Creationism vs. ☐

2:12 PM

@JonathonByrd what was the goal of your question on skeptics if you didn't want arguments against or for radiometric dating?

Jonathon Byrd

@BeatMe My question wasn't regarding the dating method at all. I was merely curious about the amount of c14 in the atmosphere and if it was climbing still

@BeatMe you said that you had information regarding to leaching of c14 in specimens. could you post your findings on my q over at physics?

BeatMe

@JonathonByrd, you posted yesterday that those dating methods are false and ask a very specific question on skeptics, don't you think thats relevant?

the information regarding to leaching simply is that it's not relevant for your claims

i don't know why we need to dance around like that

Jonathon Byrd

@BeatMe I have made no claims.

@BeatMe I did not post that those methods were false. That's what has been red into what i said

BeatMe

You're YEC, but don't think these methods are wrong?

Jonathon Byrd

@BeatMe I don't see a problem with testing the amount of carbon in an object. I believe that there are too many assumptions with the method.

BeatMe

2:26 PM

for example?

Jonathon Byrd

@BeatMe for one. if leaching is true, which it is, then the flood would have contaminated all of your evidence.

BeatMe

assuming there was a flood

Jonathon Byrd

@BeatMe secondly, you have to assume that the world is older then 30k years before you can even accept radiocarbon dating.

BeatMe

and no, it wouldn't

Jonathon Byrd

@BeatMe what wouldnt?

BeatMe

2:28 PM

alright, that discussion is stupid

neither of us will move from our point

dancek

@BeatMe I'd actually like to hear your logic here. Do you say that a global flood actually would have ruined carbon dating? Assuming a global flood, of course.

Jonathon Byrd

@BeatMe I'm willing to move, as I said, I just see problems with the assumptions that are made.

BeatMe

well, I didn't make any assumptions, but you made the assumption of a flood, you made the assumption, that somehow the earth is only 30k years old and you will do more assumptions, just because it is written in a book

and dancek, no I don't say that a global flood would ruin anything

I don't know wheres that "leaching" is coming from

wax eagle

@JonathonByrd i think @mxyzplk makes the case for why its not constructive

aceinthehole

@JonathonByrd, I wonder if it should belong on skeptics? Like you are being skeptical of Carbon dating? I've not been on that site though

wax eagle

2:37 PM

@JonathonByrd "Each denomination stating their case" is really not what we are about here is it?

Jonathon Byrd

@BeatMe certain objects with known dates have been shown to give inaccurate dates due to leaching of the c14. These inaccuracies have been caused because the items were stored in water.

wax eagle

@JonathonByrd also how many jobs do you have?

Jonathon Byrd

@waxeagle well, I don't know a better way to phrase that. But I do know that many have this question

wax eagle

@JonathonByrd I don't doubt it, just looking for a narrower focus, as @mxyzplk says he asks like 12 questions in 1

Jonathon Byrd

@waxeagle haha. I'm a youth pastor and AVID participant in the gospel. and I own redrokk

@waxeagle so lets edit it

BeatMe

2:38 PM

@JonathonByrd apparently you didn't read my answer than, because I told you that there are thousands of indepent tests that agree with the method

wax eagle

@JonathonByrd I'd prefer to give the OP a shot first.

Jonathon Byrd

hold up... where did I just get a chat from @odd?

BeatMe

@JonathonByrd and more importantly, yes carbon dating can give you a difference of several thousand years

Jonathon Byrd

slow down people

BeatMe

@JonathonByrd but those margins are in the ballpark of 1-2% and nowhere near your assumed 10k years

dancek

2:40 PM

@BeatMe there's no induction in natural sciences...

Jonathon Byrd

@BeatMe I know that there are thousands of independent tests. but here's what you need to understand.

BeatMe

@dancek what do you mean?

Jonathon Byrd

@BeatMe you are assuming that the c14 levels are constant. your data is not 100% conclusive of the levels, but I'll give it to you. You have to assume that you know the exact rate of decay and that its an unchangable constant, you don't know that, you're data is not 100% conclusive. but I'll give it to you.

@BeatMe You have to assume that the specimens have never encountered any contamination, you have no way of knowing that and when you start to say that your specimens are millions of years old, well in that millions of years there's a pretty good chance it got contaminated.

dancek

@BeatMe falsifiability. Right, there are thousands of verifications for something. Still, just one test can be enough to disprove a theory.

BeatMe

so what test has disproven it?

wax eagle

2:44 PM

@dancek mind you it has to be 1 repeatable test.

BeatMe

@JonathonByrd Thats called calibrating: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/…

dancek

@BeatMe I don't know of one, I'm just checking your logic. @JonathonByrd seems to suggest there are some.

@waxeagle certainly.

Jonathon Byrd

@BeatMe Let's play WHAT IF. If the world is less than 10k years. then the c14 levels are still climbing. when you're talking about such a small percentage of c14 that you're testing for, then the smallest changes will show hundreds of thousands of years difference. right now carbondating always gives a "give or take 100k years"

@BeatMe please wait, im not done

@BeatMe so if the earth is less then 10k years, then it would make sense that earlier species already have less c14 then we do. thus the dates would show much older because c14 is still accumiliting. That's one WHAT IF.

@BeatMe another what if, is the flood. if the flood occured, which there is evidence to show that something catastrphic happened here, then that would have leached the c14 from your fossils and they would show much older then they already are

CiscoIPPhone

we wouldn't expect carbon dating to match up with other dating methods like dendrochronology if that were true.

BeatMe

first of all

Jonathon Byrd

2:49 PM

@BeatMe given that these two what ifs affect all of the fossils, then there would be thousands of tests showing the same results : old fossils

BeatMe

As I have written, the upper-age-level of carbon dating is around 50k years. It will NOT showh hundreds of thousand of years difference

Jonathon Byrd

@CiscoIPPhone yes there are other studies, I'm not familiar with dendrochronology, but I do know that other tests, such as potassium argon is suceptable to leaching as well

BeatMe

second, as others have answere you, carbon levels are not rising, they are going down

Jonathon Byrd

even at 50k years, which I'll give you, then that is not precise enough to determine if the world is 10k years or less

@BeatMe yes they have shown those levels are dropping like crazy. which means that during the 1950s there was a significant jump do to nuclear testing

@BeatMe going down means that something contaminated your c14 again. now you have another problem that you have no way of accounting for.

@BeatMe in all. I can see how carbon dating is effective for determining the levels of c14 within an object. however to the equation to calculate age is very flawed because of the assumptions that HAVE to be made.

awhh... two cups of coffee down

BeatMe

about sinking carbon levels, they don't just vanish

There are two major sinks of CO2 from the atmosphere, these sinks removing 14C in proportion to its atmospheric concentration:

photosynthesis (plant and algae), some of which is buried or sink in the ocean
being dissolved in the ocean

Fabian

3:01 PM

← 64 messages moved from Christianity

CiscoIPPhone

can I troll in this room?

If we were created in gods image, why aren't we invisible too?

atheists: 1

wax eagle

@CiscoIPPhone I haz mod powers so only if you want to :)

CiscoIPPhone

:p

Jonathon Byrd

@CiscoIPPhone good question

@BeatMe so if c14 is dissolved in the ocean, a global flood would have leached all of the fossils that the flood buried, no?

@BeatMe speaking hypothetically.

Sven

3:21 PM

no, there is no leaching

and even if the meteorids that have been tested were leeched out, the earth would still be a billion years old

well, no leaching is apparently false, but nowhere the amount you propose

we already have an error margin of 1%, you assume an error margin of 99,9999%

2

Jonathon Byrd

@Sven i don't believe that to be the case at all

@Sven leaching has contaminated test results of known dates, has it not?

Michael Myers

Oh goody, "Creationism chat". This is definitely going to end well.

Jonathon Byrd

3:37 PM

@MichaelMyers lol

@MichaelMyers what is your belief?

wax eagle

@MichaelMyers welcome, please check all of your guns, knives, and references at the door.

Jonathon Byrd

@waxeagle lol

CiscoIPPhone

Do any young earth creationists accept the speed of light?

Michael Myers

@JonathonByrd I subscribe to young-earth, but someone whose opinions I hold in the highest regard has made arguments for the gap theory (though I don't think he knew it had a name).

Jonathon Byrd

@MichaelMyers well hopefully that means it's not going to be 4 old earth evolutionists vs me

wax eagle

3:41 PM

@CiscoIPPhone lol. I'm an old universe and a (possibly) young earth. Speed of light is a given to me.

Michael Myers

Is anybody going to be convinced by anyone else?

wax eagle

@MichaelMyers i seriously doubt it.

Michael Myers

Endless and pointless argument is the best kind.

CiscoIPPhone

Why don't young earth creationists just say god created the universe 10k years ago, but made it look old - he planted fossils, set up the light to arrive at the earth from distant galaxies etc it seems that would mean there was less conflict with science

wax eagle

@CiscoIPPhone Because then the question is "why the heck would he do that?" What is the purpose.

For instance, I believe that the universe looks old. I could assume that God created the universe 10k years ago to look old, but I struggle to find a purpose in that.

CiscoIPPhone

3:50 PM

Good point.

dancek

@CiscoIPPhone some do.

Jonathon Byrd

My understanding is simple. I believe that God created the universe less than 10k years ago and scientists just have it wrong :)

wax eagle

@JonathonByrd Do you think this stems from an incomplete understanding of the universe, or intentional hiding/misunderstanding?

@JonathonByrd how on earth do we have light from sources billions of light years away then?

Sven

@JonathonByrd once again, yes, there is a margin. for carbon dating its in the range of about +- 5k years

Jonathon Byrd

@waxeagle I don't believe that we have accumulated enough data to make accurate predictions about the past. We've only had the technology, at best, for 100 years. In the scope of a billion, we just don't have enough data. the assumptions are ridiculous

Sven

4:04 PM

@JonathonByrd but we aren't even talking about carbon dating, as we can only test material up to 50k years

Jonathon Byrd

@Sven your colleague @BeatMe mentioned 50k years and yet another mentioned 500k years, once you guys figure that out, let me know.

Sven

i am beatme, apprently changing the name does not affect anything

Jonathon Byrd

@Sven exactly. my point, yet carbon dating is still quoted to show dates of billions of years

Sven

no it isn'T

Jonathon Byrd

@Sven well that's not surprising

Sven

4:06 PM

it's only done be creationists, who were repeatetly made aware of that fault

let me explain it to you

carbon dating has an halftime of about 5000 years. after 50k-60k we don't have enough atoms left, that it mixes with background noise

testing material older than 50k years is unreliable

thats the reason, no serious scientist is proposing carbon dating to measure the age of the earth

instead, we have uranium with a halftime of 4.47B years

with that method, several meteroids have been tested with uranium-dating

Sklivvz

Uranium, lead, etc. Also, there are other facts which don't depend on radiodating

Sven

the tests resulted in a range of years in the ballpark of 4,4 to 4,7 B years

several, independent tests

and you still claim, that these tests are all wrong, leaching did wash out almost every uranium atoms of these different meteroids and we are 4.4B years off?

Jonathon Byrd

@Sven it's interesting how the tests show at the farthest end of the spectrum

Sven

sorry for my limited vocabulary and choppy sentences

Jonathon Byrd

@Sven I don't claim the tests to be wrong. I claim that there are numerous assumptions made.

Sven

4:15 PM

no, a halftime of 4,5B years does not mean end of spectrum, the upper-age-limit would be around 50B years

no, you are making these assumptions

creationists do

we scientists observere and do our guesses based on what we observe

2

you need to fit anything to genesis

and yes, you claim these tests are wrong, 10k years compared to 4,5B years is not a small error margin

Jonathon Byrd

@Sven If these tests measure something specific to return a single variable, that could very well be completely accurate. However, you still make assumptions on the other key variables within your equations.

rate of decay and contaminents

not to forget starting levels

dont tell me that you have observed these over a billion years and know that you're 100%

I don't need to fit things into genesis, I don't look at the world and then look at genesis. For me I look at genesis, consider it a valid theory and then look for evidence to back my theory.

I personally have found plenty of evidence and still consider my theory to be very valid.

you have a theory, evolution, and you are making assumptions in order to find evidence for that theory.

BeatMe

evolution has nothing to do with the age of earth

"I don't need to fit things into genesis, I don't look at the world and then look at genesis. For me I look at genesis, consider it a valid theory and then look for evidence to back my theory." this is exactly what is wrong

you have no evidence and still you consider it true

Jonathon Byrd

@BeatMe maybe you don't understand the dynamics of this argument and what presumptions are made prior to dating.

BeatMe

do you understand?

you just ignore the overwhelming evidence, because it doesnt fit to genesis

Jonathon Byrd

@Sven I have a theory and I find evidence for my theory. That's not to say that evidence to the contrary is excluded.

BeatMe

4:24 PM

you consider something as a valid theory without evidence

thats wrong

Jonathon Byrd

@sven its not wrong for me to consider a theory valid. we have different definitions of valid

Michael Myers

It is possible to start from different premises and follow logical steps using the same evidence to arrive at different conclusions.

CiscoIPPhone

Agreed @MichaelMyers.

Jonathon Byrd

are you saying, two different theories, same facts considered for both, two conclusions?

Sklivvz

@JonathonByrd You should look at all the evidence and then find a theory that fits it, not vice versa.

Jonathon Byrd

4:27 PM

@Sklivvz or I could pick an observation and test it.

which is what I'm doing

wax eagle

@Sklivvz THIS!

Jonathon Byrd

@Sklivvz somebody had to create the original theory off of an observation.

BeatMe

so you test material, the result says its 4.5B years old and then you ignore that result and say the "assumptions" are different?

how is that remotely logical

yes, and they had to find another theory if their first one was found invalid

CiscoIPPhone

Interesting discussion! I've got to go though, back in a bit.

Jonathon Byrd

@sven are there assumptions made with those dating methods? ANY ASSUMPTIONS AT ALL?

BeatMe

4:30 PM

for example?

Jonathon Byrd

You tell me, I'm giving you the opportunity to correct me

Sklivvz

@JonathonByrd Off of multiple observations. Scientists were quite cautious when it came to the age of the earth, exactly because most of them took the Bible into consideration. However there is overwhelming evidence that the earth is very very old (and the Universe is much older). The thing is with this is that there are many completely different observations, made through different means (and sciences!) and they all fit together like a puzzle.

Jonathon Byrd

Are there ANY ASSUMPTIONS in the mathematical determination of dates using the currect dating methods

Sklivvz

So when you say "observation X is flawed because..." you are merely ignoring the other 400 observations based on completely different assumptions.

Jonathon Byrd

you didn't answer my question @Sklivvz you are redirecting.

answer the question so that we can move on

are there assumptions?

yes or no

Sklivvz

4:32 PM

@JonathonByrd What question?

Sure

Jonathon Byrd

@Sklivvz so I take that as a yes

Sklivvz

yep

Jonathon Byrd

@Sklivvz Please tell me, what assumptions are you making in the mathematical equation to determine the age of the earth?

BeatMe

sorry, I don't understand what you goal is right now

I tried everything and explained everything

and still you dismiss anything because you do have some assumptions

thats not how it works

Jonathon Byrd

@BeatMe dont point the assumptions at me. you just said that you have to make assumptions in your scientific methods.

Sklivvz

4:37 PM

@JonathonByrd Very many. For example that physics works (i.e. that there exist physical laws which are governed by maths)

Jonathon Byrd

yet because you have to make so many assumptions you can somehow make them all correct...

Sklivvz

jon: do you think there are assumptions in your position?

Jonathon Byrd

I was given a precise theory I put each element of that theory to the test.

I look over my shoulder at you guys with your theory and see that you are making assumptions in order to validate the evidence for your theory. I'm skeptical of that.

I assume that there was a flood. I find evidence for that. I also find that if there was a flood it would have a severe impact on your assumptions.

you deny a flood, even given the evidence and refuse to look at the flood evidence.

instead you assume even more in order to corroborate with your existing assumptions. I'm skeptical of that.

Sklivvz

who is "you"? I do not assume there was no flood. I look at the evidence. Bring me evidence of the flood and I'll know there was a flood. It's not an assumption.

BeatMe

"I find evidence for that." You are told there is evidence for it and you believe it blindly and ignore all evidence that points to another direction

Sklivvz

4:41 PM

As far as I know there could have been a flood, or not. I wouldn't bet on it, because I haven't found or heard any convincing evidence of it.

But I have an open mind about it.

hammar

how would a flood affect radiometric dating methods?

Jonathon Byrd

@hammer through leaching of the radioactive materials within the tested objects

BeatMe

affect them so, that instead of 4.5B you get 10k?

thats bullshit

Michael Myers

Excellent counterargument.

Jonathon Byrd

@sven I think we missed the first part of your sentence

@MichaelMyers lol

hammar

4:43 PM

leaching is a chemical process. different isotopes of the same element have the same chemical properties. leaching does not affect the distribution of the different isotopes

BeatMe

leaching affects them so, that instead of 4.5B you get 10k?

Jonathon Byrd

1

Q: Leaching of radiometric material, is it possible?

I've been doing some reading about radiometric dating and I've come across an interesting find. If anybody has any additional information on this, that would be great. First my question: In regards to Carbon-14, is leaching of radiometric material a concern and does/will it have an effect on the...

material-science

so show me your evidence and post it as an answer

BeatMe

I told you already, there is already an error margin of several million years

show me yours, that there is leaching

hammar

i see this was already pointed out to you in a comment. and yet you're ignoring it

wax eagle

@sven lets keep the language to a min please

BeatMe

4:44 PM

i apologize

Jonathon Byrd

@BeatMe you just told me that the error margin as 50k years and then 5k years, am i missing something?

wax eagle

@BeatMe no worries, just trying to make sure things stay civil

BeatMe

carbon dating has an error margin of 5k, uranium-dating an error margin of 50M years

hammar

how many times must it be repeated that the C-14 method is not used to determine the age of the earth?

BeatMe

or something like that

how is that relevant?

Jonathon Byrd

4:47 PM

@hammar I'm not ignoring it, I'm looking for an answer.

Sklivvz

Carbon dating cannot be used to date anything inorganic really... and to test the age of the Earth we test mineral deposits or asteroids...

Also, let's assume that the Earth is young. Why would we see planetary accretion disks in distant stars? Why would planet easily form in other solar systems, in the same time ranges as our dating, but not this one?

Why would we measure the age of the universe to be quite correct given the composition of the solar system (as you should know, this is a second generation system, and this is why we have heavy elements)

Why would we have extensive evidence of evolution which is completely unrelated to dating, which also points to the same timings as independently verified through dating?

Jonathon Byrd

@Sklivvz first you need to know how stars are forming

which you dont

Sklivvz

LOL

I certainly have a better clue than you think

Jonathon Byrd

A clue is not conclusive. I'm sure you have lots of blue's clues in the drawer by your bed, but they mean nothing in this arguement

Michael Myers

@JonathonByrd Let's have none of that please.

wax eagle

4:53 PM

@JonathonByrd how much physics/chemistry/biology have you taken?

Jonathon Byrd

@waxeagle absolutely none

Sklivvz

And that gives you an edge because...?

Jonathon Byrd

I'm sitting here as a laymen asking basic principles of your science that you cannot answer.

Sklivvz

Or maybe puts you at a disadvantage?

And yet, you tell me I don't know how stars are formed

hammar

Do you even know how the scientific process works?

Jonathon Byrd

4:55 PM

@hammar yes I do

Sklivvz

and how does it work?

Jonathon Byrd

I'm not going to enter into an argument with you about that. it doesn't matter how specific that I get or don't get, you will find something to moan about. Here's the reality. You're making assumptions and basing a lot of your "facts" off of assumptions.

My schooling does not equate to my IQ.

If you're going to try and win this argument by telling me that it's all over my head, then it's well over your head.

Sklivvz

I never said anything about your IQ. Your schooling though does equate to your ability to discuss rationally about a subject, and the amount of explanation that must be offered.

Michael Myers

Is it my imagination or has this become completely nonconstructive for the last while?

wax eagle

@JonathonByrd how is that?

Jonathon Byrd

4:58 PM

@MichaelMyers agreed

Sklivvz

So, @JonathonByrd, I've asked three questions, can you please answer?

Michael Myers

The debate now seems to be: "Stand back, I know science!" "You're not so smart!" "Na na!" "Na na!"

Or that could just be my interpretation.

wax eagle

@MichaelMyers Thats probably my fault. i will go back to my cave :)

hammar

Allow me to explain then. You start off with some hypothesis of how something works. You then try to refute that hypotheisis. If successful, you come up with some new explanation that supports the existing evidence and then try to refute that. After a while, when nobody has been able to refute it, the hypothesis becomes a theory.

So while we can never be 100% sure of how stars form, our current theory has so far been able to explain all the phenomena we are able to observe.

If you think the theory is wrong, try to come up with some evidence for that.

Michael Myers

"our current theory has so far been able to explain all the phenomena we are able to observe" -- right. That's what I said a little bit ago.

Jonathon Byrd

5:04 PM

@hammar I have no interest in dealing with the stars theory atm.

hammar

That's the great thing about science. We don't claim to know everything 100%. We are always looking for more accurate explanations.

The scientific principle applies to all of science, so sure, pick your subject.

Sklivvz

To be correct, science claims to be 100% correct when disproving something.

Science defines what we don't know and offers powerful models for what we know.

These models are preferred only based on their predictive power and simplicity.

So we can certainly say that the young earth hypothesis is completely wrong based on many facts.

Jonathon Byrd

@Sklivvz unless your evidence was contaminated.

Sklivvz

@jon is not convinced by those facts. However as I was pointing out, the fact that lead us to date the earth to 4.5 b.y. are many more than the ones pointed out by him.

Sure, people are always right unless they are wrong.

But even if the dating was wrong... it would not be enough

to support your theory

Jonathon Byrd

@Sklivvz you're right. I'm just saying evidence in my theory is causing evidence in your theory. but we're looking at it through two different points of view

Sklivvz

5:12 PM

because you are basically disproving most of XX century hard science in a single statement. that's how bold and extraordinary your statement is.

Jonathon Byrd

you have to reject flood evidence in order to approve your theory

Sklivvz

lol the flood again?

Jonathon Byrd

@Sklivvz If you're building on a poor foundation.. that's just how easy it is

Sklivvz

so how do you explain evolution then?

i.e. the fact that species were different in the past

Jonathon Byrd

@Sklivvz and this is how it works. I suggest an observation and you roll your eyes because you HAVE TO reject it in order to validate your evidence

@Sklivvz That has been proven through a loss of dna information.

@Sklivvz that's devolving, not evolving

@Sklivvz I agree that some change within a species has occured. I willnt dispute that

but change from species to species has not been proven, unless you want to show evidence of the opposite in order to prove your position. Which is what is done in the evolutionary theory, all day... every day...

hammar

5:16 PM

@Jonathon: What evidence is there against evolution from one species to another?

Jonathon Byrd

@hammar there is no evidence for it. Just once again a bunch of assumptions. The burden of proof is not on me for that one.

Sklivvz

You know what species are, correct?

There's plenty of evidence of that

Since the times of Darwin

Jonathon Byrd

@hammar its your theory, show me some evidence of it. Not one mutation has ever added information to the gnome.

sorry, instead of species I will say KINDS of species

Sklivvz

Sorry? There's ton of evidence there as well

Jonathon Byrd

@Sklivvz actually, no theres not

you guys always say tons and then show me charts

thats a crock

hammar

5:19 PM

There is an enormous amount of evidence, none of which contradicts evolution. If you understood my explanation of the scientific method above, you should understand that it's your job to find contradicting evidence.

Jonathon Byrd

no actually if you understood science you would know that you need to attempt to prove your theory wrong as well as attempt to prove it right.

Sklivvz

Like, our DNA is full of crap, vestigial pieces of information that we actually find in other species, but active and useful?

Jonathon Byrd

Even Darwin did this and he wasnt a scientist

hammar

@JonathonByrd I think that's your misunderstanding. It's impossible to experimentally prove something. It is, however, easy to disprove something. That's why the scientific method works that way.

Jonathon Byrd

@Sklivvz I am a programmer. I know software and information far better then you could imagine. I understand the complexities that you're faced with in the DNA. I know that just the appearances of something mean nothing about its DNA

Sklivvz

5:21 PM

This is a lost cause

Jonathon Byrd

probably..

ttyl guys

hammar

@Jonathon: You should try coding up a genetic algorithm then :)

Michael Myers

@hammar I agree, it's a lot of fun. But what would it prove?

hammar

@MichaelMyers: It's a simple illustration of how random mutation combined with a selection process can add information.

Michael Myers

@hammar Hmm. I'm not really up on my information theory, but I'm not sure that's actually adding information.

CiscoIPPhone

5:30 PM

I'm sure you can define 'information' in such a way that it isn't, but that wouldn't take away from the fact that whatever is being mutated can demonstrate new traits

hammar

@MichaelMyers: If you start out with random genes and calculate their entropy, you will find that they contain no information. If you then run them through a genetic algorithm and measure the entropy after a few thousand iterations you will see a clear reduction of entropy (i.e. increase in information).

Michael Myers

I see.

Sklivvz

An evolved genetic algorithm contains information because it contains a recipe for doing something useful (as selected by a specified criterion)

wax eagle

@Sklivvz I have a question. How does a genetic algorithm with a predetermined (even if not fully defined) target outcome relate to evolution of species in a meaningful way?

Sklivvz

It works the same way. It gives more chances to reproduce to successful specimens. Sometimes the algorithms are even evolved with crossing over etc.

Fundamentally, they both work through the same mathematical principles

wax eagle

5:39 PM

@Sklivvz so your saying with an undetermined outcome there are more opportunities to succeed? I guess the question is what is success? viability? improvement of life span etc?

Sklivvz

The success is reproduction of the genes

What that entails practically is variable

In other words, the whole ecosystem changes because many species co-evolve.

Also, conditions vary.

wax eagle

@Sklivvz gotcha, they either maintain or change dependencies based on varying populaces etc.

Sklivvz

A meteorite exterminated dinosaurs, but made mammals successful

wax eagle

creatures adapt to changing conditions by developing new traits and deleting old and outdated ones.

hammar

@waxeagle: A really interesting thing is that the genes are often not deleted, merely deactivated.

wax eagle

5:45 PM

@hammar makes sense.

hammar

We have loads of "junk" in our DNA that used to be important in our ancestors, but no longer serves any purpose.

wax eagle

@hammar right, in addition to some deprecated anatomical features.

Sklivvz

Yes, but also sometimes the proportion of genes within a species change. E.g. Due to varying conditions, tall individuals are favourably selected. Therefore in time you will have a higher percentage of tall individuals, this will make it more likely that high specimens reproduce, and thus more likely that the offspring have a large set of "tall" genes, making them even taller

In other words, mutations are only one way through which we evolve.

wax eagle

@Sklivvz right. How/why/when does a species jump occur?

@Sklivvz right selection plays a major role

Sklivvz

There are no species jumps, only gradual changes, species don't work like that

Species are defined by what reproduces with what. For example dogs reproduce with dogs, even though they are very different.

wax eagle

5:52 PM

@Sklivvz right and they form new breeds

Sklivvz

Typically speciation occurs when a species is separated ohysically

djeikyb

oops. clicked creation chat instead of main

Sklivvz

So the two sets evolve independently to the point in which they cannot mate anymore

Also, I think that sometimes species are even reabsorbed but I am not sure, like apparently Neanderthals

wax eagle

@Sklivvz ?

CiscoIPPhone

I thought Neanderthals were a dead end

Sklivvz

5:55 PM

I've read that some people carry Neanderthal genes... Not sure how proven is this hypothesis though

djeikyb

there was a big hullaballoo recently about neanderthal genes found in modern humans

Sklivvz

As I said I am not sure at all, so take it with a pinch of salt

djeikyb

bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14673047

duckduckgo.com/?q=human+neanderthal

wax eagle

@Sklivvz k. I thought I had heard that fairly recently.

Sklivvz

I'm off for dinner, catch you later

CiscoIPPhone

5:58 PM

Interesting.

I wonder if Neanderthal women were hot.

djeikyb

apparently they were hot enough to catch the eye of the human variants at the time

wax eagle

@Sklivvz are there ongoing experiments to try to observe speciation? I know Darwin observed adaptation and Its pretty obvious, but is anyone trying to directly observe speciation?

hammar

@CiscoIPPhone ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2008/10/neanderthals/hall-text

Reconstruction

djeikyb

they couldn't snap a pic after a bath?

CiscoIPPhone

@waxeagle I think the problem is that it generally takes many generations to speciate and it's not easy to test if one species can reproduce with another (apart from the obvious checks like number of chromosomes and relative size of the organisms). I'm not an expert though...

djeikyb

6:09 PM

@hammar photo gallery: ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2008/10/neanderthals/…

hammar

@djeikyb: Was just about to link that :)

@waxeagle: Horses and donkeys are an interesting example. They are still able to reproduce, but the offspring (mule) cannot.

2

wax eagle

@hammar but can 2 mules reproduce? I don't think they can can they?

hammar

@waxeagle: No, exactly.

@waxeagle: So horses and donkeys are an example of two species that are sort of halfway separated.

djeikyb

wonder why mules can't reproduce

and if it's something we can fix

CiscoIPPhone

@djeikyb I think you're the first person to link me to duckduck instead of google, do you use it as your main search?

djeikyb

6:18 PM

@CiscoIPPhone yeah. google pissed me off

so i stick it to them ; p

for all my searches, i get far superior results

are my searches representative of the masses? shrug

wax eagle

@hammar i c.

CiscoIPPhone

ph.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090103190103AA6WHgR Yahoo Answers - Why can't mules reproduce?

djeikyb

@CiscoIPPhone duckduckgo.com doesn't change my search terms. especially nice when searching for bug reports

wax eagle

@CiscoIPPhone blocked'd

hammar

@waxeagle: Short version: Horses and donkeys have a different number of chromosomes (64 and 62). This does not cause a problem when their reproductive cells combine, as you just get half from each and end up with 63. It does cause a problem in the mule's production of reproductive cells, as the process requires an even number of chromosomes.

wax eagle

6:29 PM

@hammar i c

djeikyb

6:49 PM

so if we used microscopic lasers to zap the sixty-third chromosone.... /joking

wax eagle

@djeikyb it'd be a donkey

djeikyb

in my absurd argument i imagine doing the zapping on an adult mule

wax eagle

@djeikyb i c.

djeikyb

i think i'll shut up now before losing all credibility

CiscoIPPhone

7:24 PM

At some point in that conversation I wondered if housecats could reproduce with leopards and ended up with a funny picture in my mind.

BeatMe

cheetahsden.org/cats.htm

called Bengal ;)

Bengal (cat)

The Bengal is a relatively new hybrid breed of cat, formed by the cross of a domestic feline and an Asian Leopard Cat ("ALC"). Bengal cats have "wild-looking" markings, such as large spots, rosettes, and a light/white belly, and a body structure reminiscent of the Asian Leopard Cat (Prionailurus bengalensis bengalensis). The Bengal cat has a desirable "wild" appearance with a gentle domestic cat temperament, provided it is separated by at least three generations from the original crossing between a domestic feline and an ALC. The name Bengal cat was derived from the taxonomic name of th...

djeikyb

oh man, those cats are crazy

my girlfriend has worked with them

wax eagle

I just saw a picture of one of those recently, those are lovely

BeatMe

Did I observe correctly, that Jonathan ist just another YEC who doesn't understand evolution?

wax eagle

@BeatMe I'm really not sure, I think he is just opinionated. My experience is that a lot of Christians have been indoctrinated in the same way they accuse athiests/non-believers of being indoctrinated.

BeatMe

7:35 PM

Yes

hammar

7:51 PM

I'm always amazed at how common it is to reject evolution in the US.

Transcript for