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

[jordanriver]

A real grab-bag of ideas there JR.

I see that you are unable to decide between the plumb-pudding model of the atom and the Bohr model.

Which shows your understanding of science. Do you realise that it's the Bohr model, with its much greater explanatory power, helped give rise to the transistor and hence modern computers on which you write your posts?

?

decide between? .....huh? what?

how do you get that its one or the other,

this was just a list.


here is what I have read:
"plumb-pudding' was replaced by Bohr (or Rutherford-Bohr model)

then Bohr model was replaced by Erwin Schrodinger's model

and I read that semi conductors are the result of Schrodinger's idea.


but perhaps the EPA is not a reliable source
http://www.epa.gov/radiation/understand/rutherford.html

[jordanriver]

jordanriver had listed:
I am not confident in picking something that is famous for being SELF CORRECTING, ...a lot, self-correcting a lot

a whole lot
self corrected BELIEFS such as:


The BELIEF that Ramapithecus was our ancestor
The BELIEF that Piltdown Man was our ancestor
The BELIEF that Zinjanthropus was our ancestor
The BELIEF that Homo habilis was our ancestor
The BELIEF that Australopithecus africanus (the Taung Child) was our ancestor
The BELIEF that Australopithecus afarensis (Lucy) was our ancestor
The BELIEF that Ardipithecus was our ancestor
The BELIEF that Mitochondrial Eve was our ancestor

....all since superseded by new "information"

Hmmm. I don't think you understand what those fossils mean in the context of "our ancestor". They are "our ancestor" in the sense that the are probably more or less closely related to the direct line of descent leading to us.

?

that's NOW, Roland

That's the current strategy, cladistics instead of linear trees

The BELIEFS were based on past practices of publicity and ballyhoo , when new specimen discovered by paleoanthropologists.

[klaus54]

Hear, hear.

I don't mind being a sinner, sick, living in darkness, unsaved - given the antics of many who claim to be saved, born again, and walking with the Lord.

This is not a shot an many sensible Christians who live in a world in which this kind of language is the norm. But for other Christians who live in that world, it's far better, and dare I suggest, far more Godly to be lost, sick and in darkness.

Do you have to light a match to see the Sun?

I feel for you...

K54

[klaus54]

that's NOW, Roland

That's the current strategy, cladistics instead of linear trees

The BELIEFS were based on past practices of publicity and ballyhoo , when new specimen discovered by paleoanthropologists.

JR,

Do I have to light a match to see the Sun?

I feel for you...

K54

[Roy]

The deal was, no recombination for mitochondrial DNA.

But they discovered some of Pop's DNA in it after all.

I had big post about that before old TWEB went away

so no more HYPOTHETICAL Mitochondrial Eve

Rare occurrences of inheritance of mitochondria from the father do not invalidate the general principle of reduction of mitochondrial ancestors in each generation, or that they are (almost) exclusively female. So... why is mitochondrial eve not our ancestor?

Roy

[rwatts]

half-truths? what"

I pointed out that you showed de novo genes come from non coding regions ,
in your ''“DeNovo Origin of Human Protein-Coding Genes” or How Some New Genes Come About' thread'
your post 1


...


I never claimed that you therefore believe there is no such thing as junk DNA.

What was wrong with my quip at your comment, given that it was made in this context:-

and people thought they 'knew' based on dozens of "theories" but it turns out their "knowledge" wasn't knowledge after all, JUST FAITH:


(Biology)
Spontaneous generation
Maternal impression

.
.
.

Pure behaviorist explanations for language acquisition in infancy
(Medicine)
Theory of the four bodily humours/Four temperaments,
Eclectic Medicine,
Physiognomy, and phrenology

....the Lamarckism was wrong
....later epigenetics , maybe Lamarckism is right

The belief that junk DNA is useless , later, as Roland informed us, de novo genes from the non coding regions

[rwatts]

decide between? .....huh? what?

how do you get that its one or the other,

this was just a list.


here is what I have read:
"plumb-pudding' was replaced by Bohr (or Rutherford-Bohr model)

then Bohr model was replaced by Erwin Schrodinger's model

and I read that semi conductors are the result of Schrodinger's idea.


but perhaps the EPA is not a reliable source
http://www.epa.gov/radiation/understand/rutherford.html

But that whole list was according to you:-

and people thought they 'knew' based on dozens of "theories" but it turns out their "knowledge" wasn't knowledge after all, JUST FAITH:

[rwatts]

Do you have to light a match to see the Sun?

I feel for you...

K54

No need to K54.

I know (or knew) of many Christians who, if God does exist, witness to a God who is worthy of worship. This includes many who are deeply conservative, and even fundamentalist in outlook. OTOH, there are many others who witness to a dimwitted god.

It's all down to the fruit they bear.

[jordanriver]

Rare occurrences of inheritance of mitochondria from the father do not invalidate the general principle of reduction of mitochondrial ancestors in each generation.

Roy

4 out of 5 human data sets showed recombination
SCIENCE AAAS
'Pop's Surprising Influence on Mom's DNA' Dec 1999
Researchers have assumed that mtDNA passes only through the mother, in part because experiments have shown that eggs destroy sperm after fertilization, and that mitochondrial traits, including a variety of inherited disorders, seem to come only from mothers. But some mtDNA sequences didn't fit neatly into a tree of maternal descent (Science, 5 March, p. 1435), so Philip Awadalla of the University of Edinburgh and Adam Eyre-Walker and John Maynard Smith of the University of Sussex in Brighton decided to look for signs of mixing between paternal and maternal mtDNA.

Such mixing, which commonly happens to the chromosomal DNA during germ cell formation, is called recombination. It takes place when a piece of DNA inherited from one parent crosses over and pairs up with a strand inherited from the other. This generates a novel DNA molecule combining features donated from both parents. To probe whether recombination occurs in the mitochondrial genome, the researchers analyzed DNA variations. In four out of five human data sets and one chimp set, nonrandom mutations at distant sites were less likely to be linked than nearby mutations--implying recombination between maternal and paternal DNA, says Eyre-Walker. http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceno.../12/23-03.html


TheScientist May 2004 'Mitochondrial DNA recombines'
"Recombination occurs in human mitochondrial DNA, says a team from the Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and Harvard Medical School, Boston, in a “proof of concept” paper in Science this week that they say overturns current dogma of maternal inheritance and non-recombination..."

but they still will not give up the original theory"
The work has “exciting implications for mitochondrial DNA repair and replication,” he said. However, the results do not challenge the idea that human maternal mitochondrial DNA changes only very slowly over time and consists solely of genetic material from the mother, Khrapko said. “It does not challenge the idea of a mitochondrial DNA molecular clock or structure of genealogical trees.”

(to give both sides)

So... why is mitochondrial eve not our ancestor?

Roy

your proof is contaminated now.

[rwatts]

your proof is contaminated now.

Given that the 2004 paper was 10 years ago, then has subsequent research shown that mitochondrial DNA analysis is now completely useless?


(Besides, given that both mitDNA perspectives are just faith perspectives, going by your previous arguments, then why do you choose one faith over the other? Is it because it supposedly reinforces your other faith belief? But why should that be chosen over any other faith belief (say the counter belief), given that its all just faith?)

[jordanriver]

Given that the 2004 paper was 10 years ago, then has subsequent research shown that mitochondrial DNA analysis is now completely useless?

not to anti-Creationists. They still believe it demonstrates a female ancestor from Africa 200KYA

[jordanriver]

It's all down to the fruit they bear.

where did you come up with that term "fruit they bear"


sounds familiar

[klaus54]

where did you come up with that term "fruit they bear"


sounds familiar

Where do ya think?

And instead of niggling over mitochondrial DNA (which BTW blows your 6-10Ka out of the water) - How's 'bout you look at the obvious things, ya know like rocks, and stars, radioactive decay, Technitium. the Lunar tidal lock, ... blah, blah, blah...

Of course in Kindergarten I thought like you.

And I believed in Santy Claus...

But you probably have me on ignore since you'd rather shoot spitwads than see the obvious.

K54

[jordanriver]

Given that the 2004 paper was 10 years ago, then has subsequent research shown that mitochondrial DNA analysis is now completely useless?

?

just occurred to me, (I admit, I am slow to catch on)

I hope my list didn't really shake your faith up that much,

so that if 10 years goes by,
you assume that whatever the research claimed,
is probably superseded by now?

[rwatts]

where did you come up with that term "fruit they bear"


sounds familiar

I often wonder just how many verses creationists have snipped from their Bibles, because of inconvenience.

JR, it's in my Bible. What about yours?