Isn't it true that the more a group tries to censor it's members, the more suspect it is?

[Subduction Zone]

By the way, when it comes to a scientific hypothesis and someone claims "there is not any evidence for such a hypothesis" they are almost always wrong. By the time one hears of a hypothesis it probably has a large body of evidence that supports it. It merely does not have enough to be widely accepted as a theory or only answers limited questions. That is why I try to teach creationists what is and what is not evidence, but the mere thought that there is evidence for an idea that they do not like appears to scare them into irrationality.

 

[Neb]

Single cell org


Given the amount of time involved, 3-3.5 billion years of mutations and information added, etc, it's not hard to understand how a single cell organism can evolve and diversify into the plethora of life forms we see around us today.

and this is how you explained it, right? I want details..

 

[Neb]

What do you mean? By definition a beneficial mutation is "new information".

Are you familiar with Lenski's experiment? Was it genetic mutation or adaptation?

 

[Neb]

That is a good question. First of C-14 is very limited. It cannot be used on objects older than roughly 50,000 years old because there is not enough C14 to give a reliable date after that amount of time. Radiometric dating is based upon material decays and if all of the material is gone one can only say "this is older than "x" years old". If they dated Lucy with C-14 they would at best get a date that said it was older than 50,000 years.

Exactly! They don't want to know the truth that Lucy was a hoax. Half-life of C-14 is 5730 years and I bet Lucy is nowhere near that age.

The argon argon method was developed from the potassium argon method of dating. Potassium40 decays into Ar40 and Ca40 (calcium 40). The ratio is measurable and constant so we can get a decay constant for just the K/Ar part. The calcium is not of any use because the isotope is plentiful and background calcium would totally obscure radiometric calcium. Luckily argon is both rare and an inert gas. That means when the crystal formed there would be no argon in it. We have a starting amount for one of our materials. That means we can calculate the original amount of potassium too. The Ar40/Ar39 method allows more accuracy than the original Ar/K method.

Here is an article on both. If you have any questions I will gladly help you.

Argon Geochronology Methods

Please note they also include possible problems with the method since there are almost always ways that a tool can be misused. The people that dated Lucy would have been well aware of possible drawbacks.

You did not answer my question. How do you get the age of argon? Where do we find argon?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Are you familiar with Lenski's experiment? Was it genetic mutation or adaptation?

I am pretty sure that it was mutation. But even if it wasn't, so what? There are numerous ways that "new information" enters the genome. Every mutation is by definition "new information". And there are more versions of mutations than you made be aware of. You are probably just thinking of "point mutations" when you hear the word. Point mutations are single changes at one site. They do occur and may be the most common of mutations. But perhaps the most important is gene duplication. That is when a large section of DNA, often including a whole gene or more, is duplicated or copied into another location in the genome:

Gene duplication as a major force in evolution. - PubMed - NCBI

Gene duplication - Wikipedia

There are some genes that are vital to an organism. Normally a mutation in them would cause the offspring to die. Gene duplication allows the gene to mutate since there is a backup in the system doing the job. Either the original or the copy can undergo mutation without threatening the resulting organism. It is how existing genes can change an become more complicated genes.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Exactly! They don't want to know the truth that Lucy was a hoax. Half-life of C-14 is 5730 years and I bet Lucy is nowhere near that age.

What? She is far older than that age. It can't be used. By the way you put a heavy burden of proof upon yourself when you claim she is not that old. They have tested her and she is that old. What part did you not understand?

You did not answer my question. How do you get the age of argon? Where do we find argon?

Once again, I did. You did not understand the answer.

There are layers below Lucy that have lava and ash flows. There are layers above Lucy that have lava and ash flows. That gives us a possible bracket for ages of Lucy. Those have K/40 and the products of radioactive decay of the potassium. Potassium 40 is radioactive. It has a half life of 1.25 billion years. Potassium is a common element in volcanic rock. Since argon is not only a gas, it is an inert gas, that means that existing argon in the melt would be excluded by growing crystals. By measuring the amount of argon in the rock we can get a date.

Why didn't you read the links provided?

 

[Neb]

You have to learn how to crawl before you can learn how to run. Evolution and other basic science first, then abiogenesis. The theory of evolution does not rely on abiogenesis since it deals with life after it got here. Whether it arose naturally through abiogenesis, was magicked into place by a deity, or if a passing ET dumped its waste here, the result of any of those would be life which could evolved.

Creationists often try to move the goalposts to abiogenesis and I usually say I will gladly discuss it once they demonstrate that they can understand the theory of evolution.

we need to be very specific here so we don't keep on moving the goalposts. So, was it from life or non-life that life started here on earth?

 

[Neb]

I am pretty sure that it was mutation. But even if it wasn't, so what? There are numerous ways that "new information" enters the genome. Every mutation is by definition "new information". And there are more versions of mutations than you made be aware of. You are probably just thinking of "point mutations" when you hear the word. Point mutations are single changes at one site. They do occur and may be the most common of mutations. But perhaps the most important is gene duplication. That is when a large section of DNA, often including a whole gene or more, is duplicated or copied into another location in the genome:

Gene duplication as a major force in evolution. - PubMed - NCBI

Gene duplication - Wikipedia

There are some genes that are vital to an organism. Normally a mutation in them would cause the offspring to die. Gene duplication allows the gene to mutate since there is a backup in the system doing the job. Either the original or the copy can undergo mutation without threatening the resulting organism. It is how existing genes can change an become more complicated genes.

You should read the paper and stop guessing.

 

[Subduction Zone]

we need to be very specific here so we don't keep on moving the goalposts. So, was it from life or non-life that life started here on earth?

Sorry, but there is no point in discussing abiogenesis yet. But even creationists believe in life from non-life.

Let's work on your basic science skills first, then we can discuss abiogenesis.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You should read the paper and stop guessing.

No one is guessing. I tried to simplify it for you. Once again, what part did you have a hard time understanding?

 

[Neb]

What? She is far older than that age. It can't be used. By the way you put a heavy burden of proof upon yourself when you claim she is not that old. They have tested her and she is that old. What part did you not understand?




Once again, I did. You did not understand the answer.

There are layers below Lucy that have lava and ash flows. There are layers above Lucy that have lava and ash flows. That gives us a possible bracket for ages of Lucy. Those have K/40 and the products of radioactive decay of the potassium. Potassium 40 is radioactive. It has a half life of 1.25 billion years. Potassium is a common element in volcanic rock. Since argon is not only a gas, it is an inert gas, that means that existing argon in the melt would be excluded by growing crystals. By measuring the amount of argon in the rock we can get a date.

Why didn't you read the links provided?

You are contradicting yourself. "They have tested her and she is that old."
"Lucy" was dated by dating the strata above, on the side and below the fossil using Argon-Argon or Ar-Ar and Potassium-Argon or K-Ar dating methods. IOW, Lucy was NOT directly dated by any dating method and this is what I was saying had they dated Lucy with C-14 they would have found out that she was not even near the half-life or 5730 years of age. Do you understand this?

 

[Neb]

Sorry, but there is no point in discussing abiogenesis yet. But even creationists believe in life from non-life.

Let's work on your basic science skills first, then we can discuss abiogenesis.

this is your chance to prove that life really began from a non-living molecule to man.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You are contradicting yourself. "They have tested her and she is that old."
"Lucy" was dated by dating the strata above, on the side and below the fossil using Argon-Argon or Ar-Ar and Potassium-Argon or K-Ar dating methods. IOW, Lucy was NOT directly dated by any dating method and this is what I was saying had they dated Lucy with C-14 they would have found out that she was not even near the half-life or 5730 years of age. Do you understand this?

No contradiction. Lucy has to be older than the strata above her. That should be obvious. Lucy has to be younger than the strata below her. That puts a bracket on her age. And even the material above her is far too old to date by C14. I understand you just fine. The lack of understanding is not coming from me.

 

[Neb]

No one is guessing. I tried to simplify it for you. Once again, what part did you have a hard time understanding?

then tell what is Lenski's experiment about?

 

[Drizzt Do'Urden]

No one is guessing. I tried to simplify it for you. Once again, what part did you have a hard time understanding?

It's like wrestling with a greased pig...

 

[Subduction Zone]

this is your chance to prove that life really began from a non-living molecule to man.

No need. We are not discussing that right now and to date you have only demonstrated that even if I did you would not understand it. Until you demonstrate that you can be honest enough to learn the more obvious there is no point into going into an even more difficult area of the sicences.

Earlier you accused me of guessing. I don't know why, but I did simplify this concept for you:

"Gene duplications are an essential source of genetic novelty that can lead to evolutionary innovation. Duplication creates genetic redundancy, where the second copy of the gene is often free from selective pressure—that is, mutations of it have no deleterious effects to its host organism. If one copy of a gene experiences a mutation that affects its original function, the second copy can serve as a 'spare part' and continue to function correctly. Thus, duplicate genes accumulate mutations faster than a functional single-copy gene, over generations of organisms, and it is possible for one of the two copies to develop a new and different function. Some examples of such neofunctionalization is the apparent mutation of a duplicated digestive gene in a family of ice fish into an antifreeze gene and duplication leading to a novel snake venom gene[4] and the synthesis of 1 beta-hydroxytestosterone.[5]"

 

[Subduction Zone]

then tell what is Lenski's experiment about?

It was an experiment to see how the genome of E. coli varied over time under specific environmental pressures. A mutation probably occurred. Unfortunately unless one took the genome of every singled E. coli introduced into the experiment (a practice that destroys them) one could not be 100% sure. The mutation was not observed before the experiment so it probably did occur in the experiment itself.

Why bring up this red herring?

 

[Subduction Zone]

It's like wrestling with a greased pig...

Yep, creationists are amazingly afraid to learn. But then that is why they are creationists. I do not think it is an intelligence issue. Fear keeps them from learning, not an inability to think.

 

[Neb]

No contradiction. Lucy has to be older than the strata above her. That should be obvious. Lucy has to be younger than the strata below her. That puts a bracket on her age. And even the material above her is far too old to date by C14. I understand you just fine. The lack of understanding is not coming from me.

Guessing again. Please read the whole story on how they got Lucy's age. That's why I ask you on how they got the age of argon or where do we find argon?

 

[Drizzt Do'Urden]

Yep, creationists are amazingly afraid to learn. But then that is why they are creationists. I do not think it is an intelligence issue. Fear keeps them from learning, not an inability to think.

I would never, and could never, question their intelligence.

Their intellectual honesty and consistency are an entirely different matter.