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 ]