|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Parable of the candle - should million/billion year dating be taught as fact? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Macuahuitl writes:
quote: As AdminCoragyps pointed out, time to shred this to tiny bits. The "parable" tries to deny radiometric dating by saying:
Manuel replied, ”First of all, that candle isn’t burning anywhere near as brightly as when I first lit it. Second of all, I didn’t light a new candle, but a used one. And thirdly, I used another candle to light this candle and in the process the wax from that candle spilled all over this one.’ In short, it's saying radiometric dating can't be trusted because: 1) Radiodecay is not constant.2) The rocks are "pre-aged." 3) The rocks are contaminated. As anybody who knows anything about geology and radiometric dating, none of these things apply. 1) Radiodecay is a constant. That's why we can use it.2) You can geologically determine how a rock was created and thus determine when the radiometric clock started ticking. This doesn't mean that the rock suddenly zap-poofed into being at that moment. It simply means that the clock started then. For example, dating volcanic glass will only tell you how long it was that the glass formed...not how long it was in the fissure before it was expelled. The act of creating the glass starts the clock. 3) Contamination of the rocks is evident through other geological means. By examining the piece for those signs, you can determine if you should even attempt radiometric dating. Thus, since all of your objections as to why radiometric dating might be flawed, what are you left with to support your claim for "alternatives"? Exactly what are these "alternatives"? Where does the methodology of radiometric dating fall short? Be specific. To apply this to the candle: 1) Candle wax doesn't burn at different rates in a constant environment.2) You can tell when a candle has been relit, especially if it has drippings: They will show layers indicative of the heating, cooling, and reheating of the wax source as it starts dripping down new pathways. 3) Adding external wax is visible in a similar method: Layers appear that are inconsistent with wax that came from the dripping of a simple burn. Why is it all of these "parables" (Jack Chick, anyone?) always assume that the person doing the science is a blithering idiot, incapable of performing the experiments they are supposedly trained in? Oh, that's right: The parables themselves are concocted by blithering idiots, incapable of performing the experiments they are trying to describe as worthless. Being ignorant of the actual methods and techniques involved, they merely assume that there is no way to tell. In short, they assume that because they don't know how to do it, that means that nobody knows how to do it. Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Aquilegia753 writes:
quote: (*chuckle*) Well, when you get to just make stuff up, let's finish the story: At this point, the man's wife comes up and says, "Oh, don't listen to him. He just likes to pull people's chains. We didn't come here until three weeks ago. The only reason he claims it was three years ago is because his buddy, who has only been here five weeks, told him it was three years ago. In fact, nobody who lives around here has been here for very long. Nobody saw it happen." You're making the Hovind claim, "Were you there?" The answer, of course, is no, we weren't there. Nobody was there. What you don't seem to understand is that not even the authors of the Bible were there. But, we don't have to have been there to learn what happened: The rocks and bones were there and they can tell us what happened. All we have to do is ask them. And once again, we have a creationist story implying that the scientist is a complete fool: "I'm sorry, Sir, but what you are telling us is physically impossible. Here, class, let's gather around and work on our physics for the amount of hydrodynamic pressure that can be exerted by water. Now, let's take a look at the types of rock here...we've got a granite, a sandstone, etc., etc. Who can tell me the characteristics of a granite layer with regard to its porousness and how it will react to an onrush of water?" You see, the reason why scientists reach the conclusions that they do is because they spend a great deal of time analysing the situation and working on the problem. It requires much more work than the clumsy creationist parable-teller gives credit for.
quote: Can you give a complete writeup of the reasons why the findings of geology are nothing more than ephemeral "guesses"? Are you prepared to point to every piece of physical evidence and explain why its physical existence is only a "guess"?
quote: So the entire concept of forensics needs to be thrown out the window, eh? You do realize that this means we will need to open up the prisons and let the vast majority of criminals out, yes? Most crimes take place with no witnesses. The only way we can figure out what happened is through scientific examination of the things that are left behind. By your logic, it's just as possible god raptured your television set into heaven rather than somebody broke in and stole it. The chisel marks on the door, the footprints on the floor, the fingerprints on the walls, all those are just a "guess" that somebody broke in and stole your TV. Are you seriously claiming that? Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Aquilegia753 writes:
quote: That's because it is. Evolution is both a fact AND a theory. You cannot have a theory unless you have a fact to base it upon. That's why it's called the theory [I][B]OF[/i][/B] evolution. We have observed evolution happening right before our eyes, therefore we develop a theory to explain the fact. Is gravity a fact or a theory? When I drop a ball from my hand, it falls to the ground. We call the force that pulls it to the ground "gravity." That's an observed fact...after all, the ball fell. But what is gravity? How does it work? What causes it? That's where the theory part comes in. It is only after a great deal of experimentation and testing do we come up with F = Gm1m2/r2. That's the theory of gravity. And it turns out, it's wrong. The Pioneer spacecraft are leaving the solar system and they're moving at a rate that isn't consistent with our current understanding of gravitational theory. But notice that despite any changes we make with our theories of gravity, the original observation still holds: When I drop a ball from my hand, it falls to the ground. The same thing exists with evolution. When we watch organisms over time, they change. We call the process by which those organisms change "evolution." That's an observed fact...after all, the organisms changed. But what is evolution? How does it work? What causes it? That's where the theory part comes in. It is only after a great deal of experimentation and testing do we come up with mutation and selection. That's the theory of evolution. Notice that despite any changes we may make with our theories of evolution, the original observation still holds: When we watch organisms over time, they change. The point? You can't have a theory without a fact to back it up. A theory is an analysis of a set of facts. Just as gravity is both a fact and a theory, so is evolution. If you aren't going to complain about all the other theories in science, why are you picking on evolution? In fact, evolution is more solidly grounded than our theories of gravity: We have a mechanism. When Darwin first formulated his theory of evolution, he still thought that there was some form of pangenesis going on. That is, the gametes in sexually reproducing species were created by taking material from the entire body. This was used by Lamarck in his description of evolution that traits acquired by an organism during its lifetime could be passed onto the next generation, thus giraffes got their long necks because the first generation physically stretched their necks reaching for leaves and this acquired trait was passed to their children who stretched them even more, etc. Darwin didn't agree with this idea...acquired traits are obviously not passed on or parents who had lost a limb would be more likely to have children without that limb. But still, he thought that whatever was used to transfer morphological traits from one generation to the next was distilled from the entire body. Remember, the chromosome hadn't been discovered yet. It turns out he was wrong. The gonads create the gametes by taking a single cell and subjecting it to meiosis. We found the direct cause of evolution: The chromosome and how it mutates over time. We are still discovering the various types of selective pressures that exist, but we have actually found some. What is gravity? Is it as Einstein described, a folding of space-time? Is it a force carried on a particle much like the other forces of electromagnetism, strong nuclear, and weak nuclear? We have absolutely no idea. We've got some great information about how it behaves, but we don't know what it is! We have no mechanism for gravity. So yes, let's teach evolution for the theory that it is. But that doesn't mean creationism gets to be considered a theory. In science, a theory is something that has been tested a great deal and not found wanting. It might be wrong since theories can never be proven correct, but the theory is as accurate as we can possibly make it precisely because theories are tailored to fit all the facts that we know. If you don't like what a theory says, then you need to find new data that the theory cannot be reconciled with. Note that this does not make creationism "true" just because our current theory of evolution is false. Again, the fact of evolution is still there: When we watch organisms over time, they change and that change is called "evolution." While the theories about the mechanism of evolution might change, evolution itself will always be the case. Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Aquilegia753 writes:
quote: We see it all the time. You seem to forget: Everything is a transitional. You are transitional between your parents and your children.
quote: And if you look at the fossil record of the horse, you can watch as the toes start to merge into a single, central toe right before your eyes. And if you look at modern horses, you see that every now and then you get a horse born with more than one. It's called an "atavism."
quote: Because that isn't how it developed. The horse didn't have a "half-hoof." Instead, it had a foot with three toes and before that, it had a foot with five toes. Over time, the outer toes fused with the inner one. In modern horses, you can still see the laminar splints that lie alongside the central bone shaft if you were to surgically open the leg and look. And sometimes, a horse is born with atavistic side toes. Gould wrote an article about it, "Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes." You can find a copy of it in the book of the same name.
quote: Here: Fossil Hominids Do not confuse your ignorance of the evidence as a universal trait.
quote: We do. Some species of spiders have eight eyes. Scallops have more than a hundred. And in the fish ancestors of modern vertebrates, they had a third eye. In modern humans, it's our pineal gland. You can still see the third eye in some amphibians and in Tuatara lizards.
quote: Because eyes didn't evolve from freckles. Where did you get this silly idea?
quote: Because warts are a virus and legs didn't evolve from them. Where did you get this silly idea? To tie this back into the OP, this is precisely the same logic used by the creationist creator of the parable: Assumption that the scientist is a complete, blithering idiot, incapable of understanding the very subject he or she is trained in. The creationist simply makes ridiculous pronouncements (eyes evolved from freckles, legs evolved from warts) and expects the scientist to respond as if the pronouncement made any sort of sense. Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
mike the wiz writes:
quote: And yet, evolution is precisely that: It is a fact. You can watch it happen right in front of your very eyes. You know this, mike. I've posted this same experiment multiple times and you can probably recite it by heart: Here's an experiment you can do in the privacy of your own bio lab. It doesn't cost very much and the materials can be acquired from any decent biological supply house. Take a single E. coli bacterium of K-type. This means the bacterium is susceptible to T4 phage. Let this bacterium reproduce until it forms a lawn. Then, infect the lawn with T4 phage. What do we expect to happen? That's right, plaques should start to form and, eventually, the entire lawn will die. After all, every single bacterium in the lawn is descended from a single ancestor, so if the ancestor is susceptible, then all the offspring should be susceptible, too. But what we actually see is that some colonies of bacteria in the lawn are not affected by the phage. How can this be? Again, the entire lawn is descended from a single ancestor. They should all behave identically. If one is susceptible, then they're all susceptible. If one is immune, then they're all immune. This can't be an example of "adaptation" because if one could do it, they all could do it. But since there is a discrepancy, we are left with only one conclusion: The bacteria evolved. There must be a genetic difference between the bacteria that are surviving and those that died. Indeed, we call the new bacteria K-4 because they are immune to T4 phage. But we're not done. Take a single K-4 bacterium and repeat the process: Let it reproduce to form a lawn and then infect the lawn with T4 phage. What do we expect to happen? That's right: Absolutely nothing. All of the bacteria are descended from a single ancestor that is immune to T4 phage. Therefore, they all should survive and we shouldn't see any plaques form. But we do. Plaques do, indeed start to form. How can this be? Again, all the bacteria in the lawn are descended from a single ancestor that was immune to T4 phage, so they shold all behave identically. If one is immune, then all are immune. There must be something else going on. Something evolved, but the question is what. What evolved? Could it be the bacteria experiencing a reversion mutation back to K-type? No, that can't be it. Suppose any given bacteria did revert back to wild. It is surrounded by K-4 type who are immune to T4 phage. As soon as the lawn is infected, those few bacteria will die and immediately be replaced by the offspring of the immune K-4 bacteria. We would never see any plaques forming because the immune bacteria keep filling in any holes that appear. So if it isn't the bacteria that evolved, it must be the phage. And, indeed, we call the new phage T4h as it has evolved a new host specificity. There is a similar experiment where you take bacteria that have had their lactose operons removed and they evolve to be able to digest lactose again. You might want to look up the information regarding the development of bacteria capable of digesting nylon oligimers. It's the result of a single frame-shift mutation. Evolution is a fact. It is also a theory. That is because theories are based upon fact. You cannot have a theory unless you have a fact to base it upon. Theories seek to explain facts. That's why it's called the theory OF evolution: We had to have the fact of evolution first in order to develop the theory OF it.
quote: And since evolution is a fact, that's why we have a theory [I][B]OF[/i][/b] it.
quote: Incorrect. Evolution, like the rest of science, is largely deductive.
quote: No, because we can directly see that they weren't. That's what the fossil record shows us. There is no other deductive conclusion to make given the evidence that we have. If you wish to make a leap of faith and declare that there is some evidence somewhere that we don't have which would change everything, then you are perfectly free to insist that it was magic. But you will understand if the rest of us who insist upon evidence don't quite come along for the ride.
quote: Because creationists don't even have a theory. In science, a theory is not simply wishful thinking. You actually need to be able to explain all current observations and make predictions of observations that have yet to be made. Nothing out of creationism comes close to either criteria. Creationsim neither explains nor predicts. Since "god did it" is applicable to every single outcome of every single experiment that could ever be carried out, then it doesn't actually tell us anything. Any claim that explains everything actually explains nothing.
quote: Do you seriously not see the problem with this? How very telling that you're trying to frame this as a "freedom of conscience" issue as if creationism were akin to not eating meat on Friday. The problem is that you are insisting that we lie to people with regard to the way things work...and not regarding something innocuous but rather something basic and fundamental. Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution. Just how do you expect there to be any progress in biology if you are going to insist that every fanciful opinion is just as good as any other? We are on the verge of genetic breakthroughs with regard to the treatment of disease and you want us to ignore the underlying biology that makes it possible in the first place?
quote: Then it should strike you as just as weird that Christians are expected to treat gravity as fact. Is gravity a fact or a theory? When I drop a ball from my hand, it falls to the ground. We call the force that pulls it to the ground "gravity." That's an observed fact...after all, the ball fell. But what is gravity? How does it work? What causes it? That's where the theory part comes in. It is only after a great deal of experimentation and testing do we come up with F = Gm1m2/r2. That's the theory of gravity. And it turns out, it's wrong. The Pioneer spacecraft are leaving the solar system and they're moving at a rate that isn't consistent with our current understanding of gravitational theory. But notice that despite any changes we make with our theories of gravity, the original observation still holds: When I drop a ball from my hand, it falls to the ground. The same thing exists with evolution. When we watch organisms over time, they change. We call the process by which those organisms change "evolution." That's an observed fact...after all, the organisms changed. But what is evolution? How does it work? What causes it? That's where the theory part comes in. It is only after a great deal of experimentation and testing do we come up with mutation and selection. That's the theory of evolution. Notice that despite any changes we may make with our theories of evolution, the original observation still holds: When we watch organisms over time, they change. The point? You can't have a theory without a fact to back it up. A theory is an analysis of a set of facts. Just as gravity is both a fact and a theory, so is evolution. If you aren't going to complain about all the other theories in science, why are you picking on evolution? In fact, evolution is more solidly grounded than our theories of gravity: We have a mechanism. When Darwin first formulated his theory of evolution, he still thought that there was some form of pangenesis going on. That is, the gametes in sexually reproducing species were created by taking material from the entire body. This was used by Lamarck in his description of evolution that traits acquired by an organism during its lifetime could be passed onto the next generation, thus giraffes got their long necks because the first generation physically stretched their necks reaching for leaves and this acquired trait was passed to their children who stretched them even more, etc. Darwin didn't agree with this idea...acquired traits are obviously not passed on or parents who had lost a limb would be more likely to have children without that limb. But still, he thought that whatever was used to transfer morphological traits from one generation to the next was distilled from the entire body. Remember, the chromosome hadn't been discovered yet. It turns out he was wrong. The gonads create the gametes by taking a single cell and subjecting it to meiosis. We found the direct cause of evolution: The chromosome and how it mutates over time. We are still discovering the various types of selective pressures that exist, but we have actually found some. What is gravity? Is it as Einstein described, a folding of space-time? Is it a force carried on a particle much like the other forces of electromagnetism, strong nuclear, and weak nuclear? We have absolutely no idea. We've got some great information about how it behaves, but we don't know what it is! We have no mechanism for gravity. So yes, let's teach evolution for the theory that it is. But that doesn't mean creationism gets to be considered a theory. In science, a theory is something that has been tested a great deal and not found wanting. It might be wrong since theories can never be proven correct, but the theory is as accurate as we can possibly make it precisely because theories are tailored to fit all the facts that we know. If you don't like what a theory says, then you need to find new data that the theory cannot be reconciled with. Note that this does not make creationism "true" just because our current theory of evolution is false. Again, the fact of evolution is still there: When we watch organisms over time, they change and that change is called "evolution." While the theories about the mechanism of evolution might change, evolution itself will always be the case. Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Aquilegia753 writes:
quote: Are you saying all of physics needs to be discarded?
quote: Do you have any evidence to suggest that they haven't? Every single attempt we have ever made to change the various constants has failed. The physics that we have managed to discover all indicate that they cannot be. It is insufficient to simply play, "What if?" and expect it to be legitimate. Your attempt to play this as some sort of "freedom of conscience" ploy is interesting. You're trying to say that you have the right to lie to people.
quote: Incorrect. Suppose I have a standard deck of 52 cards. What is the probability of me drawing the Ace of Spades?What is the probability of me drawing an Ace? What is the probability of me drawing a Spade? What is the probability of me drawing a black card? What is the probability of me drawing a card? You are confusing the probability of drawing the Ace of Spades with the probability of drawing a card. Suppose I have a standard deck of 52 cards? What is the probability of me drawing a Royal Flush?What is the probability of me drawing a Royal Flush given that I already have the Ace of Spades? What is the probability of me drawing a Royal Flush given that I already have the Ace and King of Spades? What is the probability of me drawing a Royal Flush given that I already have the Ace, King, and Queen of Spades? What is the probability of me drawing a Royal Flush given that I already have the Ace, King, Queen, and Jack of Spades? You are confusing the probability of achieving a result in a single step with the probability of achieving it step-wise.
quote: Except your proclamation of "too many variables exist" simply isn't true. One of the big reasons that we accept radiometric dating is because the various methods are independent. Suppose we have a room and we want to know how big it is. There are various ways that we can calculate this. We can use a measuring stick to lay it out, but this will introduce errors as we pick up the stick and put it down again...it will be difficult if not impossible to get a straight line this way and our measurements will be off. Too, it is extremely unlikely that the room will be a perfect multiple of the stick and thus, we will have to come up with a way to measure a fraction of the stick. We could use an acoustical method. By putting forth an acoustic wave, we can measure the amount of time it takes for the wave to propagate to the other wall and return. This method has its own possibilities for error since it will require the medium in the room to be uniform both in pressure and temperature throughout. There's also the question of making sure that we are listening for the echo of the wall and not the echo of some other object in the room. We could use a photonic method. By putting forth a light wave, we can measure the amount of time it takes for the wave to travel to the other wall and return. This method has its own possibilities for error since it will require the gravitational field in the room to be uniform throughout. Each of these methods have ways to return false results. But the important thing to notice is that the way those errors might appear are completely independent of each other. The way in which an error can appear using a stick method have no effect upon a light method. Therefore, if all three methods return the same result, then you're going to have to explain why they all returned the exact same wrong answer when the way to make a wrong answer is different for each method. Are you saying that we should lie to people? Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Aquilegia753 writes:
quote: Nothing more than a media hype exaggerating the claims of science. Yes, there was a meteoric event about 64 mya (we can see it in the iridium layer in the geologic column) that coincides with the extinction of the dinosaurs, but it isn't like the impact wiped out the dinosaurs. The dinosaurs were in decline long before the impact. While the impact certainly helped push the dinosaurs into extinction, it was an inevitability.
quote: Which is why carbon dating is calibrated. But note, temperature does not affect radioactive decay. If temperature is going to affect the way we calibrate carbon dating, it is because it affects the rate at which carbon is taken up by organic beings. The carbon is going to decay at the exact same rate no matter what the temperature. It's just a question of where it's going to decay. Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Aquilegia753 writes:
quote: If you're going to insist that it is simply magic, then stop beating around the bush and state directly that you're invoking magic. Don't pretend it's science. Simply admit that you're contradicting all the evidence and invoking magic. Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Aquilegia753 responds to me:
quote: You mean the videotape we have of him entering your house, removing the set, arriving at the pawn shop, and trying to sell it isn't sufficient to show that it was him? That's the level of evidence we have. You seem to think that scientists are blithering idiots. I'm going to ask you the same question I ask a lot of creationists...one which they never seem to answer. Please be the first: When was the last time you went to your local science library and read a peer reviewed journal?
quote: Nobody said it wasn't. But here's the thing: Science is self-correcting. If you keep at it, science will eventually find the error and correct it because science is continually questioning everything. If you can find evidence that overturns the dominant paradigm, they give you the Nobel Prize. When was the last time you heard a creationist admit that it's possible his fundamental assumptions about everything were up for debate?
quote: Please don't presume to lecture me about my spelling. I spell "god" that way on purpose. It is not a mistake. It is not an insult. If you wish, I can explain it to you, but you should be content to know that your presumption is wrong.
quote: I never said you did. Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Aquilegia753 responds to me:
quote: If 1 + 1 = 2, why can't 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 = 10? You seem to think that there is such a thing as "microevolution" and "macroevolution." There isn't. They are simply descriptors for how much evolutionary action has taken place. "Macroevolution" is evolutionary action above the species level while "microevolution" is action below the species level. In short, "macroevolution" is nothing more than a bunch of "microevolution." There is no difference in the evolutionary action. But since you've asked: 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution
quote: That's because we shouldn't expect to see such things. If we did, that would be a severe blow to evolutionary theory. Humans are not descended from monkeys. Monkeys are not descended from humans. Humans and monkeys are descended from a common ancestor that was neither a human nor a monkey. If we found a "man-monkey," that would completely destroy our understanding of the evolutionary history of humans and monkeys. Horses don't have any limb buds along its back. How on earth could it evolve wings back there? Given your classic imagery, I'm assuming you mean feathered wings like a pegasus. You do realize that such wings are modified hands, yes? With no hand on a back to modify into a wing, you're never going to get a winged horse. If we were to ever find a winged horse, it would completely destroy our understanding of biology. Do you understand anything about why evolutionary theory says what it says? Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Aquilegia753 writes:
quote: Close, but not quite. First, the traditional meaning of "man" in the context you put it is the same as "human," so your phrasing of a transition from "man" to "human," is nonsensical...they're the same thing. Second, macroevolution isn't necessarily speciation. Macroevolution is simply evolutionary action that takes place above the species level. But since you bring up speciation, we've seen that happen right in front of our eyes: Observed Instances of SpeciationSome More Observed Speciation Events I've switched computers so I don't have my references from my PubMed crawl of instances of new genera, families, and even orders.
quote: Again, close, but not quite. It isn't like the plant "grows special food." There is no consciousness involved and the plant does not respond directly to the action of the ants. The plant was going to grow whatever it was going to grow. The action of the ants, however, can have an effect on which plants are going to survive to reproduce. Those plants that the ants can forage on and not die will have more offspring than those that the ants kill. And similarly, those ants that can forage without killing off their food supply will have more offspring than those that do kill off their food. That is what causes the morphological change over time. It isn't like the plant thinks, "I'm being attacked by ants! I had better figure out a way to appease them! I know! I'll start devoting energies to sap production, have it leak out of my stem, and that way the ants won't have to eat my leaves!" It's simply that mutation creates plants that can do such, are taken advantage of by the ants, and live to reproduce.
quote: Hint: When trying to define a science term, don't use a regular dictionary. Instead, use a science dictionary. Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Aquilegia753 responds to me:
quote: There is no difference between the two. If 1 + 1 = 2, why can't 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 = 10? Evolutionary theory is based upon "evolution" and whether or not it happens above or below the species level is irrelevant.
quote: How does the genome know that it isn't allowed to change anymore since that would mean it's a new species? You're trying to imply that somehow there's a barrier in mutation and selection that prevents the genome from changing "too much." But since you've asked: Observed Instances of SpeciationSome More Observed Speciation Events So since we can see speciation happen right in front of our eyes, why do you insist that we lie to people and claim we haven't?
quote: Irrelevant. Science is not a gut feeling.
quote: Yes. It's not anything like a human body cell, but we can make cells.
quote: Define "life." We can create self-replicating, auto-catalysing, homochiral molecules that evolve. Is that "life"? We can create viruses from scratch. Are viruses "alive"? The question of what is "life" is not a simple one to answer.
quote: Non sequitur. Your conclusion has nothing to do with your premise. A hundred years ago, there was no such thing as the internet and the smartest people in the world couldn't have created it. Does that mean that only god can create the internet? Or does it simply mean that they hadn't yet figured out how? You seem to be in awe of Clark:
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. You seem to be of the opinion that if you don't know how it's done, then that means nobody knows how it's done and that it is impossible for anybody to ever figure it out. Oh, and by the way: Evolution says nothing about the origin of life. Life could have come into being chemically through abiogenesis, supernaturally through god zap-poofing it into existence, extraterrestrially through panspermia or alien seeding, interdimensionally through a rift in space-time, or any other method I haven't mentioned. Evolution doesn't care. So long as life does not reproduce perfectly from generation to generation, then evolution is satisfied. Are you saying that god cannot make life that evolves? So if god can make life that evolves and if it turns out, as it certainly seems to be the case, that simple chemistry can make life that evolves, then why would evolution care about how life came into existence? How could you possibly tell the difference?
quote: Don't you think god left his signature of how he did written all over creation? All you have to do is read it. Have you considered the possibility that god did do it...but not in the way you think? Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Aquilegia753 responds to me:
quote: I'm saying that we shouldn't lie about what we do know. You want to say that the evidence that we have for evolution and radiometric dating and all of science itself is nothing more than a "guess." It isn't. It is the culmination of literally centuries of work by countless people. To trivialize it as mere whim that can be rationally contradicted by a seventh grader ("so he can make up his own mind") is to insult the intelligence of scientists everywhere. If you're going to say that science is wrong, you need more evidence than simply, "It could be." Sure, "it could be," but so far we haven't found it to be false. The predictions made by the science we have bear fruit. We are able to get actual work done precisely and specifically because of the conclusions the science forces us into.
quote: Incorrect. There was no belief involved. If it were, then there would be no way to contradict it. But evidence won the day. You are confusing Lyellian uniformitarianism with modern geology. You are basically trying to say that what Bretz found means that the Grand Canyon could have been carved by a massive flood. In short, you cribbed that reference from a creationist source, probably a web site, yes? You don't actually know the geology involved, do you? The way massive floods lay down channels have no evidence in the Grand Canyon. Allen et al. 1986; Baker 1978; Bretz 1969; Waitt 1985 show how the features of the Washington Scablands bear no resemblance to the features seen in the Grand Canyon.
quote: Incorrect. In fact, the exact opposite is true. If it were thought that "science knows everything," then nobody would have ever thought to investigate the Scablands. After all, what possible use could there have been in doing so? We already know the answer! Ah, but science never thinks it knows the answer...it only knows what it understands right now. More investigation leads to more knowledge and more questions and more investigation. If you think you have evidence that shows the whole paradigm to be off, then you need to present it. "But it could be wrong," is not sufficient. Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Aquilegia753 responds to me:
quote: How is that not magic? Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Aquilegia753 responds to me:
quote: Then you admit that "macroevolution" is nothing special and is just a bunch of microevolution. Good. Now can we get onto the question of why you think scientists are morons when it comes to their chosen field of study? Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024