Manganese Nodules: Young or Old?

[docrob57]

Favorite quote from the show (listening to it now) "the source is the source, of course of course." Goes great with my avatar.

 

[Johnny]

doubt the common folk in the 1800s joked of cigarettes as coffin nails after hearing expert testimony.
Law strategists? If the public evaluated attorneys based on the claims of the legal profession, they wouldn’t rate lawyers next to used car salesmen.
And all the economists of the Soviet Union combined had a hard time convincing the masses that they were prosperous.

There is no comparison here to assessing the validity of a scientific theory. Perhaps you could elaborate on the connection. Your main point is that you need not be an expert to assess the recklessness of claiming manganese nodules are old. And your evidence is two disciplines that are not related to the scientific method or process and then the link between cancer and smoking. That's a false analogy. As I said before, you must trust the studies and testimonies of oncologists and epidemiologists when assessing the validity of that claim.

Johnny, you sound like a Catholic bishop who says, “You can’t understand the Bible on your own. You have to either wear a robe, or trust the experts.”

While I am claiming that the average person would have trouble with a scientific journal (would you disagree?), my intent is quite the opposite of the Catholic bishop's. It would be like me encouraging an illiterate person to learn english so they can read for themselves. However, just a little bit of education would go a long way. First, one could start by understanding the process of science. Second, great strides could be made by understanding evolutionary theory, the principles, implications, driving forces, and what evolution is not. So often simple mistakes in these areas are what lead to creationists misleading other Christians who do not have the time or interest to investigate the claims for themselves. This is why I encourage everyone who wants to have an intelligent opinion on the matter to take general biology 1 & 2. I am not asking for anyone to get their PhD. Now, you can have an intelligent opinion without having taken bio 1&2 if you are sufficiently motivated. There are many good books on the topic. Unfortnuately, most Christians will automatically shy away from a book with "Evolution" in the title unless it is a creationist book.

Yes. Of course. And while I believe Yates is credible, you and the OEers here hold out hope that he is wrong. (Please don’t deny this, it would be too niggling.)

I do not hope that he is wrong because the mountain of evidence is so high that a falling pebble does not in any way alter my position. I do not hope for an old earth any more than you hope for a round earth.

Bob: As a general rule, the credibility of a claim increases when it does not reinforce the position of the side making it, and extremely so when it refutes some of their previous strong evidence.

Johnny: I disagree…

No! Say it isn’t so! I would never have guessed. I think this thread has sufficiently established that you and OEers here are inclined to knee-jerk disagreement. It is silly to disagree with virtually everything stated, even careful generic statements which in other contexts would be easily acknowledged. Come on. I could agree with Fool when he caught me in a gaffe. Now it’s your turn. You should admit that this simple and obvious rule is generally (NOT ALWAYS, BUT GENERALLY), true.

For the ease of those reading (sometimes I have trouble following a conversation), I'll rewrite the dialog between Bob and I on this.

Bob: As a general rule, the credibility of a claim increases when it does not reinforce the position of the side making it, and extremely so when it refutes some of their previous strong evidence.

Johnny: I disagree…

Bob: No! Say it isn’t so! I would never have guessed. I think this thread has sufficiently established that you and OEers here are inclined to knee-jerk disagreement. It is silly to disagree with virtually everything stated, even careful generic statements which in other contexts would be easily acknowledged.


You cannot evaluate the strength of a claim by anything other than its evidence. What you're arguing is the evidence must have been strong for someone to change their mind. But this is an unacceptable way to evaluate a claim because you're evaluating the claim based not on its evidence, but on a person and all of the traits that go along with them. I used to be a creationist. Then I admitted evolution took place. Is my credibility increased?

You don’t want to admit this general rule, because it shows, not that I am correct, but that I am not unreasonable to trust his report.

You're trying to build an argument on a pile of sand here. In a nutshell, you are trying to justify believing some guy on some video based on his claim alone. Not his evidence. This is unacceptable reasoning. I can concoct all sorts of claims that, applying your "generalization" you would be forced to admit that it is not unreasonable to trust their report (even if they were truely outrageous).

That’s the second time (see above, Johnny: 1) that you accused me of being “close” to some error. You know, we might need to coin another term, a logical fallacy for those who repeatedly accuse others of being “close” to an error, implying that the addition of multiple “close” errors add up to an actual error .

You actually committed those errors, flat out. I could have called you on them. Instead I gave you the benefit of the doubt and told you you were close, thinking perhaps next time you would be more careful.

Now for my list of concerns again:

1) You did not adequately address my last #1 located here for those reading. You shifted the burden of proof onto me to prove my position, when you are making the claim. Did you or did you not shift the burden of proof on me? You came in here, posted a claim, and then essentially said "well prove your side".

2) You are avoiding responsibility for your reckless claim by saying you were making generalizations, when it was clear you were pointing to manganese nodules as a specific example. You specifically stated here that rapidly forming manganese nodules "gives us another example of reckless claims of great age". You have admitted that you do not know about manganese nodule formation. You have not defended your claim that this was reckless. I have stated four times now that you are unqualified to assess whether or not this claim was reckless. You have not defended this. I have stated that a claim could be wrong and not wreckless. You have not countered this.

3) You stated that I answered my own question when I answered affirmatively to Q2 and Q3. Once again, you have completely ignored the fact that removal of evidence for my idea does not add evidence to your idea. You actually agreed further down when I said that it does not make your position and truer. You said "Absolutely" and then proceeded to argue that I was being too stingy with the word "help".

To answer your question:
"BEQ1b-J: Two views exist regarding the age of the earth: young earth, and old earth. Also, human beings make careful observations of the world, and those observations will be interpreted differently by adherents of the opposing views of YE and OE. Do you agree that those who hold either view on the age of the earth can sort that evidence into Evidence Columns, one of which is titled Young Earth Evidence, and the other of which is titled Old Earth Evidence. Of course, either side may wrongly categorize evidence. But I’m asking you: is this paradigm valid for evaluating evidence for the age of the earth?"

To be honest I am unsure whether or not this is a valid method. Someone more versed in the philosophy of science may correct me down the line, but I will say "Yes" for now.

Here is a summary for any new readers:

• Bob made the claim that calling manganese nodules old was "reckless", although he has admitted that he does not understand nodule formation. He attempted to explain why he can make a valid judgement regarding manganese nodule formation and whether or not it was a reckless claim by using a false analogy. He compared it to assessing the tobacco companies claims, lawyers claims, and economists claims.
• Later, he shifted his argument to say that he was just generalizing. "Thus, in my worldview, OE claims are *generally* reckless" His best shot was to point to trees in the yellowstone forrest and then shifted his argument to say that he was generalizing based on other cases.
• He still insists that evidence against my position helps the young earth position, not because it makes their side any truer, but because it makes creationism "easier to promote". I was not addressing product marketability when I stated that young manganese nodules do not help the creationist position. I was accused of being to "stingy" with the word "help".
• Claims I am inclined to "knee-jerk disagreement" for disagreeing after a series of disagreements including: disagreeing with his own definition of "bias" (not the dictionary definition; see below), and disagreeing with the statement "As a general rule, the credibility of a claim increases when it does not reinforce the position of the side making it, and extremely so when it refutes some of their previous strong evidence."
• Bob has attempted to explain why believing some guy on some video is logical. He has argued extensively to show that, without even seeing the evidence, it the guy's credibility is increased based on the nature of the claim alone.
• After Bob introduced his claim he shifted the burden of proof onto me to provide counter-evidence. This is an elementary logical fallacy.
• Bob redefined the word "bias" calling the dictionary "insufficient" and claiming "my definition is better".
• n all of this, no one can locate the "John Yates" on the video who made a claim. This is the foundation for Bob's entire argument.

 

[Johnny]

Johnny,
About Bob's evolve.exe program.
This is a fair representation of genetic mutation on the nucleotide level. The basic principle is the same.
Oh....you're probably wondering why I posted this? Just to say that I'm a Christian with some biology background that thinks Bob's evolve.exe program is legit.
And, by the way, Johnny, the word "Bible" is capitalized.

Thank you for responding. I would be interesting in hearing more about that in a different thread. There was one running a long time ago regarding it, if you want to dig it up. Or, I could start a new one. But yes, Bible should have been capitalized.

 

[koban]

Favorite quote from the show (listening to it now) "the source is the source, of course of course." Goes great with my avatar.

Hey Doc - sorry I never got back to you about my "Ed" suggestion.

It was Edsel Ford

 

[sentientsynth]

Thank you for responding. I would be interesting in hearing more about that in a different thread. There was one running a long time ago regarding it, if you want to dig it up. Or, I could start a new one.

Nah...

My sole interest was to answer your challenge to anyone who was familiar with Bob's evolve.exe program and has a background in biology. Actually, I think that you're the one who doesn't understand the scientific method. You said that to doubt a fact before doubting a paradigm is reasonable!! Johnny, Johnny, Johnny. I had such high hopes for you. But you've exposed yourself to be a pinko commie.

How sad.

SS

 

[fool]

Here's Johnny's Evolve progam thread.
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=20605

 

[fool]

But you've exposed yourself to be a pinko commie.
SS

That's all you got?
Insults?
Go play in traffic SS, the adults are talking.

 

[Johnny]

My sole interest was to answer your challenge to anyone who was familiar with Bob's evolve.exe program and has a background in biology.

I challenged you to defend it. If you're not going to why would you even respond? "This is a fair representation of genetic mutation on the nucleotide level." is not a defense. It's a statement. I don't think his program is a fair representation of what it claims to be a representation of. If you'd like to defend the program, step up and join the discussion in another thread. If you're not prepared to do so don't respond.

Actually, I think that you're the one who doesn't understand the scientific method. You said that to doubt a fact before doubting a paradigm is reasonable!! Johnny, Johnny, Johnny.

I didn't say to question the facts. I said to question the evidence. And this is, in fact, the first logical step. That does not mean reject the evidence. That means question the evidence. If you'd like to take this up in a separate thread I'd be happy to participate.

But you've exposed yourself to be a pinko commie.

How intelligent.

 

[sentientsynth]

I challenge anyone that has taken general biology in college to step up and honestly defend your program. Anyone who has taken general biology realizes that your program does not, in the least bit, simulate evolution.

The evolve.exe program randomly shuffles letters in an attempt to produce the arrangement found in the alphabet.

All you have to do is get 26 letters in their correct positions.

This is analogous to mutation on the nucleotide level, as each nucleotide represents a letter in a word that codes for a specific amino acid, which in turn is incorporated into a protein which performs a vital function for the organism.

If you remove or add a single nucleotide to the code, you have changed the nature of the protein entirely (its tertiary and quaternary structure), and the protein will not be beneficial at all to the organism.

Even if this mutated protein is only a little detrimental to the organism, serving the organism in some aspects but not as well in others, what you and I are talking about is getting thousands of nucleotide bases sequenced and translated correctly from the very first cell ever to do so on until today, with thousands of changes being made along the way. In this respect, evolve.exe is not only analogous, it is very generous.

After reviewing my Bio 101 notes, in the section labeled "Genetic Mutation," my professor states, "Mutation very rarely improves the function of proteins. Mutations in general are not likely to spread throughout a population. Mutation leads to disease."

The moral of the story: Thanks to my general biology courses, I am now an even stronger creationist, as the farce of evolution has been shown to break down on nearly all levels.

Well, Johnny, you're probably piping hot that I didn't start another thread. Oh well.

So there, you pinko commie.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

SS

 

[sentientsynth]

That's all you got?
Insults?
Go play in traffic SS, the adults are talking.

Calm down, o ye fool. I was only kidding. You ought not take things so seriously, o ye fool. Remember, atheists around the world are counting on you, o ye fool, to do the thinking for them.

SS

 

[Jukia]

If you remove or add a single nucleotide to the code, you have changed the nature of the protein entirely (its tertiary and quaternary structure), and the protein will not be beneficial at all to the organism.


Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

SS

I am not sure the first paragraph above is accurate.

Smoke 'em if you got 'em.

 

[sentientsynth]

Well, Jukia, removing or adding a nucleotide will totally change the the codon sequence, and thereby the protein in its entirety. Substituting one nucleotide base for another will probably give you a better chance at maintaining some of the proteins original functionality, but it will be changed. Of course, experimentation is needed to demonstrate how doing a nucleotide for nucleotide exchange would affect the subsequent protein that is translated, but I do not believe such technology presently exists.

SS

 

[Johnny]

If you remove or add a single nucleotide to the code, you have changed the nature of the protein entirely (its tertiary and quaternary structure), and the protein will not be beneficial at all to the organism.

Birth of a unique enzyme from an alternative reading frame of the preexisted, internally repetitious coding sequence. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1984 April; 81(8): 2421–2425.

Of course, experimentation is needed to demonstrate how doing a nucleotide for nucleotide exchange would affect the subsequent protein that is translated, but I do not believe such technology presently exists.

Wrong. Let me know when you're ready to play with the grown ups.

 

[sentientsynth]

Hey, if you'll provide a link, I'll read that article. I'm very interested.

"Mutation very rarely improves the function of proteins. Mutations in general are not likely to spread throughout a population. Mutation leads to disease." You wrote that. Don't pretend your professor did.

You can call 1-334-983-6556 ext. 250 and ask Dr. Debra Moore if these notes accurately represent what she taught in class. I made an A on the test, so I think that it does.

But here we have it, once again, if someone says something anywhere anytime that challenges your preconceived notions, well....it must be wrong, and it's fitting and proper to accuse this person of lying. Jerk.

SS

 

[sentientsynth]

Oh Johnny, did I catch you between edits. Tsk tsk.

 

[Johnny]

You can call 1-334-983-6556 ext. 250 and ask Dr. Debra Moore if these notes accurately represent what she taught in class. I made an A on the test, so I think that it does.

I edited my post, because that was an assumption entirely based on the way in which it was written. Nonetheless, I realize that it could have been bulleted or summary, so I felt that my accusation was not entirely justified.

But here we have it, once again, if someone says something anywhere anytime that challenges your preconceived notions, well....it must be wrong, and it's fitting and proper to accuse this person of lying.

I didn't say it was wrong. I agree with what she said. Any biology book will tell you the exact same thing.

 

[sentientsynth]

Yeah, Johnny, like I said, those were the notes I took during class.

I got to take a look at that article. (Isn't Google awesome?) It looks pretty technical, so I'll have to view it after work, to which I'm going right now.

Anyway, so the evolve.exe program is legit. Right?

 

[Johnny]

Yeah, Johnny, like I said, those were the notes I took during class.

No, you said "After reviewing my Bio 101 notes, in the section labeled "Genetic Mutation," my professor states," which indicates that your professor wrote those. I was instantly skeptical that a professor actually wrote that way.

Anyway, so the evolve.exe program is legit. Right?

It's not legit. I am not responding to your defense in this thread. It's cluttered enough in here. Copy and paste it in the other thread if you'd like. I'd like to remain as focused as possible here.

 

[sentientsynth]

Well, Johnny, they're simple sentences that aren't obscure or misleading. Why would you be so skeptical of your upstanding Christian brother?

SS

 

[Bob Enyart]

Favorite quote from the show (listening to it now) "the source is the source, of course of course."

:e4e: