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

[voltaire]

I already knew most of theinfo in that link barbarian. The only part i did not know was two types of decay occurring simultaneously in one radioisotope. It doesn't change what I said however. If two isotopes with very different half lives have the same mode of decay, they will both give the same age to the igneous rock with accelerated decay. The rate of decay for both isotopes is dependent on the strength of the strong and weak nuclear forces and the electrostatic force. If these forces are weakened by the same amount in each isotope, thedecay of each will be affected by the same amount. A change in the speed of light would accomplish just that effect. The mass of the electron would also change and therfore the electrostatic force would change as well.

 

[The Barbarian]

I already knew most of theinfo in that link barbarian. The only part i did not know was two types of decay occurring simultaneously in one radioisotope. It doesn't change what I said however. If two isotopes with very different half lives have the same mode of decay, they will both give the same age to the igneous rock with accelerated decay.

What you need to explain is why those with different modes still give consistent answers.

 

[fool]

So,
No numbers on the Io thing?

 

[The Barbarian]

Actual photo of Io and Jupiter. It's very close, moving very fast, and subject not only to Jupiter's immense gravity, but also to that of the larger, planet-sized moons in more distant orbits around Jupiter.

This variable squeezing and stretching of the moon, (supposedly, the surface is pulled as much as 300 feet up by the immense gravity of Jupiter) causes internal friction and heating, and accounts for the very active geology of the planet. BTW, it is mostly sulfur on the surface, which means a lot less thermal energy is required to liquify and move it.

If you want to know how it's calculated, then look here:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0019103581900889

 

[fool]

Actual photo of Io and Jupiter. It's very close, moving very fast, and subject not only to Jupiter's immense gravity, but also to that of the larger, planet-sized moons in more distant orbits around Jupiter.

This variable squeezing and stretching of the moon, (supposedly, the surface is pulled as much as 300 feet up by the immense gravity of Jupiter) causes internal friction and heating, and accounts for the very active geology of the planet. BTW, it is mostly sulfur on the surface, which means a lot less thermal energy is required to liquify and move it.

300 is the first number anyone has brought to the table, your blue ribbon is in the mail.

 

[The Barbarian]

Compare it to about 60 feet for the highest tides on Earth.

That's a lot of squeezing.

 

[fool]

Compare it to about 60 feet for the highest tides on Earth.

That's a lot of squeezing.

I'm confused.
The 300 foot tide goes around Io once per Io day?
Yet there are 400 active volcanos? How come the Io Daily tide hasen't eroded the volcanos?
Or, put this way
The 60 foot tide on Earth is at the land ocean inter face so local typography will play a part such as concentrating the swell into a bay and such so what is the Luner Earth tide on an Earth with no land and a uniform ocean depth?
Io dosen't have Oceans so this is a 300 foot rock and sand tide?
What's the "land tide" on Earth? When my house is directly between the moon and the center of the Earth how much does it rise?

 

[Stripe]

The 300 foot tide goes around Io once per Io day?

Tides on Io act twice per Io day for Jupiter's gravity.

Yet there are 400 active volcanos? How come the Io Daily tide hasen't eroded the volcanos?

Volcanoes do not need to be hills.

What's the "land tide" on Earth? When my house is directly between the moon and the center of the Earth how much does it rise?

The peak of a tide isn't directly under the moon. It lags by a little as the solid stuff responds to the stresses put on it. The rock tide is not significant. Something like 5cm, I think. And remember, that tide is acting on everything so it won't produce any noticeable daily displacement. It's true that the moon does lift your house twice a day, but it also lifts all the basement rock your house is sitting on by the same amount.

 

[Yorzhik]

Universities don't actually accept doctoral candidates. Departments and faculty do.

Right. So it was Gould, not Harvard. In other words, if Gould's name wasn't stamped on his application, Wise would never have gotten in as a YEC. That's because as an institution, Harvard is bigoted.

Harvard, for example, is not a public institution. It's a private school, like the ICR graduate school. No difference from the ICR, except Harvard does accept YE creationists, and the ICR won't accept anyone who isn't. And no, you won't find out until you try to apply at the ICR; they don't readily admit it.

Harvard is highly dependent on gov't loans and gov't grants to stay open. So they must dance to the same music as any other public institution.

Again, it wouldn't be a problem if they were up front about their bias. You can't pay money to IRC and then find out you had to be a YEC. That's exactly what will happen to you at any public college, though.

 

[Yorzhik]

Incidentally, the evidence for a dynamo in the Earth is very persuasive.

1. The outer core, composed mostly of iron and nickle, is liquid. (Analysis of seismic data; secondary waves cannot travel through liquids)

This doesn't create a dynamo at all.

2. The magnetic field changes in orientation and strength over time, sometimes greater, sometimes less, but is always changing. Sometimes, it even flips. This is consistent with a dynamo, but not with magnetic substances slowly losing magnetism.

Not only does movement not make a dynamo, but changing field patterns don't preclude a core that isn't being charged. Why you think so is a mystery.

Where does the energy from all this come? The decay of radioactive elements in the core. This sets up convection currents in the mantle and the Coriolis effect then produces a chaotic movement something like that in the atmosphere.

Again, movement doesn't make a dynamo. The movement has to be specific. In fact, it's rather complicated and requires a great number of mechanisms working together that simply haven't been demonstrated.

3. Every simulation of the system produces currents of liquid iron, and that is sufficient to cause magnetic fields. The currents in the models also produce fields that look like those of Earth.

Every simulation creates the mechanisms needed without regard to what has been revealed.

 

[Yorzhik]

Wow, that must be because you aren’t even on speaking terms with her.

We're on speaking terms.

Regarding Io’s heat:

Unless I am seriously mistaken, you are the one at odds with the current consensus on Io’s heat.

The current consensus isn't tidal heating?

As to ideas about where the heat comes from, Do-While Jones might help, but the details of Io’s heat flow are only partially understood. However, I bet that uncertainty does not include any suspicion Io’s heat will cause Jovian moons to de-orbit in anything less than many billions of years.

So you are saying that the orbits aren't affected by the heat being dumped into Io? I'm pretty sure the consensus wouldn't agree with you.

For example, go to http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996AREPS..24..125S. The article there about Io’s heat is long, and highly technical. At the bottom of it you will find links to hundreds of other articles dealing with Io, including orbital effects due to Io’s heating. The question of the long-term stability of the Jovian orbits has been looked at in depth for decades.

[/quote]
Someone needs to break that down for us non-scientists. Which way are the other moons moving?

 

[Yorzhik]

Yep. The evolution of useful new features requires more than that. There has to be a way to keep useful ones and remove harmful ones. So neutral evolution doesn't do much more than keep a store of mutations that might someday be useful or harmful.

So we have genetic drift and NS to work on mutations. These two are the main movers of evolution. Let's see if they really work.

"Luck" doesn't apply when no one is hoping for anything. It's just random change, unless it should become open to selection. Then something useful can be made of it. Would you like some examples?

Luck applies when you only have a tiny minority of mutation combinations that will give you a new function.

No, you're still conflating neutral change with directional evolution. Read it again, and think about it.

You don't get it. neutral change needs to be directional for directional evolution to work. Only a tiny minority of mutation combinations can ever give you a function ready to be turned on by a final mutation, which can then be acted on by NS.

I told you they usually need more than one. You were going to show me why this was impossible. But you declined to do that.

Wow. All that exchange when all you end up doing is saying "yes."

OK. Now that we've established that it normally takes more than 1 mutation to create a new function, can you give us a range it would normally take to create a new function. Alate said 7 was a good enough number to work with. Do you disagree with Alate that we can settle on 7 for the purposes of this discussion?

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

Since most of them take more than one, your range is necessarily wrong. You'll need to come up with something that follows your claim that it's usually more than one.

At the risk of you declining to answer again, I'll ask; why would that matter?

Because we want to find the mover in evolution that evolution relies most on.

Are you denying that a new feature can appear in a series of steps? Would you like an example of that happening?

I'm agreeing for the sake of this discussion that it happens in a series of steps.

Step one would be to get a combination of mutations that a final mutation could have NS work with. Right?

 

[Yorzhik]

I'm confused.
The 300 foot tide goes around Io once per Io day?
Yet there are 400 active volcanos? How come the Io Daily tide hasen't eroded the volcanos?
Or, put this way
The 60 foot tide on Earth is at the land ocean inter face so local typography will play a part such as concentrating the swell into a bay and such so what is the Luner Earth tide on an Earth with no land and a uniform ocean depth?
Io dosen't have Oceans so this is a 300 foot rock and sand tide?
What's the "land tide" on Earth? When my house is directly between the moon and the center of the Earth how much does it rise?

What we want to know is, how does this dissipated heat: (from wiki) "This heat is released in the form of volcanic activity, generating its observed high heat flow (global total: 0.6 to 1.6×10^14 W).[64] Models of its orbit suggest that the amount of tidal heating within Io changes with time, and that the current heat flow is not representative of the long-term average."

affect the moons that are making the differential?

 

[The Barbarian]

I'm confused.
The 300 foot tide goes around Io once per Io day?

The planet itself is distorted by that amount. No water. Io itself is flexed to that degree.

Yet there are 400 active volcanos? How come the Io Daily tide hasen't eroded the volcanos?

Because they keep erupting. Just like on Earth. When they stop erupting, erosion wears them down.

Or, put this way
The 60 foot tide on Earth is at the land ocean inter face so local typography will play a part such as concentrating the swell into a bay and such so what is the Luner Earth tide on an Earth with no land and a uniform ocean depth?

Wouldn't be that much. The topography of the coast is largely responsible for such high tides.

Io dosen't have Oceans so this is a 300 foot rock and sand tide?

Yep. Think of squeezing an orange, going around the perimeter of it.

That's the "land tide" on Earth?

No. There is a land tide, but it's considerably less.

When my house is directly between the moon and the center of the Earth how much does it rise?

I should know that, but I don't. I'll try to find out for you.

 

[DavisBJ]

So you are saying that the orbits aren't affected by the heat being dumped into Io? I'm pretty sure the consensus wouldn't agree with you.

Nope, I specified that any deorbiting due to IO’s tides would probably take billions of years. You are the one claiming Io’s tides would cause significant orbital decay and thus provide evidence against an old creation.

 

[Stripe]

I should know that, but I don't. I'll try to find out for you.

Don't bother, doofus. :chuckle:

 

[DavisBJ]

What's the "land tide" on Earth? When my house is directly between the moon and the center of the Earth how much does it rise?

If I am interpreting the tables near the bottom of this article correctly, the tide in the surface of the earth (crust) is almost a foot high. Much more than I would have guessed.

 

[Fred Williams]

Alate_One's meatball pitches on RSF challenge

Alate_One's meatball pitches on RSF challenge

The important question is, what reason do you have for rejecting the particular areas of science you do?

The thrust of the argument is the lack of value evolution “science” has given mankind. I’ve been in this debate for years and have never been given a single example where evolution “science” produced anything useful. You suggested recombinant DNA technology. How does this require Neo-Darwinism? If random mutations did not occur, would this prevent recombinant DNA from working? Of course the answer is no. Interestingly, I would argue that pure belief in neo-Darwinism would intuitively have hindered one from thinking recombinant DNA would work, since neo-Darwinism rejects the possibility of directed non-random mutations, which is essentially analogous to what this technology is! As an engineer who recognizes the programming language of the DNA, there would be little reason for me to doubt the possibilities such a technology could bring.

An understanding of evolution is driving improved utilization of transgenic crops through mandates of refugia

I’m amazed you would use this as an example, since this demolishes common decent as the explanation for similar genes between these plants! It’s one of the reasons why evolutionists were originally were resistant to this evidence.

" "I never expected this would happen," said Manyuan Long, a University of Chicago evolutionary geneticist. "Just two months ago I was teaching graduate students that this kind of horizontal gene transfer does not occur in higher organisms. Now I'm going to have to teach that it does." " - [emphasis added] Gene swap in plants surprises scientists; New mechanism of evolution seen July 10, 2003

Regarding HIV cocktails, this is no different than past appeals to drug-resistant technologies - all one needs is a fundamental understanding of the misnomer “micro-evolution” to combat such viruses. I would again point out that the neo-Darwinian prerequisite that the researcher ignore the possibility of adaptive non-random mutation would hinder their ability to combat the disease. Do you think it would be a good thing, or a bad thing, to consider the possibility that some of resistance is the result of non-random mutation induced by some environmental stimulus?

Alate_One, I appreciate your taking the challenge to come to the mound and give us your best pitches, but the first three were meatballs that were sent out of the yard. The challenge still stands: Can anyone identify any technology or invention for which Darwinism or a belief in an old earth is an enabling prerequisite.

I should note that on the other side of the coin, many of the inventions mentioned were the result of reverse-engineering the design of the Chief Engineer. Also worth mentioning is the impact evolution has had on science, notably in the area of human health - just ask our older generation how they feel knowing their tonsils were likely removed because the “science” of the day taught that they were useless leftovers from some ancient extinct simian ancestor.

“Doctors once thought tonsils were simply useless evolutionary leftovers and took them out thinking that it could do no harm. Today there is considerable evidence that there are more troubles in the upper respiratory tract after tonsil removal than before, and doctors generally agree that simple enlargement of tonsils is hardly an indication for surgery” - Ratcliff, J.D., Your Body and How it Works, Delacorte, New York, p. 137, 1975.

Most are based on relatively simple chemistry which does not necessarily require knowledge of the age of the earth or biology at all. Though in general the materials involved come from an old universe, especially metals which are produced by ancient exploding stars. So there's that.

Just-so stories from flimsy evidence not withstanding, one in-depth study from chemist Dr Edward Boudreaux shows that all the periodic elements can originate from water. Any interested parties can request a book on this topic by emailing Dr Boudreaux.

Plus you included astronomy? Um, modern Astronomy does not work without an old earth, period.

This is like saying evolution doesn’t work without an old earth, isn’t this textbook begging the question?

Fred

 

[The Barbarian]

" "I never expected this would happen," said Manyuan Long, a University of Chicago evolutionary geneticist. "Just two months ago I was teaching graduate students that this kind of horizontal gene transfer does not occur in higher organisms. Now I'm going to have to teach that it does." " - [emphasis added] Gene swap in plants surprises scientists; New mechanism of evolution seen July 10, 2003

Hey, Fred. How are things at the Fairy Tale board? It's good to see you again, so to speak.

I'm wondering about your quote since lateral gene transfer was known when I was an undergrad back in the 60s. A quick google search turns up one such paper from 1968:
http://www.jstor.org/pss/3572594

Very odd that an "evolutionist" wouldn't have known this. PubMed has um...

Two hundred and seventy pages of hits for "lateral gene transfer."

 

[Alate_One]

The thrust of the argument is the lack of value evolution “science” has given mankind. I’ve been in this debate for years and have never been given a single example where evolution “science” produced anything useful. You suggested recombinant DNA technology. How does this require Neo-Darwinism? If random mutations did not occur, would this prevent recombinant DNA from working? Of course the answer is no. Interestingly, I would argue that pure belief in neo-Darwinism would intuitively have hindered one from thinking recombinant DNA would work, since neo-Darwinism rejects the possibility of directed non-random mutations, which is essentially analogous to what this technology is! As an engineer who recognizes the programming language of the DNA, there would be little reason for me to doubt the possibilities such a technology could bring.

I'm sorry sir, but what you just posted makes no sense at all. Evolution cannot and will not "reject the possibility" of human beings manipulating the genetic code.

That's like saying that because we have a naturalistic explanation for stars producing radiation, that human nuclear reactions are therefore disproved by said understanding.

Common descent directly implies that you can take a gene from one organism and place it in another (since they were once the same genes originally). This could happen naturally (and happens regularly with many viruses) or "unnaturally" via human intervention.

I’m amazed you would use this as an example, since this demolishes common decent as the explanation for similar genes between these plants! It’s one of the reasons why evolutionists were originally were resistant to this evidence.

No, it doesn't at all . . . . you do realize you can have horizontal transfer AND descent at the same time right? Scientists surprised doesn't mean "evolution is disproved!"

Regarding HIV cocktails, this is no different than past appeals to drug-resistant technologies - all one needs is a fundamental understanding of the misnomer “micro-evolution” to combat such viruses. I would again point out that the neo-Darwinian prerequisite that the researcher ignore the possibility of adaptive non-random mutation would hinder their ability to combat the disease. Do you think it would be a good thing, or a bad thing, to consider the possibility that some of resistance is the result of non-random mutation induced by some environmental stimulus?

There's never been any evidence of mutations being induced by the environment. In fact there are plenty of experiments that demonstrate the opposite. That organisms change and will become resistant to medications is a fundamental PREDICTION of evolutionary theory. YEC makes no such prediction. You are making up stories to explain what is already well known so it fits into your YEC paradigm.

Can anyone identify any technology or invention for which Darwinism or a belief in an old earth is an enabling prerequisite.

Already gave some to you. Unfortunately you seem to be unable to acknowledge the fact that YEC has enabled NO technologies at all. Note that using natural processes is not using a YEC understanding of the world to do anything.

Just-so stories from flimsy evidence not withstanding, one in-depth study from chemist Dr Edward Boudreaux shows that all the periodic elements can originate from water. Any interested parties can request a book on this topic by emailing Dr Boudreaux.

Oh great so you're promoting alchemy in addition to YEC? You throw this in and expect anyone to take you seriously?

Just tell me the address where I can send my lead for transmutation . . . . . .

I love gooold