PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Creationism vs Evolution Debates
     Creationism in schools
       Why creationism will never be taught in public schools

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 3 4 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 08:45 AM on August 25, 2009 :

Well then would you please stop conflating evolution with real science?


Keep saying this enough and maybe you will even convince yourself.

Your have an opinion, but the opinion of the courts has been loud and clear and agrees with the rest of reality, evolution is science not religion:

From:McLean v. Arkansas

Assuming for the purposes of argument, however, that evolution is a religion or religious tenet, the remedy is to stop the teaching of evolution, not establish another religion in opposition to it. Yet it is clearly established in the case law, and perhaps also in common sense, that evolution is not a religion and that teaching evolution does not violate the Establishment Clause, Epperson v. Arkansas, supra, Willoughby v. Stever, No. 15574-75 (D.D.C. May 18, 1973); aff'd. 504 F.2d 271 (D.C. Cir. 1974), cert. denied , 420 U.S. 924 (1975); Wright v. Houston Indep. School Dist., 366 F. Supp. 1208 (S.D. Tex 1978), aff.d. 486 F.2d 137 (5th Cir. 1973), cert. denied 417 U.S. 969 (1974).


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 12:58 AM on August 26, 2009 | IP
Mustrum

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Apoapsis at 11:58 PM on August 25, 2009 :
Quote from Lester10 at 08:45 AM on August 25, 2009 :

Well then would you please stop conflating evolution with real science?


Keep saying this enough and maybe you will even convince yourself.

Your have an opinion, but the opinion of the courts has been loud and clear and agrees with the rest of reality, evolution is science not religion:




I would add that from a science perspective it doesn't matter what the courts say.  Science consist, in part, of following certain procedures to understand how nature works.  Biology and evolution certainly fit the scientific model, and evolution is in fact one of the premier theories and success stories of science.

On the other hand, you can't do science when you predetermine the results like creationists do.  Not only do they wish to throw out the bulk of biology, but they also want to throw out the bulk of geology, physics, astronomy, paleontology, and so on.  All in an effort to cling to an outmoded interpretation of a bronze age myth.




-------
*Mustrum*
 


Posts: 143 | Posted: 08:30 AM on August 26, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Biology and evolution certainly fit the scientific model


Biology yes, evolution no.

Carl Popper has said that in order to be considered science, a theory must be testable. But once off historical events cannot be tested. Thus they are considered pseudoscience or metaphysical. Subtheory predictions of a main theory can be tested but that does not make the general theory testable.

So in other words, the evolutionary subtheory that populations change slightly can be tested but this does not prove the general theory of common ancestry.

But you're right that it doesn't matter what the courts say.

and evolution is in fact one of the premier theories and success stories of science.


That's the sort of things we hear rushing from the mouths of evolutionists all the time but is it true?
The theory of evolution as with any theory is allowed secondary modifications when it flunks a test in order to salvage it. The theory loses credibility when it has to be repeatedly modified and requires excuses to continually be made for it not being consistent with the data.It is not an attribute to require numerous modifications.

The theory of evolution is popular, that I can say for it, but a 'success story of science'? Sorry, not likely, unless success is measured by how many people like you even if the data doesn't fit.

Not only do they wish to throw out the bulk of biology, but they also want to throw out the bulk of geology, physics, astronomy, paleontology, and so on.


You are so confused Mustrum. We want to chuck out the unscientific rubbish and the suppositions not supported by the data. Everything actually scientific can stay.






-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 09:44 AM on August 27, 2009 | IP
Mustrum

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 08:44 AM on August 27, 2009 :
Biology and evolution certainly fit the scientific model


Biology yes, evolution no.

Carl Popper has said that in order to be considered science, a theory must be testable. But once off historical events cannot be tested. Thus they are considered pseudoscience or metaphysical. Subtheory predictions of a main theory can be tested but that does not make the general theory testable.

So in other words, the evolutionary subtheory that populations change slightly can be tested but this does not prove the general theory of common ancestry.



Every time we find a fossil, it is a test of the theory of evolution.  If we ever found a bunny fossils mixed in with trilobites, then we would have to change our notions of how life has developed.  

As we learn more about genetics, we are testing our ideas of how inherited traits can be modified and passed from one organism to another.If for instance we found that mutations didn't happen or that they could not be passed on to future generations, then we would have to drastically change our models for inheritance.

Either the paleontological or the genetic evidence alone is sufficient for us to develop and test the theory of evolution.  Together, the two lines of evidence support each other and provide evidence for one of the most successfully tested ideas in science.



-------
*Mustrum*
 


Posts: 143 | Posted: 11:00 AM on August 27, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lester -
Carl Popper has said that in order to be considered science, a theory must be testable. But once off historical events cannot be tested. Thus they are considered pseudoscience or metaphysical. Subtheory predictions of a main theory can be tested but that does not make the general theory testable.


I wasn't familiar with Karl Popper until Lester mentioned him.  Karl Popper was a philosopher of science, though not actually a scientist himself.  But he was certainly familiar with science and the scientific method.

Interestingly, Popper did criticize Natural Selection initially (not evolution itself, but Natural Selection) - making the following statement:

The argument regarding "survival of the fittest" is that the only way one can usually tell who the fittest are is to see who survives. But then survival of the fittest becomes "almost a tautology" and hence untestable (Popper, 1972, p. 69; 1963a, p. 964).

And...

I have come to the conclusion that Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research programme—a possible framework for testable scientific theories.   . . . because I intend to argue that the theory of natural selection is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research programme; . . . [Popper, 1976, p. 151]


However... Popper later admitted that he was wrong!

The fact that the theory of natural selection is difficult to test has led some people, anti-Darwinists and even some great Darwinists, to claim that it is a tautology. . . . I mention this problem because I too belong among the culprits. Influenced by what these authorities say, I have in the past described the theory as "almost tautological," and I have tried to explain how the theory of natural selection could be untestable (as is a tautology) and yet of great scientific interest. My solution was that the doctrine of natural selection is a most successful metaphysical research programme. . . . [Popper, 1978, p. 344]

I have changed my mind about the testability and logical status of the theory of natural selection; and I am glad to have an opportunity to make a recantation. . . . [p. 345]

The theory of natural selection may be so formulated that it is far from tautological. In this case it is not only testable, but it turns out to be not strictly universally true. There seem to be exceptions, as with so many biological theories; and considering the random character of the variations on which natural selection operates, the occurrence of exceptions is not surprising. [p. 346]


From here:
What did Karl Popper Really Say about Evolution?

It seems as though Creationists like to ignore the Popper's recantation of his earlier statements.  

Like any good scientist, Popper was able to admit earlier mistakes when presented with convincing evidence/arguments showing his error.  An admirable trait that Creationists don't share.


 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 1:21 PM on August 27, 2009 | IP
Mustrum

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from orion at 12:21 PM on August 27, 2009 :

I wasn't familiar with Karl Popper until Lester mentioned him.  Karl Popper was a philosopher of science, though not actually a scientist himself.  


There's a reason why most scientists don't pay attention to most philosophers - the philosophers typically don't know enough science to have anything of import to say about any given area of research.  Hence we see guys like Popper and Flew make what are elementary mistakes to someone actually well versed in a field.




(Edited by Mustrum 8/27/2009 at 2:26 PM).


-------
*Mustrum*
 


Posts: 143 | Posted: 2:25 PM on August 27, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Mustrum

If we ever found a bunny fossils mixed in with trilobites, then we would have to change our notions of how life has developed.


Well Mustrum, that’s just silly. The problem with that sort of example is that creationists don’t expect bunnies to be mixed in with trilobites either since according to the flood model, bunnies were not in the lowest areas of the ocean ready to be buried first. So since bunnies in the Cambrian fits neither model, it is laughable to expect such a thing. Like you, we say that invertebrates and fish would be first generally, followed by amphibians, then reptiles then land mammals and birds though obviously in our model birds and mammals and reptiles can be found together though birds are more likely to have flown around a bit before they were too tired to carry on . It all depends on what was alive in any particular region when the flood waters washed them away. That is why we aren’t surprised when layers are missing all over the place because unlike evolutionists who correlate sedimentary layers with time, we correlate them with ecological regions and body densities. I’m not an expert in flood geology but I think I’ve got the general idea. According to your model, why are so many sedimentary layers missing in the majority of deposits? Did time go missing. It’s definitely not erosion related. So why???

Every time we find a fossil, it is a test of the theory of evolution.  


It also tests the story of a worldwide flood –so you need to differentiate. The presence of a fossil does not automatically shout ‘evolution.’

If for instance we found that mutations didn't happen or that they could not be passed on to future generations, then we would have to drastically change our models for inheritance.


The problem is, once again, that both models (creation and evolution) support genetic variability. It’s the extent of the change possible that we differ on. So according to our model, systematic divisions should be seen and according to your model, gradual change should be seen. When we look at the fossil record, it is all in support of our model but evolutionists claim it supports their model only there are things still needing to be found. It should be a lot more obvious however.
We predict that the record will continue to show clear gaps no matter how many fossils are found but we also know that the fossil record 150 years after Darwin is very representative of what there is and cannot be excused anymore.

Together, the two lines of evidence support each other and provide evidence for one of the most successfully tested ideas in science.


No they don’t and no it isn’t.




-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 11:18 AM on August 28, 2009 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Like you, we say that invertebrates and fish would be first generally, followed by amphibians, then reptiles then land mammals and birds though obviously in our model birds and mammals and reptiles can be found together though birds are more likely to have flown around a bit before they were too tired to carry on.


How did the bird eggs manage to out-swim the dinosaur eggs?

(Edited by EntwickelnCollin 8/28/2009 at 5:43 PM).


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 3:38 PM on August 28, 2009 | IP
Yehren

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Heck, I'd like to know how the oak trees managed to outrun the conifers and cyclads.

Care to explain that, Lester?
 


Posts: 84 | Posted: 6:41 PM on August 28, 2009 | IP
Yehren

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I wrote this on a now-defunct message board years ago:

“Creationist's Theme Song”

Don't know much about biology,
Don't know paleontology.
Don't know nothin' in no science book,
And big numbers always get me shook.
Don't know much about geology,
Don't know much of embryology.
Don't know much about no DNA;
It's all Satan's doing, anyway.
And I know that none of it is true,
And if I can make you doubt it too,
What a wonderful world this would be.

I don't claim to be an “A” student;
I don't want to be.
’Cause maybe by being an “A” student, Baby,
I'd learn somethin’ real bad for me.

Don’t know much about no rocks and ages
Look at the pictures and I turn the pages.
Don’t know how the oak trees ran so fast
Till the flood caught up with them at last.

But Woody’s story’s good enough for me
And if all those scientists could see.
What a wonderful world this would be.

What a wonderful, wonderful, wonderful world!

(Edited by Yehren 8/28/2009 at 6:51 PM).
 


Posts: 84 | Posted: 6:46 PM on August 28, 2009 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Yehren at 6:41 PM on August 28, 2009 :
Heck, I'd like to know how the oak trees managed to outrun the conifers and cyclads.

Care to explain that, Lester?


That is a very valid question because not only does it present a problem for the "these organisms could run faster" theory behind the flood, but it doesn't work under the "these organisms were at lower elevations" theory either, because conifers grow at higher elevations than deciduous trees.




-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 7:24 PM on August 28, 2009 | IP
Yehren

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

That is a very valid question because not only does it present a problem for the "these organisms could run faster" theory behind the flood, but it doesn't work under the "these organisms were at lower elevations" theory either, because conifers grow at higher elevations than deciduous trees.


Well, maybe "hydrologic sorting",  um, wait, they float.

Er... Well, God just did it that way!  So there!


(Edited by Yehren 8/28/2009 at 8:10 PM).
 


Posts: 84 | Posted: 8:09 PM on August 28, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

How did the bird eggs manage to out-swim the dinosaur eggs?


I suppose they grew legs.

Heck, I'd like to know how the oak trees managed to outrun the conifers and cyclads.


I'm too stupid to know that.

As for your poetry Yehren, you're good. If you'd just change that title to reflect reality, it'd be very good.

And while you're busy being clever, please explain why there's no evidence of gradualism in the fossil record; why the gaps remain systematic and large; why we can only demonstrate small changes within a kind and need to imagine the rest; why there was 'rapid change' in the past producing completely new body forms while it never has happened in recorded history; why we have to imagine that evolution happened because the only physical evidence that exists, the fossil record, doesn't support it; why the evolution of plants remains an 'abominable mystery'  - so many questions, so few answers.


-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 02:34 AM on August 29, 2009 | IP
Yehren

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

And while you're busy being clever, please explain why there's no evidence of gradualism in the fossil record;


Let's test that belief.    If I could show you such a transition in the fossil record, with each example different from the one before and after by less variation than exists within many species today, would you then admit it existed?  

why there was 'rapid change' in the past producing completely new body forms while it never has happened in recorded history;


We've seen it repeatedly.  Would you like some examples?

 


Posts: 84 | Posted: 07:37 AM on August 29, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

If I could show you such a transition in the fossil record, with each example different from the one before and after by less variation than exists within many species today, would you then admit it existed?


Maybe - as long as you're not going to try using the differences produced by human breeding; Oh go ahead, whatever, show me!

We've seen it repeatedly.  Would you like some examples?


I would love to see it -please.




-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 08:08 AM on August 29, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

A continuous fossil record of a species changing?  You can look at the fossil record of marine plankton - such as diatoms.  Core samples clearly show an evolutionary change in these organisms over time.  
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 10:59 AM on August 29, 2009 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 02:34 AM on August 29, 2009 :
How did the bird eggs manage to out-swim the dinosaur eggs?


I suppose they grew legs.

Heck, I'd like to know how the oak trees managed to outrun the conifers and cyclads.


I'm too stupid to know that.


So that's it? You seriously won't even try to explain such a huge flaw in the "swam faster" flood theory? This isn't something you can just gloss over and refuse to explain.


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 11:04 AM on August 29, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The only thing needed to show the "flood model" incorrect is an example like this showing a succession of forests interlaced with volcanic strata.  The numerous paleosol layers show roots and stumps and trace fossils of insects and worms, as well as the animal fossils.  The flora and fauna for each succession change according to their time period.  The following example is from the John Day Fossil Bed National Monument in Oregon, but similar examples exist all over the world.


From:PALEOSOLS AND PALEOENVIRONMENT OF THE CLARNO AREA


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 11:36 AM on August 29, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The Noah's Ark and Flood business is so absurd, given what we know of the world today, that I find it hard to believe that anyone can take it seriously.
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 12:12 PM on August 29, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lester

EntwickeinCollin

How did the bird eggs manage to out-swim the dinosaur eggs?


I suppose they grew legs.



Hmmm, ToE doesn't have any problem explaining that question.  But it seems that it makes Creationism choke.


(Edited by orion 8/29/2009 at 4:59 PM).
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 4:57 PM on August 29, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

John Day Fossil Beds National Monument, Kimberly, Oregon

Geology Field Notes:  http://www2.nature.nps.gov/grd/parks/joda/index.htm
Paleontology: http://www.nps.gov/joda/paleo.htm

The John Day River Valley holds some of the richest fossil beds in the world, a record of remarkable continuity during the Tertiary Period of the Cenozoic Era, or the “Age of Mammals”.   While fossil beds that span five million years are rare, this valley records more than 40 million years of the diverse plant and animal life that existed here from 45 million to 5 million years ago.  It is a record of such continuity and duration that scientists can test paleontological theories against the fossil record. Fossil beds contain vestiges of the actual soils, rivers, ponds, watering holes, mudslides, ashfalls, floodplains, middens, trackways, prairies, and forests.  Fossil plants are generally more helpful than animals for understanding ecosystems.  The John Day paleontology staff is working to identify the plant types over time and so they can reconstruct the ancient ecosystems and climates of eastern Oregon.



The climate here changed from warm and moist tropical and subtropical forests into cooler, drier grasslands over the course of 40 million years.  The plant and animal life changed as well.  The evolution of mammals can be followed here from early browsers and scavengers to dogs, cats, pigs, horses, camels, rhinos, and rodents. To these were added bears, bear-dogs, weasels, and a species of early elephant.  Finally the latest formation includes horses, sloths, rhinos, camels, peccaries, pronghorns, dogs, bears, looking more like what we are familiar with today.


Selected National Parks with Fossil Treasures


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 11:56 PM on August 29, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Orion

You can look at the fossil record of marine plankton - such as diatoms.  Core samples clearly show an evolutionary change in these organisms over time.  


Well this should be interesting. My father is a diatom specialist and he subscribes to evolution but he can be trusted to say what he's seen and how he arrived at his conclusion; so I will write him a letter, get his evolutionist opinion on this one and get back to you. I don't know whether he has had much to do with the evolution of diatoms but i'm sure he must have some idea.


-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 05:14 AM on September 2, 2009 | IP
Yehren

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Molecular Fossils as Time Indicators for the Evolution of Diatoms.
Rampen, S. W.; Schouten, S.; Muyzer, G.; Abbas, B.; Rowland, S. J.; Moldowan, M.; Sinninghe Damsté, J. S.
American Geophysical Union, Fall Meeting 2004, abstract #B33B-0256

   Bacillariophyta (diatoms) are one of the most abundant divisions of phytoplankton, and contribute to almost 50% of the primary productivity of today's oceans. However, their ecological dominance is relatively young and little is known about the exact pace of their rapid evolution. DNA analyses on diatoms and the use of molecular clock calculations can help to reconstruct their evolution, but this molecular clock rate needs to be calibrated against the fossil record to determine the mutation rate. Until now, diatom silica skeletons have been used for reconstructing the evolution of diatoms, but their use is limited due to destruction by diagenesis. Molecular fossils may prove to be more useful for time reconstruction. To search for suitable compounds, we have analyzed both the lipid composition and 18S rRNA sequences of ca. 100 marine diatoms. This revealed that some specific phylogenetic clusters within the diatoms produce specific organic compounds, so-called diatom biomarkers. One group of diatom biomarkers are the C25 highly branched isoprenoid (HBI) alkenes (1,2). HBI biosynthesis evolved independently at least twice in the diatoms. The first group of HBI producers consists of the centric diatoms of the genus Rhizosolenia, the second group comprises pennate diatoms of the genera Haslea, Navicula and Pleurosigma. Based on the constructed phylogenetic tree it is likely that the HBI biosynthesis evolved first in the older group of centric diatoms (i.e. the Rhizosolenia genus). The fossil record was studied to determine the geological occurrence of C25 HBI alkenes, and this data set shows that HBI biosynthesis evolved ca. 91.5 My ago, so we can date the evolution of the genus Rizosolenia to ca. 91.5 My. With this information, we can now accurately predict the mutation rate of the 18S rDNA gene to 1% per 14.8 My for Rhizosolenia, which is substantially faster than the 1% per 18-26 My reported previously for diatoms in general. Another specific biomarker is 24-norsterol. Its value as an age diagnostic biomarker was already reported (3), but the source of this sterol was still unknown although a diatomaceous source was assumed. We have now found this sterol in the diatom species Thalassiosira aff. Antarctica. In combination with the knowledge that the 24-norsterol production increased substantially during the Cretaceous this may provide a tool to predict the mutation rate of the Thalassiosirales. Our data show that molecular paleontology can assist in obtaining more reliable estimates of the molecular clock rate and thus be an important tool in reconstructing the evolution of diatoms. References: 1. J.K. Volkman et al., Org.Geochem. 21, 407-413 (1994). 2. J.S. Sinninghe Damsté et al., Science 304, 584-587 (2004). 3. A.G. Holba et al., Org.Geochem. 29, 1269-1283 (1998).  

 


Posts: 84 | Posted: 07:16 AM on September 2, 2009 | IP
Yehren

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Barbarian observes:
We've seen it repeatedly.  Would you like some examples?

I would love to see it -please.

Podarcis sicula
http://mwclarkson.blogspot.com/2008/04/rapid-evolution-of-lizards-in-adriatic.html

In a few decades a newly-introduced lizard species changed in size, evolved a new organ, developed a new endosymbiont, and evolved the jaw to have a more efficient bite.

This is significant confirmation of the argument by Gould and Mayr that evolution is most frequently allopatric by small founder populations.



 


Posts: 84 | Posted: 07:28 AM on September 2, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Great example of evolution in action, Yehren.
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 11:59 PM on September 2, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

changed in size, evolved a new organ, developed a new endosymbiont, and evolved the jaw to have a more efficient bite.


Changed in size, developed a new endosymbiont and a more efficient jaw -nothing macro there.
And the new organ? What new organ? Cannot open that page, so how about you tell me about the new organ -this should be interesting since you need organized information for new organs that do something with purpose, not random changes. Please enlighten me.  



-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 10:14 AM on September 12, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 10:14 AM on September 12, 2009 :
changed in size, evolved a new organ, developed a new endosymbiont, and evolved the jaw to have a more efficient bite.


Changed in size, developed a new endosymbiont and a more efficient jaw -nothing macro there.
And the new organ? What new organ? Cannot open that page, so how about you tell me about the new organ -this should be interesting since you need organized information for new organs that do something with purpose, not random changes. Please enlighten me.  



Here Lester, let me help you.  Here is the article below - with citations.


Enough about Ben Stein and his lies about evolution. Let's talk some truth about evolution, namely scientific truth. The fine folks at Zooillogix brought my attention to a paper that flew under my radar at a time I may (perhaps) have been more focused on basketball. In it, researchers from Harvard and Amherst studied a population of lizards on a very small islet in the Mediterranean. In less than 40 years, this population of lizards has evolved to have significantly different morphology from its parent population, a new set of endosymbionts, and novel anatomical features rarely in related lizard species. It's an interesting case of evolution in action.

Back in 1971 10 lizards of the species Podarcis sicula were transplanted from one small islet in the South Adriatic to a nearby, somewhat smaller hunk of rock. Over a three year period from 2004-2006, Herrel et al. returned to these small islands to see what became of the lizards (1). What they found is that the transplanted lizards had taken over the second islet. The lizards from the second island were still genetically very similar to those on the originating island (see their supplementary figure 5). However, there were pronounced differences in the diet. Whereas the population on the island of origin ate very little plant matter (<10% of the total diet), the transplanted lizards appeared to subsist mostly on plant matter, with some seasonal variations up and down from 50%.

The change in diet appears to have prompted some substantial changes in morphology as well. The size and mass of the lizards on the second island is significantly greater, and the head dimensions are altered. For the smaller female lizards, this translates directly into an increase in bite force. For the male lizards, however, the differences in head size alone are not sufficient to account for the observed increase in bite force, implying that there are additional adaptations of some kind. Herrel et al. speculate that the increased bite force of the lizards helps them to eat and digest leaves. This is reinforced by the observation that structural features related to the opening of the jaw are largely unchanged.

There are additional adaptations internally. For instance, the lizards on the second island have a structure called a cecal valve (and additional anatomical changes to the cecum) that are believed to aid in the digestion of plant matter such as leaves. This is particularly interesting because this valve structure does not appear in the originating population, and is rare among related species of lizards (the suborder scleroglossa). Moreover, the hindgut of these lizards contained nematodes that are absent from the parent population, suggesting the development of a novel symbiosis. The authors note that the new morphological characteristics are present in juveniles as well as adults, suggesting that the changes involved are genetic, though further experiment is required. The authors also note some interesting changes in population dynamics and behavior that appear to have resulted from the altered eating habits of these lizards.

That these new features appeared within less than 40 years is especially striking. In less than a human lifetime this population of lizards evolved adaptations such as altered jaw morphology, as well as an apparently novel internal feature. While small populations and constrained locations can accelerate the process of evolution, it is still instructive to consider this result when discussing the "likelihood" of evolution. Significant morphological adaptations can evolve very rapidly. Imagine what the power of evolution could do given hundreds of millions of years in which to work.

Oh, wait... you don't have to.

1. Herrel, A., Huyghe, K., Vanhooydonck, B., Backeljau, T., Breugelmans, K., Grbac, I., Van Damme, R., Irschick, D.J. (2008). Rapid large-scale evolutionary divergence in morphology and performance associated with exploitation of a different dietary resource. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 105(12), 4792-4795. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0711998105


The transplanted lizards on the 2nd island had to adapt to a new diet consisting of much more vegetation than the original population of lizards.  They developed internal changes in order to adapt to a more prodominant vegetarian diet.

All in less than 40 years.  ToE explains this all very nicely.  Creationism doesn't.
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 2:05 PM on September 12, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

For instance, the lizards on the second island have a structure called a cecal valve (and additional anatomical changes to the cecum) that are believed to aid in the digestion of plant matter such as leaves. This is particularly interesting because this valve structure does not appear in the originating population, and is rare among related species of lizards


There's your answer. The DNA information already exists in suborder scleroglossa so they were already carriers of the information. It did not originate spontaneously via mutation and natural selection. Every kind of creature on the planet seems to be capable of adapting to different diets and circumstances but they remain the 'same kind.' A lizard is a lizard and will ever remain a lizard so what you have illustrated is yet another case of microvariation not anything macro but you've done it in an attempt to imply macrevolution. Pretty bent but we are used to those tactics so it doesn't take a lot to spot.

All in less than 40 years.


So it remained a lizard -all in less than 40 years -that is amazing!  


-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 05:45 AM on September 13, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lester

There's your answer. The DNA information already exists in suborder scleroglossa so they were already carriers of the information. It did not originate spontaneously via mutation and natural selection. Every kind of creature on the planet seems to be capable of adapting to different diets and circumstances but they remain the 'same kind.' A lizard is a lizard and will ever remain a lizard so what you have illustrated is yet another case of microvariation not anything macro but you've done it in an attempt to imply macrevolution. Pretty bent but we are used to those tactics so it doesn't take a lot to spot.


Weak argument, Lester.  You wanted an example showing how evolution could bring about morphorlogical changes, here it is.

It a beautiful example.  Changes in a species population to adapt to a new environment and food supply.  Larger head, stronger bite, new internal digestive structure, new behavior.  

Here's a summary by PZ Myers:
Still Just a Lizard


And here... From Science Daily News...

Lizards undergo rapid evolution after introduction to a new home


I find it interesting that when presented with an example of something you have demanded (an internal morphorlogical change) in the other threads, that you backpedal and try to weasel.

Creationists are great weasels!

(Edited by orion 9/13/2009 at 10:12 AM).
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 10:10 AM on September 13, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

You wanted an example showing how evolution could bring about morphorlogical changes, here it is.


External morphological change like in the example of dinosaurs turning to birds or land mammals turning to whales. So many many external and internal morphological changes are required for these things to happen and we don't know that it's possible. So if that lizard kind already had the genetic information for that anatomical variation then it is nothing new in the kind. It is still a lizard and you and I both know it. It'll easily satisfy you because you're already an evolution  believer so all you need to see is different creatures dead in sedimentary rocks in order to put together a family tree. I am not a believer so I need a little more convincing.

Thanks for the example of microvariation though.



-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 09:59 AM on September 14, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

There's also this from Dr David Menton, an anatomist:

“The ‘new’ muscular valve they found between the small and large intestine is simply an enlargement of muscles already present in the gut wall at this juncture.” In other words, far from being a truly new feature, the shift in available food allowed lizards with larger muscles at the juncture to be more successful at feeding and reproducing.

Menton also suggests that if the lizards were returned to their original habitat, the cecal valve feature may dwindle as the lizards returned to an insectivorous diet.

Apparently the researchers aren’t even sure about the genetic basis for the change, another suggestion that the “evolution” did not involve any new genetic information in the lizards. McGill University biologist Andrew Hendry noted, “All of this might be evolution. The logical next step would be to confirm the genetic basis for these changes” (emphasis added). Hendry wonders, as Menton suggests, if the change was simply the lizards’ “plastic response to the environment.”

Thus, once again, this so-called “evolution” is possibly just natural selection acting on pre-existing genetic information, helping a population adapt to its surroundings. However, without knowing the exact genetic or epigenetic mechanism(s) underlying the change, we can’t determine exactly what is going on, biologically speaking.
More important (as Irschick said) is the speed of the changes, which reminds us of how quickly the original created kinds could have varied into the biodiversity we see today.


Knowing what I do about the general picture of lack of transitionals in the fossil record -this is just another example of wishful thinking on the part of the true believers.



-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 10:33 AM on September 14, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lester -

David Menton comments were made in AIG, hardly a reputable scientific source.  I have to admit, the points he makes about the cecal valve require a response.  But I'm not an expert, so I can't comment.  I would like to see what biologists have to say about his comments.  

However, the fact that he makes his comments in AIG instead of the areana of scientific peer review, makes his comments suspect.  Still, I would like to hear some response to his comments by a credible peer authority.
Knowing what I do about the general picture of lack of transitionals in the fossil record -this is just another example of wishful thinking on the part of the true believers.


Yes, we know all about your doubts about transitional fossils.  But your assertions, without bringing anything to the table to back them up, don't amount to much.
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 1:19 PM on September 14, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 10:33 AM on September 14, 2009 :
There's also this from Dr David Menton, an anatomist:

“The ‘new’ muscular valve they found between the small and large intestine is simply an enlargement of muscles already present in the gut wall at this juncture.” In other words, far from being a truly new feature, the shift in available food allowed lizards with larger muscles at the juncture to be more successful at feeding and reproducing.

Menton also suggests that if the lizards were returned to their original habitat, the cecal valve feature may dwindle as the lizards returned to an insectivorous diet.

Apparently the researchers aren’t even sure about the genetic basis for the change, another suggestion that the “evolution” did not involve any new genetic information in the lizards. McGill University biologist Andrew Hendry noted, “All of this might be evolution. The logical next step would be to confirm the genetic basis for these changes” (emphasis added). Hendry wonders, as Menton suggests, if the change was simply the lizards’ “plastic response to the environment.”

Thus, once again, this so-called “evolution” is possibly just natural selection acting on pre-existing genetic information, helping a population adapt to its surroundings. However, without knowing the exact genetic or epigenetic mechanism(s) underlying the change, we can’t determine exactly what is going on, biologically speaking.
More important (as Irschick said) is the speed of the changes, which reminds us of how quickly the original created kinds could have varied into the biodiversity we see today.


Knowing what I do about the general picture of lack of transitionals in the fossil record -this is just another example of wishful thinking on the part of the true believers.




David Menton has been caught in major lies before.  Good Christian YEC and all....

Seems Davy the anatomist made some 'matter-of-fact' commentary about a fossil despite 1. having never seen it; 2. not being a paleontologist and 3. the structures he was discussing were not even mentioned in the article that he referred to!

Not that his YEC underlings care about such facts....


-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 3:40 PM on September 14, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 09:44 AM on August 27, 2009 :
and evolution is in fact one of the premier theories and success stories of science.


That's the sort of things we hear rushing from the mouths of evolutionists all the time but is it true?
The theory of evolution as with any theory is allowed secondary modifications when it flunks a test in order to salvage it. The theory loses credibility when it has to be repeatedly modified and requires excuses to continually be made for it not being consistent with the data.It is not an attribute to require numerous modifications.


I jsut love seeing creationists demonstrate how truly ignorant they are of science.


-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 3:43 PM on September 14, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 10:14 AM on September 12, 2009 :
changed in size, evolved a new organ, developed a new endosymbiont, and evolved the jaw to have a more efficient bite.


Changed in size, developed a new endosymbiont and a more efficient jaw -nothing macro there.



Nothign is ever quitre good enough for the internet YEC.

I do hope that by now we all realize that YECs are, frankly, lying when they claim to want to be shown evidence.  They don't.  They want to be able to find a reason to reject anything you present to them, even if it is as simplistic as simply claiming not to accept it.

And the new organ? What new organ? Cannot open that page, so how about you tell me about the new organ -this should be interesting since you need organized information for new organs that do something with purpose, not random changes. Please enlighten me.  


No, please enlighten me - what do you mean by "organized information"?

Define information for us in this context.







-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 3:47 PM on September 14, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 05:45 AM on September 13, 2009 :
For instance, the lizards on the second island have a structure called a cecal valve (and additional anatomical changes to the cecum) that are believed to aid in the digestion of plant matter such as leaves. This is particularly interesting because this valve structure does not appear in the originating population, and is rare among related species of lizards


There's your answer. The DNA information already exists in suborder scleroglossa so they were already carriers of the information.

Nice ad hoc cop out...


It did not originate spontaneously via mutation and natural selection.

Amazing!  A series of unsupported assertions, and Lester has protected his fragile belief system!  Hooray!


-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 3:48 PM on September 14, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from orion at 10:10 AM on September 13, 2009 :

I find it interesting that when presented with an example of something you have demanded (an internal morphorlogical change) in the other threads, that you backpedal and try to weasel.

Creationists are great weasels!



That is what they do.

Their worldview is so ridiculous and weak that they must engage in such intellectually dishonest behavior to rescue it.

Many years ago, I was in a discussion with a YEC who claimed that if she saw a gradual progression in DNA sequence dissimilarity among species that mirrored evolutionary hypotheses, she would be "troubled" and this would cause her to re-think her YEC beiefs.

I presented her with EXACTLY what she asked for - a data matrix for 30+ species showing a ~2% sequence divergence across phylogeny.

Did she find it troubling?  Did she re-think her YEC beliefs?

No.

She declared that since the matrix did not include the entire genomes of all animals, she did not feel that she had to consider it.

These people are dishonest to their core.


-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 3:53 PM on September 14, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from orion at 1:19 PM on September 14, 2009 :
Lester -

David Menton comments were made in AIG, hardly a reputable scientific source.  I have to admit, the points he makes about the cecal valve require a response.  But I'm not an expert, so I can't comment.  I would like to see what biologists have to say about his comments.  

That the cecal valve is 'just' a thickening of already present musculature is actually supportive of evolutionary hypotheses, which dictate that  evolution proceeds by modifying already-existing structures.  Indeed, the basic body form of all tetrapods, for example, has remained unchanged for millions and millions of years, and the diversity of forms we see today are merely alterations on that basic theme.

Menton unwittingly gave evolution some support, but he is so zealous to argue via false authority (Menton's actual area of expertise is wound healing) that he failed to grasp his slip up.  That or he really doesn't understand evolution very well.


-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 3:57 PM on September 14, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

That the cecal valve is 'just' a thickening of already present musculature is actually supportive of evolutionary hypotheses, which dictate that  evolution proceeds by modifying already-existing structures.


Not really, you see that might work somewhat when a body type already exists but it doesn't explain where it came from. Are us humans just a modified unicellular organism? You'd have to say yes. The problem is that modification of existing structures is something supported by creation. It is the arrival of new co-ordinated structures that evolution has to explain.  

Indeed, the basic body form of all tetrapods, for example, has remained unchanged for millions and millions of years


Assuming that millions of years actually occurred on this planet.

Menton unwittingly gave evolution some support, but he is so zealous to argue via false authority


I don't think so. You seem to be the false authority. He is an anatomist.

That or he really doesn't understand evolution very well.


Apparently anybody that doesn't agree with evolutionists, don't understand evolution very well.


-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 06:16 AM on September 16, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 06:16 AM on September 16, 2009 :
That the cecal valve is 'just' a thickening of already present musculature is actually supportive of evolutionary hypotheses, which dictate that  evolution proceeds by modifying already-existing structures.


Not really, you see that might work somewhat when a body type already exists but it doesn't explain where it came from.


The cecal valve came from the already existing musculature.  You referred to Menton the documented liar re: the 'origin' of the cecal valve.  Havinog that responded to, you now say this does not explain where "it came from."

A nice example of the ever changing creationist goal posts in these debates - answer the question that was actually asked, you just get another question and a claim that you never answered the first.

Are us humans just a modified unicellular organism? You'd have to say yes. The problem is that modification of existing structures is something supported by creation. It is the arrival of new co-ordinated structures that evolution has to explain.  

What is a new co-ordinated structure?  What is "new" about the cecal valve?
Of course, evolution is all about the modification of already existing structures.  Creation is about poofing unchanging forms into existence from dirt.  Don't you know your own position?


Indeed, the basic body form of all tetrapods, for example, has remained unchanged for millions and millions of years


Assuming that millions of years actually occurred on this planet.

Very good reasons to conclude that.  No reason at all to assume that the earth fits the bible timeline - the flood, for example, according to biblical pseudoliteralists* occurred about 4,500 years ago.  Problem is, if that is so, there are several established cultures who left written records transcending that timeframe.  They were not affected by this 'worldwide' flood.
So, either the Flood was not global or it did not happen at all.


Menton unwittingly gave evolution some support, but he is so zealous to argue via false authority


I don't think so. You seem to be the false authority. He is an anatomist.


Um...
So am I.  My graduate degree is in Anatomy and Cell biology, I did my graduate research in molecular phylogenetics.  I've taught human anatomy and cell biology both at the undergraduate and graduate level (undergrad level for 10 years), I teach comparative vertebrate anatomy as well as embryology.

Menton has no background in anything but human anatomy, and he wrote a commentary on something that was not in evidence, that he had thus not seen nor even read about, yet discussed it (dismissed it with bogus claims) as if he were an expert.


That or he really doesn't understand evolution very well.


Apparently anybody that doesn't agree with evolutionists, don't understand evolution very well.


Well, that is most often the case.  That is why, for example, there is a positive correlation bewteen acceptance of evolution and education level.




*pseudoliteralist - someone who claims to take the bible literally, yet resorts to interpretations when it suits their agenda


(Edited by derwood 9/16/2009 at 11:49 AM).


-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 11:47 AM on September 16, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Derwood

Lester

Derwood


Menton unwittingly gave evolution some support, but he is so zealous to argue via false authority


I don't think so. You seem to be the false authority. He is an anatomist.





Um...
So am I.  My graduate degree is in Anatomy and Cell biology, I did my graduate research in molecular phylogenetics.  I've taught human anatomy and cell biology both at the undergraduate and graduate level (undergrad level for 10 years), I teach comparative vertebrate anatomy as well as embryology.

Menton has no background in anything but human anatomy, and he wrote a commentary on something that was not in evidence, that he had thus not seen nor even read about, yet discussed it (dismissed it with bogus claims) as if he were an expert.


Derwood - thanks for your comments debunking Menton.  I'm glad I'm not on the other side debating you!  
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 8:42 PM on September 16, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from orion at 8:42 PM on September 16, 2009 :
Derwood - thanks for your comments debunking Menton.  I'm glad I'm not on the other side debating you!  

Well thanks, but Menton does a pretty good job of debunking himself.  He, like many 'professional' YECs, seems to rely on the fact that most of the people that read his work will not understand what he is writing, and/or will not bother to go to the original sources to verify his claims.

I had to laugh - several years ago, a YEC was boasting about Menton and his 'technical' paper refuting embryology as evidence for evolution.  I checked out the 'technical paper' in question - and yes, it was referred to as a 'technical or in-depth' paper on the RAE website, but it was a 3-4 paragraph essay, with no references, and consisted entirely of Menton just claiming that that embryology is not evidence for evolutioon - oh no, it is REALLY evidence fo rcreation!


-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 2:22 PM on September 17, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 06:16 AM on September 16, 2009 :

Assuming that millions of years actually occurred on this planet.


Actually, it's a conclusion, based on overwhelming evidence.



-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 11:03 PM on September 18, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Assuming that millions of years actually occurred on this planet.

Actually, it's a conclusion, based on overwhelming evidence.


You mean based on radiometric dating. Only radiometric dating gives you the kinds of dates you need to make evolution even remotely feasible. The problem is that it is based on unprovable assumptions, so you have to want to accept the dates, which of course all evolutionists do.

In fact do you have any examples at all where radiometric dating has ever worked for known dates. It doesn't tend to work for carbon dating so why would we ever consider trusting long period element decay  for unknown dates ?

Unless we just wanted to because it was the only kind of dating method that had any tendency whatsoever to support our philosophy...



-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 08:06 AM on September 30, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 08:06 AM on September 30, 2009 :
Assuming that millions of years actually occurred on this planet.

Actually, it's a conclusion, based on overwhelming evidence.


You mean based on radiometric dating. Only radiometric dating gives you the kinds of dates you need to make evolution even remotely feasible.


No, ages of millions of years were concluded in the 1700's long before radioactivity was discovered, based on geological evidence.  Hide your head in the sand if you must.



-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 08:12 AM on September 30, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

No, ages of millions of years were concluded in the 1700's long before radioactivity was discovered, based on geological evidence.  Hide your head in the sand if you must.


Tell me Apoapsis, how exactly did they do that? If you stare at rocks long enough do they tell you their age? Is there some physical property that shows us the age? (wrinkles perhaps) I know you believe this, but you’ve got to ask yourself -how does one find empirical evidence for age in a rock? It certainly seems to me that the best guess is the winner. Perhaps that is why the age of the earth accelerated so rapidly from the 1700’s (70 000 odd years) to present day estimate of billions of years.

You are clearly the one with your head in the sand.


-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 07:28 AM on October 3, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lester - we're still waiting for you to present some evidence showing how radiometric method are unreliable and that the results are wrong across the board.  

Still waiting... waiting...
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 09:30 AM on October 3, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 07:28 AM on October 3, 2009 :
No, ages of millions of years were concluded in the 1700's long before radioactivity was discovered, based on geological evidence.  Hide your head in the sand if you must.


Tell me Apoapsis, how exactly did they do that? If you stare at rocks long enough do they tell you their age? Is there some physical property that shows us the age? (wrinkles perhaps) I know you believe this, but you’ve got to ask yourself -how does one find empirical evidence for age in a rock? It certainly seems to me that the best guess is the winner. Perhaps that is why the age of the earth accelerated so rapidly from the 1700’s (70 000 odd years) to present day estimate of billions of years.

You are clearly the one with your head in the sand.


Bishop Steno developed the law of superposition in the 1600's.  From that and thermodynamics, attempts to calculate ages developed.   The early attempts were perhaps not so accurate, Comte de Buffon came up with between 75,000 and several billion.

The geologists of the time were particularly intrigued with igneous intrusions into sedimentary rocks.  It was clear evidence for the origin of granite and metamorphic rock over long periods.

The people of the 1700's were no less intelligent than we, they just didn't have the advantage of the knowledge base and technology that we have.


...Some drill and bore
The solid Earth, and from the strata there
Extract a register, by which we learn
That he who made it, and reveal'd its date
To Moses, was mistaken in its age

(William Cowper 1785, perhaps better known for the phrase "Variety is the spice of life").




-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 10:08 PM on October 3, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lester - we're still waiting for you to present some evidence showing how radiometric method are unreliable


The assumptions are as follows: (this list is not complete but rather the most obvious problems that exist.)

1.That equilibrium has been reached between incoming and outgoing C14 – as it turns out it hasn’t, we are 25% out of equilibrium but Willard Libby chalked that up to margin of error (a hefty one) because he knew that the earth was billions of years old and that it takes only about 30 000 years to reach equilibrium. Bad assumption.
2.Has the rate of decay remained constant? (it appears not, see RATE results)
3.Starting amount of C14 when the animal died (depends on ratio of C12:C14 in the atmosphere –has it always been the same?) Like a candle burning at known rate –we need to know how long it was to start with.
4.Changes in rate of production of C14 with time – cosmic ray penetration, strength of earth’s magnetic field, Genesis flood

Elizabeth E Ralph and Henry M. Michael “25 years of radiocarbon dating” American Scientist Sept/Oct 1974
“We know that the assumption that the biosphere inventory of C14 has remained constant over the past 50 000 years or so is not true.”

5.Contamination of samples with time –has it occurred, if so how much?

Apparently there are around 14 major assumptions that this aging technique is based upon, I am only listing the most obvious problems that partially account for the most obvious incorrect results that have resulted.
I am only discussing carbon dating but most of the same assumptions relate to all the different radiometric dating methods ie. constancy of rate, amount of starting parent element and daughter lements, contamination, anything added or removed etc.

Problems:
Anything older than about 60 000 years should have no detectable C14. If we detect C14 in fossils from layers older than 60 000 years, it is good evidence that the fossil is not that old.
Coal is supposed to take 100’s of 1000’s of years to form therefore there should be no C14 in coal but every sample found today has C14 in it. That means the max. age limit for that coal is 60 000 years.

RE Taylor “Major Revisions in the Pleistocene Age Assignments for North American Human Skeletons by C 14 Accelerator Mass Spectometry” American Antiquity Vol 50 1985 pp136-140

“Ancient human skeletons when dated by the new accelerator mass spectrometer technique give surprisingly young dates. In one study of 11 sets of ancient human bones, all were dated at about 5000 radiocarbon years or less. (Note: they were thought to be 10’s of 1000’s of years old)

Robert E. Lee
“Radiocarbon Ages in Error”, Anthropological Journal of Canada 1981 pp26-27

“The troubles of the radiocarbon dating method are undeniably deep and serious. Despite 35 years of technological refinement and better understanding, the underlying assumptions have been strongly challenged.
It should be no surprise then that fully half the dates are rejected. The wonder is that the remaining half came to be accepted.
The implications of pervasive contamination and ancient variations in C14 levels are steadfastly ignored by those who base their argument upon the dates. While the method cannot be counted on to give good unequivocal results, the numbers do impress people, and save them the trouble of thinking excessively.”

Some examples of K-Ar dating on rocks of known age:

Sunset Crater, Northern Arizona – K-Ar dating 200 000+/Reality AD 1065

Mt Ngaurhoe NZ (lava flows) –K-Ar 275 000 / Reality: 1949,1954,1975

Hualalai Basalt, Hawaii – K-Ar 1,4 –22 million / Reality AD 1801(eruption)

Mt Etna Basalt, Sicily – K-Ar 140 000 – 250 000 / Reality 1972

Mt St Helens eruption –dated up to 2,8 billion years /Reality 1980

If your assumptions are wrong, your answers will be wrong, no matter how accurate your calculations are.

So if the dates are never right when we know the age of the rocks, how can we assume that they are correct when we don’t know the dates?

When the same rock is dated by more than one method, it will often yield different results. When the rock is dated more than once by the same method, it will often give different results.
Why does the public never hear of these things?
It is called ‘deception by omission’ otherwise known as indoctrination.
Why do they do it? Because evolution can’t stand up without this sort of deception.      



-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 01:57 AM on October 4, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lester -

Some examples of K-Ar dating on rocks of known age:

Sunset Crater, Northern Arizona – K-Ar dating 200 000+/Reality AD 1065

Mt Ngaurhoe NZ (lava flows) –K-Ar 275 000 / Reality: 1949,1954,1975

Hualalai Basalt, Hawaii – K-Ar 1,4 –22 million / Reality AD 1801(eruption)

Mt Etna Basalt, Sicily – K-Ar 140 000 – 250 000 / Reality 1972

Mt St Helens eruption –dated up to 2,8 billion years /Reality 1980

If your assumptions are wrong, your answers will be wrong, no matter how accurate your calculations are.

So if the dates are never right when we know the age of the rocks, how can we assume that they are correct when we don’t know the dates?


Lester, are you sure you're not being misled?  You feel sure this example disproves K-Ar dating?
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 1:09 PM on October 4, 2009 | IP
    
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 3 4 ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 3 4 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.