Evolution for Drotar

[Drotar]

Wilikers!

This is NOT going to be easy. I'm used to cakewalk discussions with evolutionists my age.

Congratulations on your daughtergetting a four on it too. I suppose it would be a futile question to ask if she's a YEC? Lol!

I'll be back. It'll take some time. Give me a few days because my birthday is tomorrow and I'm going on vacation. I'll be thinking hard on this and have a full set of responses when I get back. I'll have something to think about while I'm gone.

BTW, do you know anything about computrers? I've been trying to install something for days. TTYL Jesus loves you!

 

[Arikay]

Soon, welcome to the age of 18, where it is now legal to smoke, gamble at indian casinos, be drafted. Be charged as an Adult.

Hmm, doesnt sound like its too special after all.

I am curious though as to what you think of creationist organizations presenting bad information (or only half information) about carbon 14 dating (among other things) as truth?

 

[lucaspa]

Wilikers!

This is NOT going to be easy. I'm used to cakewalk discussions with evolutionists my age.

Which means that you are playing on their ignorance.

Drotar, it's not only "not easy", it's impossible. Creationism was falsified by 1831. There is just too much data out there that can't possibly be there if creationism (particularly YEC) is true.

Congratulations on your daughtergetting a four on it too. I suppose it would be a futile question to ask if she's a YEC?

The question is not futile. Expecting her to be a YEC after exposure to Earth Science and AP Biology is.

I'll be back. It'll take some time. ...I'll be thinking hard on this and have a full set of responses when I get back.

Take your time. But don't simply think on it in an attempt to find loopholes. Get a textbook on evolutionary biology and read it during vacation. Go to the Darwin website I gave you and read Origin. Read Darwin's other books, too. IOW, check out what I say and reason it thru for yourself.

 

[Drotar]

Soon, welcome to the age of 18, where it is now legal to smoke, gamble at indian casinos, be drafted. Be charged as an Adult.

Hmm, doesnt sound like its too special after all.

I am curious though as to what you think of creationist organizations presenting bad information (or only half information) about carbon 14 dating (among other things) as truth?

Now you know what I'm so excited about. I DO get to smoke and gamble! Honestly, I thought nobody understood me....

I'm not so shallow as to deny that actually happens. It is true taht Creationist organizations, some of them anyways, will present half information.

But that's no new or foreign concept for evolutionist organizations though. What with only a small percentage of results from C-14 ACTUALLY being presented, the rest discarded. It is a bad deal, but it does go both ways. I hope that you are realistic enough about this to see this side as well. TTYL Jesus loves you!




Lucaspa, please forgive me, but I am going to have to postpone this temporarily. I am working hard reading on, and must prepare myself. Speaking of laying on ignorance, I think that that can be said of what was intended here.

That doesn't bother me. I will be back in two weeks, with full responses and more. I'll PM you to let you know. Until then, I wish you well.

 

[Arikay]

Really, can you show us where they have discarded valid dates and did nothing else with them?

 

[Drotar]

You believe that all dates ever figured have been presented eagerly? That there have never been inconsistencies with C-14?

Evolutionist sites don't post those incosistencies. Simply those calclations taht figure into their theory most apporpriately. I didn't say I was blaming them. I don't think that anybody presents information on a topic they feel passionately about witout some sort of bias. Everyone presents half=truths.

 

[Arikay]

I was wondering if you had examples. Generally they are nice. I do have examples for creationist organizations.

Yes there are, "inconsistencies."

However there arent that many when the method is used correctly and understood.

The dating method does give different dates, however since its not a perfect method, this is expected. This is often why they are graphed out and the date given is the one that is most consistent and falls in the middle, sometimes its given with a +- date. By getting lots of information, they can eliminate dates that were obviously off, since again, its not an exact method, but by doing research it can give good information. This date is often then checked with other methods to discover how accurate it is.

There is a difference though. Creationist organizations are either ignorant of what they talk about, or they are specifically leaving out information to mislead their readers.

I am still curious if you have examples of your charge.

You believe that all dates ever figured have been presented eagerly? That there have never been inconsistencies with C-14?

Evolutionist sites don't post those incosistencies. Simply those calclations taht figure into their theory most apporpriately. I didn't say I was blaming them. I don't think that anybody presents information on a topic they feel passionately about witout some sort of bias. Everyone presents half=truths.

 

[lucaspa]

You believe that all dates ever figured have been presented eagerly? That there have never been inconsistencies with C-14?

Drotar, ALL assay methods have limitations. For instance, I am working on a colorimetric assay for cartilage right now using the stain Safranin O. We stain the cartilage with Saf O and then extract the stain with cetylpyridinium chloride (CPC). The amount of red can be put in a spectrophotometer. We are calibrating this against known amounts of the chemical in cartilage -- proteoglycan -- that binds the Saf O. NOw, we have found that the curve is linear only between 2 and 10 ug of proteoglycan. Any proteoglycan less or more than that will give false amount because of the way spectrophotometers work.

C-14 is the same way. To get a valid date certain conditions have to be met. The paper documenting the erroneous dates on mollusks because they get the carbon for their shells from inorganic carbonate rather than organic carbon from other living organisms is a case in point.

We have already pointed out certain corrections based on minor fluctuations of the production of C-14 in the atmosphere. And, of course, detection of C-14 remaining after 10 half lives limits the assay to only 50,000 years into the past.

But what you are saying is different. You are claiming that all dates inconsistent with theory are suppressed. That's a VERY serious charge. We are not talking about "evolutionist" websites here, but the scientific literature itself.

So, we are politely asking for documentation that contrary data is being suppressed. Ducking isn't participating in the discussion. Instead, this reply:

Evolutionist sites don't post those incosistencies. Simply those calclations taht figure into their theory most apporpriately. I didn't say I was blaming them. I don't think that anybody presents information on a topic they feel passionately about witout some sort of bias. Everyone presents half=truths.

doesn't help. It simply means that you are trying to get a way to dismiss data you don't like. It's a debate mentality, not a search for truth mentality. I DO blame ANYONE who suppresses data. There is no excuse.

To say that "everyone presents half-truth" is simply to project the failures of creationism onto others. That's not fair.

 

[lucaspa]

The dating method does give different dates, however since its not a perfect method, this is expected. This is often why they are graphed out and the date given is the one that is most consistent and falls in the middle, sometimes its given with a +- date. By getting lots of information, they can eliminate dates that were obviously off, since again, its not an exact method, but by doing research it can give good information. This date is often then checked with other methods to discover how accurate it is.

Good points.

1. Drotar, you should have learned in previous science classes that whenever you measure ANYTHING by ANY method you get a range of values. That's why we have means +- standard deviations. Sometimes the SDs are not large, sometimes they are. So, if you have an outlier -- a reading that is very far away from the mean of all the others -- you look for problems with the methodology: collection of samples, mislabeled samples, dropping some C-14 into the sample, etc. Simple screw ups in actually doing the assay.

2. Dates are usually checked by INDEPENDENT methods. Thus, you can check the date of an archeology site, for instance, not only by C-14 of the ashes of the wood fires, but also a general date by the style of pottery found at the site. The two should agree. If they don't, there's a methods problem with one or the other. In paleontology, you can check not only the C-14 of the proteins left in the bones but also by the fossils of the plants and animals (including index fossils if there are any) in the same strata of rock. The two should agree. Again, if they don't then you know you have a methods problem somewhere.

 

[Drotar]

Tell you what, read these websites (all the pages) and then we can discuss it if you still have questions:
1. http://www.c14dating.com/
2. http://www.howstuffworks.com/carbon-14.htm
3. http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/carbon.html /QUOTE]

Thank you for the sites and thank you for your patience. Just wanted to let you know it's been a week and I'm reading up on the sites. I will have a response next week, probably sooner. Thanks!

 

[Drotar]

The stuff REALLY is helpful. Wanted to say thanks again.

 

[lucaspa]

Tell you what, read these websites (all the pages) and then we can discuss it if you still have questions:
1. http://www.c14dating.com/
2. http://www.howstuffworks.com/carbon-14.htm
3. http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/carbon.html /QUOTE]

Thank you for the sites and thank you for your patience. Just wanted to let you know it's been a week and I'm reading up on the sites. I will have a response next week, probably sooner. Thanks!

You're welcome. Take your time. You do know that C-14 dating isn't really evolution, don't you? It's one way to get absolute dates for fairly recent events, but it isn't evolution.

However, it can be a good case study on how professional creationists misrepresent science.

 

[Drotar]

Let me first start off by apologizing for the long wait and the inconvience.

I said I would respond, and I did not intend to lie or stray away as if this never happened. You posted good points, and if I ignored them, I would be but deceiving myself.

Let's get started.

 

[Drotar]

First, let me start off by admitting that I was wrong.

Upon further reading, upon clear thinking and meditation on the topic, I thought about it, and realized that natural selection is an inescapable truth. In a sense, I'm glad that Darwin wrote that book, because of the true claims of natural selection and the Founder effect.

Those are both real life occurences, though extremely rare. I am convinced that natural selection and the Founder effect has Biblical application to the Tower of Babel and the creation of the various races. The new languages separated people of a relatively similar appearance. Thus, each new language started a new colony of individuals, that thus led to, over time, a real life example of how certain traits became more phenotypically pronounced by means of the Founder effect. The separation of people by the confusion of languages were fertile breeding ground for such variation within species.

I was taking the wrong approach to this prior to further private investigation of this. I was trying to refute natural selection. That's an impossible task. It's a task that goes against common sense and science. Natural selection does, and has occured in nature, as we have observed on various occasions.

I needed a break to learn more and refocus. I've been trying to go against natural selection. That was a terrible approach I apologize for.

My problem is in transpeciation. Natural selection is applicable to our lives. It is something we observe in nature. As in humans and the pepper moths, it is ipso facto.

Let me draw the line here: I believe natural selection leads to variation within species. I do NOT believe that natural selection leads to transpeciation, or the creation of a new species.

There is ample evidence of natural selection in the world we live in. But where shall we draw the line in extrapolation? Should we safely camp on what we KNOW to be fact, or should we deduce SO far, so as to say that we evolved from time and ooze?

To extrapolate something, for those who don't know, is to say that since X=Y, X+2= Y+2, and therefore X+4 equals Y+4. There is nothing inherently wrong with applying that formula to nature.

But we must know where to draw the line. We can say that favored traits=better survival rate, and therefore better survival rate of those with certain traits=natural selection within that species. But it is when we get trigger happy in applying that formula that we have problems. Since there is a variation of pepper moths, they must have evolved from a lower life form. And so, on, ad infinitum, until you start back with spontaneous generation. We need to acknowledge the limitations of our logic and it's application. I'm not saying that natural selection is bogus, because it's not. But I AM saying that exaggerating natural selection to the point of speciation and accrediting us existing from cells that were randomly created from amino acids and electrical impulses, with all we know of DNA and RNA- this shouldn't even be debateable.

Understanding this premise, I will go on to where I left off. And BTW, carbon-dating is the Achilles Heel of evolution. It is the only support for Old Earth that is not based on relativity. I really think it is the underbelly of evolution. As of right now, I've done some thinking about entropy and such.

I wasn't able to find this on the website. Does entropy, molecular decay, etc. have anything to do with half-lifes? I need to know if half-lifes are a form of entropy. By all logical consistensy, I have no quarrel with that claim.

On to the previous posts.

 

[Arikay]

As this is a discussion with Lucaspa I will just add a couple things.

1) Speciation.
An Article to read about an observed Speciation,
http://www.geocities.com/lclane2/groundsel.html

I believe Lucaspa has a much larger list than just one example.
An interesting note with this example is that AIG accepts it as Speciation.

2) spontaneous generation.
spontaneous generation is a falsified theory. Perhaps you ment abiogenesis, which is different than spontaneous generation.

3) Carbon dating.
You said,
"carbon-dating is the Achilles Heel of evolution. It is the only support for Old Earth that is not based on relativity"

I am curious why you think this? Since C14 dating only currently goes to 50,000 years. And what do you mean by not based on relativity (compared to what?)

C-14 does have to do with radioactive decay, but im not sure about how it specifically relates to entropy (besides the fact that it appears to move energy from a higher level to a lower level).

[snip]

 

[Drotar]

Upon further examination of your posts, I see that it was in large part a defense of natural selection in general. No wonder I had so much trouble.

I am curious as to how far we can take the occurences of natural selection and apply it to modern-biology. Our genetics, I'm sure you know, have safeguards that PREVENT such transpeciation and changes. Gosh, it's been so long... DNA Polymerase? It is an enzyme that helps with the prevention of mutations. It's a double-checker, kind of like running Microsoft Word's spellcheck twice, except this is much more accurate. It prevents such mutations. Would we not expect to see the ABSENCE of these enzymes if we are the result of millions of benevolent mutations? When I say benevolent, I mean mutations that help the survival rate of a particular species.

TTYL Jesus loves you!

 

[Jet Black]

drotar: how would you define a species though? what is so fundamentally different between say, a dog and a cat, or a hummingbird and an ostritch that would forbid them from having a common ancestor (that looks little like either of them)

 

[Jet Black]

genetics does not have any safeguards againt microevolution, over time, generating new species. in fact the opposite. there are a number of methods, by which a species can become vastly different to another in a relatively short amount of time. wheat is a prime example of this.

 

[Drotar]

That's another thing. Taxonomy only adds to the confusion.

I'll tell you that what I consider "different species" would be barriers in reproduction. Since the theory of natural selection (which I believe) depends on such reproduction, I would say that is the boundary.

 

[Drotar]

Like the new avatar? TTYL Jesus loves you!