|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 01/30/2004 : 05:01:39 [Permalink]
|
I think at this point, I'll toss in the Cuffey. Thus, we might avoid the tired, old 'no transitional fossils' nonsense as preached by Ken, Jonathon, Phillip, John & Jan, Duane, Kent, Guido, et al. Having seen it so many times before, we all know it's just over the horizon. 
quote:
Mammal-Like Reptiles
As previously stated, a succession of transitional fossils exists that link reptiles (Class Reptilia) and mammals (Class Mammalia). These particular reptiles are classifie as Subclass Synapsida. Presently, this is the best example of th e transformation of one major higher taxon into another. The morphologic changes that took place are well documented by fossils, beginning with animals essentially 100% reptilian and resulting in animals essentially 100% mammalian. Therefore, I have chosen this as the example to summarize in more detail (Table 1, Fig. 1).
http://www.gcssepm.org/special/cuffey_05.htm
This is a very interesting paper and one of my favorites. It is the product of a great deal of research by some highly qualfied people. Enjoy!
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
 |
|
|
Renae
SFN Regular
543 Posts |
Posted - 01/30/2004 : 06:16:37 [Permalink]
|
Jarrid, you said you're not a "wise" man. Can I briefly disagree?
Part of wisdom, to me, is knowing what we DON'T know. You've come here in the spirit of learning, which is more than many (if not most) creationists do--and I think it's very wise. I've found my humility gets me farther in life than my arrogance, ya know?
A family member of mine is a scientist (health researcher). I asked him a health question that was beyond his area of expertise, and he told me honestly that he couldn't comment on it; that he hadn't read the research and even if he had, he wasn't qualified to judge the quality of the research. Keep in mind, he's a PhD and among the best in his field...yet he didn't believe he was qualified.
That's typical, I think, of how good scientists think.
Hopefully this isn't a threadjack. Keep posting, Jarrid!  |
|
|
|
moakley
SFN Regular
USA
1888 Posts |
Posted - 01/30/2004 : 06:35:27 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jarrid
... I am a creationist, plain and simple. I've never had anyone change my mind yet, and it is not because I have a closed mind. ...
You demand compelling evidence supporting the Theory of Evolution, but you don't make the same demand for your creation myth. I know you have stated that there is no evidence to support your creation myth, but you believe it anyway.
I believe that you are being dishonest with yourself and us, that you haven't spent any time learning about what you deny so vehemently. I simply do not understand how you can honestly reach a conclusion about any assertion when your criteria for that evaluation clearly begins with whether the assertion is in any way contrary to your absolute truth.
You do not make any demands on creationism, you are a creationist, your mind is closed on the creation vs evolution debate. Do not continue breaking one of your 10 commandments. |
Life is good
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous |
|
|
|
Jarrid
Skeptic Friend
101 Posts |
Posted - 01/30/2004 : 08:41:09 [Permalink]
|
moakley,
The reason I believe in creationism is because it is what has been taught to me. I think me coming here and then going to the true origins website has proven that I do not have a closed mind. Science cannot prove the existence of God, nor creationism, but it cannot disprove it, either. Now, logically, it would take more faith to believe in creationism than evolution, from what I understand, but I was talking to a good friend of mine last night who is an evolutionist...well actually I don't know if I would label him as an evolutionist but his religious beliefs would be based in science, and he said that a lot of things he believes are taken in faith based on scientific research, although not requiring as much faith, as say, creationism would. The closest thing to evidence that I can produce to support creationism is the Bible's interpretation of history compared to what man has written down as history, as little of that as there is that date back to Old Testament times. Which of the 10 Commandments am I breaking, by the way?
Renae:
Thanks for your kind words. I learned a LOT yesterday, and I'm hoping to come to an even better understanding of Evolution today. I agree with you: Intelligence isn't held in the proud and haughty, but rather in the humble--those who are willing to admit that they don't know everything but are willing to learn.
Filthy:
Transitional fossils...I think I know what they are, but I'm not sure. Would they be described maybe as a "Missing Link"?
Dave:
The mosquitos you referred to...can they mate?
And also, what was the error in your example? I'm rather ignorant(ignorance is the lack of knowledge, while stupidity is the lack of the use of that knowledge) when it comes to this so I didn't catch it.
Jarrid |
I don't have to go swimming through an outhouse to know I wouldn't like it." |
|
|
|
Jarrid
Skeptic Friend
101 Posts |
Posted - 01/30/2004 : 08:53:28 [Permalink]
|
| and another question to whoever wants to answer it: C-14 dating....what is it? |
I don't have to go swimming through an outhouse to know I wouldn't like it." |
|
|
|
jmcginn
Skeptic Friend
343 Posts |
Posted - 01/30/2004 : 09:44:51 [Permalink]
|
Jarrid,
quote:
jmcginn, unfortunately i don't have my textbook anymore. after graduation i had to return it, but there was a section about the peppered moth experiment stuff and from what i understand the experiment was "faked", but yet my textbook still used it as an example of evolution.
Sorry then I really can't help you much in evaluating your textbook and as Dave stated above, the peppered moth still stands as valid evidence for evolution even though the pictures were staged (as are just about every wildlife picture taken for textbooks). In fact its valid evidence for what you are calling micro-evolution, something you readily agree happens. I am not for sure if I understand then what your complaint is.
quote:
ok this is probably a difficult thing to cover, but can someone break down the evolution thing for me in simple terms?
Sure, but it will take a bit.
First the basics of inheritance and traits
#1. All of the traits of any organism are a combination of genetic and environmental factors. These include morphological, physiological, behavioral, etc.
#2. Genetic factors are passed on from generation to generation.
#3. Sexual organisms get a mixture of genetic factors from each parent (usually around half, but this is not always the case in every species).
#4. Asexual organisms get their entire genetic factors from their single parent.
#5. During the reproductive process (meiosis, mitosis, cell division, etc.) and early development often copy errors are introduced into the genetic material so the offspring does not get exact copies from its parent(s). In fact this happens at such frequency that on average every sperm or egg a human produces has 1.5 of these.
#6. These mutations often have no effect on the traits of the organism (effecting only the large amounts of junk DNA found in many species DNA).
#7. However sometimes the mutations do effect the traits of the organism, sometimes drastically, other times very little. Sometimes these changes are beneficial, sometimes they are detrimental, many times they are neutral.
#8. Over generations these mutations accumulate so that both the genetic make-up and the traits of distant descendants are different than their ancestors.
#9. This is how new genetic factors are introduced or the source for genetic variation.
Second the basics of populations and the struggle for existence.
#1. Species form into smaller units called populations. These are a group of similar organisms that interbreed.
#2. Populations occupy an environment with limited resources (resources could be food, habitat, water, mates, etc.)
#3. When population levels are high and resources are low, the population grows rapidly and there is little competition for the plentiful resources.
#4. However in must environments this is not the case and there is high competition for limited resources.
#5. Most species reproduce at rates far too high for all offspring to survive in their environments.
#6. A percentage (usually a large one) dies before reaching maturity and having offspring.
Third competition, natural selection, and evolution
#1. Individual organisms within a population differ in their traits.
#2. Certain traits within an environment may offer an advantage in the competition for resources.
#3. If these traits have a genetic basis then it will be passed on to the individuals offspring.
#4. Since they have a trait that gives them an advantage they and their offspring will have a higher chance to survive and reproduce.
#5. Over generations the trait will spread across the population and become the dominate trait (this is a very simplified explanation and there are lots of other factors involved such as genetic drift, heterozygous advantage, etc.)
#6. This same process can also happen with new traits introduced via mutation as described above.
#7. Over time the genetic make-up of the population will change (this is normally called the allele frequency, but in essence the % of certain genetic traits changes over time). This is the basic definition of evolution.
Finally long term evolution and speciation
#1. Populations and environments are constantly changing and always have been.
#2. Environments often undergo dramatic changes and these changes can make certain traits that used to be advantageous no longer so and visa versa.
#3. Populations also are constantly changing, immigrations and emigrations, extinctions, migrations, etc. Each type of change can effect both the genetic make up of a population and also its environment thus influencing which traits are advantageous or disadvantageous.
#4. When a sub-group from a population separates from the parent group they and the parent group will continue to accumulate different mutations thus gradually becoming different from each other.
#5. Over time they will eventually become reproductively isolated from each other so even they were to later come into contact with each other they would no longer interbreed and thus be 2 different species. This can actually happen quite rapidly, one study documented reproductive isolation in as few as 13 generations in 2 populations of salmon separated into separate pools. This is the basic definition of allopatric speciation.
#6. Since they are no longer ever reproducing again, the 2 populations will continue to diverge over time and continue to accumulate more and more different traits.
#7. This is just one kind of speciation and there are others, sympatric, hybrid, etc.
Boy that was long, but enjoy. |
|
|
|
jmcginn
Skeptic Friend
343 Posts |
Posted - 01/30/2004 : 09:58:27 [Permalink]
|
Jarrid,
quote:
and another question to whoever wants to answer it: C-14 dating....what is it?
C-14 dating is one type of radiometric dating, however it is also one that is very different from the other types.
C-14 dating relies upon the carbon accumulation that occurs in an organism. As you may know we are carbon based organisms and all of the organic molecules in our body are made highly of carbon chains with other molecules attached (hydrogen, oxygen, etc.)
We being heterotrophs get our carbon from what we eat. On the other hand autotrophs get their carbon from the surrounding environment and then use an energy source to make its molecules (e.g. sun for plants, chemicals for certain bacteria).
Either way it goes we get our carbon from the atmosphere (or surrounding environment). The carbon in the atmosphere is composed of a known ratio of normal carbon (C-12) and a radioactive carbon (C-14). The C-14 as I understand is created (or maybe influenced) by the sun. Thus as we intake carbon from our food we take in the same % of C-14 as is found in the atmosphere.
C-14 like all radioactive isotopes has a known half-life (~5700 years). So if we have an organic based sample we can measure the C-14 left over and compare the differences in the expected percentages and then using the half-life calculate the age of the sample. Now C-14 does have a relatively short half-life compared to other isotopes used for radiometric dating so it is normally only good to things younger than ~40,000 years, because after that so little C-14 is left it becomes very hard to detect. However some new techniques I believe have pushed that back to around ~100,000 years with less accuracy of course.
Like I said above C-14 is very different from the other dating methods because as far as I know it is the only method used directly on the organic material discovered. The other techniques as K-Ar or Ar-Ar are used on the sediments the specimen is found in. Also it is one of the few techniques in that young date range that we have. For example K-Ar which has a huge half-life (in the billions of years) is only good for dates older than 200,000 years or so.
To demonstrate the differences let me also describe how K-Ar works. There is a radioactive isotope of potassium (K) that decays into a stable version of argon (Ar). Argon is an inert gas so it does not react with anything. K-Ar is normally used on volcanic sediments. This is because when the eruption occurs the heat drives out any existing Ar and then the volcanic crystals form they become a sealed chamber. Potassium then slowly decays into Ar and Ar slowly accumulates in these crystals. Millions or billions of years later we dig them up, measure the Argon and using the known half-life calculate a date. |
|
|
|
Jarrid
Skeptic Friend
101 Posts |
Posted - 01/30/2004 : 10:08:58 [Permalink]
|
| So how many different types of dating are there? And I don't quite understand the K-Ar dating...it has a life of billions of years, so we date it by how much is left? How do we know how much it started with? Sorry just a little confused on that one. |
I don't have to go swimming through an outhouse to know I wouldn't like it." |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 01/30/2004 : 11:04:35 [Permalink]
|
Jarrid wrote:quote:
Dave:
The mosquitos you referred to...can they mate?
A decent story about Culex molestus includes:quote:
Although the two varieties look identical, their habits differ sharply. C. pipiens [the above-ground mosquito] hibernates in winter; C. molestus breeds year-round in the warm subway, but it cannot survive the cold. C. pipiens must swarm in the open before mating, whereas C. molestus thrives in confined spaces. When Byrne crossbred the two varieties, none produced viable eggs--suggesting that C. molestus is reproductively isolated, the traditional signature of a new species. (Given the great differences in their behavior, Byrne notes, C. pipiens and C. molestus probably rarely meet or mate "in the wild.")
See also the Observed Instances of Speciation FAQ at talk.origins, for more examples of speciation observed by living human beings.
You also asked:quote:
And also, what was the error in your example? I'm rather ignorant(ignorance is the lack of knowledge, while stupidity is the lack of the use of that knowledge) when it comes to this so I didn't catch it.
Well, the more I think about it, the less I'm sure it's an "error," in that I'm not sure that the hypotheticals I describe are strictly impossible. It's probably more like something which is highly improbable, though I'm not a geneticist myself. Also, I'd rather leave the answer unsaid at the moment, as a puzzle for others participating in this thread.
And to add a small bit to the description of carbon dating provided by jmcginn, scientists have validated carbon dating for the latest 13,000 years or so by comparing carbon dates to tree-ring dates, so we're pretty confident that it works, in general. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 01/30/2004 : 11:26:55 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Filthy:
Transitional fossils...I think I know what they are, but I'm not sure. Would they be described maybe as a "Missing Link"?
Umm. "Missing link" is another of those commonly used terms that is really not very accurate. In fact, I will go so far as to state that there is no such thing as a 'missing link' in science.
Today, the fossil record of many species is so well known and documented that a fossil yet unfound can be accuratly extrepolated (I think that's a word) from existing knowledge, as the ToE predicts.
There was a very interesting skull found in Chad a few years ago. it was dated, by other, known fossils in the area as a matter of fact, at between 6 and 7 million years old. It is thought to be one of our very own transitionals (missing link?  ), where hominids split off from apes. The peer review of this find has become all but bloody, as might be expected, and I am waiting on some consencious to be reached. The skull's name is 'Toumi', if I've spelled that right, and the papers to be written on it will be exhaustive and boring in the extreme, except to us. Don't have time at the moment, but I'll look it up and post the latest info this evening. Currently, I myself, think that more fossils of the species need to be found and studied before anything definaive can be stated.
I checked your profile and I see you're from Sturgis. This comming Aug., I'm tentivly planning to kick some respect into my '46 Harley and get out your way.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
jmcginn
Skeptic Friend
343 Posts |
Posted - 01/30/2004 : 11:53:28 [Permalink]
|
Jarrid,
read the article I gave to you on page 1 (Radiometric Dating, A Christian Perspective). It describes quite a few different techniques. There are at least a dozen.
Because when the volcanic matter is heated the argon gas is pushed out, so it starts with 0 argon.
Edited to add the following:
Also since Argon is a relatively light weight inert gas (its one of the noble elements which are do not react virtually with anything under normal conditions) we don't have to worry about argon coming from any other source other than radioactive decay including seeping in from the outside.
However we do have to worry about argon seeping out (escaping) from the crystals especially if the crystals become weathered. Of course this results in a younger calculated date instead of an older one. Dating technicians are quite good at spotting signs of this under the microscope and actually this error had occurred a few times in the past. One of the most famous being the dating of some specimens found by Richard Leakey which turned out to be older than was originally calculated. |
| Edited by - jmcginn on 01/30/2004 12:01:20 |
|
|
|
jmcginn
Skeptic Friend
343 Posts |
Posted - 01/30/2004 : 12:06:37 [Permalink]
|
| Also to add to Dave W's comments on validating C-14 dating. C-14 dating has also been validated via ice core samples back even farther and also has been used quite a bit in dating Biblical related artifacts. For some reason most creationists don't have a problem with these dates, but come up with various weird ad hoc stories to try and explain way any dates too old for their liking. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 01/30/2004 : 12:20:40 [Permalink]
|
jmcginn wrote:quote:
For some reason most creationists don't have a problem with these dates, but come up with various weird ad hoc stories to try and explain way any dates too old for their liking.
Or too young, as with the shroud of Turin. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
jmcginn
Skeptic Friend
343 Posts |
Posted - 01/30/2004 : 12:38:26 [Permalink]
|
| Good point Dave, I had forgotten about that little exception :> |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 01/30/2004 : 13:04:19 [Permalink]
|
| (BTW, jcmginn, it's good to see you posting again.) |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
