On a Christian radio show...

[AronRa]

So I'm going to interviewed on this Christian radio show this evening, [recording], and this morning I looked at his side-bar to see the kinds of things his show promotes.

Real Science Friday:
Caterpillar Kills Atheism,
2011's List of Not So Old Things,
Bristlecone Tree Rings & A Young Earth,
Dr. Walt Brown on Hydroplates,

and so on. A wall of illusory nonsense erected in defense of delusion.
Then I happened across this bit: RSF: Darwin Was Wrong about the Tree of Life

Shock Chimp Y Chromosome Report, 30% Different: [As discussed in another RSF show, check out this post-show note.] Geneticists have sequenced the chimpanzee's Y chromosome has been sequenced, the evolutionists are in "shock" once again. See the April 2011 Creation Magazine and their online report about team leader Dr. David Page of the Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research in Cambridge, Mass., said in the journal Nature (1-14-2010), that the human and chimp Y chromosomes are "horrendously different from each other." Horrendously? A_O, is that a scientific term? Why not just, "different?" Why horrendously so? Because for modern Darwinism to not lose face, chimps have to be shown to be our closest relatives. Yet the chimp's Y chromosome (that which makes us reproducing males... well, males...):
- has only 66% of the genes that we do
- codes for only half the proteins ours does
- has 30% of the entire Y that can't be aligned to our Y
- and the human Y has 30% that doesn't line up to the chimps.

They'll probably expect me to refute every argument they ever imagined, which no one could ever do in an hour's time, but I would like some tips on this one -as I haven't seen whatever paper this refers to, but I'm sure it will come up.

 

[Sparky]

Found it I think. Unfortunately I don't have membership to Nature so I can't read it myself to be sure. An article based on the research and with references shows same numbers quoted by the radio show ones.

Article based on the research:
http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100113/full/463149a.html

Research paper link (if you can access Nature):
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v463/n7280/full/nature08700.html

Hope this helps

 

[nemesiss]

the only thing i could add, but which you would address anyway... is that the results they think would disproof modern biology DON'T.
they may be problem if you use the science of more then a century ago, but not modern because our understanding has grown.

that so called 30% to me (note: im not a biologist) doesn't seem to be a problem. it just points our that modern chimpansees and modern humans are genetically drifting away.
that 30% doesn't line up wouldn't be a problem, it would be a problem if 100% wouldn't line up.
edit: the focus is ONLY on the Y-chromosome, no mention of other chromosomes which most likely haven't chanced AT ALL.
(so big chance that this is just them making a strawman argument)

instead of trying to debunk them outright, best to show them to think critical and pay more attention to scientific discoveries. and that there is a lag between was is taught in class and what is discovered.


one small thing: in the yellow text the mention that article is from 2010, yet the link (which seem to "include" the article) is from 2009. i may not be an expert mathmetician, but that doesn't add up.
edit: the link dates on 19 may 2009, the article received at Nature 3 August 2009.

 

[australopithecus]

http://www.wi.mit.edu/news/archives/2010/dp_0113.html

From what I understand it basically states that in the 6 million years since chimp and human ancestry diverged the Y chromosome has evolved faster than expected relative the rest of the genome due to reproductive pressures. Again, the creatards take the whole thing out of context and, probably because they're ignorant peddlers of dishonesty, forget that 6 million years is a long time for genetic changes to occur. Probably because they don't believe in the concept on 6 million years. Probably because can't count past 30.

 

[Anachronous Rex]

I'm not an expert, but from what I understand this shouldn't be that surprising.

Because it's only carried by men (and everyone who has a Y chromosome thus has only one of them), the Y chromosome is not subject to the same self-repair mechanisms as the other chromosomes. Most chromosomes, if damaged, will borrow part of their opposite, and all other chromosomes routinely swap some of their code with their partner at conception. The Y chromosome alone is never able to do this, it is therefore more vulnerable to mutation - and with that increased selection pressures (without being an expert on the subject, I think mitochondrial DNA has some of the same issues. It is not a chromosome, of course, but acts kind of like one.)

This also results in a number of male-centric diseases; color-blindness being the most notable.

 

[nemesiss]

I'm not an expert, but from what I understand this shouldn't be that surprising.

Because it's only carried by men (and everyone who has a Y chromosome thus has only one of them), the Y chromosome is not subject to the same self-repair mechanisms as the other chromosomes. Most chromosomes, if damaged, will borrow part of their opposite, and all other chromosomes routinely swap some of their code with their partner at conception. The Y chromosome alone is never able to do this, it is therefore more vulnerable to mutation - and with that increased selection pressures (without being an expert on the subject, I think mitochondrial DNA has some of the same issues. It is not a chromosome, of course, but acts kind of like one.)

This also results in a number of male-centric diseases; color-blindness being the most notable.

did a little math calculation here:
for the sake of argument,
we assume that all chromosomes are equal in length and the changes are ONLY in the Y chromosome.
given: chimpansees have 48 chromosomes, 24 pairs.
humans have only 46 chromosomes, 23 pairs, but since chromosome pair #2 are fused we can ignore that.

if we would express the value in percentages we can say: 47,7 out of 48 has stayed the same, since the diversion
that change is 0,0125 or 1,25%. given the total (4~5% difference), not that much.
the real problem why this formula is wrong, is because the length of the chromosomes differ widely, changes happened all over the chromosomes and that the numbers used are aproximations, not hard data. this would make the formula alot more complicated, though i doubt the real answer would differ drasticly

 

[nasher168]

Tch... that tree of life thing in New Scientist is, iirc, referring only to how horizontal gene transfer between bacteria species makes a "tree" model inaccurate. It's now of course seen more as a knotted branch.

Still, it's a stupid, stupid thing to put on the front cover of a popular science magazine. They only do damage to science.

 

[AronRa]

What a fiasco that was! Is anyone surprised?

He raved irrelevant non-sense, became emotional, tried to create an illusion of equality, and accused me of things only he is guilty of, as well as things I did not say, and he said I did not say the things I recorded in the video he was commenting on.

He tried to refute my video on the 1st foundational falsehood of creationism by saying that I could not quote any creationist who held to that dichotomy. I told him immediately that I could quote his own words just moments earlier.

1. He juxtaposed 'natural explanations' with 'intelligent design'.

2. He listed pre-Darwinian scientists as creationists -not only because they believed in creation, but because [he said] they denied 'naturalistic explanations' in favor of special creation.

3. He also said that he rejects evolution on the grounds that life contains information and because he thinks new structures cannot form without intent of design.

4. When asked for evidence positively indicative of miraculous creation over biological evolution, he cited the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics. Yes, he did. He insisted that the perceived inability of science to explain the origin of the universe somehow implies that it can only have been conjured out of nothing by a djinn-like entity using an incantation spell. Of course he didn't phrase it like that. He also insisted that big bang cosmology was integral to evolution,again because of a false dichotomy juxtaposing 'naturalistic' explanations with his assumptions of divinity.

So there are four examples of the 1st foundational falsehood of creationism, the belief that accepting evolution challenges belief in gods, or visa versa. I had even interrupted him twice early on to point out that that was what he was doing in two of those instances, but he ignored that, (by his own admission) and continued on to the end of our conversation. Then he said that the first FFoC was itself false because [he said] I still could not quote any creationist who ever said anything like this, that I couldn't find any creationist who ever said -what he himself had just repeated four times.

Of course he still thinks he has made his point, and promises that next week he will answer my Phylogeny Challenge.

 

[devilsadvocate]

This is what I meant to ask since I saw this thread yesterday: Did you bring your own recording equipment or made them agree to have copy of the uncut recording for yourself? My fear is that since the interview doesn't broadcast live they can edit and spin it anyway they like.

 

[AronRa]

This is what I meant to ask since I saw this thread yesterday: Did you bring your own recording equipment or made them agree to have copy of the uncut recording for yourself? My fear is that since the interview doesn't broadcast live they can edit and spin it anyway they like.

They said the show will air tonight, and that I would have a copy of my own. We'll see.

They also sent me a survey to ask how to improve the show. :lol:

 

[AronRa]

They seem to have aired the whole absurd fiasco. I can't be sure of that though because I don't want to listen to all that again. However he makes several claims about science which I would love to see the details for in this forum. So anyone who is up to it can listen to my argument with Bob Enyart.

 

[nudger1964]

dont know if that was all of it....the interview didnt seem to actually get to anywhere, but they have your 1stFF video up right under the link to the interview, so i would think you should consider that a big success. maybe one of his flock will click on it, you never know

 

[Gnug215]

Oh god, it's Bob Enyart. He's one of those kinds of creationists who seems to latch on to more complex issues with evolution just so that he can sound smart, and so that he can bemuddle and befuddle the issue with so much logorrhea.

Youtuber Brett Palmer aka The Bible Skeptic (Great channel, btw) has made a couple of videos about an enounter with him:



Gaah!

 

[nemesiss]

i listened to the show, even through the first 2 minutes of commercial crap.
i though aron did pretty well under the circumstances.

trying to force him to explain what "a darwinist" is, was a good move.
though pressing him further would have been better.
cause with the definition that guy gave, ANY biologist would automatically be "a darwinist"

when they went about newton being a creationist, aron could have used a more agressive approach, using the term "honest" which that guy flants around with.
my answer to him would be:
if you want to be honest and claim that newton is a creationst, here what you got to do:
step 1 - invent time travel
step 2 - travel to 1727 and just before he died, thats more then 100 years before darwin wrote "origin of species"
step 3 - present the book and let him read it
step 4 - ask his opinion
if he straight-out rejects the whole book as non-sense, then he's a creationist.
if not, then he isn't a creationist


as for the quote mine of aron himself, where they even played a piece of aron's first video
it probably was best to let the video role for the following scentence "they don't want to educate, they want to indoctrinate" which if my memory recalls it, follows pretty quickly after the piece they quoted.


this is in hind-sight, i'd probably do worse then aron did if i were interviewed.

 

[nudger1964]

As Neil Tyson says, Newton was absolutely an advocate of ID, he would invoke God to explain everything he didnt understand himself. He is a pretty bad example of appeal to authority for a creationist to use though....probably about the worse i could think of.
I can understand why Aron didnt feel inclined to argue the point though...seeing as there wasnt really a point at all
(just tell hiim to google Neil degrasse tyson, beyond belief 06, ..couldnt be said better)

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

There's a subtle difference between "IDK therefore GOD" and "I don't give a fuck what the science and data says - God did it."

Newton may have been an advocate for resorting to God when he didn't know things - but he wouldn't resort to God when he did know things. If you were to ask a child why things moving stay in motion and heavier things stayed in motion longer, they would probably say something along the lines of "IDK therefore GOD." If you asked Newton, he would have spit formulas out and explained that it wasn't God, but merely a working of God's universe...
I bet if you asked him what the sun was made out of, he would have said Fire that God kept burning.

There is not a doubt within my mind if Newton sat down in a class he helped write the backbone for, then taken chemistry, then taken biology, he would not have conceded any fault with it if given his own super science lab to test it out for himself - however, I would not think that he would be an atheist of any sort right off the bat and ball of things and he would have objections to all of the science (thus his own modern lab to test it out would be fun to have on-hand).

Plato could not have put it better by saying:
We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark; the real tragedy of life is when men are afraid of the light.

Anyone who claims that there's scientific evidence in the Bible and that life back then was somehow so much better than it is now is clearly a delirious loon who has no interest in science nor it's benefits to mankind. They are a politician for dishonesty and misinformation, and nothing more.

 

[nudger1964]

nah...IMO if he had already invoked God then his mind would have been closed on the matter...whiich for me is why Newton is such a terrible example for a creationist to use.
If you gave him a modern superlab it would be like that episode from blackadder..."behold, i have invented GREEN"

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

I'm TECHNICALLY a Creationist and I'm definitely religious - but I don't say the Universe was pumped out of djinni magic and pixie dust. Religion and Science are only mutually exclusive as people let them be,

 

[AronRa]

I have a follow-up interview this Thursday, where he promises to answer my phylogeny challenge, and I hope to address some of the claims he made in our previous discussion. He says my data is out-of-date with regard to the 'biological material' found in the center of a tyrannosaur thigh bone. He also says there was only one 'Mitochondrial Eve', and that she dates back to only 6,000 years ago.

 

[devilsadvocate]

I think the interview was either edited or cut into parts to be broadcasted separately. The last argument Enyart makes before he says, "Stop the tape, stop the tape! This is the end of the first installment of our interview with AronRa.", is what you say in the FFoC video, creationists using out of date and out of context arguments. Recording stops before you get to answer to that.

Unless I somehow dozed of many parts of the interview (case of internet ADHD), here's what has come up in the thread that was not in the interview:

He tried to refute my video on the 1st foundational falsehood of creationism by saying that I could not quote any creationist who held to that dichotomy. I told him immediately that I could quote his own words just moments earlier.

3. He also said that he rejects evolution on the grounds that life contains information and because he thinks new structures cannot form without intent of design.

4. When asked for evidence positively indicative of miraculous creation over biological evolution, he cited the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics.

I had even interrupted him twice early on to point out that that was what he was doing in two of those instances, but he ignored that, (by his own admission) and continued on to the end of our conversation.

He says my data is out-of-date with regard to the 'biological material' found in the center of a tyrannosaur thigh bone. He also says there was only one 'Mitochondrial Eve', and that she dates back to only 6,000 years ago.