No, a radioactive decay measuring system that has been proven it could be tampered with by climate change.

12/19/2009 11:01:42 PM

Well, 3 billion years isn't exactly chump change. But you're right, it is remarkable that life persisted despite all the disasters. Life took a while to get going but time and again it's shown that unless you destroy every living cell, something will remain and quickly repopulate to fill the same evolutionary niches in short order.

My favorite are these little pig-like fuckers:

After the permian-triassic extinction(250mya, long before the dinosaurs) these type critters crawled out of their burrows, grew in size, and became the most prolific land animal to ever exist. They took over the entire world, every continent. I guess we're only the next critter to do that.

[Edited on December 19, 2009 at 11:08 PM. Reason : Ha, imagine it.]

12/19/2009 11:02:40 PM

Quote :

"WHAT MEASURING SYSTEM?"

1 year = 365.25 days
1 day = 24 hours = Approximately one full rotation of the earth upon its axis

12/19/2009 11:02:47 PM

Quote :

"No, a radioactive decay measuring system that has been proven it could be tampered with by climate change."

Let me help you out: "I believe they used the metric system" was a sarcastic response.

You got a link for how climate change can tamper with radioactive dating?

Also, (again)

What's your suggestion for how all 'this' came into being?

And what's a GLOBAL DISASTER that resets everything?

[Edited on December 19, 2009 at 11:12 PM. Reason : ]

12/19/2009 11:09:36 PM

Carbon 14 is created by cosmic rays impacting nitrogen in Earth's atmosphere. The intensity of these rays vary over time, and earth's climate can release more or less stored (stable) carbon from ocean sediment. Radiocarbon dating relies on the ratio of stable to unstable carbon being consumed(breathed) by organisms being relatively stable. It's not, so calibration is necessary.



[Edited on December 19, 2009 at 11:20 PM. Reason : .]

12/19/2009 11:17:40 PM

^ I understand that.

I'm assuming he means something with such a large effect that 4.5 billion years is completely incorrect.

12/19/2009 11:22:05 PM

^^^ I can't keep repeating myself. No disrespect or anything. And someone posted something about genetics earlier, well Genetics amply demonstrates that evolution is not possible. Harmful mutations build up and helpful ones can be lost. No mechanism for new information to be written into the genetic code of an organism exists in nature. Natural selection acts upon the existing genetic make-up of an organism or species. It cannot create new information necessary for one species to change into another.

[Edited on December 19, 2009 at 11:23 PM. Reason : /]

12/19/2009 11:22:34 PM

Quote :

" Genetics amply demonstrates that evolution is not possible."

"Amply demonstrates", huh?

Got any peer reviewed journals for that?

12/19/2009 11:27:42 PM

Quote :

"No mechanism for new information to be written into the genetic code of an organism exists in nature."

If not for the ozone layer, the sun would scramble your code in seconds. As it is, it takes a bit longer(cancer). Before the ozone layer, there were no organisms on land, only in the sea.

12/19/2009 11:29:52 PM

There is so much stupid in this thread.

12/19/2009 11:40:02 PM

EVOLUTION CANT BE WRONG B/C IF IT IS THAT MEANS IM WRONG AND IF IM WRONG THAT JUST CANT HAPPEN!!!!!!

12/19/2009 11:40:35 PM

AHA, dude learned some big words at Bible camp.

12/19/2009 11:41:08 PM

^^That may just be the first reasonably intelligent thing you've ever posted on TSB.

Good job. +1 gold star.

12/19/2009 11:42:34 PM

And here comes the insult crew. Time for me to make my departure. Thanks folks A Tanzarian, smc and a few others for the conversation.

12/19/2009 11:43:35 PM

I mean did you think you were posting anything groundbreaking that scientists, almost all of them much smarter and more qualified than you, haven't already considered?

12/19/2009 11:44:51 PM

No. I most certainly didn't think I was on to anything "new".

12/19/2009 11:51:28 PM

Did you examine any of the stuff you posted on your own before coming here?

...because it really came off as a sort of stream-of-consciousness from a sunday school lesson on trying to debunk evolution.

[Edited on December 20, 2009 at 12:04 AM. Reason : no disrespect meant by that last bit, just trying to provide some perspective.]

12/20/2009 12:00:24 AM

Yes I examined it. But the truth is, it can be debunked by conventional wisdom or just plain common sense. Being an expert or a pundit is not a prerequisite for questioning a "theory" that has flaws. That's the sole purpose on why it is and remains a "theory" to this day.

^ I didn't take it personal btw. My purpose is not to offend anyone in any form so that's why I don't engage in the 'name calling' or insults.

[Edited on December 20, 2009 at 12:06 AM. Reason : /]

12/20/2009 12:04:39 AM

Quote :

"Or better yet the Second Law of Thermodynamics? "

Jesus.

12/20/2009 12:41:30 AM

Quote :

"Being an expert or a pundit is not a prerequisite for questioning a "theory" that has flaws. That's the sole purpose on why it is and remains a "theory" to this day."

Evolution by natural selection is pretty much a fact. Also, I don't think you really understand what a "theory" is.

12/20/2009 1:03:17 AM

The "Theory of Evolution" is an overarching, encompassing theory to explain how and why the fact that species evolve by natural selection and other mechanisms happens.

Just like the Theory of Gravity. There are the facts about gravity that are observable and demonstrable, just like the facts of evolution, and the Theory unifies all the facts under one umbrella and attempts to explain their interactions and interdependencies.

12/20/2009 1:33:23 AM

Is this guy supposed to be representing religious folks or what?

Because I don't want to be associated with him.

12/20/2009 1:43:58 AM

I think we can all agree that certainly General Robert E. Lee is not descended from apes

12/20/2009 2:17:36 AM

I think The E Man is a troll, possibly even a sock puppet account of whoever it is that likes to troll SB.

But if you're not, I assume that you have a better alternative to evolution's "contradictions"? Let me guess, everything we need to know is in the bible.

12/20/2009 6:01:18 AM

Quote :

"No mechanism for new information to be written into the genetic code of an organism exists in nature. Natural selection acts upon the existing genetic make-up of an organism or species. It cannot create new information necessary for one species to change into another."

Is this not a fact you guys? Counter this, please. And don't waste your time with meaningless insults/ jokes, I won't go toe-to-toe with you on that matter. Last time I checked, me championing the premise of Evolution was not a crime. Shux, this isn't 14th century Italy for crying out loud!!! Next I'll be found vehemently suspect of heresy and murdered up here.

And if you think mutation is the answer to my quote, you're wrong.

[Edited on December 20, 2009 at 7:38 AM. Reason : /]

12/20/2009 7:33:39 AM

Quote :

"No mechanism for new information to be written into the genetic code of an organism exists in nature. Natural selection acts upon the existing genetic make-up of an organism or species. It cannot create new information necessary for one species to change into another."

it can and does, but freakish mutation isn’t the only mechanism of evolution regardless. There can simply be a change in which genes are expressed.

[Edited on December 20, 2009 at 8:57 AM. Reason : ]

12/20/2009 8:53:10 AM

Quote :

"And if you think mutation is the answer to my quote, you're wrong."

In this case, you're going to have to explain how mutations do not introduce variations.

12/20/2009 9:16:00 AM

Obvious troll is obvious

12/20/2009 10:23:25 AM

haha you people just got trolled.

12/20/2009 11:03:57 AM

Quote :

"it can and does, but freakish mutation isn’t the only mechanism of evolution regardless. There can simply be a change in which genes are expressed. "

What is the name of this mechanism? Can I atleast google it?

Quote :

"In this case, you're going to have to explain how mutations do not introduce variations."

So now you're saying that evolution is built on gene mutation? Whether its a polymorphism that's good or bad? And where is the correlation between mutation and adaptability? Evolution is mainly about adaptability.

[Edited on December 20, 2009 at 11:28 AM. Reason : /]

12/20/2009 11:21:06 AM

Quote :

"Last time I checked, me championing the premise of Evolution was not a crime"

champion verb
/'t?æm.pi.?n/ [T]

to support, defend or fight for a person, belief, right or principle enthusiastically

He has championed constitutional reform for many years.

(Definition of champion verb from the Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary)


I believe that is not what you meant.

12/20/2009 11:27:01 AM

^ Thank you for the correction. Ha ha I know my typing can be a grammatical nightmare at times. But do you know the name of the mechanism that was mentioned earlier,that seems to be the "game changer" for evolution?

[Edited on December 20, 2009 at 11:37 AM. Reason : /]

12/20/2009 11:30:23 AM

using a word that turns your statement upside-down is not a "typing" problem, dawg

12/20/2009 11:38:23 AM

that's not a grammatical error, that's you not knowing what the word means.

anyway, carry on...

12/20/2009 11:39:32 AM

^ Or maybe you know the name of the mechanism? I sound like I'm repeating myself. The acoustics in this place are terrible!!!!

If you don't know the name of the genetic mechanism, that gives way to new information being created then I'm just going to assume you think evolution rests on mutation, solely. I mean, there should be a term for it since it has happened so much in history, right?

[Edited on December 20, 2009 at 11:45 AM. Reason : /]

12/20/2009 11:40:07 AM

genetic drfit

12/20/2009 11:44:37 AM

Quote :

" Evolution is mainly about adaptability."

...except that it's not.

Evolution is a process describing how changes occur over time. If a change is advantageous (i.e., the change better suits an organism to its environment), then the result of the evolution is adaptation. If the change isn't advantageous, then it wasn't really an adaptation. A species could very well 'evolve itself' into extinction.

Evolution is not about a "need" to change like you stated in the OP.

12/20/2009 11:46:21 AM

^ "the changes due to genetic drift are not driven by environmental or adaptive pressures, and may be beneficial, neutral, or detrimental to reproductive success."


Ohh, but wouldn't that kind of counter the whole purpose of evolution? Environmental or Adaptive pressures are why species evolve. Fact.

Quote :

"Evolution is not about a "need" to change like you stated in the OP"

And that's my whole philosophy!!! Why change over time, when you don't need to? Like I said, why grow the long neck to eat from the canopy?

[Edited on December 20, 2009 at 11:50 AM. Reason : /]

12/20/2009 11:48:43 AM

no, it wouldn't. as has already been explained many times. Even in the post directly above yours.

12/20/2009 11:50:45 AM

Building on some of what's been said here, the rate of genetic mutations, actually, is a component to adaptability.

More mutations in a species means that there is necessarily more variation at any given point in time. However, it also means that there are many more "bad" mutations, and would make a species less competitive with others in a stable environment.

Recent studies that showed that mutations happen faster in warm climates come to mind:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8115464.stm

The rate of mutations is most certainly affected by latitude, radiation level, chemicals, and many other things. Over the loooong time scale, any species that has a very low rate of random mutations (if such a thing exists) would almost certainly die out due to the fact that no mechanism exists for introducing new variation. Existing variation is constantly weeded out in the course of sexual reproduction and natural selection. To make a very obvious statement: the rate of creation of genetic variation must be equal to the rate of destruction of genetic variation over long time scales.

12/20/2009 11:58:08 AM

^^^

Quote :

"the changes due to genetic drift are not driven by environmental or adaptive pressures, and may be beneficial, neutral, or detrimental to reproductive success"

Are you trying to paraphrase my last post? If so, your paraphrasing is incorrect, though it is true that changes may be beneficial, neutral, or detrimental to reproductive success.

Again, evolution is a process describing change over time. It is not an act that's performed because there is some identified need. There is no goal or endpoint to evolution.

[Edited on December 20, 2009 at 11:59 AM. Reason : ]

12/20/2009 11:58:53 AM

^ no, I was pointing out why Genetic Drift plays such a minor role in evolution by it's very own definition.

I see clearly now. There appears to be no real explanation or name of a mechanism on how genetic information can be "created" out of the blue to drastically change a species over time.

[Edited on December 20, 2009 at 12:06 PM. Reason : /]

12/20/2009 12:02:42 PM

Quote :

"Evolution, basically means to go from point A to point B because you need to get to point B in order to survive. In the millions of years needed to "grow" a particular organ to better your chances of survival, wouldn't you die somewhere along those lines from a lack there of?"

Did you learn about evolution in your 9th grade biology class this week?? Perhaps your older brother who is in college should not let you use his TWW account.

12/20/2009 12:08:58 PM

You are starting at too high of a level to understand these concepts.

First, you really need a good introduction to basic biochemistry and gene expression. Understanding amino acids, codons, nucleosynthesis, transcription, and those types of ideas is really central to understanding "how and why" evolution works the way it does. This thread has mostly been on a philosophical level instead of a scientific level, and its hard to reconcile the two without a proper understanding of the science.

12/20/2009 12:10:00 PM

^^^ Well, you failed.

I'm curious: what definition of genetic drift are you using?

Quote :

"I see clearly now. There appears to be no real explanation or name..."

That's because you appear to have zero grasp of what other people are posting.

12/20/2009 12:11:59 PM

Quote :

" Quote : "it can and does, but freakish mutation isn’t the only mechanism of evolution regardless. There can simply be a change in which genes are expressed. " What is the name of this mechanism? Can I atleast google it? "

It’s pretty clear at this point what your agenda is, and if information was all you needed, this thread wouldn’t exist.

The fact of the matter is that you are, practically verbatim, reiterating the flawed arguments that the Young Earth Creationists use. Even if the things you are claiming are flaws of contradictions with evolutionary theory were actually valid, how would it excuse the even greater flaws and inconsistencies with a young earth theory?

Your issue with evolution isn’t that the science doesn’t support it, because it is extremely well supported by various multidisciplinary fields of study that all corroborate the idea the Earth and Universe are billions of years old, and in that time, things have changed over time.

At this point, you have 1 of 2 real choices. You can accept that the Creation story in the Bible is not meant to be taken literally, and is clearly a figurative story meant to illuminate more the will of God than any specific practice.

Or accept that you are a religious zealot that will naively cling to a Young Earth Creation theory regardless of any rational or scientific explanation that clearly shows otherwise.

If you choose the latter route, you are in for a LOT of frustration if you pursue any career in a field related to science.

But, maybe I will give you this one last indulgence in your quest…

If you really want to know about what evolutionary theory has to say about how new traits might be generated, use your NCSU journal access and search for information on genetic drift and copy number variations (CNVs) and copy number polymorphisms (CNPs). These are some of the more cutting edge research that has helped solidify some of the genetic basis for evolution, that have only been made possible since the human genome project and relatively cheap super computers.

Twins can have different genomes because of these relatively simple, but very common, type of mutation (realize that this word doesn’t mean what you think it means… you and everyone you know has multiple genetic mutations more than likely).

Quote :

"Overall, these regions appear to contain a few hundred genes, most of which have no known biological function. But a number of them are transcription factors, which control the expression of other genes. This raises the prospect that the differences they drive could have a major impact on human traits. That's why the second study, from Nature Genetics, is rather significant. Its authors obtained blood samples from about 200 individuals on Morocco's Atlantic coast, some from small villages, others from urban environments. They then tested for gene expression levels, since DNA differences don't matter unless they are registered by the cell as a whole. Differences there were correlated with a complete scan of the genome—or, more accurately, the known genome—for base differences. And there was a definite impact from the genes. For about 350 of the genes that had significant expression differences, there was a clear association with a difference in DNA sequences. Anywhere from 15 to 60 percent of the expression differences in these 350 genes can be accounted for by genetics."

http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2009/12/human-differences-environment-vs-the-genes.ars

Without the process of mutation, gene expression may have been changed (followup studies needed to confirm) due to environment.

Note also that implicit in the study of genetic drift, the story of the Tower of Babel is disproved.

[Edited on December 20, 2009 at 12:21 PM. Reason : ]

12/20/2009 12:12:57 PM

Quote :

" it can and does, but freakish mutation isn’t the only mechanism of evolution regardless. There can simply be a change in which genes are expressed."

Ahh lets introduce our friend Retrovirus http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retrovirus

12/20/2009 12:16:58 PM

So, is this a troll thread or not?

There are more forms of dating used with radiometric dating such as tree ring, luminescence, chronostratigraphy, and speed dating.

12/20/2009 12:19:04 PM

Quote :

"You are starting at too high of a level to understand these concepts. First, you really need a good introduction to basic biochemistry and gene expression. Understanding amino acids, codons, nucleosynthesis, transcription, and those types of ideas is really central to understanding "how and why" evolution works the way it does. This thread has mostly been on a philosophical level instead of a scientific level, and its hard to reconcile the two without a proper understanding of the science."

Listen, I respect you okay. But I'm not the one going too deep into this and yes I have a very sound understanding of what evolution is. I'm the one who chose to keep things simple. On this matter, you have to start with just common questions before you go into detail.

After the big bang, you have molecuels floating around yada yada. Then they somehow evolve into multi celled organisms that just freakishly start creating new gene information OUT OF THE BLUE and going into different directions, branching off. Not for environmental reasons (based on what the majority of you said tho) Then over the course of a couple million years, despite all the nearly earth rendering catastrophes that would reset our atomic clocks countless times, we still find some how to evolve during a period of peace on earth?!?!

"Oh but, the mechanism cannot be explained really. It's kinda like a random mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift all in one deal." So somewhere in the genetic make up rests this, this device that can say hmmmmmm I don't need to work with the genes that I already have...I need to invent a totally new one!! It would take me into a new direction or into my peril. I don't buy that.

Things happen for a reason. Sometimes science wants to include this, when it supports or is in favor of it's multiple theories. Like, Evolution has happened but why? And is it still happening? Simple questions.

If I'm so unintelligent on the matter, then prove to me how evolution is still happening and why?

Quote :

"The fact of the matter is that you are, practically verbatim, reiterating the flawed arguments that the Young Earth Creationists use. Even if the things you are claiming are flaws of contradictions with evolutionary theory were actually valid, how would it excuse the even greater flaws and inconsistencies with a young earth theory?"

Where in this thread did I say that I was a creationist? I beg for you to point this out to me. And I'm not trying to be rude to you in any way.

Quote :

" Note also that implicit in the study of genetic drift, the story of the Tower of Babel is disproved. "

Don't take this negative, but you are really spinning out of control here. It is accepted that Genetic drift plays a MINOR role in evolution. I am questioning something that reoccurs heavily in every species that existed. The creation of NEW GENE INFORMATION out of no where.

[Edited on December 20, 2009 at 12:58 PM. Reason : /]

12/20/2009 12:42:14 PM

Quote :

"After the big bang, you have molecuels floating around yada yada."

Not just any molecules, peptides, the basis of proteins that make up all known biological life. You realize that peptides have been found in space, and that peptides can also be made by taking some dirt and water and then zapping it with some heat and electricity?

Quote :

"Then they somehow evolve into multi celled organisms"

Yes, you know of this process on a daily basis. How do you think babby is formed? It’s not magic that’s happening in a mother’s womb, it’s molecules seeking meta-stable energy states determined by the DNA made up of those peptides that form readily in certain chemical conditions.

Quote :

"that just freakishly start creating new gene information OUT OF THE BLUE and going into different directions, branching off."

I don’t see what’s freakish about it, since it happens every day. And if “out of the blue” means “based on the innate physical laws of the universe,” then we agree.

Quote :

"Not for environmental reasons (based on what the majority of you said tho)"

huh?

Quote :

"Then over the course of a couple million years, despite all the nearly earth rendering catastrophes that would reset our atomic clocks countless times, we still find some how to evolve during a period of peace on earth?!?! "

The process has been happening over billions of years, and your concept of “atomic clocks” has already been shown to be wrong. And periods of peace are the most likely time for creatures like humans, who are physically weak compared to most animals, to be able to evolve and thrive.

Quote :

"Where in this thread did I say that I was a creationist? I beg for you to point this out to me. And I'm not trying to be rude to you in any way. "

Because the arguments you are making are practically copy and pasted from Young Earth Creationist websites.

Quote :

"It is accepted that Genetic drift plays a MINOR role in evolution. I am questioning something that reoccurs heavily in every species that existed. The creation of NEW GENE INFORMATION out of no where. "

haha.

Why do you insist that it’s “out of nowhere”? Why do snow flakes form the patterns that they do? How did this information get there “OUT OF NOWHERE”?

[Edited on December 20, 2009 at 1:00 PM. Reason : ]

12/20/2009 12:58:04 PM