proving evolution as just a "theory"

[Jimmy D]

And in general biology ID predicts function for allegedly "vestigial" organs, structures, or systems whereas evolution has made many faulty predictions in this area.

Really? Who made these predictions and when?

 

[Jimmy D]

I think you are flat wrong friend and here's why. In cosmology and physics ID encourages scientists to investigate and discover more instances of fine-tuning of the laws of physics and properties of our universe that uniquely allow for the existence of advanced forms of life. In biochemistry ID explains and predicts the presence of high levels of complex and specified information in proteins and DNA. In Genetics ID predicts and explains function for so-called "junk" DNA while neo-Darwinism stifles such research. In paleontology ID's prediction of irreducibly complexity in biological systems explains paleontological patterns such as the abrupt appearance of biological life forms, punctuated change, and stasis throughout the history of life. In systematics ID explains why there are similarities between living species, including examples of extreme genetic "convergence" that severely conflict with conventional evolutionary phylogenies. ID encourages scientists to understand where intelligent causes are superior to natural causes in producing certain types of information in the field of information theory. In cellular biology ID explains why the cell resembles "designed structures" rather than accidental by-products of neo-Darwinian evolution, allowing scientists to better understand the workings of molecular machines. In the field of bioinformatics ID explains the presence of new layers of information and functional language embedded in the genetic codes, as well as other codes within biology. In the field of systems biology ID encourages biologists to look at various biological systems as integrated components of larger systems that are designed to work together in a top-down, coordinated fashion, which is what biologists are finding to be the cases. And in general biology ID predicts function for allegedly "vestigial" organs, structures, or systems whereas evolution has made many faulty predictions in this area.

I doubt that you really understand what's written there.

At least post a link to where you're copying this stuff from.

 

[Jimmy D]

no, since we know what is the average rate we can check the average stalactite and get a good estimation.

Of the age geological feature where it is found.

 

[xianghua]

LOL. Did you read that paper? It's about the function of vestiges. Only a creationist could ignore 99.9% of a research article about the function of vestigial bones in dolphins to score a point about biologists thinking vestigial forms are useless!

no. usincogito said that "vestigial has never meant useless". so i showed that some scientists indeed claimed that those sructures are useless. he even admit it at the same comment : "On the other hand, muscles to move ears or flare noses in primates (and humans especially) aren't really useful for anything other than entertainment"

so vestigial structure is useless or not?

Of the age geological feature where it is found.

right. so you agree that in those cases the cave is indeed young?

 

[Jimmy D]

so vestigial structure is useless or not?

Sometimes. So what? They're still evidence for evolution, as your paper clearly states.

right. so you agree that in those cases the cave is indeed young?

No, I don't.

The most obvious reasons, without bothering to research.....

Has it's growth been constant? Don't know
Do they all grow at a constant rate? No
Did it's formation begin when the cave (or whatever) was formed? Don't know, but unlikely.

Seriously, there are hundreds of scholarly articles on this topic. That aside I'm sure that you've had all this explained to you before.

 

[xianghua]

Sometimes. So what? They're still evidence for evolution, as your paper clearly states.

no they arent. this is a belief rather then a scientific claim.

Has it's growth been constant? Don't know
Do they all grow at a constant rate? No
Did it's formation begin when the cave (or whatever) was formed? Don't know, but unlikely.

so this is just a coincidence that the length of those stalactites fit well with about less then 10000 years rather then millions of years?

 

[Jimmy D]

no they arent. this is a belief rather then a scientific claim.

Says who? You? The paper you cited says otherwise. Who to believe?

so this is just a coincidence that the length of those stalactites fit well with about less then 10000 years rather then millions of years?

Not a coincidence, it's plain wrong....

the Bulletin of the National Speleological Society (37: p.21, 1975) gave their observed growth rates as ranging from 0.1 to 10 centimeters per thousand years. An exceptional spurt of growth might exceed the higher rate for short periods of time, but it could no more be maintained than a winning streak at the Las Vegas poker tables. Moore and Sullivan (1978, p.47) give an upper average rate of "only a little more" than 0.1 mm/year [10 centimeters or 2.5 inches per thousand years]. Stalagmites grow at a similar rate. Areas with a lot of overgrowth and tropical temperatures would have the higher rates. Thus, a 60foot giant, as might be found in Carlsbad Caverns, would have a minimum estimated age of about 180,000 years.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD250.html
CD250: Stalactite growth rates

1. The fast-growing stalactites form via processes very different from calcium carbonate stalactites found in limestone caves. Limestone is not soluble in water. When carbon dioxide (from decaying plants in the soil above the cave) mixes with water, it forms a very weak carbonic acid. This turns the calcium carbonate into calcium bicarbonate, which dissolves. When drips are exposed to air in the cave, a little carbon dioxide escapes from them into the atmosphere, which reverses the process and precipitates a small amount of calcium carbonate. The upper average rate for limestone stalactite growth is ten centimeters per thousand years, with lower growth rates outside of tropical areas.
   
   Fast-growing stalactites, on the other hand, either grow from gypsum through an evaporative process, or they form from concrete or mortar. When water is added to concrete, one product is calcium hydroxide, which is about 100 times more soluble than calcite. The calcium hydroxide absorbs carbon dioxide from the atmosphere to reconstitute calcium carbonate.
   
2. The time for stalactite growth also has to allow for time for the cave to dissolve in the first place, which is a very slow process, sometimes on the order of tens of millions of years. Then the geological conditions have to change so that the cave is no longer under water. Only then can stalactite growth begin.
   
3. Direct measurement via radiometric dating gives stalactite ages over 190,000 years (Ford and Hill 1999). Other deposits in caves have been dated to several million years old. For example, argon-argon dating of alunite (an aluminum sulfate mineral) gives an age of 11.3 million years for a cave near Carlsbad Caverns (Polyak et al. 1998).
   
4. Oxygen isotope measurements in stalactites give an indication of outside temperatures. They are consistent with the coming and going of ice ages back at least 160,000 years (Dorale et al. 1998; Wang et al. 2001; Zhang et al. 2004).

 

[xianghua]

Not a coincidence, it's plain wrong....

the Bulletin of the National Speleological Society (37: p.21, 1975) gave their observed growth rates as ranging from 0.1 to 10 centimeters per thousand years. An exceptional spurt of growth might exceed the higher rate for short periods of time, but it could no more be maintained than a winning streak at the Las Vegas poker tables. Moore and Sullivan (1978, p.47) give an upper average rate of "only a little more" than 0.1 mm/year [10 centimeters or 2.5 inches per thousand years].

its actually what i said. again: those numbers ( 10 cm per 1000 years) give us about 5000 years for a 50 cm stalactite.

 

[Jimmy D]

its actually what i said. again: those numbers ( 10 cm per 1000 years) give us about 5000 years for a 50 cm stalactite.

No

Moore and Sullivan (1978, p.47) give an upper average rate of "only a little more" than 0.1 mm/year [10 centimeters or 2.5 inches per thousand years]. Stalagmites grow at a similar rate. Areas with a lot of overgrowth and tropical temperatures would have the higher rates. Thus, a 60foot giant, as might be found in Carlsbad Caverns, would have a minimum estimated age of about 180,000 years.

Ever been in cave to measure these things? Ever used other dating methods to confirm the estimated age? Ever calculated how long it would take a particular cave to form by acid erosion, measured how long it took to empty of water? Studied the chemical make up of a stalagtite to ascertain meteorological conditions during it's formation?

No? Well people have you know, I could direct you to extensive studies of all these things, but you don't care do you, because of some simplistic crap you read on a creationist site.

All this is irrelevant anyway unless you can tell me where your "average" growth rate comes from, does it include fast growing stalagtites formed from gypsum or concrete?

 

[xianghua]

No

Moore and Sullivan (1978, p.47) give an upper average rate of "only a little more" than 0.1 mm/year [10 centimeters or 2.5 inches per thousand years].

again, this is what i said: the average rate is about 10 cm per 1000 years.

All this is irrelevant anyway unless you can tell me where your "average" growth rate comes from,

from those references:

Kramer, Stephen P.; Day, Kenrick L. (1995), Caves, Carolrhoda Books (published 1994), p. 23

Hill, C A, and Forti, P, (1986, 1997). Cave Minerals of the World, 1st & 2nd editions. [Huntsville, Alabama: National Speleological Society Inc.]

 

[Jimmy D]

Limestone stalactites form extremely slowly – usually less than 10cm every thousand years – and radiometric dating has shown that some are over 190,000 years old.

..............................

The dripping liquid is a more or less saturated solution of calcium hydroxide, and will be quite strongly alkaline. Check some of the drips with Universal Indicator paper, the pH will come out at 10 or 11. These stalactites grow much faster than those in caves, where growth rates of 1 cm in 1000 years are typical. I have measured the growth rate of some concrete stalactites at about 1 cm per year and lengths in excess of 10 cm are quite common.

................................

Given enough time, the stalactite and stalagmite may grow toward each other and meet, forming a solid column. The average growth rate of stalactites is about 0.005 inches per year, but can be as high as 0.1 inches per year where water flow is higher and the water is more acidic.

.....................................

The growth rate for a stalactite at the Sudwala Caves is approximately 2,5cm per century.

Sudwala’s cave formations: older than Africa

Some of the most striking speleothems at Sudwala are Samson’s Pillar (about 200 million years old), the Screaming Monster (160 million) and the Rocket (140 million). Their age has been determined by the Rhebedium Strontium test, which measures the radioactive decay of cave formations.

To give an idea of the antiquity of these formations, at the time they began to be formed, between 510 to 180 million years ago, our planet still consisted of two supercontinents, one of which – Gondwana – included most of the landmasses in today’s Southern Hemisphere, as well as the Arabian Peninsula and the Indian subcontinent, which have now moved entirely into the Northern Hemisphere.

 

[Jimmy D]

again, this is what i said: the average rate is about 10 cm per 1000 years.




from those references:

Kramer, Stephen P.; Day, Kenrick L. (1995), Caves, Carolrhoda Books (published 1994), p. 23

Hill, C A, and Forti, P, (1986, 1997). Cave Minerals of the World, 1st & 2nd editions. [Huntsville, Alabama: National Speleological Society Inc.]

So we'll ignore all those stalactites that are over a few metres in length shall we? What about the ones that have been measured to have a much slower growth rate? And the ones which have been shown, by several independent methods to be multitudes older than 10,000 years? And the amount of time it takes caves to form?

If you can't see the problems with the nonsense you're proposing I can't help you.

 

[tas8831]

I would take it as a compliment if I were you. In these discussions the plagiarism card always gets thrown on the table when you've made an excellent case and they have no reply. Its a distraction move and nothing more.

Odd that honesty and integrity is a "distraction" among so many Christians.

When a creationist plagiarizes, that tells me that, besides the whole dishonesty thing, they cannot digest the information and draw their own conclusions.

This is why one of the things I usually ask creationists who either dismiss evolution evidence, or present the anti-evolution claims of others at face value, is how is it that they know that what they are presenting has merit.

In 20+ years of asking this, I have never - not once, gotten a response along the lines of 'Well, I have a degree in this field' or 'I have worked in the field, and I know X and here is why'.

Nope.

It is always, if anything, an appeal to the supposed authority of their source (note how often creationists will make sure to append 'Dr.' to the name of someone they are citing/copying, or point out their supposed credentials), reiteration of the claims, name calling, burden shifting, etc.

They almost never admit that it is solely because they like what the person claimed because it somehow props up their anti-science agenda.

 

[tas8831]

Says who? You? The paper you cited says otherwise. Who to believe?



Not a coincidence, it's plain wrong....

the Bulletin of the National Speleological Society (37: p.21, 1975) gave their observed growth rates as ranging from 0.1 to 10 centimeters per thousand years. An exceptional spurt of growth might exceed the higher rate for short periods of time, but it could no more be maintained than a winning streak at the Las Vegas poker tables. Moore and Sullivan (1978, p.47) give an upper average rate of "only a little more" than 0.1 mm/year [10 centimeters or 2.5 inches per thousand years]. Stalagmites grow at a similar rate. Areas with a lot of overgrowth and tropical temperatures would have the higher rates. Thus, a 60foot giant, as might be found in Carlsbad Caverns, would have a minimum estimated age of about 180,000 years.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD250.html
CD250: Stalactite growth rates

1. The fast-growing stalactites form via processes very different from calcium carbonate stalactites found in limestone caves. Limestone is not soluble in water. When carbon dioxide (from decaying plants in the soil above the cave) mixes with water, it forms a very weak carbonic acid. This turns the calcium carbonate into calcium bicarbonate, which dissolves. When drips are exposed to air in the cave, a little carbon dioxide escapes from them into the atmosphere, which reverses the process and precipitates a small amount of calcium carbonate. The upper average rate for limestone stalactite growth is ten centimeters per thousand years, with lower growth rates outside of tropical areas.
   
   Fast-growing stalactites, on the other hand, either grow from gypsum through an evaporative process, or they form from concrete or mortar. When water is added to concrete, one product is calcium hydroxide, which is about 100 times more soluble than calcite. The calcium hydroxide absorbs carbon dioxide from the atmosphere to reconstitute calcium carbonate.
   
2. The time for stalactite growth also has to allow for time for the cave to dissolve in the first place, which is a very slow process, sometimes on the order of tens of millions of years. Then the geological conditions have to change so that the cave is no longer under water. Only then can stalactite growth begin.
   
3. Direct measurement via radiometric dating gives stalactite ages over 190,000 years (Ford and Hill 1999). Other deposits in caves have been dated to several million years old. For example, argon-argon dating of alunite (an aluminum sulfate mineral) gives an age of 11.3 million years for a cave near Carlsbad Caverns (Polyak et al. 1998).
   
4. Oxygen isotope measurements in stalactites give an indication of outside temperatures. They are consistent with the coming and going of ice ages back at least 160,000 years (Dorale et al. 1998; Wang et al. 2001; Zhang et al. 2004).

Not on your topic - but isn't is amazing how EASY it is to avoid plagiarizing???

 

[tas8831]

In Genetics ID predicts and explains function for so-called "junk" DNA while neo-Darwinism stifles such research.

Tell us all, Brad - who was it, exactly, that discovered function in some 'junkDNA'?


Here is a hint - it was not anybody at AiG. Or ICR. Or the Discovery Institute.

It wasn't Henry Morris or Duane Gish. It wasn't Walt Brown or Walter Remine or Frank Marsh.

It was just a couple of crazy evilutionists - probably darwinists, and maybe even atheists:

Cell. 1975 Feb;4(2):107-11.
The general affinity of lac repressor for E. coli DNA: implications for gene regulation in procaryotes and eucaryotes.
Lin S, Riggs AD.
Abstract
By equilibrium competition experiments, the dissociation constant (K(RD)) of lac repressor for E. coli DNA carrying a deletion of the lac operon was measured at a variety of salt concentrations. These data are used in the consideration of several aspects of protein-DNA interaction: Quantitative estimates of specificity are made. Specificity changes only slightly with salt concentration. We calculate that in vivo, 98 percent or more of repressor is bound to DNA predominately at sites other than the lac operator. Inducers shift repressor from operator to nonoperator DNA, but do not free it from DNA. The general affinity of repressor for E. coli DNA is sufficient to support a model where repressor slides along DNA for significant distances. The effective dissociation constant of repressor for operator (K(eff)) is very sensitive to the total DNA concentration. We propose that "junk" DNA in eucaryotes functions to maintain total DNA at an optimum concentration. We consider the lac operon in the nucleus of a lymphocyte, point out that severe difficulties would be encountered, and suggest possible solutions.

or maybe this Darwinist:


Mol Biol Rep. 1981 May 22;7(1-3):149-58.
A general function of noncoding polynucleotide sequences. Mass binding of transconformational proteins.
Zuckerkandl E.
Abstract
It is proposed that a general function of noncoding DNA and RNA sequences in higher organisms (intergenic and intervening sequences) is to provide multiple binding sites over long stretches of polynucleotide for certain types of regulatory proteins. Through the building up or abolishing of high-order structures, these proteins either sequester sites for the control of, e.g., transcription or make the sites available to local molecular signals. If this is to take place, the existence of a 'c-value paradox' becomes a requirement. Multiple binding sites for a given protein may recur in the form of a sequence 'motif' that is variable within certain limits. Noncoding sequences of the chickens ovalbumin gene furnish an appropriate example of a sequence motif. GAAAATT. Its improbably high frequency and significant periodicity are both absent from the coding sequences of the same gene and from the noncoding sequences of a differently controlled gene in the same organisms, the preproinsulin gene. This distribution of a sequence motif is in keeping with the concepts outlined. Low specificity of sequences that bind protein is likely to be compatible with highly specific conformational changes.


There are even earlier examples, using language that is more 'cryptic' (considering that the term 'junk DNA' was coined in 1972).

None of which were provided by creationists or IDists.


So please spare us the standard talking points about 'darwinism' stifling research.

 

[dmmesdale]

So we'll ignore all those stalactites that are over a few metres in length shall we? What about the ones that have been measured to have a much slower growth rate? And the ones which have been shown, by several independent methods to be multitudes older than 10,000 years? And the amount of time it takes caves to form?

If you can't see the problems with the nonsense you're proposing I can't help you.

Caving in to reality - creation.com
The article concerned a descent into a cave called ‘S.P.’ near Sierra Vista, Arizona. It featured comments by and about Jerry Trout, a cave specialist with the Arizona Forest Service. Trout has been a high-school teacher and a geologist. The writer states, ‘What geologists used to believe was fact, in terms of dating a cave, now is speculation, Trout says.’

Trout is then quoted as saying:

‘“From 1924 to 1988, there was a visitor’s sign above the entrance to Carlsbad Caverns [New Mexico], that said Carlsbad was at least 260 million years old. In 1988 the sign was changed to read 7–10 million years old. Then, for a little while, the sign read that it was 2 million years old. Now the sign is gone.”’
The article continues:

‘In short, he [Trout] says, geologists don’t know how long cave development takes. And, while some believe that cave decorations such as S.P.’s beautiful icicle-looking stalactites took years to form, Trout says that through photo-monitoring, he has watched a stalactite grow several inches in a matter of days.’

 

[xianghua]

So we'll ignore all those stalactites that are over a few metres in length shall we?

no. i actually said that the quickest stalactites growth is about 30 cm per 100 years. so there are also stalactites that can reach up to 15 meter or even more. im talking about the average. so keep this in mind.

What about the ones that have been measured to have a much slower growth rate?

see above. only the average count.

And the ones which have been shown, by several independent methods to be multitudes older than 10,000 years? And the amount of time it takes caves to form?

this is another topic since its different method like radiometric dating. i focus now about stalactite growth rate and not about radiometric dating. each point at time.

 

[Jimmy D]

Caving in to reality - creation.com
The article concerned a descent into a cave called ‘S.P.’ near Sierra Vista, Arizona. It featured comments by and about Jerry Trout, a cave specialist with the Arizona Forest Service. Trout has been a high-school teacher and a geologist. The writer states, ‘What geologists used to believe was fact, in terms of dating a cave, now is speculation, Trout says.’

Trout is then quoted as saying:

‘“From 1924 to 1988, there was a visitor’s sign above the entrance to Carlsbad Caverns [New Mexico], that said Carlsbad was at least 260 million years old. In 1988 the sign was changed to read 7–10 million years old. Then, for a little while, the sign read that it was 2 million years old. Now the sign is gone.”’
The article continues:

‘In short, he [Trout] says, geologists don’t know how long cave development takes. And, while some believe that cave decorations such as S.P.’s beautiful icicle-looking stalactites took years to form, Trout says that through photo-monitoring, he has watched a stalactite grow several inches in a matter of days.’

Great, so we can dismiss Xianghua's assertions.

 

[Jimmy D]

Caving in to reality - creation.com
The article concerned a descent into a cave called ‘S.P.’ near Sierra Vista, Arizona. It featured comments by and about Jerry Trout, a cave specialist with the Arizona Forest Service. Trout has been a high-school teacher and a geologist. The writer states, ‘What geologists used to believe was fact, in terms of dating a cave, now is speculation, Trout says.’

Trout is then quoted as saying:

‘“From 1924 to 1988, there was a visitor’s sign above the entrance to Carlsbad Caverns [New Mexico], that said Carlsbad was at least 260 million years old. In 1988 the sign was changed to read 7–10 million years old. Then, for a little while, the sign read that it was 2 million years old. Now the sign is gone.”’
The article continues:

‘In short, he [Trout] says, geologists don’t know how long cave development takes. And, while some believe that cave decorations such as S.P.’s beautiful icicle-looking stalactites took years to form, Trout says that through photo-monitoring, he has watched a stalactite grow several inches in a matter of days.’

Actually, I just read that "piece", what a load of garbage, you should be embarrassed posting that. It basically says "Nuh huh" and then goes on to quote someone's opinion from a newspaper article (I'd be interested to read the original article but of course there's no link to it), is that the standard of creationist research these days?

 

[xianghua]

Great, so we can dismiss Xianghua's assertions.

feel free to do that. meanwhile you just gave reference that support my calculation.