Iain,
Thanks for pointing that out. I wasn't reading particularly carefully.
My email is overwhelming in volume and I don't pay enough attention to the
ASA postings, and often skim them.
Best Regards,
-Dave
On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 3:48 PM, Iain Strachan <igd.strachan@gmail.com>wrote:
> Where do you get the 1/48 from? Gmail has a Google-like search
> facility and I searched for the string "1/48" and the first occurrence
> of it is in your reply below.
>
> I was the one who mentioned probabilities and these were 1/2 ( 47+48
> => 47 chromosomed offspring) and 1/4 ( 47 + 47 => 48 or 46) and 1/2
> (47+47 => 47).
>
> I do wish people would read with a little more care.
>
> Iain
>
> On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 9:33 PM, David Clounch<david.clounch@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > 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.
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> -----------
> Non timeo sed caveo
> (\__/)
> (='.'=)
> (")_(") This is a bunny copy him into your signature so he can gain
> world domination
> -----------
>
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Jul 15 11:15:03 2009
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Jul 15 2009 - 11:15:03 EDT