AronRa Tried to Answer 4 QQ by Rabbi Gottlieb

Rabbi Dovid Gottlieb's questions for "evolutionists"
AronRa | 23.VI.2016
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NhASh8IOQUs

I

1:11 Pretending that things are true that can't really be true?

Like mammals evolving from first mammal having more chromosomes than he, or than any intermediate reduced chromosome number ancestor, even?

Isn't that what you evolutionists pretend?

4:10 And AronRa rants on two more times about how people applying label "truth" differently than he does absolutely must have a different definition to it, can't be anything like just a different methodology in finding out what is in fact true ... somewhat tedious.

II

2:48 Evidence against evolution being possible and therefore against it being fact : chemical abiogenesis (I know, technically not part of evolution, precedes it, but is presupposed as true when obviously wrong by lots of if not all evolution believers), origin of language and mind, origin of any chromosome in any mammal which is more numerous than the ones in the first (placental) mammal.

Mammals don't do viable tetraploid offspring (I know the claim the Red Viscacha Rat originated from a tetraploid, it is per se a diploid organism and shows no too clear signs of originating by tetraploidy).

Chromosome splits as envisaged by what's his name, P. Z. Myers are either impossible or would take too many steps to be possible.

One caution : while arguing this one I have presumed that telomeres are inherited just like gene sequences between meres. If telemeres are added to chromatids after conception and during gestation, well, my argument falls on this one. If they only grow larger, but have to be there to do so, it doesn't. I have not been able to get a straight answer on evolution believers or other scientists on this question.

Lack of evidence for evolution : you cannot prove geological column so called represents widely separated time periods, or that radiometric datings beyond Biblical time scale or even beyond other historic time scales (smaller ones within it) accurately show the chronology as to both order and extent of age.

This I have done studies on, pretty indepth. There are nodes, some of the links link in turn to more then one other link:

Creation vs. Evolution : Oil Drillers See Several Sea Layers
https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2016/10/oil-drillers-see-several-sea-layers.html

Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl : Contacting Karoo about superposition of layers and fossils
http://correspondentia-ioannis-georgii.blogspot.com/2015/06/contacting-karoo-about-superposition-of.html

Creation vs. Evolution : Feynman approach to YEC concepts?
https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2017/07/feynman-approach-to-yec-concepts.html

New blog on the kid : Phil Provaznik / Dalrymple on Potassium-Argon and on Principle, more on Fission Track and Isochrons (a debunking of...)
http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2014/01/phil-provaznikdalrymple-on-potassium.html

Creation vs. Evolution : Ultra Brief Summary on Carbon 14 Method
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2018/05/ultra-brief-summary-on-carbon-14-method.html

Homology while pointing to a common origin is not distinnguishing between common ancestor and common creator.

Other node, to my chromosome number related evidence against evolution, here:

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

III

4:51 "If you're an evolutionary scientist and can't prove evolution is true, you are going to lose your job anyway."

That means quite a lot of jobs depend on pretending P Z Myers and a few more were never debunked by me.

It's excruciating there are job labels like "evolutionary biologist".

But there are quite a lot of other jobs where the observation is true enough. Biologist? OK, Carter is not losing his job, nor is Georgia Purdom, but they have great supportive networks in CMI and AiG and also not just don't pretend to believe evolution, but actively defend not believing it.

How about someone who has not their assets? Someone who has no actively creationist either outlook or organisation to back him?

And even with that, Mark Armitage lost a job.

4:56 There are lots of people who can prove evolution is false but aren't rich or famous because they are silenced.

5:42 "it can't be college professors are too busy to engage in religious nonsense"

Nice excuse. That's part of how the pretense is done and how the ridiculing is done and how the silencing is done.

IV

Questions by the Rabbi

Q1 a)

"when we have evidence for sth happening, we don't need to know the probability for that happening"

OK, "we have evidence for an invisible man creating everything by magic, so we can neglect that is improbable"?

What Christian, Jew or Muslim would you accept this quip from?

You'd say "that's impossible" I presume. Impossible means zero probability, but the evidence is not zero. The evidence is exactly the same evidence as for your theory of it happening, namely the result.

This being so, your argument can in essence be reduced to "God or evolution, but we can exclude God, so evolution". His is "God or evolution, but couldn't we rather exclude evolution?"

I second that.

"Everything that happened today is highly improbable, especially if you tried to predict it yesterday"

Noted, Sun rising this morning is so improbable, we should thank God for it actually doing so.

But this contradicts your dictum on what constitutes explanation, since you claim explanation is only be precedent. Reality as a whole hasn't any, therefore reality as a whole is unexplained. And if you try to counter "indeed it is, but within reality as a whole, there are explanations" I'd say the level of explanations you give are at least very close on giving explanations for reality as a whole, and very far from just providing explanations from within known reality.

A boy was born with non-mosaical tetraploidy and died within a year. I provide an explanation for it within known reality from precedent, mammals (especially human and similar) do not survive non-mosaical tetraploidy, non-mosaical trisomy 1 or trisomy 3. Probably too divergent type of instruction, or too divergent genotype for mother's immune system to not attack, or both. I conclude that placental mammals cannot (except perhaps rodents) have augmented chromosome numbers by tetraploidy.

This has implications making evolution a less likely explanation than God for mammalian chromosome numbers. Less likely, since impossible is less likely than "at least remotely possible" (let alone extremely probable on other grounds, to use your somewhat sceptic language). Unless you can show me a good source for telomeres totally forming only after conception, independently of previous presence or absence of such, in which case P Z Myers' model would work.

"those likely to work in social sciences are more likely to believe than those working in natural sciences"

Are you counting in history, linguistics, texts studies, juridics?

Because what is more typically modern and more typically referred to as social sciences would rather tend to have less likelihood of belief in God than Natural sciences, as far as I had gathered. But that could be an old statistic since then reversed.

"they would be the ones to find those clues"

Even if people of a certain philosophy are systematically discouraged and even if the clues are mostly philosophical in nature?

Krauss, Carroll, was the third one Stanger ... are they only having in common being good physicists, or are they also having in common a certain philosophy called naturalism?

In Krauss, that one is very prominent (I have actually seen him on video), and even involves heavily caricatured perception of the Christian outlook.

"probability of life being caused deliberately by a designer"

I think the comparison was rather like:

• of chemicals producing life by accident (as in without conscious intention but with every piece of determinism inherent in chemistry)
  vs
  
• of God supposed as existing producing life on purpose.

We know chemic reactions exist, we know fairly much on how they behave - for instance that phospholipids aren't produced by Miller Urey conditions (not sure your Mathematician knew that part), and we can at least define God and define what the probabilities are in relation to that definition.

You are proposing a comparison which is lopsided:

• chemicals producing life by accident ignoring probabilities or even impossibilities "since we know it happened"
  vs
  
• God on purpose being what caused life (calculated from what we know of life, not from definition of God).

This comparison is not correct. It could be replaced by two more correct ones, each having one of the sides:

• chemicals producing life by accident ignoring probabilities or even impossibilities "since we know it happened"
  vs
  
• God producing life on purpose ignoring probabilities or even impossibilities "since we know it happened"

That was one, the other being:

• chemicals reacting without purpose being what caused life (calculated from what we know of life, not from what we know of chemicals).
  vs
  
• God on purpose being what caused life (calculated from what we know of life, not from definition of God).

And this one is less directly accessible than the one Dovid was giving and I reconstituted in more explicatation:

• of chemicals producing life by accident (as in without conscious intention but with every piece of determinism inherent in chemistry)
  vs
  
• of God supposed as existing according to Theistic definition producing life on purpose.

Btw, I never caught out when you transitioned from 1a to 1b.

Q 2

Developing fish like features on part of dolphin, ichthyosaur, mososaur and cretaceous crocodile "being required if they are going to"

X being required if Y is going to Z does not prove or explain or cause X.

If Y consciously wants to Z, and sees X being required to do that, he may try to achieve X (and he may fail or succeed). If God want's Y to Z and sees X as one possible or best way, God will provide X insofar as Y (if a freewilled creature) poses no obstacle to X and therefore to Z.

But evolution is supposed to work without conscience, unless you are a spiritualist like Wallace. Then you can of course argue that the lifeforce present in a croc was pushing it to mutate in ways to achieve fish like features and pushing it towards aquatic environments where they would profit from it. But on Atheistic evolution, you can't posit such a thing.

Now, to be clear, convergent evolution does not disprove evolution, supposing it otherwise possible, since while each node of separate phyla is a diverging evolution between these, leading to reproductive barrier, one side of one and other side of other definite speciation will, without eliminating the already existing reproductive barrier possibly converge.

However, while convergent evolution poses no physical impossibility for evolution happening (there may be other ones, like chromosome numbers or a timeline only 7000 years old), it poses a logical impossibility of proving common ancestry from common features. Sure, if the common features are sufficiently many, like between rabbit and hare, they will arguably prove common ancestry. Most YEC (at least involved in creation science movement) would by now consider hare and rabbit are same baramin, same created kind. I would add, since hare has two chromosomes more than rabbit, in Europe, the ancestral type had at least as many chromosomes as the hare, and there were two chromosome fusions first to the chromosome number found in one American species, then to the chromosome number found in European rabbits. Going the other way in chromosome numbers would not have worked. But if the common features are fewer, like fourfootedness being common to frogs and dogs, it no more proves common ancestry than shapes of ichthyosaurs and dolphins do so.

And unfortunately for your argument, frogs and dogs are both supposed to evolve from sth like Tiktaalik based on such arguments.

"forced to adapt to that environment or die out"

Key word : or die out.

Q3

Intelligent design and Young Earth Creationism differ in approach.

ID is mainly about "this cannot have happened without God" while YEC is mainly about earth and universe "cannot/need not be so old" and also about frogs and dogs not needing or admitting a common ancestor.

This means, any ID argument (on their main issue as defined) is very eagerly approved by YEC, but parts of YEC are beside the point to ID which is compatible with deep time (as in Hugh Ross) and even with Theistic Evolution (though for some reason outspoken some TE's tend to distance themselves from ID movement, see Ken Miller).

Saying ID is a masque for (Young Earth) Creationism is like saying Francis Collins' Theistic Evolution is a masque for your atheism.

Can you name one creation scientist, formerly self identified as such, who now calls himself intelligent design proponent, without also having changed at least some part of what he stood for?

"disproved in a court of law"

Which didn't look at scientific arguments, but at the "expert witness" of scientific expertise.

So, no ID has not been scientifically disproven, or at all disproven.

Ken Miller's extremely dishonest testimony (H/T to you for actually directing me to that case a few years ago), is not scientific disproof of ID. It is definitely no Catholic theological disproof for ID either.

Ken Miller is not a real Catholic, as illustrated here:

New blog on the kid : Responding to Miller, Staying with Father Murphy's God, part 1
http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2014/02/responding-to-miller-staying-with.html

New blog on the kid : Staying with Father Murphy's God, part 2
http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2014/02/staying-with-father-murphys-god-part-2.html

Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl : Staying with Father Murphy's God, part 3 - Correspondence with Ken Miller
http://correspondentia-ioannis-georgii.blogspot.com/2014/02/staying-with-father-murphys-god-part-3.html

Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl : Correspondence with Ken Miller (part 4 of Staying with Father Murphy's God)
http://correspondentia-ioannis-georgii.blogspot.com/2014/02/correspondence-with-ken-miller-part-4.html

Q 4

You are showing to a paper discussing gene duplication as added information.

I'd consider as "added information" the addition of a new cell type.

Creation vs. Evolution : Microbes to Man - Happening Before Our Eyes?
https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2019/03/microbes-to-man-happening-before-our.html

"The latter being the key mechanism"

Speculation, as far as I can see baseless.

"If yes, such genes might help understand what makes us human. Here we report the first experimentally verified case of a human-specific protein-coding gene, FLJ33706 (alternative gene symbol C20orf203), that originated de novo since the divergence of human and chimpanzee. FLJ33706 was formed by the insertion of repeat elements, especially Alu sequences, that contributed to the formation of the first coding exon and six standard splice junctions, followed by two human-specific substitutions that escaped stop codons."

PLOS Comutational Biology : A Human-Specific De Novo Protein-Coding Gene Associated with Human Brain Functions
Published: March 26, 2010, Qing-Rong Liu , Liping Wei et al.
https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1000734

This is an article presuming man and chimpanzee actually diverged from a common ancestor.

The "fact" of new information is not given before our eyes, but presumed as historic explanation behind our existence.

14:53 This other one posits loss of DNA which hasn't yet been showed to exist in any ancestor.

V

After questions, about the professors:

"they feel no need to educate"

Supposing they feel no need for apologetics. Where you honourably differ from them.

... "when they have sincere students willing to pay for it"

Meaning, as long as your business is working out fine, you feel no very strong urge to argue.

Science as we know it exists because Catholic Scholastics of 12th and 13th had other priorities. To a Dominican, truth is more important than money. I am not a dominican, I don't feel a need to prove what they have already proven. But I am kind of doing it anyway, so far.