Denial of Evolution VII (2015)

"The purpose of an experiment is to determine whether observations agree with or conflict with the predictions derived from a hypothesis.[6] Experiments can be conducted in a college lab, on a kitchen table, at CERN's Large Hadron Collider, at the bottom of an ocean, on Mars, and so on. There are difficulties in a formulaic statement of method, however. Though the scientific method is often presented as a fixed sequence of steps, they are better considered as general principles.[7] Not all steps take place in every scientific inquiry (or to the same degree), and are not always in the same order"

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

Bear in mind the above is peer reviewed so is a valid source. Have you got a source?

Perfect example of being able to test it on Mars.

"anthropology draws and builds upon knowledge from the social and biological sciences "

Basically it is a science based on existing sciences, plus adding theories of its own.

You can repeat a carbon test on a piece of rock 100 times and get back the same data. In the lab...

Like what?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Tell me, is a kitchen table a lab?
Is the bottom of the ocean one?
How about Mars?

Peer reviewed? Really? As a scientific paper?

Considering that YOUR SOURCE supports me and not you I would have thought you'd know better than to ask that.

What?
NO scientific gets "proven" Ever.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I got away from the lab and produced a broader picture, which can all be miniaturized.

Might as well be.

Really, can you point out where?

Actually carbon 14 testing is extremely accurate because it gets "proven" time after time, give it a break.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

In other words your prior claim - Because it is required - is now retracted (or glossed over) because it was false.

Nope.

But, in fact, isn't.

Oh, you missed the portions I highlighted?
You missed my repetition of the relevant parts in the line underneath the quoted part?

Wrong again.
Science does not, and cannot, prove theories.

 

That is correct. Theories can be shown to be false but not proven to be true; however facts can be discovered. - I.e. observed so many times that all expect the next observation to have the same result as the prior observations. For example it is a fact that pure water at standard atmospheric pressure boils at 100C. Facts are not theories. Theories can and should predict some possible observations. If they can not do that, then they are not theories, but just opinions.

 

We'll agree to disagree.

I didn't say it can "prove" theories, I merely pointed out it comes darn close to, which is a tip of the hat from me.

 

Ah yes, the old "I can't support my point so I'll pretend that both arguments have merit and remain on equal footing" tactic.

Right, so YOU didn't post, for example:
Name one scientific theory that cannot be proved in the lab...

 

Don't get personal... I did make a mistake here, wrong wording which made the sentence look like nonsense.

Cannot be "repeated" is what I meant.

(An escape tactic)

 

You don't use carbon 14 dating for rocks however.

 

lol

 

Science cannot prove the existence of dark matter and dark energy in the lab. These are inferred from observations far away in the universe but it cannot be seen in the lab. The paradox is connected to the imagination seeing what it expects to see; filters of the mind. The lack of lab proof should at least raise a yellow flag, but often does not. This is due to the politics used to create peer pressure to allow an emperors new clothes affect to appear. The crowd will go along rather than be singled out with contempt for being someone who can't see the clothes on the naked emperor.

Evolution that does not ignore water:

The next thing I would like to discuss is the idea of cooperative hydrogen bonding. Cooperative hydrogen bonding is where more than one hydrogen bond can work as team forming a hydrogen bonding analogy to electron resonance; benzene. One lab observation about cooperative hydrogen bonding is as more and more hydrogen are added to the cooperative, all the bonds of the cooperative get stronger. This observation implies of a type of sharing that is spreading out and stabilizing the entire cooperative.

Another observation about hydrogen bonding cooperatives is the first bond in the cooperative, that is broken, is the strongest link, no matter which bond one tries to break first. The cooperative sort of focuses all its strength at the point of breech, making the breech hydrogen the defender of the cooperative; so to speak. After the first hydrogen bond is broken, the bond strength for the remaining hydrogen goes down quickly.

From this one could infer, based on the hydrogen bonding binary switch, cooperative hydrogen bonding requires the covalent side of the binary switch, to allow the needed electron sharing. In terms of the DNA, because the DNA forms hydrogen bonding along its axis, cooperative hydrogen bonding can occur. Based on the degree of cooperation along the axis, one can define binary memory along the axis. The double helix of water that intertwines the double helix of the DNA can define liquid memory via cooperatives.

Cooperative hydrogen bonding in water are very important to life because the covalent aspect of the binary has the lowest enthalpy, lowest entropy, but the highest volume thats exerts the most pressure. Where there is a cooperative these potentials become multiplied locally; volume of fixed memory.

ATP, which is the energy molecule of life, impacts both the organics and the water. The organic aspect is well documented and will not be discussed. The ATP impacts local water cooperatives by acting as a bolt cutter. The ATP needs to chemically bind water. This forward reaction is strong enough to breech the cooperative. The decline in cooperative binding energy, after the hydrogen is breeched, shifts the binary back toward the polar state of hydrogen bonding. This difference in enthalpy, entropy, volume and pressure, help drive the reaction. After the reaction, the water resets the cooperative. Because of the simple binary changes between two versions of hydrogen bonding, reset can occur quickly.

As a visual, picture a steel chain composed of links. If we place the chain under stress, all the links feel the same force being exerted as the chain expands and stretches. The chain is taunt and feels almost solid; low entropy pseudo-solid. If we take a bolt cutter and but any link in the chain, the entire chain will snaps with ferocious rebound, as all the links gain fluid motion; entropy increases. The organics of life provide opportunities for stable cooperatives; potential stored in memory.

 

I'm not that informed in science, I could debate this but I'm more interested in other things, but somebody stand up and debate this guy, he knows what he's talking about!

 

Generally no.
Wellwisher tends to invent (a lot of) crap to make his "argument", and introduce a number of spurious non sequiturs.

 

At least he's original... original i like

 

The most original thing about wellwisher, is that you can poke as many holes in his arguments as you like [especially his reference to DM and Lab observation] and refute his nonsense, and he will never reply, to either defend or acknowledge, but will continue to post the same crap Ad nauseam, over and over.
Probably why the vast majority now ignore his replies. [including myself]

 

Must admit I didn't know what he was talking about so assumed he knew what he was talking about!

 

I don't ignore wellwisher. His typical post gives me many things to discuss, teach, while correcting him without appearing to be pedantic. He recently made three well thought out /informative posts in a row, and I complained that I missed the "old wellwisher" and if he kept up making valid / useful posts, I would need to turn in my badge, as "Sheriff of Nonsense."

For example, his post 492, strikes me as if it were a bad machine translation of a good Russian article. Nothing so blatantly wrong as to open the door for correction, just hard to see the point or follow.

 

It seems there was not point in relationship to evolution. He yammered on about some nontypical hydrogen bonding and then he spun off into his never-never land of binary covalent etropy with water memory.

 

Invention requires an open mind and the willingness to follow all hunches to their logical conclusion. Many paths will be duds. Some will be reasonable and will only need resources or further development to become one of the many options allowed by science. One has to argue from all points of view to eliminate possibilities and learn from mistakes. As time goes on, that which withstood the test of time, remains, without wasting resources. I am starting to repeat myself instead of create new because the base set is crystalizing.

Hydrogen bonding within water, as well as within organics like protein, RNA and DNA , all of which evolved within water, are similar to binary switches that can shift between two types of bonding states; ionic and covalent. These two bonding states are separated by a small activation energy hill so are distinct but easy to switch back and forth. These two states contain potential differences due to differences in enthalpy, entropy, volume and pressure. The interaction of water with the organics causes the water to reflect an extended version of the organic moiety, based on equilibrium considerations. You tweak the organics the water reflects this and if you tweak the water the organics see this.

The analogy of the chain being stretched is a good analogy for surface tension. Surface tension is common between organics and water. The water can form the lower strength hydrogen bond switch position (polar) with the organics; rice cakes. However, since the bond to the organics will not fully lower the potential of the water, the rest of its hydrogen bonds form the covalent state to help offset this deficit. The covalent state has lower energy; helps the net total.

The covalent state stretches the ionic state bonds for the proper overlap of the bonding orbitals, thereby creating tension in the 1-D chain or 2-D area; surface tension. If we cut the chain or the cut the nylon stocking area, the chain or the run in the stocking will causes the entropy of the links to increase as they move into disorder; polar state. Since an increase in entropy will need a source to energy to occur, the rebound of the water chain, is endothermic and will draw in energy.

The good analogy for this final state is an expanding a gas going into a tank. The expansion of the gas into the tank will increase the entropy of the gas; less ordered. The entropy increase will need energy. This is draw from the air in the tank, causing the volume of the tank to get cold. This cold tank, due to the entropy increase, will now becomes a heat sink, which will then attract heat/energy from beyond itself; heat energy will flow toward the tank to heat it up. In terms of water surfacer tension and the ATP bolt cutter, the induced flow of energy will assists things that occur within the cell. One gene may have 100 water molecules being switched between states. Surface tension does not go away, permanently, even if the cooperative is disrupted by ATP, but will reform quickly for another cycle.

 

Not clear where the air is (outide an evacuated tank or inside but less than atmospheric pressure) but mostly OK; however, not of much value for either explaining how life began or the early stages of evolution (before mainly green plants /algae made oxygen). Back then the atmosphere was mainly methane and hydrogen and I don't know the Joule-Thompson coefficient for CH4 so don't know if an expanding gas heats or cools, but heats would be my guess for Earth's Early atmosphere mix.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!