not as presumed in the theory.

+Jordan Novak, the list might give an impression of including all major known creationist claims, with links to appropriate answers.

I went through the claims concerning C-14. Our really MAJOR argument on the issue is not listed. [I found it later as minor part of other story, though, and not by Mark Isaak - edit long after commenting] Perhaps it is thought to be only a "minor" aspect of first claim - the answer to which includes no answer to it. Here is my going through of the work of Mark Isaak on TalkOrigins:

Creation vs. Evolution : Well, how about Mark Isaak? Too lazy to do his homework?
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2014/07/well-how-about-mark-isaak-too-lazy-to.html

The Dungeon Master

+Hans-Georg Lundahl And what, dare I ask, is this evidence? I feel I should remind you that we didn't develop the theory of evolution and then force everything to conform to it, we just observed repeating patterns in nature and gave it a name.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

By the Biblical evidence for a short history of the universe, I suppose you will agree we all mean genealogies, so I suppose you were asking for the evidence against evolution.

Since you made a reminder, I will answer it first.

Observing a pattern in nature as we see it today is one thing. Projecting it backwards over a supposed billion or more of years and into MUCH larger proportions is another one. And looking at buried bones and finding confirmations for the pattern observed in the bones, if you project part of the possibilities of projections of the pattern and thus get a pattern in the bones with theoretical overlay that will confirm your projection is a third thing - it is going for a stupid choice of method with all the intelligence one has. Usually brighter than that stupidity.

The evidence against evolution now, have you heard of telomeres? Do you know that we age and die because our telomeres get shorter?

AND, have you heard of PZM's theory of chromosome splits to explain how mammals have different numbers of chromosomes?

If so, you might work out the evidence against evolution for yourself.

If you can't - come back.

The Dungeon Master

+Hans-Georg Lundahl Why should finding bones that match our expectations be bad again? We understand some of the principles the universe runs on, so it stands to reason that those principles will be constants across time. For instance, no matter where or when you go, force always equals mass times acceleration.

Yes, I know about telomeres. They're those useless nucleotide sequences that protect the rest of a chromosome from being damaged during cell division. Telomeres do not determine our life span because they are repaired by telomerase reverse transcriptase.

I couldn't find any information about the theory you mentioned. Could you please link me to where you found it, because I want to read it.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"Why should finding bones that match our expectations be bad again?"

If they match it spontaneously, so to speak, no problem. That is not exactly what has happened. People who do not know exactly what places the bones have been found, think that is the case. They might even think this textbook diagram (or sth) is honest which says "we find trilobites 100 ft below the ground, dinosaurs 50 ft below the ground, early humans ten ft below the ground and never any place which reverses the order".

There is no such place where you find that on all of earth. It would be as famous among land palaeontologists (dinos and men being both land creatures, unlike trilos) as Grand Canyon among marine palaeontologists.

In order to find confirmation of evolution in the bones, you first impose evolution as a much more virtual way of reading them than 100 ft etc. below the ground. Btw, if there are any finds with lots of bones dug up from 100 ft below the pre-dig ground level, I would like to know. Fossils are usually dug up from where they are acessible.

"We understand some of the principles the universe runs on, so it stands to reason that those principles will be constants across time"

But we have not here and new seen that evolution (in the sense usually interpreted, i e projected way beyond present evidence) is a principle the universe runs on. We have however lots of evidence chromosomes is one of the principles ALL polycellular life runs on.

We also know they come in different numbers for different creatures. The primates are famous in one niche - baboons, chimps, gorillas all have 2*24 (or 48), but man has 2*23 (46).

Other primates are less easy to pack into the theory of evolution from a common ancestor. Unless, as chromosomes can fuse, they also can split.

Certain non-mammals can form offspring with more than two chromosomes in each "couple".

In plants you find tetraploids, octoploids, sometimes artificial hexaploids too, no problem (but natural hexaploids seems to be one). A "human tetraploid" would have 4*23 chromosomes, i e 92. Now, "human tetraploids" are usually spontaneously aborted very early. One boy was born who died after a year, after a very sickly existence.

Do you start to see the problem?

Reading links:

Little summary on my own writings on it:

Creation vs. Evolution : Letter to Nature on Karyotype Evolution in Mammals
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2011/11/letter-to-nature-on-karyotype-evolution.html

Where I link to PZM's post:

Pharyngula : Basics: How can chromosome numbers change?
Posted by PZ Myers on April 21, 2008
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/04/21/basics-how-can-chromosome-numb/

The Dungeon Master

+Hans-Georg Lundahl Not really. Believe it or not, we are not lying when we say that everything we've seen supports evolution. And evolution itself means change, nothing more. We've identified, observed, and recreated the circumstances under which evolution occurs. In fact, earlier this year we built a completely man-made bacteria.

I still don't see how the chromosomes present a problem. Through separation at duplicated centromeres, or the fusion of two different centromeres, it is possible to increase or reduce the number of chromosomes an in individual, or possibly an entire species after enough reproduction. We even see it in humans sometimes.

Jordan Novak

+Hans-Georg Lundahl Even if all 12 dating methods which all point to the same time eras were somehow wrong. It still doesn't make magic in the desert in the bronze/iron age literature books correct.

Can we cherry pick things in the bible too? What about factual statements like genealogy? If its all inerrant in your fundamentalist mind how do you resolve two different genealogies for a Jesus? How do you resolve differences in the nativity story?

In the OT, how do you resolve the advocation of child rape - murder - torture - abortion - infanticide - genocide?

How do you resolve the 1,000 year older story of Hindu creation, which the Genesis authors forged their ideas from?

How do you resolve believing in Genesis accounts when there is no scientific proofs? (Charlatanry work by ICR doesn't count.)

Hans-Georg Lundahl

+Jordan Novak And the word "literature books" ... what books are NOT literature? Catalogues? Phone diaries? Shopping collections for mail order shopping?

+The Dungeon Master - it seems the link I gave for PZM's blog is no longer valid.

Have you noticed?

The Dungeon Master

+Hans-Georg Lundahl It's still working for me.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I noted so myself later.

Probably some admin playing games, since I share computers.

Apart from that - have you thought it over? Do you have an explanation for one mammal getting more not genes in a chromosome but the chromosomes themselves getting more numerous after a common ancestor?

PZM's scenario won't work because it lacks new telomeres at the break. Trisomy extending to tetrasomy won't work since all trisomies make dysfunctional individuals with less chances of surviving and tetrasomy even more so. Polyploidy will get spontaneously aborted, as well as this happening also with trisomy of largest chromosomes (1 or 3 for instance, 21 is much smaller).

The Dungeon Master

+Hans-Georg Lundahl Is it unreasonable to hypothesize that the first time a chromosome splits that it becomes damaged or is at least imperfect? After all, chromosomes splitting is an error anyways, but descendants' DNA doesn't know that. It just assumes that it's supposed to have more chromosomes, so it just tacks on some telomeres and calls it a day. That's my hypothesis, anyway.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

For that to happen, there must at some point have been added, not repair to a damaged telomere, but a totally new telomere to a damaged chromsome arm ending where there is not any telomere.

As for as I know, this kind of damaged chromosomes has been observed - in cancer cells.

The Dungeon Master

+Hans-Georg Lundahl Then perhaps it's some process we haven't figured out yet. Or we already have, and I just don't know it, since I don't keep tabs on all the scientific journals. It's definitely an interesting matter, though.

revya contreras

+The Dungeon Master

Stop wasting your time, the reason This person is here in the youtube comment section is because he knows that the only answers we can give is i kind of sort of know i little bit about this and i think that posiblily, perhaps, maybe there is a chance that this is what happens. If he really wanted to understand or wanted real answers to his questions he would either study it for himself or talk to a specialist in this particular area., leave him alone dood for your own sanity

The Dungeon Master

+revya contreras I gave up trying to retain my sanity years ago, but I'll take your advice anyway.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"If he really wanted to understand"

As if I didn't do so already.

"or wanted real answers to his questions"

I think even here I refrained from over using rhetorical questions. I think I made it clear that my objections were precisely objections (without skimming over everything I said before).

"he would either study it for himself"

I do.

"or talk to a specialist in this particular area"

I do that too.

"leave him alone dood for your own sanity"

That advice is simply trying to isolate me from everyone interested in my objections, and all of them from me. It comes after a very base try of demonising me. This:

"the reason This person is here in the youtube comment section is because he knows that the only answers we can give is i kind of sort of know i little bit about this and i think that posiblily, perhaps, maybe there is a chance that this is what happens."

The reason I am here is rather that I know you have been told half truths along with lies by sloppy teachers and have been taught even to be sloppy about certain questions. I am trying to rouse you. That is you guys, not specifically revya contreras who seems a bit dishonest.

Above was to +revya contreras , and of course +The Dungeon Master is free to follow his bad advice anyway.

revya contreras

+Hans-Georg Lundahl Just stop, your are just inciting him to continue because you feel good that he specifically does not have a good answer. This does not mean that what you are asking isnt already known by peaple who dedicate there life to research. Go read a book or scientific juornal, you will learn more from that then you ever will from youtube comments, and please dont read a christian "scientific juornal" that is not science.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

You have missed the point that what I am CLAIMING (not asking) is admitted basically in Post of the Month Talk Origins for Jan. 1999 and that P Z Myers (who would qualify as a real expert) has been refuted by me and has hidden the debate I did under his blogpost.

"please dont read a christian "scientific juornal" that is not science."

TalkOrigins and Pharyngula are hardly Christian. But one which is has made a few comments on that topic, neatly enough:

CMI : 'Evolution is science, but creationism is religion’
Using buzzwords to divide and deride
by Shaun Doyle
Published: 2 October 2014 (GMT+10)
http://creation.com/creation-evolution-buzzwords

And

CMI : ‘It’s not science’
by Don Batten
Published: 28 February 2002 (GMT+10)
Revised 18 September 2014
http://creation.com/its-not-science

It is not just that The Dungeon Master doesn't have a good answer, it is not just that PZMyers doesn't have one either, it is that you are blocking yourself from finding possible good answers by mere prejudice, socially established but individually constituting stupidity in argument.

Here is the post admitting my point at TalkOrigins:

TO : Changes in chromosome number during evolution
Post of the Month: January 1999
by rwaddle@worldnet.att.net
http://talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/jan99.html

revya contreras

+Hans-Georg Lundahl Creation is not science period, Why yo might ask beacse it starts with the conclution and seek evindence to back it up sciene starts wih evidence and come to a conclution based on it so if you want to be scientificaly litarate discad creation unless a good 90% of the evidence points to it.

P.S. fuck PZ Myers and atheism plus

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"sciene starts wih evidence and come to a conclution based on it"

That would make Evolutionist Scientists these days prime examples of how not to do science.

They start with the conclusion they learnt in school and fit evidence to it as they can and ignore the rest.

Evidence is not about how many percent points to this and how many percent pooints to that. Evidence is about whether something seen, heard or otherwise known through the senses is compatible or incompatible with certain stances.

Evidence from Chromosome numbers is INCOMPATIBLE with Mammals evolving from a common ancestor.

The guy in TalkOrigins nearly admitted it. PZM may be a distasteful atheist to you, bt he at least tried to make a case for compatibility, even if he failed. I don't like him either, but I like his blog post lots better than your gas and presuming you know which side in a debate is doing their science how.

There are in fact scientists who started out as evolutionists and who became creationists because of the evidence, i e because of how science should be done. Even according to you, what I just quoted.

revya contreras

+Hans-Georg Lundahl

Stop i dont understand much of this i did not study any of it, I only konw highschool biology. and you are cheery picking inofmation. I know you are because my father is a Geologist and ive talked with celular biologists. I know that this shit ties into some other stuff which fills in the holes and yes i pulled the percentage out of my ass only as an ilustrationthat there isnt much room for error in a theory.

In the end im willing to admit i dont know or dont understand but as long as i keep searching someday i will. You on the other hand are afraid of uncertanty, you can not live with the fact that you dont know so you cling to this story that says it has answers, and i understand its very conforting to think you know but its false. Not knowing isnt bad so calm down and either search for truth of stick with your storys, whatevere you do its your problem not mine.

dont bother writing a response

Hans Georg Ludnahl

"my father is a Geologist"

Then you give him this, about the Geologic column:

Creation vs. Evolution : Three Meanings of Chronological Labels
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2013/12/three-meanings-of-chronological-labels.html

It is part of a series, there are internal links, ask him to read ALL of the series. One of the messages branches out with further links to lists of fossil finds. Make sure he reads those too.

"and ive talked with celular biologists."

Yes, and they gave you WHAT exact response about chromosome fission and its being possible and how new telomeres come by to them?

"In the end im willing to admit i dont know or dont understand but as long as i keep searching someday i will."

Not if you keep refusing to search in the right direction, you won't.

"You on the other hand are afraid of uncertanty, you can not live with the fact that you dont know so you cling to this story that says it has answers, and i understand its very conforting to think you know"

That would perhaps have been appropriate in a discussion about whether Christ rose from the dead, I have answers on that one too. It would perhaps also have been half way appropriate if you had a claim to know me. As it is you are only acting a sham psychologist, not that real ones are better.

"but its false."

You claim that without offering proof.

I claimed that about chromosome fission according to PZM's scenario. I gave proof and gave it in geometry and in info about why telomeres are necessary on both ends of a chromosome.

"dont bother writing a response"

Perhaps it won't help you, yourself ... to me discussion is kind of a sport. Plus I have this theoretical at least hope I might be helping someone.

revya contreras

+Hans-Georg Lundahl

As locu would have it both my father and mother (geophysist) have read that sieries and to quot them directly "whoever wrote this does not know half of what he is talking about and does not understand the other half"

So yeah not too impressive sorry

on a side note i studied videogame disigne so dont ask why becuase i dont know.

Also i dont need to know you to make a correct asumtion that you are uncomfortable with the idea that you dont know the truth becuase that is the entire premise of any religion, we give you answers so you can feel good even if they are wrong.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

OK, and whoever gave that answer - you said it was your parents - seems to have been short of specific answers to my arguments, the general one and the examples that illustrate it. I have added an analysis of Laetoli to these, btw:


http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2014/10/isnt-there-geological-column-in-laetoli.html

If your father and mother have youtube, they are welcome to comment here. If they have emails, they are welcome to make a discussion per email - provided they agree I publish it on

Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl
http://correspondentia-ioannis-georgii.blogspot.com

precisely as this dialogue of ours has been published on:

[linked here too:] Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... on Who is Too Presuppositional, Plus Telomeres and Chromosome Numbers (The Debate PZM Finally Refused Me on His Blog)
http://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2014/10/on-who-is-too-presuppositional-plus.html

Since I basically invited your parents to debate per correspondence, here is what they need to know in a purely practical way:

Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl : If you wish to correspond with me
http://correspondentia-ioannis-georgii.blogspot.com/p/if-you-wish-to-correspond-with-me.html

Oh, I forgot one:

"Also i dont need to know you to make a correct asumtion that you are uncomfortable with the idea that you dont know the truth becuase that is the entire premise of any religion, we give you answers so you can feel good even if they are wrong."

Now, is that anything like a presupposition on your part? Is that anything like a prejudice?

It is at least not gleaned as unbiassed direct empirical knowledge about me!

Or about most other adherents of most other religions or mine!

revya contreras

+Hans-Georg Lundahl Please they don't have time to be debating on youtube (and my mother really doesn't even know how to even set up a google plus account), They have students, thesis papers to correct, projects and my father is working on a book so yeah. And no its not prejudice its what religion offers, plane and simple, comfort. Its one of the reasons why they are so persistent, people are scared of the unknown and religion provides a solution that makes them feel good by exploiting the biggest fear of every live being, death.

Hans Georg Lundahl

Perhaps the biologist has time to take me on about the issue of chromosome numbers?

Btw, you are aware that you have a LOT of claims you are not substantiating. Your parents have an excuse for not doing so - though the youtube one is faulty, since they could debate me per email, as I also offered, but having an excuse for not substantiating your claims is not the same thing as substantiating them.

It seems to me that YOU are the one living in a world of comfort, YOU are the one who is scared of the unknown (you even said it was beyond your scientific knowledge and used that as a claim I ought to drop it), YOU are the one hankering to a solution which makes you feel good.

In case you have no death fear that your scientism is exploiting, others have, I debated one who was all for science because it supposdly heightened our life expectancy with 50 years snce bronze age and he somehow seemed to think that accepting a religion he calls bronze age superstition would lower it "back again".

revya contreras

+Hans-Georg Lundahl wow projecting much? you know what is a really comforting though? beliving that when i die my consiuness will fade, my body will decay and everyone who ever knew me or loved me will eventually forget me. ive been confronted with my own mortality more than once and i can assure you i dont fear death, i fear beening forgotten.

also want another asumtion? you are selfish, asking peaple to go out of there way to explain to someone, who does not want to listen to reason, why they are wrong. Get a PHD in the subject if you are so interested in this stuff, maybe , just maybe you will find evidence of a creator, or you wont just like noone else has.

Hans Georg Lundahl

Oh, only people with a phd are entitled to have an interest in the evidence and the explanations behind evolutionism (and a creationist will also get it if bright enough, never fear partiality in examiners!), and challenging someone to a debate is selfish requiring of explanations?

There are LOTS of people who have found evidence of a Creator, they are just not in mainstream academia saying so.

Some never were in mainstream academia on scientific side (I am more linguistically and historically oriented, Latin, no phd), others had to leave mainstream academia on ecoming creationist, and others again are still there while doing other things and using scientific competence on freetime to promote creationism. So, they are not in mainstream Academia saying so. Oh, that is excluding Philosophy (I seem to recall one Plantinga or sth) and perhaps an astrophysicist as well.

CMI : Some scientists alive today* who accept the biblical account of creation
* Or recently deceased.
http://creation.com/scientists-alive-today-who-accept-the-biblical-account-of-creation

They also give a reduced list of scientists who are - I presume overtly and habitually or having taken a stand - against Biblical account of creation:

CMI : A Who’s Who of evolutionists
by Don Batten
http://creation.com/a-whos-who-of-evolutionists

But, not only have you excused your geologist parents from taking a debate with me on biostratigraphy, you have also not even told me if the cell biologist you talked to has taken up a challenge on chromosome numbers.

A while ago, Kent Hovind was complaining about all challenges he got to take a debate over internet. He excused himself with being a speaker, an oral debater, but some made heavy weather of his refusal. Now I am here, and look how evolutionists are refusing debate, precisely over the internet, with me!

revya contreras

+Hans-Georg Lundahl
dood i dont even live in the same city as any of them anymore. stop with your persistance, people have more important things to do than waste time "debating" with someone who has no interest in learning or even admiting he is wrong. So there is your answer now stop pestering with your pseudoscience or go get a PHD and hey maybe then they might listen to what you have to say within the peer review process.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

OK, they are out of it, as they wish. If you have forwarded, the challenge stands for whenever they want to, if ever they will.

You on your turn stop pestering me about getting a Ph. D. in a discipline other than that I went to university for before someone listens to me. If someone will not listen to a straight argument - I gave two, one against geologica column and one against mammals with different chromsome numbers having a common ancestor - because I have no Ph. D. in natural sciences. That is not how SCIENCE is supposed to work.

When I was a kid, not yet a Christian, I was taught science was objective because ANYONE - not "anyone with a Ph. D. in sciences" but ANYONE - can question it and that way errors can be corrected.

You are demonstrating beyond any doubt of mine that this is not how "science" works when "scientific community" (better named evolutionist community) feels attacked on its basic doctrines. Thanks for that at least!

The one peer review process that interests me is post publication review.

I am publishing comments and getting them reviewed (after publishing them) from very many peers who don't have any Ph. D. either. In doing so, I am sometimes reviewing people who do on their part have a Ph. D. - like P. Z. Myers and Richard Dawkins. And I am giving them a chance to review me back too. Post-publication. As to pre-publication review, peer or not peer, that is in a way a practical necessity for papers that have limited space, but it is no guarantee whatsoever for scientific objectivity.