polonium halos

[lucaspa]

The polonium halos should not be there if the granite is as old as the old earthers claim it to be.

The decay time of the radioactive elements is so small that they would have not even had a chance to form.

1. Gentry faked some of his data. He admitted this in court under oath in 1982.

2. Many of the "halos" aren't caused by polonium.

Another point I need to make is that the old earthers will claim that the polonium was a daughter and decayed after the granite formed, BUT, gentry claims these halos are found in areas void of any parent elements. THEY were parentless.

But here is where Gentry is misstating the facts. Ark Guy, what is the parent of polonium in a decay sequence? Let's see if you have this information so you can evaluate Gentry's claims.

 

[lucaspa]

Why don't you argue science instead of presenting links?

heck anyone can do the link thing.

The links are science. The arguments are longer than the one or two lines that you tend to deliver.

So, what you want us to do is not do the science. I don't think so.

 

[lucaspa]

Is this enough context?

"The exteme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils. Yet Darwin was so wedded to gradualism that he wagered his entire theory on a denial of this literal record:
The geological record is extremely imperfect and this fact will to a large extent explain why we do not find interminable varieties, connecting together all the extinct and existing forms of life by the finest graduated steps. He who rejects these views on the nature of the geological record, will rightly reject my whole theory.
Darwin's argument still persists as the favored escape of most paleontolgists from the embarrassment of a record that seems to show so little of evolution. In exposing its cultural and methodological roots, I wish in no way to impugn the potential validity of gradualism (for all general views have similar roots). I wish only to point out that it was never 'seen' in the rocks.
Paleontologists have paid an exorbitant price for Darwin's argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true strdents of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study."

Stephen Jay Gould (Professor of Geology and Paleontology, Harvard University), "Evolution's erratic pace". Natural History, vol. LXXXVI(5), May 1977, p.14.

No, it's not enough context. To be in context you have to say what the author's whole argument is saying. This quote seems to say that Gould thinks that evolution is wrong. What's more you have misquoted Gould.

That last sentence should read: yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we almost never see the very process we profess to study. You left out that crucial world "almost". And that makes all the difference. Because smooth transitions are seen in the fossil record. Gould himself has published on them! This is dishonest.

Let me continue from where you left off.

"For several years, Niles Eldredge ... and I have been advocating a resolution of this uncomfortable paradox. We believe Huxley was right in his warning. The modern theory of evolution does not require gradual change. In fact, the operation of Darwinian processes should yield *exactly* what we see in the fossil record. [emphasis mine] It is gradualism that we must reject, not Darwinism.
"The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism:
1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change duing their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless.
2. Sudden appearance. In any *local* area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed.' [Note, emphasis mine, but the key here is the local area where you did for fossils.]
"Evolution proceeds in two major modes. In the first, phyletic transformation, an entire population changes from one state to another. If all evolutionary change occurred in this mode, life would not persist for long. Phyletic evolution yields no increase in diversity, only a transformation of one thing into another. Since extinction (by extirpation, not by evolution into something else) is so common, a biota with no mechanism for increasing diversity would soon be wiped out. The second mode, speciation, replenishes the earth. New species branch off from a persisting parental stock.
"Darwin, to be sure, acknowledged and discussed the process of speciation. But he cast his discussion of evolutionary change almost totally in the mold of phyletic transformation. ...
"Eldredge and I believe that speciation is responsible for almost all evolutionary change. Moreover, the way in which it occurs virtually guarantees that sudden appearance and stasis shall dominate the fossil record.
"All major theories of speciation maintain that splitting takes place rapidly in very small populations. The theory of geographic, or allopatric, speciation is preferred by most evolutionists for most situations (allopatric means 'in another place'). A new species can arise when a small segment of the ancestral population is isolated at the periphery of the ancestral range. Large, stable central populations exert a strong homogenizing influence. New and favorable mutations are diluted by the sheer bulk of the population through which they must spread. They may build slowly in frequency, but changing environments usually cancel their selective value long before they reach fixation. Thus, phyletic transformation in large populations should be very rare - as the fossil record proclaims.
"But small, peripherally isolated groups are cut off from their parental stock. They live as tiny populations in geographic corners of the ancestral range. Selective pressures are usually intense because peripheries mark the edge of ecological tolerance for ancestral forms. Favorable variations spread quickly. Small, peripheral isolates are a laboratory of evolutionary change.
"What should the fossil record include if most evolution occurs by speciation in peripheral isolates? Species should be static through their range because our fossils are the remains of large central populations. In any local area inhabited by ancestors, a descendent species should appear suddenly by migration from the peripheral region in which it evolved. In the peripheral region itself, we might find direct evidence of speciation, but such good fortune would be rare indeed because the event occurs so rapidly in such a small population. Thus, the fossil record is a faithful rendering of what evolutionary theory predicts, not a pitiful vestige of a once bountiful tale.
"Eldredge and I refer to this scheme as the model of punctuated equilibria. Lineages change little during most of their history, but events of rapid speciation occasionally punctuate this tranquillity. Evolution is the differential survival and deployment of these punctuations. (In describing the speciation of peripheral isolates as very rapid, I speak as a geologist. The process may take hundreds, even thousands of years; you might see nothing if you stared at speciating bees on a tree for your entire lifetime. But a thousand years is a tiny fraction of one percent of the average duration for most fossil invertebrate species - 5 to 10 million years. Geologists can rarely resolve so short an interval at all; we tend to treat it as a moment.)"

Now, since Gould does not refute evolution as your quote suggests, I trust you will change your signature.

 

[marc]

This quote seems to say that Gould thinks that evolution is wrong. What's more you have misquoted Gould.



Now, since Gould does not refute evolution as your quote suggests, I trust you will change your signature.

"My" quote doesn't "seem" to say anything. If you read something into it then that is your mistake.
The quote is quite clear, Gould saw a problem with evolution and needed to seek an alternate understanding.

You are welcome to twist it to say whatever you think it "seems" to say or what it "suggests".

Marc

 

[lucaspa]

"My" quote doesn't "seem" to say anything. If you read something into it then that is your mistake.
The quote is quite clear, Gould saw a problem with evolution and needed to seek an alternate understanding.

You are welcome to twist it to say whatever you think it "seems" to say or what it "suggests".

Marc

Marc, this disingenuous reply doesn't help you. Gould saw nothing wrong with evolution. That is, Gould has no problem with common ancestry or natural selection. What Gould did see a problem with was phyletic gradualism. Phyletic gradualism is the idea that an entire large population transforms to another species. What Gould realized, and stated quite clearly in that article and others, was that the fossil record showed that most speciation happened by allopatric speciation. That the fossil record showed exactly what it should have showed if evolution happened.

It appears that you didn't bother to read the rest of Gould's essay. Here, let me refresh you in a shorter part:

"In fact, the operation of Darwinian processes should yield exactly what we see in the fossil record. It is gradualism that we must reject, not Darwinism."

Now, why aren't those two sentences in your quote? It is the heart of Gould's essay. Yet you leave that out in order to say "Gould saw a problem with evolution". Gould is saying plainly that the problem is not with evolution. It is with gradualism.

Is punishment worse if when you stick to your false witness after it is pointed out?

Tell you what, replace your quote of Gould with the two sentences I posted above from the same article and we can drop the subject.

 

[Ark Guy]

1. Gentry faked some of his data. He admitted this in court under oath in 1982.

If you say so.

Once again lucaspa is fabricating truth.

he should be warned moderators.

 

[marc]

Marc, this disingenuous reply doesn't help you. Gould saw nothing wrong with evolution. That is, Gould has no problem with common ancestry or natural selection. What Gould did see a problem with was

[b]phyletic gradualism[/b]

. Phyletic gradualism is the idea that an entire large population transforms to another species. What Gould realized, and stated quite clearly in that article and others, was that the fossil record showed that most speciation happened by allopatric speciation. That the fossil record showed exactly what it should have showed if evolution happened.

It appears that you didn't bother to read the rest of Gould's essay. Here, let me refresh you in a shorter part:

"In fact, the operation of Darwinian processes should yield exactly what we see in the fossil record. It is gradualism that we must reject, not Darwinism."

Now, why aren't those two sentences in your quote? It is the heart of Gould's essay. Yet you leave that out in order to say "Gould saw a problem with evolution". Gould is saying plainly that the problem is not with evolution. It is with gradualism.

Is punishment worse if when you stick to your false witness after it is pointed out?

Tell you what, replace your quote of Gould with the two sentences I posted above from the same article and we can drop the subject.

I assumed this was clear, but you are right, to someone completely unknowledgable it isn't. I decided to change my signature to something that matters more in the light of eternity. I don't desire to stumble anyone! I desire to serve Christ.
So you can go back to your endless discussions with ark guy now.

Marc

 

[lucaspa]

I assumed this was clear, but you are right, to someone completely unknowledgable it isn't.

Hmm. Who is the "completely unknowlegable" here?

I decided to change my signature to something that matters more in the light of eternity. I don't desire to stumble anyone! I desire to serve Christ.

Excellent attitude. Thank you. If there is any more explaining about evolution or the meaning of the terms used in it that I can help you with, let me know.

So you can go back to your endless discussions with ark guy now.

Marc

They are only 'endless' because Ark Guy doesn't listen. So we keep covering the same old ground. Not for Ark Guy's sake, but for the sake of the lurkers. I don't want anyone "to stumble" because of the positions and claims Ark Guy makes.

 

[marc]

Hmm. Who is the "completely unknowlegable" here?

Just can't go with out insults can you? Well if it makes you feel better about yourself, have at it.

Marc

 

[lucaspa]

If you say so.

Once again lucaspa is fabricating truth.

he should be warned moderators.

This is from the 1982 McLean vs. Arkansas Board of Education trial, in which
Robert Gentry testified on behalf of the creationists:
"Q: You referred to the grant rejection letter of 11 July 1977. Isn't it fair
to say that one reason the request was turned down was because the panel felt
you were to be faulted for using a technique that was known to give false
results?
Gentry: Yes.
Q: And this was not the only time you had to retract results, was it?
Gentry: No.
Q: Did you not invent new alpha activity to explain unusual results and later
admit you erred in so doing?
Gentry: Yes."
Source: Lewin, Roger, 1982, Where is the science in creation science?, _Science_, vol. 215:142-146.

Nice try, Ark Guy. But no cigar. Thank you for playing and we have some nice parting gifts for you.

 

[lucaspa]

lucaspaHmm. Who is the "completely unknowlegable" here?


Just can't go with out insults can you? Well if it makes you feel better about yourself, have at it.

Marc

I'm sorry, Marc, but that was not an insult. I am indeed puzzled. I am trying to find out if you were insulting me. Was I the one that you were calling "completely unknowlegable"?

 

[marc]

I'm sorry, Marc, but that was not an insult. I am indeed puzzled. I am trying to find out if you were insulting me. Was I the one that you were calling "completely unknowlegable"?

Oh, I'm sorry. I was referring to someone randomly reading my signature that knew nothing about S.J. Gould. I knew someone like you would know, but many would probably take the quote the way you said. It would be misleading if someone knew nothing about him.
Anyway, it's gone.

In Christ

Marc

 

[lucaspa]

Oh, I'm sorry. I was referring to someone randomly reading my signature that knew nothing about S.J. Gould. I knew someone like you would know, but many would probably take the quote the way you said. It would be misleading if someone knew nothing about him.

OK. Misunderstanding cleared up. What's next?

You still have questions about polonium halos or did we clear that up for you too?