The 'just-so' stories of modern "science"

[Jorge]

I read a lot trying to keep up / learn about the latest discoveries (in all fields) and what they may imply. That said, I am soooooooo sick and tired of reading fantasy fairytale 'just-so' stories that modern "scientists" concoct to make their Scared Cow - Evolution - seem "real".

Below is just the latest one that I ran into today - it's almost an hourly occurrence!
If I didn't see these things with my own eyes, I'd think I was being lied to.

The background "scientific" premise (BSP) is simple: Evolution happened - period!
If you doubt the BSP in any way then you're nothing more than a Bible-thumping
ignoramus that finally came down from the mountains this morning.

Okay, with that understanding in mind then, how did color vision in humans Evolve?
Are you ready? Here it comes ...................

"Color vision as we know it resulted from one fortuitous genetic event after another."

[Pssst ... a reminder ... if you doubt / scoff at that then you're a blithering scientific ignoramus]

The "scientific" story continues ...

"In a steamy Eocene jungle, a newborn monkey opens its eyes for the first time. The world it sees is unlike any other known to its primate kin. A smear of red blood shines against a green nest of leaves. Unbeknownst to its mother, this baby is special, and its eyes will shape the human experience tens of millions of years in the future. Were it not for this little monkey and the series of genetic events that created it, we might not have the color vision we do: Monet’s palette would be flattened; the ripeness of a raspberry would be hidden among the leaves; traffic lights? They likely would never have been invented."

To read the rest of this colorful (pun intended) story, go here. But first pop-up some popcorn, dim the lights and maybe have some soft music playing in the background. Bwahahahahaha!!!

http://www.the-scientist.com//?artic...ow-Connection/


That we have color vision is a given. The Alice-In-Wonderland Fantasy story that these "scientists" weave is NOT a given - it is nothing more than a fantastic concoction stemming from the BSP. It's all pure imagination after that.

Then it gets published in Science - giving it an air of "scientific respectability" - and we all know what happens after that.

Pity those that swallow such unadulterated BS nonsense as "science"!

Jorge

[HMS_Beagle]

The background "scientific" premise (BSP) is simple: Evolution happened - period!

That's not a premise . It's a conclusion based on 150+ years of positive consilient evidence from hundreds of different scientific disciplines.

Not surprising you're still too dimwitted to get it.

[rogue06]

That's not a premise . It's a conclusion based on 150+ years of positive consilient evidence from hundreds of different scientific disciplines.

Not surprising you're still too dimwitted to get it.

Yeah, its sort of like working from the premise that the moon is smaller than the earth and that the earth is smaller than the sun. Once the evidence has steadily accumulated in support of something for decade after decade after decade scientists tend to start taking it for granted until something arises that calls it into question.

What Jorge closes his eyes to is that evolutionary theory is one of the most robustly supported theories in any field of science. Much like the varying sizes of the moon, earth and sun it is no longer in question whether or not evolution takes place. Now the only real issue is what mechanisms cause it to take place.

This why even the primary YEC groups continue to abandon position after position and reluctantly acknowledge that species are not distinctly and divinely created but rather that speciation does indeed take place. Similarly they are in the process of admitting that natural selection and beneficial mutations are real.

[phank]

As I understand it, somewhere along the line mammals lost two of the four diopsins that react to color, which are retained today by birds, reptiles and teleost fish. Subsequently mutations reclaimed a third diopsin, so humans have trichromatic vision. We can see more colors than dogs, but probably fewer colors than marsupials.

[The Pixie]

Pigeons and butterflies are believed to have five primary colours, whilst the mantis shrimp has sixteen! Makes our eyes look distinctly down-market.

[Roy]

As I understand it, somewhere along the line mammals lost two of the four diopsins that react to color, which are retained today by birds, reptiles and teleost fish. Subsequently mutations reclaimed a third diopsin, so humans have trichromatic vision. We can see more colors than dogs, but probably fewer colors than marsupials.

Not necessarily - I would hypothesize that mammals' vision diminished during the Triassic and Jurassic when most mammals were probably nocturnal.

Anyway, don't some humans have tetrachromatic vision, since there are two variants of red diopsins and a person can inherit one from each parent?

Roy

[klaus54]

Question for those familiar with Fundy Jorgian/Mr. Blackian YECs:

What is their definition of a "Just-So Story"?

To me it appears anything investigated and supported by scientific method that disagrees with a particular narrow historical-grammatical interpretation of Scripture. And this is even to the point of "Mr." Black rejecting any methodology that leads to contradictions to his Fisher-Price-My-First-Nursery-Bible interpretation, and that INCLUDES methodology that works superbly in all other cases.

Am I on the right track?

Oh, and as far as a "Just-So Story" goes, isn't the Fundy YEC version of Creation when the term "scientific" is applied to it, a wildly appropriate example of a "Just-So Story"?

IMHO, that's a fact-Fact-FACT!!!

K54

[Truthseeker]

Jorge, it seems to me that if you want most of the readers of Natural Science 101 to take this thread's OP seriously, you need to come up with a complete set of detailed reasons (methodological naturalism, natch) why color vision could not have developed as theorized in Science.

[Jorge]

That's not a premise . It's a conclusion based on 150+ years of positive consilient evidence from hundreds of different scientific disciplines.

Not surprising you're still too dimwitted to get it.

"Pity those that swallow such unadulterated BS nonsense as "science"!"

Needless to say, Beagle Boy IS one of those 'swallowers' to be pitied.

Jorge

[Jorge]

Yeah, its sort of like working from the premise that the moon is smaller than the earth and that the earth is smaller than the sun.

The MASTER Straw Man Manufacturer strikes yet again!!!

Jorge

[Jorge]

Pigeons and butterflies are believed to have five primary colours, whilst the mantis shrimp has sixteen! Makes our eyes look distinctly down-market.

Yup ... and I'm quite sure that Evolutionists are able to fabricate an
Evolutionary "explanation" for each and every one of those occurrences.

Jorge

[Jorge]

Jorge, it seems to me that if you want most of the readers of Natural Science 101 to take this thread's OP seriously, you need to come up with a complete set of detailed reasons (methodological naturalism, natch) why color vision could not have developed as theorized in Science.

First, in context what does this mean: "(methodological naturalism, natch)" ?

Second, my point was about the endless stream of just-so stories concocted for the sole purpose of promoting Evolutionism. There is absolutely NO empirically-based foundation for those stories. They all stem from what John Sanford calls the Primary Axiom, and I refer to it (in the OP) as the BSP: Evolution happened - period!

Once a person accepts the BSP then ANY just-so story that aligns itself with Evolution becomes plausible and "scientific". Now, if you wish to call that "science" then be my guest - it's still a free country. But don't try to recruit me into your foolishness.

Third and last, you should know better than to ask me to try to prove a negative.
Review your notes from Basic Logic 101 and try again.

Jorge

[klaus54]

So, Jorge -- lemme get this straight:

A "Just-so" story is an explanation, no matter how concordant with consilient evidence, that disagrees with your non-explanation of phenomena you can't explain?

Am I on the right track?

K54

[oxmixmudd]

I read a lot trying to keep up / learn about the latest discoveries (in all fields) and what they may imply. That said, I am soooooooo sick and tired of reading fantasy fairytale 'just-so' stories that modern "scientists" concoct to make their Scared Cow - Evolution - seem "real".

Below is just the latest one that I ran into today - it's almost an hourly occurrence!
If I didn't see these things with my own eyes, I'd think I was being lied to.

The background "scientific" premise (BSP) is simple: Evolution happened - period!
If you doubt the BSP in any way then you're nothing more than a Bible-thumping
ignoramus that finally came down from the mountains this morning.

Okay, with that understanding in mind then, how did color vision in humans Evolve?
Are you ready? Here it comes ...................

"Color vision as we know it resulted from one fortuitous genetic event after another."

[Pssst ... a reminder ... if you doubt / scoff at that then you're a blithering scientific ignoramus]

The "scientific" story continues ...

"In a steamy Eocene jungle, a newborn monkey opens its eyes for the first time. The world it sees is unlike any other known to its primate kin. A smear of red blood shines against a green nest of leaves. Unbeknownst to its mother, this baby is special, and its eyes will shape the human experience tens of millions of years in the future. Were it not for this little monkey and the series of genetic events that created it, we might not have the color vision we do: Monet’s palette would be flattened; the ripeness of a raspberry would be hidden among the leaves; traffic lights? They likely would never have been invented."

To read the rest of this colorful (pun intended) story, go here. But first pop-up some popcorn, dim the lights and maybe have some soft music playing in the background. Bwahahahahaha!!!

http://www.the-scientist.com//?artic...ow-Connection/


That we have color vision is a given. The Alice-In-Wonderland Fantasy story that these "scientists" weave is NOT a given - it is nothing more than a fantastic concoction stemming from the BSP. It's all pure imagination after that.

Then it gets published in Science - giving it an air of "scientific respectability" - and we all know what happens after that.

Pity those that swallow such unadulterated BS nonsense as "science"!

Jorge

The Narrative you quote is in fact a story, a made up accounting of how it might have been.

But what of this:

Source: the article above

uch a profound expansion of our visual experience actually required very minor genetic alteration. In 1991, Neitz, working with his wife Maureen and their postdoc advisor Jerry Jacobs of the University of California, Santa Barbara, demonstrated that just three amino acid substitutions account for the 30 nm difference in peak absorption between the modern-day red and green cones in humans, with each change shifting the photopigment’s color spectrum by 5 nm to 15 nm.1 “It’s absolutely stunning,” says Jacobs. “A single nucleotide change can change your color vision.” (See illustration below.) Yet, despite this simplicity, the evolutionary circumstances that allowed our primate ancestors to adopt trichromacy—the three-cone system that gives humans and some other primates the ability to see the world in full-spectrum color—are remarkably intricate.

© Copyright Original Source

The point is that this kind of change is, in fact, quite simple, not limited in any way by the laws of physics or chemistry, and entirely LIKELY to have occurred given the genetic and physical evidence. So how then is THAT a 'just-so' story?



Jim

[Roy]

"Pity those that swallow such unadulterated BS nonsense as "science"!"

Needless to say, Beagle Boy IS one of those 'swallowers' to be pitied.

I you have anything to demonstrate that the article is BS, present it. Otherwise you're just defecating upwind as usual.

Roy