Antievolution.org :: Antievolution.org Discussion Board The Critic's Resource on Antievolution

Antievolution.org Discussion Board > From the Panda's Thumb > After the Bar Closes... > Evolution of the horse; a problem for Darwinism?

Pages: (58) < ... 49 50 51 52 53 [54] 55 56 57 58 >

Daniel Smith Posts: 970 Joined: Sep. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 24 2008,14:57    Quote (JAM @ Feb. 24 2008,12:37) Abstracts aren't evidence. Geez JAM, do I need to quote the whole paper?  Take a look at it.  It's even got figures! -------------- "If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance."  Orville Wright "The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question."  Richard Dawkins

Daniel Smith Posts: 970 Joined: Sep. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 24 2008,15:51    Here's another theory that parallels Schindewolf's by applying a macromutational mechanism to mammalian evolution: Karyotypic fissioning and Canid phylogeny (link)     Quote Abstract A theory is advanced which holds that mammalian evolution has been largely dependent on extensive chromosomal changes. These take the form of occasional simultaneous massive increase in diploid number through centric mis-division, here called karyotypic fissioning. This event occurs in a single individual and subsequently spreads through a population depending on chance, meiotic compatibility, dynamics of the population and natural selection. The possibility that fusions also occur sporadically is not precluded, although such events are not seen as abundant. This theory accounts for the wide variation in diploid number among the Mammalia and relates the presumed episodes of karyotypic fissioning with known periods of explosive speciation and adaptive radiation. Finally, the traditional evolutionary concept of mutant allele substitution through gene frequency shift under the influence of natural selection is placed in a new perspective. While it is still seen as a primary mechanism of evolution, it is seen as more significant as a “fine-tuning” mechanism, perhaps often responding to exigencies precipitated by chromosomal changes. The theory is tested by integrating its assumptions with the phylogeny of the recent Canidae as previously reconstructed from the fossil record and classical studies of anatomy. The correlation between increase in diploid number and adaptive radiation within this group is obvious. Within the family it is possible to specify approximate times and places of karyotypic fissioning which have been found to be consistent with known paleontogical and zoogeographic facts. It has also been possible to suggest relationships among living species which had not been previously recognized, but which are testable by independent techniques. Which led to this: Kinetochore reproduction in animal evolution: Cell biological explanation of karyotypic fission theory (link)     Quote Abstract Karyotypic fission theory of Todd offers an explanation for the diverse range of diploid numbers of many mammalian taxa. Theoretically, a full complement of acrocentric chromosomes can be introduced into a population by chromosomal fission. Subsequent inheritance of ancestral chromosomes and paired fission derivatives potentially generates a diploid range from the ancestral condition to double its number of chromosomes. Although it is undisputed that both chromosomal fission and fusion (“Robertsonian rearrangements”) have significantly contributed to karyological diversity, it is generally assumed that independent events, the fission of single chromosomes or the fusion of two chromosomes, are the sources of such change. The karyotypic fission idea by contrast posits that all mediocentric chromosomes simultaneously fission. Here I propose a specific cell biological mechanism for Todd's karyotypic fission concept, “kinetochore reproduction theory,” where a complete set of dicentric chromatids is synthesized during gametogenesis, and kinetochore protein dephosphorylation regulates dicentric chromatid segregation. Three postulates of kinetochore reproduction theory are: (i) breakage of dicentric chromosomes between centromere pairs forms acrocentric derivatives, (ii) de novo capping of newly synthesized acrocentric ends with telomeric DNA stabilizes these derivatives, and (iii) mitotic checkpoints regulate chromosomal disjunction to generate fissioned karyotypes. Subsequent chromosomal rearrangement, especially pericentric inversion, increases the probability of genetic isolation amongst incipient sympatric species polytypic for fission-generated acrocentric autosomes. This mechanism obviates the requirement for numerous independent Robertsonian rearrangements and neatly accounts for mammalian karyotype evolution as exemplified in analyses of Carnivora, Artiodactyla, and Primates. So you have a chromosomal evolution theory for mammalian evolution and a hypothesized cellular mechanism - both of which are testable. In my uneducated opinion, current evolutionary thought is more in line with Schindewolf and Goldschmidt than with Darwin. -------------- "If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance."  Orville Wright "The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question."  Richard Dawkins

mitschlag Posts: 236 Joined: Sep. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 24 2008,16:32    Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 24 2008,13:55) Actually, it's only the gradual evolution of Darwinism that requires hundreds of millions of years to bring about 'life as we know it'.  A saltational evolution theory does not require that timespan. Well, then, what timespan does it require?  I believe that you've been asked this before.  Is it 6,000 years? -------------- "You can establish any “rule” you like if you start with the rule and then interpret the evidence accordingly." - George Gaylord Simpson (1902-1984)

mitschlag Posts: 236 Joined: Sep. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 24 2008,16:35    Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 24 2008,13:55)   Quote (mitschlag @ Feb. 23 2008,15:01) In any case, you should be concerned about the age of the earth and the universe if you want to have an understanding of evolution.  Or of much else in science. Did you get my point? -------------- "You can establish any “rule” you like if you start with the rule and then interpret the evidence accordingly." - George Gaylord Simpson (1902-1984)

oldmanintheskydidntdoit Posts: 4999 Joined: July 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 24 2008,16:48    Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 24 2008,15:51) In my uneducated opinion, current evolutionary thought is more in line with Schindewolf and Goldschmidt than with Darwin. I believe there is a sentence missing. The one that describes how this supports your point. And even my uneducated opinion knows that "current evolutionary thought" is very far away from what Darwin would have thought. The clue is in the date. 12 February 1809 – 19 April 1882. Things have changed since 1882. -------------- I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies". FTK if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand Gordon Mullings

Lou FCD Posts: 5455 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 24 2008,19:45    Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Feb. 24 2008,17:48)   Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 24 2008,15:51) In my uneducated opinion, current evolutionary thought is more in line with Schindewolf and Goldschmidt than with Darwin. I believe there is a sentence missing. The one that describes how this supports your point. That tickled me.  Thanks. -------------- “Why do creationists have such a hard time with commas? Linky“. ~ Steve Story, Legend

JAM Posts: 517 Joined: July 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 24 2008,20:09    Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 24 2008,14:57) Quote (JAM @ Feb. 24 2008,12:37) Abstracts aren't evidence. Geez JAM, do I need to quote the whole paper?  Take a look at it.  It's even got figures! No, you need to examine the evidence, which is not synonymous with anyone's opinion about the meaning of the evidence. At least you could admit that you were deliberately lying when you claimed: Quote (Daniel Smith @ Sep. 22 2007,04:48) I decided what I needed was just to see the evidence for myself.

JAM Posts: 517 Joined: July 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 24 2008,20:41    Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 24 2008,14:42)   Quote (JAM @ Feb. 24 2008,12:10) Mutations are digital, quantal, saltational, varying in their effects by multiple orders of magnitude. So Schindewolf was right - there is a genetic mechanism for saltational evolution.  This mechanism is (I'm guessing) chromosomal This is ludicrous. WTF does "chromosomal" mean in this context? Are you trying to make some chromosomal/episomal distinction, or are you just trying to pretend that you know what you are talking about?   Quote ...and multiplies the effects of single nucleotide substitutions "by multiple orders of magnitude". You have no reading comprehension, Dan. Mutations, including all types, vary in their phenotypic effects by many orders of magnitude. IOW, there is virtually no correlation between the extent of the mutation as you look at the DNA and its phenotypic effect. Put in more concrete terms, so that it might sink into a brain that is addled by wishful thinking and dishonesty, large interstitial deletions can have no detectable phenotype, even when homozygous, while single-base substitutions can be lethal, even when heterozygous. Do you have any idea how dishonest it was for you to replace the beginning of my sentence with something completely different, and pretend that you were accurately representing my position?   Quote Goldschmidt called these "macromutations" and is also then shown to have been correct by modern evidence. You don't know what you are talking about. Anyone who can conflate: 1) Mutations are digital, quantal, saltational, varying in their effects by multiple orders of magnitude. with 2) This mechanism is (I'm guessing) chromosomal and multiplies the effects of single nucleotide substitutions "by multiple orders of magnitude". isn't operating with a full deck.   Quote So what are we arguing about here JAM? Your fundamental dishonesty and avoidance of evidence, primarily. Secondarily, your unwillingness to admit that your failed predictions made you less confident in the hypotheses you arrived with. Your pretense that opinion = evidence is an implicit admission that you lack faith.     Quote Is it simply my attempt to bring God into the picture? No, it's your position that your desire to bring God into the picture somehow justifies multiple, deliberate lies (as well as pretending to know things that you don't) in direct violation of the Ninth Commandment. Christianity is supposed to be about demanding truthfulness from one's self, not trumping it with the need to defend a literal reading of a parable, considered to be a parable by the majority of your fellow Christians as well as the majority of Christian theologians.

JAM Posts: 517 Joined: July 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 24 2008,20:47    Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Feb. 24 2008,16:48) Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 24 2008,15:51) In my uneducated opinion, current evolutionary thought is more in line with Schindewolf and Goldschmidt than with Darwin. I believe there is a sentence missing. The one that describes how this supports your point. And even my uneducated opinion knows that "current evolutionary thought" is very far away from what Darwin would have thought. The clue is in the date. 12 February 1809 – 19 April 1882. Things have changed since 1882. Come on! Dan has no problem ignoring any data from the last 120 years if it helps him preserve his political position. Will Dan respond to the criticism that he is being dishonest by holding up Schindewolf's representation of Darwin as the embodiment of our understanding of evolutionary mechanisms in 2008? I say no, at least not honestly. He simply has to believe that we all worship Darwin (and that Schindewolf wasn't fudging yet again) or his house of cards falls down yet again.

JAM Posts: 517 Joined: July 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 24 2008,20:56    Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 24 2008,15:51) Here's another theory that parallels Schindewolf's by applying a macromutational mechanism to mammalian evolution: I don't see the parallels. To illustrate, here's a question for you to dodge: Would the chromosomal rearrangements cited by Wesley (translocations, inversions, breaks, fusions, etc.) be more likely to cause "pretty much instant speciation" via huge changes in phenotype, or via an entirely genetic mechanism that's covered in undergraduate genetics courses, as well as in some advanced high-school genetics courses?

Wesley R. Elsberry Posts: 4991 Joined: May 2002 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 25 2008,00:11    Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 24 2008,14:25) Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Feb. 23 2008,18:44) Hmmm? I thought the claim was that only saltation operated "between types". Did that change somewhere or get retracted when I wasn't paying attention? "Between types" - Yes.  Exclusively - No. Schindewolf expressly said that gradual evolution occurred on a regular basis - during the typostasis and typolosis phases of his theory. IOW, the saltational events were rare, but gradual evolution was common.  So we'd expect to find mostly evidence of gradual evolution in the fossil record except at the beginnings of types. Where one would *never* see it? -------------- "You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

Daniel Smith Posts: 970 Joined: Sep. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 25 2008,19:10    Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Feb. 24 2008,22:11)     Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 24 2008,14:25)       Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Feb. 23 2008,18:44) Hmmm? I thought the claim was that only saltation operated "between types". Did that change somewhere or get retracted when I wasn't paying attention? "Between types" - Yes.  Exclusively - No. Schindewolf expressly said that gradual evolution occurred on a regular basis - during the typostasis and typolosis phases of his theory. IOW, the saltational events were rare, but gradual evolution was common.  So we'd expect to find mostly evidence of gradual evolution in the fossil record except at the beginnings of types. Where one would *never* see it? In a sense yes.  If we saw something (in the fossil record that is), it would mean there was a gradual enough transition that it probably wasn't saltational.  So we should expect to *never* see it.  I would think we should see evidence of it in the chromosomes of related genomes however. -------------- "If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance."  Orville Wright "The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question."  Richard Dawkins

Daniel Smith Posts: 970 Joined: Sep. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 25 2008,19:18    Quote (mitschlag @ Feb. 24 2008,14:32)   Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 24 2008,13:55) Actually, it's only the gradual evolution of Darwinism that requires hundreds of millions of years to bring about 'life as we know it'.  A saltational evolution theory does not require that timespan. Well, then, what timespan does it require?  I believe that you've been asked this before.  Is it 6,000 years? I don't know what it would require.  As far as I can tell, the only required time period would be for the saltational events to spread to whatever extent they did population-wise.  The saltational event itself would require (at the most) one life-cycle for the organism in question. -------------- "If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance."  Orville Wright "The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question."  Richard Dawkins

Daniel Smith Posts: 970 Joined: Sep. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 25 2008,19:24    Quote (mitschlag @ Feb. 24 2008,14:35)     Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 24 2008,13:55)       Quote (mitschlag @ Feb. 23 2008,15:01) In any case, you should be concerned about the age of the earth and the universe if you want to have an understanding of evolution.  Or of much else in science. Did you get my point? I got it.  I've got no problem with the currently accepted age of the earth either.  All I said was that this saltational theory does not require that timespan. Did you get my point? -------------- "If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance."  Orville Wright "The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question."  Richard Dawkins

oldmanintheskydidntdoit Posts: 4999 Joined: July 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 26 2008,03:00    Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 25 2008,19:24) All I said was that this saltational theory does not require that timespan.   Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 24 2008,13:55) I don't know what it would require. So you don't know what timespan it would require and at the same time you know it does not require *that* timespan? How come you know what it does not need yet don't know what it does need? Seems somewhat odd to me. Almost like you are making it up as you go along. -------------- I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies". FTK if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand Gordon Mullings

oldmanintheskydidntdoit Posts: 4999 Joined: July 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 26 2008,03:13    Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 25 2008,19:24) I've got no problem with the currently accepted age of the earth either.  All I said was that this saltational theory does not require that timespan. What's the minimum period required for your saltational theory Daniel? 6000 to 10,000 years perhaps? It seems you won't rule out a 6000 year old earth? Sure, your saltational theory does not require a millions of years old earth but the fossils we're talking about do! You can't use fossil evidence and then claim it *could* be less then 6000 years old (which you are doing by implication). Just say it Daniel. Tell me Daniel, do you still think the jury is out on if the sun orbits the earth? Is there a case for both points of view? Or can we only progress if we unambiguously rule out one option and move on? By taking this stand you can rule out all sorts of things that cannot be accommodated under a 6000 year old earth. -------------- I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies". FTK if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand Gordon Mullings

mitschlag Posts: 236 Joined: Sep. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 26 2008,05:13    [parody] Listen up, Brethren: In contradiction to the Genesis story, GOD did not create all living things IN THE BEGINNING.  Each TYPE was CREATED in a saltational event.  (Especially the pinnacle of CREATION, MAN.)   A more leisurely approach befitting a BEING with eternity on HIS hands. It doesn't matter WHEN in history each TYPE was created, as long as we keep the RELATIVE ORDER of CREATION straight.   Because we must keep it SCIENTIFIC. Indeed, it's prudent to disbelieve evidence of an OLD EARTH, because that supports the DARWINIST interpretation. For DARWINISM (a work of the DEVIL) leads to UNBELIEF in saltation, and thus to unbelief in CREATION.   And GOD gets irritated when we don't believe in his ALMIGHTY POWER! [/parody] -------------- "You can establish any “rule” you like if you start with the rule and then interpret the evidence accordingly." - George Gaylord Simpson (1902-1984)

Daniel Smith Posts: 970 Joined: Sep. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 26 2008,19:10    Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Feb. 26 2008,01:00)   Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 25 2008,19:24) All I said was that this saltational theory does not require that timespan.     Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 24 2008,13:55) I don't know what it would require. So you don't know what timespan it would require and at the same time you know it does not require *that* timespan? How come you know what it does not need yet don't know what it does need? Seems somewhat odd to me. Almost like you are making it up as you go along. Have you read any of those papers yet oldman? Or are you just going to continually move the goalposts? -------------- "If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance."  Orville Wright "The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question."  Richard Dawkins

oldmanintheskydidntdoit Posts: 4999 Joined: July 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 27 2008,03:00    Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 26 2008,19:10) Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Feb. 26 2008,01:00)     Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 25 2008,19:24) All I said was that this saltational theory does not require that timespan.       Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 24 2008,13:55) I don't know what it would require. So you don't know what timespan it would require and at the same time you know it does not require *that* timespan? How come you know what it does not need yet don't know what it does need? Seems somewhat odd to me. Almost like you are making it up as you go along. Have you read any of those papers yet oldman? Or are you just going to continually move the goalposts? Why, are you looking to discuss them with somebody other then JAM? While I can perhaps understand why, I've no sympathy. Try engaging JAM on the evidence maybe? Daniel, how come you don't know what timespan your favoured theory require yet know what timespan they don't require? Daniel, you say time does not matter, only the order in which things happened. If we rewind right back, in your theory, do we get to the garden of Eden by any chance? A literal genesis? Or is that too silly even for you? -------------- I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies". FTK if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand Gordon Mullings

Daniel Smith Posts: 970 Joined: Sep. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 27 2008,17:58    Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Feb. 27 2008,01:00)     Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 26 2008,19:10)     Have you read any of those papers yet oldman? Or are you just going to continually move the goalposts? Why, are you looking to discuss them with somebody other then JAM? You claim I have "no evidence" to back my statements, yet when I produce papers that have the evidence you say you need to see, you refuse to look. Again I'll ask, how many of those papers have you read? -------------- "If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance."  Orville Wright "The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question."  Richard Dawkins

Daniel Smith Posts: 970 Joined: Sep. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 27 2008,18:05    Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Feb. 26 2008,01:13) Sure, your saltational theory does not require a millions of years old earth but the fossils we're talking about do! How do you know that oldman?  How long does fossilization take?  What's the timespan needed to produce "the fossils we're talking about"?  How did you arrive at that figure?  Have you even thought about it?  Or are you just parotting what you've heard someone else say? -------------- "If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance."  Orville Wright "The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question."  Richard Dawkins

JAM Posts: 517 Joined: July 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 27 2008,18:43    Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 27 2008,17:58) Again I'll ask, how many of those papers have you read? I looked at the two you most recently cited, but I have no idea why you cited them. They are about karyotypic changes within mammalian families (I'm only sure that Canidae is a family; I'm just guessing that the others are too). Are you claiming that you see anything resembling Schindewolf's morphological gaps within any of those taxa? If not, what's your point?

IanBrown_101 Posts: 927 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 27 2008,21:20    Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 28 2008,00:05) Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Feb. 26 2008,01:13) Sure, your saltational theory does not require a millions of years old earth but the fossils we're talking about do! How do you know that oldman?  How long does fossilization take?  What's the timespan needed to produce "the fossils we're talking about"?  How did you arrive at that figure?  Have you even thought about it?  Or are you just parotting what you've heard someone else say? Hi Mr Smith, come in, I'd like to introduce you to Mr Radiometric Dating. -------------- I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest. You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK Roddenberry is my God.

Daniel Smith Posts: 970 Joined: Sep. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 28 2008,11:10    Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Feb. 27 2008,19:20)   Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 28 2008,00:05)   Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Feb. 26 2008,01:13) Sure, your saltational theory does not require a millions of years old earth but the fossils we're talking about do! How do you know that oldman?  How long does fossilization take?  What's the timespan needed to produce "the fossils we're talking about"?  How did you arrive at that figure?  Have you even thought about it?  Or are you just parotting what you've heard someone else say? Hi Mr Smith, come in, I'd like to introduce you to Mr Radiometric Dating. How much do you actually know about radiometric dating? -------------- "If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance."  Orville Wright "The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question."  Richard Dawkins

IanBrown_101 Posts: 927 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 28 2008,11:41    Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 28 2008,17:10) Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Feb. 27 2008,19:20)   Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 28 2008,00:05)     Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Feb. 26 2008,01:13) Sure, your saltational theory does not require a millions of years old earth but the fossils we're talking about do! How do you know that oldman?  How long does fossilization take?  What's the timespan needed to produce "the fossils we're talking about"?  How did you arrive at that figure?  Have you even thought about it?  Or are you just parotting what you've heard someone else say? Hi Mr Smith, come in, I'd like to introduce you to Mr Radiometric Dating. How much do you actually know about radiometric dating? Well considering I finished my science education at my A-levels, and the only one I continued that far was biology, only what I've read and so on, so not a huge amount. Why, do you know more about it than, say, the people who use it? -------------- I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest. You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK Roddenberry is my God.

mitschlag Posts: 236 Joined: Sep. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 28 2008,12:32    Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Feb. 28 2008,11:41)   Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 28 2008,17:10)   Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Feb. 27 2008,19:20)       Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 28 2008,00:05)       Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Feb. 26 2008,01:13) Sure, your saltational theory does not require a millions of years old earth but the fossils we're talking about do! How do you know that oldman?  How long does fossilization take?  What's the timespan needed to produce "the fossils we're talking about"?  How did you arrive at that figure?  Have you even thought about it?  Or are you just parotting what you've heard someone else say? Hi Mr Smith, come in, I'd like to introduce you to Mr Radiometric Dating. How much do you actually know about radiometric dating? Well considering I finished my science education at my A-levels, and the only one I continued that far was biology, only what I've read and so on, so not a huge amount. Why, do you know more about it than, say, the people who use it? Brace yourself.  Strong tard on the horizon. That's my fear, at any rate -------------- "You can establish any “rule” you like if you start with the rule and then interpret the evidence accordingly." - George Gaylord Simpson (1902-1984)

swbarnes2 Posts: 78 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 28 2008,14:35    Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 28 2008,00:05)   How much do you actually know about radiometric dating?   It's just astonishing. We had already seen tons of evidence that, when given a choice between his Creationist beliefs, and his integrity, Daniel chooses his Creationist beliefs. And now, given the choice between his Creationism, and pretty much all of science, he again throws science away, and clings to his Creationism. There is no falsehhod transparent enough, no stupidity blatent enough to prevent Daniel from trampling every moral principle he possesses to embrace it, if it supports his Creationism. It's not just that creationism requires you to throw away facts and reason.  But that defending it requires that it requries you to throw away your honesty and integrity.  It kills not only your mind, but your soul.

mitschlag Posts: 236 Joined: Sep. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 28 2008,16:12    Quote (swbarnes2 @ Feb. 28 2008,14:35)   Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 28 2008,00:05)   How much do you actually know about radiometric dating?   It's just astonishing. We had already seen tons of evidence that, when given a choice between his Creationist beliefs, and his integrity, Daniel chooses his Creationist beliefs. And now, given the choice between his Creationism, and pretty much all of science, he again throws science away, and clings to his Creationism. There is no falsehhod transparent enough, no stupidity blatent enough to prevent Daniel from trampling every moral principle he possesses to embrace it, if it supports his Creationism. It's not just that creationism requires you to throw away facts and reason.  But that defending it requires that it requries you to throw away your honesty and integrity.  It kills not only your mind, but your soul. That's OK.  Creationist souls are expendable.   -------------- "You can establish any “rule” you like if you start with the rule and then interpret the evidence accordingly." - George Gaylord Simpson (1902-1984)

oldmanintheskydidntdoit Posts: 4999 Joined: July 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 28 2008,16:49    Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 27 2008,18:05)   Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Feb. 26 2008,01:13) Sure, your saltational theory does not require a millions of years old earth but the fossils we're talking about do! How do you know that oldman?  How long does fossilization take?  What's the timespan needed to produce "the fossils we're talking about"?  How did you arrive at that figure?  Have you even thought about it?  Or are you just parotting what you've heard someone else say?   Quote How long does fossilization take? I think it depends. This is an interesting article: nonmineralized_tissues_in_fossils   Quote The standard textbook account of “fossilization” might be termed the “Tin Man” story: soft tissues decay, the resulting cavities are filled with minerals precipitated from groundwater, and the original biominerals transform into or are replaced by other substances. This process results in a replica of the original object in which the original substance has been heavily altered and largely or entirely replaced by other materials And later   Quote Indeed, it is only in the past 15 years that paleontological geochemists begun to address, in a serious and organized way, basic questions about why some things endure long enough to become fossils. To date, these efforts have revealed important details about the chemical behavior of some fossils in some settings, but we are a long way from the kind of systematic knowledge implied by the cited passages. Now, I'm not a paleontological geochemist. Neither, I suspect are you. So perhaps a firsthand account will be useful? John W. Bebout, Ph.D., Sr. Technical Specialist, Oil and Gas, Fluid Minerals Group, Bureau of Land Management   Quote How long it takes for petrification to occur depends on a lot of factors like pH and temperature, but all things being equal, groundwater saturated with calcium carbonate(calcite)acts the fastest because calcite is more soluble than silica or other petrifying minerals.  In the parking garage where I work, which is only 3 years old, 4 inch stalactites have already formed from rainwater leaching calcium carbonate out of the concrete floors. So if we accept the fact that petrification occurs as a continuum (in other words, a gradual process from partial to complete replacement/recrystallization/permineralization), and we assume the replacement material is calcite under ideal chemical conditions, petrification can certainly occur just a few hundred years or even less. So, how long does fossilization take? It takes as long as it takes. Those bones, in the right conditions can sit around for a long time. Long enough to fossilise at any rate. I'd say more towards hundreds of years then thousands.   Quote What's the timespan needed to produce "the fossils we're talking about"? A mindbendengly far away long long time. Amazingly un-understandable. The timespan appears to be about 2/3 of the Mesozoic era. Is this a quiz?   Quote How did you arrive at that figure? I did not conduct any of the research myself. I read the information at sources that I trust to tell me at the very least the truth as they see it. Part of them earning that trust in the first place is telling a story that has no, or few inconsistencies. A story that has consilience in fact, rather then "no inconsistencies". Overall. And the "story" that has consilience? Well, there's no Noah and his ark in it, that's for sure. What's your take on the Ark Daniel? Did all the ammonites climb aboard the ark or will even you dismiss that has a childs tale?   Quote Have you even thought about it? I got three words for you buster. AFDave Cailbration Curves Go look it up.   Quote Or are you just parotting what you've heard someone else say? No, I find the subject fascinating and am grateful for the occasional bout of free education that goes on when folks like AFDave need correcting, in detail. Over and over. What about you Daniel? You ever thought about it? Consider this then - if our understanding of the workings of matter is so far off that dating can be "wrong" then it's unlikely the computer you are sitting in front of with all it's quantum weirdness (tunneling is exploited don't ya know) would work as expected. And so, er, it's not wrong? Or you know something we don't know? Do share.

JAM Posts: 517 Joined: July 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 28 2008,17:47    Quote (swbarnes2 @ Feb. 28 2008,14:35) Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 28 2008,00:05)   How much do you actually know about radiometric dating?   It's just astonishing. We had already seen tons of evidence that, when given a choice between his Creationist beliefs, and his integrity, Daniel chooses his Creationist beliefs. And now, given the choice between his Creationism, and pretty much all of science, he again throws science away, and clings to his Creationism. There is no falsehhod transparent enough, no stupidity blatent enough to prevent Daniel from trampling every moral principle he possesses to embrace it, if it supports his Creationism. It's not just that creationism requires you to throw away facts and reason.  But that defending it requires that it requries you to throw away your honesty and integrity.  It kills not only your mind, but your soul. For me, the striking thing is the incredible weakness of faith that Dan's behavior reveals.

Pages: (58) < ... 49 50 51 52 53 [54] 55 56 57 58 >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

© 2002-2009 Antievolution.org Powered by Ikonboard 3.0.2a © 2001 Ikonboard