[_ Old Earth _] Evolution

[felix]

On the contrary, there is content that you simply ignore, for example, the discussion of chromosome differences.

Nope, you simply offered assertions absent any evidence at all. Where is your evidence for a 'radioisotope-light' pre-flood geology, for example? Where is your explanation for the absence of short-lived radioisotopes in current geology?

So, you are not ready to address the false assumption used used in RM dating. There is no proof that the generation of isotopes were constant.
As I already mentioned, you talk a lot with no content.

RM dating is a methodology of dating material based on sound principles of physics regarding the rate of decay of radioactive isotopes. There are some 40 different such methodologies. Which would you lie to discuss? Carbon-14? Potassium-Argon? Any other?

Everything that involves a isotope. All methods assume that the generation of isotope to be constant. Since that assumption is never proved, radiometric dating is never proved.

Who said they did? 800,000 annual ice layers have been measured from the Antarctic icecap. Varve sequences in the Green River trmation measure millions of seasonal events.

This clearly shows you never understood what it actually means. Do you know how much will a 800000 annual ice layer will measure? 13 kilometers. No one had ever drilled 13 kilometers. The max drilled is only 1.8 kms. Did you know how 800000 years is arrived?
Do you think scientist spent days counting 1.2.3... up to 800000 layers for upto 13 kilometers ..? rubbish. As mentioned, there is not a single dating method that does not use RM dating to measure. All rely terribly on RM dating.

You have asserted this, but not shown it. RM dating is usually used now as a cross-check for other dating methodologies, it is not used to predetermine what dates those methodologies will return.

So you object to cross-checking data and verifying it by independent methodologies? Varve sequencing is determined by physically r mechanically counting cored sequences of seasonally-recurring deposits. What further detail donyouvrequire?

Interesting.. let me know how RM dating is cross checked? Using one RM dating to cross check another RM dating method? Pure Rubbish.

 

[felix]

Different populations of which show different evolutionary developments despite deriving from the same ancestor population and being raised in identical habitats. Also, as pointed out before, bacteria reproduce asexually, not sexually, a fundamental difference when considering the impact of genetic drift, mutation and sexual recombination. You seem resistant to the information, but as it undermines your argument I can well understand why.

It doesn't matter how they reproduce. All that is shown is just genetic variation which is normal within a species and even after thousands of generation, a E-Coli is still a E-Coli.

 

[Barbarian]

If you want peer reviews, there are many creationist who are biologist and scientist who have repeatedly debunked evolution. So what is your point?
Even evolution is peer reviewed to be false.

Show us that. Checkable source.

 

[Barbarian]

So, you are not ready to address the false assumption used used in RM dating. There is no proof that the generation of isotopes were constant.

That's easy. If the radioactive decay rates were sufficiently fast to compress what looks like several billion years into several thousand years, the huge increase in ionizing radiation from that rapid decay would have fried all living things on earth. In at least one case, it would have resulted in a nuclear detonation.

No sign of any of that. So we can confidently dismiss the notion.

 

[felix]

Show us that. Checkable source.

[video=youtube;LhuPA-CeBnY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LhuPA-CeBnY[/video]

 

[felix]

That's easy. If the radioactive decay rates were sufficiently fast to compress what looks like several billion years into several thousand years, the huge increase in ionizing radiation from that rapid decay would have fried all living things on earth. In at least one case, it would have resulted in a nuclear detonation.

No sign of any of that. So we can confidently dismiss the notion.

Who is speaking anything about 'radioactive decay rates'? I am actually saying quite opposite, "extremely less radiation" during the antediluvian era, which also aided pre-Noah civilization to live longer.

if there is extremely less radiation, there will be extremely less isotope ratio found. However, after Noah's flood, when the waters above is no more, radiation increased to what is currently now. The decay rate is always constant. However, the amount of isotopes generated in the world is not a constant. Hence, when a isotope ratio is calculated to find the year, the ratio found will be extremely less. So, the default assumption here is, based on the ratio, the remaining isotopes are "left over" but never considered as the "original or initial value". To explain, C14 to carbon is a trillionth part. A trillionth part is constantly generated in upper stratosphere every day. Hence, if 0.5 parts are found in a specimen, it has to be 5,730 years. While the assumption of constant decay rate is true, what is not told is how the original amount of isotopes are obtained. The original value of isotopes are obtained from present conditions today. 4000 yrs back before the flood, the earth was covered with water (as Gen account says). This would have blocked virtually every radiation a million times better than ozone. Hence, without any radiation, no or extremely low isotopes are generated. This means, instead of 1 part per trillion, (for example) only 0.01 part per trillion is created. This means, when RM dating is done, they calculate that 0.01 is the left over and they calculate based on half life. 1 -> .5 (5,730)-> .25 (5,730 x 2)-> .125 (5,730 x3)->0.0625 (5,730 x4)-> 0.03125 (5,730 x5)->0.015625 (5,730 x6). Hence, a 4000 BC item will give a radiometric dating value as 34380 years ago. This is true for all RM dating (I just gave carbon as example). Since all isotopes are generated the same way, the ratio between ratios (of present creation to pre-flood is also same). This will result in the same ratio of variation of all RM dating value. Which means, all RM dating will give same value and cross checking RM dating with another RM dating doesn't work. What I actually meant is, if C14 generation is reduced 50% other isotope generation is also reduced 50%, thus any RM dating will yield false value.

Hope you understood my point.

 

[Adam]

I clarified (the claim of neanderthals being extinct before the out of Africa events) already in #110.

No you didn't.

You gave a non sequitor.

Again, you do not understand the subject matter at hand.

 

[Adam]

after Noah's flood, when the waters above is no more, radiation increased to what is currently now. .

Before we even need to bother with discussing the rest of your post, you'll have to substantiate this claim as fact.

 

[Adam]

even after thousands of generation, a E-Coli is still a E-Coli.

What are the reasons that you think a strain of e-coli SHOULD evolve into another species within 56,000 generations?

Better yet, why don't you explain why any strain of bacteria should evolve into a new species every 25 years and if that were an assumption of evolutionary biology, why is it not suggested by anyone but you?


I see the hyperbole you are using and appeal to numbers. I am not impressed by the vagueness of "after THOUSANDS of generations!" which you are attempting to abuse in substitution for a rational argument.


You are also failing to give the definition for species that you are using and completely ignore that there are thousands of sub-groups within the species because of the large amount of diversity in different populations. Only 20% of the species genome is shared by all E coli.

Going the other direction, we can look at the genus to see that E coli did not just appear from nowhere and have species that it is related to.

E albertii
E fergusonii
E vulneris
E hermannii
E blattai

So, no, after thousands of generations, we do not have e coli that is compatible with it's ancestry. We have niches and different strains with different characteristics. If that does not meet your expectation for diversity in your false dichotomy and "all or nothing" mentality, then too bad, because, after 56,000 generations, the E coli they are looking at in the lab are not the same that they started off with.

And for humans to be able to observe, in actual time, a strain of bacteria evolve to be able to eat citrate, when they could not do so before is pretty amazing, even if it does not meet the burdon of nitwits like Mike Walsworth who think that an organism must switch to a different Order before we can acknowledge speciation has taken place.

 

[lordkalvan]

So, you are not ready to address the false assumption used used in RM dating. There is no proof that the generation of isotopes were constant.

Actually,the burden of proof rests on your shoulders to show that the physics behind RM dating is erroneous in any way at all. Radioisotopes, as you indicated, are the result of a number of processes. Regardless of those processes, the rate of radioactive decay conforms to particular laws of physics, laws that I have not seen you deny. So, if radioisotopes did not exist in an hypothetical pre-flood geology - as you appear to have argued - then, unless you are arguing for some form of post-flood creation in an already decayed state, then we should see much younger ages returned from RM dating than we do and we should also see an abundance of short-lived radioisotopes in today's geology. Given that none of these conditions apply and that you have offered precisely no evidence that any of the conditions you imagine apply, and especially a global flood of biblical proportions, your arguments seem to amount to little more than hopeful handwaving.

As I already mentioned, you talk a lot with no content.

And, as I already mentioned, there is a great deal of content you have simply ignored.

Everything that involves a isotope. All methods assume that the generation of isotope to be constant. Since that assumption is never proved, radiometric dating is never proved.

Please show evidence that 'All methods assume that generation of isotope to be constant'. Again, if isotope generation is variable, that is having occurred post-flood, please explain how and why RM dating shows evidence of ages in the millions or billions of years and not just in a few thousands.

This clearly shows you never understood what it actually means. Do you know how much will a 800000 annual ice layer will measure? 13 kilometers.

And your evidence is?

No one had ever drilled 13 kilometers.

As you have offered zero evidence that 13 kilometres of ice core is required to provide 800,000 layers, the fact that no one has, according to you, drilled this deeply, is simply another of your strawmen.

The max drilled is only 1.8 kms.

Well, as the EPICA project drilled to a depth of 3.27 kilometres (source: http://www.esf.org/index.php?id=855), as you are grievously in error here, why should we trust any other of your confidently asserted figures?

Did you know how 800000 years is arrived?
Do you think scientist spent days counting 1.2.3... up to 800000 layers for upto 13 kilometers ..? rubbish.

As your figure of 13kms appears to be entirely imaginary, the rest of your tirade seems to be moot. Counting is done by a variety of methodologies, all of which are largely consilient and thus return high degrees of confidence in the data.

As mentioned, there is not a single dating method that does not use RM dating to measure. All rely terribly on RM dating.

As varve sequencing predates RM dating by at least half-a-century, clearly you are wrong in your blunt assertion. RM is one of many cross-checking methodologies used to validate dates derived from non-RM methods.

Interesting.. let me know how RM dating is cross checked? Using one RM dating to cross check another RM dating method? Pure Rubbish.

Check out the C14 calibration curves and the correlation amongst ice cores, lake varves, dendrochronology and coral growth patterns and then you will see who is and is not offering 'pure rubbish' as an alternative to reasoned argument.

 

[lordkalvan]

It doesn't matter how they reproduce. All that is shown is just genetic variation which is normal within a species and even after thousands of generation, a E-Coli is still a E-Coli.

Yep, and genetic variation is evolution. Sorry to burst your semantic bubble.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

So, what was He when He walked on earth? "an evolved monkey?"

He was fully God and fully man, and always has been.

 

[felix]

No you didn't.

You gave a non sequitor.

Again, you do not understand the subject matter at hand.

It is a clarification of what I linked from in national geographic based on it's conclusion, not mine.

"[Neanderthals] are not just some extinct group of related hominids," Pääbo said. "They are partially ancestors to people who live today."

Take any two unrelated humans today, Pääbo noted, and they'll differ in millions of places in their genetic code. But the Neanderthal genome varies on average from that of H. sapiens in only about a hundred thousand positions. Pääbo and his colleagues are now trying to figure out the consequences of those differences.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com....rthals-science-paabo-dna-sex-breeding-humans/

 

[felix]

Before we even need to bother with discussing the rest of your post, you'll have to substantiate this claim as fact.

100,000-year problem:

The 100,000-year problem is a discrepancy between past temperatures and the amount of incoming solar radiation, or insolation. The former rises and falls according to the strength of radiation from the sun, the distance from the earth to the sun, and the tilt of the Earth's poles. However, the ice-age cycle, which grows and shrinks periodically on a 100,000-year (100 ka) timescale, does not correlate well with any of these factors.

If you find a ruin, don't ask for an evidence of a standing building in the past. Low radio-isotopes found in specimens by itself is evidence that radiations were extremely less. Interpreting it falsely and assuming it to be only the left over, is what you deliberately want to do. That's not science.

 

[Adam]

It is a clarification of what I linked from in national geographic based on it's conclusion, not mine.

"[Neanderthals] are not just some extinct group of related hominids," Pääbo said. "They are partially ancestors to people who live today."

Take any two unrelated humans today, Pääbo noted, and they'll differ in millions of places in their genetic code. But the Neanderthal genome varies on average from that of H. sapiens in only about a hundred thousand positions. Pääbo and his colleagues are now trying to figure out the consequences of those differences.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com....rthals-science-paabo-dna-sex-breeding-humans/

This is the third time I have to tell you that doesn't establish, confirm or imply that The Neanderthals were extinct before the Out of Africa events.

Let me explain it to you this way:

The out of Africa events began 150-200,000 years ago and ended roughly 45,000 years ago.

Neanderthal went extinct 25,000 years ago.

The article you sourced does not refute that.

You have not clarified anything. You have confused it because you don't understand or are knowledgeable about the subject.

 

[Adam]

100,000-year problem:

The 100,000-year problem is a discrepancy between past temperatures and the amount of incoming solar radiation, or insolation. The former rises and falls according to the strength of radiation from the sun, the distance from the earth to the sun, and the tilt of the Earth's poles. However, the ice-age cycle, which grows and shrinks periodically on a 100,000-year (100 ka) timescale, does not correlate well with any of these factors.

If you find a ruin, don't ask for an evidence of a standing building in the past. Low radio-isotopes found in specimens by itself is evidence that radiations were extremely less. Interpreting it falsely and assuming it to be only the left over, is what you deliberately want to do. That's not science.

Sir, this is another non sequitor which does not address that which you claimed:

"After Noah's flood, the water above was no more, which caused radiation to increase."


The ice age cycle is irrelevant to that claim.

 

[felix]

So, if radioisotopes did not exist in an hypothetical pre-flood geology - as you appear to have argued - then, unless you are arguing for some form of post-flood creation in an already decayed state, then we should see much younger ages returned from RM dating than we do and we should also see an abundance of short-lived radioisotopes in today's geology.

Which is exactly what I saying repeatedly: You don't seem to understand how RM dating works. Lack of (or) small amounts of isotopes returns exponential dates in the past.

Please show evidence that 'All methods assume that generation of isotope to be constant'.

Yes it is, because, it is so much of a deception that it is not even mentioned as an assumption but by default "assumed" to be true.

Again, if isotope generation is variable, that is having occurred post-flood, please explain how and why RM dating shows evidence of ages in the millions or billions of years and not just in a few thousands.

And your evidence is?

I told you again and again and you are not understanding... ah... ok, let me explain.

Today, C14 (taken C14 just as an example but the logic applies to all RM dating) ratio is one part in a trillion. (i.e, 1/1000000000). Anything fossiled today will start the decay process. C14 half life is 5730 years. So, after 5730 years, the fossil will have only 0.5/1000000000 of C14 isotopes. Hence, based on the amount of isotope which is reduced, we can always trace back when it was fossilized (or contact with this world or atmosphere is cut). If we have a fossil today with only 0.5/1000000000 isotope, then the fossil is 5730 years old.

This process assumes that C14 occurs in nature as 1/1000000000. This assumption is based on the present conditions and what currently occurs. The way C14 is generated is from upper stratosphere in atmosphere. If the atmosphere is very different in the past which produced little or no isotopes, then the level of C14 occurring in nature is also very low. Hence, instead of 1/1000000000, there will be only say, .001 part per trillion before the change in atmosphere. If the change in atmosphere is very recent (say 5000 years ago), and if we consider the C14 occurance today as a constant throughout ages, then .001 part per trillion which was the case in 5001 years ago became 1 part per million. However, if we try to do RM dating based on half life, the value of occurance is always taken as 1/1000000000 and the natural occurance of .001 part per trillion before 5000 years is not considered. Based on the constant "1/1000000000", if you do the half life decay, you will notice that 1 part becomes as half in 5730 years. half becomes quarter in 11460 years, then quarter become 0.125 in 17190 years and 0.0625 in 22920 years and 0.03125 in 28650 years and ..... and 0.001 in 60000 years.

Hence, lower the quantity, explodes the time scale esp., in RM dating. I can't explain much better than this.

As you have offered zero evidence that 13 kilometres of ice core is required to provide 800,000 layers, the fact that no one has, according to you, drilled this deeply, is simply another of your strawmen.

Well, as the EPICA project drilled to a depth of 3.27 kilometres (source: http://www.esf.org/index.php?id=855), as you are grievously in error here, why should we trust any other of your confidently asserted figures?

As your figure of 13kms appears to be entirely imaginary, the rest of your tirade seems to be moot. Counting is done by a variety of methodologies, all of which are largely consilient and thus return high degrees of confidence in the data.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_core#Dating_cores

A layer is approx 1.7 cm. Do your own Math. Above wiki has some references on how dates are arrived.

As varve sequencing predates RM dating by at least half-a-century, clearly you are wrong in your blunt assertion. RM is one of many cross-checking methodologies used to validate dates derived from non-RM methods.

Check out the C14 calibration curves and the correlation amongst ice cores, lake varves, dendrochronology and coral growth patterns and then you will see who is and is not offering 'pure rubbish' as an alternative to reasoned argument.

I already check them all. I think you should check them first. None of what you mentioned can verify RM dating because, then rely on RM dating for correction. You can't prove something with what you assumed. While varve sequencing predates RM dating, none at that time arrived any date more then 10000 years nor any varve is found to be miles long.

 

[felix]

Yep, and genetic variation is evolution. Sorry to burst your semantic bubble.

If genetic variation is evolution according to you, for the sake of this discussion, when I refer evolution, I refer only macro-evolution. Micro-evolution is adaptability and variations. If different terms exist for differentiating, then it is better to address them differently.

 

[Adam]

Macro-evolution is the over-arching effect of micro-evolution.

When you are talking about macro-evolution, you are invariably talking about micro-evolution.


There is no "only macro-evolution."

 

[felix]

He was fully God and fully man, and always has been.

So, the image of God had to be evolved from animals. Also, according to evolution, it isn't over and we are still evolving. Assuming in 1 million years from now, if humans evolved into superhumans, then Jesus will still be a human. To get it straight, 1 million years into future, Jesus will be like exactly how a monkey is for us today.

Shame on you people who call themselves Christians and yet have no faith in His creation abilities.