Mod Idea: Simulating surfaces -> Borg Technology -> Twinkie Physics -> Worldviews

[Krsqk]

"Not to mention that it's assumed to have always been present in the same concentration."

Correct. It's formed and lost, and currently that is at a balance. It would always -end up- at equilbrium, but we don't know if the point of balance has changed. OTOH, C-14 dating is only used for fairly recent dating, and there are other methods.

C-14 dating (and every other form of radioisotope dating) relies on two unproven, untestable assumptions: 1) The naturally occuring ratio of the radioactive element to the resulting element(s) has always been the same as it is now; 2) The rate of decay has always been the same as it is now. As for the first, at least three commonly accepted phenomena would affect the formation of radioactive materials. 1) Young-earth creationists commonly accept the existence of a canopy of water (in some form) above the atmosphere during the first 2000 years or so of the earth's existence. This would greatly cut down the amount of radiation (and concurrently, the amount of radioactive materials formed), resulting. 2) Evolutionists commonly accept a cataclysmic event of some sort (meteor collision, etc.) which altered the climate enough to kill the dinosaurs. If such an event can block enough sunlight/heat to change the climate, it would also block radiation, with results similar to the above. 3) The earth's magnetic field is weakening, resulting in lessening protection from radiation. A stronger field in the past would mean less radiation/less radioactives production (now it sounds like SE4 ). Any decrease in the ratio of radioactive elements would result in exponential increases in the dates obtained, since the rate of decay is used as the constant in the formula. No extant radioisotope dating method addresses, or can address, this problem; any dates obtained from them are inherently questionable and unverifiable (i.e., not empirical "scientific" proof).

Mutations don't always result in improvements; actually most of them are probably BAD for the organism in question. Random chance though, so you'll likely get a good mutation eventually. My biology teacher put it in a good way, like so:

"Say I take a 100-sided dice, and bet you $5 that I will roll a 1. If I roll anything else, I loose. Good bet, right? Now, is it still a good bet if I get to roll the dice *1000 times*, and if I get just one 1 in those rolls I win?"

First, let me define which biological evolution I do and do not believe in. Micro-evolution (variation within species/sub-species) does occur. These are frequently the result of mutations. Inter-species evolution has never been observed, either in live organisms or in the fossil record, and has never been the result of mutations.

Several experiments by several scientistshave been done in this field. 1) Herman Bumpus found that survival rates were higher for specimens closest to the average for a species. Sub-species are less hardy, not more, than the original species. 2) The "saltation" theory of mutations was based on an observational error. Its author, Hugo deVries was unable to substantiate it. Later, it was discovered that the vast majority of plant varieties are caused by gene factor variations, rarely by mutations. Gene factor varieties may be hardy (though still less than the original), while mutation varieties have poor survival rates. 3) Thomas Hunt Morgan performed the first set of mutation experiments, but failed to find any examples of mutation as an agent of cross-species evolution. 4) H.J. Muller experimented with X-ray-induced mutations in fruit flies for 19 years. Every mutation he and his researchers found was harmful. 5) Richard Goldschmidt conducted similar experiments at UC-Berkeley. He produced more generations of fruit flies than is hypothesized have existed for humans and their ape-ancestors. After 25 years, he began looking for other possible mechanisms for evolution. After 10 more years (1940), he wrote a book debunking all current mechanisms of biological evolution and introduced his own theory: macro-evolution (aka "punctuated equilibrium" or "hopeful monster" theory). This theory later was adopted by such prominent evolutionists as Stephen Jay Gould.

The best example of this is antibiotic resistant bacteria. They normally don't compete any better against the rest of the bacteria, so their numbers are fairly small. But the antibiotic comes in, kills off the rest of the bacteria, and their numbers can explode. Instant evolution.

Species variation does not prove cross-species evolution. It may be penicillin-resistant E. coli, but it's still E. coli.

"But anyone who says that science "proves" evolution is misinformed about the basic unproven assumptions vital to evolution."

Also known as "the current best guess."

My problem with this is two-fold. First, it's not taught as a "best guess," but rather as fact. Open any high-school, middle-school, or elementary science textbook and read the first paragraph: "Billions of years ago,..." The entire Eohippus series is still included, even though Eohippus is now thought to be a type of badger probably still alive in Africa (the daman), not to mention that it's been found right alongside Equus. Even embryonic recapitulation is frequently taught.

Second, evolutionists operate under the assumption that evolution is true. Consider the Indian carvings of dinosaurs on the Grand Canyon walls. In the 1920s when they were discovered, it was said that they resembled dinosaurs, but they definitely couldn't be, since we knew dinosaurs died out millions of years before man came along. If that's true, then how did the Indians know what they looked like? Belief in evolution despite any evidence to the contrary cripples scientific research, not enables it.

[edits-typos]

[ December 11, 2002, 04:07: Message edited by: Krsqk ]

[Suicide Junkie]

C-14 dating (and every other form of radiometric dating) relies on two unproven, untestable assumptions: 1) The naturally occuring ratio of the radioactive element to the resulting element(s) has always been the same as it is now; 2) The rate of decay has always been the same as it is now.

1) It dosen't have to be exacly the same, and it did vary by a little. See the link below.
2) is quite reliable if not technically provable.

Check out:
http://www.rlaha.ox.ac.uk/orau/01_04.htm
and the bit on "How radiocarbon calibration works"

First, it's not taught as a "best guess," but rather as fact. Open any high-school, middle-school, or elementary science textbook and read the first paragraph: "Billions of years ago,..." The entire Eohippus series is still included, even though Eohippus is now thought to be a type of badger probably still alive in Africa (the daman), not to mention that it's been found right alongside Equus. Even embryonic recapitulation is frequently taught.

Well, I'm not sure where you got your textbooks, but I'm not seeing what you're seeing.
Embryos for animals do tend to look alike, naturally. A head, body, usually four appendages, a tail. Start with a cell, then a ball of cells, then form up some basic parts, heck yeah they look similar for the first while.

Nothing like "human gills" or stupid stuff like that. Sounds like something a mean older brother might scare his little bro with.

Not sure what you're getting at with the Eohippus thing...
Corrections, if shown to be nessesary, are a part of science, and in any case, texts tend to lag behind (as they require writing) not to mention schools need to buy new books on thin budgets.
Of course, the first google hit on the two gives:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hors...pus_hyrax.html
The evidence does lead to billions of years...

Second, evolutionists operate under the assumption that evolution is true.

And creationists?

If the weight of evidence points towards something, and using it gives results why would you not use it?
If evidence builds up against the current theories, then a better one will be developed.

[Baron Munchausen]

Wow, what a great thread! I'm waiting for the Tachyon Internet to pop up again so we can have the time-sensitive error Messages. "Error: The host which you are attempting to reach was not responding at the time your signals arrived."

But I did want to make a comment on some of SJ's assumptions...

If the weight of evidence points towards something, and using it gives results why would you not use it?
If evidence builds up against the current theories, then a better one will be developed.

These statements show that you are accepting some of the basic precepts of 'Scientific Materialism' and I wonder if you really believe them if you examine them.

The first as that there exists a valid scientific theory to explain any and every phenomena we have observed. This is the most important underlying assumption that keeps evolution afloat. The primary point which Krsqk is trying to show you is that the evidence does NOT support evolution, at least not gradualist evolution by random mutation. The "evolution" sequence of the horse has been used as an example in text books for generations, but it now seems that even the 'die-hard' evolutionists have had to concede that at least some of the fossils used as 'proof' of the gradual evolution of the horse are actually fossils of other animals. (I was not aware of this, Krsqk, could you give me a reference to an article or book that details this?)

And when you think about it, just how do you 'prove' the connection of ANY two fossils found in rocks considered to be millions of years apart in age and hundreds or thousands of miles apart in location? Structure similarity is all that anyone ever had to go on, and genetic research over the Last few decades has been showing that the underlying genetic code of supposedly related animals is VERY different. For example, all of the spcies of 'frogs' in the world do NOT even have the same number of chromosones, let alone a high percentage of actual genes in common. Yet, these very different genes produce physically similar animals that scientists have been assuming were part of one orderly 'sequence' of evolution starting with a single common ancestor.

The case for evolution was weak before, with no way to 'prove' connections between fossils. Now, with genetic evidence showing that structural similarity does NOT correspond with genetic similarity there is simply no way to support it with existing evidence. Yet, most scientists will NOT admit that 'evolution' doesn't work. There are discussions going on in the professiponal journals about re-arranging taxonomy to suit the new genetic evidence, but no one dares to question whether evolution is even a valid theory anymore. Ergo, it is not a 'falsifiable' theory, it is a religious precept of Scientific Materialism.

Now we come to the sticky part. Most 'science' oriented people, like you, will immediately raise 'Creationism' when evolution is challenged. It is immediately assumed that anyone trying to disprove evolution is trying to replace it with Creationism. I must be very clear that though I grew up in a very 'ordinary' W.A.S.P. setting (Methodist, actually, one of the original 'Puritan' sects ) I do NOT bring this up in order to defend or restore the competing religious viewpoint of Biblical literalism. My religious views are difficult to summarize. Let's just say that 'Heretic' would be the only label the average 'Christian' would find suitable for me. So I am not a partisan in the 'either/or' conflict between 'Science' and 'Religion' that occupies so much time in the US. I find both views to be inadequate. And what is really annoying though is that most so-called 'scientific' people, even professional scientists, are as unwilling to say 'I don't know' as the most rigid fundamentalists.

This is the other assumption of Scientific Materialism, and oddly enough, of the 'Religious' viewpoint as well... that we can understand anything and everything. Only the theoretical physicists are finally breaking through this one. Once in a while you'll see a physicist say something like this in an article on the latest weird, exotic, and baffling cosmological theories -- "The Universe might not be merely stranger than we imagine, but stranger than we can imagine."

And that's the point I wanted to bring out. The Universe is not our perception of it, it's always different, it's 'not us'... and we may never really understand it. Yet 'Science' does not operate that way. There is an underlying set of assumptions held by the community of professional scientists as rigid as the religious viewpoint they claim to be in opposition to. As Krsqk says, this actually impedes scientific progress.

[ December 11, 2002, 05:46: Message edited by: Baron Munchausen ]

[Taz-in-Space]

"Error: The host which you are attempting to reach was not responding at the time your signals arrived."

or perhaps: "Error: The host which you are attempting to reach will not be responding at the time your signals will arrive."

[Phoenix-D]

"C-14 dating (and every other form of radioisotope dating) relies on two unproven, untestable assumptions: 1) The naturally occuring ratio of the radioactive element to the resulting element(s) has always been the same as it is now; 2) The rate of decay has always been the same as it is now. As for the first, at least three commonly accepted phenomena would affect the formation of radioactive materials. 1) Young-earth creationists commonly accept the existence of a canopy of water (in some form) above the atmosphere during the first 2000 years or so of the earth's existence. This would greatly cut down the amount of radiation (and concurrently, the amount of radioactive materials formed), resulting. 2) Evolutionists commonly accept a cataclysmic event of some sort (meteor collision, etc.) which altered the climate enough to kill the dinosaurs. If such an event can block enough sunlight/heat to change the climate, it would also block radiation, with results similar to the above. 3) The earth's magnetic field is weakening, resulting in lessening protection from radiation. A stronger field in the past would mean less radiation/less radioactives production (now it sounds like SE4 )."

Excuse me while I go try and find the formation of the various isotopes used for dating..I know C-14 is formed in the upper atmosphere, but I don't think say Uranium would be affected by this. C-14 is only valid for a couple thousand years at best anyway.

"Any decrease in the ratio of radioactive elements would result in exponential increases in the dates obtained, since the rate of decay is used as the constant in the formula. No extant radioisotope dating method addresses, or can address, this problem; any dates obtained from them are inherently questionable and unverifiable (i.e., not empirical "scientific" proof)."

Questionable yes, unverifiable no. The more independant sources you have giving the same result, the better the result tends to be. Either the result is correct *or* there is something consistantly throwing your results. The effect wouldn't be exponential, either. Start with, say, 9 grams instead of 9, half-life of 5000 years:
10/9
5/4.5
2.5/2.25
1.25/1.125
.625/.5625

Notice that the ratio you're off by at any given time is *exactly* the same as the ratio you're off by when you started.

"First, let me define which biological evolution I do and do not believe in. Micro-evolution (variation within species/sub-species) does occur. These are frequently the result of mutations. Inter-species evolution has never been observed, either in live organisms or in the fossil record, and has never been the result of mutations."

Take two populations, seperate them for a long period of time in different enviorments and allow for that micro-evolution you mentioned. What happens? (that Last statement is as much of a jump as what you're accusing others of BTW)

Check out the different varieties of dogs some time. They result from artifical selection applied by humans. Put a really big dog and a really small dog and try and breed them; what happens? Likely nothing, or the offspring dies. the only reason they can be considered the same species is because of the breeds in between..

"Several experiments by several scientistshave been done in this field. 1) Herman Bumpus found that survival rates were higher for specimens closest to the average for a species. Sub-species are less hardy, not more, than the original species."

Consistant with a species being well-adapted to it's enviroment; change anything and it's less well adapated, unless you get obscenely lucky.

"2) The "saltation" theory of mutations was based on an observational error. Its author, Hugo deVries was unable to substantiate it. Later, it was discovered that the vast majority of plant varieties are caused by gene factor variations, rarely by mutations. Gene factor varieties may be hardy (though still less than the original), while mutation varieties have poor survival rates."

Gene factor: are you refering to the variation produced by sexual reproduction here?

") Thomas Hunt Morgan performed the first set of mutation experiments, but failed to find any examples of mutation as an agent of cross-species evolution."

I don't think they -could- be, directly. It doesn't make sense. (and what the hell is cross-species evolution? Macroevolution, or what you earlier refered to as inter-species evolution?)

"4) H.J. Muller experimented with X-ray-induced mutations in fruit flies for 19 years. Every mutation he and his researchers found was harmful."

Hmm. For one, X-rays aren't the only way to get mutations; DNA can be changed in other ways, and the repair systems don't always catch it. However this ussually only matters in two cases: if it affects a reproductive cell and/or if it leads to a cancer. Wacking a random skin cell doesn't do too much. For the other I'd have to do more research.

"5) Richard Goldschmidt conducted similar experiments at UC-Berkeley. He produced more generations of fruit flies than is hypothesized have existed for humans and their ape-ancestors. After 25 years, he began looking for other possible mechanisms for evolution. After 10 more years (1940), he wrote a book debunking all current mechanisms of biological evolution and introduced his own theory: macro-evolution (aka "punctuated equilibrium" or "hopeful monster" theory). This theory later was adopted by such prominent evolutionists as Stephen Jay Gould."

1940? Please tell me you're not going to bring up the "Darwin couldn't say how A could happen so A must not happen" point next? Science does advance. You say that microevolution does occur. Fine, -where does the variation come from orriginally-? i.e. you have a population consisting of entirely one type of gene. In your view would microevolution ever occur?

"Species variation does not prove cross-species evolution. It may be penicillin-resistant E. coli, but it's still E. coli."

I always assume in these arguments that I'm dealing with a Bible-literal "nothing ever changes" person until told otherwise.

"My problem with this is two-fold. First, it's not taught as a "best guess," but rather as fact. Open any high-school, middle-school, or elementary science textbook and read the first paragraph: "Billions of years ago,..." The entire Eohippus series is still included, even though Eohippus is now thought to be a type of badger probably still alive in Africa (the daman), not to mention that it's been found right alongside Equus. Even embryonic recapitulation is frequently taught."

I think this is more the common science textbook being badly done more than anything else. A wish to avoid causing confusion, perhaps, that snowballs into something else.

"Second, evolutionists operate under the assumption that evolution is true. Consider the Indian carvings of dinosaurs on the Grand Canyon walls. In the 1920s when they were discovered, it was said that they resembled dinosaurs, but they definitely couldn't be, since we knew dinosaurs died out millions of years before man came along. If that's true, then how did the Indians know what they looked like? Belief in evolution despite any evidence to the contrary cripples scientific research, not enables it."

OK, few comments on this:
-people gennerally assume their worldview is correct, and try to make everything else fit. Yes, this includes scientists. File it under the "yep, they screwed up" catagory. Happens a lot.

-similar topic, but if you try and de-bunk a worldview without offering an alternative, you encouter a lot of resistance.

Phoenix-D

[Taz-in-Space]

...Taz is wading through the preceeding discussion...

Of course you are BOTH assuming that evolution and creationism are mutually exclusive.
How about Evolved Creation. This is the theory that something (GOD?) created the initial conditions and set-up the natural laws just so that now the current conditions are as they are.

Just thought I'd muddy the waters a little more...
(My work here is done - Taz Devil)

[Captain Kwok]

Some minor injections:

Evolution occurs, but the method of evolution is just a theory. Just like gravity - it happens, but our explaination is only a theory. Last time I checked, gravity was treated like a fact too.

The rate of radioactive decay is constant and is not affected by external conditions. While the ratio of rad. isotopes to the naturally occuring element is subject to flucuations - it is not exponential as Phoenix has already shown. It would take a *significant* change in the rate to make any dramatic change to age estimates.

The guy who pounded fruit flies for 19 years with X-rays and found no beneficial mutations. Why would he? First of all X-Rays don't exist naturally on Earth and secondly, they are highly energetic and can cause serious damage to DNA and other cell components - not really the kind of mutations that a beneficial change might come from. Aside, mutations aren't the single factor in evolution anyways.

The generations of fruit flies. Umm, let me see, they were in a closed environment - not exposed to various agents of selection? So it might not have been a good experiment to compare to the evolution of a species over time.

Textbooks can get dated in a hurry. Schools don't generally have the funds to get the most recent books for students.

In re: to the E. coli. They are not necessarily the same E. coli! In fact, they are becoming more genetically diverse. Sooner or later, they will be significantly different as one will be able to readily survive harsh conditions while the other will not. However, since E. coli doesn't really reproduce sexually as most higher lifeforms, much of the other mechanisms are not really applicable and the changes less pronounced.

[Suicide Junkie]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If the weight of evidence points towards something, and using it gives results why would you not use it?
If evidence builds up against the current theories, then a better one will be developed.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

These statements show that you are accepting some of the basic precepts of 'Scientific Materialism' and I wonder if you really believe them if you examine them.

Ok, perhaps a better wording: "If evidence builds up against the current theories, then people will work on developing a better one."

This is the other assumption of Scientific Materialism, and oddly enough, of the 'Religious' viewpoint as well... that we can understand anything and everything. Only the theoretical physicists are finally breaking through this one. Once in a while you'll see a physicist say something like this in an article on the latest weird, exotic, and baffling cosmological theories -- "The Universe might not be merely stranger than we imagine, but stranger than we can imagine."

Surely an optimistic outlook is better than a defeatist attitude, eh?
A perfect theory of everything may not be possible, but it is certainly the right direction

[Krsqk]

Wow, so much to respond to. Where to start:

BM: Excellent description of scientific materialism. As for the horse series, let me give you what I know about it, and then refer you to several other sources. 1) The number of ribs is inconsistent throughout the series, beginning with 18, climbing to 19, then dropping to 15 before ending up back at 18 with the modern horse, Equus. 2) No transitional teeth exist. They are all either browsing or grazing teeth. 3) The series does not exist in order in the fossil record. Frequently, earlier forms are found on top of later forms; Eohippus has even been found in the same strata as modern Equus. In fact, the only places the complete series is to be found is in museums and textbooks. 4) The first animal in the series is not even a horse, but a badger. 5) There are no transitional forms between members of the series. They are all distinct species. 6) There are no transitional forms to link Eohippus to its supposed ancestors, the condylarths. 7) The series is heavily keyed to size; but even modern horses vary in size as much as the horse series does. 8) Skeletal remains are insufficient to determine relationship. Horse and donkey remains would appear similar, but they are vastly different animals.

Here are some further sources for study:[*]Science News Letter, August 25, 1951[*]Garrett Hardin, Nature and Man�s Fate (1960)[*]L.D. Sunderland, Darwin�s Enigma (1988)[*]Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe (1982)[*]G.A. Kerkut, Implications of Evolution (1969)[*]Charles Deperet, Transformations of the Animal World[*]David M. Raup, in Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin 50 (1979)[*]The New Evolutionary Timetable[*]G.G. Simpson, Life of the Past (1953)[*]George G. Simpson, "The Principles of Classification and a Classification of Mammals" in Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 85:1-350[*]G.G. Simpson, Tempo and Mode in Evolution (1944)
Hope that helps.

The primary point which Krsqk is trying to show you is that the evidence does NOT support evolution, at least not gradualist evolution by random mutation.

That's exactly the point I'm trying to make. Thanks for the clarification.

Taz:

Of course you are BOTH assuming that evolution and creationism are mutually exclusive.
How about Evolved Creation. This is the theory that something (GOD?) created the initial conditions and set-up the natural laws just so that now the current conditions are as they are.

No serious evolutionist or Bible-believer buys into that, or should. The Bible specifically records a six-day creation, and its credibility is at stake. Everything else in the Bible is based on the belief that God created the world the way He recorded it.

Capt. Kwok:

Evolution occurs, but the method of evolution is just a theory. Just like gravity - it happens, but our explaination is only a theory. Last time I checked, gravity was treated like a fact too.

The difference is that gravity is constantly being observed and verified, while evolution has not been observed. It is theoretical. If you mean micro-evolution occurs, you're right; but we've never seen a species turn into another species.

The rate of radioactive decay is constant and is not affected by external conditions. While the ratio of rad. isotopes to the naturally occuring element is subject to flucuations - it is not exponential as Phoenix has already shown. It would take a *significant* change in the rate to make any dramatic change to age estimates.

I misspoke (mistyped?) in my previous post. I meant to say that if the rate of formation were decreased (by canopy, magnetic field, meteor dust, etc.), then the rate of absorption would be decreased, resulting in animals which appeared much older than they really were.

Aside, mutations aren't the single factor in evolution anyways.

If mutations aren't thought to cause evolution, then what is? From what I can tell, that's the current popular mechanism, combined with natural selection. Mutations bring about beneficial changes which allow the organism to survive and pass on its traits to its offspring. Has something new come up?

Textbooks can get dated in a hurry. Schools don't generally have the funds to get the most recent books for students.

The horse series has been in doubt since the 1950s. Embryonic recapitulation has been disproved since the late 1800s. I know it's government-funded, but how long does it take?

In re: to the E. coli. They are not necessarily the same E. coli! In fact, they are becoming more genetically diverse. Sooner or later, they will be significantly different as one will be able to readily survive harsh conditions while the other will not. However, since E. coli doesn't really reproduce sexually as most higher lifeforms, much of the other mechanisms are not really applicable and the changes less pronounced.

No one has said they're not E. coli. They're just drug-resistant E. coli. We haven't developed any new bacteria since the invention of penicillin; they've just adapted to the drug and are less affected by it. Staph is still staph, E. coli, etc. The only "harsh conditions" its been proven they can survive is the presence of specific drugs; that's hardly "natural" selection. No one knows if they're more fit to survive their natural predators, whatever they are. And why should sexual/asexual reproduction matter? If we came from something else, it had to start with a single asexual cell somewhere. The same mechanisms have to apply to both types of organisms.

Phoenix-D:

Questionable yes, unverifiable no. The more independant sources you have giving the same result, the better the result tends to be. Either the result is correct *or* there is something consistantly throwing your results.

How can these results come from accurate dating methods?[*]For years the KBS tuff, named for Kay Behrensmeyer, was dated using Potassium Argon (K-Ar) at 212-230 Million years. See Nature, April 18, 197, p. 226. Then skull #KNM-ER 1470 was found (in 1972) under the KBS tuff by Richard Leakey. It looks like modern humans but was dated at 2.9 million years old. Since a 2.9 million year old skull cannot logically be under a lava flow 212 million years old many immediately saw the dilemma. If the skull had not been found no one would have suspected the 212 million year dates as being wrong. Later, 10 different samples were taken from the KBS tuff and were dated as being .52- 2.64 Million years old. (way down from 212 million. Even the new "dates" show a 500% error!)[*]Basalt from Mt. Etna, Sicily (122 BC) gave K-AR age of 250,000 years old. [*]Dalyrmple, G.B., 1969 40Ar/36Ar analysis of historic lava flows. Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 6-47 55.[*]Lava from the 1801 Hawaiian volcano eruption gave a K-Ar date of 1.6 Million years old. [*]Basalt from Mt. Kilauea Iki, Hawaii (AD 1959) gave K-AR age of 8,500,000 years old.[*]Basalt from Mt. Etna, Sicily (AD 1972) gave K-AR age of 350,000 years old.[*]"One part of the Vollosovitch mammoth carbon dated at 29,500 years and another part at 44,000. --Troy L. Pewe, Quaternary Stratigraphic Nomenclature in Unglaciated Central Alaska, Geological Survey Professional Paper 862 (U.S. Gov. printing office, 1975) p. 30.[*]"One part of Dima [a baby frozen mammoth] was 40,000, another part was 26,000 and the "wood immediately around the carcass" was 9-10,000. --Troy L. Pewe, Quaternary Stratigraphic Nomenclature in Unglaciated Central Alaska, Geological Survey Professional Paper 862 (U.S. Gov. printing office, 1975) p. 30[*]"The lower leg of the Fairbanks Creek mammoth had a radiocarbon age of 15,380 RCY, while its skin and flesh were 21,300 RCY. --In the Beginning Walt Brown p. 124[*]"A geologist at the Berkeley Geochronology Center, [Carl] Swisher uses the most advanced techniques to date human fossils. Last spring he was re-evaluating Homo erectus skulls found in Java in the 1930s by testing the sediment found with them. A hominid species assumed to be an ancestor of Homo sapiens, erectus was thought to have vanished some 250,000 years ago. But even though he used two different dating methods, Swisher kept making the same startling find: the bones were 53,000 years old at most and possibly no more than 27,000 years� a stretch of time contemporaneous with modern humans." --Kaufman, Leslie, "Did a Third Human Species Live Among Us?" Newsweek (December 23, 1996), p. 52.

How about this quote: "Structure, metamorphism, sedimentary reworking, and other complications have to be considered. Radiometric dating would not have been feasible if the geologic column had not been erected first." (O�Rourke, J. E., "Pragmatism versus Materialism in Stratigraphy," American Journal of Science, vol. 276 (January 1976), p. 54) What does that mean, then? That radiometric dating doesn't really matter; it's the strata that determine the age? Or if strata age and radiometric age conflict (which should never happen, if the geologic column were correct), the rock age wins?

Take two populations, seperate them for a long period of time in different enviorments and allow for that micro-evolution you mentioned. What happens?

No one knows what happens, because no one has ever observed it. Science doesn't guess or predict the future.

Check out the different varieties of dogs some time. They result from artifical selection applied by humans. Put a really big dog and a really small dog and try and breed them; what happens? Likely nothing, or the offspring dies. the only reason they can be considered the same species is because of the breeds in between.

A dog is a dog is a dog. Science still classifies them as dogs. And who's going to put the current breeds of dogs in a series? Do the small ones or the big ones come first? Or is it the middle ones? Which species is more advanced? Would these varieties exist if not for artificial selection? Are humans the new mechanism for evolution? The hundreds of varieties of dogs are just varieties, not new species. They never result in anything but a dog.

1940? Please tell me you're not going to bring up the "Darwin couldn't say how A could happen so A must not happen" point next? Science does advance.

Science has yet to do what Darwin couldn't do. No one has found a mechanism for evolution. If they have, then why are Gould and so many others going with this "hopeful monster" garbage? I don't think anyone will say they're ignorant doofuses or religious bigots.

You say that microevolution does occur. Fine, -where does the variation come from orriginally-? i.e. you have a population consisting of entirely one type of gene. In your view would microevolution ever occur?

Do you mean 500,000 blargs with a single gene, or 500,000 blargs with uniform genetic code? Either way, I would say that micro-evolution would occur, but I wouldn't predict that they turn into snorks. They'd just have more and more blargs, each with variation.
Let's throw another light on the variation/new species question. No two humans in the world are alike (besides identical multiple births). Each has variations on the same human "average." Some have dark skin, some have light skin, some are bigger, some are smaller, etc. Which ones are more advanced? Which ones are more fit to survive? Do we have any that are new species? Do we have any that are still older species? With all of the variations in the tens of billions of people from the Last two millenia, have we got anything other than humans?

I think this is more the common science textbook being badly done more than anything else. A wish to avoid causing confusion, perhaps, that snowballs into something else.

And inaccurate textbooks are excusable? Confusion about what? That this is what we think happened, (although the evidence we're giving you is dated or doubtful), and we want you to believe that this is unquestionably what happened (despite any evidence we find to the contrary), so we'll just teach you what we have to so you believe the "right" thing. And, someday, we'll find the missing link or some formula or astronomical evidence will come to light and vindicate what we're teaching you right now.

-similar topic, but if you try and de-bunk a worldview without offering an alternative, you encouter a lot of resistance.

My worldview is simple. God created the world in six days, the way the Bible records it. He made the world, He owns it, and He makes the rules. That pretty much sums it up. So there's the alternative.

[Krsqk]

My turn for questions.
1. Where did the space for the universe come from?
2. Where did matter come from?
3. Where did the laws of the universe come from (gravity, inertia, etc.)?
4. How did matter get so perfectly organized?
5. Where did the energy come from to do all the organizing?
6. When, where, why, and how did life come from dead matter?
7. When, where, why, and how did life learn to reproduce itself?
8. With what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce?
9. Why would any plant or animal want to reproduce more of its kindsince this would only make more mouths to feed and decrease the chances of survival? (Does the individual have a drive to survive, or the species? How do you explain this?)
10. How can mutations (recombining of the genetic code) create any new, improved varieties? (Recombining English letters will never produce Chinese books.)
11. Is it possible that similarities in design between different animals prove a common Creator instead of a common ancestor?
12. Natural selection only works with the genetic information available and tends only to keep a species stable. How would you explain the increasing complexity in the genetic code that must have occurred if evolution were true?

When, where, why, and how did:
1. Single-celled plants become multi-celled? (Where are the two and three-celled intermediates?)
2. Single-celled animals evolve?
3. Fish change to amphibians?
4. Amphibians change to reptiles?
5. Reptiles change to birds? (The lungs, bones, eyes,reproductive organs, heart, method of locomotion, body covering, etc., are all very different!)
6. How did the intermediate forms live?

When, where, why, how, and from what did:
1. Whales evolve?
2. Sea horses evolve?
3. Bats evolve?
4. Eyes evolve?
5. Ears evolve?
6. Hair, skin, feathers, scales, nails, claws, etc., evolve?

Which evolved first how, and how long, did it work without the others)?

1. The digestive system, the food to be digested, the appetite, the ability to find and eat the food, the digestive juices, or the body�s resistance to its own digestive juice (stomach, intestines, etc.)?
2. The drive to reproduce or the ability to reproduce?
3. The lungs, the mucus lining to protect them, the throat, or the perfect mixture of gases to be breathed into the lungs?
4. DNA or RNA to carry the DNA message to cell parts?
5. The termite or the flagella in its intestines that actually digest the cellulose?
6. The plants or the insects that live on and pollinate the plants?
7. The bones, ligaments, tendons, blood supply, or muscles to move the bones?
8. The nervous system, repair system, or hormone system?
9. The immune system or the need for it?
10. There are many thousands of examples of symbiosis that defy an evolutionary explanation. Why must we teach students that evolution is the only explanation for these relationships?
How would evolution explain mimicry? Did the plants and animals develop mimicry by chance, by their intelligent choice, or by design?


When, where, why, and how did

1. Man evolve feelings? Love, mercy, guilt, etc. would never evolve in the theory of evolution.
2. How did photosynthesis evolve?
3. How did thought evolve?
4. How did flowering plants evolve, and from that?
5. What kind of evolutionist are you? Why are you not one of the other eight or ten kinds?
6. What would you have said fifty years ago if I told you I had a living coelacanth in my aquarium?
7. Is there one clear prediction of macroevolution that has proved true?
8. What is so scientific about the idea of hydrogen as becoming human?
9. Do you honestly believe that everything came from nothing?

After you have answered the preceding questions, please look carefully at your answers and thoughtfully consider the following questions.

1. Are you sure your answers are reasonable, right, and scientifically provable, or do you just believe that it may have happened the way you have answered? (I.e., do these answers reflect your religion or your science?)
2. Do your answers show more or less faith than the person who says, "God must have designed it"?
3. Is it possible that an unseen Creator designed this universe? If God is excluded at the beginning of the discussion by your definition of science, how could it be shown that He did create the universe if He did?
4. Is it wise and fair to present the theory of evolution to students as fact?
5. What is the end result of a belief in evolution (lifestyle, society, attitude about others, eternal destiny, etc.)?
6. Do people accept evolution because of the following factors?
-It is all they have been taught.
-They like the freedom from God (no moral absolutes, etc.).
-They are bound to support the theory for fear of losing their job or status or grade point average.
-They are too proud to admit they are wrong.
-Evolution is the only philosophy that can be used to justify their political agenda.
7. Should we continue to use outdated, disproved, questionable, or inconclusive evidences to support the theory of evolution because we don�t have a suitable substitute (Piltdown man, recapitulation, archaeopteryx, Lucy, Java man, Neanderthal man, horse evolution, vestigial organs, etc.)?
8. Should parents be allowed to require that evolution not be taught as fact in their school system unless equal time is given to other theories of origins (like divine creation)?
9. What are you risking if you are wrong? "Either there is a God or there is not. Both possibilities are frightening."
10. Why are many evolutionists afraid of the idea of creationism being presented in public schools? 11. If we are not supposed to teach religion in schools, then why not get evolution out of the textbooks? It is just a religious worldview.

Looking forward to your responses.