What is Evolution Article

[Bunyip]

Thank you, I have rudimentary understanding how radiometric dating work. They measure the rate of decay of lets say Potassium into argon. I can tell you that I am skeptical of the accuracy of it. Which could be based on how knowledgeable I am on the topic, but I will share my major reason why.

It can't be used on any rock that we have seen formed. This is because it is supposedly only accurate in long term dating. Which is the whole reason I have a hard time believing it.

If it is not accurate in the short term, how are we supposed to know it is accurate in the long term. Without being able to test it, it seems like speculation, based on theory.

Decay rates are so reliably predictable that we literally use them to set our clocks. That is how we time the races in the Olympics. Clocks based on radioactive decay rates are the most accurate machines ever made.

 

[Parsimony]

Thank you, I have rudimentary understanding how radiometric dating work. They measure the rate of decay of lets say Potassium into argon. I can tell you that I am skeptical of the accuracy of it. Which could be based on how knowledgeable I am on the topic, but I will share my major reason why.

It can't be used on any rock that we have seen formed. This is because it is supposedly only accurate in long term dating. Which is the whole reason I have a hard time believing it.

If it is not accurate in the short term, how are we supposed to know it is accurate in the long term. Without being able to test it, it seems like speculation, based on theory.

I actually had that same argument against it before I did more research. As it turns out, we can actually know what the isotopic composition of certain types of rock were when they first formed. Take zircon for example. When it is in a molten state, certain elements can dissolve in it but others cannot. Uranium, for example, can dissolve in zircon and is capable of neatly displacing zirconium atoms in the crystal lattice. Lead, on the other hand, is not able to do this and will not dissolve in molten zircon.

This is an important chemical property because it means that the only way that significant amounts of lead can be in a zircon crystal is either (1) external contamination that may occur if the crystal was cracked, or (2) internal radioactive decay.

When geologists pick out zircons for dating, they explicitly avoid weathered or otherwise damaged rock to avoid scenario (1). However, contamination can also be detected in a more precise way: by checking the isotope ratios. Since the only lead isotopes that can be produced by uranium decay are lead-206 and lead-207, the presence of any other isotopes of lead in the sample will demonstrate that it is contaminated (as naturally-occurring lead also contains lead-204, which is never a product of natural radioactive decay)

So (1) we know that when a zircon first formed, there was no lead in it, and (2) we can detect lead that results from contamination. Given this information, it can then be calculated based on the relative amounts of uranium and lead isotopes in the rock when the rock first solidified. Not only that, but there are actually two radiometric clocks here that can testify to the rock's age independently: the decay rate of uranium-238 to lead-206 (half-life 4.47 billion years) and the decay rate of uranium-235 to lead-207 (half-life 704 million years). When these two tests give similar ages, that only reinforces their accuracy.

 

[Ijustwantpeace]

Ok. Well I'm struggling to understand you then - why would it be any different? Surely apes are related just as felines and canines are? You seem to be making a very arbitrary distinction. Why would you accept one but be skeptical of the other - given that the evidence is the same?

Well no, of course not. Evolution does not even attempt to explain origins, it is about how species change over time.
Do you mean abiogenesis?

Thanks for being so polite by the way, I appreciate it very much.

My question in turn is; Can you honestly tell me that you can not see the close relationship between a chimp and a gorilla? You can see it in the felines and the canines - are you honestly telling me that you can not see that chimps and gorillas are the same family?

A. Let me clarify it by explaining my current (yet not conclusive) origins belief. I believe that it is possible that God created kinds (species, or animal families) Such as an original Canine if you will, and all of the canines we have now are mutations of the original. Or an Original feline Original ape etc etc. Man however would be in a class or species or kind of its own. The we also have traits that have been changed based on the environment such as skin color or hair etc etc.

I prefer this model over the traditional evolution model due to the lack of positive mutations that are observed. In my knowledge Most mutations only thrive over the original in specific environments. Once taken out of those specific environments and force to compete with the original it is weaker, and more likely to die out. This can be observed with drug resistant bacteria.

B I do mean from abiogenesis all the way till where we are now.

C I appreciate you being so polite as well, I enjoy having a civil discussion on the matter, and I feel like I've learned quite a bit tonight.

D I do believe chimps and gorilla are in the same families.

 

[Ijustwantpeace]

I actually had that same argument against it before I did more research. As it turns out, we can actually know what the isotopic composition of certain types of rock were when they first formed. Take zircon for example. When it is in a molten state, certain elements can dissolve in it but others cannot. Uranium, for example, can dissolve in zircon and is capable of neatly displacing zirconium atoms in the crystal lattice. Lead, on the other hand, is not able to do this and will not dissolve in molten zircon.

This is an important chemical property because it means that the only way that significant amounts of lead can be in a zircon crystal is either (1) external contamination that may occur if the crystal was cracked, or (2) internal radioactive decay.

When geologists pick out zircons for dating, they explicitly avoid weathered or otherwise damaged rock to avoid scenario (1). However, contamination can also be detected in a more precise way: by checking the isotope ratios. Since the only lead isotopes that can be produced by uranium decay are lead-206 and lead-207, the presence of any other isotopes of lead in the sample will demonstrate that it is contaminated (as naturally-occurring lead also contains lead-204, which is never a product of natural radioactive decay)

So (1) we know that when a zircon first formed, there was no lead in it, and (2) we can detect lead that results from contamination. Given this information, it can then be calculated based on the relative amounts of uranium and lead isotopes in the rock when the rock first solidified. Not only that, but there are actually two radiometric clocks here that can testify to the rock's age independently: the decay rate of uranium-238 to lead-206 (half-life 4.47 billion years) and the decay rate of uranium-235 to lead-207 (half-life 704 million years). When these two tests give similar ages, that only reinforces their accuracy.

Thank you for the information, could you send me the links to your sources so I could read it for myself.

 

[Bunyip]

A. Let me clarify it by explaining my current (yet not conclusive) origins belief. I believe that it is possible that God created kinds (species, or animal families) Such as an original Canine if you will, and all of the canines we have now are mutations of the original. Or an Original feline Original ape etc etc. Man however would be in a class or species or kind of its own. The we also have traits that have been changed based on the environment such as skin color or hair etc etc.

But we are apes, if you believe that god created the original ape, then what are yo objecting to?

I prefer this model over the traditional evolution model due to the lack of positive mutations that are observed. In my knowledge Most mutations only thrive over the original in specific environments. Once taken out of those specific environments and force to compete with the original it is weaker, and more likely to die out. This can be observed with drug resistant bacteria.

That doesn't make sense - the average human has some 150000 mutations.

B I do mean from abiogenesis all the way till where we are now.

Ok, well lets discuss abiogenesis on a seperate thread then.

C I appreciate you being so polite as well, I enjoy having a civil discussion on the matter, and I feel like I've learned quite a bit tonight.

D I do believe chimps and gorilla are in the same families.

Yes, and humans are even more closely related to chimps than gorillas are.

 

[Ijustwantpeace]

Hey you guys I'm going to bed, it's 2:38 am here. I will be back soon though.

 

[Parsimony]

Thank you for the information, could you send me the links to your sources so I could read it for myself.

You're welcome. There are actually many such sources on this material. The following links provide far more information than I have given (including methods for dating I haven't discussed):

-A Radiometric Dating Resource List
-About Uranium-Lead Dating
-Isochron Dating

 

[TurkeyOnRye]

So I am extremely skeptical of the whole evolution story. This is not based on my christian beliefs as I believe the bible and evolution are not irreconcilable. I have a few Christian friends who believe in the bible and evolution, and have a real faith.

I simply have an extremely hard time believing it. As I think it is largely speculative, and takes empirical evidences and makes gross(large not nasty) assumptions.

For example I'm reading this article on live science, it suppose to be an article that explains the theory of evolution(as I'm trying to become more educated on the topic), but instead I get the story of the supposed evolution of the whale.

If you feel so inclined please read this article with a skeptical eye and try to notice all the assumptions and speculations I believe it makes and promotes as fact.

Darwin's Theory of Evolution: Definition & Evidence

Do you see what I mean? Or does this article seem intellectually equitable to you?

I'm not saying this is the best evidence for the theory, and I'm not completely uneducated on the topic. I have read large swaths of Talkorigins and other evolution promoting website. However, the more I read the less I believe.

This is not a substantive rebuttal of the theory of evolution. This is just a minor articulation of my skepticism on the theory of evolution.

Just to clarify I believe in Micro-evolution.

It's a pretty scatterbrained article, but the bulk of it is essentially accurate...just a terrible way of teaching it to the unacquainted.

Peace, if you are interested in learning about evolution, the best route is via college-level biology and anthropology classes.

I know it might seem like an exaggeration when people say that evolution is a "fact," but really it's not an exaggeration. Evolution is one of the most fundamental principles in science today. The amount of evidence is overwhelming...stupefying. Our understanding of evolutionary theory allows us to make accurate predictions in scientific research.

 

[LuisDantas]

When push comes to shove, discussing whether evolution is true is much like discussing whether electricity exists: we may lack specific academic knowledge, but what are the odds?

 

[Alceste]

Yes I did, I do believe felines and canines are related, I'm just skeptical of the common ancestry of apes.

Remember I said I should have said I believe in aspects of Micro-Evolution

No problem, nothing wrong with getting to the bottom of something and asking probing questions.

Let me ask you a question. Do you ever doubt evolution as an all encompassing theory for origins when you sit and contemplate it logically? Just an honest question, no insinuation in it.

To contemplate it logically one must first understand it. I do understand it, and it is not a theory of origins. It is a theory of the expansion of biological diversity after self replicating life already existed. In this context, and in light of the overwhelming empirical evidence we have for it, I have no doubts about the theory. I have many questions about the details, but google scholar, pop science books on biology, and the occasional perusal of science magazines and radio shows ensures that I am continually learning and putting many questions to rest.

 

[Alceste]

Thank you, I have rudimentary understanding how radiometric dating work. They measure the rate of decay of lets say Potassium into argon. I can tell you that I am skeptical of the accuracy of it. Which could be based on how knowledgeable I am on the topic, but I will share my major reason why.

It can't be used on any rock that we have seen formed. This is because it is supposedly only accurate in long term dating. Which is the whole reason I have a hard time believing it.

If it is not accurate in the short term, how are we supposed to know it is accurate in the long term. Without being able to test it, it seems like speculation, based on theory.

If you don't believe radioactive isotopes decay at a predictable rate, how do you imagine nuclear power works? Just curious.

 

[outhouse]

I believe that it is possible that God created kinds .

Why? there is ZERO evidence that suggest such.

Apply the same criticism you have against evolution which still stands, and "kinds" turns to dust in a half a second.



This is only am matter of educating YOU, not us.

 

[outhouse]

I have read large swaths of Talkorigins .

Well not enough then. because you must have been shaking your head so much none of it took


You asked me where the skulls pictures came from, So you had no clue of this page

29 Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 1


So maybe large swath is not correct.

 

[Ouroboros]

Cross family mutation- My own invention, basically means that I don't believe in things like reptiles evolving into birds etc

But you believe that two different dishes can come out of a kitchen using the same ingredients?

The oldest known bird we have fossils of is a dinosaur. We know it's a dinosaur because it has dinosaur features... and feathers. So it's both. Unless we of course would consider that Satan put those fossils in the ground to deceive us.

 

[Ouroboros]

I said I put little credence in modern academia. Engineering however, of any sort I put much credence in.

So would you put credence in engineering using evolutionary/genetic algorithms with great success?

 

[TurkeyOnRye]

One piece of evidence to show nature's power at guiding evolution is in the giraffe. The laryngeal nerve in the giraffe takes about a 15-foot detour from the brain, loops around a major artery, and back to the larynx...which would be a huge design flaw by a creator. It is a powerful indicator of evolution. Awesome video. Must watch!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cO1a1Ek-HD0

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

So I am extremely skeptical of the whole evolution story. This is not based on my christian beliefs as I believe the bible and evolution are not irreconcilable. I have a few Christian friends who believe in the bible and evolution, and have a real faith.

I simply have an extremely hard time believing it. As I think it is largely speculative, and takes empirical evidences and makes gross(large not nasty) assumptions.

For example I'm reading this article on live science, it suppose to be an article that explains the theory of evolution(as I'm trying to become more educated on the topic), but instead I get the story of the supposed evolution of the whale.

If you feel so inclined please read this article with a skeptical eye and try to notice all the assumptions and speculations I believe it makes and promotes as fact.

Darwin's Theory of Evolution: Definition & Evidence

Do you see what I mean? Or does this article seem intellectually equitable to you?

I'm not saying this is the best evidence for the theory, and I'm not completely uneducated on the topic. I have read large swaths of Talkorigins and other evolution promoting website. However, the more I read the less I believe.

This is not a substantive rebuttal of the theory of evolution. This is just a minor articulation of my skepticism on the theory of evolution.

Just to clarify I believe in Micro-evolution.

Just to clarify, Micro- and Macro-evolution are identical processes. The only difference is the timescale. So called 'microevolution' is what scientists call 'evolution,' so if you believe in microevolution, then TADA, you believe in evolution. So called macroevolution is what scientist call speciation or in Darwin's terms "origin of species."

Evolution or microevoltuion is defined simply as a change in frequency of gene alleles within a population. When two populations are isolated long enough, eventually they evolve to the point that they would no longer be reproductively compatible if no longer physically isolated. There is no additional process, nothing happens, outside of so called microevolution, to precipitate speciation or so called macroevolution.

IFF microevoluiton, THEN macroevolution!!! If you accept the one, and the evidence is overwhelming, then the other is UNAVOIDABLE. You cannot have evolution without it leading to speciation.

 

[idav]

Naturally Christians are skeptical that chimp and human can be related but it makes sense that a chimp is related to gorillas. Thats just inconsistency and confirmation bias.

 

[Ouroboros]

Naturally Christians are skeptical that chimp and human can be related but it makes sense that a chimp is related to gorillas. Thats just inconsistency and confirmation bias.

I think it's a subconscious fear of not being special.

I've noticed that people with a strong religious opinion (I was one of them) also have a very strong idea of being special. He/she is the personally picked and elected individual by God to proclaim the ultimate and absolute truth. One cannot go wrong or be wrong about anything if God himself is telling you in your head what is right and wrong.

If we're related to the simple animals, we're not so special anymore. Why would God bother about just another kind-of ape? That's the question I think many religious ask themselves.

To me though, I feel a closer relationship with nature and reality. I'm honored to exist and be part of the world. I'm delighted and excited to be a highly skilled ape. I can feel the friendship and familiarity with animals, life, plant, planet, space, everything, because I know I came from the same mold. To me, I feel more special being one of many, one from the world, instead of one that's handpicked by a supernatural despot.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

I think it's a subconscious fear of not being special.

I think that's accurate. There is a feeling of hierarchy with god at the top, then man, then the beasts of the field. It's a feeling of superiority.