Another poor response to ERV evidence for common ancestry by a creationist.

[Loudmouth]

In other words you can't.

I can do it, and I did do it with 4 sequences. It really isn't that hard to do. What is so hard to understand here? For each mutation, the other three sequences had the same base with one sequence being different at that position. The rules of parsimony require you to assume that one mutation occurred instead of 3 of the same mutations. Here are the sequences again:

insertion 1: ACAAAAAAA
insertion 2: AAAAAAAAA
insertion 3: AAAAAAAAA
insertion 4: AAAATAAAA

In insertion one there is a difference between the sequences at the second base. It is possible that C is the common ancestral base at that position and that the same mutation occurred in the other three insertions. However, it is much, much more likely that one mutation occurred in the first insertion. The rule parsimony requires you to conclude that A is the ancestral base at the second position. The same applies for T at the fifth position in the 4th insertion. The consensus sequence for this homologous stretch of DNA is all A's. That is how you determine a consensus sequence.

The rules you seek to impose need to be under a light here, not sluffed off as hot stuff by cunning slate of hand. Come into the light of day, and let's see what you really got. Anytime....

I want to see your rules as well. How do you determine which of the laws changed, when did they change, and how much did they change? What evidence do you have for any change in any law over the last 13 billion years?

I have already offered Supernova 1987a as a demonstration that the laws have not changed. Using simple trigonometry you can verify that the speed of light has stayed the same over the last 160,000 years. On top of that, using spectrophotometric measurements you can actually measure the disappearance of radioactive Cobalt isotopes in the supernova. The observed rate of disappearance of these Cobalt isotopes is the same rate that we observe now on Earth. Therefore, the rate of radioactive decay was verified as well.

What experiments do you have which demonstrate changes in these values over the last 13 billion years?

 

[Loudmouth]

You see, one does not look at some event like sn1987a, and then run present state based models to see how it happened.

No models are being used. It is simple trigonometry. There was a ring of debris around the supernova. They measured how long it took the light from the supernova to reach the ring of debris as well as the angle between the supernova and the ring of debris. All that is left is to put this info into some trigonometric formulas, and out pops the speed of light.

That is foolish. 'Gee, there must have been 2 stars there, we just never saw one....the rings golly gee must have been here, we just never saw them...ad nausea..'

Perhaps you want to rethink this?

Supernova in the middle, ring on the outside. What is so difficult about this? Is your cognitive dissonance so strong that you have to close your eyes to such simple observations?

Also, we need to ask if the space we know and rules near earth and time apply far far away. If not, then all science bets are off.

We have asked that question, and the answer is yes. The rules are the same. Supernova 1987a is a perfect example of how this question is asked and answered.

So, whether it is different out there than here now, or whether some nature change that affected earth 4400 years or so ago also affected the entire universe seems to be the only question.

It is not a question. It is your fantasy.

 

[dad]

No models are being used.

"This was an unexpected identification, because at the time a blue supergiant was not considered a possibility for a supernova event in existing models of high mass stellar evolution. Many models of the progenitor have attributed the color to its chemical composition, particularly the low levels of heavy elements, among other factors." wiki

Of course there are models...and nothin but!

It is simple trigonometry. There was a ring of debris around the supernova. They measured how long it took the light from the supernova to reach the ring of debris as well as the angle between the supernova and the ring of debris. All that is left is to put this info into some trigonometric formulas, and out pops the speed of light.

Ha. They measured something involving earth time! Details? How dod you arrive at some popping out of earth light speed exactly? Careful...

Perhaps you want to rethink this?

No. I want to force you to rethink.

Supernova in the middle, ring on the outside. What is so difficult about this? Is your cognitive dissonance so strong that you have to close your eyes to such simple observations?

Rings that no one saw before the event! How would it now existing help your case? That seems like cognitive wishful thinking.

We have asked that question, and the answer is yes. The rules are the same. Supernova 1987a is a perfect example of how this question is asked and answered.

Great then let's look at details of how and why. Seems to me that you have nothing but preconceived unsupportable notions. I am fed up with sn987a being raised as supposed support for the godless evo side. I now know enough about it to assure all believers that they no longer need to fear discussing this. It is now an item in our court. Like Oklo.

Wakey wakey time.

 

[Phred]

Ha. They measured something involving earth time! Details? How dod you arrive at some popping out of earth light speed exactly? Careful...

Light moves at the speed of light. Always. It's not Star Wars. 186,232 mps2. It's the law.

Have you had Electro-shock therapy?

 

[dad]

I can do it, and I did do it with 4 sequences. It really isn't that hard to do. What is so hard to understand here? For each mutation, the other three sequences had the same base with one sequence being different at that position. The rules of parsimony require you to assume that one mutation occurred instead of 3 of the same mutations. Here are the sequences again:

insertion 1: ACAAAAAAA
insertion 2: AAAAAAAAA
insertion 3: AAAAAAAAA
insertion 4: AAAATAAAA

In insertion one there is a difference between the sequences at the second base. It is possible that C is the common ancestral base at that position and that the same mutation occurred in the other three insertions. However, it is much, much more likely that one mutation occurred in the first insertion. The rule parsimony requires you to conclude that A is the ancestral base at the second position. The same applies for T at the fifth position in the 4th insertion. The consensus sequence for this homologous stretch of DNA is all A's. That is how you determine a consensus sequence.

So when was any of your letters inserted into what, and where? The letters do need to represent something, you are aware of this??

Example, if a gene sequence comes from and represents something post split and flood, then we would look at it one way. If you had stuff that was pre split, we would need to know. Your genes and Noah's would not be expected to be in present state lock step.

I want to see your rules as well. How do you determine which of the laws changed, when did they change, and how much did they change? What evidence do you have for any change in any law over the last 13 billion years?

Imaginary years have no need to b e explained. The change was about 4400 real years ago, if I read the clues right. As for changing laws, forget that....we are talking different forces and laws, not present state ones that merely changed. (that we would know)

I have already offered Supernova 1987a as a demonstration that the laws have not changed. Using simple trigonometry you can verify that the speed of light has stayed the same over the last 160,000 years.

Correction. We can't actually. What you are in essence are trying to do in a roundabout way, is extend earth rules to the far far universe. Yoou see time is REQUIRED as PART of the 'trigonometry'!! The earth needs time between measurements, whether we divide that time between a series of dishes across the globe, or apply it to the earth for example at 6 month intervals for parallax measures!

On top of that, using spectrophotometric measurements you can actually measure the disappearance of radioactive Cobalt isotopes in the supernova.

Hey if you want to discuss light curves, you better do more than toss out a simple sentence! Was the light curve exactly as we would expect? Or did we for example tweak things a bit claiming that stellar 'dust' may have affected it...etc etc etc? Besides, I think that unless you do have a distance, you are hooped anyhow!

The observed rate of disappearance of these Cobalt isotopes is the same rate that we observe now on Earth. Therefore, the rate of radioactive decay was verified as well.

SSource?

What experiments do you have which demonstrate changes in these values over the last 13 billion years?

What experiments can anyone do on imaginary time and space? Don't be silly.

 

[dad]

Light moves at the speed of light. Always. It's not Star Wars. 186,232 mps2. It's the law.

No. It is earth law, Marshall. Your law can't be enforced out of your town. Other towns have their own laws.

 

[VirOptimus]

No. It is earth law, Marshall. Your law can't be enforced out of your town. Other towns have their own laws.

Do you understand the consequenses of changing the fundamental aspects of reality?

 

[Loudmouth]

"This was an unexpected identification, because at the time a blue supergiant was not considered a possibility for a supernova event in existing models of high mass stellar evolution. Many models of the progenitor have attributed the color to its chemical composition, particularly the low levels of heavy elements, among other factors." wiki

Of course there are models...and nothin but!

None of this has anything to do with the actual observations. The observation was a flash of light and then the reflection of that light from a ring of debris around the flash of light. From these observations one can derive the speed of light, and it was the same 160,000 years ago.

Ha. They measured something involving earth time! Details? How dod you arrive at some popping out of earth light speed exactly? Careful...

Please show how your model affects the measurements. Otherwise, you are just babbling.

Rings that no one saw before the event! How would it now existing help your case? That seems like cognitive wishful thinking.

Again, denying reality is not helping your argument. The ring is there.

Great then let's look at details of how and why. Seems to me that you have nothing but preconceived unsupportable notions. I am fed up with sn987a being raised as supposed support for the godless evo side. I now know enough about it to assure all believers that they no longer need to fear discussing this. It is now an item in our court. Like Oklo.

Wakey wakey time.

"Let us imagine that the speed of light was considerably greater at the time of the supernova than today. Creationists could use this supposition to suggest that light has traversed the space between the supernova and Earth more quickly than would be the case if the speed of light has been constant at the speed observed today. The argument would then go that although the distance to SN1987A is 167,000 light years, light could have traversed that distance in less than 167,000 years.

However, if the speed of light was greater at the time of the occurrence of the supernova then the absolute distance to the circumstellar ring would be proportionately more than we calculate based on the current speed of light. The angular distance from the supernova to the circumstellar ring is not in question. By comparing the absolute and angular distances, we would arrive at an absolute distance to the supernova greater than that based on a constant speed of light. This would yield a time for the light to traverse the space between the supernova and Earth the same as or greater than the time derived from a constant speed of light - ie the same as or greater than 167,000 years (since at some time the speed of light would have had to decrease to what we observe today). So a decaying speed of light offers no comfort to the creationist position."
Supernova 1987a​

 

[Loudmouth]

No. It is earth law, Marshall. Your law can't be enforced out of your town. Other towns have their own laws.

It is a universal law, as Supernova 1987a proves.

 

[Loudmouth]

So when was any of your letters inserted into what, and where? The letters do need to represent something, you are aware of this??

You do know how illustrative examples work, don't you? Why should I even try to help you understand how genetics is done if this is the type of response I will get?

Example, if a gene sequence comes from and represents something post split and flood, then we would look at it one way. If you had stuff that was pre split, we would need to know. Your genes and Noah's would not be expected to be in present state lock step.

This doesn't change the fact that when you construct a consensus sequence for HERV-K insertions you get a viable retrovirus that inserts and behaves just like modern retroviruses. Your fantasies about non-existent flood models does not change this.

Imaginary years have no need to b e explained.

The evidence is not imaginary. ERV's are found at the same position in humans and other apes. A consensus sequence of these ERV's produces a real and viable retrovirus. Humans and other apes share these ERV's at the same position in their genomes because they inherited these ERV's from their common ancestor. You have yet to post even one tiny piece of evidence that would refute this.

The change was about 4400 real years ago, if I read the clues right.

Evidence please.

As for changing laws, forget that....we are talking different forces and laws, not present state ones that merely changed. (that we would know)

You are talking about a fantasy world you have no evidence for. I have shown, with evidence, that these ancient insertions are retroviral in origin.

Correction. We can't actually. What you are in essence are trying to do in a roundabout way, is extend earth rules to the far far universe.

False. I am doing is seeing if the rules out in space are the same as on Earth, and they are.

Yoou see time is REQUIRED as PART of the 'trigonometry'!! The earth needs time between measurements, whether we divide that time between a series of dishes across the globe, or apply it to the earth for example at 6 month intervals for parallax measures!

As it turns out, the passage of time on Earth is the same as passage of time at Supernova 1987a. That is what the math confirms, and you continue to ignore it.

Hey if you want to discuss light curves, you better do more than toss out a simple sentence! Was the light curve exactly as we would expect? Or did we for example tweak things a bit claiming that stellar 'dust' may have affected it...etc etc etc? Besides, I think that unless you do have a distance, you are hooped anyhow!

"We derive the ultraviolet-optical infrared (uvoir) bolometric luminosity evolution of SN 1987A .... this method is more accurate than estimates of the uvoir bolometric luminosity based on the integration of broad-band magnitudes. We show that between days 130-300 SN 1987A declined ... with an e-folding time of 109.6 +/- 0.3 days, consistent with the thermalized energy released by the radioactive decay of 56Co;"
http://adsbit.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?bibcode=1991A&A...245..490B

So is it just a coincidence that all of this data aligns?
SSource?

What experiments can anyone do on imaginary time and space? Don't be silly.

We are talking about reality. Supernova 1987a exists in reality. When you are ready to deal with the evidence let me know.

 

[Doveaman]

Perhaps you want to rethink this?

I already have.

Supernova in the middle, ring on the outside.

Star in the middle, discharged materials on the outside (Stellar CME).

What is so difficult about this?

Your interpretation of it.

Is your cognitive dissonance so strong that you have to close your eyes to such simple observations?

The observations are fine. It's your interpretation that's pathetic.

 

[Loudmouth]

I already have.
Star in the middle, discharged materials on the outside (Stellar CME).
Your interpretation of it.
The observations are fine. It's your interpretation that's pathetic.

What interpretation? It is all observation. Observation of the supernova and observation of the light from the supernova hitting the ring about a year after the supernova explosion. You also have the observation of the angle between the supernova and the ring. This is all you need to do the calculations. Or do you also reject geometry because it is some atheist conspiracy?

 

[Doveaman]

What interpretation? It is all observation. Observation of the supernova

What exactly is a supernova? And how do you know it is a supernova?

 

[Phred]

No. It is earth law, Marshall. Your law can't be enforced out of your town. Other towns have their own laws.

Nope. Physics is how things behave in this UNIVERSE. Not just on earth. Nice try but only someone with either limited ability to comprehend would try this kind of thing. It reeks of second grade.

 

[Delphiki]

What exactly is a supernova? And how do you know it is a supernova?

Wow. No wonder you're a creationist. I feel bad for Loudmouth wasting so much time on you people. I know I've started giving up. Why do you even ask questions you know you're just going to ignore in the first place? Try some honesty for once.

 

[Loudmouth]

What exactly is a supernova? And how do you know it is a supernova?

We don't even have to agree that it is a supernova. There was a big flash of light in the sky. It took that flash over a year to reach the ring. Those are the observations, and they can be used to check the speed of light.

 

[Delphiki]

Also, for the record, a supernova is the explosion of a super-massive star.

 

[Phred]

What exactly is a supernova? And how do you know it is a supernova?

You know what a star is, right? Our sun is a star. The process that makes a star is called fusion. Fusion is when two atoms are forced together and create one. In this process they create lots and lots of energy. What forces them together in the heart of a star is gravity. The sheer mass of a star causes matter to push inward with such force it literally makes atoms merge. Then the resultant energy discharge causes the star to shine. Eventually the fusion reaction within the star will cease. This is the trigger for what happens next. Depending upon its mass a star can either collapse, go nova or go supernova. Since you asked about the supernova that is when the reaction at the core of the star starts to create a runaway carbon-fusion reaction. This leads to an immense thermo-nuclear explosion. It is so bright it outshines the entire galaxy that its in and will put out enough energy in one instant so that its more than our sun will put out in its entire lifespan.

We know its a supernova by its brightness and by the elements contained within its spectrum.

 

[USincognito]

What exactly is a supernova? And how do you know it is a supernova?

There's a well established definition of a supernova (Phred goes into quite some detail), so I'm wondering where you hope to go with these questions. Are you honestly trying to suggest we're merely "interpreting" it to be a supernova?

If so, you're treading into dad and AV territory.

 

[SLP]

So you cannot deal with anything out of your belief box. OK. Unless you can prove that our present forces and laws were in place, all you say is null and void.

Unless you can prove that they were not, you are just spewing sophism.