|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Radiometric Dating Corroboration | ||||||||||||||||||||
Dr_Tazimus_maximus Member (Idle past 3245 days) Posts: 402 From: Gaithersburg, MD, USA Joined: |
Nice post. I have a question for you. What do you think of the more recent calculations (past year I believe) that concluded that the strike in Mexico was smaller than originally thought and that it may not have carried enough mass to kick up enough debris to account for the entire KT event? In other words, there may have been more than one event that lead to the death of the dinosaurs; maybe a combination of the strike and the lava flows in the Decan flats (sp?) area of India.
------------------"Chance favors the prepared mind." L. Pasteur Taz
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Dr_Tazimus_maximus Member (Idle past 3245 days) Posts: 402 From: Gaithersburg, MD, USA Joined: |
quote: I seem to remember reading something about Olsen's comments re: the Deccan flats (I knew that my spelling was wrong ------------------"Chance favors the prepared mind." L. Pasteur Taz
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Dr_Tazimus_maximus Member (Idle past 3245 days) Posts: 402 From: Gaithersburg, MD, USA Joined: |
quote: I think that it (elevated iridium) is found in lava but not at the same quantities as found in the layer, making the iridium layer likely of extraterrestrial origen. At least that is what I remember from a book by the Alvereses (sp?) and from a few other sources. ------------------"Chance favors the prepared mind." L. Pasteur Taz
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Dr_Tazimus_maximus Member (Idle past 3245 days) Posts: 402 From: Gaithersburg, MD, USA Joined: |
[QUOTE]Originally posted by wehappyfew:
If this really is a concise record of extinctions and flood basalts, then the link between them seems unassailable. [/B][/QUOTE] I have seen a similar table/graph concerning the timing of likely comet or asteroid strikes and mass extinctions. I will try to find the book tonight or later this week. ------------------"Chance favors the prepared mind." L. Pasteur Taz
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Dr_Tazimus_maximus Member (Idle past 3245 days) Posts: 402 From: Gaithersburg, MD, USA Joined: |
Yeahh I found it (at long last). The book is Extinction:Bad Genes or Bad Luck by David Raup. There is a discussion in chapter 10 concerning relationships between most mass extinctions and meterorite impacts. Some of the data is very similar to the data concerning volcanism w.r.t correlations.
The book is decent although not the best that I have read on the subject. I kept thinking that it was in Alveres's Book T.rex and the Crater of Doom. ------------------"Chance favors the prepared mind." L. Pasteur Taz [This message has been edited by Dr_Tazimus_maximus, 03-31-2002]
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Dr_Tazimus_maximus Member (Idle past 3245 days) Posts: 402 From: Gaithersburg, MD, USA Joined: |
quote: Kind is the non-biological concept that creationists try to substitute for species (of course, you probably already knew this and were trying to pin TC down ------------------"Chance favors the prepared mind." L. Pasteur Taz
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Dr_Tazimus_maximus Member (Idle past 3245 days) Posts: 402 From: Gaithersburg, MD, USA Joined: |
[QUOTE]Originally posted by TrueCreation:
--As is analogous toward an inability to give a direct definition toward 'species', the 'kind' as well is difficult to make such a direct pin-point, universal coincidence. Ie, the definition is applicable to all organisms. (Careful Tazimus, arrogance can be bliss, though It is best to keep quiet untill you have room to make such a confident assertion) [/B][/QUOTE] Happy Easter TC, I am curious as to were you thought that I was being arrogant w.r.t. my post re: kinds. I was a) pointing out that the definitions generally used by people concerning biological kinds are really not a good representation of biology, and b) making an observation concerning the potential motives of the poster. Nothing arrogant there that I can see. Now, as to my degree of knowledge, I am quite familiar with numerous ways that many creationist organizations use the term kinds and know that they shift it a lot and without supporting data. While I am glad that some are trying to look at real data there is a component of the creationist definition of "kind" that is unsupported by the data and in fact is directly opposed to it. This would be the concept and reality of varying levels of speciation. I have read of some creationist definitions of "kind" where small changes are allowed but they would never allow that tigers and lions, or jaguars and puma's have common ancestors. Both the fossil and the molecular data support speciation; another and more recent example would be with whales and hippos, they share a common ancestor and yet the creationist definition of "kind" specifically rules out the type of speciation which both the molecular phylogeny and the fossil record demonstrate. Now, you may know this, and if so please excuse the potential redundency. Species as defined by people in general and scientists in particular are both a reality and a non-reality. By this I mean that species exist, there are populations of distinct living organisms that change over time, however, species as often defined and pigeon-holed by man are a construct that we use to attempt to understand nature. We inadvertantly impose improper constraints or miss relationships that would change how we define species. What scientists do not do w.r.t. the definition of species is to impose an unmoving, a priori constraint as is done w.r.t. the base definition of kinds, ie no speciation, or as many creationists would put it, no macro-evolution (which would be a missuse of the term IMO but that is for a later debate). Anyway, hope that this clears things up as to what I was trying to say. ------------------"Chance favors the prepared mind." L. Pasteur Taz
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Dr_Tazimus_maximus Member (Idle past 3245 days) Posts: 402 From: Gaithersburg, MD, USA Joined: |
quote: the above statement seems to be at odds with the following statement
quote: But TC, they are the same post.
quote: Sorry, I can not agree here due to the artificial constraints imposed on "kind" as mentioned earlier. Also, creationists often set very little in the way of objective criteria w.r.t. the definition of kind, again as I mentioned earlier. One example is the ICR, their definition is more fluid than a supercooled gas.
quote: Well maybe we are getting somewhere after all. However, assuming your statement is representative as to how you think, can I assume that you would agree that these are not "created kinds"?
quote: Ah, so if speciation is real then both species and kinds can change can't they. As to the whale, there has been a great deal of data both from molecular biology and from fossils to determine the evolutionary pathways that the whales ancestors took to go from the land to the sea. There was an excellant article in Science, 21SEP01, Vol 293 outlining several finds that described data not only placing the whales squarely in the artiodactyl camp (even toed Ungulates which include hippos) which was more in line with the molecular phylogeny data. There were a number of morphological characteristics that were what would be predicted in a species that spent time both onland and in the water including nostril placement and the arrangment of lower vertebrea which, eventually, allowed the up and down movement of the tail and flukes. Now, most "kinds" as defined by most creationist groups do not fit this, but species as defined by biology and allowing for speciation and evolution does.
quote: I have never been able to find a reason that some creationists say that kinds do not allow for speciation, it makes no biological sense. It also depends on the creationist, some will say that "created kinds" are those made by God during the first week and have never changed (patent BS), others say that there is a level of variation within species and their definitions range from no speciation to no "macroevolution" (a term which they constantly misuse), again with very little supporting data for their statements. This is the reason that I say that the term "kind" is a sloppily defined BS term, I understand differing viewpoints, what I can not stand is the lack of ANY supporting data. W.R.T. species let me go one step further. Now, if speciation at ANY level can occur then mutations must be the source of the changes within the genomes (simple variation around a mean will not suffice unless it can be an increasing variation where changes in the species occur due to a shift in the mean itself, brought about by changes in selective pressure due to changes in the environment), a point almost always disputed by creationists. Now, this occurance of new genes, loss of old genes and shift within allelic frequencies makes up the basis for the raw material for speciation at all levels. With this in mind: 1)how would you account of speciation within the definition of the term kind (you can define your understanding of the term if you like), 2)how does this differ from species as defined in modern biology and 3) how does this definition of kind disallow evolution through natural selection and descent with modification? ------------------"Chance favors the prepared mind." L. Pasteur Taz
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024