Understanding through Discussion

Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 69 (9033 total)
46 online now:
(46 visitors)
Newest Member: Johnny
Upcoming Birthdays: Percy
Post Volume: Total: 885,081 Year: 2,727/14,102 Month: 392/703 Week: 45/168 Day: 14/31 Hour: 0/0

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Author Topic:   Why Only Creationism So Politicized?
Member (Idle past 4736 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002

Message 26 of 155 (38733)
05-02-2003 2:50 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by amsmith986
05-02-2003 2:20 AM

This forum is a lot of fun, isn't it? From what I've seen here, you can pretty much find a knowledgeable person for just about any question you ask - as long as you show you're willing to actually read and consider the answers. However, I think you'll find it's even MORE fun to participate. For example, your statement:

Evolution says that the oceans are about 3 billion years old, yet there is only enough sediment to account for about 62 million years.

would seem to require a bit more info provided on your part before it can really be addressed. For instance, could you reference where you got these figures? They seem to be somewhat off as far as what geologists and pedologists say is the case. "Evolutionists", for instance, mostly say things like, "Wow, those 3.5 gya microstructures sure resemble stromatolites. That must mean there were oceans that long ago, since those critters only live in oceans."

If you could give a reference for the 62 million year sediment figure, that would be helpful.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by amsmith986, posted 05-02-2003 2:20 AM amsmith986 has not yet responded

Member (Idle past 4736 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002

Message 74 of 155 (70956)
12-04-2003 9:12 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by Syamsu
12-04-2003 8:26 AM

As far as hearing or reading specific papers, in most cases it it depends on your area of interest. For instance, I've read the Paabo paper Mammuthus cited, but wouldn't really want to comment on how "influential" it might be or may have been. Mine is a different area. For example, I would have cited Orr, HA 1995 "The Population Genetics of Speciation: The Evolution of Hybrid Incompatibilities" (Genetics 139:1805-1813) as an influential paper, or maybe even the book Wilson EO, MacArthur RH, 1967 "The Theory of Island Biogeography" (Princeton Uni Press) which although dated somewhat was the seminal work that mostly launched the entire field by providing a theoretical framework for all the observations that had been made since Wallace and Darwin on biogeography.

I can probably come up with a number of other papers I consider "influential" in my field, so I don't understand the point you're trying to make in reference to Mammuthus's choices - he works with ancient DNA, I work(ed) as an ecologist. Thus the choice of what would be considered "influential" in our respective fields is going to be different. Maybe you could explain what you're asking for?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Syamsu, posted 12-04-2003 8:26 AM Syamsu has not yet responded

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:

Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021