Macroevolution

[Butterfly99]

6K-10K years.

For real? Why?

 

[Butterfly99]

In Timothy 2:13 paus has instructions for women. Why would Paul base certain instructions based upon a parable?

12But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. 13For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve.14And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression

Lol, I guess creationists are really gonna have their shorts in a knot if Hillary gets elected.

 

[RickG]

1) I've seen video of the soft tissue...it was stretchable.
2)Considering the long decay rate of uranium or thorium...the amount of uranium or thorium would have had to have been HUGE to leave that amount of 14C in the coal.

Yes, it was stretchable, after dissolving and extracting the calcification and re-hydrating it. As I mentioned before, it only forces us to reconsider what we know about fossilization processes. The sediments in which those fossils were contained are of Cretaceous age. Pertaining to your comment of the In Situ 14C, you do not understand the process of In Situ 14C formation. It is the energy and the process in which it forms that matters, not the half-life or decay rate of uranium or thorium. In Situ 14C can also be formed on the surface cosmogenically, but the comparison of the presence of 81Kr, 85Kr, and 39Ar will account for the In Situ portion. Why do they not talk about this in the creation science literature? Simple, it shows their claim of atmospheric 14C to be baseless. Again, if you wish to believe in a 6,000 - 10,000 year old earth and the biblical description of creation, do so based on the biblical text, not misrepresented science that can be so easily pointed out. And understand that I have no wish to change your mind on evolution or the age of the earth if it fits your literal interpretation of the bible. But doing so through tainted science, which is done mostly by people who have no science background, especially in the areas they criticize, well; I that reason is by bearing false witness.

 

[stevevw]

Most people who believe in evolutionism are atheist.

It depends what you mean by evolution. This makes me a little bemused because no one ever clarified this and so many get confused and fooled. If you take the Darwinian theory of evolution in its purest form which most biologists do then no theists is going to support that. This view excludes God completely. All life is the result of a naturalistic process requiring no input of information or intelligence form an outside source. When some say that theists believe in evolution they dont clarify that they either,

1) believe that God started the process and had input in injecting the code of life in the first simple life form. So most of life could tap into the genetic info needed that was already there or they could share that info because thats the way God had made it in that everything is connected.

2) the theist only believes in micro evolution for which most people do anyway. This level of evolution is relying on existing info and is recombining things or losing info to make changes to functions and abilities.

Both these examples require God to be the creator of life. It limits darwinian evolution. Supporters of darwinian evolution make evolution and nature the creator of everything. They are actually giving more ability to evolution than whats there. they are making the created the creator.

So when someone states that a theists believes in evolution you have to clarify things. Atheists dont do this because they like to keep the waters muddy so no one can see the truth that there is no evidence for macro evolution. Its a bit like the bait and switch ploy. Start by using the example of micro evolution and then swap the example to a macro evolution example. Micro evolution has been tested and proven but macro evolution has not.

 

[-57]

For real? Why?

I've already mentioned dino tissue and C14 in coal. That's just 2 from a long list.

 

[RickG]

I've already mentioned dino tissue and C14 in coal. That's just 2 from a long list.

And I have shown you where you are wrong. If you disagree, please state why with credible scientific support.

 

[-57]

Yes, it was stretchable, after dissolving and extracting the calcification and re-hydrating it. As I mentioned before, it only forces us to reconsider what we know about fossilization processes. The sediments in which those fossils were contained are of Cretaceous age. Pertaining to your comment of the In Situ 14C, you do not understand the process of In Situ 14C formation. It is the energy and the process in which it forms that matters, not the half-life or decay rate of uranium or thorium. In Situ 14C can also be formed on the surface cosmogenically, but the comparison of the presence of 81Kr, 85Kr, and 39Ar will account for the In Situ portion. Why do they not talk about this in the creation science literature? Simple, it shows their claim of atmospheric 14C to be baseless. Again, if you wish to believe in a 6,000 - 10,000 year old earth and the biblical description of creation, do so based on the biblical text, not misrepresented science that can be so easily pointed out. And understand that I have no wish to change your mind on evolution or the age of the earth if it fits your literal interpretation of the bible. But doing so through tainted science, which is done mostly by people who have no science background, especially in the areas they criticize, well; I that reason is by bearing false witness.

That's your problem.....the tissue should not have lasted that long which means your Cretaceous age is incorrect. Collagen shouldn't last more than 30K years.
The discovery of these young dino are more prevalent than you think:
Researchers from London have found hints of blood and fibrous tissue in a hodgepodge of 75-million-year-old dinosaur bones. These fossils had been poorly preserved. That now suggests residues of soft tissues may be more common in dino bones than scientists had thought. Details appeared June 9 in Nature Communications.

As I said before..if C14 was found in the coal and if it was due to the contamination from of a parent isotope...the long half life of the parent isotope would require a source with an extremely high decay rate to maintain the amount of C14 in the coal. No such source is found.

 

[-57]

And I have shown you where you are wrong. If you disagree, please state why with credible scientific support.

You can start here.

 

[RickG]

You can start here.

No need, I have an M.S. in Earth Science, Univ. of Memphis, 1977 and some 30 years experience as a research chemist.

 

[lasthero]

You can start here.

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/rate-ri.htm

 

[-57]

No need, I have an M.S. in Earth Science, Univ. of Memphis, 1977 and some 30 years experience as a research chemist.

You might want to adjust your halo....

 

[-57]

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/rate-ri.htm

Thanks for the link....It's a bit outdated as in a previous post you would have seen I already answered this objection...

"The difficulty, however, is in assuring there is and never has been another source of C-14 for that sample since it was originally formed from organic material. It is known that there are many subtle sources of C-14 such as contamination, microbial action, and some nuclear interactions. For example, neutrons from uranium decay can produce C-14 from nitrogen impurities."

The difficulties presented....really arn't difficulties. The earth is young.

 

[-57]

For a good C14 discussion...go to the 16 min mark.

 

[RickG]

That's your problem.....the tissue should not have lasted that long which means your Cretaceous age is incorrect. Collagen shouldn't last more than 30K years.
The discovery of these young dino are more prevalent than you think:
Researchers from London have found hints of blood and fibrous tissue in a hodgepodge of 75-million-year-old dinosaur bones. These fossils had been poorly preserved. That now suggests residues of soft tissues may be more common in dino bones than scientists had thought. Details appeared June 9 in Nature Communications.

This is why in my very post to you at the beginning of the thread I mentioned to that I have no problem with you or anyone not accepting evolution. My only concern is that your rejection of it may be based on non-credible misrepresented information. The creation science literature has many such problems with that. I'm going to provide some links to the scientific literature so you can see where I am coming from. But these links will be in my next post as I have to search for the papers I am familiar with to provide the proper links, and these papers will be full papers, not abstracts.

First, scientists did not go out dig up dinosaur fossils and find soft tissue. The soft tissue was discovered during the cleaning process in which a sample was placed in an acid solution to dissolve non-fossil material around the sample. What they placed into the solution was solid rock. Upon dissolving the unwanted calcareous material the collagen remained. Because this material was calcified and not fossilized, which is a completely different process, it provided an anoxic and anaerobic environment which prevented the collagen to somewhat survive. That in no way makes the age of the site where the fossils were found wrong.

As I said before..if C14 was found in the coal and if it was due to the contamination from of a parent isotope...the long half life of the parent isotope would require a source with an extremely high decay rate to maintain the amount of C14 in the coal. No such source is found.

-57; no, no, no ... your description doesn't even come close to describing the basics of In Situ 14C. I've already mentioned this previously and I will go over it again. There is no parent isotope in the coal and the half-life of the uranium and/or thorium have nothing to do with the process. The process is due to "spallation" where nitrogen from bacteria reacts with the decaying radionuclides of U/Th. In the process thermal neutrons are absorbed by Nitrogen (14N) which forms the unstable radioisotope 14C.

 

[RickG]

Researchers from London have found hints of blood and fibrous tissue in a hodgepodge of 75-million-year-old dinosaur bones. These fossils had been poorly preserved. That now suggests residues of soft tissues may be more common in dino bones than scientists had thought. Details appeared June 9 in Nature Communications.

However when you read the actual Nature Article, it does not support the claims of your "ICR" sources.

Here is an article that describes this in detail. The description of how the collagen was destined is on page 2.
http://www4.ncsu.edu/~mhschwei/Research_files/SchweitzerEtAl2012.pdf

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I am perfectly willing to accept that a self-reproducing semi-polymer formed by chance shortly after the earth formed.

That microevolution occurs is indisputable. We see it happening when we create new breeds of dogs.

Certainly that occurs. I am not doubting that. But even with 4.5 billion years is that sort of blind natural selection really sufficient to explain the immense complexity of life and molecular biology in particular?

That macroevolution occurs is indisputable. But it has not been established that it did or could have occurred without the aid of some sort of intelligence.

Declaring that because microevolution can be seen happening that therefore macroevolution is proven is what I would call a slippery slope fallacy.

A man asks a woman if she would be willing to sleep with him if he pays her an exorbitant sum. She replies affirmatively. He then names a paltry amount and asks if she would still be willing to sleep with him for the revised fee. The woman is greatly offended and replies as follows:

She: What kind of woman do you think I am?

He: We’ve already established that. Now we’re just haggling over the price.

Biology Animations by Drew Berry for WEHI

But what about the large variations we observe - do we ignore that?

Asian mates with Asian and produces ONLY Asian. African mates with African and produces ONLY African. Only when Asian and African mate is variation seen within the species or Kind. The Asian does not evolve into the Afro-Asian nor does the African evolve into the Afro-Asian.

Husky mates with Husky and produces ONLY Husky. Mastiff mates with Mastiff and produces ONLY Mastiff. Only when Husky and Mastiff mate is variation seen within the species or Kind. The Husky does not evolve into the Chinook nor does the Mastiff evolve into the Chinook.

Brown bears mate with Brown bears and produce ONLY Brown bears, Bottle-nosed dolphin mate with Bottle-nosed dolphin and produce ONLY Bottle-nosed dolphin, This is true for every animal in existence.

The problem lies in interpretation. If evolutionists had never seen a dog and knew nothing about them and found fossils of the Mastiff and Husky and then later in the layer found fossils of the Chinook, they would insist that either the Husky or the Mastiff evolved into the Chinook. We know from direct observation this is not what occurred, even if the Chinook appears later in the record. Worse yet, they would insist the Husky, Mastiff and Chinook were all separate species - simply because their appearances were different. Just as they have done in the fossil record.

These:

are no different than these:

Merely different infraspecific taxa in the species or Kind to which they belong - not separate species. They have simply ignored the observational evidence when it came time to classify the fossil record and have incorrectly classified 90% of the creatures that existed as separate species.

The only changes we observe are limited changes within each infraspecific taxa. Asian supposedly undergo 50 mutations per birth - but those mutations are limited to the Asian infraspecific taxa. As any that occur in the African population are limited to the African population. And are so minor (if that tiny change is actually due to mutation and not simply dominant and recessive genes), that the changes are basically unnoticeable. Only when Asian mate with African for example - have we ever observed variation within the "species."

Never have we observed changes in the "species" because of any supposed mutations. Only when two or more infraspecific taxa within the species mate - are changes observed in the "species" itself. Yet this variation in the species is ignored as having any consequence in the ToE, because all observations of how species propagate and variation in the species occurs is ignored.

Those single celled organisms never change no matter how many mutations they undergo - because they receive no genomes from another infraspecific taxa in the species to which they belong. Hence E coli after billions of generations and billions of mutations remained E coli, because they never receive genomes from another infraspecific taxa in the bacterial "species" to which they belong.

The problem is that in the fossil record they label everything slightly different as a separate "species", instead of correctly labeling them as separate infraspecific taxa within the "species."

 

[RickG]

You might want to adjust your halo....

-57, I have been straight forward and non-condescending from the very start. I have wanted to do nothing but provide you with honest credible information, showing where your source(s) information are incorrect. I am not an internet or Google pretend scientist, I am a person (Christian) with actual credentials and experience in the Earth Sciences. Do you care nothing about honesty and integrity? Be forewarned, I will not tolerate childish assertions such as you just made.

Again, if you wish to believe in a young earth and a literal biblical creation, that is fine. I have no desire to change that position. My only concern is that you seem to be basing that position from misrepresented science, from non science sources. That is sad and for the wrong reason.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

-57, I have been straight forward and non-condescending from the very start. I have wanted to do nothing but provide you with honest credible information, showing where your source(s) information are incorrect. I am not an internet or Google pretend scientist, I am a person (Christian) with actual credentials and experience in the Earth Sciences. Do you care nothing about honesty and integrity? Be forewarned, I will not tolerate childish assertions such as you just made.

Again, if you wish to believe in a young earth and a literal biblical creation, that is fine. I have no desire to change that position. My only concern is that you seem to be basing that position from misrepresented science, from non science sources. That is sad and for the wrong reason.

We agree - as to a young earth belief. It stems from an incorrect interpretation of the second word in the second verse of the Bible. Hayah never means the state something "IS" but the state it "becomes or became"

That life flourished previously is not in doubt - the earth simply "became - hayah" desolate and waste, and darkness {became} upon....

This darkness is what caused the extinction of the dinosaurs, which were the 5th creative act. Man and the animals with him (mammals) were the 6th creative act - and hence the confusion between the order of creation between the two chapters.

 

[lasthero]

Thanks for the link....It's a bit outdated as in a previous post you would have seen I already answered this objection...

"The difficulty, however, is in assuring there is and never has been another source of C-14 for that sample since it was originally formed from organic material. It is known that there are many subtle sources of C-14 such as contamination, microbial action, and some nuclear interactions. For example, neutrons from uranium decay can produce C-14 from nitrogen impurities."

The difficulties presented....really arn't difficulties. The earth is young.

Which specific objection in the link did you answer?

 

[-57]

RickG, This is why in my very post to you at the beginning of the thread I mentioned to that I have no problem with you or anyone not accepting evolution. My only concern is that your rejection of it may be based on non-credible misrepresented information. The creation science literature has many such problems with that. I'm going to provide some links to the scientific literature so you can see where I am coming from. But these links will be in my next post as I have to search for the papers I am familiar with to provide the proper links, and these papers will be full papers, not abstracts.

-57:Yes, there is some poorly written creation science material..but I stick with peer review material. Thanks for your concern.

First, scientists did not go out dig up dinosaur fossils and find soft tissue. The soft tissue was discovered during the cleaning process in which a sample was placed in an acid solution to dissolve non-fossil material around the sample. What they placed into the solution was solid rock. Upon dissolving the unwanted calcareous material the collagen remained. Because this material was calcified and not fossilized, which is a completely different process, it provided an anoxic and anaerobic environment which prevented the collagen to somewhat survive. That in no way makes the age of the site where the fossils were found wrong.

-57: To which I say...so what? Big deal. It still shouldn't be there. That's your problem. The soft tissue found in these fossil clearly indicate the fossils are not 65+ MY's old. In your argument below you allow for outside contamination to change nitrogen from bacteria....and in this instance tell us there can be no outside interference to the tissue.


-57; no, no, no ... your description doesn't even come close to describing the basics of In Situ 14C. I've already mentioned this previously and I will go over it again. There is no parent isotope in the coal and the half-life of the uranium and/or thorium have nothing to do with the process. The process is due to "spallation" where nitrogen from bacteria reacts with the decaying radionuclides of U/Th. In the process thermal neutrons are absorbed by Nitrogen (14N) which forms the unstable radioisotope 14C.

-57:The 21:20 mark in the video shows exactly why you are incorrect. The 22:26 mark is where the actual refutation begins. The uranium deposit refutation begins at 24:03.
The C14 would decay 800,000 times faster than your uranium "spallation" theory suggest that it could produce C14.....the bones were not found in uranium deposit but rather sedimentary deposits....NO URANIUM AROUND.