Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9072 total)
61 online now:
AZPaul3, PaulK, Tangle (3 members, 58 visitors)
Newest Member: FossilDiscovery
Post Volume: Total: 893,164 Year: 4,276/6,534 Month: 490/900 Week: 14/182 Day: 2/12 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Radiometric Dating Corroboration
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 31 of 41 (7961)
03-29-2002 12:59 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by mark24
03-27-2002 2:39 PM


I did a 'find' search in my browser for trilobite and I found that I made reference to post 65 - http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=1&t=75&m=65#65 . There is a progression, or a decline in trilobite populations, it wasn't exactly just a 'boom' all the trilobites are extinct.

------------------


This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by mark24, posted 03-27-2002 2:39 PM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by mark24, posted 03-29-2002 5:03 AM TrueCreation has taken no action

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 4429 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 32 of 41 (7970)
03-29-2002 5:03 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by TrueCreation
03-29-2002 12:59 AM


quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
I did a 'find' search in my browser for trilobite and I found that I made reference to post 65 - http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=1&t=75&m=65#65 . There is a progression, or a decline in trilobite populations, it wasn't exactly just a 'boom' all the trilobites are extinct.


Whether they died out in a day, years, or longer, is not in issue. It is that volcanism is associated with ALL the major extinctions, including the P-T extinction. I am asking you to comment, in the light of your own "model", how there can be different mass extinctions AT ALL, that they can be seen correlate with episodes of volcanism AT ALL, & that radiometric dating, ALL AROUND THE WORLD confirms the ages that these extinctions took place.

If I may bring you back to my original point, since it dates the K-T tektites, at the K-T mass extinction juncture.

quote:
Originally posted by mark24:

“You are misunderstanding the question. The odds of all four methods being wrong to the same extent are 71,639,296:1 , would you agree that given these odds that the methods of radiometric dating are good, given that each method has it’s own DIFFERENT sources of potential error, I argue that the calculations themselves have accounted for these errors because the corroboration is seen to be so good. This means that for the YEC position to be true another source of error must have crept in. What is the source of error that is common to the four methods that will make them all wrong by 1,000,000%?

So it IS about odds, the odds of this occurring is huge, the odds of the earth not being 6,000 years old is 13,272,064,019,753,086:1 . If you are denying this, you are saying that the corroboration is pure chance. 13^15:1 needs a better explanation.”


From message 8 (unanswered). Could you address the whole post pls?

Clarification. I am not arguing causation with you. I am stating the mathematical likelihood of 1/ four radiometric methods being wrong by chance. 2/ The mathematical likelihood of those same four methods being so wrong, that allows the earth to be 6,000 years old.

Are you suggesting that the above odds are arrived at by chance? If not, then how much of the derived dates are attributable to the assumption that half lives are constant?

Mark

Ps I’m away for the weekend. Have a nice Easter.

------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by TrueCreation, posted 03-29-2002 12:59 AM TrueCreation has taken no action

  
Dr_Tazimus_maximus
Member (Idle past 2451 days)
Posts: 402
From: Gaithersburg, MD, USA
Joined: 03-19-2002


Message 33 of 41 (8037)
03-31-2002 8:25 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by TrueCreation
03-29-2002 12:52 AM


[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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by TrueCreation, posted 03-29-2002 12:52 AM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by TrueCreation, posted 03-31-2002 8:07 PM Dr_Tazimus_maximus has replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 34 of 41 (8051)
03-31-2002 8:07 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Dr_Tazimus_maximus
03-31-2002 8:25 AM


"Happy Easter TC"
--Thank you, Likewize Tazimus.

"I am curious as to were you thought that I was being arrogant w.r.t. my post re: kinds."
--I was directing this statment toward your post #29:

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 ). It even falls outside of the somewhat looser aplications of the BSC.

"I was a) pointing out that the definitions generally used by people concerning biological kinds are really not a good representation of biology"
--I find it just as relevant as the species, genus, or family classification.

"and b) making an observation concerning the potential motives of the poster. Nothing arrogant there that I can see."
--Not in the post you seem to be refering too, I concur.

"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."
--Actually, I see that tigers and lions are a single kind, as jaguars and puma's may as well have a common ancestor.

"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."
--I am all for speciation, and is quite a priority within the production of diversity and variation. As for the whales and hippos, mind if you emphesize?

"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."
--I think that I can agree with that.

"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)."
--How does the definition of kind, not allow for speciation, this is the reason the 'kind' is so difficult to identify precisely.

------------------


This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Dr_Tazimus_maximus, posted 03-31-2002 8:25 AM Dr_Tazimus_maximus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Dr_Tazimus_maximus, posted 04-01-2002 12:07 PM TrueCreation has replied

  
Dr_Tazimus_maximus
Member (Idle past 2451 days)
Posts: 402
From: Gaithersburg, MD, USA
Joined: 03-19-2002


Message 35 of 41 (8065)
04-01-2002 12:07 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by TrueCreation
03-31-2002 8:07 PM


quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"I am curious as to were you thought that I was being arrogant w.r.t. my post re: kinds."
--I was directing this statment toward your post #29:

the above statement seems to be at odds with the following statement

quote:

"and b) making an observation concerning the potential motives of the poster. Nothing arrogant there that I can see."
--Not in the post you seem to be refering too, I concur.

But TC, they are the same post.

quote:

"I was a) pointing out that the definitions generally used by people concerning biological kinds are really not a good representation of biology"
--I find it just as relevant as the species, genus, or family classification.

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:

"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."
--Actually, I see that tigers and lions are a single kind, as jaguars and puma's may as well have a common ancestor.

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:

"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."
--I am all for speciation, and is quite a priority within the production of diversity and variation. As for the whales and hippos, mind if you emphesize?

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:

"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)."
--How does the definition of kind, not allow for speciation, this is the reason the 'kind' is so difficult to identify precisely.

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by TrueCreation, posted 03-31-2002 8:07 PM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by TrueCreation, posted 04-02-2002 8:24 PM Dr_Tazimus_maximus has taken no action

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 36 of 41 (8117)
04-02-2002 8:24 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Dr_Tazimus_maximus
04-01-2002 12:07 PM


"the above statement seems to be at odds with the following statement

But TC, they are the same post."
--Hm.. May be that there is a simple missunderstanding here. The original post that you addressed starting this was my reply to schrafinator. In this post my last remark in parentheses was toward your post which stated:

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 ). It even falls outside of the somewhat looser aplications of the BSC.

"Sorry, I can not agree here due to the artificial constraints imposed on "kind" as mentioned earlier."
--How so?

"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."
--I would not argue that to Identify a specific kind is quite cumbersome. Though of course as is analogous as the definition of species, it is like-wize to place specific characteristics in identification of a definition.

"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"?"
--In individuality of the tiger, lion, etc. yes you would be correct, they are not the original created kinds. The representatives of the fossil record many are not even direct original copies.

"Ah, so if speciation is real then both species and kinds can change can't they."
--Absolutely.

"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."
--I have seen some of this information, obviously it assumes that such evolutionary processes have uniformly taken place as an underlying assumption, however.

"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."
--Wouldn't happen to have a more lengthy article on this, if you know of one that is internet accessable, as unfortunatelly, I am unable to access the issues of science. Also, one of my explanatory inference on this is simply the logic used in lining up every animal of the world in a line according to the most characteristical likenesses. You will obviously find very many phylogenetic, morphological/anatomical characteristical similarities between their neighbors.

"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."
--To this extent of hippos and whales, I think it is safe to concur.

"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."
--I wouldn't expect you could, obviously, it would not be much of a scientific explination, as I agree, it would make no scence in biology.

"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."
--I should start a revolution so all creationists would agree with me, but that probably wouldn't be the best idea in most cases. But then again, I could form a theoretical monarchy.

"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."
--I would argue your notion of the lack of any supporting data, as it is evident all throughout the fossil record as seemingly cohesive and applicable. And yes it is sloppily defined, if it is lawful for it to be defined at all.

"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"
--Definantly a priority, yes, acting very much on transposons activating and moving from site to site in the genome, thereby accounting for a great mechenism in variation and the production in genetic diversity.

"(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), "
--Speciation is a mechenism that drives the production of diversity and variation within the kind, and in doing so, splits up the kind into a genetically distinct species, this happening throughout time has shown highly effective in the production of diversity within the kind. What I mean by 'within the kind', is simply that the kinds were the initial existants which started the process.

"2)how does this differ from species as defined in modern biology"
--I do not believe that there is any difference, accept of course its previous history of development toward present day.

"and 3) how does this definition of kind disallow evolution through natural selection and descent with modification?"
--Natural selection and decent with modification, are greatly attributions in the process of evolutionary development per se. There is no disallowing of this process.

------------------

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 04-02-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Dr_Tazimus_maximus, posted 04-01-2002 12:07 PM Dr_Tazimus_maximus has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by wj, posted 04-02-2002 8:37 PM TrueCreation has taken no action

  
wj
Inactive Member


Message 37 of 41 (8119)
04-02-2002 8:37 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by TrueCreation
04-02-2002 8:24 PM


TC, I'm confused. What exactly do you mean by "kind"? Do you have a definition? Do you have a methodology to test or identify different "kinds"? What empirical information allows you to state whether different species are of the same or different "kinds"?

Sorry, this seems to be straying far from the original theme of the thread (kinda evolving). Perhaps TC could start a new thread and explain his thinking on the "kind" issue in a more relevent topic area.

[This message has been edited by wj, 04-02-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by TrueCreation, posted 04-02-2002 8:24 PM TrueCreation has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Lewissian, posted 04-22-2002 12:18 AM wj has taken no action

  
Lewissian
Member (Idle past 3960 days)
Posts: 18
From: USA
Joined: 04-21-2002


Message 38 of 41 (8763)
04-22-2002 12:18 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by wj
04-02-2002 8:37 PM


Deleted.

Edited by Lewissian, : Outdated.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by wj, posted 04-02-2002 8:37 PM wj has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Joe Meert, posted 04-22-2002 1:07 AM Lewissian has taken no action

  
Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 4914 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 39 of 41 (8764)
04-22-2002 1:07 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by Lewissian
04-22-2002 12:18 AM


Actually, the definition of baramin (created kind) is hilarious. If you look at it carefully, it can be perfectly in line with the notion of bacteria to man. Creationists blew this one!

Cheers

Joe Meert


This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Lewissian, posted 04-22-2002 12:18 AM Lewissian has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Quetzal, posted 04-22-2002 4:46 AM Joe Meert has replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5106 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 40 of 41 (8770)
04-22-2002 4:46 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by Joe Meert
04-22-2002 1:07 AM


Au contraire, mon ami. I think you need to take another look at those definitions. It appears clear to me that the key word in all of the above is "discontinuity". The creationists (sorry, baraminologists ) are flat out denying common ancestry except within a particular holobaramin. IOW, members of the "cat holobaramin" can't by definition have shared a common ancestry with the "dog holobaramin", nor can either have shared a remote common ancestor with any other carnivore holobaramin. The "ape holobaramin" can't share a common ancestor with the "human holobaramin". And sure as taxes no mammal can possibly have shared a common ancestor with an amphibian, reptile, fish, etc. Even the definition of apobaramin indicates that bats are not mammals.

I guess all those biologists and cladists working from molecular phylogenies better get real jobs, since they are obviously completely wrong.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Joe Meert, posted 04-22-2002 1:07 AM Joe Meert has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Joe Meert, posted 04-22-2002 10:58 AM Quetzal has taken no action

  
Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 4914 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 41 of 41 (8771)
04-22-2002 10:58 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by Quetzal
04-22-2002 4:46 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Quetzal:
Au contraire, mon ami. I think you need to take another look at those definitions. It appears clear to me that the key word in all of the above is "discontinuity". The creationists (sorry, baraminologists ) are flat out denying common ancestry except within a particular holobaramin. IOW, members of the "cat holobaramin" can't by definition have shared a common ancestry with the "dog holobaramin", nor can either have shared a remote common ancestor with any other carnivore holobaramin. The "ape holobaramin" can't share a common ancestor with the "human holobaramin". And sure as taxes no mammal can possibly have shared a common ancestor with an amphibian, reptile, fish, etc. Even the definition of apobaramin indicates that bats are not mammals.

I guess all those biologists and cladists working from molecular phylogenies better get real jobs, since they are obviously completely wrong.


JM: Actually, somewhere on this board someone posted an expansion of these definitions. The defintions were quite compatible with bacteria to man.

Cheers

Joe Meert


This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Quetzal, posted 04-22-2002 4:46 AM Quetzal has taken no action

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022