Latest young earth creationist con

All are welcome to this forum, which is for debating the teaching of creationism or intelligent design in schools. This forum can be boisterous, and you should not participate if easily offended.

Moderator: Moderators

Latest young earth creationist con

Postby a_haworthroberts » Tue Apr 01, 2014 1:11 am

http://www.icr.org/article/8017/

I am unclear that the formula suggested in this article for assessing the extent of differences in mitochondrial DNA between individual humans/fruit flies/roundworms/water fleas is appropriate. The formula in question being "d = 2xrxt where d = DNA differences between two individuals, r = the measured mutation rate in the species or lineage, and t = time of origin derived from each origins model". In addition the article states that: "the measured mitochondrial DNA mutation rate for humans is, on average, ~0.00048 mutations per year" but I do not know whether that has much basis in FACT. For instance I gather that research has established a discrepancy of nearly an order of magnitude between pedigree-based and phylogeny-based estimates of mitochondrial DNA control region mutation rate" - see this abstract: http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/26/1/217.full). Furthermore, it is not clear to me that data used by Jeanson take any account of differing reproduction rates between the four species in question ie humans may produce a new generation every 25 years or so, much less often than eg fruit flies. Surely this should be taken into account in DNA mutation rates since mitochondrial DNA is not only subject to frequent mutations during someone's lifetime but this form of DNA is also inherited (with further possible mutations) from one's mother if a female has children. The article is also unclear, in the text just before the formula is presented, on what exactly is meant by "differences between two individuals". Is it two individuals from different species within a given creationist 'kind'? Surely that would be meaningless. So is it two individuals within one species? If so, why does the text also use the phrase "mitochondrial DNA differences between isolated groups of individuals"?

I wrote the above text before reading the last section of Jeanson's article on possible objections.

I've now read that final section. The first response 'answering objections' is to accuse evolutionists of 'circular reasoning' (but no example of them doing this is provided). The second response goes off on a tangent about nuclear DNA (which is inherited from both parents and less subject to mutation than mitochondrial DNA). The third response seems to be not an 'answer' so much as a further attempted attack upon 'evolutionists' and also starts implying that there is a "worldwide diversity in mitochondrial DNA mutation rates". The fourth response seeks to justify the ICR's decision that "fossil DNA sequences were deliberately omitted from this study because they are too fraught with scientific uncertainty". The fifth response appears - to a layman - to make sense. But if a spurious formula has been used the response is probably irrelevant. The sixth response refers to an 'evolutionary rescuing device'. The seventh response addresses a hypothetical counter-claim that "four species do not represent biological diversity on Earth".

NONE of this addresses the concerns I raise above. I am not sufficiently expert to know for certain that all of my concerns are valid - ie that this is definitely a YEC scam and not simply 'poor presentation' (by an intelligent writer if footnote 4 is anything to go by).

I am also flagging this at Eye on the ICR. The blogger may of course be busy with his studies but he is probably better placed to expose/confirm flaws in Nathaniel Jeanson PhD's article than I am.

The writer wishes to destroy acceptance of the notion of 'deep time'. Since shallow time would ruin mainstream evolutionary theory.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8944
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Latest young earth creationist con

Postby greenockwest » Thu Nov 20, 2014 8:33 am

Just getting into BCSE as my church begins the 'Scientists in Congregations' programme sponsored by the Templeton Foundation..

My impression is that the writer of the article confuses mutation rates with the eventual outcome of evolution, as environmental factors - effectively the 'need' of a species to change over time to adapt. If a species is particularly comfortable in its evolutionary niche, then mutation rates won't play any very significant role in moving them on. That's assuming the stuff about mutation rates is sound, which i doubt.
greenockwest
 
Posts: 1
Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2014 9:34 am

Re: Latest young earth creationist con

Postby Roger Stanyard » Thu Nov 20, 2014 10:05 am

greenockwest wrote:Just getting into BCSE as my church begins the 'Scientists in Congregations' programme sponsored by the Templeton Foundation..

My impression is that the writer of the article confuses mutation rates with the eventual outcome of evolution, as environmental factors - effectively the 'need' of a species to change over time to adapt. If a species is particularly comfortable in its evolutionary niche, then mutation rates won't play any very significant role in moving them on. That's assuming the stuff about mutation rates is sound, which i doubt.


Hi and welcome, Greenockwest.
Those who believe absurdities will commit atrocities - Voltaire
User avatar
Roger Stanyard
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 6162
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Re: Latest young earth creationist con

Postby a_haworthroberts » Thu Nov 20, 2014 10:25 pm

greenockwest wrote:Just getting into BCSE as my church begins the 'Scientists in Congregations' programme sponsored by the Templeton Foundation..

My impression is that the writer of the article confuses mutation rates with the eventual outcome of evolution, as environmental factors - effectively the 'need' of a species to change over time to adapt. If a species is particularly comfortable in its evolutionary niche, then mutation rates won't play any very significant role in moving them on. That's assuming the stuff about mutation rates is sound, which i doubt.



I hadn't heard about that programme:
http://www.scientistsincongregations.org/about-us/
http://arts.st-andrews.ac.uk/scientists ... sscotland/
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8944
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom


Return to Free For All

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests

cron