Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

Study finds twist in human evolution


  • Please log in to reply
58 replies to this topic

#31    Apostle

Apostle

    Extraterrestrial Entity

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 469 posts
  • Joined:19 Oct 2007
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Illinios

  • For the Lord God will help me, therefore have I set may face like a flint, and I know that I shall not be ashamed.
    ~Isaiah 50:7

Posted 24 October 2007 - 02:57 AM

4) The Hawkesbury Sandstone, named after the Hawkesbury River just north of Sydney, dominates the landscape within a 100 km (60 mile) radius of downtown Sydney. It is a flat-lying layer of sandstone, some 20,000 sq. km (7,700 sq. miles) in area and up to 250 meters (820 feet) thick.1 Dominated by grains of the mineral quartz2 (which is chemically very similar to window glass, and harder than a steel file), the sandstone is a hard, durable rock which forms prominent cliffs, such as at the entrance to Sydney Harbour and along the nearby coastline.

Despite the widespread, spectacular exposures of the Hawkesbury Sandstone, there is a long history of speculation about its origins, going back to Charles Darwin.3 Rather than consisting of just one sandstone bed encompassing its total thickness, the Hawkesbury Sandstone is made up of three principal rock types—sheet sandstone, massive sandstone and relatively thin mudstone.1 Each has internal features that indicate deposition in fast-flowing currents, such as in a violent flood.4 For example, thin repetitive bands sloping at around 20° within the flat-lying sandstone beds (technically known as cross-beds), sometimes up to 6 meters (20 feet) high, would have been produced by huge sandwaves (like sand dunes) swept along by raging water.

Fossils in the sandstone itself are rare. However, spectacular fossil graveyards have been found in several lenses (lenticular bodies of only limited extent) of mudstone.5 Many varieties of fish and even sharks have been discovered in patterns consistent with sudden burial in a catastrophe. Some such graveyards contain many plant fossils.

The Hawkesbury Sandstone has been assigned a Middle Triassic ‘age’ of around 225–230 million years by most geologists.1,6,7 This is based on its fossil content, and on its relative position in the sequence of rock layers in the region (the Sydney Basin). All of these are placed in the context of the long ages timescale commonly assumed by geologists.
    
Because of its hardness and durability, the Hawkesbury Sandstone not only provides a solid foundation for downtown Sydney’s skyscrapers, but is an excellent building material. A number of Sydney’s old buildings have walls of sandstone blocks. Today, the Hawkesbury Sandstone is mainly used for ornamental purposes.

To obtain fresh sandstone, slabs and blocks have to be carefully quarried. Several quarries still operate in the Gosford area just north of Sydney, and one near Bundanoon to the south-west.

In June 1997 a large finger-sized piece of fossil wood was discovered in a Hawkesbury Sandstone slab just cut from the quarry face at Bundanoon (see photo, right).8 Though reddish-brown and hardened by petrifaction, the original character of the wood was still evident. Identification of the genus is not certain, but more than likely it was the forked-frond seed-fern Dicroidium, well known from the Hawkesbury Sandstone.2,7 The fossil was probably the wood from the stem of a frond.

Because this fossil wood now appears impregnated with silica and hematite, it was uncertain whether any original organic carbon remained, especially since it is supposed to be 225–230 million years old. Nevertheless, a piece of the fossil wood was sent for radiocarbon (14C) analysis to Geochron Laboratories in Cambridge, Boston (USA), a reputable internationally-recognized commercial laboratory. This laboratory uses the more sensitive accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS) technique, recognized as producing the most reliable radiocarbon results, even on minute quantities of carbon in samples.

The laboratory staff were not told exactly where the fossil wood came from, or its supposed evolutionary age, to ensure there would be no resultant bias. Following routine lab procedure, the sample (their lab code GX–23644) was treated first with hot dilute hydrochloric acid to remove any carbonates, and then with hot dilute caustic soda to remove any humic acids or other organic contaminants. After washing and drying, it was combusted to recover any carbon dioxide for the radiocarbon analysis.

The analytical report from the laboratory indicated detectable radiocarbon had been found in the fossil wood, yielding a supposed 14C ‘age’ of 33,720 ± 430 years BP (before present). This result had been ‘13C corrected’ by the lab staff, after they had obtained a d13CPDB value of –24.0 ‰.9 This value is consistent with the analyzed carbon in the fossil wood representing organic carbon from the original wood, and not from any contamination. Of course, if this fossil wood really were 225–230 million years old as is supposed, it should be impossible to obtain a finite radiocarbon age, because all detectable 14C should have decayed away in a fraction of that alleged time—a few tens of thousands of years.

Anticipating objections that the minute quantity of detected radiocarbon in this fossil wood might still be due to contamination, the question of contamination by recent microbial and fungal activity, long after the wood was buried, was raised with the staff at this, and another, radiocarbon laboratory. Both labs unhesitatingly replied that there would be no such contamination problem. Modern fungi or bacteria derive their carbon from the organic material they live on and don’t get it from the atmosphere, so they have the same ‘age’ as their host. Furthermore, the lab procedure followed (as already outlined) would remove the cellular tissues and any waste products from either fungi or bacteria.

This is, therefore, a legitimate radiocarbon ‘age.’ However, a 33,720 ± 430 years BP radiocarbon ‘age’ emphatically conflicts with, and casts doubt upon, the supposed evolutionary ‘age’ of 225–230 million years for this fossil wood from the Hawkesbury Sandstone.

Although demonstrating that the fossil wood cannot be millions of years old, the radiocarbon dating has not provided its true age. However, a finite radiocarbon ‘age’ for this fossil wood is neither inconsistent nor unexpected within a Creation/Flood framework of Earth history. Buried catastrophically in sand by the raging Flood waters only about 4,500 years ago, this fossil wood contains less than the expected amount of radiocarbon, because of a stronger magnetic field back then shielding the Earth from incoming cosmic rays. The Flood also buried a lot of carbon, so that the laboratory’s calculated 14C ‘age’ (based on the assumption of an atmospheric proportion in the past roughly the same as that in 1950) is much greater than the true age.10

Correctly understood, this radiocarbon analysis is totally consistent with the biblical account of a young Earth and a recent global Flood, as recorded in Genesis by the Creator Himself.


#32    AmazingAtheist

AmazingAtheist

    Extraterrestrial Entity

  • Closed
  • PipPipPip
  • 403 posts
  • Joined:21 Sep 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Australia

  • 'Where knowledge Ends, Religion Begins -- Benjamin Disraeli

Posted 24 October 2007 - 06:51 AM

If you're story of this Big Flood is actually true -- Then it is consistent with the theory .. No .. I won't call it a theory ..
Of the Grand canyon being formed by this flood in FIVE minutes.
For that too be possible the water would have to traveling more than 2x the speed of light. But I guess it doesn't mention that
in you're Book of Fairy Tales. ( I'm referring to the Jewish Bible )

It is usually
When men are at their most religious
That they behave with the least sense
And the greatest cruelty.

--Ilka Chase


<a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim...tml#good_to_all" target="_blank">http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim...tml#good_to_all</a>

Go to link to see the "Original" God Yahweh ..


Theory-- A logically coherent model well supported by evidence.

Evolution isn't just science, It's life. -- Joshua McLean

#33    camlax

camlax

    Psychic Spy

  • Closed
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,435 posts
  • Joined:03 Jul 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:OH-IO

  • "It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. "
    -Carl Sagan

Posted 24 October 2007 - 03:17 PM

Apostle on Oct 23 2007, 10:57 PM, said:

Because this fossil wood now appears impregnated with silica and hematite, it was uncertain whether any original organic carbon remained, especially since it is supposed to be 225–230 million years old. Nevertheless, a piece of the fossil wood was sent for radiocarbon (14C) analysis to Geochron Laboratories in Cambridge, Boston (USA), a reputable internationally-recognized commercial laboratory. This laboratory uses the more sensitive accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS) technique, recognized as producing the most reliable radiocarbon results, even on minute quantities of carbon in samples.

The laboratory staff were not told exactly where the fossil wood came from, or its supposed evolutionary age, to ensure there would be no resultant bias. Following routine lab procedure, the sample (their lab code GX–23644) was treated first with hot dilute hydrochloric acid to remove any carbonates, and then with hot dilute caustic soda to remove any humic acids or other organic contaminants. After washing and drying, it was combusted to recover any carbon dioxide for the radiocarbon analysis.

The analytical report from the laboratory indicated detectable radiocarbon had been found in the fossil wood, yielding a supposed 14C ‘age’ of 33,720 ± 430 years BP (before present). This result had been ‘13C corrected’ by the lab staff, after they had obtained a d13CPDB value of –24.0 ‰.9 This value is consistent with the analyzed carbon in the fossil wood representing organic carbon from the original wood, and not from any contamination. Of course, if this fossil wood really were 225–230 million years old as is supposed, it should be impossible to obtain a finite radiocarbon age, because all detectable 14C should have decayed away in a fraction of that alleged time—a few tens of thousands of years.

Anticipating objections that the minute quantity of detected radiocarbon in this fossil wood might still be due to contamination, the question of contamination by recent microbial and fungal activity, long after the wood was buried, was raised with the staff at this, and another, radiocarbon laboratory. Both labs unhesitatingly replied that there would be no such contamination problem. Modern fungi or bacteria derive their carbon from the organic material they live on and don’t get it from the atmosphere, so they have the same ‘age’ as their host. Furthermore, the lab procedure followed (as already outlined) would remove the cellular tissues and any waste products from either fungi or bacteria.

This is, therefore, a legitimate radiocarbon ‘age.’ However, a 33,720 ± 430 years BP radiocarbon ‘age’ emphatically conflicts with, and casts doubt upon, the supposed evolutionary ‘age’ of 225–230 million years for this fossil wood from the Hawkesbury Sandstone.

Although demonstrating that the fossil wood cannot be millions of years old, the radiocarbon dating has not provided its true age. However, a finite radiocarbon ‘age’ for this fossil wood is neither inconsistent nor unexpected within a Creation/Flood framework of Earth history. Buried catastrophically in sand by the raging Flood waters only about 4,500 years ago, this fossil wood contains less than the expected amount of radiocarbon, because of a stronger magnetic field back then shielding the Earth from incoming cosmic rays. The Flood also buried a lot of carbon, so that the laboratory’s calculated 14C ‘age’ (based on the assumption of an atmospheric proportion in the past roughly the same as that in 1950) is much greater than the true age.10

Correctly understood, this radiocarbon analysis is totally consistent with the biblical account of a young Earth and a recent global Flood, as recorded in Genesis by the Creator Himself.



I am not going to address all of this because you have simply plagiarized from answersingenesis.org. That you simply copy and paste stories such as this shows you are actually unwilling to understand anything you are posting about.

Again, I wonder how it is people like you (and probably you included) claim your religion and yourselves to be of moral upstanding.

These “tricks” have been addressed many times now on these boards by real live scientists. Unfortunately they seem to fall on ears indoctrinated into deafness. While I would love to give you the benefit of the doubt that your intellectual prowess is at a level sufficient to understand radiometric techniques, I cannot.

Especially when you post garbage like this and tout the,

Quote

Correctly understood, this radiocarbon analysis is totally consistent with the biblical account of a young Earth and a recent global Flood, as recorded in Genesis by the Creator Himself.
flag (Which by the way is also plagiarized).

These “tricks” that oh so moral “creation scientists” use can be read up on HERE.

Radiometric dating techniques are a tool, like any other tool they need used correctly. You do not radiometric date things blind, you should have some kind of idea as to the age of the fossil (rough guess allowed). Also, one needs to follow the rules for carbon dating or any other dating technique they are using. These rules are there for a reason, to ensure the accuracy of the method. Simply ignoring them to “prove” they don’t work is asinine for a number of reasons that I need not mention.

Let me ask you something Apostle,
Let’s say you go out and purchase a new table saw. This table saw comes with an instruction booklet and warning labels. Now, I may not be a smart guy so I will ask this question, will you follow the labels and instructions included with the saw? Or are you simply going to ignore them to show the saw can be used incorrectly to “prove” saws used incorrectly don’t work well.

I mean, pretty much you YEC’s and “creation scientists” are right up there with This Guy. Because at the end of the day all you have done is “prove” a tool used incorrectly does not work…

Brilliant, the outcome for future Nobel’s is good, says the magic 8 ball.

Edited by camlax, 24 October 2007 - 03:18 PM.

"Sorry, but my inner voice tells me to tell your inner voice the following:
It's better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak up and remove all doubt.
Could you please relay that message to your inner voice?"
~Harte

"Imagination without knowledge is Ignorance waiting to happen."

#34    Shaftsbury

Shaftsbury

    Transitional Fossil

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,099 posts
  • Joined:13 Jul 2004
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Alberta, Canada

Posted 24 October 2007 - 03:29 PM

Apostle on Oct 23 2007, 08:34 PM, said:

1) The fossil record does show the event.  Evidence of Noah’s Flood can be seen all over the earth, from seabeds to mountaintops. Whether you travel by car, train, or plane, the physical features of the earth’s terrain clearly indicate a catastrophic past, from canyons and craters to coal beds and caverns. Some layers of strata extend acrosscontinents, revealing the effects of a huge catastrophe.
     The earth’s crust has massive amounts of layered sedimentary rock, sometimes miles (kilometers) deep! These layers of sand, soil, and material—mostly laid down by water—were once soft like mud, but they are now hard stone. Encased in these sedimentary layers are billions of dead things (fossils of plants and animals) buried very quickly. The evidence all over the earth is staring everyone in the face.


I'll have to have a bit of time to read your entire post, but I think I able able to disprove your account using just the first paragraph.

First of all I have to make an assumption that you believe in a literal interpretation of Noah's story as written in the bible.

The thing that you really need to keep in mind, and the thing that most ( if not all ) Creationist sites don't mention, is that in order for your explanation to be correct, ALL the sediments in the fossil record  ( "from seabeds to mountaintops" ) had to be produced within the duration of the flood.

I've checked some Creationist sites, and from what I am able to gather, they believe that Noah was on the Ark for approximately 1 year. At that point the waters had receded enough to expose solid land.

You can make a guess at how long it would take for the waters to completely disappear, a month?, a year?, ten years?

If I can demonstrate to you, that it took longer ( much longer ) to produce the stratigraphic record, than it did to produce Noah's flood ( from start to finish ) then your whole argument will crumble like dry leaves.

"He hath need of his wits who wanders wide,
aught simple will serve at home;
but a gazing-stock is the fool who sits
mid the wise, and nothing knows."

from the Elder or Poetic Edda

The Isles of Aledeon - Roleplay World

#35    Apostle

Apostle

    Extraterrestrial Entity

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 469 posts
  • Joined:19 Oct 2007
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Illinios

  • For the Lord God will help me, therefore have I set may face like a flint, and I know that I shall not be ashamed.
    ~Isaiah 50:7

Posted 25 October 2007 - 02:06 AM

I did just copy and paste these from answersingenesis.com.  Big deal.  That doesn't contaminate the evidence, which is what you asked me for.  Now, I would like to ask you the same.  I do not claim to be highly educated in this topic, but I'm trying to learn, and I want to hear both sides of the story, so please present me with your evidence for evolution.


#36    Apostle

Apostle

    Extraterrestrial Entity

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 469 posts
  • Joined:19 Oct 2007
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Illinios

  • For the Lord God will help me, therefore have I set may face like a flint, and I know that I shall not be ashamed.
    ~Isaiah 50:7

Posted 25 October 2007 - 02:11 AM

AmazingAtheist on Oct 24 2007, 12:51 AM, said:

If you're story of this Big Flood is actually true -- Then it is consistent with the theory .. No .. I won't call it a theory ..
Of the Grand canyon being formed by this flood in FIVE minutes.
For that too be possible the water would have to traveling more than 2x the speed of light. But I guess it doesn't mention that
in you're Book of Fairy Tales. ( I'm referring to the Jewish Bible )

     Well, my Bible says 40 days and 40 nights it rained.  I've never heard nor claimed the 5 minute forming of the Grand Canyon though I believe it was formed during the flood.


#37    AmazingAtheist

AmazingAtheist

    Extraterrestrial Entity

  • Closed
  • PipPipPip
  • 403 posts
  • Joined:21 Sep 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Australia

  • 'Where knowledge Ends, Religion Begins -- Benjamin Disraeli

Posted 25 October 2007 - 05:27 AM

Apostle on Oct 25 2007, 02:06 AM, said:

I did just copy and paste these from answersingenesis.com.  Big deal.  That doesn't contaminate the evidence, which is what you asked me for.  Now, I would like to ask you the same.  I do not claim to be highly educated in this topic, but I'm trying to learn, and I want to hear both sides of the story, so please present me with your evidence for evolution.



You want to hear both sides of the story .. But you don't want evidence .. What the ..

Heres how the story is ..

Creationism -- A hypothesis that has no more meaning than 'Monster under the bed' one.
Evolution -- Scientific fact.


Theres ya story.

It is usually
When men are at their most religious
That they behave with the least sense
And the greatest cruelty.

--Ilka Chase


<a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim...tml#good_to_all" target="_blank">http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim...tml#good_to_all</a>

Go to link to see the "Original" God Yahweh ..


Theory-- A logically coherent model well supported by evidence.

Evolution isn't just science, It's life. -- Joshua McLean

#38    Shaftsbury

Shaftsbury

    Transitional Fossil

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,099 posts
  • Joined:13 Jul 2004
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Alberta, Canada

Posted 25 October 2007 - 05:35 AM

In regards to the first evidence you provide for Noah's flood, the Wootton Bassett Mud Spring's.

"Wootton Bassett Mud Spring is situated on low, boggy ground in a small coppice approximately 1km south-east of Wootton Bassett. The spring consists of several vents which emit liquid mud all yearround and at accentuated rates after periods of prolonged rainfall. This mud dries and then accretes around the vents, forming mud blisters. The spring emerges from the Ampthill Clay Formation (which was deposited on the floor of a warm tropical sea during theJurassic Period) through five vents. It is most active during the winter and also for about a month after a period of heavy rain. The vents have been shown to contain liquid mud to a depth of about six metres (hence the need for rigorous safety precautions on monitoring visits!).

The chemistry of the water in the clay indicates that it comes from an aquifer in the limestone ‘Coral Rag’ formation, the top of which underlies the Ampthill Clay at a depth of 20 metres.
"

The Ampthill Clay Formation is contained in the Upper Oxfordian of the Jurassic Period, and records a time interval of approximately 3 - 5 million years.

The fossils contained within the formation are entirely consistant with marine deposits of the Jurassic age, and do not contain the remains of terrestrial animals or plants, which would be indicadive of a major flood event such as the one you are suggesting.

source 1: http://www.english-nature.gov.uk/about/tea...wiltsnews11.pdf
source 2: http://www.jncc.gov.uk/pdf/V21Chap1.pdf

"He hath need of his wits who wanders wide,
aught simple will serve at home;
but a gazing-stock is the fool who sits
mid the wise, and nothing knows."

from the Elder or Poetic Edda

The Isles of Aledeon - Roleplay World

#39    Chauncy

Chauncy

    Quixotic

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,033 posts
  • Joined:13 May 2004
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Canada

  • "Sanity may be madness but the maddest of all is to see life as it is and not as it should be." (from) Don Quixote

Posted 25 October 2007 - 02:06 PM

Considering that it takes an extremely unique set of circumstances to form a fossil, the fossil record we look at today is a minute example of all the life that has flourished on this planet.

The Earth in my opinion has seen the rise and fall of many, many species , none of which we may ever know existed.......simply because there will be no fossils.

Aside from oil, diamonds, lava and the limited fossil record....what else do we have to peer into our extreme past???

As long as men are free to ask what they must, free to say what they think, free to think what they will, freedom can never be lost and science can never regress.
Julius Robert Oppenheimer. (1904-1967)
Posted Image

#40    camlax

camlax

    Psychic Spy

  • Closed
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,435 posts
  • Joined:03 Jul 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:OH-IO

  • "It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. "
    -Carl Sagan

Posted 25 October 2007 - 05:25 PM

Apostle on Oct 24 2007, 10:06 PM, said:

I did just copy and paste these from answersingenesis.com.  Big deal.  That doesn't contaminate the evidence, which is what you asked me for.  Now, I would like to ask you the same.  I do not claim to be highly educated in this topic, but I'm trying to learn, and I want to hear both sides of the story, so please present me with your evidence for evolution.



Apostle,
It is a problem to simply copy and paste someone else's work with out providing any kind of reference to them. That is called plagiarism and may have learned about it and why it is wrong somewhere in your K-12 curriculum.

I told you why the "evidence" for carbon dating is not valid evidence. They misuse a tool and say that tool being misused does not work correctly, well duh. One should not have to have a high education level to understand misusing tools will yield poor results.

As far as your request for a "presentation" of evolutionary evidence, this has been done many times on these boards which I will link too shortly. There are year long biology courses at the college level devoted to the teachings of evolutionary biology. There are whole 4 year BS majors in the fields of EvoDevo and Evolutionary ecology-Organismal biology (EEOB). People who keep telling you and others like you on these boards that "There is mountains of evidence for evolutionary theory" are not simply making this up. There are really mountains of evidence, far too much to present it all here.

Teaching you all the evidence that supports evolutionary theory is far beyond the scope of a causal discussion board. If you are really wanting to hear both sides of the story then I will suggest again you enroll in a local community college and take a class in ecology or biology or one specifically on evolution if offered. If you are unwilling to do so then you need to do some reading.

All the books I suggest to you a few posts back are very sufficient in teaching one (a mix for beginners and experts alike) evolutionary theory and underlying mechanisms. I will copy and paste that list here again in case you missed it.
QUOTE (me)
Mark Ridley, Evolution 3rd ed. (A bit lengthy but targeted at 400-500 level biology students, so requires a good foundation in biology as well as statistics and calc. but can answer most of your questions)

Mark Ridley's The Red Queen: Sex and the evolution of human nature. (A good read, delves into the origins and evolution of our species particularly, easier read then his other books)

Jerry Coyne's Speciation. (Details mechanisms with examples of speciation and the varying types of mechanisms that lead to speciation. Can get rather in depth, I believe it is aimed at early to mid level graduate students in biology).

James W. Valentine's Origin of Phyla. (Arguably the most respected and distinguished paleobiologist, unites many aspects of biology to explain).

Kirschner and Gerhart's The Plausibility of Life: Resolving Darwin's Dilemma (Uses lots of molecular genetics to explain modes of adaptations and rise of complex parts, not to bad a read for people with decent understanding of chemistry and biology (decent being around a freshman-sophomore level))

Ernst Mayr's What Evolution Is. If you read no other book about science and evolution the rest of your life, make sure you read this. In fact I would advise everyone read this book, If you are unsure of who Mayr is wiki him. The book starts at Scala Naturae, Aristotle's Essentialism, then right up to modern evolutionary biology. Really everyone should read this book, evolutionist, creationists, IDist, UFO creationists etc!


Despite this being a casual discussion board there are still many posts on evolution and how it works. Here are some of those for you.
Evolution: A Detailed Anaylsis. This is a great thread that was largely ignored by the anti-evolution crowed.  A real live biologist made the thread and was willing to answer any questions about evolution. Please read it.

Radiometric Dating. I started a thread on radiometric dating (which I have already linked to you). The first post is many simplified explanations followed by a FAQ section by a Christian scientist (note Christian, not creation). If there is a specific aspect of radiometric dating you have a problem with feel free to post it in there and it will get answered.

A post on evolution in action on mankind. It includes two examples, one based on CCR5 receptors because of the plague and another based on Sickle cell anemia and the malaria parasite.

A good refutation to your global flood found here, Made by another very intelligent member with a good understanding of science.

Some help with transitional fossils


The information "argument" refuted here

Seanph has provided a great many links on evolution, sadly I think many of them are flat out ignored by the anti-evolution types. Simply search his posts (I don't have time to copy all his links at the moment) for the links or browse through them HERE

Many other members have provide detailed explinations of evolutionary mechanisms here as well. If you have any specific questions regarding the science of those feel free to post them HERE

"Sorry, but my inner voice tells me to tell your inner voice the following:
It's better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak up and remove all doubt.
Could you please relay that message to your inner voice?"
~Harte

"Imagination without knowledge is Ignorance waiting to happen."

#41    Apostle

Apostle

    Extraterrestrial Entity

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 469 posts
  • Joined:19 Oct 2007
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Illinios

  • For the Lord God will help me, therefore have I set may face like a flint, and I know that I shall not be ashamed.
    ~Isaiah 50:7

Posted 25 October 2007 - 07:00 PM

AmazingAtheist on Oct 24 2007, 11:27 PM, said:

You want to hear both sides of the story .. But you don't want evidence .. What the ..

Heres how the story is ..

Creationism -- A hypothesis that has no more meaning than 'Monster under the bed' one.
Evolution -- Scientific fact.


Theres ya story.

     No, I want the proof.  What's the proof for evolution?



#42    Apostle

Apostle

    Extraterrestrial Entity

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 469 posts
  • Joined:19 Oct 2007
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Illinios

  • For the Lord God will help me, therefore have I set may face like a flint, and I know that I shall not be ashamed.
    ~Isaiah 50:7

Posted 25 October 2007 - 07:14 PM

camlax on Oct 25 2007, 11:25 AM, said:

Apostle,
It is a problem to simply copy and paste someone else's work with out providing any kind of reference to them. That is called plagiarism and may have learned about it and why it is wrong somewhere in your K-12 curriculum.

I told you why the "evidence" for carbon dating is not valid evidence. They misuse a tool and say that tool being misused does not work correctly, well duh. One should not have to have a high education level to understand misusing tools will yield poor results.

As far as your request for a "presentation" of evolutionary evidence, this has been done many times on these boards which I will link too shortly. There are year long biology courses at the college level devoted to the teachings of evolutionary biology. There are whole 4 year BS majors in the fields of EvoDevo and Evolutionary ecology-Organismal biology (EEOB). People who keep telling you and others like you on these boards that "There is mountains of evidence for evolutionary theory" are not simply making this up. There are really mountains of evidence, far too much to present it all here.

Teaching you all the evidence that supports evolutionary theory is far beyond the scope of a causal discussion board. If you are really wanting to hear both sides of the story then I will suggest again you enroll in a local community college and take a class in ecology or biology or one specifically on evolution if offered. If you are unwilling to do so then you need to do some reading.

All the books I suggest to you a few posts back are very sufficient in teaching one (a mix for beginners and experts alike) evolutionary theory and underlying mechanisms. I will copy and paste that list here again in case you missed it.


Despite this being a casual discussion board there are still many posts on evolution and how it works. Here are some of those for you.
Evolution: A Detailed Anaylsis. This is a great thread that was largely ignored by the anti-evolution crowed.  A real live biologist made the thread and was willing to answer any questions about evolution. Please read it.

Radiometric Dating. I started a thread on radiometric dating (which I have already linked to you). The first post is many simplified explanations followed by a FAQ section by a Christian scientist (note Christian, not creation). If there is a specific aspect of radiometric dating you have a problem with feel free to post it in there and it will get answered.

A post on evolution in action on mankind. It includes two examples, one based on CCR5 receptors because of the plague and another based on Sickle cell anemia and the malaria parasite.

A good refutation to your global flood found here, Made by another very intelligent member with a good understanding of science.

Some help with transitional fossils


The information "argument" refuted here

Seanph has provided a great many links on evolution, sadly I think many of them are flat out ignored by the anti-evolution types. Simply search his posts (I don't have time to copy all his links at the moment) for the links or browse through them HERE

Many other members have provide detailed explinations of evolutionary mechanisms here as well. If you have any specific questions regarding the science of those feel free to post them HERE

     Thank you I will look into these.  Ok, if there are loads of evidence, just give me some of what you think is the most solid or that you found most interesting, if you don't mind.



#43    AmazingAtheist

AmazingAtheist

    Extraterrestrial Entity

  • Closed
  • PipPipPip
  • 403 posts
  • Joined:21 Sep 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Australia

  • 'Where knowledge Ends, Religion Begins -- Benjamin Disraeli

Posted 26 October 2007 - 06:59 AM

Apostle on Oct 25 2007, 07:14 PM, said:

Thank you I will look into these.  Ok, if there are loads of evidence, just give me some of what you think is the most solid or that you found most interesting, if you don't mind.



Type 'Evidence Evolution' into google.

Have fun.

It is usually
When men are at their most religious
That they behave with the least sense
And the greatest cruelty.

--Ilka Chase


<a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim...tml#good_to_all" target="_blank">http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim...tml#good_to_all</a>

Go to link to see the "Original" God Yahweh ..


Theory-- A logically coherent model well supported by evidence.

Evolution isn't just science, It's life. -- Joshua McLean

#44    Apostle

Apostle

    Extraterrestrial Entity

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 469 posts
  • Joined:19 Oct 2007
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Illinios

  • For the Lord God will help me, therefore have I set may face like a flint, and I know that I shall not be ashamed.
    ~Isaiah 50:7

Posted 27 October 2007 - 09:45 PM

camlax on Oct 22 2007, 10:42 PM, said:

No one said a cell had to come together randomly, evolution does not require something be a cell for it to act upon it. It requires replication/reproduction and inheritable (partially conserved) variation. Evolution also has nothing to do with abiogenesis.

Most breeds of dogs arose through artificial selection, which can actually serve as a nice model for selection

You are very confused. Mutations are not all bad, many are but not all of them. Do you know why? No? Ok, I'll tell you.

Most mutations are not beneficial because organisms are already adapted to their environments because of evolution. Kind of like the saying "If it ain't broke don't fix it". Same thing here. Most mutations are neutral or maladaptive because a species existing at the current point in time means it is adapted to its environment. Environments change though and some mutations do give rise to things that benefit an organisms fitness. When this occurs this organism is more likely to pass on its genotype. If this genotype is the fittest then that genotype will be seen in a higher frequency within the population over generations.

Variation in the gene pool is a good thing. Species without much variation in their gene pool tend to die out. Population bottlenecks, genetic drift etc are not generally something you want to have to your species. While you argue mutations are bad, this is hardly the case. They do add variation and to top it off most get masked.

     I was speaking of the first cell.  The only explanation I've heard for it coming together is spontaneous generation.  How did the first cell come together then?  and which came first the DNA or the protein? since DNA requires protein to function and protein is made by DNA.  I believe since scientists have made clever attempts at producing life in a lab only demonstrate that life can be demonstrated by intelligence.  
     When the populations of wild dogs were spreading across the globe, the environment shaped their characteristics through natural selection.  As humans began to domesticate dogs, they artificially selected the traits they desired in populations.  The diversity all comes from the DNA of the original dog kind.  We do know that all of the breeds did come from a very narrow gene pool, and this is confirmed by secular scientists.  This is a report from the journal of Science, November 22, 2002- "The origin of the domestic dog from wolves had been established...We examined the mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) sequence variation among 654 domestic dogs representing all major dog populations worldwide,...suggesting a common origin from a single gene pool for all dog populations."  
     Almost every mutation we know has been identified based on the disease it causes.  Examples of mutations that are beneficial to the individual or the population are sown to be a loss of information.  In evolution, these mistakes are supposed to increase information even though in over 3,000 known fruit fly mutations not one produces a fly that has a survival advantage.  Natural selection acts to preserve or eliminate traits that are beneficial or harmful, as the creation model would predict.  I agree that variation in a gene pool is a good thing.  Natural selection and mutations simply produce variations, however, no genetic mechanism can increase the amount of information that is needed to demonstrate evolution from particles to people.  Mutations do not add information to an organism's genome,  Mutations may affect the degree of a trait, but they do not cause new traits.  If this were the source of evolution, one would expect to find a general increase in the amount of DNA as you move up the evolutionary tree of life.  Humans are certainly more complex organisms than bacteria and plants, but they have less DNA in general.  The organism with the most DNA is actually a bacterium (Epulopiscium fishelsoni).  This has at least 25 times as much DNA as a human cell.  There are also 85,000 copies of one of its genes per cell.
     Please, tell me what you think of this information.


#45    Apostle

Apostle

    Extraterrestrial Entity

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 469 posts
  • Joined:19 Oct 2007
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Illinios

  • For the Lord God will help me, therefore have I set may face like a flint, and I know that I shall not be ashamed.
    ~Isaiah 50:7

Posted 27 October 2007 - 10:02 PM

AmazingAtheist on Oct 24 2007, 12:51 AM, said:

If you're story of this Big Flood is actually true -- Then it is consistent with the theory .. No .. I won't call it a theory ..
Of the Grand canyon being formed by this flood in FIVE minutes.
For that too be possible the water would have to traveling more than 2x the speed of light. But I guess it doesn't mention that
in you're Book of Fairy Tales. ( I'm referring to the Jewish Bible )

     Visitors to the Grand Canyon hear that it was made some millions of years ago.  That the Tapeats Sandstone was deposited 550 million years ago, and the Kaibab Limestone that forms the rim is 250 million years old.  The Grand Canyon strata extends over 250 miles into the eastern part of Arizona.  There, they are at least one mile lower in elevation.  Supposedly, the uplift of the Grand Canyon area occurred about 70 million years ago- hundreds of millions of years after the sediments were deposited.  
     I would expect hundreds of millions of years to be plenty of time for the sediment to cement into hard rock.  Yet the evidence indicates that the sediments were soft and unconsolidated when they were bent.  Instead of fracturing like the basement rock did, the entire layer thinned as it bent.  The sand grains show no evidence that the material was brittle and rock-hard, because none of the grains are elongated.  Neither has the mineral cementing the grains been broken and recrystallized.  Instead, the evidence points to the whole 4,000 foot thickness of strata still flexible when it was uplifted.  So, the millions of years of geological time are imaginary.  This, instead, demonstrates the reality of the catastrophic flood of Noah's day.
     The same results of the Grand Canyon can be accomplished by large amounts of water over a short period of time.  Observations of canyon formation in modern times suggest that the Grand Canyon may have formed much as did a small canyon near Walla Walla, Washington.  During an unusually wet period, small irrigation ditch was used to divert some excess water.  As the water passed through the ditch, if became a gully, then a gulch, then a canyon, 1500 feet long and 120 feet deep.  This all happened in 6 days, not millions of years.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users