Creation Trick: Fake It!
Creation Myths | 25 Jan. 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFTMuU0eGiI
0:32 I am a Creationist.
I consider at the Flood in 2957 BC, the carbon 14 level was 1.628 pmC, meaning it's carbon dated to 39 000 BP (tephra of Campi Flegrei).
I consider at the fall of Troy in 1179 BC, the carbon level was 100 pmC, meaning the relevant layer of Troy is carbon dated to 1180 BC +/- x.
I consider the time between saw a rise of carbon 14 resulting from an addition of C14 to the atmosphere up to 10~11 times faster than now, for the decades after Younger Dryas (the decades of Babel / Göbekli Tepe) even faster than that.
Would you mind telling me on what level I am faking that?
2:45 Excuse me, is that the guy from Standing for Truth who used to be in Med School?
They are often enough ignorant on non-medical subjects. And they seem to have surnames like Dunning or, in more German cases, Kruger.
It's not about Creationist, it's about Med School student on non-Med subject.
4:08 You pronounce it Hoo-vinn, not Haw-vinde. It's a Norwegian name.
4:21 "what mechanisms of evolution don't work?"
Well, for one the category would involve creating new functional genes by mutations.
For another the category would involve creating multigene functions or cell types, like the retina of the cichlids has ten relevant genes, getting at the cells of the retina (that's non-technical, I know) during different stages of the gestation (not sure if you can say that for non-viviparian creatures), and since on the population in a Mexican cave TWO of the genes have a mutation, the retina is totally blind, though eyes actually develop.
I am pretty sure, when you get to different kinds, the genes from one kind would partly involve genes for cell types that don't exist in the other and partly involve genes for extant cell types, but at parameters (alleles) that would be lethal to the other kind.
- Creation Myths
- @CreationMyths
- De novo gene formation has been directly observed.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @hglundahl
- Creation Myths; namely?
- Creation Myths
- Hans-Georg Lundahl; Nyonase and anti-freeze proteins in arctic fish are two examples that come to mind immediately, but if you google "de novo genes" you'll find countless examples in the literature. We've gotten really good and finding the non-protein-coding regions that taxonomically restricted genes came from (within groups that creationists acknowledge share common ancestry, so no "well you're assuming common ancestry" nonsense, thank you).
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- Creation Myths; "Nyonase and anti-freeze proteins in arctic fish"
When you say "has been directly observed" you actually meant it hadn't been directly observed, since you don't have ancestral populations + the original form of what became those genes.
You don't mean "directly observed" you actually mean "concluded with Evolutionary certainty" which is sth different.
Speciation really has been directly observed on Galapagos, among finches. The new species being a hybrid shows the barrier to reproduction between two other supposed species was not a complete one.
But when "directly observed" would profit your narrative, it lacks. You put in something else than "directly observed" into the epistemic slot of this.
"finding the non-protein-coding regions that taxonomically restricted genes came from"
How do you know those are not devolution in the non-coding versions?
- Creation Myths
- Hans-Georg Lundahl; "How do you know those are not devolution in the non-coding versions?"
Read the rest of that sentence.
Do you think "directly observed" means "we literally sat and watched it happen"? Because if that's your standard of evidence I have bad news for you regarding creation...
(Question: do we have the ancestral versions of the sequences I'm talking about? yes, yes we do. Google it.)
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- Creation Myths; "Do you think "directly observed" means "we literally sat and watched it happen"?"
That's what happened with the new species of finches on the Galapagos. One year it wasn't there, the next year it was.
"yes, yes we do. Google it"
You seem unwilling to argue in your own words that the ancestral versions that are non-coding are really ancestral to the functional genes.
At a minimum, what paper gives the best argument for that?
"Because if that's your standard of evidence I have bad news for you regarding creation..."
Not really if we since then have literally watched God do sth really qualifying Him as God or Moses as His prophet (ten plagues, Red Sea come to mind).
Obviously, God watched Himself create. And if you think Aliens could have pulled off the Exodus, check the Resurrection.
- Robert Adsett
- @robertadsett5273
- Well, since it’s highly unlikely that the exodus happened…
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @robertadsett5273 On the contrary, that it didn't happen and was recorded at whatever point in time as happening, and became the collective memory after not being so, is unlikely.
- Robert Adsett
- @hglundahl so we agree exodus probably did not happen?
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @robertadsett5273 No, a collective probably doesn't get a false memory like that.
- Robert Adsett
- @hglundahl what memory? All we have is a story that was passed down orally until it was written down. When that story has none of the external evidence you would expect to find it is unlikely to be true. (collectives also don’t have memories, people do and they only last as long as they are alive at most. And those memories change over time as shown by memory studies on memories of 9/11)
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @robertadsett5273 "what memory?"
Collective memory.
"All we have is a story that was passed down orally until it was written down"
According to the Exodus account, one main participant actually did some writing.
Now, supposing (which I don't agree) that this is an insert to make the collective memory more credible, we still have the fact that the Exodus event was remembered as a real event, that really was part of the people's collective story some definite time ago.
"When that story has none of the external evidence you would expect to find it is unlikely to be true."
Collective memory as opposed to collective assignment to fictional sphere is definitely one external evidence. The most consistently found one, when we go this far back.
"collectives also don’t have memories, people do and they only last as long as they are alive at most."
By "collective memory" I do not mean a collective faculty of memory, I mean those in the collective generally remember being told of it as a genuine part of their past, so it's collectively held memory content.
"And those memories change over time as shown by memory studies on memories of 9/11"
Nevertheless, undisputed parts of the "collective memory" in the sense I mean are :
- planes were hijacked
- Osama Bin Laden was blamed for planning it, and he was in Afghanistan at a certain moment
- planes crashed and buildings fell (disputed whether they fell because of the planes or sth else was involved)
- many people died while in the buildings falling from too great a height, while standing to close to things that fell, while suffocating in the rubble ....
- Bush Jr. responded by an ultimatum to Afghanistan, that led to war, as the Mollah's refused to cooperate.
- Robert Adsett
- @hglundahl again, since you answered what memory with memory without detailing what you’re talking about. What memory? It can’t be exodus since it’s a story not a memory.
To have undisputed facts, you must have evidence.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @robertadsett5273 "It can’t be exodus since it’s a story not a memory"
That's YOUR very late come assessment.
"To have undisputed facts"
You misconstrue "undisputed" with "undisputable" ... my evidence is that the status of the story as precisely memory is not in fact disputed early on.
@robertadsett5273 Like in 9/11 ... there are parts of the collective memory that are undisputed.
4:31 The mechanisms (with viable offspring permanently exhibiting the results) are:
- chromosomal and local mutations (cross-overs, reduplications, possibly fusions, changing an A to a T or U ...)
- selection
- specific pressures involved in the selection (perhaps you like to take this as part of previous)
- genetic drift (a random selection of genes that become more or less prominent in a population)
- hybridisation (combining chromosomes from different populations that are already dissimilar)
For non-mammals / non-birds certainly you can add polyploidisation
- plants and salamanders can exchibit tetra and octoploidy
- fish, lizards and mosquitos exhibit triploid fertile examples, with parthenogenesis
- I think mosquitos exhibit monoploidy as well. I could be wrong.
A tetraploid mammal either doesn't exist, period, or if it does, it's the Red Viscacha Rat (not red, not a Viscacha, not a rat ....).
(Was it Viscacha? I think so. Anyway, the Viscacha was not the tetraploid candidate, it was the Red Viscacha Rat)
Some mammals have fluid numbers of chromosomes, within limits. The Okapi kan have 2n=three different values (I think 44, 45 and 46).
There is a certain problem for diversification of mammal kinds here. A spoof comment by Hovind put me on the trace, but I am not making the same argument as that one. It's not about the tobacco plant being more advanced than man, it's about how mammals get beyond 2n=48. Some certainly do. And 2n=48 seems to be so pervasive, that the original mammalian placental population would have been 2n=48 rather than higher, if evolution were true.
Note, I said viable. Robertsonian fission is not viable. A non-chromosomal tetraploid human will typically die before birth, one clinical case survived a week or two, perhaps a month, in a very bad state before dying. I suppose a tetraploid fetus triggers the immune system of the womb, is not recognised as a fetus, or sth.
Reduplication events could not very easily if at all produce two new chromosomes from one, each with two telomeres, one centromere and arms of genome between centromere and each telomere. I was refused an answer on whether the telomeres attach to the outer end of the arms due to telomeres having been there in the chromosome before and being copied or whether telomeres attach at any end to an arm, simply by "freefloating telomerase" in the specific part when the chromosome is being copied.
And I don't know if you say we have 23 chromosome pairs and 46 chromosomes or 23 chromosomes and 46 chromatids for 2n=46. I think both usages exist.
So, if I misunderstood any word, you have a golden opportunity to correct it, I have already shown sufficiently I don't claim to be an expert, I'm uncertain about some parts of the argument, and even, since that question was not answered when I put it, years ago, that I haven't used the argument for a long time, even if I didn't delete the posts from back earlier where I made it.
Meanwhile, a simpler one is, now I am asking you:
Exactly which of the mechanisms given above would enable a new cell type, like a cone or a tap, to evolve?
6:34 Wait ... would the fifth mechanism be inbreeding? Founder effect?
I just looked up the Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium, and the one opposite that was "Very large population size. The population should be effectively infinite in size."
7:50 "halfstrand from ma and halfstrand from dad"
Is he confusing the copying of DNA at cell divisions with the chromosome / chromatid (1/46, just so we don't quarrel about what the correct term is) being in pairs?
I think he has confused meiosis (whichever of the two processes it is) with the other one, I forget the name of.
8:58 Misrecalling a foreign name or even an uncommon word is not all that uncommon.
I don't think it affects the argument.
9:15 Here is a different explanation.
The book he is citing is vital for his argument, since it contains one paragraph (or whatever), but it was NOT one of his text books.
He never discussed the book while getting his PhD, so he never got corrected on the name.
And as said, misrecalling a foreign name is not all that uncommon.
9:47 You have so far not shown Jeanson was not understanding the actual argument.
Misciting a source is not the same as misunderstanding it.
10:51 What are the mechanisms of what's often called language evolution? Like Latin to French?
First, whether you call them mechanisms or not is a matter of philosophy, which doesn't affect which ones they are.
- phonemes change
- ambiguous morphemes are replaced or modified at one or other situation (solem + solum => sol, ambiguous, except solem =>
sol=> soleyl / solecle whichever was the state of - iculum at this point; amabit + amavit => amave(t), ambiguous, except futureamave(t)=> amare ave(t) - analogy restores phonetical or morphemical similarities between different forms of a word (to newer or older standard)
amo, amas, amat, amamus, amatis, amant
aime, aimes, aime, amens, ametz, aiment (non-stressed a remains a, stressed becomes an open e sound, spelled ai, è, or e before a consonant
sorry: aimons, aimetz, aiment
amare ave + ave, avea => amare ave, amare avea (that's why Romance has a conditional, a new tense, it's a past future)
- word forms come in from elsewhere
for instance, for "we love" we would expect "amens" or "aimens" but we actually find "amons => aimons" and the -ons ending is not a regular French development of Latin -amus
- like words
septentriones => le nord
- forms get out of use or into use
enter for instance conditional, exit the Latin six case system
- redundant features become essential
ego amo librum Tolkieni / word order S V O supports the cases Nominative and Accusative
j'aime un livre de Tolkien / word order S V O now is essentially doing what Nominative and Accusative were mainly doing back in Latin
(ego) amo, (tu) amas => j'aime, tu aimes (the is is not pronoounced, so the pronouns need to be there now).
Second, given what they are, which of these would you consider to be relevant for developing human language for the first time from a non-human communication system like we see among undisputed primates and undisputed apes?
Before you say "I don't know, ask Tomasello!" I already did. Soon four months ago. He had no answer on how a one tier system became a three tier system (phoneme, morpheme, phrase).
Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl : Tomasello Not Answering
Thursday 28 September 2023
https://correspondentia-ioannis-georgii.blogspot.com/2023/09/tomasello-not-answering.html
No comments:
Post a Comment