Chemistry guides evolution, claims theory

What a laugh, Darwin has been refuted by science and shown that his simplistic nonsense is total bunk,

Funny, "science" seems unaware of this amazing state of affairs. In fact, "science" is under the impression that Darwin's theories are more sound now than they have ever been, since the past 144 years of research has turned up confirmation after confirmation.

In fact, it's clear that what really honks you off is that science *does* accept Darwin wholeheartedly. So don't give us any of your nonsense about how "science" has refuted him.

Do you really think that lying helps your case?

One more disengenuous response chalked up.

You're not fooling anyone. Waving your hands doesn't make Morton's solid analysis any less valid.

But come on, let's cut to the chase -- why don't you come right out and tell us all that you think the Earth is no more than 6000 years old, and *that's* why you have to argue against Geology so strongly (since nearly everything in modern Geology shows such a belief to be pure fantasy)? Not to mention any valid dating method, etc...

Repeat after me: "I, Havoc, am so out of touch that I truly believe the Earth is a grand total of 6000 years old, never mind the shark teeth (that was just one of God's little practical jokes)..."

"Is that why no one will debate him?"

No, it's because he refuses invitations for debate or discussion:

Here's another example:

This is in regard to the gauntlet laid down by many creationists that no 'evolutionist' is willing to debate them, or worse, the $$$ for proof of evolution (Hovind). About 6 months ago, I sent in a signed debate agreement to Walt Brown (those of you familiar with the creationist players recognize the name). As per #22 in his agreement, I offered that we be allowed to discuss the veracity of the Bible because that forms he basis for his hydroplate theory. In short, if there is no Noachian flood, then there is no need for his hydroplate theory. Before I received his book, I had tentatively agreed to his debate, but after I saw the book, I realized that it was based strictly on the book of Genesis. Walt became irate and refused to debate. I then offered to only allow the book of Genesis to be debated along with the rest of the usual creationist diatribe, no go. I then posted to Walt Brown's feedback page and asked him why, if the Bible is inerrant, he is unwilling to debate the issue of Genesis. It seems reasonable that if Genesis is wrong or his theories conflict with Genesis, that his science is therefore wrong. I even offered to have a second neutral party decide the issue. I challenged Walt to let his readers know whether or not he thought the Bible was the inerrant word of God. His response? He removed the public posting of feedback from his website. May I suggest that regular readers e-mail Walt Brown and ask him to remove his claim that no 'evolutuionist' will debate him, since I have sent a signed agreement to him. If he refuses to alter his claim, then I suggest that people ask him why he is afraid to debate an evolutionist on the veracity of the Bible on which he bases his science. I told him that this is similar to me admitting that we can debate evolution but he must leave genetics, biology and chemistry out of the argument. Is this a typical creationist response Walt? E-mail Walt Brown and ask him what he fears. Cheers Joe Meert
-- from http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/feedback/may97.html

Joe Meert has written a webpage where he gives more details on Brown's dodging: http://gondwanaresearch.com/hp/walt_brown.htm

Another reason Brown may not get many takers is:

The creationist you refer to is Walt Brown. When Joe Meert accepted Walt Brown's debate terms four years ago, Brown was the one who refused to participate. Meert's story is at http://baby.indstate.edu/gga/pmag/walt_brown.htm.
Brown's challenge comes with hoops that any prospective debater must jump through. I am not surprised that few people wish to jump through his hoops, especially since most PhD's (getting a PhD is one of Brown's hoops) don't see anything in creationism worthy any scientific attention at all. If Brown wants to debate, he is free to do so. There are many scientific journals he can write to if he wishes.
-- from http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/feedback/jan01.html

James Lippard also expressed a willingness (an insistence, actually) to debate Brown here

I'm sorry, what was that you were saying about "no one" wanting to debate him?

I think some of your "plates" have shifted.

You may not believe this, but tonight as I drove to the local Dairy Queen, I found myself behind a car bearing the bumper sticker:

SAVE THE OLD-GROWTH LITHOSPHERE
BAN SUBDUCTION!

I almost drove off the road laughing.

Not so easy as you say as Behe's description in Post# 62 shows very well.

You refusal to be relavant to topic makes your argument worthless. I was discussing how complex eyes could evolve from simple light-sensitive cells. Then you tried to refute me Ok I read your post #62 and I'll re-post some of what you put down in that message.

What is needed to make a light sensitive spot? What happens when a photon of light impinges on the retina?

When a photon first hits the retina, it interacts with a small organic molecule called II-cis-retinal. The shape of retinal is rather bent, but when retinal interacts with the photon, it straightens out, isomerizing into trans-retinal. This is the signal that sets in motion a whole cascade of events resulting in vision. When retinal changes shape, it forces a change in the shape of the protein rhodopsin, which is bound to it. Now part of the transducin complex dissociates and interacts with a protein called phosphodiesterase, When that happens, the phosphodiesterase acquires the ability chemically to cut a small organic molecule called cyclic-GMP, turning it into 5'-GMP. There is a lot of cyclic-GMP in the cell, and some of it sticks to another protein called an ion channel. Normally the ion channel allows sodium ions into the cell. When the concentration of cyclic-GMP decreases because of the action of the phosphodiesterase, however, the cyclic-GMP bound to the ion channel eventually falls off, causing a change in shape that shuts the channel. As a result, sodium ions can no longer enter the cell, the concentration of sodium in the cell decreases, and the voltage accross the cell membrane changes. That in turn causes a wave of electrical polarization to be sent down the optic nerve to the brain. And when interpreted by the brain, that is vision. So this is what modern science has discovered about how Darwin's 'simple' light sensitive spot functions. From: Michael Behe, 'Design at the Foundation of Life".

You refusal to be relevant to topic makes your argument worthless. I was discussing how complex eyes could evolve from simple light-sensitive cells. Then you tried to refute me with a paragraph that supposedly would explain how simple light-sensitive cells could not evolve. Nowhere in the above paragraph does this explain that. Instead it goes on about what happens when a photon strikes the retina, the light sensitive region of a highly evolved organ (the eye). What does this have to do with the mutational changes that would be necessary for non-light sensitive cells to become very crude, light sensitive patches? Even single celled bacteria display photo-taxis, a result of the ability to sense light. These cells’ systems are nowhere near as complex as what is described above. What you are trying to do is the typical deceitful creationist tactic of misrepresenting the theory of evolution when you cannot refute it. You (and Behe) are pointing to the workings of evolved retina with the insinuation that evolutionists believe that such a complex system could just pop into being with a few mutations.

This is the problem with evolution it ASSUMES that given enough time anything is possible.

A complete lie. All it assumes is that genetic traits that allows the possesing individual to survive and reproduce will tend to increase in frequency, while those traits which do not promote survival will tend to decrease in frequency.

and I'll up your double-secret-encrypted-placemarker to a Triple-secret-encrypted-placemarker.

~~You refusal to be relavant to topic makes your argument worthless. I was discussing how complex eyes could evolve from simple light-sensitive cells. Then you tried to refute me.~~ Ok I read your post #62 and I'll re-post some of what you put down in that message.

I have made cut and paste error here. I was changing the format of my response and somehow the first three sentences of this paragraph got duplicated. My apologies.

IE you don't explain sorting, you describe it with a cited commentary from somewhere.

Dear me, you actually need something so basic explained to you? Perhaps you have over-estimated your grasp of the subject matter. Did you bother to look at my links? They would have given you a good deal of insight that you obviously need.

Sediment – Material derived from pre-existing rock, biogenic sources, or precipitated by chemical reaction and deposited at or near the surface of the Earth.
Sorting – An expression of the range of grain sizes within a rock. A well-sorted rock has grain sizes within a very narrow range, while a poorly-sorted rock contains a wide range of grain sizes.
Mechanism of Sorting – Wind, running water and glaciers all transport sediments. Glaciers indiscriminately deposit sediments of all sizes at margins, while wind and water separate the grains based upon a characteristic such as size, shape, or specific gravity. Larger, heavier grains require more energy to transport and thus are deposited quickly once wind or water begin to lose energy. Smaller particles continue to be transported over distance until the energy required for their continued transport dissipates.

No matter how long you leave the pan unaffected by other than wind, it will not sort itself. It's a matter of physics.

In fact, if the pan of cat litter is exposed to sufficiently strong winds or running water, sorting will occur.

Rather than describe sorting, you migh prevail upon us to explain how it happens in absence of a flood, earthquake or other natural happenstance such as a Volcano.

I already have explained it; see above remarks. I do not need any geology lessons from you, thanks anyway.

Ah, now you are presuming that liquefaction requires an earthquake.

Indeed I am. Had you looked at any of my links, you would have noted that serious consideration is given to the process of liquefaction. I suggest you follow up before embarrassing yourself unnecessarily. Specifically look at the links I provided regarding Biot’s equation and wave propagation in soils.

How far we've come. Liquifaction doesn't require cohesionless material during a flood. Cohesion is due, not to partical shape; but, to it's particular want to act cohesively under specific circumstances which are governed as readily by the amount of Water present as by the action going on around about it.

Cohesion of particles such as soil or sand rely upon the shape of the grains. If the grains are roughened in any way, cohesion will occur because the particles cannot “slide past” each other. If the particles are spherical and smoothly rounded, cohesion will not occur.

Wave propogation is a property of that which we are discussing. This is true regardless of whether we are talking about an earthquake related event, a flood or volcano. It is inherent. I was arguing in general terms as to the extent to which liquefaction is capable of disturbing layers. Given that wave action is part of liquefaction, it's an argument without a difference to state that wave propogation takes place therefore we arent' addressing full scope. Rather, it is because wave action takes place that the conversation is necessitated. Its as though I said 'how far one can travel in a car is a product of the amount of gas in the vehicle and the variable nature of the efficient use of that gas by the engine so long as the person is in travel' while you retort, 'wrong again, there have to be tires on the car.' Which seems more than a bit disengenous.

You’re babbling again. Get over the idea that water is required to create “waves”, it may facilitate wave-action, but water is not required for waves to form in solid structures. Specifically, look at this website of the collapse of the Tacoma Narrows Bridge. Also look here for additional information about the hazards of liquefaction.

As a matter of fact, it does not leave readily identifiable features unless judged on scale. The longer it takes place, the more thorough the sorting and therefore the less evidence of any natural tampering. In otherwords, merely stating it does not make it so.

Incorrect as usual. Look here for evidence of sand blows as contemporary and paleoindicators of liquefaction produced by earthquakes.

But then Geologists have been studying Valcanos far longer than they have studied liquefaction and only now is it coming out that water levels in the soil and rock around a valcano account for a good part of the devastation created.

Oh dear, another spelling error! VOLCANOES is the correct spelling. And BTW, please tell the permanent residents of Pompeii buried in lava and ash that a majority of the devastation wrought comes from harmless old water…water that somehow managed to remain in liquid form even though magma is very hot.

As water heats and rises above it's normal levels due to magma flow, cohesion of rock and soil is lost at the top layers along the incline of the mound. One would think this would have been considered long ago; but, the blatent obvious doesn't seem to occur. IMO this is part of the problem of specific science. People get so close to what they study that they can't see the bug walking across the leaf of a tree for the forest they are pondering. When the bug occurs to them, we're supposed to throw up our hands and say Eureka, you're smart. Some of us say, "Duh". Not because we have little sympathy for you; but, because any idiot looking at it knows water expands in general terms when you heat it - might have something to do with observing it daily on a stove. If it weren't for the liquefaction studies, the obviety of water meddling in volcanic blasts might not have become so obvious.

And where did you obtain your degree? Where are you lecturing?

it would first have to be proven that plate tectonics was other than a theory.

Let’s look at some pretty damning evidence, shall we?

For those who cannot see the image, go to this website and look at the second gif. Clearly marked on the map are earthquakes that have occurred globally. The lines of earthquakes demark the margins of the tectonic plates themselves, areas of subduction, or areas where “failed rifts” or "hot spots" are thought to exist.

Faulting doesn't require any "plate" movement, it merely requires a weakness in the rock strata. That the continents lie on the sea floor is without question. That they are attached irretrievably to some moving plate is quite another thing that is neither required nor hinted at.

See above image.

We know the continents were once joined. For them to come unjoined they had to detach, accelerate apart then decelerate. Deceleration of something so massive, no matter how it is accomplished will affect the mass.

This is just silly. If you or your parents paid for your education, then a refund is in order.

How do you “know” the continents were once joined? What caused them to “break apart”? Why did they move away from each other? Are the continents still moving apart? If so, why? Why do the Hawaiian Islands form a chain? Why does the San Andreas Fault exist? What causes the earthquakes in California? Please explain these things to me without the use of plate tectonics…and without the use of a geology text from the 50s.

Now, if horizontal compression can cause this, then it can also weaken lower layers sufficiently to cause ongoing faulting which would not require any would be plate movement. Volcanoes take time to mount up and build enough pressure to cause an eruption. It's as simple to understand as acne or an infection. Something which I would imagine everyone here not only has experience with; but, can readily speak to. Pressure builds as Magma escapes and mounds up. Over time, the mound will tend to lose stability due to saturation. Once the smooth upward flow of magma is impared by Natural limitations of the material to continue building up, it is only a matter of time before the top blows off and the process begins anew. And Water saturation is a large part of earthquakes. How it bears on the whole picture is worth discussion; but, plate tectonics are not required for Quakes any more than for volcanoes. The reason quakes can't be predicted is pretty simple. It's as obvious as why tectonics is theory.

I am positively speechless at the use of acne as an analogy for volcanic eruptions. Does the term “subduction zone” mean anything to you? Of course not, for that would entail plate tectonics. However, for the uninformed, I offer the following:

Again, for those who cannot see the image, go to this website, and look at the third image. In this diagram you see that a heavier ocean plate is being subducted under a lighter continental plate. (BTW, ocean plates are not heavier because of the water, but because they contain more iron and magnesium than do the lighter, silicon-rich continental plates) As the ocean plate descends, it heats up, ultimately melting. The melted oceanic plate is now magma, which slowly rises due to its heat and expansion, forcing overlying rock to form mountains and volcanoes. This is exactly what has caused the formation of the Rocky Mountains, and why there are volcanoes in these regions. Of additional interest is that metamorphic rocks are formed this way, by heating the surrounding "country rock". During this heating process, the rocks become very plastic and flexible, which facilitates folding.

Gee. That sedimentation takes a long time is part of my ongoing argument. It is the reason that a flood can imasculate reasonable attempts at viewing strata as forms of measurement. Long periods of time measured in sedimentation can be disrupted quickly with a minor flood or a major one. If it didn't take a long time, flooding would have little impact on the reading of it. Who needs to catch up? It's obvious you know something. What you know is not in question. What is in question is whether or not what you were taught is correct - that is not a measure of your intelligence. What would be is your willingness to hold to faulty notions just because that's the way you were taught. In which case generations of idiots can be readily produced by way of schooling.

The word is, EMASCULATE, something I fear you feel, otherwise you wouldn’t make yourself appear so foolish. Please look up the definition of this term so you can apply it correctly to your discourse.

Try going back and actually reading what I said and responding to that rather than making things up as you go.

I have given you legitimate scientific information from a variety of sources. You on the other hand have only responded with Creationist nonsense.

Now, if we know layers are mixed at the outset and yet we are seeing well defined strata - seperated as in figure 1, then we must ask why it doesn't actually look like figure 2 and explain how it got that way. Sedimentation is a random Chaos as it neither lays a uniform uncontaminated sheet of one type of pariculate matter, nor does it lay that matter in a uniform way as regards volume depth across a plane. Sand dunes are a very good example of this - there is a wave action that presents itself in the appearance of the sediment drifting. This is not, however, what is seen in subsurface strata. And if strata are a cross section of one time top soil amalgam sediments frozen in time, then they should reflect behavior as having been such. Absent that, you have explaining to do on how the chaos produced uniformity and why. Which puts us right back to the central argument again. Clever that.

I’m not sure (your grammar and punctuation need some serious help), but you seem to be asking why a geologic sequence might be all jumbled up. Recall that I referred to turbidites and turbidity currents in my last post. Recall also that these formations are emplaced in a chaotic fashion because of the high-energy event that precipitated the turbidity current.

And I would remind you that the "Theory of Gravity" is a theory that is actually falsifiable.

Heh! Some real meat for our physicists, LOL!

Please tell me which universities are actually held accountable for what they teach and held to prove that about which they theorize. I think that's a rather blatent "touche'".

Please show me any theory that has been “proven”. Just any old theory will do, you needn’t strain your brain too much on this one. As for your post being a “touché”, I will simply state that you have proven without question that you are not the recipient of any sort of degree or diploma beyond high school.

SAVE THE OLD-GROWTH LITHOSPHERE BAN SUBDUCTION!

REUNITE GONDWANALAND!

Ewww...on second thought, let's not.

Back from walkabout. Thought you were lost.

and I'll up your double-secret-encrypted-placemarker to a Triple-secret-encrypted-placemarker.

Your reports have been received. The plan is approved. You know what to do.

BWAAAAAAAAHAHAHA! Have mercy on the poor man, PW. After all, you have intelligence, education, wit, charm, and beauty on your side and he has only half a wit.

Have mercy on the poor man, PW. After all, you have intelligence, education, wit, charm, and beauty on your side

At first I read this too quickly, and I saw "PH" where you had written "PW." It makes a lot more sense now.

How Flood Geologies in General Can't Explain the Geologic Column.

Dr. Walt Brown's Hydroplate is just another variant. He hand-waves away the apparent faunal succession from prokaryotes to eukaryotes to trilobites to dinosaurs to mammals to man as an artifact of "hydraulic sorting." (So why aren't the trilobites up with the pill bugs?) He has the continents racing about after the flood, whacking into each other like carnival bumper cars at energies that would have melted everything in sight.

He's not so much a charlatan as a buffoon.

did you miss that in being hypertechnical and overly focused?

That's what science is; technical, and very, very focussed. What creationists. Velikoskians, and other miscellaneous 'alternative science' types misunderstand most about science is their apparent conviction that you can somehow argue away evolution, or other scientific ideas you don't like. You can't, because debate plays a very small role in science. 99% what we do is experiment and data collection, and after that, most of the time, res ipsa loquitur . My objections to these alternative theories are not, in general, broad-bush metaphysics. They're the myriad of details that compose our present scientific understanding of the world that alternative theories at best fail to account for and at worst completely contradict.

Where there's a genuine controversy, as say currently there is in the evolution of birds, it's solved not by polemic, but by collecting more data. For various reasons I was a proponent in the minority view (as an enthusiastic amateur, not a researcher) that birds did not descend from dinosaurs. What has changed my mind is not the arguments of Feduccia on the one hand or Ostrom on the other, but the recent fossil discoveries in China.

An objection to an existing theory carries with it a responsibility to be totally familiar with the existing body of data, and a willingness to collect new data which may resolve the controversy. In general, this can't be done in front of a computer terminal.

Scientific revolutionaries, like Einstein, for example, were able to accomplish their work largely because they were great physicists who knew the existing theories and experimental results and were able to reconcile their new ideas with what was already known. Very few creationists, in my experience, know a substantial amount of descriptive biology or geology; and without that, current ideas about the age of the earth or the lineage of its current life cannot be overturned. (And I'd argue that if you knew the observational work, you wouldn't be creationists or whatever anyway).

Very well said.

Have mercy on the poor man, PW.

Thank you, but you are too kind...

It makes a lot more sense now.

Ah but you are charming, too, Patrick. ;^)

My objections to these alternative theories are not, in general, broad-bush metaphysics. They're the myriad of details that compose our present scientific understanding of the world that alternative theories at best fail to account for and at worst completely contradict.

A common thread I've noticed in "revolutionary" crackpot theories is a reliance upon what I call "data anomaly soup" to make the case. They zero in on some small number of factual data points which purportedly they explain better. They ignore the huge body of knowledge entangled with the theories supposedly overthrown. Inevitably, the "revolutionary" theory is utterly nonsensical in the larger context.

Essentially, almost everything we think we know has to be wrong for the crackpot version to be right. Occam's Razor should suggest that such a circumstance is unlikely. Nevertheless, it is precisely this contradiction of human experience to date that makes the revolutionary version sexy and thus true for people so inclined.

He's not so much a charlatan as a buffoon.

Sadly, there seems to be an epidemic of voluntary buffoonery these days. I have no problem helping students who simply weren't exposed to the facts in remedial grades, but this willful denial of decades of patient and painstaking research by scientists committed to unraveling the mysteries of our existance is frightening.

Quiet revolution

Chicken or egg