Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8896 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-23-2019 3:15 PM
36 online now:
AZPaul3, DrJones*, PaulK, Tanypteryx (4 members, 32 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,593 Year: 3,630/19,786 Month: 625/1,087 Week: 215/212 Day: 30/27 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12345
6
Author Topic:   New abiogenesis news article 4/12/02
lpetrich
Inactive Member


Message 76 of 89 (29968)
01-22-2003 11:26 PM


thousands_not_billions:
Funny that evolutionists close their eyes to the evidence for the Flood.
AiG on Noah's Flood.

To which I respond: this excellent page on Noah's Flood.

Oh come on! Peter, Luke, and Matthew knew Christ really well. They were three of his disciples. Paul and Mark were well acquainted with Christ, and Paul saw Him in vision.

That must be a strange kind of acquaintance, since the historical Jesus Christ, if there ever was one, had died in the early 30's, while the Gospels are dated at 66 at the earliest, and probably 70's or later.

I invite everybody interested in the Jesus-Christ-historicity question to consult The Jesus Puzzle -- it seriously advocates the hypothesis that JC had been a myth.

I am. But the foundations of Christianity were laid down before Buddism, with the 10 Commandments and Genesis.

Jews would disagree; they consider Jesus Christ nobody special.

Actually, I didn't get my facts wrong again. Moses wrote the books of Job, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and half of Deuteronomy. That's quite a few.

Except that he didn't -- these books present him in the third person, and they look like they were written by several authors (JEDP, etc.)

And the Bible is not borrowed from the Hindu religion. In fact, overwelming evidence that Buddism and Hinduism borrowed from the Bible has been found. (Truth Triumphant) B.G. Wilkinson.

One would have to have a very overheated imagination to conclude that.

America's greatness came from it's Biblical ethics and Bible believing people.

Like how we all believe that the Earth is flat because the Bible clearly indicates that? And how we all sell everything we have and give the money to the poor? And seriously consider making ourselves eunuchs for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven?

Also, the Bible provided a basis for the wonderful advances in technology, and science that have come about. Many early scientists were Christians, and believed in the Bible fully. God's blessing attended them, and He allowed them to unlock the mysteries of His creation.

Male-bovine excrement, pure and simple. Early-modern scientists could not have gotten very far in their societies without professing belief in Jesus Christ, and ancient Greek ones -- most of them worked before Jesus Christ was born!

Furthemore, the Bible is not very helpful in science and technology. If one is sick, does one go to one's friendly neighborhood exorcist?

What caused the economy of these countries like Australia to boom? God's blessing on the country for one.

And how does one figure that out? Did someone see some superpowerful old man with a big white beard in action, planting natural resources in the ground?

And let us not forget about the success of non-Christian countries like Japan and Taiwan.

Just look at Nebraska Man. Evolutionists guessed that he was an ancestor of homo sapians, but he turned out to be an extinct pig.

It was recognized to be an overenthusiastic false alarm very quickly.

What evolution predicts is millions of transitional fossils, but only a handful of specimans, which are extremely debatable, have been found. The handful of specimans however, are most certainly not true transitional fossils.

Except that evolution can occur in bursts.

(someone else)
Actually, most mutations are pretty much neutral as concerns an organisms chances of survival.

Really? Why don't you tell this to someone suffering from Cystic Fibrosis. They might appreciate this. Actually, mutations almost always have a harmful affect on a species, and they always scramble information.

Non sequitur. Bad mutations do not have to be common to be real. Furthermore, the Cystic Fibrosis mutation may protect against tuberculosis the way that the Sickle-Cell Anemia mutation protects against malaria.

(quote-mining snipped)

Many mutations are "synonymous" -- they don't change the amino-acid composition of the protein they code for, something which makes them harmless.

If I have a printing press that deletes each tenth letter in a book, is new information being produced? The book is different from the origional, but no new information is formed. In fact, information is lost.

However, if I had a printing press that makes extra copies, I can create information.

And there is an abundance of evidence of gene duplication in the histories of various genes. Sometimes whole genomes get duplicated -- polyploidy.

Also, I can have a miscopying printing press create meaningful books -- by selecting every meaningful-looking miscopy and using it as an original for several more copies. I then repeat the process until I get a very meaningful book.

ho hum. Not the hox genes again. The hox genes control where body segments are grown. Mutations can shift them around. But this adds no new information to the organism, it only forms the ordinary structures in a different area of the body.

Actually, Hox genes control what each body region is supposed to be like -- whether an arthropod's limbs become antennae, mouthparts, walking legs, or are absent. Gaining sensitivity to one Hox protein but not to another adds information.

And Hox genes themselves had originated by gene duplication.

Do we really have to go through this again mate? Rarely, mutations can create seeming advantages for an organism, like bacteria that are unaffected by drugs, and beetles that cannot be blown into the sea, as they do not have wings. This is not evolution, as no new information is added, but is rather deleted.

Calling this information loss is male-bovine excrement that would make a lawyer proud.

There is no evidence of this mythical large genetic pool

No evidence against it either.

The way that there is no evidence against the proposition that Jesus Christ had been homosexual?

Evolve is not the correct wording. New characteristics can rise quickly. If a species is isolated from the parent stock, then changes can occur more quickly. This is not evolution. This is just genetics. The large gene pool after the flood gave the organisms lots of variety which could be used.

Evolution, by any other name, is still evolution.

(stuff about polystrate trees)

One problem: some lake bottoms are stagnant. This allows decay microbes to consume all the water's oxygen, meaning that they cannot continue to cause much more decay unless more oxygen (slowly) diffuses in. And (diffusion time) ~ (diffusion distance)^2.

I remember from my childhood lots of dead leaves on the bottom of a lake that I was swimming in; I dredged them up with my feet.

So a submerged tree stump can stay intact long enough to be buried by several layers of sediment.

And why not AiG? Truth is truth no matter who says it.

Except that AiG is much less true than No Answers in Genesis.

It just shows that you don't have to have millions of years to form coal.

IRRELEVANT.

Dead serious. And what's wrong with Creation magazine? All articles are reviewed by professional scientists for ages before they are published. It's a scientific magazine.

As opposed with the professional journals that publish oodles of articles on research into evolution?

Journals which don't have some oath that says that one has to believe in the absolute truth of Darwin's Origin of Species before one can publish in them -- unlike the sort of thing that many creationist societies have.

I might not know everything, but the science I have looked at all supports Creation.

In what way? Did they go back in a time machine and watch some superbeing say "let this exist", "let that exist", "let the other thing exist", with all this stuff coming into existence?

Evolutionists cannot explain the Cambian explosion. They have several theorys but none explains the mysterious absence of transitional forms leading up to the explosion of life.

Except that the "Cambrian explosion" is not quite as sudden as some people seem to think. And there was plenty of Precambrian life, though it is usually very primitive.

Look at some of the quotes by evolutionists themselves. Many are doubting evolution. ...

Except that many of these quotes are either bogus "quotes", misquotes, or out-of-context quotes.

No one will tell you that there are not canyons in the MSH ash, but pyroclastic mudflows do not look like sedimentary rock and metamorphic rock. The MSH analogy is moronic.

Have you been there? Have you seen the area? Where's the evidence for that statement?

Have you? Soft, unconsolidated mud is very unlike hard, consolidated rock.

a. C-14 is present in every sample of coal that has ever been checked. ...

Some samples, yes, but ALL? Where are all the original lab reports?

Tiny amounts of C-14 in coal are known to happen, but is produced as a side effect of the radioactive decay of uranium, thorium, and their daughter elements.

b. Wood from the Tertiary basalt was buried in a lava flow that clearly covered it, as the wood was charred. The wood was dated by C-14 to be 45,000 years old and the basalt was, well, 45,000,000 years old. Um, something's wrong here.

Seems like one's reaching the noise limit of C-14 detection in that wood -- if that measurement was ever made. Where is the original lab report?

c. Lava flows at the top of the Grand Canyon are dated to be older then lava flows imbedded in the bottom layers. What? Did the canyon form upside down?

Where did you find this out? Where are the original lab reports? Dating of igneous rocks has confirmed the chronology that was worked out from applying principles like the Law of Superposition over previous decades.

Why? The emergence of a new species does not mean the parent species dies out. You can have branching.

What determines which stay as a simplier species and which evolve? ...

They can have different preferred geographical ranges or ecological zones. Thus, a land-adapted fish may prefer to walk around on land, while a non-land-adapted one may prefer to continue swimming in the water. Check on "allopatric speciation" some time.

Mash. The guy who "constructed" the horse series. He recognized wild mustangs in the southwest with three toes living then.

Where are his original reports? And some present-day horses do have side digits -- it's a leftover from their three-toed ancestors.

SIV might have mutated to form HIV. No new information was added and no evolution is proved.

I marvel at how much evolution a creationist is willing to concede had happened.


Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by John, posted 01-26-2003 1:55 AM lpetrich has not yet responded

John
Inactive Member


Message 77 of 89 (29985)
01-23-2003 2:46 AM
Reply to: Message 73 by thousands_not_billions
01-22-2003 9:19 PM


OK. I am officially protesting the removal of the 'reply quote' button.

Back to business........

quote:
=================
There is no evidence of this mythical large genetic pool
==============

No evidence against it either.


It doesn't matter. Arguing from lack of evidence is a logical fallacy. There are countless things for which "there is no evidence against"-- invisible monkeys, flying goats, vampires, ghosts, Valhalla, etc... None of these things have evidence against them, but none have any supporting evidence either. Until you have supporting evidence, a claim is in a limbo of meaninglessness along with anything I or anyone else can make up.

quote:
How is it "not science"? Seems more scientific to me then NCSE.

Not to be harsh but how would you know? You are clueless about 90% of the science involved.

quote:
Since we're so interested about bears at the moment,

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4048.asp


ummmm.... I used bears because they were in this article. Did you have a point?

quote:
This is not evolution.

It is a bad idea to describe evolution then follow up by saying it ain't so.

quote:
This is just genetics. The large gene pool after the flood gave the organisms lots of variety which could be used.

Wait. So it isn't genetics but genes are involved? Come on, buddy, think this stuff through.

quote:
quoted from AiG

Friendly advise. Massive quotes like this and frequent responses via url-pasting will quickly get on everyone's nerves. Please try to make your own arguments. So, for the record, I am skipping the bits where you respond only via quote of url. Cite sources but make your own arguments.

quote:
Only 1/2000 of the expected amount of helium that would be expected to be in the atmosphere if the earth was thousands of years old is found.

Maybe you should reformulate this statement.

quote:
Oh has it?

Yes indeed. The nature of fossil preservation is no big secret. Complaining that it doesn't work like we want it to is just silly.

quote:
The thing about the burrowing animals is illogical. Just think about it. An animal dies underground. There are bacteria and other organisms that quickly eat it up. It doesn't sit there forever. For a fossil to form, it has to be burried quickly.

Bacteria don't eat bone. In fact, very little does. The damage to bone is a side effect of being eaten by large predators. Now, being underground an animal practically is buried already, thus it is somewhat protected from large predators. Why is this not logical?

quote:
And why not AiG? Truth is truth no matter who says it.

Yes. The problem is that AiG doesn't bother with the truth that I am aware of. AiG is a propaganda machine. What they call science is ridiculous. Copy a few articles and take them to a university. Have a professor in a relevant field take a look. Have two professors. Take it to a hundred. Eventually, I hope you'll realize the truth.

quote:
No, the first one was the one AiG put out. Word for word. It just shows that you don't have to have millions of years to form coal.

Bud, there were several versions of the same story and none of them were backed up by anything substantial. No supporting evidence, the claim is crap. If you are ok with this, fine, we'll move on but you will be admitting that the claim is unfounded. Otherwise, prove it.

quote:
And what's wrong with Creation magazine? All articles are reviewed by professional scientists for ages before they are published. It's a scientific magazine.

Sorry. It isn't. Who are the professional scientists who review the information? The editors? Sorry, that doesn't count as peer review.

quote:
The thing this proves is that it does not need millions of years to make opals. Bacteria can even form opals.

None of this is terribly groundbreaking nor earth-shattering. Why the focus on opal anyway? Reading about the stuff, I find that it is something of a sedimentary rock that forms in spaces between other rocks something like the way stalagmites form-- kinda sorta. I also find that some scientists think it only takes thousand years to form not millions, so it is not really a disproof of an old earth as you want it to be.

skipping more url redirection....

quote:
Evolutionists cannot explain the Cambian explosion. They have several theorys but none explains the mysterious absence of transitional forms leading up to the explosion of life.

You can take this up here, for the sake of consolidating threads.

http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=page&f=5&t=141&p=3

quote:
Look. We can see evidence for atoms. We can measure their width. We can tell how many are in a sample of a substance. We can conduct tests that show how atoms react. We can split the atom and destroy a city. Atoms have evidence for their existance. Evolution does not.

Yes, now you are getting it. The evidence for atoms is inferential. We can't see them but we can infer their existence. It is the same process biologists use whether you like to believe so or not.

quote:
God didn't write the Bible Himself. He inspired men to write it for him. Man was there to see it written.

So... a guy saw another guy write a book and this is proof that God wrote it? Absurd.

quote:
What do scientists do? Easy. Scientists labour to discover truth about our universe.

Which is why AiG is not a scientific organization.

quote:
Many scientists are "willingly ignorant" or the evidence, or refuse to look at any evidence that contridicts their theory.

Fabulous cop out, but you require a global conspiracy of scientists spanning hundreds of years to make this hold water. Finding real live actual evidence that overturns a prevalent theory is every scientist's wet dream.

quote:
Look at some of the quotes by evolutionists themselves. Many are doubting evolution.

Common, but incorrect statement. Many argue about particular bits but not about the whole though the ToE has had some radical alterations since it was first proposed.

quote:
Have you been there? Have you seen the area? Where's the evidence for that statement?

I have not been to MSH. I have read outside of AiG though. Pyroclastic flows are not sandstone. Why is that contraversial?

quote:
It's simple. The cold ice sheets created a colder climate in summer, thereby creating an overall cool climate with lots of H2O

Now I know you are making stuff up. The key factor in tree ring formation is seasonal variation not mean colder temperatures. Ice ages were colder all the time not just in the summer.

quote:
a. C-14 is present in every sample of coal that has ever been checked.

False. It has been detected in some coal though.

quote:
This is embarrasing, as the youngest coal is dated at "millions of years".

Dated by what means? C-14 is wildly inaccurate past 50,000 years or so.

quote:
The half life of C-14 is only 5,730 years. That means that in 11,460 years, all C-14 should be gone.

No it doesn't. You misunderstand half-life. Half should disappear ins one half-life, another half of the remaining material should disappear in the second half life, and so on... C-14 becomes inaccurate around 50k years and older.

quote:
Well, how is C-14 found in "millions of years old" coal?

Radioactive decay in the uranium-thorium isotope series. Fossil fuels that show c-14 correlate decently with radiation in the material.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/c14.html

quote:
b. Wood from the Tertiary basalt was buried in a lava flow that clearly covered it, as the wood was charred. The wood was dated by C-14 to be 45,000 years old and the basalt was, well, 45,000,000 years old. Um, something's wrong here.

Yes, because C14 does not work at 45m years old. It becomes wildly inaccurate... wow... right about the age it gave. You apply the wrong test and you get a bad answer. Go figure.

quote:
c. Lava flows at the top of the Grand Canyon are dated to be older then lava flows imbedded in the bottom layers. What? Did the canyon form upside down?

I don't know what you are talking about. Got more info?

quote:
Say some light material were laid down by flood waters and then a submarine landslide of denser material covered it.

You don't have time during a one year flood for this sort of dynamic. Too much is happening too fast.

quote:
The Sumerians sprang up right after the flood.

So Noah gets off the ark with his seven passengers and a couple of days later sumer pops up with a population of a few million? How can I take this seriously?

quote:
What have I been doing? AiG has hard evidence. The reason evolutionists don't like them is because they can't refute their evidence.

I don't like them because they have been refuted countless times but keep spreading the same garbage to new minds.

quote:
What determines which stay as a simplier species and which evolve?

Simple and more complex is misleading. Both species evolve but in different ways. Some ways work. Others don't.

quote:
You would expect that an isolated group of organisms, if evolution occured, would soon breed out the traits of the parent stock and become overwelmingly different.

If you mean that isolated population will tend to change relative to other populations, then yeah. This happens. You choice of words make me think you feel there is some intelligent force molding species.

quote:
Also, supposed descendants of earlier members of the horse series have been found below their supposed ancestors in the strata.

Then we've got the order wrong. It happens. This isn't a negation of the concept though.

quote:
SIV might have mutated to form HIV. No new information was added and no evolution is proved.

So whatever evidence you are presented you will dismiss it then?

------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com


This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by thousands_not_billions, posted 01-22-2003 9:19 PM thousands_not_billions has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by thousands_not_billions, posted 01-25-2003 9:46 PM John has responded

Andya Primanda
Inactive Member


Message 78 of 89 (29988)
01-23-2003 3:13 AM
Reply to: Message 73 by thousands_not_billions
01-22-2003 9:19 PM


quote:
What is a ‘kind’? God created a number of different types of animals with much capacity for variation within limits.4 The descendants of each of these different kinds, apart from humans, would today mostly be represented by a larger grouping than what is called a species. In most cases, those species descended from a particular original kind would be grouped today within what modern taxonomists (biologists who classify living things) call a genus (plural genera).

Would you put humans and chimps and orangutans in the same kind? Linnaeus, a Swedish creationist, named the chimp Homo troglodytes and the orangutan Homo silvestris. (Big L did not know about bonobos and gorillas).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by thousands_not_billions, posted 01-22-2003 9:19 PM thousands_not_billions has not yet responded

thousands_not_billions
Inactive Member


Message 79 of 89 (30226)
01-25-2003 9:46 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by John
01-23-2003 2:46 AM


==========
Until you have supporting evidence, a claim is in a limbo of meaninglessness along with anything I or anyone else can make up.
==========
Including Evolution. And, when God created life, it is logical that he would create them in a perfect state, which means great genetic variety.

=========
Not to be harsh but how would you know? You are clueless about 90% of the science involved.
=========

Involved in what? Evolution? There's no science in that.

==========
It is a bad idea to describe evolution then follow up by saying it ain't so.
==========

How many times do I have to repeat myself? Evolution is the bringing out of new information. What I wrote was just basic genetics.

Ex.

Suppose one parent has the genes AA and the other has the genes Bb. This is simple, but describes what I'm getting at.

Genetics predicts this:

50% of the offspring will have the genes for AB

50% will have genes for Ab.

See, a change was made. But this is not evolution! Just genetics. If we magnify this into many genes, changes can be made in one generation.

===========
Wait. So it isn't genetics but genes are involved? Come on, buddy, think this stuff through.
===========

What I said was:

"Evolve is not the correct wording. New characteristics can rise quickly. If a species is isolated from the parent stock, then changes can occur more quickly. This is not evolution. This is just genetics. The large gene pool after the flood gave the organisms lots of variety which could be used."

I said that this "WAS" genetics. Please don't misquote me.

=========
Maybe you should reformulate this statement.
=========

oops. Sorry. Bad sentance construction.

============
Bacteria don't eat bone. In fact, very little does. The damage to bone is a side effect of being eaten by large predators. Now, being underground an animal practically is buried already, thus it is somewhat protected from large predators. Why is this not logical?
============

Because most of the animals we find in the fossil record are fish, marine organisms, and plants. Organisms which do not live underground. Erosion would also lift off the layers of soil, exposing the bones and enabling them to be scatted by animals.

"In other formations where articulated skeletons of large animals are preserved, the sediment must have covered them within a few days at the most." (Dunbar & Rogers, Principles Of Stratigraphy, p 128, Standard geology textbook used in universities)
btw. http://www.bible.ca/tracks/tracks-petrified-tree.jpg . Good photo of a polystratic fossil. How did this tree remain standing while millions of years passed?
==========
Yes. The problem is that AiG doesn't bother with the truth that I am aware of. AiG is a propaganda machine. What they call science is ridiculous. Copy a few articles and take them to a university. Have a professor in a relevant field take a look. Have two professors. Take it to a hundred. Eventually, I hope you'll realize the truth.
==========

AiG is a propaganda machine in that they don't buy evolution and show scientific evidence against it? And about the statement that AiG doesn't bother with truth, please show me some evidences of this.

===========
Bud, there were several versions of the same story and none of them were backed up by anything substantial. No supporting evidence, the claim is crap. If you are ok with this, fine, we'll move on but you will be admitting that the claim is unfounded. Otherwise, prove it.
===========

Prove your statement.
http://www.creationevidence.org/scientific_evid/coal/se_coal.html This link isn't about what I posted about Aragone, but is interesting. Shows how coal was formed rapidly. Oh, and Aragone labs is not a Creationist place. They are evolutionary. They didn't fake any evidence.

=========
Sorry. It isn't. Who are the professional scientists who review the information? The editors? Sorry, that doesn't count as peer review.
=========

I don't know who reviews the articles (I sent one in just the other day for publishing) but I can assure you that they are reputable scientists. Safarti, for instance, has a PhD from Wellington, as does Battern, Walker, etc.

==========
Yes, now you are getting it. The evidence for atoms is inferential. We can't see them but we can infer their existence. It is the same process biologists use whether you like to believe so or not.
==========

So you say that the "evidence" for evolution is also inferential? Well, please give me just one indirect "evidence" for evolution. There aren't even any indirect evidence.

=========
Which is why AiG is not a scientific organization.
=========

AiG is composed of scientists like

a. Don Batten. A Ph.D. plant physiologist and expert tropical fruit researcher, who has made very important contributions to Australia’s agricultural industry. He has also published work on hybridization in secular relevant to the boundaries of the “created kinds”.

b. Jonathan Sarfati
A Ph.D. physical chemist (and former New Zealand national chess champion), whose scientific credentials even the Skeptics have had to acknowledge.

c. Pierre Jerlström
A Ph.D molecular biologist, whose high credentials were unreasonably doubted in the Skeptic, although he has many published papers in secular journals.

d. Tas Walker
A Ph.D. engineer who recently gained a 1st Class Honours degree in geology, specialising in radiometric dating.

c. David Catchpoole
A Ph.D. agricultural scientist with wide experience, and first hand knowledge of the amazing design in the botanical world.

==========
Common, but incorrect statement. Many argue about particular bits but not about the whole though the ToE has had some radical alterations since it was first proposed.
==========

"We still do not know the mechanics of evolution in spite of the over-confident claims in some quarters, nor are we likely to make further progress in this by the classical methods of paleontology or biology; and we shall certainly not advance matters by jumping up and down shrilling "Darwin is God and I, So-and-so, am his prophet"--the recent researchs of workers like Dean and Henshelwood already suggest the possibility of incipient cracks in the seemingly monolithic walls of Neo-Darwinian Jericho." (E White)(evolutionist)

"I suppose that nobody will deny that it is a great misfortune if an entire branch of science becomes addicted to a false theory. But this is what has happened in biology: for a long time now people discuss evolutionary problems in a prculiar "Darwinian" vocabulary... thereby believing that they contribute to the explanation of natural events. They do not, and the sooner this is discovered, the sooner we shall be able to make real progress in our understanding of evolution. I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in the history of science." (S. Lovtrup. Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth)

========
I have not been to MSH. I have read outside of AiG though. Pyroclastic flows are not sandstone. Why is that contraversial?
========

This just proves that canyons and layers do not have to take millions of years to form. Be it sandstone or pyroclastic flows. If a tiny explosion like MSH could do this, what could a global, world wide flood with large volcanic activity do?

========
False. It has been detected in some coal though.
========

Evidence?

=========
Dated by what means? C-14 is wildly inaccurate past 50,000 years or so.
=========

C-14 does not work past 11000 years. In 11000 years, all C-14 in a sample will have turned into another substance, leaving none behind. So if a sample has C-14 in it, it is proof that it is less then 11000 years old.

===========
No it doesn't. You misunderstand half-life. Half should disappear ins one half-life, another half of the remaining material should disappear in the second half life, and so on... C-14 becomes inaccurate around 50k years and older.
===========

No. Any sample is undergoing change at the same time. As soon as an organism with C-14 in it dies, that clock starts counting. In one half life, half of the sample x will have disappeared. In another half life, the other half will have disappeared in the next half life. Add the two half lives, and you get 11,460 years

http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-189.htm

=========
Yes, because C14 does not work at 45m years old. It becomes wildly inaccurate... wow... right about the age it gave. You apply the wrong test and you get a bad answer. Go figure.
=========

Like I said. If there is carbon in a sample, it is proof that the sample is less then 11000 years old. The wood was dated at 45,000 years old, which is illogical, as no carbon would have been in the wood if it was that old.
btw. They didn't date the rock to be 45 mil. years old with C-14. You can't date rocks with the C-14 dating methods.

==========
I don't know what you are talking about. Got more info?
==========

Sure. The basalt forming the bottom layers of the canyon was dated with Rb-SR dating gave a date of 1.07 billion years. When they dated a lava flow at the top of the canyon on the rim, which was supposed to be only 1 mil years old with RB-SR dating, the rocks were dated at 1.34 billion years. So either you say that dating methods are flawed, or you say that the canyon formed upside down.

=========
You don't have time during a one year flood for this sort of dynamic. Too much is happening too fast.
=========

Plenty of time. Also, as the flood waters ran away from the land, they would have shaped the land drastically, laying down many layers.

=========
So Noah gets off the ark with his seven passengers and a couple of days later sumer pops up with a population of a few million? How can I take this seriously?
=========

By "right after" I mean right after the Tower of Babel, which was soon after the Flood. As populations sprung up and were dispersed from Babel, those who stayed formed the Sumarians.

=========
If you mean that isolated population will tend to change relative to other populations, then yeah. This happens. You choice of words make me think you feel there is some intelligent force molding species.
=========

If the parent population did not change, only parts of it, then inbreeding between the "superior" species and the "more primitive" species would drag down the evolutionary progression, as it would breed out any selective advantages that evolution would have given.

=========
Then we've got the order wrong. It happens. This isn't a negation of the concept though.
=========

Wow. The evolutionary concept is flexible. If we find the fossils out of order, we can easily change our views. But we also run into problems there.

In regards to our ongoing debate, I feel that it is best if we discontinue it. Neither of us are going to change our minds about what we believe in, no matter what happens. I have given much evidence from the world around us that the earth is young and that evolution could not have occurred. I hope that you will reconsider the position in which you stand and one day change your mind. Both of us have access to the same facts. The only difference is how we interpret those facts. You will look at say, Grand Canyon and say "Wow! See the millions of years that it took to form it". I will look at the same canyon and say "Wow! See all the evidence for a world wide Flood". You will not see the evidence supporting Creation, because you do not want to give up evolution, and I will not believe in unseen, hypothetical fossils, unproven assumptions, and wild speculations to believe in evolution. In view of this, I think that both of us are wasting our time. I thank you for making this debate possible, but again, it is getting nowhere. I believe in a Supreme Creator who is the Author of all life on earth and who has a claim on my life. I believe the Bible to be the infallible Word of God, and the Biblical Creation model to be the correct view of history. Because of this, I have hope for the future as I know that Christ died for me and has a special work for me to do. I know that you will probably scoff at this and believe that you have won this debate. That's not true. I did not discontinue this debate because I have run out of arguments, but because I cannot see the sense of continuing further. In closing, I must ask you a question. Since you believe that mankind came from an ape, which came from a reptile, which came from an amphibian, which came from a fish, which came from simple cellular life, do you have any reason for existence? Since you believe that you are just a highly formed animal, do you have any more hope and future then the animal life has? I leave you with these thoughts.

Sincerely yours,

Robert Dold


This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by John, posted 01-23-2003 2:46 AM John has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by John, posted 01-26-2003 1:42 AM thousands_not_billions has responded
 Message 82 by lpetrich, posted 01-26-2003 1:49 AM thousands_not_billions has not yet responded

Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5377
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 80 of 89 (30227)
01-25-2003 10:47 PM


quote:
No. Any sample is undergoing change at the same time. As soon as an organism with C-14 in it dies, that clock starts counting. In one half life, half of the sample x will have disappeared. In another half life, the other half will have disappeared in the next half life. Add the two half lives, and you get 11,460 years.

Wow. Like, really, WOW! The entire physics community has been doing it all wrong for the last century? You better go look at a high school physics text, tnb. You've got that about as wrong as it's possible to get it.
In short: Half-life is the time that it takes for half the nuclei that are *in the sample* to decay. If you start with 1000 nuclei, you'll have 500 left after one half-life, 250 after two, 125 after three.....so on.


  
John
Inactive Member


Message 81 of 89 (30234)
01-26-2003 1:42 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by thousands_not_billions
01-25-2003 9:46 PM


quote:
Including Evolution. And, when God created life, it is logical that he would create them in a perfect state, which means great genetic variety.

Lets see. You made the statement that there is no evidence against a mythical large gene pool as if this lack of evidence is some kind of meaningful proof. I pointed out that it isn't. You respond with a childish "well you are too."

If god created life in a perfect state, what happened? Why is there no evidence? Why does all the evidence point away from this idea? Why do you think a large gene pool equates to 'perfect' anyway?

quote:
Involved in what? Evolution? There's no science in that.

Another childish jab.... You appear to know next to nothing about geology, physics, biology .....

quote:
How many times do I have to repeat myself? Evolution is the bringing out of new information. What I wrote was just basic genetics.

You don't get to define evolution. If you do, then attack your own definition you are attacking a straw man. That is, you aren't attacking the ToE at all, but your misrepresentation of it instead.

quote:
See, a change was made. But this is not evolution! Just genetics. If we magnify this into many genes, changes can be made in one generation.

Then you ought to be able to take a wolf and breed it into a collie in a few years.

quote:
Because most of the animals we find in the fossil record are fish, marine organisms, and plants.

Bud, the burrowing animal idea was meant as one possible way to get a 'polystratic' fossil. It wasn't meant to explain the whole fossil record.

quote:
"In other formations where articulated skeletons of large animals are preserved, the sediment must have covered them within a few days at the most." (Dunbar & Rogers, Principles Of Stratigraphy, p 128, Standard geology textbook used in universities)

You won't find much argument that burial of some kind is a very good thing for a future fossil.

quote:
How did this tree remain standing while millions of years passed?

Why does that picture look edited? It also does not look like it is standing up. Something is wrong here.

quote:
AiG is a propaganda machine in that they don't buy evolution and show scientific evidence against it? And about the statement that AiG doesn't bother with truth, please show me some evidences of this.

I've been pointing out deceptions since we started this discussion. You'll never see the evidence unless you open your eyes.

quote:
http://www.creationevidence.org/scientific_evid/coal/se_coal.html This link isn't about what I posted about Aragone, but is interesting.

It isn't interesting. It is a string of deceptions like so much else you post as evidence.

quote:
Shows how coal was formed rapidly.

It doesn't show anything, just asserts. This is getting silly.

quote:
Oh, and Aragone labs is not a Creationist place. They are evolutionary. They didn't fake any evidence.

But where are the publications they released on the coal forming process? That is the question. I can't find anything, but I can find creationists claiming that Argonne did this and that.

quote:
So you say that the "evidence" for evolution is also inferential? Well, please give me just one indirect "evidence" for evolution. There aren't even any indirect evidence.

Bacteria have hemoglobin. But who am I kidding, you have already been given a great deal of evidence and simply ignore it.

quote:
AiG is composed of scientists like

For every one of them you can find a thousand scientist who disagree. That is why it isn't scientific. The vaste majority of learned opinions are thrown out. Only the creationist ones get to stay.

quote:
This just proves that canyons and layers do not have to take millions of years to form. Be it sandstone or pyroclastic flows. If a tiny explosion like MSH could do this, what could a global, world wide flood with large volcanic activity do?

Imagine a sandbox full of flour and another full of cured concrete. Run a waterhose onto the flour and see how long it takes to cut a canyon. Now, turn around and argue that the same would happen if you ran the waterhose over the concrete. It is ridiculous.

quote:
========
False. It has been detected in some coal though.
========

Evidence?


http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/c14.html

quote:
C-14 does not work past 11000 years.

See what I mean about you not knowing anything about the relevant science?

quote:
btw. They didn't date the rock to be 45 mil. years old with C-14. You can't date rocks with the C-14 dating methods.

I'm surprised you knew that.

quote:
The basalt forming the bottom layers of the canyon was dated with Rb-SR dating gave a date of 1.07 billion years. When they dated a lava flow at the top of the canyon on the rim, which was supposed to be only 1 mil years old with RB-SR dating, the rocks were dated at 1.34 billion years. So either you say that dating methods are flawed, or you say that the canyon formed upside down.

Or you say, "I still don't have enough info." Who took the samples and what were the methods used?

quote:
By "right after" I mean right after the Tower of Babel, which was soon after the Flood. As populations sprung up and were dispersed from Babel, those who stayed formed the Sumarians.

And? A time frame would be helpful. Referencing one mythical event with another doesn't help much. At most you have a few hundred years for the population to hit many millions. That isn't enough time.

quote:
If the parent population did not change, only parts of it, then inbreeding between the "superior" species and the "more primitive" species would drag down the evolutionary progression, as it would breed out any selective advantages that evolution would have given.

LOL.... Evolutionary progression? Did you really say that? Wow....

quote:
Wow. The evolutionary concept is flexible. If we find the fossils out of order, we can easily change our views. But we also run into problems there.

Sorry. Where is the problem with changing one's mind to match the evidence?

... deleting preaching....

------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

[This message has been edited by John, 01-26-2003]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by thousands_not_billions, posted 01-25-2003 9:46 PM thousands_not_billions has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by thousands_not_billions, posted 01-26-2003 8:50 PM John has responded

lpetrich
Inactive Member


Message 82 of 89 (30235)
01-26-2003 1:49 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by thousands_not_billions
01-25-2003 9:46 PM


Thousands not billions:
And, when God created life, it is logical that he would create them in a perfect state, which means great genetic variety.

How is that supposed to be a "perfect state"?

Someone else:
Not to be harsh but how would you know? You are clueless about 90% of the science involved.
Tnb:
Involved in what? Evolution? There's no science in that.

In what way?

Evolution is the bringing out of new information.

Charles Darwin would disagree -- he called it "descent with modification". And if his writings are the "Bible" of evolution, as many creationists seem to believe, one ought to take him seriously on that.

(lots of stuff about genetics and parents' genes getting mixed in offspring...)

But what's interesting is when some gene variants or alleles help their owners multiply more than others -- this changes the population's gene frequencies -- producing evolution.

Because most of the animals we find in the fossil record are fish, marine organisms, and plants. Organisms which do not live underground. Erosion would also lift off the layers of soil, exposing the bones and enabling them to be scatted by animals.

However, where they live can cause them to become buried in sediment washed down from higher-elevation land surfaces.

"In other formations where articulated skeletons of large animals are preserved, the sediment must have covered them within a few days at the most." (Dunbar & Rogers, Principles Of Stratigraphy, p 128, Standard geology textbook used in universities)

Yawn. All this means that they were buried by a flooding river.

(Experiments showing rapid formation of coal...)

SO WHAT??? It doesn't prove that the Universe is only 6000 years old.

A footprint can be formed in less than a second -- if one sees a footprint somewhere, does that mean that the Universe is less than a second in age?

("peer review" of creationist publications...)
I don't know who reviews the articles (I sent one in just the other day for publishing) but I can assure you that they are reputable scientists. Safarti, for instance, has a PhD from Wellington, as does Battern, Walker, etc.

Seems like the only "peer review" these publications get is review by fellow creationists.

... Well, please give me just one indirect "evidence" for evolution. There aren't even any indirect evidence.

I don't want to have to give you a whole Evolution 101 course. You can check on some excellent sites that explain evolution, like The UC Museum of Paleontology.

(credentials of some creationist "scientists"...)

But have they ever tried to publish in some evolutionary-biology journal? If they have such a strong case, their papers would be hailed as the greatest publications on the subject since Darwin's Origin of Species.

I have not been to MSH. I have read outside of AiG though. Pyroclastic flows are not sandstone. Why is that contraversial?

This just proves that canyons and layers do not have to take millions of years to form. Be it sandstone or pyroclastic flows. If a tiny explosion like MSH could do this, what could a global, world wide flood with large volcanic activity do?

Except that sandstone is MUCH harder than unconsolidated volcanic ash. And that a flood that could carve the Grand Canyon in a year would be a flood that would smash Noah's Ark into toothpicks. And its inhabitants into sliced salami.

C-14 does not work past 11000 years. In 11000 years, all C-14 in a sample will have turned into another substance, leaving none behind. So if a sample has C-14 in it, it is proof that it is less then 11000 years old.

Male-bovine excrement. Imagine that you had manufactured 1 gram of carbon-14 in the lab. In 5500 years, half of it would become nitrogen-14, leaving 0.5 grams of C-14. In 11000 years, another 5500 years will pass, meaning that half of that 0.5 g of C-14 would become N-14, leaving 0.25 g of C-14. Etc.

Radioactive decay is exponential, not linear.

Like I said. If there is carbon in a sample, it is proof that the sample is less then 11000 years old. ...

1. As explained earlier, radioactive decay is exponential, not linear.

2. C-14 in coal can easily be produced from radioactive decay of the coal's uranium and thorium.

("You see evolution, I see creation" argument...)

And if I read the Bible and see in Jesus Christ a largely-mythical if not entirely-mythical figure, does that make my viewpoint about him equally worth considering?

You will not see the evidence supporting Creation, because you do not want to give up evolution, and I will not believe in unseen, hypothetical fossils, unproven assumptions, and wild speculations to believe in evolution.

While tnb's beliefs are entirely free from such things (sarcasm).

In closing, I must ask you a question. Since you believe that mankind came from an ape, which came from a reptile, which came from an amphibian, which came from a fish, which came from simple cellular life, do you have any reason for existence? Since you believe that you are just a highly formed animal, do you have any more hope and future then the animal life has? I leave you with these thoughts.

Did you ever ask your parents why they chose to bring you into existence?

And I must say that wearing a white robe and a halo and singing hymns all day for eternity would be totally boring; is that what one is supposed to look forward to?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by thousands_not_billions, posted 01-25-2003 9:46 PM thousands_not_billions has not yet responded

John
Inactive Member


Message 83 of 89 (30236)
01-26-2003 1:55 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by lpetrich
01-22-2003 11:26 PM


Nice post, Ipetrch.

I'm bumping your post. Maybe tnb won't run for cover as he appears to threatening to do.

------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com


This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by lpetrich, posted 01-22-2003 11:26 PM lpetrich has not yet responded

thousands_not_billions
Inactive Member


Message 84 of 89 (30265)
01-26-2003 8:50 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by John
01-26-2003 1:42 AM


Dear John.

First, I want everybody to realize that I'm not "running for cover". I just can't see any sense continuing this thread. I've made my point, and you've made yours. Neither of us seem convinced. About the half life. John, you guys were right. I did some research on the 'net and looked up a geology textbook, and both said the same thing. Sorry about my lack of information in this point. It came from something I read years ago about radioactive dating. I think that they had it wrong and I was copying them. Thanks guys for showing me this. I am still learning, and I am trying to study all I can into science. Science is a great field, and I throughly enjoy it. But everybody makes scientific mistakes. You've made a couple yourself in the posts, but what does it matter? But I still can't see how carbon dating can prove millions of years. For a start, like you said, after 50,000 years, no C-14 should be present. Also, the ratio of C, C-14 have not always been the same. Some times they were higher and lower in the atmosphere, thereby throwing dates off.

I believe that this will be my last post, as again, I have tried to provide solid science to back up what I say (except for the C-14) . Nobody seems convinced one way or the other, but I know where I stand. I don't have all the answers, but I would like to ask the evolutionists. How can you deal with the past with science? Nobody can be absolutely sure of anything unless he himself saw it or there is evidence for it. There is evidence for Creation in the Bible and in nature, so we can be sure of that. But there is no hard, concrete evidence for evolution. We exist in the present, and the facts exist in the present. Fossils exist in the present, and it is only our assumptions that make up history except when it was recorded.

Cheers guys

tnb

------------------
Now Evolution is the substance of fossils hoped for, the evidence of links not seen.

[This message has been edited by thousands_not_billions, 01-26-2003]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by John, posted 01-26-2003 1:42 AM John has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by John, posted 01-26-2003 11:02 PM thousands_not_billions has not yet responded

lpetrich
Inactive Member


Message 85 of 89 (30269)
01-26-2003 9:43 PM


thousands not billions:
Fossils exist in the present, and it is only our assumptions that make up history except when it was recorded.

A tiny change:

The Bible exists in the present, and it is only our assumptions that make up history except when it was recorded.

Which would mean that the past of the Bible is as unknowable as tnb thinks that the past of fossils is.

And if it is legitimate to extrapolate the writing of the Bible, then why not also fossils?


John
Inactive Member


Message 86 of 89 (30271)
01-26-2003 11:02 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by thousands_not_billions
01-26-2003 8:50 PM


quote:
First, I want everybody to realize that I'm not "running for cover".

Oh come on now.... just trying to provoke you.

quote:
I just can't see any sense continuing this thread. I've made my point, and you've made yours. Neither of us seem convinced.

Think about the half-life issue, about which you have nobly admitted to being in error. Any argument built on this error must be discarded. You'll find that creationist arguments are all based on similar errors, but you must continue this discussion or you will continue to believe things which simply are not true. You don't want that eh? If you could be wrong about the c-14, what else do you misunderstand? Did not you cite an ICR article as evidence of the c-14 half-life? On what else have you been misled?

quote:
You've made a couple yourself in the posts, but what does it matter?

Oh? What errors? It matters.

quote:
But I still can't see how carbon dating can prove millions of years. For a start, like you said, after 50,000 years, no C-14 should be present.

Carbon dating can't date to millions of years. Other dating methods can. Some half-lives:

Potassium 40 1.25 billion yrs

Rubidium 87 48.8 billion yrs

Thorium 232 14 billion years

Uranium 235 704 million years

Uranium 238 4.47 billion years

Carbon 14 5730 years

quote:
Also, the ratio of C, C-14 have not always been the same. Some times they were higher and lower in the atmosphere, thereby throwing dates off.

Yes, and scientists are aware of this fact and can account for it. For the most part, it seems to have been fairly stable though until the atom bomb experiments in the '50s.

http://home.tiac.net/~cri/1997/c14note.html

quote:
Nobody can be absolutely sure of anything unless he himself saw it or there is evidence for it. There is evidence for Creation in the Bible and in nature, so we can be sure of that.

Hang on. Your second sentence violates the first one.

------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com


This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by thousands_not_billions, posted 01-26-2003 8:50 PM thousands_not_billions has not yet responded

Bart007
Inactive Member


Message 87 of 89 (30482)
01-28-2003 7:22 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by Quetzal
01-22-2003 3:57 AM


Quetzal writes: "And yet another lengthy quote mine from ol' bart. When are you going to learn that "argument by spurious quotation" and "appeal to authority" doesn't cut it? You been reading the infamous "Quote Book" again?"

The key word above is "quote mine". This is a typical anti-creationist attack that dogmatic believers in Evolution mindlessly use to ridicule, browbeat, and insult creatiionists for the purpose of instilling fear and distain in the less informed and/or lurkers reading the postings by creationists. This type of intellectual pressure is known as 'Brow Beating' and is used to intimidate readers and pressure them to stay in the evolutionist camp.

Quetzel's sophistical attack is akin to the school bullies of elementary and junior high schools whose bad mistreatment of physically weaker students causes other students to ostracize the picked on students and to rally around the bully for fear they will be singled out next for humiliation. These type sophistries are the fodder of evolutionists postings, and this forum has been no exception.

When one reads science publications, be they by a creationist or evolutionist, they usually reference and/or quote the work of others. This is not considered quote mining.

Quetzal fails to demonstrate that any of the quotes I used were out-of-context. He merely alludes that they are. Besides his empty unsubstantiated allegation of "quote mining", Quetzal also referenced an anti-creationists website essay that was written by an anti-creationist propagandist named Cox entitled: "“Dawn Horse” Is a Good “Ancestor” For Rhinos Discredits Horse Evolution?"

The author of the essay, Cox, makes the claim that creationist Duane Guish is lying when he wrote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Duane T. Gish tells us in Impact #87 “The Origin of Mammals” the following:

"Others also doubt whether Hyracotherium was related to the horse. For example, Kerkut states, “In the first place it is not clear that Hyracotherium was the ancestral horse. Thus Simpson (1945) states, ‘Matthew has shown and insisted that Hyracotherium (including Eohippus) is so primitive that it is not much more definitely equid than tapirid, rhinocerotid, etc., but it is customary to place it at the root of the equid group.’”18 In other words, Hyracotherium is not any more like a horse than it is similar to a tapir or a rhinoceros, and thus just as justifiably it could have been chosen as the ancestral rhinoceros or tapir. It seems, then, that the objectivity of those involved in the construction of the phylogenetic tree of the horse was questionable from the very start, and that the “horse” on which the entire family tree of the horse rests was not a horse at all."

18. Kerkut, G. A., Implications of Evolution, New York: Pergamon Press, 1960, p. 149.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Concerning Cox's essay, Quetzal writes:

"Oh, and as to your quotations... Anyone interested can read this essay debunking at least the Gaylord Simpson quote mine. Another example of AiG's stellar intellectual honesty."

Quetzal, I read Cox's essay and I believe Cox fails to demonstrate in any way, shape, or form, that Gish lied about anything or misquoted anyone. Since you make the claim Gish was somehow intellectually dishonest, as demonstrated by Cox, please show us your intellectual honesty by explaining why you think this is so. Please also show how this has anything to do with my quotes and your claim that I too misquoted and/or misrepresented Simpson. If you can't, I expect a full retraction from you for misrepresnting me. Then maybe I can write an essay on the internet on how evolutionists misrepresent creationists.

I'll continue my response to your message 71 on my next post and deal with your alleged example of gradual evolution.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Quetzal, posted 01-22-2003 3:57 AM Quetzal has not yet responded

Bart007
Inactive Member


Message 88 of 89 (30500)
01-28-2003 11:59 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by Quetzal
01-22-2003 3:57 AM


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Taking the entire skeleton into account, the Hyracotherium is a lot closer in appearance to the modern Hyrax than it is the the horse. Like Hyracotherium, the Hyrax has four toes on the two front feet and three on the hind legs. The two are about the same size in height and have the same number of ribs. Evolutionists like to show sketches of Hyrcotherium standing like a horse, but sketches could just aas well be drawn to show hyracotherium in the same posture as a modern day hyrax as the legs of both are very similar.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Really? I'm impressed by your knowledge of comparative anatomy. Let's take a close look, shall we?
Dentition:

Hyracotherium

3.1.4.3/3.1.4.3

Equus (modern horse, male)

3.1.3-4.3/3.1.3.3

Hyrax

1.0.4.3/2.0.4.3

Guess which one's more similar?
--------------------------------------------------------------------

The Key words I used is: "Taking the entire skeleton into account.." Like Hyraxes, Hyracotherium had an arched back; four front toes, three rear toes; the eyes were set forward (midway) in the skull; and despite their dentition differences their cheek teeth were similar, the back teeth are spaced closely to the front teeth, they both have low crowned teeth lacking cement and molars with roots (all so different than horses teeth). They also occupied the same habitat.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Quetzal writes:

"On toes: As far as it goes, you are correct. Both hyrax and hyracotherium have four toes on the front foot, and three on the back. However, from the actual arrangement of the bones, Hyracotherium was digitigrade (as are modern horses). The location of the pads are at the end of the toes. The hyrax is plantigrade (flat-footed), with a noticeable heel (absent in Hyracotherium). There is an excellent fossil series - a perfect "gradualism" example, btw - showing the change in numbers of toes in the Equus lineage over time."
---------------------------------------------------------------------

I (nor gish for that matter as quoted in the essay you referenced) ever claimed that the Hyracotherium is a type of Hyrax. I am aware there are noticable differences and I pointed out in my post "It is possible that Hyracotherium is unrelated to the modern day Hyrax,...". I happen to believe it is not. I simply pointed out some of the Hyrax features that caused top scientists (and evolutionists) to state that it resembled a cony, a daman, a hyrax, more than a horse.

However, contrary to your claim that: "There is an excellent fossil series - a perfect "gradualism" example, btw - showing the change in numbers of toes in the Equus lineage over time." That lineage is made up by picking and choosing particular specimens from a labrythine bush of horse like creatures, just as there is a bush of todays horse from the 17" high Fallabella to the massive Clydesdale. There is no evolutionary gradualism at all. One might just as well organize all dogs into an evolutionary order from the Chiuaua to the Great Dane as an example of evolutionary gradualism, even though we know they are all one species that radiated from wolves not all that long ago.

In addition, you Hyracotherium (eohippus) has been utterly kicked out of the horse family as determined by cladistics.

Phylogenetic systematics of basal perissodactyls Froehlich, DJ, Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology, 1999, 19(1): 140

"The relationships among basal perissodactyls and among those taxa historically included in Hyracotherium are complicated. These taxa are morphologically similar, possessing few of the character states that diagnose the crown groups. To understand better these relationships, cladistic techniques were used to generate a matrix of 41 taxa and 125 characters including five non-perissodactyl outgroup taxa, representative basal tapiroids, brontotheres, chalicotheres, palaeotheres, and equids. ... The results also suggest that Hyracotherium is not representative of the basal morphology of the perissodactyls, and no currently identified fossil provides a good candidate for that morphology."

David Froelich also states:

"The reason that Hyracotherium has been excluded from the equid lineage is that it falls on a side branch toward the paleotheres. It no longer is an equid. Therefore, the name cannot be used (If it were it would represent a group of organisms for which you did not have a single ancestor, nor all of the descendants, ie. polyphyletic) Eohippus on the other hand was named by Marsh from a single worn maxillary fragment found in New Mexico (San Jose fm.) Unfortunately, the type material is not diagnostic (and currently mislayed) and either Eohippus is a member of a genus called Xenicohippus (an abberant equid) or is a basal tapiromorph called Systemodon (the type Eohippus material cannot be distinguished from these two possibilities because it is so worn)."


This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Quetzal, posted 01-22-2003 3:57 AM Quetzal has not yet responded

Adminnemooseus
Director
Posts: 3879
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 89 of 89 (30506)
01-29-2003 1:00 AM


I skimmed through the entire thread, and discovered that it has pretty much completely turned away from anything abiogenesis, starting with the transitional message #39.

Many diverse and interesting things came up, but they are all off topic. Please take them somewhere else (and link back to this topic as you see fit).

Closing this topic now.

Adminnemooseus

------------------
{mnmoose@lakenet.com}


  
Prev12345
6
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019