Announcement

Collapse

Natural Science 301 Guidelines

This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.

As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

For Jorge, how “just so stories” become testable scientific theories.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • For Jorge, how “just so stories” become testable scientific theories.

    Gidday Jorge,




    It appears to be so at this link, that you believe that modern science is little more than scientists sitting around making up stories which they then print in publications for popular consumption.



    Which is a completely odd-ball way of thinking.



    At this link, you begin to get an idea as to how real scientists take ideas and begin to test them:-



    Evolution of colour vision in mammals

    These guys (who may well be Christian) are waaaaaaay ahead of creation scientists, aren’t they.

    If the creation scientists really had something on offer, then surely they would have educated you far better than what you display. For example, consider your response here to some real science I had reported on concerning the origin of denovo genes in the “junk” regions of DNA. I described to you what the researchers did and why they did it. You could have attacked that, and explained why you felt that the methodology was wrong. But oh noooo. All you did was rant, impute to me a few odd feelings and that was all.

    

Creation science at its finest????
    Last edited by rwatts; 10-05-2014, 08:12 PM.

  • #2
    Originally posted by rwatts View Post
    You could have attacked that, and explained why you felt that the methodology was wrong.
    Do you say this with a straight face?

    Comment


    • #3
      Apparently the distinction between a scientific theory and a "Just-So" Story in Fundy-YECspeak is analogous to that between microevolution (or "lowercase e evolution") and macroevolution (or "uppercase E Evolution").

      The precise distinction is fluid. It depends on the particular YEC*.

      In other words, it's fruitless to ask.

      But we can always hope beyond hope...

      K54

      * "Mr." Black goes so far as to claim that the regularities of nature on which scientific method is based change when necessary in order to preserve a Fisher-Price "My First Picture Bible" interpretation. "Non-methodological Supernaturalism" is the term I coined for this philosophy.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by phank View Post
        Do you say this with a straight face?
        Yep.

        (My face was in a 1 inch thick, stainless steel brace.)

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by klaus54 View Post
          Apparently the distinction between a scientific theory and a "Just-So" Story in Fundy-YECspeak is analogous to that between microevolution (or "lowercase e evolution") and macroevolution (or "uppercase E Evolution").

          The precise distinction is fluid. It depends on the particular YEC*.

          In other words, it's fruitless to ask.

          But we can always hope beyond hope...

          K54

          * "Mr." Black goes so far as to claim that the regularities of nature on which scientific method is based change when necessary in order to preserve a Fisher-Price "My First Picture Bible" interpretation. "Non-methodological Supernaturalism" is the term I coined for this philosophy.
          Oh, I'm a masochist at heart. I think Jorge sounds quite sexy when he rants.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by rwatts View Post
            Oh, I'm a masochist at heart. I think Jorge sounds quite sexy when he rants.
            By now you should realize that his heart belongs solely to Eugenie Scott.

            Jorge likes to play hard to get though.

            I'm always still in trouble again

            "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
            "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by klaus54 View Post
              Apparently the distinction between a scientific theory and a "Just-So" Story in Fundy-YECspeak is analogous to that between microevolution (or "lowercase e evolution") and macroevolution (or "uppercase E Evolution").

              The precise distinction is fluid. It depends on the particular YEC*.

              In other words, it's fruitless to ask.

              But we can always hope beyond hope...

              K54

              * "Mr." Black goes so far as to claim that the regularities of nature on which scientific method is based change when necessary in order to preserve a Fisher-Price "My First Picture Bible" interpretation. "Non-methodological Supernaturalism" is the term I coined for this philosophy.
              Well, what if the burning bush was a bush over a volcanic vent burning but not being completely consumed? Does not make the Exodus account false.

              The Sun becoming a star on the first day, and the solar wind making the Sun, Moon and stars visible on the fourth day does not make the 6 day creation account false.
              Last edited by 37818; 10-07-2014, 01:41 AM.
              . . . the Gospel of Christ, for it is [the] power of God to salvation to every [one] believing, . . . -- Romans 1:16.

              . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3, 4.

              Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                The Sun becoming a star on the first day, and the solar wind making the Sun, Moon and stars visible on the fourth day does not make the 6 day creation account false.
                Why would the solar wind make the Sun, moon and stars visible, a few days after the sun was created? Why do the other stars need the sun to make them visible?

                Comment


                • #9
                  Anotheree for you Jorge:-

                  Modular Evolution of DNA-Binding Preference of a Tbrain Transcription Factor Provides a Mechanism for Modifying Gene Regulatory Networks


                  Originally posted by link above
                  Abstract
                  Gene regulatory networks (GRNs) describe the progression of transcriptional states that take a single-celled zygote to a multicellular organism. It is well documented that GRNs can evolve extensively through mutations to cis-regulatory modules (CRMs). Transcription factor proteins that bind these CRMs may also evolve to produce novelty. Coding changes are considered to be rarer, however, because transcription factors are multifunctional and hence are more constrained to evolve in ways that will not produce widespread detrimental effects. Recent technological advances have unearthed a surprising variation in DNA-binding abilities, such that individual transcription factors may recognize both a preferred primary motif and an additional secondary motif. This provides a source of modularity in function. Here, we demonstrate that orthologous transcription factors can also evolve a changed preference for a secondary binding motif, thereby offering an unexplored mechanism for GRN evolution. Using protein-binding microarray, surface plasmon resonance, and in vivo reporter assays, we demonstrate an important difference in DNA-binding preference between Tbrain protein orthologs in two species of echinoderms, the sea star, Patiria miniata, and the sea urchin, Strongylocentrotus purpuratus. Although both orthologs recognize the same primary motif, only the sea star Tbr also has a secondary binding motif. Our in vivo assays demonstrate that this difference may allow for greater evolutionary change in timing of regulatory control. This uncovers a layer of transcription factor binding divergence that could exist for many pairs of orthologs. We hypothesize that this divergence provides modularity that allows orthologous transcription factors to evolve novel roles in GRNs through modification of binding to secondary sites.

                  [Lots of science (observations, testing, arguments, data) snipped out]

                  Conclusion
                  It is often assumed that transcription factors are under an enormous amount of evolutionary constraint because they regulate large numbers of target genes. Presumably, these targets are essential to the organism and must be maintained by all orthologs that arise by speciation. However, if these target genes are subdivided into groups based on the binding sites they are regulated by, then there are fewer genes affected by changes in binding preference. This reduces pleiotropy, because a loss of ability to use a secondary site would affect only a subset of target genes, whereas others would be regulated normally (fig. 6). SpTbr should be able to maintain developmental functions associated with the primary site, yet its reduced ability to utilize a secondary site may have led to evolutionary differences in cell patterning and specification between these species. This modification in function between orthologs will not only lead to a dramatic loss or gain of target genes but also offers a mechanism to affect timing control of gene regulation. Change in relative order or timing of developmental events can be acquired by evolving higher or lower affinity for a secondary binding site. We hypothesize that this newfound source of modularity in orthologous transcription factors offers a previously overlooked source of GRN evolutionary change.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                    Well, what if the burning bush was a bush over a volcanic vent burning but not being completely consumed? Does not make the Exodus account false.

                    The Sun becoming a star on the first day, and the solar wind making the Sun, Moon and stars visible on the fourth day does not make the 6 day creation account false.
                    Huh?

                    Some folks jus' be on a higher plane den me.

                    K54

                    P.S. In your final paragraph do I detect yet another interpretation of the "plain straightforward simple-even-to-a-child direct literal" reading of the first Genesis story?

                    The solar wind made the Sun, Moon, and stars visible on Day Four. Totally cool, Man.

                    P.P.S. Now apply your "burning bush over a volcanic vent" to angular unconformities and the Appalachian cyclothems and the Kirkwood Gaps - then you and Blackie can have a great start on your epistemology of Non-Methodological Supernaturalism.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by klaus54 View Post
                      Huh?

                      Some folks jus' be on a higher plane den me.

                      K54

                      P.S. In your final paragraph do I detect yet another interpretation of the "plain straightforward simple-even-to-a-child direct literal" reading of the first Genesis story?

                      The solar wind made the Sun, Moon, and stars visible on Day Four. Totally cool, Man.
                      The mean velocity of the solar wind is about 500 Km per second. The Earth about 93 million miles from the Sun. Calc's out to about 3.46 days. On the fourth day.
                      P.P.S. Now apply your "burning bush over a volcanic vent" to angular unconformities and the Appalachian cyclothems and the Kirkwood Gaps - then you and Blackie can have a great start on your epistemology of Non-Methodological Supernaturalism.
                      I'm open to that burning bush explanation, not that I hold to it. see: http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=99580
                      . . . the Gospel of Christ, for it is [the] power of God to salvation to every [one] believing, . . . -- Romans 1:16.

                      . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3, 4.

                      Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                        The mean velocity of the solar wind is about 500 Km per second. The Earth about 93 million miles from the Sun. Calc's out to about 3.46 days. On the fourth day.
                        I'm open to that burning bush explanation, not that I hold to it. see: http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=99580
                        You should write that up for AiG or Creation News.

                        Nothing like a new interpretation of an ANE story which requires no interpretation.

                        Too bad Hank Morris isn't around to hear that one.

                        Hey, you must be talking about the T-Tauri phase of solar evolution?

                        Methinks it takes longer than 4 days to clear out all that gas and junk.

                        But, a noble effort nonetheless.

                        Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T_Tauri_star


                        Circumstellar discs are estimated to dissipate on timescales of up to 10 million years.

                        © Copyright Original Source



                        K54

                        P.S. I repeat myself here, but I find it so amusing that a plain-straightforward-simple-even-to-a-child-plain "reading" of a short ANE story requires so much diverse and contradictory interpretation.



                        Schadenfreude....
                        Last edited by klaus54; 10-09-2014, 10:53 PM. Reason: inevitable missing words and typos

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by klaus54 View Post
                          You should write that up for AiG or Creation News.

                          Nothing like a new interpretation of an ANE story which requires no interpretation.

                          Too bad Hank Morris isn't around to hear that one.

                          Hey, you must be talking about the T-Tauri phase of solar evolution?

                          Methinks it takes longer than 4 days to clear out all that gas and junk.

                          But, a noble effort nonetheless.

                          Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T_Tauri_star


                          Circumstellar discs are estimated to dissipate on timescales of up to 10 million years.

                          © Copyright Original Source



                          K54

                          P.S. I repeat myself here, but I find it so amusing that a plain-straightforward-simple-even-to-a-child-plain "reading" of a short ANE story requires so much diverse and contradictory interpretation.



                          Schadenfreude....
                          We were not there. We have a story account. And the current solar wind even at the mean velocity and current particle density might take 10 million years.

                          Source: http://www.astronomy-education.com/index.php?page=86

                          The spinning disk of dust and gas from which the Sun and solar system formed is called the solar nebula. A million years after it started forming, the embryonic Sun probably went through a phase, called a T-Tauri phase, where it emitted an intense solar wind. This 'wind' of solar particles may have had an important role in modifying young planetary surfaces.

                          © Copyright Original Source

                          Last edited by 37818; 10-12-2014, 12:51 AM.
                          . . . the Gospel of Christ, for it is [the] power of God to salvation to every [one] believing, . . . -- Romans 1:16.

                          . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3, 4.

                          Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            The "Wuz you dere, Charley" defense.

                            Gotta love it.

                            I'll discuss that with my Forensic Entomologist colleague.

                            K54

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by klaus54 View Post
                              The "Wuz you dere, Charley" defense.
                              It's a goodie to ask creationists if:-

                              1) They were there to see that God had a hand in the writing of any part of Genesis.

                              2) They were there to see that whoever wrote those texts was recording anything that actually happened and if so, did so with accuracy.

                              3) They were there to see fossils actually forming from real live animals that died, got buried by sediment which then turned into rock. There are other interpretations - God put the patterns in the rocks to test our faith. The devil put them their to deceive us. Same data, different interpretation.

                              In fact, for all three points, the events all happened in the unrepeatable past, and so any one interpretation is as good as any other.

                              I do just love using creationist arguments against creationists.

                              Comment

                              Related Threads

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by shunyadragon, Yesterday, 09:08 PM
                              0 responses
                              5 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post shunyadragon  
                              Started by lee_merrill, Yesterday, 06:43 PM
                              2 responses
                              10 views
                              1 like
                              Last Post shunyadragon  
                              Started by Juvenal, 11-30-2020, 04:47 PM
                              3 responses
                              42 views
                              1 like
                              Last Post Terraceth  
                              Started by rogue06, 11-28-2020, 12:54 PM
                              4 responses
                              37 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post shunyadragon  
                              Started by shunyadragon, 11-26-2020, 09:46 PM
                              0 responses
                              12 views
                              1 like
                              Last Post shunyadragon  
                              Working...
                              X