People as Primates

[Asia Joe]

There is a serious credibility problem with science.  Here is a 1-minute video that highlights the problem. 

https://www.bitchute.com/video/BT6cVDmo6Z9N

As someone with extensive 2 way radio experience, I can tell you that they're not live-streaming from 140 MILLION miles away. 

[Gustave]

2 hours ago, Joe Knapp said:

There is a serious credibility problem with science.  Here is a 1-minute video that highlights the problem. 

https://www.bitchute.com/video/BT6cVDmo6Z9N

As someone with extensive 2 way radio experience, I can tell you that they're not live-streaming from 140 MILLION miles away. 

it's "almost" live stream Joe. As someone with zero 2-way radio experience I can tell you that it takes between 4 and 24 minutes at the speed light to make it from Mars to Earth. The Mars Rovers do not beam the data they collect straight to earth - they beam the data to satellites in orbit around Mars - like NASA’s Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter (MRO), Mars Odyssey, and ESA’s Trace Gas Orbiter. These "satellites" have incredibly better (and more powerful) transmitters than does your "2-way radio". 

Once the relay satellites grab the data from the surface of Mars, they keep the data at rest for a short time until the relay window opens and then the data is sent on it's way in a large burst of x band or k band radio signals. I'm guessing this isn't the way your walkie-talkie works. 

NASA’s Deep Space Network (DSN) — with 70-meter and 34-meter dishes in California, Spain, and Australia — listens for these transmissions, pick them up and transmit them to NASA where they are tested for errors, video files are put together, etc. 

It's not real time streaming but given the distance it might as well be. I'm not a scientist by any means but this type of information is available to anyone with an internet connection.  That guy on the video has probably made "flat earth" videos, his logic is similar to the following. 

 

[Asia Joe]

I am sorry, I do not believe any of it. 

1) A radio signal sent through space is subject to plasma discharge from our sun and the Galactic sheet (more plasma discharge) and must travel through the Van Allen belts.  It would be difficult for a text message to arrive through 140 Million miles of this interference, let alone a high bandwidth video signal.

2) Both ends of the transmission are MOVING. They require highly directional antennas that cannot be synchronized to the precession of 140 Million miles away. 

3) Because of the scatter, dispersion, noise, drift, the power would have to be enormous. A battery the size of a baby stroller, weighing thousands of pounds, would be needed to send streaming video. 

[JoeErwin]

Your reaction is one of the reasons I do not consider myself an atheist. I am not about to insist that I know something for certain that I feel incapable of understanding. I hope I did not suggest that you are too simpleminded to understand science. I apologize for giving you that impression. I certainly do not think you are simple or in any way a lesser person than I am. Many discussions on these topics suffer from semantic problems--with the participants using the same words to mean different things/concepts. For example, "theory" means different things to different people--and scientists use the term in different ways, as do non-scientists. Maybe we should talk about the process of science and what some of the terms mean to us. Know this. I consider you no less a person than myself, and I value your comments. I expect to learn from you, and I wish you well.

[Gregory Matthews]

Joe, in an earlier post you suggested that you might tailor your discussion in a specific way if I thought it would be helpful.  I leave that to you.  You are welcome to post in the manner that you think best.

However, I will make one suggestion.  Live 4 Him has posted his thoughts on evolution being a theory.   Fundamentally science investigates a theory in an attempt to determine a fact.  So, in a sense, I can say that evolution deals with both theories and established facts.  Perhaps you might expand on this idea.

[Asia Joe]

Joe, I was not offended by your post in any way. I just wanted to show I was not some backwoods' person, blindly followed the bible. 

Although there are times when I envy those people. 

I believe there are VERY many sincere scientists who are working to understand more. 

But in 2025, we have people posing as scientists, with fake science, like this Mars rover thing. 

It undermines real science. 

[JoeErwin]

Your reaction is one of the reasons I do not consider myself an atheist. I am not about to insist that I know something for certain that I feel incapable of understanding. I hope I did not suggest that you are too simpleminded to understand science. I apologize for giving you that impression. I certainly do not think you are simple or in any way a lesser person than I am. Many discussions on these topics suffer from semantic problems--with the participants using the same words to mean different things/concepts. For example, "theory" means different things to different people--and scientists use the term in different ways, as do non-scientists. Maybe we should talk about the process of science and what some of the terms mean to us. Know this. I consider you no less a person than myself, and I value your comments. I expect to learn from you, and I wish you well.

[JoeErwin]

Gregory and Joe. Thanks for you comments. Those of us who are just seeking truth are always encountering those who seem committed to promoting untruth. I do not know why. Sometimes one can detect some ulterior motive for misinformation. Other times it just seems perverse. Even so, we can continue our quest for truth and understanding, and those of us who care enough to make the effort can help sustain one another--whether we start or end in agreement with each other.

Some people see science as a "body of evidence" composed of the published record of reported facts, descriptions, nomenclature, hypotheses, tests of hypotheses, interpretations, speculations, conclusions, etc., summaries, meta-analyses, proposed theories and Theories, and consensuses. But the "body of evidence" accumulates and changes and some concepts are discarded in favor of more compelling information. From this perspective, truth is emergent. What seemed true 50 years ago gives way to what seems true now. Some of us prefer to teach science as a process, rather than an authoriative reservoir of facts--with all due respect for historical context and documentation.

The process of science has also changed across time. Methods of scientific research and analysis are constantly changing--mostly in ways that improve the quantity and quality of information that emerges from the progress, as well as its precision, predictability, reliability, and (one hopes) its validity. The basic process is this:

First one observes a phenomenon. One wonders about it and develops questions that can be addressed through further observations or measurements. One observes some more. More curiosity and questions ensue. The questions become more structured with each step, usually  becoming hypotheses. Hypotheses are essentially conjectural statements that can be verified or falsified. Many (or most) advances in science involve demonstrations that specific hypotheses are NOT true. In some scientific traditions testing of falsifiable hypotheses is the gold standard that leads toward reliable truth.

There is a lot of confusion between what qualifies as a hypothesis and what qualifies as a theory, In colloquial use, the term theory often is nothing more than a wild guess. In the scientific process, a theory is a statement that emerges from a substantial sequence of observation, measurement, and hypothesis testing. A theory has status that is nearly as certain as a "law." Lots of science is descriptive and never gets to the point of achieving a level of certainty or predictability that qualifies as formal theory.     

To be continued.... Thoughts, anyone?

 

 

[Gustave]

JoeErwin,

If one bases what they believe from what they can observe, and measure, would you say that at this point in time neo-Darwinism is the best explanation for life on earth? As I've already stated I believe that God created everything seen and unseen in the universe but accept that what we call neo-Darwinism (at this time) is the best explanation and I hold that the makeup of all the mechanisms that make this work is the direct result of it being created by God. I'd be interested in your take on this. 

[Asia Joe]

2 hours ago, JoeErwin said:

Sometimes one can detect some ulterior motive for misinformation. Other times it just seems perverse. Even so, we can continue our quest for truth and understanding, and those of us who care enough to make the effort can help sustain one another--whether we start or end in agreement with each other.

There are people, who have an agenda to promote and are using science as their weapon. 

2 hours ago, JoeErwin said:

First one observes a phenomenon. One wonders about it and develops questions that can be addressed through further observations or measurements. One observes some more. More curiosity and questions ensue. The questions become more structured with each step, usually  becoming hypotheses. Hypotheses are essentially conjectural statements that can be verified or falsified. Many (or most) advances in science involve demonstrations that specific hypotheses are NOT true. In some scientific traditions testing of falsifiable hypotheses is the gold standard that leads toward reliable truth.

This has been the classic scientific method. But some want to bypass that. 

Quote

Claims that the “the science isn’t settled” with regard to climate change are symptomatic of a large body of ignorance about how science works.

So what is the scientific method, and why do so many people, sometimes including those trained in science, get it so wrong?

The first thing to understand is that there is no one method in science, no one way of doing things. This is intimately connected with how we reason in general...

Inductive reasoning goes beyond the information contained in what we already know and can extend our knowledge into new areas. We induce using generalisations and analogies.

Generalisations include observing regularities in nature and imagining they are everywhere uniform – this is, in part, how we create the so-called laws of nature.  https://hpi.uq.edu.au/article/2016/09/what-exactly-scientific-method-and-why-do-so-many-people-get-it-wrong

According to that article, we are getting it wrong by observation, data and facts. 

So these type of people sew confusion rather than clarity. 

 

[JoeErwin]

Gustave and all, first, a disclaimer: I do not speak for all scientists or for science in general. I'm sure many scientists would take exception to some of the things I say/write (regardless of what I say--scientists are like that). I have some biases that show through, and that may be especially apparent in what I am about to say. 

Neo-Darwinism is a term that is sometimes used for what some others and I prefer to call "The Modern Synthesis." Up until about a hundred years ago there was much discourse, hand-wringing, and ill will between the Mendelian geneticists and the Darwinian selectionists. Ronald Fisher came along and integrated these approaches with "The genetical theory of natural selection." That was the beginning of population biology as developed by Ernst Mayr, Theodosius Dobzhansky, and others. An important advance came along later with discovery of the structure of DNA and the development of molecular biology. I think more recent discoveries regarding retroviral activity, mobile elements, and epigenetics provide important ways of understanding how biological change across time can occur. 

I shy away from using the terms "Darwinism," and "Neo-Darwinism," not just because the terms carry with them so much baggage, but because I think Charles Darwin's role in understanding biological change across time is so misunderstood. First of all, it is important to note that very little was known about genetics during Darwin's lifetime. A number of people, including Darwin's grandfather, Erasmus Darwin, hypothesized that new species arose from older ones, but he was unable to identify a mechanism by which this occurred. This was a mystery Charles Darwin puzzled over. Alfred Russel Wallace wrote to Darwin and suggested that the key might be selective breeding--naturally occurring, rather than artificially, as was being used to refine livestock breeds, race horses, and dogs. Darwin recognized that Wallace's concept was very much like his own thinking, and invited Wallace to co-author a scientific paper on evolution through natural selection. I prefer to give equal credit to Wallace for the concept of natural selection.

 

More soon....     

[JoeErwin]

Hello, Joe. You make good points. Science is, indeed, more than just one method. We are often limited by inability to obtain enough information rapidly enough to make appropriate real world decisions. Increasingly though, methods are developed that can identify trajectories that enable predictions that enable corrective action. Unfortunately, there always seem to be people who push back against the evidence and projects by claiming that the science isn't yet settled. Sometimes it isn't and sometimes the corrective actions proposed are not optimal (or are inconvenient for wealthy and powerful interests). It is worth reading books like the Newt Gingerich book (written by Terry Maple) called A Contract with the Earth, written more than 10 years ago. Climate change was acknowledged as real, but alternative corrective actions were suggested. Instead of accepting this view, the powers that be found it politically expedient to deny the science and tear down programs aimed at addressing climate change. It seems to me that we need to be using all the methods we have and need to be developing more and better methods of understanding and ameliorating climate issues.

[Gustave]

This is genuinely fascinating. It would take me more than a little time to just get the most basic orangutan level understanding of the words you just laid out there. I'll just come right out and ask you to dumb it down for me and ask you with all the time you've spent with Primates do you believe it's within reason to reason out that humans, in some way, evolved from an Ape ancestor? I have zero problems with this as I believe God started everything out in such a way for the natural order to take care of itself naturally. Years ago I sat in front of a Chimp at a zoo and looking into those eyes could help but feel that somehow / someway there was a connection to humans that went beyond just similarity in hands and face. 

[JoeErwin]

I think and feel that humans are one kind of great ape--along with chimpanzees, bonobos, gorillas, and orangutans. Colleagues and I have done many kinds of direct comparisons of great apes and humans--including developing a collection of ape brains. Many PhD dissertations have been done using this resource to do specific kinds of comparisons of human and great ape brains. Some studies have included the brains of apes that had learned human sign language.

Technology available now allows identification of brain cell types and counting the numbers of cells in specific brain structures, as well as tracing of brain cell projections, connections, and pathways. The similarities are remarkable. At every level of organization, humans are more like the great apes than they are like any other kind of animal and vice versa. This is from molecular genetics to anatomy and most behavioral and cognitive characteristics.

To me, this seems like tangible evidence of literal relatedness. For those who choose to believe in recent rapid creation, I imagine that it just signifies creation according to a very similar design pattern. I do not quite understand how the large array of apelike hominin fossils that go back to what seems close to common ancestors can be explained away. The explaining away seems to become increasingly cumbersome.

[JoeErwin]

I should add that modern scientific nomenclature was introduced by Linnaeus in 1735 in his Systema Naturae.

He named humans Homo sapiens. He included chimpanzees and orangutans in genus Homo. Gorilla had not yet been scientifically described.

One of his goals in developing the nomenclature was to show the order of God's creation. That humans and apes were classed together by him shows how obvious the similarities were even when information was limited. 

[Gustave]

If you lived in Seattle I'd be offering to buy you dinner and pick your brain all that you would allow me to! 

[JoeErwin]

I would almost make a special trip for that!

[JoeErwin]

Only 2664 miles from Needmore, PA, to Seattle, WA.

[JoeErwin]

Can we go to Ivar's Salmon House? I did a post-doc at U of Dub from 1974-1977. I have fond memories of Seattle.

[Gustave]

3 hours ago, JoeErwin said:

Only 2664 miles from Needmore, PA, to Seattle, WA.

LOL!

 

[Gustave]

3 hours ago, JoeErwin said:

Can we go to Ivar's Salmon House? I did a post-doc at U of Dub from 1974-1977. I have fond memories of Seattle.

I eat @ Ivars so much in Edmonds that the staff know my name! Sadly the Ivars on the water-front is no more but they still have Ivars all over the place aside from downtown and Ballard. The Ballard Ivars is now a MOD Pizza. 

Just last week my Dad drove up to Seattle and he insisted on going to Ivars. I had the oysters and a small chowder and he had the salmon and Caesar salad. Good times for sure.

[JoeErwin]

Gustave. If you would like to contact me by email, Gregory has my email address. I authorize him to share it with you. Or, we can continue our discussions here....

[Gustave]

9 hours ago, JoeErwin said:

Gustave. If you would like to contact me by email, Gregory has my email address. I authorize him to share it with you. Or, we can continue our discussions here....

I'll definately email ya!

[Gregory Matthews]

I have sent Gustave Joe's e-mail address.

[phkrause]

Here are a number of articles from ICR:

From Inference to Theory: A Common Design Case Study

Without a doubt, humans, chimpanzees, and other organisms share similar features. An early explanation was that these features reflect similar designs because they serve similar purposes. Then evolutionary theory hypothesized that similar features were explained by (and are evidence for) descent from a common ancestor. Which explanation matches the evidence?

https://www.icr.org/article/15311/

Yosemite National Park, Part 1: Tiny Clues of a Grand Picture

Yosemite National Park in California is a sure source of stunning scenery. It’s no wonder that American naturalist John Muir persuaded President Theodore Roosevelt to preserve Yosemite Valley.¹ But how and when did this park’s dramatic peaks rise? Two clues in particular should clarify the origins of Yosemite’s mountain granites.

https://www.icr.org/article/15313/

Long Non-Coding RNAs: The Unsung Heroes of the Genome

Evolutionary theory holds that all living things came about through random, natural processes. So conventional scientists believe the genome has developed through these means, and large sections of it have therefore been assumed to be nonfunctional. These alleged nonfunctional regions supposedly are a source of new gene evolution. But these evolutionary presuppositions of nonfunctionality are being challenged by an unexpected group—members of the biomedical genomics community.

https://www.icr.org/article/15317/

Megasequences Down Under Support Progressive Global Flood

The Institute for Creation Research’s Column Project team recently completed analysis of the Australasian continent, which encompasses Australia, New Guinea, and New Zealand. The study compiled 486 stratigraphic columns from oil wells, cores, seismic profiles, and outcrop data. We correlated six megasequences across Australasia and mapped their extent and thicknesses.¹ We also tracked a seventh pre-Sauk Megasequence, conventionally known as the Upper Precambrian or Proterozoic. The data show Australasia contributes its own unique evidence for the historicity of the progressive global Flood.

https://www.icr.org/article/15307/

The Scopes Monkey Trial: A Battle of Worldviews

The Scopes Monkey Trial, an event that’s often called the trial of the century, was truly a battle—not physical like the American Revolution but spiritual. Its outcome cast doubt on the authority of God’s Word, implying that either Scripture is true or science is. This has impacted views on faith and science for the past 100 years.

https://www.icr.org/article/15320/