[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jet:
[b][QUOTE]
Myth: Our universe is the result of the explosive expansion of the "Cosmic Egg" billions of years ago.
Reality: Explosions do not result in increased organization of matter. Has an explosion ever created ordered complexity?
[/b][/QUOTE]
Straw man.
The Big Bang isn’t postulated as a conventional explosion. It is the coming into existence of a vast amount of basic particles, followed by expansion. I’m afraid a strongly exothermic reaction is nowhere to be seen in modern cosmology re. Big Bang.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jet:
[b][QUOTE]
Myth: The fossil record proves evolution.
Reality: There are no clear transitions between vastly different types of animals in either the living world or the fossil record. Any three objects can be lined up but this does not prove that one turned into the other.
[/b][/QUOTE]
Straw man.
Science doesn’t claim to prove anything, so wouldn’t, & doesn’t claim the fossil record proves evolution. It claims it provides supporting evidence for evolution, nothing more.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jet:
[b][QUOTE]
Myth: Structural and biochemical similarities prove common ancestry.
Reality: Common ancestry is only one of two possible explanations for similarities. The lack of fossil transitions strongly refutes this belief. Purposeful design can explain the same features in a more direct way. In addition, totally different organism often display similar features.
[/b][/QUOTE]
Straw man.
Again, science doesn’t prove anything.
There is no lack of fossil transitions, here are a few:
Invertebrate transitionals :
http://www.gcssepm.org/special/cuffey_04.htm
Consider the brachiopod Eocoelia from the Lower Silurian of Great Britain (Ziegler, 1966). We find two species both classified as Eocoelia based on the details of internal morphology. However, the shells of the older species are coarsely ribbed whereas the shells of the younger species are smooth (Ziegler, 1966). If we examine samples collected from geochronologically intermediate positions, we find a succession of Eocoelia that progressively reduced and ultimately lost the ribs (Ziegler, 1966). This morphologic progression can be illustrated both qualitatively with specimen illustrations and quantitatively by measuring rib strength and plotting the data as a series of histograms in stratigraphic order (Ziegler, 1966). Such sequences are the preserved remains of temporally successive populations of organisms that morphologically changed from one species into another. All of these intermediate forms thus qualifies as transitional fossils. The only logical conclusion is that such successive populations were produced by normal reproductive processes. That is descent with modification (Cuffey, 1984, p. 266-269).
Research has provided many examples of successive species and genera (and in some cases families) linking major higher taxa of order or class rank (Cuffey, 1984, p. 266). For example, within Phylum Mollusca, transitional fossils have been found between [1] Class Monoplacophora and Subclass Nautiloidea (Pojeta, 1980; Runnegar & Pojeta, 1974), [2] Class Monoplacophora and Class Rostroconchia (Pojeta, 1980; Runnegar & Pojeta, 1974; Pojeta & Runnegar, 1976; Runnegar, 1978), [ 3] Class Rostroconchia and Class Pelecypoda (Pojeta, 1980; Runnegar & Pojeta, 1974; Pojeta & Runnegar, 1976; Pojeta, 1978), [4] Class Rostroconchia and Class Scaphopoda (Pojeta, 1980; Runnegar & Pojeta, 1974; Pojeta & Runnegar, 1976, 1979) , [5] Subclass Bactritoidea and Subclass Ammonoidea (Erben, 1966).
http://www.geo.ucalgary.ca/~macrae/talk_origins.html#trilobitesShowing Trilobite transitionals.
Pikaia gracilens (Science & Earth History, Arthur N Strahler, 1999, p405)
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/Evolution/PSCF12-97Miller.html
The Cambrian lobopods occupy a transitional morphological position between several living phyla. The oldest known lobopod from the Early Cambrian is Xenusion. This organism bears similarities to both palaeoscolecid worms and to living onychophorans and tardigrads. Furthermore, lobo-pods also have morphological features in common with the arthropods, particularly with peculiar Cambrian forms such as Opabinia and Anomalocaris. Recent redescription of Opabinia has also disclosed the presence of lobopod limbs strongly suggesting a lobopod to arthropod transition. The discovery of a Cambrian gill-bearing lobopod reinforces this conclusion. These forms fall nicely into a transitional position between extant phyla.
Another very important group of Early Cambrian fossils is represented by a wide variety of tiny cap-shaped and scalelike skeletal elements. It is now known that many of these belonged to slug-like animals that bore these hollow mineralized structures like a dermal armor. Two well-known, and well-preserved, examples of this group of organisms are Wiwaxia and Halkieria. Called the Machaeridia or the Coelosceritophora, these organisms are mosaics of phylum-level characteristics, and their taxonomic affinity is a matter of present debate. A strong case can be made for the assignment of at least some of these taxa to the Mollusca. However, a relationship to the polychaete annelid worms is also strongly suggested by some workers, as with Wiwaxia. The taxonomic confusion associated with these scale-bearing slug-like animals, and with the lobopods, is consistent with their stratigraphic position at the base of the Cambrian metazoan radiation.
http://www.natureasia.com/get.pl5/abstracts/issue991202/abstract991202_518.shtml
An early Cambrian craniate-like chordate
Jun-Yuan Chen, Di-Ying Huang and Chia-Wei Li
Since the identification of the Lower Cambrian Yunnanozoon as a chordate in 1995, large numbers of complete specimens of soft-bodied chordates from the Lower Cambrian Maotianshan Shale in central Yunnan (southern China) have been recovered. Here we describe a recently discovered craniate-like chordate, Haikouella lanceolata, from 305 fossil specimens in Haikou near Kunming. This 530 million-year-old (Myr) fish-like animal resembles the contemporaneous Yunnanozoon from the Chengjiang fauna (about 35km southeast of Haikou) in several anatomic features. But Haikouella also has several additional anatomic features: a heart, ventral and dorsal aorta, an anterior branchial arterial, gill filaments, a caudal projection, a neural cord with a relatively large brain, a head with possible lateral eyes, and a ventrally situated buccal cavity with short tentacles. These findings indicate that Haikouella probably represents a very early craniate-like chordate that lived near the beginning of the Cambrian period during the main burst of the Cambrian explosion. These findings will add to the debate on the evolutionary transition from invertebrate to vertebrate.
Lets take the evolution of the horse, from:
Hyracotherium (Eohippus), to Orohippus, to Epihippus, to Mesohippus, to Miohippus, to Parahippus, to Merychippus, to Pliohippus, to Modern Horse.
Why is this sequence inferred? In all cases, a progressive reduction in side toe functionality appears, with increased emphasis on the middle toe. The side toes become increasingly vestigial, as the middle toe becomes more prominent, ending up as the hoof.
Not enough?
A similar progression is seen in size, skull shape, & teeth forms.
Still not enough?
The side toes on modern horses are represented today as splints at the back of the shins. The process can be seen in the flick book of horse evolution. If this sequence never occurred, why do the side toes appear in horse embryos? Also, they are present occasionally in adult horses, exactly where the fossil record predicted they would be, replacing the splints. (Science & Earth History. Arthur N. Strahler 1999).
And, our old friend, Archaeopteryx.
Present In Dinosaurs But Not In Birds: Pubic peduncle, long bony tail, abdominal ribs.
Present In Birds But Not In Dinosaurs : Pygostyle, bony sternum, furcula (wishbone), hypotarsus, feathers.
Present In Archaeopteryx : All of the above.
If you don’t accept these, Jet, what WOULD you accept as a transitional?
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jet:
[b][QUOTE]
Myth: The rock layers of the earth form the pages of earth's history showing millions of years of evolutionary progression.
Reality: The fossil record does not show a clear, "simple-to-complex" of life forms. Life is complex and well developed wherever it is found in the fossil record. Major groups of plants and animals appear suddenly in the fossil record, with nothing leading up to them. Most rock layers and the fossils they contain can be explained better by a worldwide flood and subsequent events.
[/b][/QUOTE]
Not true, the fossil record clearly shows early life as single celled. Later life could be colonial (stromatolites), & multicellular. An increase in complexity, no less.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jet:
[b][QUOTE]
Myth: Radiometric dating methods are "absolute." They are accurate and reliable.
Reality: Although radiometric dating methods seem to show a trend of great age, these methods depend upon numerous other assumptions. When used to date events of known age, such as lava flow in Hawaii or the Grand Canyon, they have been wrong by orders of magnitude. How can we be sure they are accurate for events of unknown age? Furthermore, the vast majority of dating method indicate a very young earth.
[/b][/QUOTE]
LOL!!! Give us this majority of dating methods indicating a young earth.
What methods were used to date the lava flows? I bet it involved Argon See below.......
If various dating methods were inaccurate, then they wouldn’t corroborate to such a high degree..
radiometeric_dating_does_work
The Manson Meteorite Impact and the Pierre Shale
In the Cretaceous Period, a large meteorite struck the earth at a location near the present town of Manson, Iowa. The heat of the impact melted some of the feldspar crystals in the granitic rocks of the impact zone, thereby resetting their internal radiometric clocks. These melted crystals, and therefore the impact, have been dated by the 40Ar/39Ar method at 74.1 Ma (million years; Izett and others 1998), but that is not the whole story by a long shot. The impact also created shocked quartz crystals that were blasted into the air and subsequently fell to the west into the inland sea that occupied much of central North America at that time. Today this shocked quartz is found in South Dakota, Colorado, and Nebraska in a thin layer (the Crow Creek Member) within a thick rock formation known as the Pierre Shale. The Pierre Shale, which is divided into identifiable sedimentary beds called members, also contains abundant fossils of numerous species of ammonites, ancestors of the chambered nautilus. The fossils, when combined with geologic mapping, allow the various exposed sections of the Pierre Shale to be pieced together in their proper relative positions to form a complete composite section (Figure 1). The Pierre Shale also contains volcanic ash that was erupted from volcanoes and then fell into the sea, where it was preserved as thin beds. These ash beds, called bentonites, contain sanidine feldspar and biotite that has been dated using the 40Ar/39Ar technique.
The results of the Manson Impact/Pierre Shale dating study (Izett and others 1998) are shown in Figure 1. There are three important things to note about these results. First, each age is based on numerous measurements; laboratory errors, had there been any, would be readily apparent. Second, ages were measured on two very different minerals, sanidine and biotite, from several of the ash beds. The largest difference between these mineral pairs, in the ash from the Gregory Member, is less than 1%. Third, the radiometric ages agree, within analytical error, with the relative positions of the dated ash beds as determined by the geologic mapping and the fossil assemblages; that is, the ages get older from top to bottom as they should. Finally, the inferred age of the shocked quartz, as determined from the age of the melted feldspar in the Manson impact structure (74.1 0.1 Ma), is in very good agreement with the ages of the ash beds above and below it. How could all of this be so if the 40Ar/39Ar dating technique did not work?
The Ages of Meteorites
Meteorites, most of which are fragments of asteroids, are very interesting objects to study because they provide important evidence about the age, composition, and history of the early solar system. There are many types of meteorites. Some are from primitive asteroids whose material is little modified since they formed from the early solar nebula. Others are from larger asteroids that got hot enough to melt and send lava flows to the surface. A few are even from the Moon and Mars. The most primitive type of meteorites are called chondrites, because they contain little spheres of olivine crystals known as chondrules. Because of their importance, meteorites have been extensively dated radiometrically; the vast majority appear to be 4.4—4.6 Ga (billion years) old. Some meteorites, because of their mineralogy, can be dated by more than one radiometric dating technique, which provides scientists with a powerful check of the validity of the results. The results from three meteorites are shown in Table 1. Many more, plus a discussion of the different types of meteorites and their origins, can be found in Dalrymple (1991).
There are 3 important things to know about the ages in Table 1. The first is that each meteorite was dated by more than one laboratory Allende by 2 laboratories, Guarena by 2 laboratories, and St Severin by four laboratories. This pretty much eliminates any significant laboratory biases or any major analytical mistakes. The second thing is that some of the results have been repeated using the same technique, which is another check against analytical errors. The third is that all three meteorites were dated by more than one method two methods each for Allende and Guarena, and four methods for St Severin. This is extremely powerful verification of the validity of both the theory and practice of radiometric dating. In the case of St Severin, for example, we have 4 different natural clocks (actually 5, for the Pb-Pb method involves 2 different radioactive uranium isotopes), each running at a different rate and each using elements that respond to chemical and physical conditions in much different ways. And yet, they all give the same result to within a few percent. Is this a remarkable coincidence? Scientists have concluded that it is not; it is instead a consequence of the fact that radiometric dating actually works and works quite well. Creationists who wants to dispute the conclusion that primitive meteorites, and therefore the solar system, are about 4.5 Ga old certainly have their work cut out for them!
The K-T Tektites
One 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.
Dating of The Mt Vesuvius Eruption
In the early afternoon of August 24, 79 CE, Mt Vesuvius erupted violently, sending hot ash flows speeding down its flanks. These flows buried and destroyed Pompeii and other nearby Roman cities. We know the exact day of this eruption because Pliny the Younger carefully recorded the event. In 1997 a team of scientists from the Berkeley Geochronology Center and the University of Naples decided to see if the 40Ar/39Ar method of radiometric dating could accurately measure the age of this very young (by geological standards) volcanic material. They separated sanidine crystals from a sample of one of the ash flows. Incremental heating experiments on 12 samples of sanidine yielded 46 data points that resulted in an isochron age of 1925 94 years. The actual age of the flow in 1997 was 1918 years. Is this just a coincidence? No it is the result of extremely careful analyses using a technique that works.
This is not the only dating study to be done on an historic lava flow. Two extensive studies done more than 25 years ago involved analyzing the isotopic composition of argon in such flows to determine if the source of the argon was atmospheric, as must be assumed in K-Ar dating (Dalrymple 1969, 26 flows; Krummenacher 1970, 19 flows). Both studies detected, in a few of the flows, deviations from atmospheric isotopic composition, most often in the form of excess 40Ar. The majority of flows, however, had no detectable excess 40Ar and thus gave correct ages as expected. Of the handful of flows that did contain excess 40Ar, only a few did so in significant amounts. The 122 BCE flow from Mt Etna, for example, gave an erroneous age of 0.25 0.08 Ma. Note, however, that even an error of 0.25 Ma would be insignificant in a 20 Ma flow with equivalent potassium content. Austin (1996) has documented excess 40Ar in the 1986 dacite flow from Mount St Helens, but the amounts are insufficient to produce significant errors in all but the youngest rocks.
The 79 CE Mt Vesuvius flow, the dating of which is described above, also contained excess 40Ar. The 40Ar/39Ar isochron method used by the Berkeley scientists, however, does not require any assumptions about the composition of the argon trapped in the rock when it formed it may be atmospheric or any other composition for that matter. Thus any potential error due to excess 40Ar was eliminated by the use of this technique, which was not available when the studies by Dalrymple (1969) and Krummenacher (1970) were done.
Thus the large majority of historic lava flows that have been studied either give correct ages, as expected, or have quantities of excess radiogenic 40Ar that would be insignificant in all but the youngest rocks. The 40Ar/39Ar technique, which is now used instead of K-Ar methods for most studies, has the capability of automatically detecting, and in many instances correcting for, the presence of excess 40Ar, should it be present.
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. I'll assume, for the sake of simplicity that the K-T boundary is 60 mya, not 65 mya. Now, assuming a 6,000 year old YEC earth. This means that all the above methods, were ALL 1,000,000% inaccurate. Let me reiterate, the YEC movement requires these FOUR different, corroborating methods to be ONE MILLION PERCENT INNACURATE. That’s all of them inaccurate by the same amount.
How can you explain such a colossal error in four separate methods, when radioactive decay rates are so constant? Do you not find it absolutely astonishing that FOUR different methods, each with their own foibles, are all able to be wrong by the same amount?
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jet:
[b][QUOTE]
Myth: The fossil record for human evolution is complete and clear. All too often the propagandists for evolution present their story with statements such as, "Every knowing person believes that man descended from apes. Today there is no such thing as the theory of evolution, it is the fact of evolution." (Ernst Mayr)
Reality: The evidence for human evolution is fragmentary and reconstruction involves artistic license. Many competent scientists totally reject evolution. They acknowledge that it is not even a good scientific theory, much less a fact.
[/b][/QUOTE]
Straw man.
Show a single palaeontologist that claims The fossil record for human evolution is complete and clear.
Mark
[Edited to fix too-long link name. --Percy]
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
[This message has been edited by Percipient, 03-17-2002]
™ Version 4.2
