Crackpot Challenge Part 2 - Evolution

[Orogeny]

If you and the above try and undermine mechanics of sediment formation as observed by the research of Guy Berthault (BG) than you must also try and undermine the research of the following scientists who agree with GB’s observations regarding the rapid deposition of sediments; some of this research preceded GB’s and others followed: For starters you must belittle the observations of the German, J. Walthur’s coring in the Bay of Naples in his 1894 publication whom GB referenced in his main paper of 1993 on flume studies.

Ah, Hugh. You are so right. It is amazing that geologist have ignored that groundbreaking study that was published 115 years ago! Must be part of that athiest conspiracy!

1894 - Strata is NOT a function of time in flowing water from rivers into bay areas; the top strata may be younger than the bottom strata deposited much earlier thereby challenging Stenno and Lyell’s assumptions that the top strata is “always” older than the strata below:
-Walthur, J. 1894. Eintleitung in die Geologie und Historische Wissenschaft, Gustav Fisher Verlag, Jena , Germany.

He was wrong. Unless you can show me a mechanism where the older strata is lifted up so that younger sediment can be deposited, what you are claiming is not possible. You do understand, right, that the older strata had to be deposited on something.

1967 - Catastrophic deposition of mud in flowing water of a river [after a major storm that killed several campers] segregate based upon particle size and density with McKee et al. observing distinct strata formation as others have observed in lab and flume studies. GB observed similar phenomena.
-McKee E.D. and E.J. Crosby. (1967). Flood deposits, Bijou Creek, Colorado, June 1965, Journal Sedimentary Petrolology 37: 829-851.

And how, exactly, does that support Berthault’s erroneous interpretation that younger sediments are depostited beneath older sediments?

1980 - Observations by all visiting scientists that the mud flows of Mt. St. Helens volcanic explosions 0f 1980, and resulting mudflows, look amazing like they took 1000’s of years to form instead of hours [Gosh, a major revelation to traditional geologists as many fine laminations as I recall watching on TV and reading about this catastrophe].

And how, exactly, does that support Berthault’s erroneous interpretation that younger sediments are depostited beneath older sediments?

By the way, no geologist who has studied sedimentology and stratigraphy would have said that the deposits laid down during the St. Helens eruption looked like they took 1000’s of years to form. Geologists can tell the difference between an pyroclastic deposit and, say, a lacustrine deposit.

1993 - Flume studies at the University of Colorado established the mechanics of adjusting flow rates of water that carried sand sediments.
-Julien, Pierre Y., Yongqiang Lan, and Guy Berthault. 1993. Experiments on stratification of heterogeneous sand mixtures, Bulletin de la Société Géologique de France, 164(5):649-660.

Ah, yes, the experiment. This is actually interesting because the experiment was a valid, well conducted experiment. Unfortunately for Messr. Berthault the real scientist, Dr. Julien, does not agree that the experiment shows younger strata forming beneath older strata. I know. I asked him.

By the way, get your citation right. The experiment was conducted at Colorado State University, not the University of Colorado.

1997 - Laborataory studies confirmed again GB’s studies
Fineberg, Jay. Nature, vol. 386: 323-324, 27 March 1997, “From Cinderella’s dilemma to rock slides”

And how, exactly, does that support Berthault’s erroneous interpretation that younger sediments are depostited beneath older sediments?

(continued in next post)

Peace

Tim

 

[Orogeny]

(continued)

1997 - Laboratory studies confirmed GB’s previous lab observations of the 1980’s in French geology publications: Makse, H.A., S. Havlin, P.R. King, H.E. Stanley. 1997. Spontaneous stratification in granular mixtures. Nature. 386:379-382.

And how, exactly, does that support Berthault’s erroneous interpretation that younger sediments are depostited beneath older sediments?

2007 and 2009 sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/318/5857/1760

Accretion of mudstones from rapidly moving waters whereas mudstones which are 2/3’ds of the GC were once thought to form in still waters. They formed at similar speeds as do flume studies of sand in moving waters]And how, exactly, does that support Berthault’s erroneous interpretation that younger sediments are depostited beneath older sediments?

sedimentology.fr/

This is GB’s web site. I see nothing that is any diffferent than what he, Walthur and the Russians have learned about Paleohydraulics.You mean, even Berthault agrees with Berthault? Amazing!!!

It seems to me that the stratigraphy of Stenno, Darwin, Lyell has been replaced with a whole new method of studying the geologic column and understanding of the GC where rapid deposition has replaced the assumption of slow accumulation of sediements at a few cm/1000 years. Those millions and zillions of years just don’t seem to exist.

Regardless of what it seems to you, anyone who understands basic, freshman level geology understands why Berthault is not taken seriously and it has nothing to do with any athiest conspiracy. He has no credibility when he jumps to conclusions that are not even suggested by his experiment.

amazon.com/gp/product/0521636396/ref=sip_pdp_dp_1

Erosion and sedimentation by Piere Y. Julien. Again, Dr. Julien is a real scientist and has done plenty of real science. He was paid by Berthault to conduct the flume experiment and he did so. He does not agree nor does he endorse Berthault’s conclusion that younger strata formed beneath older strata in ANY of the experiments. Without that, Berthault’s experiment does nothing for his stated objective going into the experiment - to prove that the law of superposition is wrong and therefore the earth was created as described in Genesis.

The delusions of grandeur about which you deride GB can best be applied to yourself for believing as did some of the ancient Romans in the pagan God Mithras who was assumed to have born out of a rock. Mythology is fun to speculate about until the believers in mythology try to force it on students of all ages as a “scientific fact.”

Hmm. That is a great, scientific argument for Berthault. Way to go, Hugh.

You know, the real problem you have, Hugh, is that you don’t understand even the most basic geology. You are the perfect target for Berthault - someone with no education in the subject and who is a YEC looking for “scientific” support for that position.

Peace

Tim

 

[grannymh]

Hi StAnastasia,

Glad to see you back. Hope the weekend went well…

When you have time, would you give me your comments on posts 456 and 470? Post 456 was a reply to you and post 470 was a reply to Alec.

Thanks,
granny

 

[StAnastasia]

]But, do we really want to undergo awake brain surgery to activate our brains when they are needed to carry out a serious intentional choice?]

No - I certainly won’t volunteer for this. Beyond that, I’m not sure what sort of response you’re looking for Grannymh, as is this the only question you ask in your post #456.

 

[StAnastasia]

Regarding: Desmurget et al, Movement Intention after Parietal Cortex Stimulation in Humans, Science 324 811 – 813 (2009)Blessings,granny/QUOTE]

I’m not sure what response you are seeking, as # 470 is your reply to Alec, not to me.

 

[grannymh]

No - I certainly won’t volunteer for this. Beyond that, I’m not sure what sort of response you’re looking for Grannymh, as is this the only question you ask in your post #456.

Since you originally posed the question in post 451, just thought you would like to see the reply.

 

[grannymh]

grannymh;5376101:

Regarding: Desmurget et al, Movement Intention after Parietal Cortex Stimulation in Humans, Science

324 811 – 813 (2009)Blessings,granny/QUOTE]

I’m not sure what response you are seeking, as # 470 is your reply to Alec, not to me. You had seemed interested in free will, so was just letting you know what was being discussed. That is all.

 

[StAnastasia]

StAnastasia;5387192:

You had seemed interested in free will, so was just letting you know what was being discussed. That is all.

Grannymh, thank you for clarifying. For a number of years I taught a course called “Philosophy of the Human Person,” using as one text a fine book by the same title, authored by James Reichmann, SJ (whom I had the pleasure of meeting last year at Seattle University).

I think you would find Reichmann’s account of freewill to resonate with yours: he argues that our behavior is neither undetermined (whatever that means) nor completely determined by genes and environment. Rather, as conscious actors we have limited self-determination – we can choose to influence our paths of action, and we can choose to do or not to do something. I argue that this is the “both / and” freewill theists hold. Alec would probably say this reduces completely to some genetic or biological substratum. But I’m not sure what complete reduction means, as we have the experience of free will. So what if that experience has a neurological explanation – does that mean it’s not free? So what if our perception of beauty or sacredness has a neurological explanation – does that mean something is not beautiful or sacred?

StAnastasia

 

[StAnastasia]

Hi StAnastasia, Glad to see you back. Hope the weekend went well…Thanks,granny

Thanks, Grannymh. The conference was on “Science, Wisdom, and the Future.” It was an excellent summary of current knowledge about the universe, and then a couple of days of forecasts into the future, particularly in light of the multiple ecological crises facing us. I got to meet Michael Dowd and Connie Barlow, creators of the “Thank God for Evolution” website.

Best wishes,
StAnastasia

 

[abukamoon]

Evolution is not science, it is religion.

Evolution is not a product of the Scientific Method. It has never been observed, repeated, cannot be falsified & c.

And mainly, Evolution is based on the idea that life came into existence with all of its diversity through natural forces. This preconceived notion is hardly science. And it disqualifies Evolution from being considered science.

The origin of life cannot be explained by science. So a metaphysical belief was introduced by Charles Darwin as a “scientific” explanation. But since it is based on the unproved supposition that somehow natural forces could have been responsible for he origin of life, it is not science. Science fiction, maybe.

 

[StAnastasia]

Evolution is not science, it is religion…And mainly, Evolution is based on the idea that life came into existence with all of its diversity through natural forces. This preconceived notion is hardly science. And it disqualifies Evolution from being considered science. The origin of life cannot be explained by science. So a metaphysical belief was introduced by Charles Darwin as a “scientific” explanation. But since it is based on the unproved supposition that somehow natural forces could have been responsible for he origin of life, it is not science. Science fiction, maybe.

Abu, you need to learn what evolution is about. You are confusing with the theory of abiogenesis. Evolution is the central organizing principle of biological sense, without which little in biology makes sense, especially the differentiation of species. That’s why biologists – including Christians – use the theory of evolution in their work, and why biologists who do not accept evolutionary principles have not recently made any significant contributions to the field.

StAnastasia

 

[grannymh]

Evolution is not a product of the Scientific Method. It has never been observed, repeated, cannot be falsified & c.

I have some philosophical questions about the general concept of the Scientific Method – seriously.

1. Is this correct? Science is considered knowledge of the natural world. Observation has always been key. Why the phenomena happens was the question which formed the scientific method. Thus, there is the formulation of a hypothesis concerning the phenomena, experimentation to test the hypothesis, and a conclusion that validates or modifies the hypothesis. Should anything be added or subtracted from this definition?
2. Are there two meanings of “repetition”? a.) Repetition is a natural part of experimentation which tests the protocol used to get the same conclusion.
   b.) Repetition (repeated) means that another scientist or laboratory, working independently, follows exactly the same protocol as the original experimentation. The conclusion is compared with the original conclusion to check for validity of the hypothesis. Is there a third meaning?
3. What exactly does “cannot be falsified” mean? And what does that entail? From another thread – What does the reference that something is falsifiable mean or was that a typo?

 

[StAnastasia]

Is this correct? Science is considered knowledge of the natural world. Observation has always been key. Why the phenomena happens was the question which formed the scientific method. Thus, there is the formulation of a hypothesis concerning the phenomena, experimentation to test the hypothesis, and a conclusion that validates or modifies the hypothesis. Should anything be added or subtracted from this definition?]

Grannymh, science isn’t knowledge, but rather a method to obtain knowledge. You are right that science is used to investigate phenomena. A phenomenon provokes questions (e.g., why do things fall down). Science proposes a hypothesis (e.g. “heavy things seek their natural place, which is earth.”) Depending on whether the hypothesis satisfactorily accounts for all the phenomena determines whether scientists will reject, approve, or modify the hypothesis and subject it to further testing.

The theory of evolution and its attendant hypotheses have been tested, re-tested, modified and confirmed progressively since 1859. That is why biology continues to investigate evolution, and to provide additional support for the theory.

StAnastasia

 

[hecd2]

FYI – from Post 407

Dr. Carl R. Woese From Wikipedia

Carl Richard Woese (born 15 July 1928,Syracuse, New York) is an American microbiologist and physicist… Many microbial species such as Pyrococcus woesei, Methanobrevibacterium woesei and Conexibacter woesei are named in his honor.

To understand why I posted:

“To me, the work of Dr. Carl R. Woese, Professor of Microbiology, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign offers exciting possibilities far beyond the one pattern of one tree with branches drawn by early evolutionary scientists. He is one of those unique persons not afraid to ask questions or explore possibilities.”

All of this is correct, but I’m afraid I don’t see how the additional complexity of having third kingdom of life helps in your quest to separate the human and chimp branches. Woese and others (including Margulis) show that the root of the tree is more complex - more of a ring than a single root (see Rivera and Lake, The ring of life provides evidence for a genome fusion origin of eukaryotes, *Nature *431, 152 - 155) - but that part of the tree that leads to humans and chimps, the eukaryotes, *does *have a straightforward branching structure and single trunk. In particular the major branch that both we and the chimps are on, the vertebrates, is completely tree-like. Moreover humans and chimps are two twigs that separated very recently in evolutionary terms - only 6 million years ago, whereas the eukaryotic roots of the tree of life go back more than a 100 times further.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[hecd2]

hecd2:

Alethios:

The Big Bang is another inconsistent theory of modern Big Sci:
The expansion began from a single point, yet the BB has no center! The universe is expanding into non-existence, yet it has no edge!

Correct - there is no inconsistency in either of these things - if you think there is inconsistency that is because you fail to understand the science. Here is a little thing I wrote earlier:
evolutionpages.com/big_bang_no_myth.htm
There’s no inconsistency in these fallacies because an inconsistent system, as is the Big Bang, can be used to prove anything.

I was right. You don’t understand the science. For more evidence of that, see below.

This requires an understanding of logic and inconsistent systems, the basis of empirical science.

As for logic, I think you are struggling a bit with explaining the lack of inconsistency in the Big Bang theory by inconsistency. The inconsistency is all yours.

Here’s a little thing Karl Popper wrote earlier (The Logic of Scientific Discovery): …

Well, there are two things to say about this. First, while I don’t disagree with Popper’s definitions here, he is not a god, and his definitions of what is and isn’t science is not sacred. But more importantly, his definitions here are irrelevant to the discussion, as the Big Bang theory satisfies them all - it is self-consistent, it excludes many statements which are not provable from it and it is testable.

If we are expanding from the BB origin along with the shell of remnants, there should be a variation in star density in a plane around us, the local tangent plane to the shell surface.

This shows how little you understand the science. There is no Big Bang “origin” that we are expanding from, any more than than there is a centre for the expansion of the surface of a balloon (the latter being a two dimensional analogue of three dimensional space. The Big Bang “origin” is present everywhere in the universe. There is no shell of remnants, and there is no variation in star density. Your ideas about the Big Bang are very confused.

The solar system is moving toward the Virgo cluster in the CMB frame, we are told, so the BB origin should be the Virgin’s antipode: ~ RA 190, Dec -10.

This is not a velocity of expansion but a local velocity caused by the rotation of the sun about the galaxy and galactic peculiar motions - they are not cosmological.

In all the sorcerer’s smoke and mirrors another fallacy is hidden:
The CMB rest frame is the frame of the BB origin, even though this contradicts relativity - an absolute frame.

Again, you fail to understand - The CMB rest frame is not the frame of the Big Bang “origin”, because there is no such thing. It is the frame in which the matter-energy at the surface of last scattering is at rest and is also the frame of the spacetime manifold which is detected by maximising its spherical symmetry. Special relativity does not preclude this - it merely claims that there is no preferred frame in which the laws of physics are unique. It does not preclude the possibility of a cosmological frame and, of course, General Relativity demands a spacetime manifold which has local curvature that depends on the matter-energy in it.

There are no cosmic effects that support rotation of the universe once per day, …

All measurable effects that support rotation of the earth once per day, also support rotation of the universe once per day… Mach’s principle of relative rotation equivalence, never falsified.

Mach’s principle has nothing to do with “relative rotation equivalence”. You are making it up. Mach’s principle is that mass there determines inertia here: in other words, the compass of inertia on earth (the local inertial frame) is aligned with the mean matter-energy distribution in the distant stars (slightly perturbed by local accelerating and rotating masses). But in any case, the surface of the earth is a non-inertial frame where Coriolis and centrifugal forces are experienced owing to the rotation of the earth with respect to the local compass of inertia (these forces can be derived by any competent physicist by the departure of a test point on the earth’s surface from a straight line, or in relativity, a geodesic). You are simply wrong when you claim that same effects that support rotation of the earth once per day, can be used to support rotation of the universe once per day. You have not been able to derive centrifugal and Coriolis forces on a static earth.

Both SR and GR have yet to fail an observational test.

                  Exactly... an inconsistent theory can prove anything! see Popper above, again.

Nonsense. SR and GR predictions are tested daily in particle accelerators, GPS systems, astronomical observations and elsewhere. Many observations have been made that could falsify SR, GR or both, but have so far failed to do so. That is why physicists the world over accept both SR and GR as accurate theories within their range of applicability.

A modern mathematician with a Ph.D. in logic has examined the US culture of modern physics and relativity history:…

And just who is this crank and why should we pay him the slightest notice?

Alec
evolutionpages.com/third_year_wmap.htm

 

[hecd2]

hecd2:

Fine - then let’s see you try to explain the Coriolis and centrifugal forces on a static earth.

                  Klioner's analysis has noted :For consistent relativistic modelling in the field of fundamental astronomy, there are a number of issues, mostly of practical character, that still require both theoretical discussions and practical implementations. One of these ’gray’ areas includes modelling of rotational motion of celestial bodies,

It is clearly a challenge to combine knowledge in theoretical general relativity and in practical observational techniques and modelling of complex astronomical phenomena (e.g. Earth rotation).
Earth rotation is the only astronomical phenomenon which is observed with a high accuracy and which has no consistent relativistic model.No one can even show that Newtonian theory can explain these two inertial forces in the Earth’s non-inertial reference frame, using classical variational methods.

You really don’t understand what you are reading, do you? This is Sergei Klioner, who with several others, including Soffel, is working on a complete relativistic model for earth’s rotation including all the subtle and complex effects such as classical precession and nutation, and geodetic, de Sitter and Lense-Thirring precession and nutation with a non-rigid body. These relativistic effects are tiny perturbations on classical precession and nutation (for example geodetic precession is .0003 of classical precession) and have nothing to do with the derivation of the Coriolis and centrifugal forces at the earth’s surface. Your answer is irrelevant to my challenge - to show the derivation of the Coriolis and centrifugal forces on a static earth. You are dodging the question.

Your claim that they cannot be derived classically on a rotating earth is simply wrong. Any competent physicist can derive the forces by considering the acceleration caused by the departure from a straight line of a test particle at the earth rotating surface.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[hecd2]

The Catholic Church teaches Adam and Eve were two individuals. They committed Original Sin which required Christ to appear on earth…

There are areas where science is not useful.

I agree - there are areas where science is not useful. However they do not include studies of human populations through the human genome where science is useful - multiple studies preclude the possibility that human ancestry ever passed through an extreme bottleneck of two individuals. In other words, the story of Adam and eve is just that - a story. It cannot be literally true.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[edwest2]

I agree - there are areas where science is not useful. However they do not include studies of human populations through the human genome where science is useful - multiple studies preclude the possibility that human ancestry ever passed through an extreme bottleneck of two individuals. In other words, the story of Adam and eve is just that - a story. It cannot be literally true.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

I know the Church disagrees with this, as stated in the encyclical Humani Generis. I would like to point out to Catholics reading this that the Bible tells us that through one man, sin entered the world. This is why God sent His Son to die for us. Since science cannot add miracles to its knowledge base since they operate outside of nature, I encourage you to continue following Church teaching regarding our first parents.

Peace,
Ed

 

[grannymh]

I know the Church disagrees with this, as stated in the encyclical Humani Generis. I would like to point out to Catholics reading this that the Bible tells us that through one man, sin entered the world. This is why God sent His Son to die for us. Since science cannot add miracles to its knowledge base since they operate outside of nature, I encourage you to continue following Church teaching regarding our first parents.

Peace,
Ed

Another quick note to Catholic readers.

Even though, I, personally, approach the absolute reality of two sole first parents of the human race (Adam & Eve) from a scientific view point, including the acceptance of many points of evolutionary theory, it is still essential to realize one important fact — Divine Revelation Trumps.

 

[grannymh]

All of this is correct, but I’m afraid I don’t see how the additional complexity of having third kingdom of life helps in your quest to separate the human and chimp branches.
Alec
evolutionpages.com

It was a beautiful morning. Listened to the birds. And went back to sleep for a Rip Van Winkle nap, so please do not expect a lot of serious discussion from me today…
However, I should address your comment since it is in the philosophical area regarding the approach to my quest.

You need to realize that I was raised in, educated in, and worked in environments in which mentors made the impossible possible. One stubborn Jesuit, hopefully his soul is finally resting, drove people crazy at an university convention by asking the same question regarding building construction of everyone he met. “No” was the unanimous answer.

Years later, going back to the university, I stood in the building which had the answer “yes” to this Jesuit’s construction questions. Apparently, technology had caught up with his vision.

In the same manner, I will keep asking questions in every field of natural science simply because humanity touches every field in some way. Years ago, the mantra of people working in the information branch of public relations was “who, how, what, when, where, why, and cost”. This mantra has never vanished from my brain. To me, obtaining answers, including the “no” ones, is important in this quest.

Thus, I will continue to explore all kinds of areas even though it may look like I am going in circles or leaving the planet. Being stubborn, I will eventually find Adam and Eve in the midst of scientific and evolutionary evidence.

Blessings,
granny

The quest is worth the adventure of the journey.