Randy,
In this thread you mention probabilities which are likely. Specifically
1/48.
My question is, wouldn't you say a figure of thumb is that a "likely
probability" is one which is greater than 1 in 1x10^30? Somewhere around
there? Of course 1/48 is > 1 in 1x10^3, so its safe by 27 orders of
magnitude according to Dave's thumb. :)
Thats betting odds.
The reason I ask is my feeling is that people do not instinctively know what
a small number is, or what a small number means. So its worth exploring. At
what point does something become unbelievable?
Let me ask a different way. At what point does something become unbelievable
in everyday life where engineers make real world decisions based on the
numbers?
Thanks,
Dave C
On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 1:00 PM, dfsiemensjr <dfsiemensjr@juno.com> wrote:
> Primary causes are the creative acts of God. Could also be miraculous
> interventions. Secondary causes are what follows from natural law. This
> is standard language. To a theist, these are under divine control at all
> time. But we do not detect the divine through secondary causes, which is
> what science can study. Human understanding goes beyond secondary
> causation, but without the possibility of absolute proof. Materialism can
> be consistent.
>
> I was once immersed in YEC, but found I was misinformed by some who
> should have known better. The practice continues in the claim that all
> the radioactive disintegration happened quickly and would raise the
> temperature of the earth beyond the point of evaporation of every
> substance, yet the temperature did not get above 150 C. As for the
> chromosome fusion, Dennis gives a good summary in the post that I go\t
> immediately before yours.
> Dave (ASA)
>
> on, 13 Jul 2009 22:28:20 -0600 wjp <wjp@swcp.com> writes:
> > Dave:
> >
> > I've got to get to bed, but you must understand I am not nitpicking,
> > although I am attempting to pick your brain. I'm interested in how
> > you see this process. I admit to being confused by your apparent
> > certainty. I would think that you could admit to the possibility of
> > being wrong, but you don't seem to think that is possible. I'm
> > frankly fascinated by such confidence.
> >
> > But perhaps I misunderstand you. For the first time it seems that
> > you are making an exhaustive claim: either the chromosomal pattern
> > came about by God's "direct" action or it did not. This I can agree
> > with. You then say, it seems, that the "did not" part consists
> > entirely of "secondary causes." Do you mean by "secondary causes"
> > what we generally mean by physical law, and would that entail
> > unintentional, inanimate forces?
> > Is it your view, then, that this logical division is entirely
> > subsumed under either God's direct action or evolutionary processes,
> > where evolutionary processes are here defined as any process
> > employing unintentional, inanimate forces, known or unknown. We
> > might say then that you conceive of all events are being caused
> > either directly by God or by what we call natural processes, where
> > natural processes require no explicit reference to God. A natural
> > science, then, must be an evolutionary science. There can be no
> > other. If this conclusion is not correct, then we have missed
> > something in our division of possibilities.
> >
> > bill
> >
> > On Mon, 13 Jul 2009 20:53:33 -0700, dfsiemensjr
> > <dfsiemensjr@juno.com> wrote:
> > > Bill,
> > > You're nitpicking because what I and others are noting is not what
> > you
> > > want to accept. Indeed, I take it as a matter of fac\t that anyone
> > > determined not to believe something can find a "reason" not to
> > believe
> > > it. As a matter of experimental fact, the attitude of an
> > individual
> > > biases radically his acceptance of information. Indeed, bias can be
> > > induced by the emotional load of pictures presented before other
> > pictures
> > > or claims. Any argument I give has to be tremendously restricted,
> > but let
> > > me note the high points.
> > >
> > > The observed chromosomal states of apes and humans came about
> > either by
> > > direct action of the Creator or by mediate action through
> > secondary
> > > causes. Can this be proved? No, but it is basic to a theistic
> > position.
> > >
> > > The ape pair and human individual chromosomes match in their
> > order. The
> > > argument that they could not match enough for reproduction is
> > false
> > > because all kinds of duplications, transpositions, deletions, etc.
> > do not
> > > prevent meiosis and mitosis. So all investigators who do not have
> > an ax
> > > to grind recognize here (and in the genes from bacteria through
> > higher
> > > plants and animals) that it looks as though the pattern is
> > evolutionary.
> > >
> > > If the deity produced these results directly and miraculously, it
> > would
> > > mislead all honest investigators.
> > >
> > > Dave (ASA)
> > >
> > > On Mon, 13 Jul 2009 20:01:33 MDT "Bill Powers" <wjp@swcp.com>
> > writes:
> > >> Dave:
> > >>
> > >> When you use the word "must" in
> > >> "the development of the chromosomes we observe, if produced by a
> > >> creative
> > >> miracle, must be an act intended to deceive." what kind of "must"
> > do
> > >> you mean.
> > >>
> > >> Do you mean that it is impossible that "the development of
> > >> chromosomes we
> > >> observe" could have been caused by a creator who had no intention
> > to
> > >> deceive?
> > >> Putting this another way, if God does not deceive, the
> > development
> > >> of
> > >> chromosomes certainly occurred by some evolutionary process, a
> > >> process that
> > >> still has not been specified. Do you mean to leave the process
> > >> unspecified,
> > >> other than that God didn't creatively "intervene," or do you
> > think
> > >> that the
> > >> process is more certain and specific than that?
> > >>
> > >> Surely any deductive conclusion need be not only valid, but sound
> > to
> > >> be true.
> > >> It seems, however, that you are certain the premises of this
> > >> deduction are
> > >> true, and therefore the conclusion, if valid, is absolutely true.
> > >>
> > >> It is not completely clear what those premises are. But it is
> > >> pretty clear to
> > >> me that you believe the conclusion is both deductively valid and
> > >> sound.
> > >>
> > >> I suggest that even should we leave out God or any other
> > >> supernatural being
> > >> that the premises of your argument will be questionable.
> > >>
> > >> Can you take a run at proposing what those premises might be?
> > >>
> > >> thanks,
> > >>
> > >> bill
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> dfsiemensjr <dfsiemensjr@juno.com> said:
> > >>
> > >> > Randy's post answers some of the questions. The other part is
> > >> that the
> > >> > development of the chromosomes we observe, if produced by a
> > >> creative
> > >> > miracle, must be an act intended to deceive. What is the
> > >> probability that
> > >> > God is the deceiver? that Satan is the creator? As to
> > certainty
> > >> being
> > >> > found only in deductive logic, note that every proof absolutely
> > >> depends
> > >> > on the axioms provided as the basis of proof. Otherwise, which
> > of
> > >> the
> > >> > geometries has a grip on absolute truth? Euclid, Riemann and
> > >> Lobachevsky
> > >> > do not agree.
> > >> > Dave (ASA)
> > >> >
> > >> > On Mon, 13 Jul 2009 07:30:53 -0600 (MDT) Bill Powers
> > >> <wjp@swcp.com>
> > >> > writes:
> > >> > > Dave:
> > >> > >
> > >> > > I take it that you believe you have an exhaustive set of
> > >> > > possibilities
> > >> > > for the genetic sequence of humans with regard to chromosome
> > 2.
> > >>
> > >> > > There
> > >> > > are, then, no other possibilities. I also take it that you
> > >> regard
> > >> > > possibilities 2 and 3 to be highly unlikely, if not
> > impossible.
> > >>
> > >> > > This
> > >> > > means that you believe of all the possibilites there is only
> > >> one.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > The only way that I've ever seen such a conclusion to be the
> > >> case is
> > >> > >
> > >> > > when we are dealing with logical truth. I take it then that
> > you
> > >>
> > >> > > believe
> > >> > > it to (nearly) be deductively certain that the human genetic
> > >> > > sequence with
> > >> > > regard to chromosome 2 developed by an evolutionary process.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > What can we say of this evolutionary process as you conceive
> > it.
> > >>
> > >> > > Whatever
> > >> > > it is, it must be different from possibility 2, wherein God
> > >> created
> > >> > > the
> > >> > > human genetic sequence to look like the first possibility.
> > It
> > >> seems
> > >> > > that
> > >> > > we can at least distinguish possbility 1 and 2 by process.
> > In
> > >> the
> > >> > > second,
> > >> > > God (or some other cause) established the human genetic
> > sequence
> > >>
> > >> > > without
> > >> > > fusion and in the first by fusion. That fusion took place,
> > as I
> > >>
> > >> > > indicated
> > >> > > previously, does not entail that it occurred by any
> > "standard"
> > >> > > evolutionary process. If this is to make sense, then, you
> > must
> > >>
> > >> > > believe
> > >> > > (if what I've said is correct) that if it took place by
> > fusion,
> > >> then
> > >> > > it
> > >> > > must have taken place by an "evolutionary" process. I take
> > it,
> > >>
> > >> > > then, that
> > >> > > by "evolutionary" you mean "by steps in time," which is just
> > >> what
> > >> > > any
> > >> > > notion of fusion would entail. Hence, by referring to the
> > human
> > >>
> > >> > > genetic
> > >> > > sequence with regard to chromosome 2 as a fusion it is a
> > >> tautology
> > >> > > that it
> > >> > > took place according to an "evolutionary" process.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > If this makes sense, it seems that you can imagine only two
> > >> > > possibilites.
> > >> > > Either the sequence regarding chromosome 2 took place
> > according
> > >> to
> > >> > > some
> > >> > > evolutionary process (by steps?) or miraculously.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > It also seems since you are certain (or as certain as anyone
> > can
> > >> be)
> > >> > > that
> > >> > > this sequence of human genetic coding can only have arisen
> > >> according
> > >> > > to an
> > >> > > "evolutionary" process, then you are equally certain at least
> > >> some
> > >> > > of
> > >> > > biological history must have occurred in this manner.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Let me be clear by what I mean by "certain." While what you
> > say
> > >> is
> > >> > > not as
> > >> > > certain as a deductive conclusion like, All men are mortal,
> > >> Socrates
> > >> > > is a
> > >> > > man, therefore Socrates is mortal, it seems that you in
> > effect
> > >> take
> > >> > > it to
> > >> > > be equally as certain, since you offer the "only" other two
> > >> > > possibilites
> > >> > > as a jest.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > If all, or most, of what I have said here is correct, I can
> > >> > > understand why
> > >> > > so many people on this list find the attitudes of YECs and
> > >> perhaps
> > >> > > even
> > >> > > IDers to be so utterly frustrating, stubborn, and ignorant.
> > It
> > >> is
> > >> > > as if
> > >> > > you were trying to explain fractions to a small child and
> > they
> > >> > > simply
> > >> > > could not grasp, or even stubbornly refused to grasp, that
> > 3/4
> > >> was
> > >> > > the
> > >> > > same as 6/8. And no matter how many times you went over it,
> > no
> > >>
> > >> > > matter how
> > >> > > many pictures, and no matter how many object lessons, they
> > would
> > >>
> > >> > > simply not
> > >> > > believe it.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > It seems to me that a contingent science of a contingent
> > world
> > >> could
> > >> > > never
> > >> > > make such claims, but perhaps I am wrong.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > bill
> > >> > >
> > >> > > dfsiemensjr wrote:
> > >> > >
> > >> > > > Bill,
> > >> > > > You are giving generalities, but there are specific reasons
> > >> why
> > >> > > the
> > >> > > > single human chromosome came from two in the earlier ape
> > line.
> > >> The
> > >> > > human
> > >> > > > chromosome has two centromeres, one functional and one
> > >> degenerate.
> > >> > > The
> > >> > > > sequence of DNA is the same in the two halves of the human
> > >> > > chromosome as
> > >> > > > in the two ape chromosomes. So we have either the
> > development
> > >> of
> > >> > > the one
> > >> > > > chromosome from two during evolution or else the Creator
> > made
> > >> it
> > >> > > look, to
> > >> > > > all honest investigators, as if that happened. I forgot,
> > there
> > >> is
> > >> > > one
> > >> > > > other possibility, Satan, in opposition to God, is the one
> > who
> > >>
> > >> > > created
> > >> > > > man in such a way that human beings would be led away from
> > >> God.
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > To the best of my knowledge, the fusion of chromosomes is
> > very
> > >>
> > >> > > unusual.
> > >> > > > There are small parts, genes, that move from one part to
> > >> another
> > >> > > (jumping
> > >> > > > genes), or viral genes that become incorporated in the
> > genomes
> > >> of
> > >> > > more
> > >> > > > advanced creatures. There are deletions, duplications and
> > >> > > rearrangements
> > >> > > > within chromosomes and genomes, along with trisomy and
> > >> polyploidy.
> > >> > > But
> > >> > > > these also lead to the essential certainty of evolution or
> > to
> > >> the
> > >> > > > deliberate misleading of humans. I don't know whether the
> > lie
> > >> by
> > >> > > the
> > >> > > > deity or by the devil is worse.
> > >> > > > Dave (ASA)
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > On Sun, 12 Jul 2009 19:55:41 -0600 wjp <wjp@swcp.com>
> > writes:
> > >> > > >> Apparently chimpanzees, and other primates, have 48
> > >> chromosomes
> > >> > > >> while humans only have 46.
> > >> > > >>
> > >> > > >> From an evolutionary standpoint this is suppose to be a
> > >> problem.
> > >> > > >> Why is that?
> > >> > > >>
> > >> > > >> It is presumed that chimps and humans have a common
> > >> ancestor.
> > >> > > >> So I suppose the reasoning is that if one ancestor of the
> > >> > > >> common ancestor has 48 chromosomes and another has 46
> > there
> > >> > > >> is a problem in believing they had the same ancestor.
> > >> > > >>
> > >> > > >> The reasoning might be that since chromosome number is
> > >> > > >> directly related to inherited traits that it might be
> > >> > > >> difficult to see how an ancestor with 48 chromosomes could
> > >> > > >> produce (in no matter the number of steps) an offspring
> > >> > > >> with only 46.
> > >> > > >>
> > >> > > >> Now I, being naive, don't see why this is suppose to be so
> > >> > > >> great, or insurmountable a problem.
> > >> > > >> After all, if evoultion is correct, something like this
> > must
> > >> > > >> be commonplace. Presumably the earliest of creatures had
> > >> fewer
> > >> > > >> chromosomes than later species. So somehow chromosomes
> > must
> > >> be
> > >> > > >> added and I'm not certain why it should any more mysterious
> > >> how
> > >> > > >> chromosomes can be added than that they can be taken away.
> > >> > > >>
> > >> > > >> In any case, Ken Miller asserts that this is so great a
> > >> problem
> > >> > > that
> > >> > > >> unless it were resolved evolution must be wrong.
> > >> > > >> I am astonished by this statement and can hardly believe
> > that
> > >> he
> > >> > > >> really
> > >> > > >> means it. In fact, it seems far more obvious that the
> > reason
> > >> he
> > >> > > >> says this is because he believed at the time of the
> > statement
> > >>
> > >> > > that a
> > >> > > >> resolution was already at hand.
> > >> > > >>
> > >> > > >> In any case, the resolution supposedly is that the second
> > >> > > chromosome
> > >> > > >> fused
> > >> > > >> with another chromosome, and since chromosomes come half
> > from
> > >>
> > >> > > each
> > >> > > >> parent,
> > >> > > >> this would result in 46 chromosomes instead of 48.
> > >> > > >>
> > >> > > >> All I want to say about the supposed evidence that a
> > >> chromosome
> > >> > > had
> > >> > > >> fused
> > >> > > >> is that it does not entail that evolution occurred, rather
> > it
> > >> is
> > >> > > >> merely
> > >> > > >> consistent with an evolutionary development.
> > >> > > >>
> > >> > > >> The story, I suppose, would be something like that the
> > >> ancestor
> > >> > > of
> > >> > > >> both
> > >> > > >> man and chimp has 48 chromosomes, but somehow one
> > chromosome
> > >> in
> > >> > > man
> > >> > > >> became fused to another, while that of the chimp and other
> > >> > > primates
> > >> > > >> did
> > >> > > >> not.
> > >> > > >>
> > >> > > >> The notion of fused chromosomes is not necessarily
> > associated
> > >>
> > >> > > with
> > >> > > >> an
> > >> > > >> evolutionary process, unless one means by evolution that
> > >> > > something
> > >> > > >> that existed previously was used in the creation of
> > something
> > >>
> > >> > > new.
> > >> > > >> Such a view of evolution could as well be the work of an
> > >> > > intelligent
> > >> > > >> designer, which is why I am confused by Ken Miller's
> > >> apparent
> > >> > > >> confidence that evolution is clearly a superior
> > explanation.
> > >> > > >>
> > >> > > >> The very notion of fusion appears to entail a process
> > >> whereby
> > >> > > >> something
> > >> > > >> changed from not being fused to being fused. The notion
> > >> appears
> > >> > > to
> > >> > > >> entail that there was a time when they were not fused and
> > >> > > somehow
> > >> > > >> became
> > >> > > >> fused. It is true that if we presume that such processes
> > >> must
> > >> > > take
> > >> > > >> place,
> > >> > > >> then fusion would be consistent with that presumption.
> > But
> > >> does
> > >> > > the
> > >> > > >> evidence for fusion really entail that a fusion has taken
> > >> place?
> > >> > > >> In order for fusion to have taken place we must have a
> > time
> > >> when
> > >> > > >> they were not fused. But the mere fact that they appear
> > to
> > >> be
> > >> > > fused
> > >> > > >> does not entail that they were ever not fused.
> > >> > > >>
> > >> > > >> It seems then that here, as in all of science, we proceed
> > >> > > >> abductively,
> > >> > > >> from theory to evidence and then back again to theory.
> > >> > > >> But in all cases the science finds a theory that is
> > >> consistent
> > >> > > with
> > >> > > >> the
> > >> > > >> evidence. There is no way to argue from the evidence to a
> > >> > > unique
> > >> > > >> theory. The supposed discovery of the fusion of
> > chromosome
> > >> #2
> > >> > > is
> > >> > > >> consistent with an evolutionary story, but it could just
> > as
> > >> well
> > >> > > be
> > >> > > >> consistent with other theories and explanations. This is,
> > >> of
> > >> > > >> course,
> > >> > > >> true of all our knowledge of the physical world.
> > >> > > >>
> > >> > > >> What is surprising to me is that some think that this
> > >> discovery
> > >> > > is
> > >> > > >> of great importance. Yet it seems to me that the result
> > is
> > >> more
> > >> > > >> or less assured by the supposed discovery that chimp DNA
> > and
> > >> > > >> human DNA are so very similar.
> > >> > > >>
> > >> > > >> I do not understand, I confess, why chromosomes are so
> > >> > > important.
> > >> > > >> It seems to me that they are mostly an artifact from an
> > >> earlier
> > >> > > >> state of biological science. Hence, I don't understand
> > why
> > >> > > fusion
> > >> > > >> would
> > >> > > >> seem so important. But, then again, I probably don't
> > >> understand
> > >> > > why
> > >> > > >> the bunching of DNA that can be observed under a microscope
> > >> > > should
> > >> > > >> be so
> > >> > > >> important.
> > >> > > >>
> > >> > > >> bill
> > >> > > >>
> > >> > > >>
> > >> > > >> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu
> > with
> > >> > > >> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
> > >> > > >>
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > >
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > >> > > > Get your dream car or truck. Click here.
> > >> > > >
> > >> > >
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >
> >
> http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/BLSrjpTLa8tUKKlJe20hbqoACsgvh
> > >> > irkGmEuZlbfaRJBehRLyfffQgi77eI/
> > >> > > >
> > >> > >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > > To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> > > "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
> >
> >
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Jul 14 16:34:07 2009
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Jul 14 2009 - 16:34:07 EDT