Page 2 of 53

Re: Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS

Posted: Jul 20, 2010 12:42 pm
by willhud9
GenesForLife";p="356687 wrote:What do you think are the "tenets of macroevolution"?


Quite simply that it is the analysis of change within different gene pools. Macro-evolution deals with anything above species, while micro-evolution deals with changes within the allele of species.

Macro-evolution asserts that species can and have changed from species to species over time(that is not unreasonable actually, if the evolution of complex systems such as flagella, and blood platelets could be described for me; I was raised with the notion of irreducible complexity, a notion denied by the scientific community, but one that I have never heard sufficient rebuttal about.)

Then there is the Law of Thermodynamics that must be remembered.

1) Energy can neither be created nor destroyed. This is a two edge sword, creationists would ask evolutionists where did the energy come from and point to God(which I believe); however, this is entirely a faith-based statement with no scientific evidence to support. Now this Law may have only come into existence once the energy was created. Or the energy was always here. We can speculate and do many experiments on the origin of energy, but we can never be 100% certain(the marvel of science, any scientists who make an absolute statement and yes even Christian ones have made a grave mistake.)

2) Entropy never decreases and actually increases. This has always been the most confusing point of the LoT. If what Thermodynamics says is true than how does large scale evolution work? For amino acids to form polypeptide bonds massive amounts of energy are required. Our body and those of other living organisms have developed many ways to easily form polypeptides. For example, other proteins act as catalysts aka enzymes, and reduce the necessary amount of energy needed. But these enzymes were not in existence yet so the amount of energy to make even the simplest of bonds was enormous. Where, if entropy increases, did all the early proteins gain the necessary energy to make complex systems?

3) This states that when temperatures reach close to an absolute zero, entropy reaches a bare minimum. This is actually straightforward. So I do not think I need an explanation. '

Anyways, I hope this raises and answers some questions :) Thank you!

Re: Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS

Posted: Jul 20, 2010 1:01 pm
by DanDare
Willhud, thanks for bringing up the entropy and energy canards, they should be added to the list. Evolution is occurring in an open system, not a closed one. The energy comes from the sun and the increased entropy, outweighing the increased order in living things, is found in the surrounding environment.

Species don't "change into" other species. Variations in children of a large population can eventually build into separate groups with different variations to be found in each group. This happens most commonly when separate populations become isolated, say in different valleys. If the changes become large enough then no member of one group can produce children with any member of the other group and then, viola!, you have two species where originally there was one.

If a species does not have separate groups, changes in descendants may still accumulate so that no member of the current population could have children with any of their great great great great great great .......x1000 grand parents (assuming a time machine was available). That creates a species change over time while still leaving you with only one extant species at any given moment.

Re: Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS

Posted: Jul 20, 2010 1:21 pm
by Rumraket
willhud9";p="357391 wrote:
GenesForLife";p="356687 wrote:What do you think are the "tenets of macroevolution"?


Quite simply that it is the analysis of change within different gene pools. Macro-evolution deals with anything above species, while micro-evolution deals with changes within the allele of species.

Macro-evolution asserts that species can and have changed from species to species over time(that is not unreasonable actually, if the evolution of complex systems such as flagella, and blood platelets could be described for me; I was raised with the notion of irreducible complexity, a notion denied by the scientific community, but one that I have never heard sufficient rebuttal about.)

Take a look in this thread regarding the evolution of the flagellum.
Regarding irreducible complexity, Michael Behe originally claimed that the bacterial flagellum would be irreducibly complex in the sense that taking away any part of it would make it stop working entirely, and on the basis of this claimed that this would mean it could not have evolved gradually, since intermediate steps would have no function and therefore no selective advantage for later evolutionary steps.

Before you possibly object to Behe having claimed this, as several people have done here on these forums, please be aware that Behe has indeed claimed exactly this and the thread I linked above have sources for his claims.

Now, it just so happens that such a claim of irreducible complexity is factually incorrect and therefore irrelevant to evolution. From an evolutionary perspective the intermediate steps before the finalized flagellum does NOT have to serve a motility function for the organism. As long as it has some function, and that this function can be beneficial to the organism, then the flagellum can evolve. In any case, read the thread, there is a lot of good stuff in there, in addition to the most excellent post by Calilasseia.

In it's most basic form, the refutation of the Intelligent Design claim about the flagellum is that the flagellum is in fact NOT irreducibly complex. Take away any part and what's left still works, either as a virulence secretion system, a molecular syringe, a defense mechanism... you name it. The flagellum has many functional parts which when put together in many ways, can serve alternative functions, and even on their own.

Then there is the Law of Thermodynamics that must be remembered.

Calilasseia is going to love this :naughty2:

1) Energy can neither be created nor destroyed. This is a two edge sword, creationists would ask evolutionists where did the energy come from and point to God(which I believe); however, this is entirely a faith-based statement with no scientific evidence to support.

We certainly agree this far.

Now this Law may have only come into existence once the energy was created. Or the energy was always here. We can speculate and do many experiments on the origin of energy, but we can never be 100% certain(the marvel of science, any scientists who make an absolute statement and yes even Christian ones have made a grave mistake.)

I'm glad you said this because this puts you in a rare category of individuals who realise that science is not in the business of making absolutist claims, as some supposed "Intelligent Design Creation Scientists" have been caught doing.

2) Entropy never decreases and actually increases.

This is only true for a closed system with no external energy source.

This has always been the most confusing point of the LoT. If what Thermodynamics says is true than how does large scale evolution work? For amino acids to form polypeptide bonds massive amounts of energy are required. Our body and those of other living organisms have developed many ways to easily form polypeptides. For example, other proteins act as catalysts aka enzymes, and reduce the necessary amount of energy needed. But these enzymes were not in existence yet so the amount of energy to make even the simplest of bonds was enormous. Where, if entropy increases, did all the early proteins gain the necessary energy to make complex systems?

Ultimately, the Sun, radioactive decay making heat in the Earth's core and the Earth's own gravity. There are so many ways these sources can feed and catalyze physical and chemical reactions.

Basically every hypothesis on the origin of life is taking this into account. Life is most often postulated to have originated around active vulcanism, most often Hydrothermal vents of various sorts, which can serve both as energy sources and as a feedstock of primitive organic molecules.
There are other variations on this theme where life is hypothesised to have originated in pools of water that evaporate during daytime, under the suns radiation(energy input) and reprecipitate following by freezing at night.
In any case, you are actually not making an argument against the Darwinian theory of Evolution by random mutation with natural selection, but an argument against abiogenesis.

3) This states that when temperatures reach close to an absolute zero, entropy reaches a bare minimum. This is actually straightforward. So I do not think I need an explanation. '

Anyways, I hope this raises and answers some questions :) Thank you!

Well you have raised the same questions we have seen many many times before. Rest assured there are answers for them. I'll leave the details of thermodynamics to more competent individuals.

Re: Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS

Posted: Jul 20, 2010 2:00 pm
by willhud9
Dandare and Rumraket, thank you! I forgot about closed systems and open systems and they make a HUGE difference.

As for Michael Behe, I am very well aware he made those claims and I just because I support irreducible complexity does not mean I agree entirely with Behe or "Darwin's Black Box."

Thank you again for the valid rebuttals!

Re: Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS

Posted: Jul 20, 2010 2:40 pm
by GenesForLife
willhud9";p="357391 wrote:
Quite simply that it is the analysis of change within different gene pools. Macro-evolution deals with anything above species, while micro-evolution deals with changes within the allele of species.


Wrong, macro-evolution in Neodarwinian terms is the change in allele frequencies at the species level and above...

Macroevolution is a scale of analysis of evolution in separated gene pools.[1] Macroevolutionary studies focus on change that occurs at or above the level of species, in contrast with microevolution,[2] which refers to smaller evolutionary changes (typically described as changes in allele frequencies) within a species or population


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macroevolution

Microevolution is change in allele frequencies in populations alone, since it is populations, and those that are capable of interfertility, that constitute species. time to get down to Biology 101 and remember that all organisms in nature exist only at the species level at the most , and everything else in the Linnaean hierarchy including genera, families, orders and so on are completely arbitrary constructs designed to facilitate study by grouping together organisms with similar features.

Macro-evolution asserts that species can and have changed from species to species over time(that is not unreasonable actually, if the evolution of complex systems such as flagella, and blood platelets could be described for me; I was raised with the notion of irreducible complexity, a notion denied by the scientific community, but one that I have never heard sufficient rebuttal about.


1) Macroevolution doesn't assert that species change from species to species, it postulates that if a gene pool is split by geographical or other environmental barriers, especially in cases where differential selective pressures are available, the reproductive isolation that results can lead to divergence from the ancestral gene pool, and therefore divergence in the species, which is termed speciation. I'm going to do two things now, show an example of such large scale divergence in an experimentally separated population, and to bring up a short list of literature on documented evidence for speciation, often in the laboratory by introducing , under controlled conditions, variables that mirror the postulated natural processes.

I'll let you do your reading of the full paper, and am welcome to any discussion thereof, I'm going to post the link to the apposite paper and quote the abstract.

Although rapid adaptive changes in morphology on ecological time scales are now well documented in natural populations, the effects of such changes on whole-organism performance capacity and the consequences on ecological dynamics at the population level are often unclear. Here we show how lizards have rapidly evolved differences in head morphology, bite strength, and digestive tract structure after experimental introduction into a novel environment. Despite the short time scale (≈36 years) since this introduction, these changes in morphology and performance parallel those typically documented among species and even families of lizards in both the type and extent of their specialization. Moreover, these changes have occurred side-by-side with dramatic changes in population density and social structure, providing a compelling example of how the invasion of a novel habitat can evolutionarily drive multiple aspects of the phenotype.


http://www.pnas.org/content/105/12/4792.full.pdf+html

Coming to documented empirical demonstrations of speciation, let me start off with this paper, again, I'll quote the introductory section and let you do your own reading.


REPRODUCTIVE ISOLATION AS A CONSEQUENCE OF ADAPTIVE DIVERGENCE IN DROSOPHILA PSEUDOOBSCURA

According to the biological species concept, speciation is basically a problem of reproductive isolation.
Of the many ways to classify isolating mechanisms, the two main divisions are premating isolation, in which
mating is prevented from occurring, and postmating isolation, in which mating takes place but viable, fertile
offspring are not produced. There is much debate over which type of mechanism, premating or postmating,
is most likely to develop first and how the isolation comes about (e.g., see Dobzhansky, 1970; Mayr, 1963;
and Muller, 1949). In an attempt to gain insight into the process of the development of reproductive isolation,
eight populations of Drosophila pseudoobscura were studied. These were first used by Powell and AndjelkoviE (1983) in a
study of the alpha-amylase (Amy) locus. Four were reared on a starch-based medium, and four were reared
on a maltose-based medium. These two media are both quite stressful; it initially took several months for the
populations to become fully established and healthy. Considering the pressure placed on the populations by
the media, one would expect to see some kind of adaptive divergence between the starch-reared and maltosereared
flies.

Several changes were in fact observed in the eight populations. Powell and AndjelkoviE noted an increase
in the "Just" allele of Amy in the starch populations as well as an increase in one of the patterns of amylase
activity in the midgut. However, no corresponding changes were seen in the maltose populations. Elsewhere
(Dodd, 1984), I have presented evidence that the populations have become differentially adapted to
the two media. In this study, it is shown that the populations have also developed behavioral isolation as a
pleiotropic by-product of this adaptive divergence.


In other words, the isolation that has resulted means the two populations don't breed any more, speciation achieved, macroevolution demonstrated as resulting in a new population from the ancestral gene pool that doesn't interbreed, and as a result, by definition alone, constitutes a new species, macroevolution shown, case closed.

Now, irreducible complexity per se has NOTHING to do with macro or microevolution, but since it is a canard nonetheless, and one that is laughable at that, I will exercise due diligence in debunking the whole stupidity of this asinine concept. Before I go to citing papers that explain the evolution of supposedly "Irreducibly compex" systems, I will first show you why the concept itself is flawed, of course, it must be noted that a German evolutionary biologist envisaged such apparently irreducible structures being produced by evolution , something that is known as the Mullerian two-step pathway...

[1] Add a part (this is done by a process called gene recruitment and co-optation, I will be able to bring up a clear example of this happening if you are interested.

[2] Make it necessary.

When Behe and his ilk shoot their arses off, as he did at the Dover trial to have his arse handed to him on a platter, they assert that every step has to be advantageous for it to have evolved, and that because things like the Flagellum and the clotting cascade stop working if one of the components are removed, it couldn't have evolved, but the truth is that this is baseless because components can be co-opted from those performing other functions, in the case of the flagellum the type three secretory system comes to mind, Calilasseia has a post reviewing the literature on the subject somewhere, I'll find it later.

But yes, I'll just serve you up with one paper on the issue as well, lest there are mendacious accusations of discoursive elision on my part, the paper in question is this

http://saier-144-51.ucsd.edu/~saier/bim ... aper4c.pdf

As usual, I'll post the introduction and let you do the reading.

Evolution of the Bacterial Flagellum
Cumulative evidence indicates that flagella developed as modular
systems, with many components deriving from other systems
Tim Wong, Arezou Amidi, Alexandra Dodds, Sara Siddiqi, Jing Wang,
Tracy Yep, Dorjee G. Tamang, and Milton H. Saier, Jr.

Proponents of the intelligent design (ID) explanation for how organisms developed claim that the bacterial flagellum
(BF) is irreducibly complex. They argue that this structure is so complicated that it could not have emerged
through random selection but had to be designed by an intelligent entity. One part of this claim is that each flagellar component is used solely for the purpose of making a flagellum that, in turn, is used only for motility. Further,
each flagellar protein is assumed to have appeared independently of the other component proteins.
Here, we summarize evidence from hundreds of laboratories, including our own, showing that these assumptions are false. Instead of by design, BF developed as modular systems, with components deriving from many different sources.
Each BF module evolved independently from various primordial systems, which, in most cases, had nothing to do with cell motility. Complexity within BF arose by domain and protein recruitment, by intragenic and extragenic duplication
events, and by superimposition of various modules onto others.
The net result was coevolution of many types of structurally and functionally distinct flagella in various bacterial species. Although these different flagella are all used for motility, they share only about half of their protein constituents.


Since they have demonstrated that co-optation can produce novel, apparently complex structures, it automatically validates the Mullerian two step and throws the asnine canard that IC is into the intellectual shredder.

Then there is the Law of Thermodynamics that must be remembered.

1) Energy can neither be created nor destroyed. This is a two edge sword, creationists would ask evolutionists where did the energy come from and point to God(which I believe); however, this is entirely a faith-based statement with no scientific evidence to support. Now this Law may have only come into existence once the energy was created. Or the energy was always here. We can speculate and do many experiments on the origin of energy, but we can never be 100% certain(the marvel of science, any scientists who make an absolute statement and yes even Christian ones have made a grave mistake.)


Unsubstantiated assertion that energy requires a source, if by definition it cannot be created there is no reason for it to have an origin, and since energy is basically the thermal energy available to do work, if your God did work he'd have to have energy too, and the question would be where that came from, say hello to infinite regress.

2) Entropy never decreases and actually increases. This has always been the most confusing point of the LoT. If what Thermodynamics says is true than how does large scale evolution work? For amino acids to form polypeptide bonds massive amounts of energy are required. Our body and those of other living organisms have developed many ways to easily form polypeptides. For example, other proteins act as catalysts aka enzymes, and reduce the necessary amount of energy needed. But these enzymes were not in existence yet so the amount of energy to make even the simplest of bonds was enormous. Where, if entropy increases, did all the early proteins gain the necessary energy to make complex systems?


The law in particular applies to closed systems, we have a bloody ball of hydrogen gas in the sky that supplies energy, thus rendering the earth, and the biosphere in it, as open systems that can interact with the environment, and therefore the entropy canard is the canard, also try ribozymes for an answer, short RNA strands which can self replicate and catalyse chemical reactions, of course, anyone who thinks this is tantamount to a problem for macroevolution deserves nothing more than a strange look and a raise of the eyebrows.

3) This states that when temperatures reach close to an absolute zero, entropy reaches a bare minimum. This is actually straightforward. So I do not think I need an explanation. '

Anyways, I hope this raises and answers some questions :) Thank you!


And on a final note, I will post details of a paper detailing the thermodynamics of biological complexity, but the material may need a library reference.

Schneider, E.D, Kay, J.J., 1995, "Order from Disorder: The Thermodynamics of Complexity in
Biology", in Michael P. Murphy, Luke A.J. O'Neill (ed), "What is Life: The Next Fifty Years.
Reflections on the Future of Biology", Cambridge University Press, pp. 161-172

I shall quote the introduction again.

In the middle of the nineteenth century, two major scientific theories emerged about the evolution of
natural systems over time. Thermodynamics, as refined by Boltzmann, viewed nature as decaying
toward a certain death of random disorder in accordance with the second law of thermodynamics. This
equilibrium seeking, pessimistic view of the evolution of natural systems is contrasted with the
paradigm associated with Darwin, of increasing complexity, specialization, and organization of
biological systems through time. The phenomenology of many natural systems shows that much of the
world is inhabited by nonequilibrium coherent structures, such as convection cells, autocatalytic
chemical reactions and life itself. Living systems exhibit a march away from disorder and equilibrium,
into highly organized structures that exist some distance from equilibrium.
This dilemma motivated Erwin Schrödinger, and in his seminal book What is Life? (Schrödinger, 1944),
he attempted to draw together the fundamental processes of biology and the sciences of physics and
chemistry. He noted that life was comprised of two fundamental processes; one "order from order" and
the other "order from disorder". He observed that the gene generated order from order in a species,
that is, the progeny inherited the traits of the parent. Over a decade later Watson and Crick (1953)
provided biology with a research agenda that has lead to some of the most important findings of the last
fifty years.

However, Schrödinger's equally important but less understood observation was his order from disorder
premise. This was an effort to link biology with the fundamental theorems of thermodynamics
(Schneider, 1987). He noted that living systems seem to defy the second law of thermodynamics which
insists that, within closed systems, the entropy of a system should be maximized.

Living systems,however, are the antithesis of such disorder. They display marvelous levels of order created from
disorder. For instance, plants are highly ordered structures, which are synthesized from disordered
atoms and molecules found in atmospheric gases and soils.
Schrödinger solved this dilemma by turning to nonequilibrium thermodynamics. He recognized that
living systems exist in a world of energy and material fluxes. An organism stays alive in its highly
organized state by taking high quality energy from outside itself and processing it to produce, within
itself, a more organized state. Life is a far from equilibrium system that maintains its local level of
organization at the expense of the larger global entropy budget. He proposed that the study of living
systems from a nonequilibrium perspective would reconcile biological self-organization and
thermodynamics. Furthermore he expected that such a study would yield new principles of physics.
This paper examines the order from disorder research program proposed by Schrödinger and expand
on his thermodynamic view of life. We explain that the second law of thermodynamics is not an
impediment to the understanding of life but rather is necessary for a complete description of living
processes. We expand thermodynamics into the causality of the living process and show that the second
law underlies processes of self-organization and determines the direction of many of the processes
observed in the development of living systems.


So, there...

Re: Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS

Posted: Jul 20, 2010 5:08 pm
by willhud9
@Genesforlife

Thank you. I did not fully realize half of what you said until you pointed it out to me. It is refreshing to receive a better understanding of science than that which I was taught.

Re: Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS

Posted: Jul 20, 2010 5:57 pm
by GenesForLife
My pleasure.

Re: Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS

Posted: Jul 20, 2010 6:04 pm
by Blitzkrebs
Welcome to the forums willhud9! ;)

Re: Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS

Posted: Jul 20, 2010 6:10 pm
by Darwinsbulldog
A good book for the intelligent layperson is Peter and Rosemary Grant's (2008) book:
"How and Why Species Multiply: The Radiation of Darwin's Finches" [on the Galapagos Islands]. {Princeton Uni Press} Maths is kept to a minimum, but there are plenty of tables and graphs. There is also a good glossary, and a very comprehensive list of references for those who want to go t0 the original papers [many of those papers are written by the Grants themselves]. There are also some excellent colour plates diagrams and photos.

The Grants made a 34 year study of these finches, and looked at how the 14 extant species radiated from a common ancestor 3 million years ago.

Re: Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS

Posted: Jul 20, 2010 7:07 pm
by GenesForLife
A classic textbook example of adaptive radiation under natural selection is the evolution of 14 closely related species of Darwin's finches (Fringillidae, Passeriformes), whose primary diversity lies in the size and shape of their beaks1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. Thus, ground finches have deep and wide beaks, cactus finches have long and pointed beaks (low depth and narrower width), and warbler finches have slender and pointed beaks, reflecting differences in their respective diets6. Previous work has shown that even small differences in any of the three major dimensions (depth, width and length) of the beak have major consequences for the overall fitness of the birds3, 4, 5, 6, 7. Recently we used a candidate gene approach to explain one pathway involved in Darwin's finch beak morphogenesis8. However, this type of analysis is limited to molecules with a known association with craniofacial and/or skeletogenic development. Here we use a less constrained, complementary DNA microarray analysis of the transcripts expressed in the beak primordia to find previously unknown genes and pathways whose expression correlates with specific beak morphologies. We show that calmodulin (CaM), a molecule involved in mediating Ca2+ signalling, is expressed at higher levels in the long and pointed beaks of cactus finches than in more robust beak types of other species. We validated this observation with in situ hybridizations. When this upregulation of the CaM-dependent pathway is artificially replicated in the chick frontonasal prominence, it causes an elongation of the upper beak, recapitulating the beak morphology of the cactus finches. Our results indicate that local upregulation of the CaM-dependent pathway is likely to have been a component of the evolution of Darwin's finch species with elongated beak morphology and provide a mechanistic explanation for the independence of beak evolution along different axes. More generally, our results implicate the CaM-dependent pathway in the developmental regulation of craniofacial skeletal structures.


:thumbup:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v4 ... 04843.html

Re: Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS

Posted: Jul 20, 2010 7:37 pm
by Calilasseia
GfL, the full paper on calmodulin and finch beaks is available here. :)

EDIT: Another paper on calmodulin and modularity in evo-devo is here. Another paper that may have some, if limited, relevance is here.

Others that may be of interest include:

Paper 1

Paper 2

Paper 3

EDIT 2: Just found another one ... :)

EDIT 3: And another one ... and another one ... :mrgreen:

Re: Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS

Posted: Jul 21, 2010 6:35 am
by GenesForLife
I got it from a friend, mate, thank you for the link, though.
and thanks a lot for the other papers. :)

Re: Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS

Posted: Jul 26, 2010 7:16 am
by hackenslash
Two Orsons, methinks; One for GFL for his stellar work, and one for this:

willhud9";p="357924 wrote:@Genesforlife

Thank you. I did not fully realize half of what you said until you pointed it out to me. It is refreshing to receive a better understanding of science than that which I was taught.


ImageImage

Re: Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS

Posted: Jul 26, 2010 7:32 am
by natselrox
hackenslash";p="370489 wrote:Two Orsons, methinks; One for GFL for his stellar work


:whisper: GfL is a girl! Just kidding! :grin:

Re: Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS

Posted: Jul 31, 2010 2:30 pm
by rickstones
Yikes! Calilasseia's exhaustive "C" list is very frightening (and revealing). Nevertheless, I offer myself as a punching bag for the "all-discussion-must-end" crew, and ask for some opinion/feedback:

In his book, The Science of God, Dr. Gerald Schroeder offers a possible reconciliation between the biblical revelation of a universe created in 6 days, and evidence of modern cosmology and paleontology which bear witness to a 15 billion year old universe. The dominant view before Einstein, was of an eternal universe, one that had always existed. It took an Einstein to do it, but the view of science was finally harmonized with the first word of the Bible, "B'raisheet" (In the beginning). With this massive barrier hoisted out of the way, it is now simply a matter of reconciling the difference in the timeframes. Was the universe created in six days, or is it 15 billion years old?

The truly amazing achievement of Einstein was to teach us that both these timeframes can be true. If, as Schroeder postulates, the cosmic background radiation is a remnant echo of energy released during the big bang creation, when this radiation is examined, it reveals a spectacular redshift on the order of a a million-million, and a temperature of the photons, cooled through the expansion of the universe from an unimaginably hot 10E32 degrees K, to a chilly 3.5 degrees K. If these measurements reveal the amount of time dilation between our reference frame, and the reference frame of the initial beginning of the universe, Schroeder points out that when the current age estimate of the universe is divided by the million-million redshift factor, a timeframe of 15 billion years in our reference frame, is equal to 6 days in..........uhhh, someone else's.

It all sounds very intriguing. I just wondered if anyone better trained had reviewed Schroeder's books, and could offer an opinion. I really do like Dr. Schroeder's approach however. He is attempting to reconcile views that need not be hostile to one another. Here's the way he puts it in “The Science of God", p.40:

“Interpretation is as essential for understanding Genesis as it is for understanding nature. It is time for both sides to stop the war. Render unto science that which is science’s: a proven method for investigating our universe. But render unto the Bible the search for purpose and the poetry that describes the purpose.”

Agape!

Re: Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS

Posted: Jul 31, 2010 4:27 pm
by hackenslash
rickstones";p="380759 wrote:Yikes! Calilasseia's exhaustive "C" list is very frightening (and revealing). Nevertheless, I offer myself as a punching bag for the "all-discussion-must-end" crew, and ask for some opinion/feedback:


Then you've come to the right place.

In his book, The Science Apologetics of God,


FIFY. There is no 'science of god'. Science deals with evidence and, for god, there is none.

Dr. Gerald Schroeder offers a possible reconciliation between the biblical revelation of a universe created in 6 days, and evidence of modern cosmology and paleontology which bear witness to a 15 billion year old universe.


Several things wrong with this. Firstly, there is no evidence from paleontology that points to a 15 billion year-old universe. Paleontology is an Earth science, and can only give clues to events on Earth. Secondly, there is no way to interpret 6 days as 15 billion years except by the judicious application of apologetic fuckwittery.

The dominant view before Einstein, was of an eternal universe, one that had always existed. It took an Einstein to do it, but the view of science was finally harmonized with the first word of the Bible, "B'raisheet" (In the beginning). With this massive barrier hoisted out of the way, it is now simply a matter of reconciling the difference in the timeframes. Was the universe created in six days, or is it 15 billion years old?


Neither, given that the big bang was only the beginning of our local cosmic expansion, not the beginning of the universe. The word means 'all that exists' and, as such, includes whatever preceded the bang.

The truly amazing achievement of Einstein was to teach us that both these timeframes can be true.


No, the truly amazing thing about Einstein's work is that fuckwitted apologists think that it in any way supports their excrement. It certainly doesn't do what this idiot suggests. Both of these timeframes cannot simultaneously be true. It amazes me that somebody who studied nuclear physics at MIT can have such a poor understanding of relativity.

If, as Schroeder postulates, the cosmic background radiation is a remnant echo of energy released during the big bang creation, when this radiation is examined, it reveals a spectacular redshift on the order of a a million-million, and a temperature of the photons, cooled through the expansion of the universe from an unimaginably hot 10E32 degrees K, to a chilly 3.5 degrees K. If these measurements reveal the amount of time dilation between our reference frame, and the reference frame of the initial beginning of the universe, Schroeder points out that when the current age estimate of the universe is divided by the million-million redshift factor, a timeframe of 15 billion years in our reference frame, is equal to 6 days in..........uhhh, someone else's.


These measurements don't show anything to do with time dilation, which is a phenomenon associated with significant velocities and immersion in gravitational fields. It is not associated with the expansion of the cosmos, because the expansion of the cosmos doesn't actually constitute travel.

It all sounds very intriguing. I just wondered if anyone better trained had reviewed Schroeder's books, and could offer an opinion. I really do like Dr. Schroeder's approach however. He is attempting to reconcile views that need not be hostile to one another.


Except, of course, that they are hostile to each other, and inherently so. Schroeder has sacrificed science on the altar of credulity, and what he is engaging in here is not science, but navel-gazing. Any postulate that does not arise from the observation of evidence is not scientific. Further, twisting the words of somebody who categorically disagrees with him (known as quote-mining) is the usual dishonest apologetic tripe we've come to expect from minds addled by wibble.

Here's the way he puts it in “The Science of God", p.40:

“Interpretation is as essential for understanding Genesis as it is for understanding nature. It is time for both sides to stop the war. Render unto science that which is science’s: a proven method for investigating our universe. But render unto the Bible the search for purpose and the poetry that describes the purpose.”

Agape!


Interesting that you can post this after your opening words in this post, all the while completely ignoring the opening post of the thread, specifically section [3], which nails this fucking nonsense to the wall.

2/10. Must try harder.

Re: Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS

Posted: Jul 31, 2010 5:08 pm
by rickstones
Thank you. You have taught me that it is entirely possible to learn a great deal and yet learn nothing at all. Aside from a couple new vocabulary items that my word processor wouldn't recognize, I'm afraid your post was a bit less than spectacular.

I have heard that the only sure barrier to knowledge is the assumption you already have it. I hope I never lose the ability to learn...

Goodbye and good luck.

Re: Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS

Posted: Jul 31, 2010 5:18 pm
by hackenslash
rickstones";p="381097 wrote:Thank you. You have taught me that it is entirely possible to learn a great deal and yet learn nothing at all.


Exactly my point. Schroeder has learned a great deal and still learned nothing.

Aside from a couple new vocabulary items that my word processor wouldn't recognize,


Awww, is diddums offended by the nasty man's language? Tell somebody who gives a flying fuck.

I'm afraid your post was a bit less than spectacular.


It was off the cuff. I could have spent longer and comprehensively eviscerated the guff you erected, but I'm not well, and I have a sneaking suspicion it wouldn't be read anyway. I could be wrong about that, of course. If you show real interest, I'll be happy to explain why nothing in Einstein's work supports the ridiculous propositions inherent in day-age cretinism.

I have heard that the only sure barrier to knowledge is the assumption you already have it.


Exactly right, which is why Schroeder hasn't learned anything, since he's trying to shoehorn his celestial peeping-tom into science, where it doesn't fit.

I hope I never lose the ability to learn...


A noble aspiration indeed.

Goodbye and good luck.


So, not actually interested then?

Re: Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS

Posted: Jul 31, 2010 6:50 pm
by rickstones
OK, I am interested in understanding better. First, I am sorry to hear your not feeling well. I hope it isn't serious. I'll pray for you.

You can obviously tell that I am not a trained scientist. I hold a B.S. in Mechanical Engineering, and a B.S. in Computer Information Science - so I have been exposed to some level of physics, but it was a long time ago, and I'm afraid I have misplaced most of the tools that I once enjoyed using so much... But, from an interested layman's perspective, here is how this all appears to me:

I understand that one of the most convincing experiments used to validate the time dialation aspect of relativity, is the to compare the wavelength of radiation produced on the sun, with radiation originating in our earthly reference frame. The wave properties of light create the cool situation in which light carries within itself the ability to measure the rate at which time passes in the frame from which it originated. So, because of the gravitational difference between the sun and earth, Einstein's law predicts we should witness a difference in the rate at which time passes to the tune of 2.12 parts per million; roughly 67 seconds per year (obviously slower on the sun). And this is exactly what we witness when we compare sun radiation to earth radiation - a redshift of exactly 2.12 ticks per million. I understand this experiment has been performed thousands of times at hundreds of universities around the world, and is one of the most popular demonstrations of relativity because it seems to facinate goofy laymen such as myself.

So if the CBR, this ubiquitous radiation that literally fills the universe and has no apparent source, is truly a radiation remnant from the big bang creation (I like to think of it as nature's response to the first recorded words of yod-heh-vav-heh, i.e., "Let there be light."), then why wouldn't we have confidence that it also carries within itself the inherent record of the rate at which time passes in the frame from which it originated? Whatever the local gravitational or velocity conditions that caused the clock to tick at a certain rate, the wavelength of the cosmic background radiation captures and records the result of these conditions.

It seems amazingly coincidental to me (a word which the rabbi's tell us is not Kosher by the way) that the ratio of the wavelength's (CBR vs earth radiation) causes 15 billion years in one frame to equal 6 days in the other.

Re: Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS

Posted: Jul 31, 2010 6:53 pm
by Dries van Tonder
rickstones";p="381244 wrote: First, I am sorry to hear your not feeling well. I hope it isn't serious. I'll pray for you.


Any results yet Hack? :smoke: :smoke: :smoke: