Why do I feel there are parts of both stories that are conveniently left out? Like in McIntyre's case, the site was dated not the artifact which was obviously dropped there some 250,000 years later.
Upvote
0
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Intelligent Design / Evolution
- Thread starter idscience
- Start date
- Status
Why do I feel there are parts of both stories that are conveniently left out? Like in McIntyre's case, the site was dated not the artifact which was obviously dropped there some 250,000 years later.
A slab of concrete would probably not be missed as functional design. If you can't see the difference between wave rock and a scuptured portrate. I don't know what to tell you. One transmits information. It is recognizable as a person. Wave rock has pattern but conveys no information.
Your fossil evidence is opinion based on similarity which can also be interpreted as common design. Scientists see what they want to see in the fossil record. It is subjective and unprovable either way. I have already agreed that the moth and finches are variation evolution and is not disputed. Why are you giving examples of a process we agree on?
The bacterial experimants show variation, not new additional information. The experiments have shown that mutation and selection are limited to only a couple of steps. I am no expert on the nylon bacteria but, I do believe that nylon was based on natural protien chemistry. The subject is quite controversial and by no means has the issue been settled as to if this is yet another loss of information,duplicated information that was already there, or an adaptation fueled by starvation. I also believe that it does not comsume nylon but only a part of it. After hundreds of millions of generations of bacterial growth in labs, I am not convinced this is enough to stake my acceptance on.
You seem to be trying to get me to explain and identify the intelligent agent and it cannot be done. As I stated in my prev post, intelligent activity can be distinguished from natural, random activity. The discoveries are based on what is known about intelligent activity and what is known about natual, random work. You are asking or demanding ID go into areas it does not need to explain to infer intelligent causation. Evolutionist always seem to demand ID solve all the answers or nothing will be accepted. There are plenty of holes in evolution that seem to be happily over looked, and defended. ID does not have the hole picture, it just theorizes that an intelligent cuasation is a better explanation for living things than a undirected, random process.
I am not going to convince anyone, and my purpose isn't to prove ID. It cannot be proven at this time. What can be done is show a plausible, logical inferrence based on evidence and knowledge that an intelligent cause is a legitimate alternative theory.
You say the flagellum has been accounted for and irreducibly complex systems "shredded". I notice that you offered no rebut to my very detailed explanation of what evolution needed to accomplish. It is a common falsehood that it has been "shredded". In all the reading I have come across about the subject, the rhetoric never goes farther than either, "it has been proven wrong", or an attempt to explain it with the co-option method I also detailed. The Irreducibly Complex theory is summarily dissmissed without argument. That is not good enough. The "shredding" of IC is an urban legend.
1. Add a Part
2. Make it neccessary
Sure looks simple on paper. Making it happen chemically is another story. Evolution has not got past, add a part yet, and as for making it neccessary, I detailed that most if not all the parts are uneccessary until the whole system is complete. Your simple two step process is a complete set of the encylopedia Brittanica of information addition to accomplish.
"remove/modify/translocate parts irreducible complexity falls apart."
This is incorrect and let me show you the flaw in the reasoning. Removing a part, and translocating it does not address how that complex part evolved. At some point, everything had to be made step by step the first time. Mabe once they are made, maybe these things can take place but you still have to contend with the regulatory networks that are designed to keep things orderly. Dna has error correcting code to fix mutations when they happen. Translocating the TTSS to work with the other half of the flagellum and the modification that needs to take place is a monumental task, and for it to happen by chance randomly is not plausible with evolutionary theory. As detailed in my last post.
You can't just say, well this happened and that. Biologists have to come up the the pathway of how it did which they have not. You cannot "shred" or destroy a theory just by saying it could happen this way. When it has not been demonstrated it could.
I do not think evolution beyond variation can explain the variety of life, the universe or origins. I see more convincing evidence for intelligent causation than chance.
Upvote
0
Strawman? the problem is evolution has not provided any explanation for the existance of complex interrelated systems, or how they were built in a step by step process of random mutation acted on by natural selection.
"it is a self replicating..." are you talking about DNA? Now you have moved away from the evidence and are now making judgements on the designer. Your bias of how you thing a designer should have done things. This is a very weak argument on so many levels. A flawed design does not negate that something was indeed designed, and your opinion on whether the intelligent agent did or did not do a good enough job is irrelevant to a conlusion of intelligent causation.
Upvote
0
Rick, I do not have an answer for you. There could be reasons having to do with dating, how the layers actually were layed down. There are many questions still to be answered. All I can comment on is what I am familiar with. I will say that, it is point that points to evolution at this time. Many evolutionist are patiently waiting for evidence they say/hope will be found in the future. Like how almost all the major plans showed up all at once with no gradual progression, and why there has been stasis ever since.
Very smart people believe in evolution for reasons. The whole of the evidence for me, and many, very smarter people than me, is better explained by ID. LIke I have said more than once, I cannot prove ID for a fact, but neither can an evolutionist prove evolution as a fact. (outside of variation)
Upvote
0
[FONT='Verdana','sans-serif']1. Facts and Reason -impossible for creationists.
2. Violence (forcing them to believe) -not very acceptable.
3. Ridicule -make fun of them till they go away.
I chose the 3rd option:[/FONT]
Upvote
0
I have a lot of quesions regarding dating. This fossil is this old because it was found in this rock, this rock is this old because this fossil was found in it.
I am not convinced dating of millions and billions of years are all that acurate. A whole slew of assumptions have to be made before you begin.
Upvote
0
T
Tenka
Guest
idscience, some advice we normally give people like yourself who come here is pick one specific thing you think you can argue really well and start a topic just for that. You've already got more questions than you can keep up with and we're still diverging.
Upvote
0
Hobz,
I just came across the paper by Matzke on the evolution of the bacterial flagellum. It has impressed a few people and makes a pretty good case for it. It is based on homolgy and nothing is confirmed but, makes a good case.
Evolution of the bacterial flagellum
Pretty interesting. There are some studies that suggest the TTSS came after the flagellum though, which would kill his model if true. But I thought you may like to have a read through it.
Cheers,
Upvote
0
RocksInMyHead
God is innocent; Noah built on a floodplain!
- May 12, 2011
- 9,140
- 9,869
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Democrat
Your first example has a couple problems. One, the title is wrong. The discovery had nothing to do with mammals - they were talking about worm burrows.
Two, the article itself explains how the age difference could have come about. Dr. Bowring explains that the 1.1 billion age was probably obtained by zircon dating. Since zircons are highly resistant minerals, they are easily transported into a sedimentary basin as an igneous rock (i.e. granite) breaks down. After millions of years, the sediments in the basin lithify (become rock) and you have an older zircon in a younger rock. What seems to have happened is that the original article said that the rocks were as old as 1 billion years, and the media took that to mean that they were 1 billion years old. It was just an increase in precision - one dating method provided an absolute maximum age (the sedimentary rocks can't be any older than the source material, after all), and another showed that fossils in the rocks were the same as fossils found in rocks dated absolutely to around 500 Ma. I'm sure that very few of the researchers actually thought that they were 1.1 billion years old, though they may have hoped, just for the cool factor.
I'm pretty sure I've explained this at least once on these forums.
Your second example is likely a case of what RickG said - they dated the rocks rather than the artifacts. Though it could also have been a case of zircon inheritance as well. It's a shame that her work was marginalized over it though - you'd think that most people would be intelligent enough to realize the error in assumption that was made. Fortunately this is less of a problem now as there are many more avenues to getting your research out in the open.
In case you didn't realize, it's just a Poe, and not a particularly good one at that.
Upvote
0
Greg1234
In the beginning was El
Well how about them apples.
Given that the shells were 540 million years old, theories on how they ended up in 1 billion year old rocks emerged. Fossils are not dated by the rocks they're in? Well no wonder she lost her job. It's because her date and methods were meaningless!
Upvote
0
RocksInMyHead
God is innocent; Noah built on a floodplain!
- May 12, 2011
- 9,140
- 9,869
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Democrat
And you're deliberately ignoring the rest of my post.
A zircon in a sedimentary rock is (probably) not the same age as the sedimentary rock. Zircons are formed in igneous rocks like granite, rhyolite, basalt, dacite, tuff, etc. Zircon is a very durable mineral, so they are frequently "inherited" by sedimentary rocks as the igneous rocks erode. This has been known for a very long time, and while the original Science article didn't state this clearly, they did make sure to note that 1.1 billion years was the maximum age, not the absolute age.
The only case where a zircon in a sedimentary rock could be the same age as the sedimentary rock would be if it were found in association with an ash bed.
She wasn't very clear on what was dated or where the object was found. The two dating methods that she mentioned (Uranium atoms and zircon) makes it rather unclear - there are quite a few different Uranium dating methods, and one uses zircons, so it could have been only one dating method, not the two that she thought. Moreover, Uranium has a pretty long half-life (~4.5 billion years), so it's not exactly ideal for dating material thought to be around 20,000 years old. The margin of error is frequently close to that amount, even on the most accurate dates.
If the artifacts were found in sediment, and the zircons and/or whatever was used for the Uranium dating were extracted from that sediment, then my comments on inheritance above apply. If they were found in an ash bed or another volcanic rock, then the rocks could be reliably used to date the artifacts.
Honestly, I can't reliably evaluate her methods without reading her thesis, which I gather was never published. That video is obviously biased, and it was made quite a while after the event, so it's an unreliable source at best.
Upvote
0
Greg1234
In the beginning was El
I didn't talk about the theories?
http://pleistocenecoalition.com/steen-mcintyre/Steen-McIntyre2002MammothTrumpet-submission.pdf
To date radiometrically the Late Mid-Pleistocene Early Man sites
in south central Mexico, one must turn to Africa and the dating
methods used there in early hominid research. The uranium-series methods on fossil bone seem to work well for sites as young
as Late Pleistocene (see below). Fission track dates on zircon
phenocrysts from within pumice clasts collected from overlying,
primary tephra layers can give an approximate, broad-brush date
for older sites (for Hueyatlaco: Hueyatlaco ash, 600,000 ±
340,000 yrs; Tetela brown mud pumice; 370,000 ± 200,000 yrs,
Steen-McIntyre et al., 1981). Potassium-argon dates have not
been possible for the area because of lack of suitable mineral
phenocrysts and the extent of weathering of the tephra clasts. 4
While the sediment layers and fossils at Hueyatlaco could not be
dated directly by the 14C method (no carbon preserved at the
site), butchered bone associated with bifacial tools was directly dated by the uranium-series method ( 245,000 ± 40,000
yrs,230Th; >180,000 yrs, 230Pa, Szabo, et al., 1969). In the
area, the U-series methods
appear to be reliable for material as young as 22,000 years
(Szabo et al., 1969).
in south central Mexico, one must turn to Africa and the dating
methods used there in early hominid research. The uranium-series methods on fossil bone seem to work well for sites as young
as Late Pleistocene (see below). Fission track dates on zircon
phenocrysts from within pumice clasts collected from overlying,
primary tephra layers can give an approximate, broad-brush date
for older sites (for Hueyatlaco: Hueyatlaco ash, 600,000 ±
340,000 yrs; Tetela brown mud pumice; 370,000 ± 200,000 yrs,
Steen-McIntyre et al., 1981). Potassium-argon dates have not
been possible for the area because of lack of suitable mineral
phenocrysts and the extent of weathering of the tephra clasts. 4
While the sediment layers and fossils at Hueyatlaco could not be
dated directly by the 14C method (no carbon preserved at the
site), butchered bone associated with bifacial tools was directly dated by the uranium-series method ( 245,000 ± 40,000
yrs,230Th; >180,000 yrs, 230Pa, Szabo, et al., 1969). In the
area, the U-series methods
appear to be reliable for material as young as 22,000 years
(Szabo et al., 1969).
Interesting.
Well you're in luck. Steen-McIntyre
Upvote
0
Well how about them apples.
She didn't date the site, she had the site dated by geochronologists which was dated correctly. Understand that this was not an archeological site, rather just an artifact that was found. The artifact was found under a thin layer of volcanic ash that dated to 250,000 years. What she did was to assume the artifact preceded being covered by the ash. In most cases that would be a fair assumption. But not being a geologist and examining the geology of the area and the source of the ash, she made a grave error. She should have investigated further, especially since the date was over 200,000 years older than she suspected it might be in the first place.
Upvote
0
Greg1234
In the beginning was El
Ah, so fossils are dated by the rocks they're in?
(For your quote above http://pleistocenecoalition.com/steen-mcintyre/Nexus_article.pdf - Tests on the Tephra Layers).
Upvote
0
RocksInMyHead
God is innocent; Noah built on a floodplain!
- May 12, 2011
- 9,140
- 9,869
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Democrat
These "theories" that you're talking about existed long before this controversy ever emerged and are based on common sense: if you have one rock with very durable crystals (it takes several days in one of the strongest acids in existence at 200-300 degrees Celsius to dissolved them for analysis) that erodes, with the mineral grains carried to a basin and deposited, then you'd expect to find those grains in the sedimentary rock found in that basin, right? That's just basic logic.
Indeed. I'm actually not all that familiar with U-series dating (I deal with older stuff), so that was an interesting read. Seems my complaints about the methods are invalid.Interesting.
Thanks for the link. It's actually pretty interesting reading - just based on that, it seems like there's a reasonable possibility that her dates are right. Fission track dating is notoriously unreliable, but the ages she got were pretty old, even with the massive error accounted for. The one thing to note is that clays often contain high amounts of thorium, one of the daughter products used in U-series dating, and there was a lot of clay in the dig site. That would increase the amount of apparent daughter product, making the artifacts seem older. Of course, this can be accounted for, so it may be moot. The articles didn't say whether they had applied a correction.
Honestly, if her data is right, that would be pretty cool. Not sure how it supports your position though.
Eh, reading the articles, it sounded like she did a pretty good job of verifying her dates. As a tephrochronologist, she was able to compare the ash with ash beds that had been previously dated to around the expected age and found no correlation. It would be better if she was able to get some older ash samples as well to compare to, but it sounds like those are nowhere near to being exposed.
They also did U-series dating and fission track, both of which agreed within error. As I said above, neither one is the most reliable dating method, but their agreement is significant.
In some cases, yes.
I and a couple other people gave pretty thorough explanations of of how it works in this thread: http://www.christianforums.com/t7635045/
Upvote
0
I was talking about an artifact associated with volcanic ash, not a fossil. If I commented about the wrong post, sorry.
Upvote
0
- Jul 12, 2003
- 4,012
- 814
- 84
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Politics
- UK-Labour
'Just words'!!!! You are a dolt, California Sun. You are too foolish to argue with a scientist. The word, 'docile' means 'teachable'. It is difficult to believe you have ever been teachable.
Before you carry on burbling that childish nonsense, just learn a little by familiarising yourself with this website, and notably, the posts of bornagain77:
Uncommon Descent | Serving The Intelligent Design Community
Before you carry on burbling that childish nonsense, just learn a little by familiarising yourself with this website, and notably, the posts of bornagain77:
Uncommon Descent | Serving The Intelligent Design Community
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
