[_ Old Earth _] Evolution

[Adam]

Is there an expectation by anyone but you that they should become another species within a specific timeframe?

Your definition of "nothing happening" does not capture that there is variance.

You have a false dichotomy of speciation or "nothing happened."


It is clearly documented that something IS happening to these bacteria in terms of variation.

 

[Barbarian]

So, how does the "using ages of lake sediments" determined?

In a number of glacial lakes, varves (a particular form of lamina) form annually in two layers. There is a light one and a dark one. The annual layering can be tested by pollen analysis from the deposits. So we have tens of thousands of years of material, nicely dated.

The C-14 curve calibrated from those deposits is very nearly, but not quite the same as the theoretical curve if radiation from space were always constant. So there is no a bit of a correction available to archaeologists (who are the primary users of C-14).

 

[felix]

Is there an expectation by anyone but you that they should become another species within a specific timeframe?

Your definition of "nothing happening" does not capture that there is variance.

You have a false dichotomy of speciation or "nothing happened."


It is clearly documented that something IS happening to these bacteria in terms of variation.

Nothing happens is in terms provided as a proof for evolution. Yes, it is a requirement from one species to another. Taking the generational timeline which I had provided, there were several species for genus Homo that came into existence according to evolutionary theory but yet, "nothing happens" to a single celled organism when the same generation is applied. This only proves there is no evolution.

 

[felix]

In a number of glacial lakes, varves (a particular form of lamina) form annually in two layers. There is a light one and a dark one. The annual layering can be tested by pollen analysis from the deposits. So we have tens of thousands of years of material, nicely dated.

The C-14 curve calibrated from those deposits is very nearly, but not quite the same as the theoretical curve if radiation from space were always constant. So there is no a bit of a correction available to archaeologists (who are the primary users of C-14).

C14 is present as 1 part per trillion. For 10% variation, let's consider .1 part per trillion.

So, if .1 per trillion is taken with the assumption that the atmosphere was constant as 1/trillion, and after half-life time of 5,730 years, what would be expected is 0.5 parts per trillion if the the specimen is 5,730 years old.

Having found just 0.05 part per trillion, let's do the calculation on what it arrives.

0.05 parts per trillion - present.
0.1 - 5730 ya (years ago)
0.2 - 5730 x 2 ya
0.4 - 5730 x 3 ya
0.8 - 5730 x 4 ya = 22920 years (instead of 5730 years) .

Just 10% variation explodes the years more than 4 times the actual dating.

Now, coming to the dark and light layers, they do not represent annual always but assumed to be. It simply means a rapid motion of water/melting and a stagnated water/frozen intervals. This is always attributed to summer / winter which is not always true.

 

[Barbarian]

C14 is present as 1 part per trillion. For 10% variation, let's consider .1 part per trillion.

So, if .1 per trillion is taken with the assumption that the atmosphere was constant as 1/trillion, and after half-life time of 5,730 years, what would be expected is 0.5 parts per trillion if the the specimen is 5,730 years old.

Having found just 0.05 part per trillion, let's do the calculation on what it arrives.

0.05 parts per trillion - present.
0.1 - 5730 ya (years ago)
0.2 - 5730 x 2 ya
0.4 - 5730 x 3 ya
0.8 - 5730 x 4 ya = 22920 years (instead of 5730 years) .

Just 10% variation explodes the years more than 4 times the actual dating.

The observed variation isn't that great. Here's the calibration curve for one set of varves:

Hard to see any variation at all, but there is some, which helps scientists make better measurements. Remember, you were led astray about C-14; paleontologists don't use it, because it's relatively short half-life makes it useful only to about 50,000 years or so.

Now, coming to the dark and light layers, they do not represent annual always but assumed to be.

No, that's wrong. You see, there are different sorts of pollen in the air in different season, and they can check the layers to make sure they represent summer/winter phases. Of course they can always watch the formation of new ones, which confirms the other data.

It simply means a rapid motion of water/melting and a stagnated water/frozen intervals.

No. To make that belief work, you'd have to explain how the pollen distribution was obtained, and also what mechanism it was that caused the different colors, which shifted to the present mechanism just when humans showed up to notice.

C'mon.

This is always attributed to summer / winter which is not always true.

Show us an example. Don't bother bringing in other lamina that are not varves.

 

[felix]

The observed variation isn't that great. Here's the calibration curve for one set of varves:

Hard to see any variation at all, but there is some, which helps scientists make better measurements. Remember, you were led astray about C-14; paleontologists don't use it, because it's relatively short half-life makes it useful only to about 50,000 years or so.



No, that's wrong. You see, there are different sorts of pollen in the air in different season, and they can check the layers to make sure they represent summer/winter phases. Of course they can always watch the formation of new ones, which confirms the other data.



No. To make that belief work, you'd have to explain how the pollen distribution was obtained, and also what mechanism it was that caused the different colors, which shifted to the present mechanism just when humans showed up to notice.

C'mon.



Show us an example. Don't bother bringing in other lamina that are not varves.

if pollen is found, then it is not in ice.. it could very well be tidal rhythmites whcih occurs every fortnight or monthly.

 

[lordkalvan]

The point being, after several generations equal from the genus Homo started to appear according to the evolutionary theory, the single celled organism does not evolve into anything else - nor does it DNA change.

And the counterpoints being:

* Bacteria reproduce asexually, primates reproduce bisexual ly. This is a significant difference.
* The experimental populations are kept in controlled, identical environments in laboratory conditions, not in the wild.
* Multiple genetic changes have been observed in the various populations, including the development of the ability to metabolise citrate.
* Identical starting populations in identical environments demonstrated different genetic variation.
* Genetic variation involves changes in DNA.

Dinosaurs were destroyed/died suddenly, often attributed to a meteor crash. It didn't evolve into anything else.

Let's accept your scenario for the sake of argument. Very few mammal species co-existed with the dinosaurs, none of which is currently extant. None of the mammalian species alive today is found fossilised either together with or even in the same strata as dinosaurs, so where do you imagine the mammalian species alive today have come from?

Forensic paleontology is valid only if it does not try to fit things.

What should it do, then? Do you believe no reasoned conclusions can be drawn from finding a fossilised primate pelvic girdle other than that it is a primate pelvic girdle, for example?

When a skull or a bone is found, it is either a human or a monkey/ape and nothing in between.

Taxonomically, humans are apes, so your point is meaningless on that basis. That aside, however, on what grounds do you determine that a particular primate skull does not display transitional features?

Different Cultures have different skeletal structures based on interbreeding.

Examples and relevance? Are you suggesting that these differences are such as to confuse anthropologists as to what is a skull of Homo Sapiens and what isn't?

Bible also supports a race of Nephilim who are not humans but inter breeding with humans and I believe the different varieties apart from humans are because of this interbreeding before the antediluvian era. The word Nephilim is not actually giant but not known to anyone and the actual meaning is lost.

Bronze Age legend alone is insufficient to support such a conclusion. Are you trying to equate these legendary Nephilim with other species of Homo, for example, and, if you are, what evidence supports your hypothesis?

In several cases, only a thigh bone or a small finger bone is found and yet a whole skeleton is reconstructed, based on the assumption that such an old fossil person will look like this and must be this particular species.

Do you have a specific example in mind? None of the examples from your original citation seem to support this claim?

Radiometric dating has a fundamental problem of assuming a constant ratio throughout ages which is not according to the Bible based on the radiation-less perfect antediluvian era protected by a water canopy over the atmosphere which makes the occurance of several isotopes extremely less.

And your evidence for this is what, exactly? As far as I am aware, the Bible says nothing about the 'antediluvian era' being 'perfect' and 'radiation-less'. Indeed, given the legendary corruption that led to the destruction of virtually all of life on Earth at this time, the contrary rather seems to be the case.

Based on the Bible, there wasn't any rain ever occurred which shows a very different terrain and if that is true, then it is very much plausible that the occurance of very few radio isotopes in fossils and the sudden increase on that ratio in atmosphere will lead the scientists today to believe that they had been there for millions of years.

How is the alleged absence of rain a 'plausible' condition for the occurrence of 'very few radio isotopes' in fossils? Also, can I again point out that Carbon 14 dating is only good for dates something less than 100,000 years and is incapable of returning dates in the 'millions' of years.

 

[lordkalvan]

if pollen is found, then it is not in ice. it could very well be tidal rhythmites whcih occurs every fortnight or monthly.

Lake varves are deposited in distinct seasonal patterns, seasonal patterns that are one of the diagnostic features that allow geologists to distinguish lake varves from other types of rhythmites. Lake Korttajärvi, for example, demonstrates a varve sequence whose dates have been ascertained by a number of independent methodologies. This varve sequence not only traces a record into a past long before the legendary flood, but also one that predates the creation of Earth according to YEC chronologies:

https://www.doria.fi/bitstream/handle/10024/2702/holocene.pdf?sequence=2

There are many other studies of varve sequences from around the world that lead to the same conclusion.

 

[Barbarian]

i

f pollen is found, then it is not in ice.. it could very well be tidal rhythmites whcih occurs every fortnight or monthly.

I see Lord Kalvan has addressed the point nicely. Tidal rhythmites do not have such pollen distributions, nor do you see tidal rhythmites in glacial lakes. Only very large bodies of water show tidal rhythmites. Moreover, we observe the lamina forming today. Not by tides, but annually.

So that's out, too.

 

[felix]

Bronze Age legend alone is insufficient to support such a conclusion. Are you trying to equate these legendary Nephilim with other species of Homo, for example, and, if you are, what evidence supports your hypothesis?

Do you have a specific example in mind? None of the examples from your original citation seem to support this claim?

And your evidence for this is what, exactly? As far as I am aware, the Bible says nothing about the 'antediluvian era' being 'perfect' and 'radiation-less'. Indeed, given the legendary corruption that led to the destruction of virtually all of life on Earth at this time, the contrary rather seems to be the case.

How is the alleged absence of rain a 'plausible' condition for the occurrence of 'very few radio isotopes' in fossils? Also, can I again point out that Carbon 14 dating is only good for dates something less than 100,000 years and is incapable of returning dates in the 'millions' of years.

Bible does say the following:

• The waters above the atmosphere and below the atmosphere. (a canopy of water more protection than what we have today as ozone). Hence, there is absolute no formation of C14.
• There seems to be no rain which suggests that there wasn't any formation of clouds. Hence, the atmosphere composition is different.
• People living extraordinary years suggests that they had no diseases and it was perfect for long life.
• Bible also say about a race of people different than humans who co-existed. If you compare the adult skull size of human vs neanderthal man, you will find neanderthals ~1.25 times larger and more brain case (except they are short).

Reexamining all assumptions for evolution based on the above points will prove evolution is incorrect.

 

[felix]

And the counterpoints being:

* Bacteria reproduce asexually, primates reproduce bisexual ly. This is a significant difference.
* The experimental populations are kept in controlled, identical environments in laboratory conditions, not in the wild.
* Multiple genetic changes have been observed in the various populations, including the development of the ability to metabolise citrate.
* Identical starting populations in identical environments demonstrated different genetic variation.
* Genetic variation involves changes in DNA.

Changes in DNA does not mean anything because DNA does change and mutate to a smaller amount all the time including humans. What does matter is that change in DNA made E-Coli into a new species. If so, then evolution is true.

 

[lordkalvan]

Changes in DNA does not mean anything...

So have you changed your mind from when you asserted that 'The point being, after several generations equal from the genus Homo started to appear according to the evolutionary theory, the single celled organism does not evolve into anything else - nor does it DNA change'?

...because DNA does change and mutate to a smaller amount all the time including humans.

Please show evidence to support what you say, that 'DNA does change and mutate to a smaller amount all the time'. A 'smaller amount' than what and how have you determined this?

What does matter is that change in DNA made E-Coli into a new species. If so, then evolution is true.

So evolution is correct if E.Coli changes 'into a new species'? So at what point in evolutionary change would it satisfy you that 'a new species' had emerged? What do you make of the implications for your argument of ring species? What about an observed speciation event such as ths one reported in Scientific American in 1989:

"Three species of wildflowers called goatsbeards were introduced to the United States from Europe shortly after the turn of the century. Within a few decades their populations expanded and began to encounter one another in the American West. Whenever mixed populations occurred, the specied [sic] interbred (hybridizing) producing sterile hybrid offspring. Suddenly, in the late forties two new species of goatsbeard appeared near Pullman, Washington. Although the new species were similar in appearance to the hybrids, they produced fertile offspring. The evolutionary process had created a separate species that could reproduce but not mate with the goatsbeard plants from which it had evolved."

Source: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html

 

[Adam]

Bible does say the following:

• The waters above the atmosphere and below the atmosphere. (a canopy of water more protection than what we have today as ozone). Hence, there is absolute no formation of C14.
• There seems to be no rain which suggests that there wasn't any formation of clouds. Hence, the atmosphere composition is different.
• People living extraordinary years suggests that they had no diseases and it was perfect for long life.
• Bible also say about a race of people different than humans who co-existed. If you compare the adult skull size of human vs neanderthal man, you will find neanderthals ~1.25 times larger and more brain case (except they are short).

Reexamining all assumptions for evolution based on the above points will prove evolution is incorrect.

Why should we do that?

There is no valid reason or sound evidence to accept your assumptions. There is no reason to apply your assumptions to the theory of evolution.

You are engaged purely in several cognitive biases.

 

[Barbarian]

It should also be noted that the Bible says none of this. All those assertions are just imaginative re-workings of scripture to fit the modern doctrine of YE creationism.

 

[felix]

So have you changed your mind from when you asserted that 'The point being, after several generations equal from the genus Homo started to appear according to the evolutionary theory, the single celled organism does not evolve into anything else - nor does it DNA change'?

Please show evidence to support what you say, that 'DNA does change and mutate to a smaller amount all the time'. A 'smaller amount' than what and how have you determined this?

If you had done genetic testing, you will notice 12, 25, 37, 67 and 111 markers. 12 markers least change with avg period over 1000 years and high resolution 111 markers change frequently (every 4-5 generations). Hence, DNA change by itself doesn't mean anything except if anyone can show that a new species can be formed by such DNA change which is no longer mate-able with it's parent species.

So evolution is correct if E.Coli changes 'into a new species'? So at what point in evolutionary change would it satisfy you that 'a new species' had emerged? What do you make of the implications for your argument of ring species? What about an observed speciation event such as ths one reported in Scientific American in 1989:

"Three species of wildflowers called goatsbeards were introduced to the United States from Europe shortly after the turn of the century. Within a few decades their populations expanded and began to encounter one another in the American West. Whenever mixed populations occurred, the specied [sic] interbred (hybridizing) producing sterile hybrid offspring. Suddenly, in the late forties two new species of goatsbeard appeared near Pullman, Washington. Although the new species were similar in appearance to the hybrids, they produced fertile offspring. The evolutionary process had created a separate species that could reproduce but not mate with the goatsbeard plants from which it had evolved."

Source: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html

You are the first person to say plants mate and produce offspring. A sterile offspring for a plant?

 

[felix]

It should also be noted that the Bible says none of this. All those assertions are just imaginative re-workings of scripture to fit the modern doctrine of YE creationism.

Bible does say the following:

1. The waters above the atmosphere and below the atmosphere. (a canopy of water more protection than what we have today as ozone). Hence, there is absolute no formation of C14.

(Genesis 1:6) Then God said, "Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters."
(Genesis 1:7) Thus God made the firmament, and divided the waters which [were] under the firmament from the waters which [were] above the firmament; and it was so.
(Genesis 1:8) And God called the firmament Heaven. So the evening and the morning were the second day.

2. There seems to be no rain which suggests that there wasn't any formation of clouds. Hence, the atmosphere composition is different.

(Genesis 9:13) I set My rainbow in the cloud, and it shall be for the sign of the covenant between Me and the earth.
(Genesis 9:14) It shall be, when I bring a cloud over the earth, that the rainbow shall be seen in the cloud;

Is it possible either a mist watered the plants:
(Genesis 2:6) but a mist went up from the earth and watered the whole face of the ground.
or
The absence of just rainbow because of already scattered light when it is passing through the water above the atmosphere.

3. People living extraordinary years suggests that they had no diseases and it was perfect for long life.

(Genesis 5:5) So all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years; and he died.

4. Bible also say about a race of people different than humans who co-existed. If you compare the adult skull size of human vs neanderthal man, you will find neanderthals ~1.25 times larger and more brain case (except they are short).

(Genesis 6:4) There were nephilims on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men and they bore [children] to them. Those [were] the mighty men who [were] of old, men of renown.

Nothing here is reworking of Scripture.

 

[Adam]

Bible does say the following:

1. The waters above the atmosphere and below the atmosphere. (a canopy of water more protection than what we have today as ozone). Hence, there is absolute no formation of C14.

The bible doesn't say anything about atmosphere, but even if it did, your follow up is a non sequitor. There is no "hence."

2. There seems to be no rain which suggests that there wasn't any formation of clouds. Hence, the atmosphere composition is different.

Which has what bearing on c14?

Is it possible either a mist watered the plants:
(Genesis 2:6) but a mist went up from the earth and watered the whole face of the ground.

Here we have a major conflict with the actual science. There were no plants to be watered at this time. The atmosphere was oxygentated by bacteria and water prevailed millions of years before any plants. Throughout that time period, it certainly did rain.

3. People living extraordinary years suggests that they had no diseases and it was perfect for long life.

(Genesis 5:5) So all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years; and he died.

Yet death eventually did happen. Are you suggesting that homeostasis is infinitely possible without disease and if so, why should sin have any bearing on life? You are pointing to a worldview that suggests that death is the result of physical properties solely, and nothing spiritual.

4. Bible also say about a race of people different than humans who co-existed.

No. That is your interpretation in an attempt at post hoc rationalization. But since you brought it up, why are you appealing to another species of human when you don't accept evolution? You are accepting evolution here, but only because it is convenient for your retrofit; forcing the bible to say something it doesn't so that it appears to conform with modern science when it doesn't.

Neanderthals went extinct 25,000 years ago. If Adam existed only 6,000 years ago, then no, your hypothesis does not conform to science.

Nothing here is reworking of Scripture.

Sure it is.

 

[felix]

The bible doesn't say anything about atmosphere, but even if it did, your follow up is a non sequitor. There is no "hence."



Which has what bearing on c14?



Here we have a major conflict with the actual science. There were no plants to be watered at this time. The atmosphere was oxygentated by bacteria and water prevailed millions of years before any plants. Throughout that time period, it certainly did rain.



Yet death eventually did happen. Are you suggesting that homeostasis is infinitely possible without disease and if so, why should sin have any bearing on life? You are pointing to a worldview that suggests that death is the result of physical properties solely, and nothing spiritual.



No. That is your interpretation in an attempt at post hoc rationalization. But since you brought it up, why are you appealing to another species of human when you don't accept evolution? You are accepting evolution here, but only because it is convenient for your retrofit; forcing the bible to say something it doesn't so that it appears to conform with modern science when it doesn't.

Neanderthals went extinct 25,000 years ago. If Adam existed only 6,000 years ago, then no, your hypothesis does not conform to science.



Sure it is.

Firstly, you are closing your eyes and reading genesis account. The atmosphere is create in the midst of waters by dividing the waters. With outside water protecting from harmful rays, there is no C14 creation because, C14 is created only on upper stratosphere by harmful rays colliding.

If Neanderthals went extinct 25,000 years ago, why do all non-Africans share 4% of Neanderthal genes which Africans don't have them ?

Btw, a 10% reduction of C14 will expand the timeline to be 4 times, e.g, if the atmosphere has just 10% less (as there is no C14 creation in antedeluvian era), this will make the radiocarbon dating look like as of it is 20000 years ago, when in reality, it is just 5000 years ago.

 

[Adam]

With outside water protecting from harmful rays, there is no C14 creation because, C14 is created only on upper stratosphere by harmful rays colliding.

On what basis, besides using the bible to confirm the bible, are you drawing that conclusion? There is no reason to assume that there was "outside water" or that water deters C14 formation. The tropopause exists, for example, but does not prevent C14 formation. You are making assumptions based on a verse about "waters divided from waters" and you really have no scientific basis to say that water, wherever it is, prevents C14 from forming.

If Neanderthals went extinct 25,000 years ago, why do all non-Africans share 4% of Neanderthal genes which Africans don't have them ?

Because Neanderthal ancestors left Africa and as waves of hominids left Africa during the African migrations, they encountered Neanderthals for the first time outside of Africa.

Btw, a 10% reduction of C14 will expand the timeline to be 4 times, e.g, if the atmosphere has just 10% less (as there is no C14 creation in antedeluvian era), this will make the radiocarbon dating look like as of it is 20000 years ago, when in reality, it is just 5000 years ago.

Fortunately for us we have other measures to determine the age of things besides radiocarbon dating. Counting the rings of trees or layers of ice created by regular thaw and freeze, for example, allows us to calibrate radioactive dating methods correctly to arrive at an accurate date.

Forgive my cynicism, but it is 2013 and we really need to stop claiming that carbon dating isn't calibrated correctly. We have had it fugured out for a while.

 

[lordkalvan]

If you had done genetic testing, you will notice 12, 25, 37, 67 and 111 markers. 12 markers least change with avg period over 1000 years and high resolution 111 markers change frequently (every 4-5 generations). Hence, DNA change by itself doesn't mean anything except if anyone can show that a new species can be formed by such DNA change which is no longer mate-able with it's parent species.

Actually, DNA change is a defining characteristic of evolution, so I am not sure what your point is other than to create your own definition of what constitutes evolution and then declare that this cannot occur, despite a great deal of evidence that it can.

'Biological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification. This definition encompasses small-scale evolution (changes in gene frequency in a population from one generation to the next) and large-scale evolution (the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations). Evolution helps us to understand the history of life.'

Source: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/evo_02

You are the first person to say plants mate and produce offspring. A sterile offspring for a plant?

Um, many plants have male and female parts and reproduce sexually, that is they mate. I am not the first oerson to note this characteristic of plants: you may have heard of pollination. Some hybrid plants, as mentioned in the link, are sterile offspring of their parents, just like mules are sterile offspring of donkeys and horses.