First Large-Scale Formal Quantitative Test Confirms Darwin's Theory of Universal Comm

[CenCalPlayer]

Interesting read!! Thanks!!

 

[Howard2k]

This is an interesting theory, so I appreciate you posting it. I have read this idea before. One of the problems I see with that is how do we then distinguish between what we are measuring in other fossils? If the carbon is recycled, is this method of dating actually reliable?

Good call. Geo probably knows the answer to this better than I do. Carbon Dating DOES have some accepted challenges. This being one of them.

It is certainly not flawless, you would use it as an indicator when looking at the overall evidence available.

 

[CenCalPlayer]

I'm confused. I don't understand what we're disagreeing about.

The world's older than dirt. Something magical happened to it a very long time ago, and keeps happening. Next?

+++++++++++++++++ 1

Well said!!! Why can't both sides be right? How long is one of God's days? River is correct, something magical happened and continues to happen....it's called Life....

 

[ehs5mw]

Speaking of Life, I managed to miss the series "Life" on blu-ray yesterday from Barnes & Noble. It was only 32 dollars shipped! And, on top of that, it was the version narrated by David Attenborough instead of Oprah. now it's around 70 dollars, I think. I will have to pick it up later. Planet Earth on blu-ray is one of my favorite purchases.

 

[Howard2k]

While it may fit in with your idea of how evolution may have played out, it certainly does not fill in any gap. Rather, it creates a gap. What did it need the web for if there weren't flying insects all over the place? Hmm... interesting, huh? The model needs to be modified. You can say it's still valid, but it does have to be changed to accomodate this.

We do not know that there were NO insects. We just believe that this pre-dates a particular insect explosion.

We have dragonfly fossils that pre-date this one by hundreds of millions of years. So no, it is not producing a gap, just filling a gap.

 

[ehs5mw]

We do not know that there were NO insects. We just believe that this pre-dates a particular insect explosion.

We have dragonfly fossils that pre-date this one by hundreds of millions of years. So no, it is not producing a gap, just filling a gap.

I see your point, though I don't agree when I see the estimated dates, but so be it.

Speaking of those dragonfly fossils, why do we not have any example at all, ever, of a transition between walking insects and flying insects? Why do we not find partial wings ever?

 

[Exluthier]

Sorry this does some Creationist bashing but it also explains the reservoir effect as well some other limitations of carbon dating.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QbvMB57evy4]YouTube - Carbon dating doesn't work -- debunked[/ame]

 

[Howard2k]

We do have partial wings. The Ostrich has wing stubs but cannot fly. Ditto the Kiwi. Also the Kakapo. These are birds, not insects, but they are arguably examples of animals in a incomplete phase of evolution. Though you could never say that evolution was complete.

The female gypsy moth has under developed wing muscles and cannot fly. The common fly seems to have lost a pair of wings (they now act as stabilizers).

Ants are another example. We see some ants who have maintained their wings (the queen, some males ants) while other worker ants have lost theirs. Even the flea seems to have had wings at some point. Plenty of examples.

 

[ehs5mw]

Sorry this does some Creationist bashing but it also explains the reservoir effect as well some other limitations of carbon dating.

YouTube - Carbon dating doesn't work -- debunked

Thanks for the video. I don't know if I would call that Creationist bashing, since they are only bashing one person. Still, the reservoir effect can be seen and expected in more than marine wildlife. We have seen all of these articles warning about the innacuracies of the dating method, and yet this guy in the video is saying not to worry about it because we knew it wasn't always right. That isn't the correct approach. What we should be doing is saying, hey, this method doesn't always work; maybe we should consider another approach. Instead, he chooses simply to say that this one guy (often a target of criticism) is being manipulative. In fact, "real" scientists are the ones who came up with these warnings, so why are they not heeded by more scientists? I find these studies sufficient ground to doubt other carbon dating results.

 

[ehs5mw]

We do have partial wings. The Ostrich has wing stubs but cannot fly. Ditto the Kiwi. Also the Kakapo. These are birds, not insects, but they are arguably examples of animals in a incomplete phase of evolution. Though you could never say that evolution was complete.

The female gypsy moth has under developed wing muscles and cannot fly. The common fly seems to have lost a pair of wings (they now act as stabilizers).

Ants are another example. We see some ants who have maintained their wings (the queen, some males ants) while other worker ants have lost theirs. Even the flea seems to have had wings at some point. Plenty of examples.

I guess I should have been more upfront in saying that the examples we have do not seem to be any transition at all from non-flying to flying. The examples you give are all used to suggest the opposite effect. Still, this suggests adaptation if anything, not macroevolution. I can see why you might take that next big step, but I don't think we have any of the evidence necessary to make that leap.

 

[Splattle101]

One of the most elegant parts of evolution is the smallness of the steps it requires. No big steps are needed.

 

[River]

One of the most elegant parts of evolution is the smallness of the steps it requires. No big steps are needed.

+1. And I think that's where our minds' inability to truly grasp epochal time scales puts us at a distinct disadvantage.

I can say I "get" it, I can even think I "get" it. But when I see conglomerate rocks and boulders in my yard that I know have made three or more round trips from stream bed to mountain top to become what they are today, I accept that I really don't fully grasp it at all.

 

[ehs5mw]

Again, just to be clear, I recognize that I believe something vastly different from what many of you believe. I'm looking at much of the exact same information, but I have come to a different conclusion. Your bias is different than mine.

Neither viewpoint is completely objective. Both are beliefs. There is evidence to support both claims. I think the evidence favors one, you think it favors the other. Others may believe it favors a totally different explanation.

I see this turning from a simple explanation of our thoughts in the form of a quasi-debate to a bashing of beliefs. Both sides believe the other side is wrong, or there would be no issue. Maybe we should just leave it at that. Continuing to reintroduce information that most all of us have probably seen is only going to frustrate each of us, right?

If anyone is interested in how people perceive something or what they believe, I'm thinking they could just ask them in a PM, no?

So far, so civil, but I'm not so sure it will stay that way. The evidence will be interpreted through bias regardless of your viewpoint.

 

[Exluthier]

Thanks for the video. I don't know if I would call that Creationist bashing, since they are only bashing one person. Still, the reservoir effect can be seen and expected in more than marine wildlife. We have seen all of these articles warning about the innacuracies of the dating method, and yet this guy in the video is saying not to worry about it because we knew it wasn't always right. That isn't the correct approach. What we should be doing is saying, hey, this method doesn't always work; maybe we should consider another approach. Instead, he chooses simply to say that this one guy (often a target of criticism) is being manipulative. In fact, "real" scientists are the ones who came up with these warnings, so why are they not heeded by more scientists? I find these studies sufficient ground to doubt other carbon dating results.

I think it's more a matter of saying in these cases it doesn't work. It is one tool for dating, not the only one.

 

[ehs5mw]

+1. And I think that's where our minds' inability to truly grasp epochal time scales puts us at a distinct disadvantage.

I can say I "get" it, I can even think I "get" it. But when I see conglomerate rocks and boulders in my yard that I know have made three or more round trips from stream bed to mountain top to become what they are today, I accept that I really don't fully grasp it at all.

River, I think some of the best dreams I have ever had were exploring your back yard. Alaska was the most incredible place I've been and I believe ever will visit (here on Earth), but the pictures you post of your yard and surroundings always leave an impression on me. I don't know how you ever leave.

 

[River]

River, I think some of the best dreams I have ever had were exploring your back yard. Alaska was the most incredible place I've been and I believe ever will visit (here on Earth), but the pictures you post of your yard and surroundings always leave an impression on me. I don't know how you ever leave.

It's tough - it really is. I'm itching to get back right now. The isolation would drive some people crazy - it drives me sane.

In that vein, here's one of my favorite little pictures. One of those Crestone Conglomerate rocks is clearly visible, just above the young lady's left (our right) ear. (Those rocks crawl around at night, too. You have to watch your step.)

 

[djwilbanks]

You, me and Paul agree then. Faith is the ability to believe that for which there is no material evidence or support.

Paul probably didn't write Hebrews (), but I'll concede the point. And, of course, I'll move on from subjects of religion, sure wouldn't want to piss off a mod, huh?

In the case of evolution in man, I have a questions. Why do we laugh? What would cause an involuntary response in our diaphragm that causes a violent expulsion of sound and air when we find something humorous? Tommy Thunders and I had a good long discussion about that one night and we both came to the conclusion that we don't know.

I have a couple more, but I'll have to remember them...

 

[ehs5mw]

Paul probably didn't write Hebrews (), but I'll concede the point. And, of course, I'll move on from subjects of religion, sure wouldn't want to piss off a mod, huh?

In the case of evolution in man, I have a questions. Why do we laugh? What would cause an involuntary response in our diaphragm that causes a violent expulsion of sound and air when we find something humorous? Tommy Thunders and I had a good long discussion about that one night and we both came to the conclusion that we don't know.

I have a couple more, but I'll have to remember them...

Deej, it sounds like you are talking about a fart, not a laugh!

 

[djwilbanks]

Deej, it sounds like you are talking about a fart, not a laugh!

Sounds that way. But think about it. Think about the last time you laughed, really belly laughed... laughed until your head hurt and your eyes watered and your side was splitting.

There's no logical, evolutionary need for that is there?

 

[geochem1st]

This is an interesting theory, so I appreciate you posting it. I have read this idea before. One of the problems I see with that is how do we then distinguish between what we are measuring in other fossils? If the carbon is recycled, is this method of dating actually reliable?

The carbon is recycled in various amounts depending on what type of organism you are dating. The higher up the food chain, the more concentration of older carbon, especially in the colder polar regions where aquatic animals come in contact with very old water.

The key is in the ratio's of the different carbon isotopes. As you approach the limits of a method they become less reliable, hence real data is always presented with error bars for probability. All of the instrumentation used in science have operational limits and correct procedures to use to avoid misreadings and false data generation. The more a procedure is reproducible the more reliable it becomes.

Carbon-14 decays with a half-life of about 5730 years by the emission of an electron of energy 0.016 MeV. This changes the atomic number of the nucleus to 7, producing a nucleus of nitrogen-14. At equilibrium with the atmosphere, a gram of carbon shows an activity of about 15 decays per minute.

The low activity of the carbon-14 limits age determinations to the order of 50,000 years by counting techniques. That can be extended to perhaps 100,000 years by accelerator techniques for counting the carbon-14 concentration.

So there are limitations to carbon dating. Dating dinosaur bones which are 65 million years old and older is out of the question with carbon dating. Different isotopes are used for that to provide a longer range. Many different dating methods are used to check on accuracy and reproducibility.

The key to radioactive dating is understanding that the rate of radioactive decay is a constant. It is so constant that without it, everyday technology that we take for granted would not function otherwise.

For example, our GPS network. It can only work thanks to the precise sub-second measurements of onboard atomic clocks. If the atomic decay rate was variable we would never be able to use atomic clocks and GPS. Controllable nuclear fission for the creation of electricity would be similarly impossible. There are many, many other examples including nuclear medicine diagnostics.

The physical constants we have discovered, the speed of light in a vacuum, the rates of nuclear decay, acceleration due to gravity, all play incredibly important parts of our day to day technology. Their truths are proven again and again everyday with practical usage. The more we learn the more we fine tune.