What's the point? Evolution...

[TheBear]

"Post 143 shows that there isn't nearly enough water on this planet to make global flood possible."


Here is What I found

Geophysically, we begin with a pre-Flood earth differentiated into core, mantle, and crust, with the crust horizontally differentiated into sialic craton and mafic ocean floor. The Flood was initiated as slabs of oceanic floor broke loose and subducted along thousands of kilometers of pre-Flood continental margins. Deformation of the mantle by these slabs raised the temperature and lowered the viscosity of the mantle in the vicinity of the slabs. A resulting thermal runaway of the slabs through the mantle led to meters-per-second mantle convection. Cool oceanic crust which descended to the core/mantle boundary induced rapid reversals of the earth's magnetic field. Large plumes originating near the core/mantle boundary expressed themselves at the surface as fissure eruptions and flood basalts. Flow induced in the mantle also produced rapid extension along linear belts throughout the sea floor and rapid horizontal displacement of continents. Upwelling magma jettisoned steam into the atmosphere causing intense global rain. Rapid emplacement of isostatically lighter mantle material raised the level of the ocean floor, displacing ocean water onto the continents. When virtually all the pre-Flood oceanic floor had been replaced with new, less-dense, less-subductable, oceanic crust, catastrophic plate motion stopped. Subsequent cooling increased the density of the new ocean floor, producing deeper ocean basins and a reservoir for post-Flood oceans.

The question of whether we, as a species, are still evolving, sometimes inspires visions of a new-and-improved Homo sapiens, complete with super-sized brain, disease-resistance, and the ability to withstand the pollutants and toxins common in a techno-centric future. While science fiction writers have come up with imaginative and entertaining answers to the question of how humans might be evolving, the responses of the scientific community have been more staid. Perhaps, they've suggested, some genes for withstanding epidemic disease are currently on the rise. However, with the improved genetic sequencing technologies that have come online in the last decade, many biologists are now prepared to offer more specific hypotheses as to how species are changing. Recently, a team of researchers led by scientists at the University of Utah announced that they'd scanned the genomes of 270 people and found evidence that humans are not only evolving — but that we've been adapting at an unusually rapid pace — at least on evolutionary timescales. The group has also made the controversial suggestion that human populations on different continents are evolving away from one another. However, a look at the evolutionary biology behind the headlines highlights some limits of this research.

Where's the evolution?
How do scientists look at the DNA of people alive today and figure out how recently natural selection acted on their ancestors? The answer relies on an evolutionary phenomenon called genetic hitchhiking (or a selective sweep). To understand, imagine that a new advantageous mutation (X) occurs on Chromosome 4, in the middle of gene versions P, Q, and R. In genetic terms, we would say that the mutation and those genes are linked — that is, they are close together on the same chromosome. The new mutation is so beneficial that its carrier leaves lots of offspring — many of whom also carry the mutation and the other linked genes. Over many generations, natural selection increases the frequency of mutation X, and because they are physically attached to X, gene versions P, Q, and R come along for the ride (i.e., "hitchhike" to high frequency). Of course, as X spreads, recombination occasionally occurs between it and its neighboring genes, breaking down this tight association somewhat. We begin to see X in association with different combinations of gene versions (e.g., with r instead of R). If we examine the population at the end of this process of natural selection, we will see mutation X at high frequency, often occurring alongside the same set of gene versions (P, Q, and R), and less frequently alongside other gene versions (p, q, and r).

 

[djgreene]

Its always going to be an argument, no matter what.
[SIZE=+0]You people are never satisfied[/SIZE].

 

[djgreene]

God Bless, Until next time Later

 

[Adivi]

Here's some mathematics for you: the Earth's crust is about 1% of the volume of the earth (source: http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/interior/ ). Now, the earth's radius is 6370 km, so its volume is 4 * pi * (6370 km)^3 / 3 = 1.08 * 10^12 km^3, and 1% of that is 10.8 * 10^9 km^3. The height of mount everest is about 8,850 m (source: http://www.alpineresearch.ch/alpine/en/presse1.html ), so the volume of water required to add that enough water to cover Mount Everest 20 feet deep is about 4 * pi * (6370 km + 8850 m + 20 ft)^3 / 3 - 4 * pi * (6370 km)^3 = 4.52 * 10^9 km^3. Therefore, the earth's crust would have to have been almost half-composed of water, when geological data puts the porosity (water-holding capability) of Earth's crust at 1%! (Source: Soroka, L. G., & Nelson, C. L. (1983). Physical Constraints on the Noachian Deluge. Journal of Geological Education. 31(2), 135-39). So there's no way all of that water could have arisen from the ground.

 

[TheBear]

We done?

Is it safe to come back here and actually discuss things?

 

[tanzanos]

It states in the bible "It is done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End.

Yes and FSM came before God! FSM is above Alpha and Omega. He is supreme above all!

Do you play the guitar also?

 

[atomweaver]

Its always going to be an argument, no matter what.

Sadly, this is the most truthful thing you've posted to this thread.

[SIZE=+0]

You people are never satisfied.

[/SIZE]

On the contrary, I'd be more than satisfied, if you offered even an ounce of quoted evidence to back up your tons of quoted assertions.

 

[djgreene]

Ok I did find something about a scientist call Piltdown, Who found a fragment of jaw and a part of a skull that could prove man evolved from the apes. Its is one of the most archaeological finds of the century. Could I be wrong??? Nope!!!


www.youtube.com/watch?v=tq6IHAuKN1s

 

[Adivi]

Ok I did find something about a scientist call Piltdown, Who found a fragment of jaw and a part of a skull that could prove man evolved from the apes. Its is one of the most archaeological finds of the century. Could I be wrong??? Nope!!!


www.youtube.com/watch?v=tq6IHAuKN1s

Ok, so one piece of evidence was proved to be wrong. That doesn't mean every single piece of evidence ever shown for evolution is; it doesn't rest on Piltdown man.

 

[TheBear]

Ok I did find something about a scientist call Piltdown, Who found a fragment of jaw and a part of a skull that could prove man evolved from the apes. Its is one of the most archaeological finds of the century. Could I be wrong??? Nope!!!


www.youtube.com/watch?v=tq6IHAuKN1s

Who discovered and exposed it as a fraud?

 

[TheBear]

This is a little off-topic, but it's affecting the thread, so I gotta ask.....

Are you new to the internet and discussion boards, djgreene?

 

[djgreene]

This is a little off-topic, but it's affecting the thread, so I gotta ask.....

Are you new to the internet and discussion boards, djgreene?

Nope!!! You want anwsers so Im giving them, If you got a problem with what I'm doing tell someone who cares....

 

[atomweaver]

That is not what most people believed when this Scripture was recorded. According to human observations, the universe was unchangeable. The statement that the universe is constantly becoming more random, less orderly, is a scientifically testable statement. The fact that the universe, in its present state is deteriorating, has been fully verified by modern science.

Deteriorating? No.

Everywhere we look, from the scale of the galaxies down to the scale of the atom, we find a universal, natural tendency of all systems to go from order to disorder; from complexity to simplicity.

Everywhere we look? No, and thats the point made by another poster about the mis-interpetation of the 2nd Law... Universal increasing entropy assumes a closed system. Within open systems, increaing order and complexity are perfectly expected. So if, in looking everywhere, you happen to look at an open system, you will also see order from disorder, and increasing complexity from simplicity. All it takes is a little energy input...

Thus, clusters of galaxies are dispersing as the galaxies move away from one another.

true, for now.

The rotation of the earth is slowing;

True, slowing at the current rate of ~0.14 milliseconds per century. Note, in the 1800's it was more like 0.2 milliseconds per century, implying that its rate can change. So, assuming that this slowing trend will continue forever is not validated by the evidence, and so the current slowing of the Earth's rotation doesnt' support your anonymous quote's assertion.

the magnetic field of the earth is decaying.

Whut?

Erosion constantly wears down the features of the earth.

And periodic orogeny pushes the features of the earth upwards...

Our bodies wear out; we die and decay to a pile of dust.

I know its supposed to be a poetic reference to the famous Bible passage, but no one decays into 'dust'.

Our houses, our machines wear out and are finally abandoned and replaced. Many atoms decay to simpler products,

...and a great many more are quite stable over eons. Your own atoms were once part of a star which existed in the first few billion years of the history of the universe, so they have been stable for roughly 10 billion years, or so...

This natural tendency towards disorder is so all-pervasive and unfailing that it has been formalized as a natural law - the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Isaac Asimov has stated it this way (Smithsonian Institute Journal, June 1970, p.6): "Another way of stating the second law then is: `The universe is constantly getting more disorderly!'

Actually, you might want to check the validity of that source. It sound more like a mis-quote of something that Rudolf Clausius said in a presentation to the Philosophical Society of Zurich ;
"The entropy of the universe tends to a maximum." April 24th, 1865.

Lots of people glom onto Asimov's tailcoats for the presumed validity that he would offer their position. Unless the quote includes the written source, and the full paragraphs of text both before and after the relevant quote, you should be suspicious that it was Asimov who said it, and that the context of quote interpretation is correct...

Viewed that way, we can see the Second Law all about us. We have to work hard to straighten a room, but left to itself, it becomes a mess again very quickly and very easily.

I dunno. I think my kids have something to do with it being messy when i come back.

Even if we never enter it, it becomes dusty and musty.

...and how is that 'disorder'? The dust is organizing itself on all of the horizontal surfaces... 2nd Law VIOLATION!!! That'll be 3 points on your physics license, and a 418.4 Joule fine.

 

[Vene]

Since this thread is turning into a bunch of copy-paste rhetorics I may as well join in.

In 1856 the first Neanderthal fossil discovery was made and the hunt was on to find fossil remains of human ancestors. In the next half century finds were made in continental Europe and in Asia but not in Britain. Finally, in 1912, the sun rose on British paleontology -- fossil remains of an ancient pleistocene hominid were found in the Piltdown quarries in Sussex. In the period 1912 to 1915 the Piltdown quarries yielded two skulls, a canine tooth, and a mandible of Eoanthropus, a tool carved from an elephant tusk, and fossil teeth from a number of pleistocene animals.

There is a certain vagueness about some of the critical events. Dawson contacted Woodward about the first two skull fragments which were supposedly found by workman "some years prior". Exactly when is unknown. Similarly, the discovery of Piltdown II is shrouded in mystery. Supposedly Dawson and an anonymous friend make the discovery 1915; however the friend and the location of the find are unknown.
The reaction to the finds was mixed. On the whole the British paleontologists were enthusiastic; the French and American paleontologists tended to be skeptical, some objected quite vociferously. The objectors held that the jawbone and the skull were obviously from two different animals and that their discovery together was simply an accident of placement. In the period 1912-1917 there was a great deal of skepticism. The report in 1917 of the discovery of Piltdown II converted many of the skeptics; one accident of placement was plausible -- two were not.
It should be remembered that, at the time of Piltdown finds, there were very few early hominid fossils; Homo neanderthalensis and Homo sapiens were clearly fairly late. It was expected that there was a "missing link" between ape and man. It was an open question as to what that missing link would look like. Piltdown man had the expected mix of features, which lent it plausibility as a human precursor.
This plausibility did not hold up. During the next two decades there were a number of finds of ancient hominids and near hominids, e.g. Dart's discovery of Australopithecus, the Peking man discoveries, and other Homo erectus and australopithecine finds. Piltdown man did not fit in with the new discoveries. None the less, Sir Arthur Keith (a major defender of Piltdown man) wrote in 1931:

It is therefore possible that Piltdown man does represent the early pleistocene ancestor of the modern type of man, He may well be the ancestor we have been in search of during all these past years. I am therefore inclined to make the Piltdown type spring from the main ancestral stem of modern humanity... ​

In the period 1930-1950 Piltdown man was increasingly marginalized and by 1950 was, by and large, simply ignored. It was carried in the books as a fossil hominid. From time to time it was puzzled over and then dismissed again. The American Museum of Natural History quietly classified it as a mixture of ape and man fossils. Over the years it had become an anomaly; some prominent authors did not even bother to list it. In Bones of Contention Roger Lewin quotes Sherwood Washburn as saying

"I remember writing a paper on human evolution in 1944, and I simply left Piltdown out. You could make sense of human evolution if you didn't try to put Piltdown into it." ​

Finally, in 1953, the roof fell in. Piltdown man was not an ancestor; it was not a case of erroneous interpretation; it was a case of outright deliberate fraud.

[source]

 

[Vene]

I missed the argument about a decaying magnetic field.

1. The earth's magnetic field is known to have varied in intensity (Gee et al. 2000) and reversed in polarity numerous times in the earth's history. This is entirely consistent with conventional models (Glatzmaier and Roberts 1995) and geophysical evidence (Song and Richards 1996) of the earth's interior. Measurements of magnetic field field direction and intensity show little or no change between 1590 and 1840; the variation in the magnetic field is relatively recent, probably indicating that the field's polarity is reversing again (Gubbins et al. 2006).
2. Empirical measurement of the earth's magnetic field does not show exponential decay. Yes, an exponential curve can be fit to historical measurements, but an exponential curve can be fit to any set of points. A straight line fits better.
3. T. G. Barnes (1973) relied on an obsolete model of the earth's interior. He viewed it as a spherical conductor (the earth's core) undergoing simple decay of an electrical current. However, the evidence supports Elsasser's dynamo model, in which the magnetic field is caused by a dynamo, with most of the "current" caused by convection. Barnes cited Cowling to try to discredit Elsasser, but Cowling's theorem is consistent with the dynamo earth.
4. Barnes measures only the dipole component of the total magnetic field, but the dipole field is not a measure of total field strength. The dipole field can vary as the total magnetic field strength remains unchanged.

[source]

 

[atomweaver]

Nope!!! You want anwsers so Im giving them,

Unevidenced assertions are one sort of answer, but its tough to consider them useful ones...

If you got a problem with what I'm doing tell someone who cares....

"Walls of quote" without associated discussion content aren't exactly encouraged, either. From our kind CF host's fourm guidelines, again, this time Item 6;

Stonewallers, and trolls need not apply. This includes people on both sides of the debate.

By the request of your CF hosts, stop stonewalling with quotes-only posts (and start citing the sources for the stuff), and if you want to continue here, start participating in the discussion, yourself.

 

[TheBear]

Nope!!! You want anwsers so Im giving them, If you got a problem with what I'm doing tell someone who cares....

You got a real chip on your shoulder. You blow into town, all sanctimonious and self-righteous, riding on your high horse.

If you were to get that ego under control and talk like a normal person, we might be able to have a normal discussion.

Realize that this isn't a lecture hall or anyone's personal pulpit. There are no leaders or authorities here. This is a round-table discussion, where all are equals.

Also realize that wholesale cut and paste being the bulk of the replies, is not discussion.

And by the way, I find it quite egotistical for you to assume that I'm seeking answers from you.

Get over yourself.

 

[Baggins]

"Post 143 shows that there isn't nearly enough water on this planet to make global flood possible."


Here is What I found

Geophysically, we begin with a pre-Flood earth differentiated into core, mantle, and crust, with the crust horizontally differentiated into sialic craton and mafic ocean floor. The Flood was initiated as slabs of oceanic floor broke loose and subducted along thousands of kilometers of pre-Flood continental margins. Deformation of the mantle by these slabs raised the temperature and lowered the viscosity of the mantle in the vicinity of the slabs. A resulting thermal runaway of the slabs through the mantle led to meters-per-second mantle convection. Cool oceanic crust which descended to the core/mantle boundary induced rapid reversals of the earth's magnetic field. Large plumes originating near the core/mantle boundary expressed themselves at the surface as fissure eruptions and flood basalts. Flow induced in the mantle also produced rapid extension along linear belts throughout the sea floor and rapid horizontal displacement of continents. Upwelling magma jettisoned steam into the atmosphere causing intense global rain. Rapid emplacement of isostatically lighter mantle material raised the level of the ocean floor, displacing ocean water onto the continents. When virtually all the pre-Flood oceanic floor had been replaced with new, less-dense, less-subductable, oceanic crust, catastrophic plate motion stopped. Subsequent cooling increased the density of the new ocean floor, producing deeper ocean basins and a reservoir for post-Flood oceans.

What you have posted, with out attribution, here is Baumgardner's runaway plate tectonics theory. I can assure you, as a geologist and geophysicist, that it is entirely misguided and that if things happened as he suggests the whole world would have been turned into a molten ball.

Here is a nice simple explanation of why it is complete rubbish:

http://home.entouch.net/dmd/subduction.htm

By G. Morton

Even Baumgardner admits that his model only works on a scale of millions of years so it is useless for biblical literalists even if it didn't turn the earth into a molten ball.

read this:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD750.html

and follow the link if you want more info.

 

[Loudmouth]

Nope!!! You want anwsers so Im giving them, If you got a problem with what I'm doing tell someone who cares....

You are giving us false answers which is a problem.

 

[Baggins]

Ok I did find something about a scientist call Piltdown, Who found a fragment of jaw and a part of a skull that could prove man evolved from the apes. Its is one of the most archaeological finds of the century. Could I be wrong??? Nope!!!

Piltdown man was a deliberate hoax on one individual scientist, who wasn't called Piltdown

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piltdown_man

It was shown to be a hoax by other scientists.

It was a complex hoax using an human skull and an orangutan jaw bone. It lead this scientist to suggest that large brains evolved before bipedalism, whereas the mainstream view was that bipedalism evolved first not large brains.

It didn't alter the fact that all bilogists believe we evolved from apes, in fact we are apes.

You could most certainly be wrong, you don't appear to know the first thing about the topic.

I suggest you read the wikipedia page about it to start with, you appear to be very poorly equipped to carry on this debate