Intermediate fossils

[FishFace]

Quite the opposite in fact. First it is very hard to change radioactive decay rates significantly under conditions that could naturally occur on earth (except possibly for Be7 which is not used for radiometric dating). Second consider two types of decay, beta decay and electron capture. Anything that speeds up beta decay significantly, such as high levels of ionization, should slow down electron capture and vise versa while probably having little or no effect on alpha decay.

So, if we assume the true age of the earth is 6,000, and this value of 4 billion is an environmentally induced deviation from this true data, and we further assume that as one particular kind of decay gives a value two times too high, another gives one two times too low, we ought to observe ages of the earth in the region of 0.009 years.

While these are ridiculously naïve values with no scientific meaning whatsoever, perhaps it serves to illustrate just how much observed physics would have to deviate in order to agree with a young earth. Our observations would have to be out by a factor 10^5.82.

 

[flatworm]

While these are ridiculously naïve values with no scientific meaning whatsoever, perhaps it serves to illustrate just how much observed physics would have to deviate in order to agree with a young earth. Our observations would have to be out by a factor 10^5.82.

Not only that, but if you claim radiactive decay was incredibly accelerated in the past, you run into the problem of the radiation such decay would produce. I recently posted on this topic here.

 

[FishFace]

Not only that, but if you claim radiactive decay was incredibly accelerated in the past, you run into the problem of the radiation such decay would produce. I recently posted on this topic here.

Could already tell what that was going to say! But surely the factor is 4 million, not 4 billion? That would still be 40 Sv, which, IIRC (didn't read the wiki article) is still enough to make one seriously ill and probably kill you. (Over a few days, guaranteed)

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Not only that, but if you claim radiactive decay was incredibly accelerated in the past, you run into the problem of the radiation such decay would produce. I recently posted on this topic here.

Not to mention that the heat created would have roasted Adam.

 

[flatworm]

Could already tell what that was going to say! But surely the factor is 4 million, not 4 billion? That would still be 40 Sv, which, IIRC (didn't read the wiki article) is still enough to make one seriously ill and probably kill you. (Over a few days, guaranteed)

It all depends on where they try to stuff the extra decay. If you try to put if between ~4000 BCE and the discovery of radioactivity you end up with a factor of about 7.5e5 (4.5e9 /6.0e3), giving a still-lethal daily background dose of 7.5 Sv and enough heat to cook everyone.

If you try to cram it, as was postulated in that thread, into the year of the flood, then you have a factor in the 4-4.5 billion range because the flood was supposed to have lasted about 1 year.

If you try to cram it all into a few literal days between "Let there be light" and the creation of animal life, you have a bomb, pure and simple.

 

[shernren]

Actually, if you cram it all into the Flood, then the water would have shielded Noah and co. from the radiation, so that the radiation itself would not have been a problem. Having said that, all that radiation absorbed by that water would have two other effects: massive neutron activation of the water, which we should observe today (and don't, AFAIK), and more heating, which would exacerbate the already bad nuclear heating problem.

Back to the drawing board, then.

 

[Skaloop]

then again its microevolution....a change in characterstics of the animal, not a change in species (which is what would convince me).
Supports microevolutoin, yes. Supports macroevolution, not so much.

Speciation has been observed experimentally and naturally on several occasions.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation

There are plenty of examples of a change in species. Are you now convinced?

 

[flatworm]

Actually, if you cram it all into the Flood, then the water would have shielded Noah and co. from the radiation, so that the radiation itself would not have been a problem. Having said that, all that radiation absorbed by that water would have two other effects: massive neutron activation of the water, which we should observe today (and don't, AFAIK), and more heating, which would exacerbate the already bad nuclear heating problem.

Back to the drawing board, then.

If you check my post you'll see I already examined the idea of the water shielding Noah and ran into the same problem with heating.

Of course we'd also have to assume the accelerated decay began only after the flood had reached a sufficient depth to act as a shield, which shortens the duration and multiplies the radiation intensity yet again.

 

[LittleNipper]

So, if we assume the true age of the earth is 6,000, and this value of 4 billion is an environmentally induced deviation from this true data, and we further assume that as one particular kind of decay gives a value two times too high, another gives one two times too low, we ought to observe ages of the earth in the region of 0.009 years.

While these are ridiculously naïve values with no scientific meaning whatsoever, perhaps it serves to illustrate just how much observed physics would have to deviate in order to agree with a young earth. Our observations would have to be out by a factor 10^5.82.

I see it rather like this. A Creationist chips off some volcanic rock he knows to have been laid down 50 years ago. He sends this to a uniformitarian laboratory which dates rocks. The creationist wants to test the validity of the tests performed. The laboratory comes up with a date in the millions of years. The creationist reveals that the specimen is but 50. The uniformitarian technicians are insensed. They feel that this is a fraud.. The creationist contends that rocks are rocks and it appears those who find them are determining how old they are suspected to be and merely passing their bias onto those doing the tests. In reality the tests have been shown to be unreliable very honestly. If someone cannot find the true date of something known, how on earth can anyone trust very ancient dates?

 

[grimbly]

I see it rather like this. A Creationist chips off some volcanic rock he knows to have been laid down 50 years ago. He sends this to a uniformitarian laboratory which dates rocks. The creationist wants to test the validity of the tests performed. The laboratory comes up with a date in the millions of years. The creationist reveals that the specimen is but 50. The uniformitarian technicians are insensed. They feel that this is a fraud.. The creationist contends that rocks are rocks and it appears those who find them are determining how old they are suspected to be and merely passing their bias onto those doing the tests. In reality the tests have been shown to be unreliable very honestly. If someone cannot find the true date of something known, how on earth can anyone trust very ancient dates?

Sigh, And once again you would be very very wrong.

The laboratory in question, because of equipment limitations, advertised in their web site that they could not accurately date materials younger than 2 million years. Well guess what.

They got inaccurate dates for materials that were younger than 2 million years old!!!!! DUH

So once again you got it all wrong (see the part of your quote in blue).....

In addition a test was used that even under the best of conditions is not applicable to samples younger than 100,000 years old. On top of that a better test methodology that could have accurately dated younger samples was not used. Nope keep moving folks, nothing honest here to see!!!

 

[flatworm]

The creationist contends that rocks are rocks and it appears those who find them are determining how old they are suspected to be and merely passing their bias onto those doing the tests.

Unfortunately for creationists it is a fact that not all rocks are the same. There is no practical difference between "rocks are rocks" and "I dismiss a priori the entire science of geology because it suits my prejudices."

Before you claim bias, perhaps you ought to actually examine the data from which the dates are derived.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

I see it rather like this. A Creationist chips off some volcanic rock he knows to have been laid down 50 years ago. He sends this to a uniformitarian laboratory which dates rocks.

And he deliberately uses whole rock with minerals that were brought up with the volcano and not melted and deliberately ignores Bowen's reaction series, because he knows he can get bad dates to fool people with limited knowledge of geology into thinking that radiometric dating is invalid.

The creationist wants to test the validity of the tests performed.

No, he wants to get bad dates by using an invalid method on poorly sorted samples in order to fool people with limited knowledge of geology into thinking that radiometric dating is invalid.

The laboratory comes up with a date in the millions of years. The creationist reveals that the specimen is but 50. The uniformitarian technicians are insensed. They feel that this is a fraud.

That's because it was a fraud.

The creationist contends that rocks are rocks

And the creationist does this to fool people with limited knowledge of geology into thinking that radiometric dating is invalid

and it appears those who find them are determining how old they are suspected to be and merely passing their bias onto those doing the tests. In reality the tests have been shown to be unreliable very honestly. If someone cannot find the true date of something known, how on earth can anyone trust very ancient dates?

It appears that the creationist was successful in his attempt to fool people with limited knowledge of geology into thinking that radiometric dating is invalid.

The two examples of this are Austin's bogus dating of St Helens dacites and his even more obviously deliberate efforts to get bad radiometric dates in the Grand Canyon.

 

[USincognito]

Hey Nip, did you miss this on page 10?

One could wonder that, if we were finding terrestrial collies, semi-aquatic Dalmatians and fully aquatic Chihuahuas with long fluked tails and vestigial legs or if we found Irish Setters with 3 jaw bones and bulldogs with only 1 and a modified middle ear or a Kommandeur with 5 toes, a Bassett with 4 toes a Beagle with 3 toes and a Scottie with 1 toe*.

You really need to brush up on your Paleontology because the differences that make these species transitionals are more than just size.

* Test for Nip, each of my hypotheticals relates back to one of the lineages cited in Phil's post. Can you tell me which relates to which?

I see it rather like this. A Creationist chips off some volcanic rock he knows to have been laid down 50 years ago. He sends this to a uniformitarian laboratory which dates rocks. The creationist wants to test the validity of the tests performed. The laboratory comes up with a date in the millions of years. The creationist reveals that the specimen is but 50. The uniformitarian technicians are insensed. They feel that this is a fraud.. The creationist contends that rocks are rocks and it appears those who find them are determining how old they are suspected to be and merely passing their bias onto those doing the tests. In reality the tests have been shown to be unreliable very honestly. If someone cannot find the true date of something known, how on earth can anyone trust very ancient dates?

And there you have it folks, Creationism in action. No, I don't mean the "test of the system" conducted in Nip's anecdote, I mean the fact that all he has to offer is a made up story about some ficticious lab test instead of an actual citation of tests conducted with names, dates and locations. You see, that's the problem with Creationist arguments via anecdote, as soon as they start giving details the disinformation is rapidly and easily debunked (see all the Creationist stories about daisies and dating regarding Mammoths).

 

[pyro214]

Speciation has been observed experimentally and naturally on several occasions.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation

There are plenty of examples of a change in species. Are you now convinced?

I have no doubt that evolution is possible, but do i think that we came from a monkey...or some lower species. Definatly not.

To show me a change in species itself (size/color) wont convince me... as shown by your links:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...00px-Drosophila_speciation_experiment.svg.png
Im not looking for a explanation for how its possible, as it is...but i am looking for proof, fossils , that it did actually happen.

 

[Edx]

I have no doubt that evolution is possible, but do i think that we came from a monkey...or some lower species. Definatly not.

What will you accept as a transitional fossil?

 

[flatworm]

I have no doubt that evolution is possible, but do i think that we came from a monkey...or some lower species. Definatly not.

First of all, "lower species" is not really an evolutionary term. Its basis goes back to the "Great Chain of Being" concept which originated in ancient times. Evolution has no preconceived direction.

As far as proof we are descended from earlier primates, I might point out endogenous retroviruses. Retroviruses work by integrating their DNA into the host cell's and using that cell's machinery to make copies. If that DNA becomes disabled no more viruses are produced, but the viral DNA fragment gets copied every time that cell divides. If two organisms show the same viral DNA fragment in the same spot in their genome, we can deduce they have a common ancestor.

The bottom line is this: There are ERVs that humans share with the other Great Apes and with no other animal. There are ERVs the Great Apes (including humans) share with Old World monkeys but not with any other animal. There are ERVs that are shared by all primates but not other animals and so forth.

We also have the fact that human chromosome number 2 is a fusion of two homologous chimp chromosomes, complete with internal telomeres and a deactivated second centromere.

 

[pyro214]

What will you accept as a transitional fossil?

monkey body parts + human body parts (without seperations).
stages before a monkey would also be intresting

 

[USincognito]

monkey body parts + human body parts (without seperations).
stages before a monkey would also be intresting

How about an ape like skull on a human like body?

 

[pyro214]

How about an ape like skull on a human like body?

was hoping for somthing more to do with arms/ legs (feet)
and if you provide proof...is there lots of it?

some people, even today, are born deformed remember :S

according to evolution, if a mutation is beneficial...the new type of species will out-live others of its previous type. Therfore many bones should be present.

and how can we tell its not just a type of ape that died off a while ago?

theres so many possibilities to why, or why it could be true...guess thats why its still called a theory :S

 

[KerrMetric]

theres so many possibilities to why, or why it could be true...guess thats why its still called a theory :S

No - that is most definitely NOT why it is called a theory.