Real Science Friday with a University of Cal Prof. of Ophthalmology

[The Barbarian]

Those layers are annual when you need them annual and tidal when you need them tidal.

Nope. Stipe here is trying to conflate tidal rhythmites (which we can still watch forming daily) and lake varves, which we can still watch forming annually, two contrasting layers at a time). If pressed he might also call river lamina (which form irregularly) "varves" as well.

But the stopper for that is we can still watch them forming and so know how they form.

I think someone has already shown that to Stipe. I'm pretty sure he knows. But it seems he's hoping others won't know.

 

[Stripe]

So what are they? Evidence? And what do you make of the varve studies of Scandinavian lakes, for example Varved Lake Sediments in Southern and Central Finland: Long Varve Chronologies as a Basis for Holocene Palaeoenvironmental Reconstructions by Antti Ojala (http://arkisto.gtk.fi/ej/ej41.pdf) and Holocene sedimentary history of annual laminations of Lake Korttajärvi, central Finland by Mia Tiljander (http://ethesis.helsinki.fi/julkaisut/mat/geolo/vk/tiljander/) Are these varves neither annual nor tidal, what then are they and what evidence supports your conclusion?

Demanding little blighter, ain't he? :chuckle:

 

[Lordkalvan]

Demanding little blighter, ain't he? :chuckle:

Nope, just curious to see whether you have anything in the way of reasoned argument to offer. Of course, if you continue to prefer channelling Professor Toddles, we will understand....

 

[Frayed Knot]

Those layers are annual when you need them annual and tidal when you need them tidal.

Funny thing is, they are neither. :chuckle:

Isn't it amazaing, though, that the dates you get from counting the layers as annual, and the dates you get from the known decay rate of C14, converge to the same answer? If they look at a layer that's 20,000 down, the amount of C14 corresponds very very closely to what we expect in something that died 20,000 years ago?

If these layers were put there some other way, how could the C14 dates match?

 

[Stripe]

Isn't it amazaing, though, that the dates you get from counting the layers as annual, and the dates you get from the known decay rate of C14, converge to the same answer?

Both explanations rely on the same assumptions of uniformitarianism and deep time.

So, nope.

If they look at a layer that's 20,000 down, the amount of C14 corresponds very very closely to what we expect in something that died 20,000 years ago?

Because the 20,000th layer corresponds with the C12/14 ratio of the time.

If these layers were put there some other way, how could the C14 dates match?

What you call years is something else. :idunno:

 

[The Barbarian]

That's the key, Stipe. You see, we can still watch them forming. They form twice a year, one light and one dark layer, with seasonal pollen deposits, indicating the time of year.

The classic varve archetype is a light / dark coloured couplet deposited in a glacial lake. The light layer usually comprises a coarser laminaset of silt and fine sand deposited under higher energy conditions when meltwater introduces sediment load into the lake water. During winter months, when meltwater and associated suspended sediment input is reduced, and often when the lake surface freezes, fine clay-size sediment is deposited forming a dark coloured laminaset.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varve

So, if you want to establish that they aren't annual, you'll first have to explain the pollen distribution that shows they are. Then you'll have to explain how the varves used to be non-annual, and then seamlessly converted to annual, just when we showed up to observe them.

Tell us about it, Stipe.

 

[Frayed Knot]

And then after he explains how those layers can be made multiple times per year, he would then need to explain how The C14 in the older layers exactly match the decay that we would expect based on a one-layer-per-year model.

Just as those non-annual layers seamlessly converted to be annual, just when we showed up to observe them, the decay rate of C14 has also astonishingly slowed down just when we showed up to observe it.

 

[Stripe]

And then after he explains how those layers can be made multiple times per year, he would then need to explain how The C14 in the older layers exactly match the decay that we would expect based on a one-layer-per-year model. Just as those non-annual layers seamlessly converted to be annual, just when we showed up to observe them, the decay rate of C14 has also astonishingly slowed down just when we showed up to observe it.

I doubt, very much, that the numbers match as seamlessly as you say. But we aren't likely to be able to see any raw data so I can't back up any ideas I might want to explain very well.

 

[Stripe]

But never mind our lack of numbers. The idea that these banded deposits formed in a lake is easily shown false.

For Lake Suigetsu, how thick is the sequence? 200m?

 

[The Barbarian]

But never mind our lack of numbers. The idea that these banded deposits formed in a lake is easily shown false.

In fact, such deposits only form in very stable circumstances, where there isn't enough turbulence in the water to disturb the lamina being formed. But let's see what you've got.

For Lake Suigetsu, how thick is the sequence? 200m?

About 46 meters. Below that, the lake went through a period when it wasn't deep enough to have an anoxic environment at the bottom. So no varves there.

Learn more about it here:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277379110004440

 

[Lon]

* Gary's "Good Christians": Dr. Aguilar recognizes that there are many Christians who believe like he does on many topics, [including legalizing cocaine,] belief in Darwinism, and holding an anti-Israel foreign policy. So, when he says, "good Christian," as he does often, one might think that he was referring to these Christians whom he agrees with. However, Gary never does that. He only uses the phrase "good Christian" when he refers to someone called a Christian who murdered, plundered, raped, etc. Then at about 50 minutes in, Gary, upset at Bob for opposing the decriminalization of heroin, crack, etc., said of Bob and of people like him, "You need to be set aside." About 50:30 into the show, Bob asks Gary if it is possible that his anger toward Christians causes him to be biased to automatically agree with Darwinists about evolution. He emphatically denied this: "I give no thought whatsoever to evolution or Darwinism." So, if Gary doesn't think about evolution, yet believes in it unequivocally, even to defending it's strongly refuted arguments (like the backwardly-wired eye), there must be something that is biasing him in that direction. It just seems that his passionate anger toward Christians might be the source of his bias.

He seemed to use "good Christians" in an increasingly derogatory manner
very enthusiastically, like he was on something. Caffeine perhaps? What was he advocating again? :think:

I'm not sure I agree that "good Christians" would support legalized recreational drugs and I'm not sure using said items could change that particular perception :think:

Good Christians, or anybody really, would wonder...

 

[Granite]

"It's complicated, so God did it."

 

[Lordkalvan]

I doubt, very much, that the numbers match as seamlessly as you say. But we aren't likely to be able to see any raw data so I can't back up any ideas I might want to explain very well.

What sort of 'raw data' would be of value to you? This site has palaeolimnological and palaeoclimate data online from around the world:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/paleolim/paleolim_data.html

Surely there's something here you can use to 'back up any ideas' you 'might want to explain'?

 

[The Barbarian]

I doubt, very much, that the numbers match as seamlessly as you say. But we aren't likely to be able to see any raw data so I can't back up any ideas I might want to explain very well.

Left you to a link at the journal. You should be able to contact the author for the raw data. Concerning the fit of C-14 to the varves...

The data from this lake and other sources is usable to calibrate the C-14 dating process. Fact is, small variations in radiation from the sun can cause very small variations in the amount of C-14 produced at any given point. The lake (and other data) is used to make the method more precise. But note that the curve shows a very good fit as it was.
http://www.accuracyingenesis.com/pe05l.gif

 

[Stripe]

What sort of 'raw data' would be of value to you?

C14/12 count for layer according to depth. :thumb:

 

[Lordkalvan]

C14/12 count for layer according to depth. :thumb:

Some of the data sets include such information. The papers I referred you to earlier also referenced such data.

Apart from that, what is your explanation for varves and what evidence supports it? And what do you make of those varve studies of Scandinavian lakes I gave you links to? Are these varves neither annual nor tidal, if not what then are they and what evidence supports your conclusion?

 

[radd76]

The Evolution of a Lego

The Evolution of a Lego

Barbarian asks:
So you're telling us that you can show the structure in these penguins was not formed naturally?
'

Sure it formed naturally, we just disagree on how. It had a mother and a father didn't it. sheesh. I hope you can have some better questions in the future.

It's like me saying I evolved an arm because I have carbon in it. Sure it "contains" carbon but without the information you have nothing. It's intelligence and coding and that's the reality... it's not solely physical.

So, like all evolution, the feature was produced by modifying something already present. Thank you.

Yeah but we are interested in going from one feature to the next not what it's made of.

Sure I could get my kid's Legos in a million different shapes but nothing interesting would happen in and of itself.

So it's like saying a Lego with 2 posts and a Lego with 10 posts got that way because they are both made of... polypropylene. And then there are two different structures built with sets (say a spaceship and a farmyard) and I ask how did they get that way? polypropylene. Kinda asinine. You and Darwin need to get up to the 21st century. Oh You're Welcome.

Barbarian suggests:
Which is all that's needed. Show me any necessary step from the simplest organism to the most complex, that can't happen by natural means.

Without the information originally encoded I don't believe any can, no. You can wad up a ball of play dough and come back in a billion years and it's not going to be a pet. And I just gave your "pet" a head start on LUCA. I believe this proves Darwin had a pet rock.

Yep. As you just learned, beta-keratin already exists in bird feathers. So it was modified to form a new feature. So can you answer the question?

The article stated it had beta-keratin in it so don't act like you are stating something you and I didn't know.

How'd these Legos get together to form a feature of a specific shape. Ummm PP. Guess I shouldn't have expected too much when I sent you the article. Congrats you figured out the article was about feathers. I wish we could get the scientists on the phone and explain the arrangement of 180 nano meter fibers and let Barbarian answer: beta-keratin like he showed them something new.

No toolbox needed. Just living things. If you want to believe that God poofed them into existence instead of the earth bringing them forth as Genesis says, it makes no difference to evolutionary theory.

The process was supernatural... then natural. nuff said. I don't care if you and Darwin still want to believe in the nano-fairy bringing you spaghetti strands for your penguins that's up to you two.

 

[The Barbarian]

Sure it formed naturally, we just disagree on how. It had a mother and a father didn't it.

That's the sort of thing that tangles creationists up. Evolution doesn't happen to an individual. It's a change in a population.

I hope you can have some better questions in the future.

I'm guessing that your penguin color story didn't play the way you wanted. I asked:

Show me any necessary step from the simplest organism to the most complex, that can't happen by natural means.

And you offered your penguin story. Now you're admitting that it does happen naturally.

sheesh.

Yep.

It's like me saying I evolved an arm because I have carbon in it.

See above. This is why you guys get so frustrated over evolution. You have no idea what it is, so you're just swinging your arms in the dark.

Sure it "contains" carbon but without the information you have nothing.

Perhaps you don't know what "information" is. Just so we know we're on the same page, how about telling us how to measure genetic inforamation in population? If you don't know, I'll explain it, and then we can go on. Fair?

It's intelligence and coding and that's the reality... it's not solely physical.

Tell us about it, and the math involved in determining it, and we'll talk about it.

Barbarian observes:
So, like all evolution, the feature was produced by modifying something already present. Thank you.

Yeah but we are interested in going from one feature to the next not what it's made of.

It's not that complex. An 8th grader could get it.

Sure I could get my kid's Legos in a million different shapes but nothing interesting would happen in and of itself.

And yet, some random mutations, filtered through natural selection, can produce useful new features. Can you see why?

So it's like saying a Lego with 2 posts and a Lego with 10 posts got that way because they are both made of... polypropylene.

No. You've got to get past that misconception. It's like a creationist once told me that humans were mostly water and clouds are mostly water, so science says humans and clouds are the same thing. He wasn't stupid, just ignorant.

And then there are two different structures built with sets (say a spaceship and a farmyard) and I ask how did they get that way? polypropylene. Kinda asinine.

I think "ignorant" is a better term. You guys just don't realize that it's not about materials. It's about a change in genes.

You and Darwin need to get up to the 21st century.

Darwin didn't have a clue as to the biochemical mechanism. He merely realized that it was happening and why. It wasn't until Mendel's work was rediscovered in the 20th century that scientists understood why Darwinian evolution worked. It was a major criticism of Darwin's work that he couldn't explain how a new feature wouldn't be swamped like a drop of white paint in a barrel of red. Mendel figured out why. And the general acceptance of Darwinian evolution is the result of that rediscovery.

Oh You're Welcome.

Any time. Check it out, and learn. If you want to learn about information in biological systems, you might want to start by learning about Claude Shannon's equations. Among other things, it explains how to pack the maximum amount of information in channel, how to communicate reliably from a tiny transmitter millions of kilometers away, and how information changes in populations.

We can go from there.

Barbarian suggests:
Which is all that's needed. Show me any necessary step from the simplest organism to the most complex, that can't happen by natural means.

Without the information originally encoded I don't believe any can, no.

Beliefs are fine for religion, but you have to go with facts in science. As you know, science doesn't say that God didn't just poof the first organisms into place. So you can start there, if God's word isn't good enough for you (He says the earth brought them forth). Show me any necessary step from the simplest organism to the most complex, that can't happen by natural means.

You can wad up a ball of play dough and come back in a billion years and it's not going to be a pet.

Let's stick to you showing me any any necessary step from the simplest organism to the most complex, that can't happen by natural means.

Barbarian observes:
Yep. As you just learned, beta-keratin already exists in bird feathers. So it was modified to form a new feature. So can you answer the question?

The article stated it had beta-keratin in it so don't act like you are stating something you and I didn't know.

So why bother denying it? If you now think that was a bad choice for you, show us something else in an organism you think can't have evolved.

How'd these Legos get together to form a feature of a specific shape. Ummm PP. Guess I shouldn't have expected too much when I sent you the article. Congrats you figured out the article was about feathers. I wish we could get the scientists on the phone and explain the arrangement of 180 nano meter fibers and let Barbarian answer: beta-keratin like he showed them something new.

I'd be pleased to see your argument that it can't form by natural selection. What do you have?

Barbarian obeserves:
Originally Posted by The Barbarian View Post
No toolbox needed. Just living things. If you want to believe that God poofed them into existence instead of the earth bringing them forth as Genesis says, it makes no difference to evolutionary theory.

The process was supernatural... then natural. nuff said.

For a new religion, yes. In science, you need evidence. It's a tough game, but it works really well.

I don't care if you and Darwin still want to believe in the nano-fairy bringing you spaghetti strands for your penguins

You're back to the same problem; you don't know what evolution is. And it makes you totally ineffective in talking about it. First thing you should do, if you need the Quick Start instructions, is learn the four basic claims of Darwinian theory. Then you might be better equipped to fight it.

Just a thought...