|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: 'We' Evo's think..................... | |||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5226 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
MtW,
Until then empty the garbage bin, cos here it comes: What? Are you suggesting that transitionals predicted by the ToE don't exist? Are you making an a priori assumption that everything dies fossilises? Mark
|
|||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5226 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
Mike,
Actually the "out of sequence" examples you seek to find are a bit of a red herring. Stasis is expected in lineages whose environment changes little. If they spawn another species that changes rapidly, neither species immediately becomes extinct, & we find the parent species after (geologically speaking) the daughter, then it will be "out of sequence". This is one of those examples where looking at a single example is unrepresentative of evolution as a whole. Looking at a large number of cladograms (evolutionary trees), & comparing them to stratigraphy, we should see what correlation? 1/ Assume the flood occurred & macroevolution didn't (even assuming the flood didn't happen). The correlation between stratigraphy & cladograms should be very low, accounted for by chance. This is the null hypothesis. 2/ Assume the flood didn't occur & evolution did. We should see a relatively high correlation, stochastically speaking. Certainly not 100%, since cladistical problems as well as poor fossil sampling will serve to bring the average down, but it should be high enough to falsify the null hypothesis. Which scenario do you think the results support? Mark ------------------"The primary purpose of a liberal education is to make one's mind a pleasant place in which to spend one's time" - Thomas Henry Huxley [This message has been edited by mark24, 11-20-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5226 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
Mike,
So living fossils' environments never changed? Probably, that's why they don't live there anymore. Furthermore, I can vaguely recall a fossil tardigrade that was alleged to be identical to its modern homologue. But that's the only one, the rest are just similar. Care to find me a 65 million year old Latimeria chalumnae? I think it was you that I discussed "living fossils" with before, so you'll forgive me if I cut and paste.....
quote: What I'm saying is that "living fossils" are representative species of higher taxa. They are only considered anomolies because we once thought they were extinct. Hypothetical scenario: Imagine it was thought that there were no frogs today, but some were discovered on an island. They would be considered living fossils, yet in truth they would be no more "living fossils" than frogs today.
Good points, but there are still problems. Like from the evolutionarily view (2) horse tail rushes literally stuck in the mud and literally - living fossils. Has the environment ever changed? Will they always be stuck in a rut? How many horsetail fossil species are alive today? Or is it that horsetails are a surviving taxa, like vertebrates, or reptiles. Are they living fossils too? Presumably if other niches opened up horsetails would be able to exploit them assuming nothing else got their first. Horsetails were outcompeted in other niches which is why they exist where they do today. Remove the competition....... I realise that you want to see "living fossils" as being things that existed pre-flood & also live today, but they simply aren't the same organisms that are the actual fossils. Nor are "living fossils" a problem for evolution, because they aren't the same organisms that made the actual fossils, either. It's irrelevant, because they are not, but so what if they were the same? But you haven't answered the question I posed in post 48: "1/ Assume the flood occurred & macroevolution didn't (even assuming the flood didn't happen). The correlation between stratigraphy & cladograms should be very low, accounted for by chance. This is the null hypothesis. 2/ Assume the flood didn't occur & evolution did. We should see a relatively high correlation, stochastically speaking. Certainly not 100%, since cladistical problems as well as poor fossil sampling will serve to bring the average down, but it should be high enough to falsify the null hypothesis. Which scenario do you think the results support?" Mark ------------------"The primary purpose of a liberal education is to make one's mind a pleasant place in which to spend one's time" - Thomas Henry Huxley [This message has been edited by mark24, 11-20-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5226 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
Mike,
P.s You have answered well [to Ned], it is others who havent. Well to be fair, you've avoided my point/question twice, posed in post 48, & again, with a more detailed response in post 54. The point being, that according to mainstream creationism there shouldn't be stratigraphic/morphological sequences at all, let alone lots of sequences with a few exceptions. Mark ------------------"The primary purpose of a liberal education is to make one's mind a pleasant place in which to spend one's time" - Thomas Henry Huxley
|
|||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5226 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
Reminds me of those Haiku shenanigans going on in another thread, but with a shedload more vowels.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5226 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
Mike,
You might have missed message 61 and 63 because they were indirectly to you also [to Ned] And you might have missed posts 48, 54, & 64....And they were directly directed at you. Mark ------------------"The primary purpose of a liberal education is to make one's mind a pleasant place in which to spend one's time" - Thomas Henry Huxley
|
|||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5226 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
Mike,
I am aware of your input Mark, and I thank you but I've got a neck ache and can't be bothered reading them again, feel free to aim them at yec's in general So basically your happy touting an unrepresentative sample as if it's a problem for evolution, if you are granted that Turkana boy is out of sequence, that is? I remember you saying once (or words to this effect) that evolutionists should have been able to trounce you with massive evidences of evolution, yet they didn't, perhaps this is why? If you don't address the issue, you are never confronted with the evidence? Mark ------------------"Physical Reality of Matchette’s EVOLUTIONARY zero-atom-unit in a transcendental c/e illusion" - Brad McFall
|
|||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5226 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
Mike,
I'm so glad the ring master included the predictions on the navigator squadron as 'we' confused me but sometimes my programme jams I wont insist on cleaning the filter if the bin is full.But next time I will review the process with fun at the forthcoming nature of the conclusions which have no choice but to happen. There is logic to this logic from my point of view but at no stage will I activate a new character. For the wiz box very much enjoyed the whole thing. Isn't that what counts? Has anyone ever seen you & Brad in the same room? Mark
|
|||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5226 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
Mike,
Mark: Your posts were grade A, 10 out of 10, top dog genius material ; leaving an un-learned fool to dodge them Can't say fairer than that. Mark
|
|||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5226 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
Mike,
The Brad path is not one you want to tread.....If you want to be understood, that is. One of the things that frustrates me most about Brad, is that he clearly is educated & has something interesting to say. Yet for some reason he is "word" dyslexic. He cannot, no matter how hard he tries, make any sense whatsoever. His first thoughts are transmitted to his fingertips, bypassing his "cognitive cortex" (my very own Bradism), & the rest of us are left wondering why he isn't locked up. This is not a good place to be, Mike. Mark ------------------"Physical Reality of Matchette’s EVOLUTIONARY zero-atom-unit in a transcendental c/e illusion" - Brad McFall
|
|||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5226 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
Iron Man,
It may be standard procedure but radiometric dating is very inaccurate and unreliable. We'll see........ Apologies to those who’ve seen the bulk of this before, but no YEC has given a significant answer. It deals with four radiometric dating methods dating K-T tektites that corroborate a 65 m.y. age, & the implications of rationale & reason, with respect to maintaining a YEC 6,000 year old earth world view, based on the odds involved. (Quoting Brent Dalrymple) The K-T TektitesOne of the most exciting and important scientific findings in decades was the 1980 discovery that a large asteroid, about 10 kilometers diameter, struck the earth at the end of the Cretaceous Period. The collision threw many tons of debris into the atmosphere and possibly led to the extinction of the dinosaurs and many other life forms. The fallout from this enormous impact, including shocked quartz and high concentrations of the element iridium, has been found in sedimentary rocks at more than 100 locations worldwide at the precise stratigraphic location of the Cretaceous-Tertiary (K-T) boundary (Alvarez and Asaro 1990; Alvarez 1998). We now know that the impact site is located on the Yucatan Peninsula. Measuring the age of this impact event independently of the stratigraphic evidence is an obvious test for radiometric methods, and a number of scientists in laboratories around the world set to work. In addition to shocked quartz grains and high concentrations of iridium, the K-T impact produced tektites, which are small glass spherules that form from rock that is instantaneously melted by a large impact. The K-T tektites were ejected into the atmosphere and deposited some distance away. Tektites are easily recognizable and form in no other way, so the discovery of a sedimentary bed (the Beloc Formation) in Haiti that contained tektites and that, from fossil evidence, coincided with the K-T boundary provided an obvious candidate for dating. Scientists from the US Geological Survey were the first to obtain radiometric ages for the tektites and laboratories in Berkeley, Stanford, Canada, and France soon followed suit. The results from all of the laboratories were remarkably consistent with the measured ages ranging only from 64.4 to 65.1 Ma (Table 2). Similar tektites were also found in Mexico, and the Berkeley lab found that they were the same age as the Haiti tektites. But the story doesn’t end there. The K-T boundary is recorded in numerous sedimentary beds around the world. The Z-coal, the Ferris coal, and the Nevis coal in Montana and Saskatchewan all occur immediately above the K-T boundary. Numerous thin beds of volcanic ash occur within these coals just centimeters above the K-T boundary, and some of these ash beds contain minerals that can be dated radiometrically. Ash beds from each of these coals have been dated by 40Ar/39Ar, K-Ar, Rb-Sr, and U-Pb methods in several laboratories in the US and Canada. Since both the ash beds and the tektites occur either at or very near the K-T boundary, as determined by diagnostic fossils, the tektites and the ash beds should be very nearly the same age, and they are (Table 2). There are several important things to note about these results. First, the Cretaceous and Tertiary periods were defined by geologists in the early 1800s. The boundary between these periods (the K-T boundary) is marked by an abrupt change in fossils found in sedimentary rocks worldwide. Its exact location in the stratigraphic column at any locality has nothing to do with radiometric dating it is located by careful study of the fossils and the rocks that contain them, and nothing more. Second, the radiometric age measurements, 187 of them, were made on 3 different minerals and on glass by 3 distinctly different dating methods (K-Ar and 40Ar/39Ar are technical variations that use the same parent-daughter decay scheme), each involving different elements with different half-lives. Furthermore, the dating was done in 6 different laboratories and the materials were collected from 5 different locations in the Western Hemisphere. And yet the results are the same within analytical error. If radiometric dating didn’t work then such beautifully consistent results would not be possible. 1/So the K-T Tektites were dated by no less than four methods, that corroborate. 40Ar/39Ar, K-Ar, Rb-Sr, and U-Pb . If that weren't evidence enough, lets take a look at how inaccurate they all must be, to fit a YEC world view. The lower age given is 64.4 mya. Now, assuming a 6,000 year old YEC earth is what YECs perceive as 100% of available time, then 60 years is 1%. This means that all the above methods, were ALL (1,085,000-100 = ) 1,084,900% inaccurate. Let me reiterate, the YECs requires these FOUR different, corroborating methods to be over ONE MILLION PERCENT INNACURATE. Now, given that the four methods are different, & are subject to DIFFERENT potential error sources & yet still corroborate closely means that the various potential bugbears of each method have been reasonably accounted for in the date calculations themselves. This can only leave a YEC one place to go, the underlying physics. Half life constancy. 2/The range of dates is from 64.4 mya to 65.1 mya giving a 0.7 my range. 64.4/0.7 = 92 (Not taking the 65.1 m.y. figure to be as favourable as possible to YECs) The range of error is 92 times smaller than the minimum given date, giving us usable increments of time. Probabilistically speaking, we basically have four 92 sided dice. What are the odds of all four dice rolling a 92? On the familiar 6 sided die, the chance of rolling two sixes (or any two numbers, for that matter) is 6^2 = 36:1 (Number of sides to the nth power where nth = number of die). Therefore, the odds of four radiometric dating methods reaching the same date range by chance is..drum roll..92^4 (92*92*92*92)= 71,639,296:1 Is there any YEC that is prepared to state that the four radiometric dating methods achieve their high level of corroboration by pure chance? If not, how much of the 65 m.y. old figure do you attribute to chance, & how much to radiometric half lives contributing to the derived date, percentage wise? Here is your dilemma. The error required by the radiometric methods are 1,084,900% to fit a YEC 6,000 year old view. If they accept that the methods are capable of not being in error by more than 1,084,000%, then they accept a 60,000 year old earth, minimum. So, saying that half lives contribute only 1% to any derived radiometric date, means in this case (1% of 65,000,000 is 650,000 years), so even this small contribution by half lives falsifies a YEC young earth. 3/The chance of all four methods being off by (chance) 64,400,000 years when the result SHOULD have been 6,000 years is truly staggering. 64,400,000/6,000 = 10,733.33 recurring (following the previous example, we now have four 10,733.33 sided dice) 10,733.33 recurring ^4 = 13,272,064,019,753,086:1 My questions to creationists are ; A/ How do you account for four corroborating radiometric dating methods dating the tektites so closely at 65 m.y. old, given the odds of it occurring by pure chance? B/ IF you don’t accept that radiometric dating is valid as a dating method, how do you account for the four methods being over one million percent inaccurate, relative to a YEC assumed 6,000 year old earth? C/ If you DO accept that half lives affect the resultant date, even to a small degree, what percentage would you be prepared to accept that radiometric dating is influenced by half lives, the rest being just plain chance? And how do you come by this figure, evidentially? D/ How do you rationalise the odds of all four radiometric methods being wrong by a factor of 10,733 each, when the odds of such an occurrence is 13,272,064,019,753,086:1 of them being wrong by the same factor? Mark ------------------"Physical Reality of Matchette’s EVOLUTIONARY zero-atom-unit in a transcendental c/e illusion" - Brad McFall
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024