Real Science Friday: What technologies needed Darwin or an old earth?

[Alate_One]

Ok Ok, its ok for MAINSTREAM scientists to pick and choose what they believe, but not for laypeople or YEC scientists because they dont do so based on EVIDENCE . . . and you know this becasue you are a mind reader. Even though they tell you its based on evidence, you know better, because you trust your mentalist abilities more than what people tell you.

As I've said umpteen million times before, I WAS a YEC. I know it wasn't actually based on evidence. The "evidence" put forward was an excuse. A good scientist accepts what the evidence says regardless of what "pet" ideas might actually be wrong or not quite as anticipated.

Human beings tend to want to believe what we already believe but science is designed to counteract that tendency. This is what makes science so useful but also difficult to practice well. When you get to something like a scientific theory you're dealing with the work of literally thousands of scientists, from many different areas of science over many years.

The competition in science is such that every scientist would love to overturn the status quo or make a big breakthrough. That's what gets you papers in Nature, PNAS and Science. But any "earth shattering development" will be rigorously evaluated by other scientists through repeating the experiments and analysis. And if it stands up, science will change as it has in the past with the Big Bang vs. the steady state universe, modern geology vs. flood geology, and combustion vs. phlogiston.

If YEC actually had evidence to back it up, it wouldn't be in the domain of websites like AiG and ICR it would be in the journals and people would be getting the nobel prize. But the evidence doesn't support YEC. It was rejected by scientists (many of whom were Christians) a long time ago when the evidence did not support it. They didn't feel the need to fabricate dinosaur and human footprints together nor deceive themselves by glossing over contradictory information.

Do you think anyone who disagrees with you is generally dishonest?

No. I think individual YECs are largely self deceptive. I know I was. You believe you're making a choice based on evidence, but in fact you're unable to look at *all* of the evidence and weigh it rationally. Information supporting evolution is "ridiculous" on its face and pushed away and ignored. Would you like to actually talk about some of it rather than attacking me?

Or is it just in science where no one can disagree with you? I'm not sure what your house is like, but you should have a throne (no not that kind, the kind kings and queens sit in lol).

I didn't say you *can't *disagree, I'm saying it isn't a rational position. I notice you didn't answer me about the other denialists. I am not, as you seem to think, "lording" anything over you. If I were I'd be attacking myself as well. Most YECs are perfectly intelligent, they've simply deceived themselves and allowed themselves to be deceived by the YEC machine that infests modern fundamentalism. But the machine, I believe, does have people that are actually dishonest. It is hard to imagine how they could not be.

 

[Yorzhik]

As pertaining to showing that the solar system is young (or old), I would like something a bit more specific about what Yorzhik means by “active”. I don’t think it is very productive for him to have in mind what he means by that, but make this exchange into a game to see if we can guess what he means. If he has credible and defensible ideas on it, put them forth in a direct and clear manner.

Active means things using channeled energy. I guess I'll need an explanation of the obvious here since DBJ, Alate, and Barbie are so dishonest when they talk about this subject. Energy is available from the Sun (and inertia to some extent), but that energy is not always available in a form that can produce the work displayed. For example, there is plenty of energy available in a desert, but lush vegetation won't grow there because the energy cannot be naturally channeled to produce it.

In the same way, there are many effects of the solar system that channel energy to create things like: Rings on planets. Planetary magnetic fields. Internal pressure on moons. Orbits that are in flux.

In fact, whenever we see something moving in the solar system in a system of flux, the question of how it keeps going can be asked. So far, in most every example, we find the channeled energy available would have run out in a great deal less time than the solar system is supposed to have existed.

 

[Yorzhik]

Nice try. The physicists were somewhat taken aback when they discovered how old it was.

Really? That's a nice appeal to authority. But what measure did they use when they made this discovery?

The evidence from earth, and across the solar system, shows activity that should have run out within 4.5 billion years.

But you don't have any evidence for that assumption.

We can start with two.

Io's heat is caused by internal friction. This friction comes from the inertia of the orbits of other moons. Those moon's orbits change as a result of losing energy to Io. Those orbits would have reached a point of equilibrium and not be heating Io as much as it is within the time frame of the solar system.

The earth does not have a dynamo regenerating it's magnetic field.

You knew about this evidence, but you'd rather not be honest.

Most are neutral,

So the main mechanism is not mutation + NS. So what are these mechanisms that work on neutral mutations?

Since you admit that most are neutral, whatever mechanisms work to build them to new functions are the *real* main drivers of evolution. Whatever those mechanisms are, it isn't mutation + NS.

Sometimes, it's one. Sometimes, it's just a recombination of existing alleles from mutations many generations old.

But usually it's more than one. Alate is at least honest enough to propose a working number.

O.K. Just so we don't waste time, don't try the "they all have to appear in the same generation in the same individual" scam, OK?

You're the only one wasting time. So we can settle on 7 for now?

 

[Yorzhik]

Why do you think this is the case? Why do virtually all scientists disagree with you?

Because they like to eat.

Have you ever thought that gravitation is a force that does not stop and provides continuous energy for "active systems"?

Yes, inertia has been considered. It isn't enough.

Sorry, you just posted a major logic fail. Most mutations don't provide material for evolution at all. That has been well understood for a long time. Natural selection isn't about "most" mutations, it's about *selectable* mutations. The fact that many aren't is totally irrelavent. The point of selection is it SELECTS from among many. But that obvious point apparently escaped you.

My logic is sound. To say that all the prior mutations required for a function are irrelevant makes no sense. You have to take into account how the 6 required and non-selectable mutations have spread in a population before your chances of getting the lucky 7th mutation that starts the new function working is feasible.

We can do that. But you're not actually weighing evidence. You're cherry picking.

But I'm not discounting any evidence from your side. That's what you do. I give credence to good evidence from evolution. It's you that plugs your ears and sings la la la when a creationist makes a good point.

since I haven't seen any scientists complaining

It isn't that complicated. Look for yourself. You don't even need to rely on the bible.

Organisms fall into natural groupings which are a nested hierarchy. There is no reason for this to happen aside from evolution. Would you like to discuss some of the clear nested hierarchies? Do you agree that humans are primates?

Those natural groupings are picked by the people that have a vested interest in how those groups support evolution. So, yes, pick your favorite group and we can go over it.

BTW, since primates is a subjective classification, humans and apes are certainly together in it.

You're also missing another huge area of evidence that was available to Darwin, and that is biogeography.

Perhaps you could explain to me how orchids, the family plants with the largest number of species, which has seeds the size of dust which must be invaded by a particular species of fungi within a few weeks after being shed to germinate, which must also be pollinated by particular species of insects which have incredibly intricate relationships with them. Relationships that include mimicking the signals for a female wasp or fly or bee to fool males into mating with them which transfers their pollen. Or orchids that produce perfume that a particular species of male bees must use to attract females of their species. Here's a more detailed description and more species

How did they manage to survive a worldwide flood which was supposedly so amazingly catastrophic as to move continents, but no plants are named as being taken on the ark other than food?

And orchids are just the beginning of the story. Very few plants and seeds can survive being drowned in saltwater for a year. Many seeds must germinate within a few months to survive. Some can survive long periods, but they are the exception rather than the rule. If there had been a catastrophic worldwide flood only a few thousand years ago, we should have much lower plant diversity than we have.

You make a good point. I'm not sure. There are a few things about the flood that would help the plant situation. Firstly, the water was brackish, not as salty as oceans are today. Secondly, a great deal of land was covered and uncovered by the tides, so not everything sat soaking underwater for a year. Thirdly, there was a great deal of floating debris that plants and smaller animals would happily live on that humans could not.

 

[Yorzhik]

I notice that (for example) when I asked Yorzhik for some substantiation of his belief, he declined to do it.

This is very unlike you Barbie. Normally you are snide and uncharitable, but rarely do you lie so directly as you have here. It seems your boiling blood was uncontainable in this instance.

 

[fool]

Io's heat is caused by internal friction. This friction comes from the inertia of the orbits of other moons. Those moon's orbits change as a result of losing energy to Io. Those orbits would have reached a point of equilibrium and not be heating Io as much as it is within the time frame of the solar system.

So that's like a math problem right?
Seems like someone would have a spread sheet to show that?

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
I notice that (for example) when I asked Yorzhik for some substantiation of his belief, he declined to do it.

This is very unlike you Barbie.

Don't see how. I've chided you about dodging my questions before.

Normally you are snide and uncharitable,

You have no sense of irony at all, do you, Yorzhik? :chuckle:

but rarely do you lie so directly as you have here.

See above. It's a fact. You seemed to be willing, and then you declined to do it.

It seems your boiling blood was uncontainable in this instance.

Sounds like Yorzhik's getting a little ticked off with the Barbarian.

 

[Tyrathca]

Io's heat is caused by internal friction. This friction comes from the inertia of the orbits of other moons. Those moon's orbits change as a result of losing energy to Io. Those orbits would have reached a point of equilibrium and not be heating Io as much as it is within the time frame of the solar system.

Citation needed, since I know you didn't do the maths to show this.

The earth does not have a dynamo regenerating it's magnetic field.

I assume you then have a refutation of dynamo theory and it's application the Earth then?

So the main mechanism is not mutation + NS. So what are these mechanisms that work on neutral mutations?

Non sequitur, just because most mutations aren't selectable does not mean that those that are selectable can't take part in evolutionary change. That's like saying because most book ideas are rejected by publishers there is no book industry filled with good and bad books to buy.

Since you admit that most are neutral, whatever mechanisms work to build them to new functions are the *real* main drivers of evolution. Whatever those mechanisms are, it isn't mutation + NS.

The real main driver is (selectable) mutations and natural selection. Though it is simpler to just say mutation since initially neutral mutations can become selectable with subsequent additional mutations.

It's hard to follow your reasoning, it's as if you are conflating most with all...

Yes, inertia has been considered. It isn't enough.

Citation needed, do you really expect us to just take your word on this over trained astrophysicists?

My logic is sound. To say that all the prior mutations required for a function are irrelevant makes no sense. You have to take into account how the 6 required and non-selectable mutations have spread in a population before your chances of getting the lucky 7th mutation that starts the new function working is feasible.

Perhaps your problem is with your understanding of odds and statistics in general as well as your understanding of mutations, their types and how they affect an organism?

You make a good point. I'm not sure. There are a few things about the flood that would help the plant situation. Firstly, the water was brackish, not as salty as oceans are today. Secondly, a great deal of land was covered and uncovered by the tides, so not everything sat soaking underwater for a year.

That would still be fatal to many species, particularly orchids.

Thirdly, there was a great deal of floating debris that plants and smaller animals would happily live on that humans could not.

Floating debris would not provide sufficient shelter or nutrients to support many species. Unless you've got some idea for floating islands (with portions of soil and which somehow prevent the salt from the brackish water soaking through and contaminating the entire edifice)

 

[The Barbarian]

(Yorzhik claims scientists got an ancient age for the Earth by assuming it)

Barbarian chuckles:
Nice try. The physicists were somewhat taken aback when they discovered how old it was.

Really?

Yep. They were thinking in tens of millions of years.

That's a nice appeal to authority.

Evidence. Rutherford was surprised to get those results, but quickly understood what they meant.

But what measure did they use when they made this discovery?

Decay rate of isotopes.

Yorzhik writes:
The evidence from earth, and across the solar system, shows activity that should have run out within 4.5 billion years.

Barbarian observes:
But you don't have any evidence for that assumption.

We can start with two.

Io's heat is caused by internal friction. This friction comes from the inertia of the orbits of other moons.

No.

With over 400 active volcanoes, Io is the most geologically active object in the Solar System. This extreme geologic activity is the result of tidal heating from friction generated within Io's interior as it is pulled between Jupiter and the other Galilean satellites—Europa, Ganymede and Callisto.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Io_(moon)

More than enough gravitational force from Jupiter to keep all of it going.

Those moon's orbits change as a result of losing energy to Io. Those orbits would have reached a point of equilibrium and not be heating Io as much as it is within the time frame of the solar system.

If not for Jupiter. Reality shoots one assumption down.

The earth does not have a dynamo regenerating it's magnetic field.

As viewed from above, the swirling direction of storms in the atmosphere is always counterclockwise north of the equator and clockwise south of it. Such asymmetry is also expected in rising flows in the Earth's core, and Steenbeck et al., in Germany, showed in 1966 that thanks to it, disordered convection patterns can indeed produce an average "dynamo field. " That became known as the "alpha effect, " because it involved a mathematical quantity denoted by the Greek letter a (alpha)--but the details are far too complicated to be described here.
http://www.iki.rssi.ru/mirrors/stern/earthmag/dynamos2.htm

You knew about this evidence

I did, but you clearly did not. You were taken in by dishonest people.

Barbarian, regarding mutations:
Most are neutral, a few are harmful, and a very few are useful. Natural selection sorts out the latter two.

So the main mechanism is not mutation + NS.

I just showed you that it is.

So what are these mechanisms that work on neutral mutations?

It's called "genetic drift." But as you learned, directional evolution is by mutation and natural selection.

Since you admit that most are neutral, whatever mechanisms work to build them to new functions are the *real* main drivers of evolution.

No, you still don't get it.

Barbarian, regarding how many mutations are needed:
Sometimes, it's one. Sometimes, it's just a recombination of existing alleles from mutations many generations old.

But usually it's more than one.

And sometimes, one is enough. Why would that matter?

Barbarian suggests:
O.K. Just so we don't waste time, don't try the "they all have to appear in the same generation in the same individual" scam, OK?

You're the only one wasting time. So we can settle on 7 for now?

One to seven would be good. If you doubt one can do it, I can show you some examples.

 

[Jukia]

Active means things using channeled energy. I guess I'll need an explanation of the obvious here since DBJ, Alate, and Barbie are so dishonest when they talk about this subject. Energy is available from the Sun (and inertia to some extent), but that energy is not always available in a form that can produce the work displayed. For example, there is plenty of energy available in a desert, but lush vegetation won't grow there because the energy cannot be naturally channeled to produce it.

In the same way, there are many effects of the solar system that channel energy to create things like: Rings on planets. Planetary magnetic fields. Internal pressure on moons. Orbits that are in flux.

In fact, whenever we see something moving in the solar system in a system of flux, the question of how it keeps going can be asked. So far, in most every example, we find the channeled energy available would have run out in a great deal less time than the solar system is supposed to have existed.

I'm sorry, channeled energy? Is that special energy created by the Army Corps of Engineers? They do love to channel things.

 

[Tyrathca]

I'm sorry, channeled energy? Is that special energy created by the Army Corps of Engineers? They do love to channel things.

Nah it's the type of energy used by New Age healers, I think they need crystals or something... K:

 

[DavisBJ]

Active means things using channeled energy.

Thank you. You will have to forgive my not picking up on your meaning sooner, but in my experience “channeling” was something done in séances by spiritual mediums (or by bored people with a remote trying to find something good on TV). I will add your extension of what it means to my previously impoverished science lexicon.

I guess I'll need an explanation of the obvious here since DBJ, Alate, and Barbie are so dishonest when they talk about this subject.

Again it is clearly my limited few decades in science that somehow failed to include “channeling energy” that gives rise to my dishonesty.

BTW – next time you have a tiff with the Mrs., buy her some flowers and apologize. Don’t take it out on us, like you did this time.

Energy is available from the Sun (and inertia to some extent), but that energy is not always available in a form that can produce the work displayed. For example, there is plenty of energy available in a desert, but lush vegetation won't grow there because the energy cannot be naturally channeled to produce it.

I take it that like “channeling” now “inertia” is being assigned a meaning that is not obvious in world of science, but crystal clear in the world of Yorz? I thought Newton said inertia had something to do with the resistance an object had to change in motion. I’ve never seen it expressed in terms of energy.

In the same way, there are many effects of the solar system that channel energy to create things like: Rings on planets. Planetary magnetic fields. Internal pressure on moons. Orbits that are in flux.

I suspect it is not the existence of the rings themselves you are objecting to, but the lack of explanation for how some of the gaps have been formed?

I see where to Barb you say the earth does not have a dynamo regenerating its magnetic field. I presume you are parroting the ideas from Thomas Barnes?

On your claim to Barb about the Jovian moons reaching equilibrium with Io and not imparting energy to it, can you provide a reference to the physics that show that would happen?

“Orbits in flux” is a bit too general. What orbits, and why does that point to a young earth?

And yes, I am a dishonest dweeb (saved you the need to call me something).

In fact, whenever we see something moving in the solar system in a system of flux, the question of how it keeps going can be asked. So far, in most every example, we find the channeled energy available would have run out in a great deal less time than the solar system is supposed to have existed.

Ok, is there automatically an energy drain if a satellite orbits a central body in an elliptical orbit? (Orbital distance is constantly changing – in flux)

 

[voltaire]

Why couldnt radioactive decay have been faster during the hadean through late proterozoic era? No mechanism? Why not faster speed of light? Any evidence that could not have been possible during that era?

 

[Tyrathca]

Why couldnt radioactive decay have been faster during the hadean through late proterozoic era?

Actually I recall that some scientists were trying to determine if the rate of decay (linked to universal constants) had actually changed over time (though by orders of magnitude less than you need) however came up with diddly squat. If it has changed it is by an amount so miniscule current investigations can't detect it.

Regardless the rates you require would result in so much heat it would probably sterilize the earth not to mention it might drastically alter chemistry to such a degree that current biochem would be impossible.

Why not faster speed of light? Any evidence that could not have been possible during that era?

The best direct evidence I have seen for that (bar that it would drastically alter physics as we know it and thus again drastically change chemistry) is the size and distance of certain astronomical objects.

Some stars are surrounded by nebulae they are either consuming or ejected, some of these stars also pulse/vary in brightness. The issue is that we can tell how wide the nebulae is by timing how long it takes for the stars pulse to brighten its surrounding nebula, time(s) x c = radius. The problem is that by increasing the speed of light in the past this would increase the size of the nebula, but if the object is bigger than we thought (and it would be SIGNIFICANTLY bigger) then it must also be further away otherwise it would take up a larger portion of the sky. But further away would need even faster light for it to get here, which means bigger size, which means further away, which means faster light, bigger size, further away.... and so on and so on.....

Though why a god would be so deceptive in the first place rather than leave the speed of light fast or have left some inkling in physics and our observations that it had slowed is beyond me...

 

[Alate_One]

Because they like to eat.

And this is what you don't understand, colleges don't necessarily care what position a professor holds so long as the data actually supports them. There are many controversial scientists out there, but they have DATA that backs them up. And there are colleges where you can be a YEC, why haven't any of those professors published papers in support of YEC?

Yes, inertia has been considered. It isn't enough.

Got some calculations or did you read an ICR tract?

My logic is sound. To say that all the prior mutations required for a function are irrelevant makes no sense. You have to take into account how the 6 required and non-selectable mutations have spread in a population before your chances of getting the lucky 7th mutation that starts the new function working is feasible.

You still don't get it and apparently you never will. Even if we assume your scenario is the basis of a large proportion of evolutionary change (and I haven't seen evidence that it is) you fail to understand that there is not a single path to the change in question, there are many, hundreds in many cases. Because of this, stacking probabilities like you are, is simply incorrect.

But I'm not discounting any evidence from your side. That's what you do. I give credence to good evidence from evolution. It's you that plugs your ears and sings la la la when a creationist makes a good point.

Sure you are discounting evidence, you do it all the time. When a creationist corrects me on a mistake I acknowledge it. I've yet to see a creationist have a good point with regard to creationism.

Those natural groupings are picked by the people that have a vested interest in how those groups support evolution. So, yes, pick your favorite group and we can go over it.

Oh no they weren't! Linneus was a creationist and he created the original groupings. Most of them can be picked out objectively by sheer preponderance of characteristics.

For our group we could start with the genus Panthera, which includes most big cats like lions tigers and leopards. Do you think these creatures share a common ancestor?

BTW, since primates is a subjective classification, humans and apes are certainly together in it.

Why do you think it is subjective? What other group of animals would make sense for humans to be classified with?

You make a good point. I'm not sure. There are a few things about the flood that would help the plant situation. Firstly, the water was brackish, not as salty as oceans are today.

It really isn't just the salt, its the anoxia from being under a substantial amount of water. Plus simply being buried too deeply in sediment. Small seeds just don't have the energy to push through much more than a few centimeters of soil.

Secondly, a great deal of land was covered and uncovered by the tides, so not everything sat soaking underwater for a year.

Most plants wouldn't require a year to be killed, a few weeks could do it, and in the case of orchid seeds, hours would probably be sufficient.

Thirdly, there was a great deal of floating debris that plants and smaller animals would happily live on that humans could not.

There are a tiny number of plants that would survive something like that. Considering the vast number of kinds of Orchids and other small seeded and flooding sensitive plants that exist today, the idea of a truly global flood is untenable, unless you're going to assert a post flood re-creation. Some early flood geologists did assert a re-creation when they ran into these difficulties.

And of course we're not even talking about the survival of the very specific insects and fungi that these plants require for survival.

And of course we could talk about the biogeography of plants and animals, how could the animals, all leaving from the ark have found their way *back* to the only parts of the world where their fossils are also found, namely monotremes and marsupials in Australia and South America.

How could velvet worms (which can hardly be considered world travelers) end up with a distribution like this?

Velvet worms

And these creatures, that look identical, have three different modes of reproduction, egglaying, pseudolivebearing and true livebearing. Do you think God created all of those forms separately, or could they have *gasp* evolved?

 

[voltaire]

Tyrathca. Your example about nebulae needing to be larger and further distance implying a runaway impossible scenario is only valid if the relationship is linear and equal on both sides. What if the distance needed to make it bigger and yet take up the same room on the telescope is not much distance for light to travel at the speed at that time considered? This distance may not be great in terms of an accelerated speed of light. God was not deceptive if he needed a greater speed of light to create the vast universe in just a few days.

 

[voltaire]

Yes, faster speeds of light and faster rates of decay would vastly alter physics and chemistry of the ancient past. Perhaps, different chemistry and physics was required to achieve the universe in a week. If 4 billion years of decay was spread out over 200,000 years, is it still a forgone conclusion that life would be impossible on earth especially if all radioactive elements started their existence in the very center of an earth that was made cold to begin with and not over 700 C we see inside the earth today?

 

[Tyrathca]

Tyrathca. Your example about nebulae needing to be larger and further distance implying a runaway impossible scenario is only valid if the relationship is linear and equal on both sides. What if the distance needed to make it bigger and yet take up the same room on the telescope is not much distance for light to travel at the speed at that time considered?

The argument is not my own and the mathematics shown bore out the truth of what I said, your objections were considered and calcualted for however I cannot do the math myself off the top of my head. I can try and find an example of its use somewhere though

God was not deceptive if he needed a greater speed of light to create the vast universe in just a few days.

But he would have been deceptive to have used that fast light then changed it for no apparent reason without telling anyone and leaving it look like it is constant.

What reason does god have for slower light? Why not leave the light fast or even make it instantaneous?

 

[fool]

So, there's no spread sheet on this Io thing?
Seems if there was somthing to it then there would be a spread sheet and it would copied and pasted everywhere and then at least we could start the argument over what values and formulas were plugged into it but so far it's just a claim as far as I can see.
Now, this is what I don't understand, YECs aren't necesarily stupid people. If you told them they were behind on there house payment they would want to see the paper work, they can balance their check books, run businesses, program computers, design web sites, ect.
So why when they hear that Io is doing somthing it shouldn't be able to do they just accept it? Why don't they just show us the numbers and be the credible ones with the numbers?

 

[voltaire]

If we are watching these nebulae brighten as it was occuring 200,000 years ago and the light is just now getting to us, the speed at which they brighten is determined by the distance across the nebulae and the speed of light 200,000 years ago. We dont know the actual distance in meters that far away without assuming todays light speed.