Looks like it's time for another evolution thread

[Gigantopithecus]

Looks like it's time for another evolution thread

Why? Because this one will proceed differently than every other evolution thread that's ever been posted on an internet message board? 🙄

When I joined these forums a decade ago I was a first year graduate student, studying physical anthropology with a focus on paleoanthropology. Now I'm a professor of anatomy at a medical school, and my research program uses patterns of modern human anatomical variation to gain insight into our evolutionary past.

I've learned two things along the way.

First, there's really no point in arguing with reality deniers. Whether it's in person or on the internet, these people have it in their heads that Earth is 4,000 years old, or that we can't really know what we think we know, or some other such strangeness. You aren't going to change that.

Second, for all the fancy sophistimicated jabbering, science has one useful quality that other ways of thinking about the world don't: science just plain works, and you can do stuff with it. This is why I have a job at a medical school - physicians are generallya pragmatic bunch, and they recognize my knowledge of evolution has value in the 'real world.'

If you want to waste your time arguing with brick walls, that's your decision. If you want to learn some really neat stuff, sign up for a MOOC or read a book. The links you're tossing about are really just the tip of the iceberg.

 

[DrPizza]

...that's because the very first one uses argumentum ad populum out of the gate (obviously used as a tactic to intimidate the unscientific to discourage questioning "experts") and he spends time, pretty much padding his argument, showing how ordinary citizens who doubt or dare question any part of the theory of evolution are scientifically ignorant, a false dichotomy....while various details are hotly debate among scientists who fully support it, which probably makes him out to be a liar -- or either ignorant himself.

My recommendation: listen to someone who is much more objective than this buffoon, and can remove his personal hatred of religion.

In regard to that bolded section, an analogy: those details that are hotly debated are the equivalent to debating whether the 17th play of the football game was a forward pass or a lateral pass, while needing more camera angles to determine which of the two it was. Meanwhile, team A beat team B by a score of 2000 to 0. Calling people ignorant of this science is thus the equivalent to calling that of people who think "well, they're debating the 17th play. I think the team b won."

 

[Gigantopithecus]

In regard to that bolded section, an analogy: those details that are hotly debated are the equivalent to debating whether the 17th play of the football game was a forward pass or a lateral pass, while needing more camera angles to determine which of the two it was. Meanwhile, team A beat team B by a score of 2000 to 0. Calling people ignorant of this science is thus the equivalent to calling that of people who think "well, they're debating the 17th play. I think the team b won."

I understand the point you're trying to make but the major arguments amongst evolutionists are a lot more substantive than what you're making them out to be. The longest-running debate centers on the roles of natural selection vs drift, and this is not a superfluous line of research at all. I've seen PhDs nearly come to blows about it. No one fights about forward vs lateral passes. That's just one example - don't even get me started on what epigenetics is doing to the field.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I understand the point you're trying to make but the major arguments amongst evolutionists are a lot more substantive than what you're making them out to be. The longest-running debate centers on the roles of natural selection vs drift, and this is not a superfluous line of research at all. I've seen PhDs nearly come to blows about it. No one fights about forward vs lateral passes. That's just one example - don't even get me started on what epigenetics is doing to the field.

You waded into this thread? 😀

It's interesting to note that people who appeal to science seem to fail to realize the nuances and real differences of opinions that scientists have. Science seems to be this pristine visage raised on a pedestal, a picture of perfection. We know differently. It suffers from the same ailments as any other human system in that the biases we bring to bear by knowing "what is right" and sticking with it leads us in directions which do not always correct themselves. The act of considering a thing is inherently biased and there's no getting around it. What then, toss the whole thing? Well of course not because it's the best we have to deal with and over time it works, but I wonder what we've discarded with our limited vision that may have value. Who knows? Well, that's just how we are, imperfect perceivers of the natural world. I'm fine with that, but what troubles me is the lack of hubris shown by many in declaring "this is scientific fact" when in reality we should think in terms of "according to what we know at this time the facts indicate that this is the most likely explanation". Look at molecular genetics over the last few decades. "Everything we knew was wrong" might be too harsh, but a great many things people took for granted as being correct weren't and you know how academic turf battles are. Frankly I miss my former life as a researcher. Epigenetics is fascinating 😛

Oh, and when are we going to get a modern system of taxonomy? Get busy people!

 

[Rio Rebel]

Hayabusa Rider

Is this the old timers reunion evolution thread? All we need now is Harvey! 🙂

 

[Tweak155]

You waded into this thread? 😀

It's interesting to note that people who appeal to science seem to fail to realize the nuances and real differences of opinions that scientists have. Science seems to be this pristine visage raised on a pedestal, a picture of perfection. We know differently. It suffers from the same ailments as any other human system in that the biases we bring to bear by knowing "what is right" and sticking with it leads us in directions which do not always correct themselves. The act of considering a thing is inherently biased and there's no getting around it. What then, toss the whole thing? Well of course not because it's the best we have to deal with and over time it works, but I wonder what we've discarded with our limited vision that may have value. Who knows? Well, that's just how we are, imperfect perceivers of the natural world. I'm fine with that, but what troubles me is the lack of hubris shown by many in declaring "this is scientific fact" when in reality we should think in terms of "according to what we know at this time the facts indicate that this is the most likely explanation". Look at molecular genetics over the last few decades. "Everything we knew was wrong" might be too harsh, but a great many things people took for granted as being correct weren't and you know how academic turf battles are. Frankly I miss my former life as a researcher. Epigenetics is fascinating 😛

Oh, and when are we going to get a modern system of taxonomy? Get busy people!

Aren't those equivalent? What is your definition of "scientific"?

That said, I agree this topic is a huge waste of time. Both proving evolution as fact and bible as false still does not prove there is no god. It isn't possible, just move on already.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Aren't those equivalent? What is your definition of "scientific"?

That said, I agree this topic is a huge waste of time. Both proving evolution as fact and bible as false still does not prove there is no god. It isn't possible, just move on already.

Perhaps I ought to rephrase. Many look at "scientific facts" as equivalent to truths. Those familiar with how things work would immediately recognize that as a fallacy.

 

[crashtestdummy]

Perhaps I ought to rephrase. Many look at "scientific facts" as equivalent to truths. Those familiar with how things work would immediately recognize that as a fallacy.

I grimace at the term "scientific fact" every time I hear it for precisely this reason. The same goes for "just a theory". Unfortunately, we as scientists don't do enough to more carefully police our own language and misuse these terms all the time ourselves. I've tried to remove "I have a theory" when I really mean "I have a guess" or "I have a hypothesis" entirely from my daily usage.

 

[Tweak155]

Perhaps I ought to rephrase. Many look at "scientific facts" as equivalent to truths. Those familiar with how things work would immediately recognize that as a fallacy.

Ah scientific fact vs fact. Sometimes you would think those are interchangeable (I.E gravity), but yes - there should always be that distinct line, even with gravity, just to keep things in their proper place.

 

[JEDIYoda]

First, there's really no point in arguing with reality deniers. Whether it's in person or on the internet, these people have it in their heads that Earth is 4,000 years old, or that we can't really know what we think we know, or some other such strangeness. You aren't going to change that.

Second, for all the fancy sophistimicated jabbering, science has one useful quality that other ways of thinking about the world don't: science just plain works, and you can do stuff with it. This is why I have a job at a medical school - physicians are generallya pragmatic bunch, and they recognize my knowledge of evolution has value in the 'real world.'

If you want to waste your time arguing with brick walls, that's your decision. If you want to learn some really neat stuff, sign up for a MOOC or read a book. The links you're tossing about are really just the tip of the iceberg.

<--- I like this guy!! We will not agree, but I like this guy anyways!!

 

[schmuckley]

How accurate is fossil/rock dating?


"Mount St. Helens erupted in 1980, but rocks were dated up to 2.8 million years old." :awe:


THE END of LONG AGE RADIOMETRIC DATING | QCCSA.org

http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/carbondating.html

^Guy trolled the science department,did not tell them it was Dinosaur bone.It was dated 9000 yrs old.

Science disproves the theory of evolution.
They actually keep adjusting the dates arbitrarily between Astronomers/Geologists/Paleontologists just to fit the theory.

 

[witeken]

Science disproves the theory of evolution.
They actually keep adjusting the dates arbitrarily between Astronomers/Geologists/Paleontologists just to fit the theory.

You, sir, do not have the slightest knowledge about science. You can't refute evolution. You simply can't.

Please, go ahead and broaden your knowledge about the technical scientific topics you want to engage in before going into armchair scientist mode and writing things that have nothing to do with reality, because, honestly, it's quite embarrassing. Here are 2 books you might want to read:

http://www.amazon.com/Biology-Physio.../dp/1464105855
http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/61535.The_Selfish_Gene

Also see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
You can also search for presentations from Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett on Youtube. There's also an Ken Ham debate with Bill Nye, etc.

In short, science has nothing to do with religion. It's a bunch of very intelligent people investigating the world they observe and explaining how it works. Darwin came up with evolution not because he necessarily liked the idea or invented the story out of thin air, like religions and scientific illiterate people do, but because he was driven to it by his investigation. He worked on it for a large portion of his life. Today, no person with in their right mind would dispute evolution, since it's not only a very logical theory, but also consistent with every piece of evidence.

 

[schmuckley]

You, sir, do not have the slightest knowledge about science. You can't refute evolution. You simply can't.

Please, go ahead and broaden your knowledge about the technical scientific topics you want to engage in before going into armchair scientist mode and writing things that have nothing to do with reality, because, honestly, it's quite embarrassing. Here are 2 books you might want to read:

http://www.amazon.com/Biology-Physio.../dp/1464105855
http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/61535.The_Selfish_Gene

Also see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
You can also search for presentations from Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett on Youtube. There's also an Ken Ham debate with Bill Nye, etc.

In short, science has nothing to do with religion. It's a bunch of very intelligent people investigating the world they observe and explaining how it works. Darwin came up with evolution not because he necessarily liked the idea or invented the story out of thin air, like religions and scientific illiterate people do, but because he was driven to it by his investigation. He worked on it for a large portion of his life. Today, no person with in their right mind would dispute evolution, since it's not only a very logical theory, but also consistent with every piece of evidence.

So..
Scientific study is not not scientific?
Science :
sci·ence

noun \&#712;s&#299;-&#601;n(t)s\ : knowledge about or study of the natural world based on facts learned through experiments and observation.


Who observed evolution over millions of years? No one.

Has period dating been proven to be inaccurate? Yes it has;by the scientific method

Is the theory of Evolution full of more holes than Swiss cheese? Yes it is.

You sir;subscribe to the school of non-critical thinking.

and umm..Most of those links you provided are common knowledge for 8th graders?
Does that make you a 9th grader?

I never claimed to be a scientist,but I do have a rudimentary knowledge of it.

 

[witeken]

and umm..Most of those links you provided are common knowledge for 8th graders?
Does that make you a 9th grader?

I never claimed to be a scientist,but I do have a rudimentary knowledge of it.

It doesn't look like that, seeing that you deny evolution and other things.

Then why do you think evolution is a made up story? Because you think "critically" 😀?

 

[schmuckley]

What I made was a statement denying the validity of the method used to date things that the Theory of evolution uses as "proof" of it's assertions.
I also provided proof with 2 scientific experiments.actual pictures of, even.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Who observed evolution over millions of years? No one.

I didn't witness you writing this message either, but because I have a understanding of how the internet, and these message boards, work I know you did. We don't have to directly witness something to understand it.

Has period dating been proven to be inaccurate? Yes it has;by the scientific method

This is where your ignorance is being shown. You, and probably the person that wrote the articles you linked to, do not understand radiometric dating. Carbon dating is only really useful for things we suspect are less than about 50000 years old. If you try to carbon date something you always get a number less than 50000. If you want to date something older than that you need to use a different target element, like potassium-40. So, showing that carbon dating dates dinosaur bones wrong only tells us something we already know, that carbon dating is not accurate for anything older than 50000 years.

Is the theory of Evolution full of more holes than Swiss cheese? Yes it is.

There are not as many holes in evolution as you think, and those that are there are just places where we are still learning new things. The basics of evolution as so sound as to be irrefutable. We have had our predictions of the age of the world, the age of life, and the gradual increment in complexity of it over that time supported in multiple different fields using vastly different methodologies. Radiometric dating is not the only way we know the age of the world.

I never claimed to be a scientist,but I do have a rudimentary knowledge of it.

I am a scientist.

 

[witeken]

I am a scientist.

What kind of scientist? A biologist?

 

[schmuckley]

I didn't witness you writing this message either, but because I have a understanding of how the internet, and these message boards, work I know you did. We don't have to directly witness something to understand it.


This is where your ignorance is being shown. You, and probably the person that wrote the articles you linked to, do not understand radiometric dating. Carbon dating is only really useful for things we suspect are less than about 50000 years old. If you try to carbon date something you always get a number less than 50000. If you want to date something older than that you need to use a different target element, like potassium-40. So, showing that carbon dating dates dinosaur bones wrong only tells us something we already know, that carbon dating is not accurate for anything older than 50000 years.


There are not as many holes in evolution as you think, and those that are there are just places where we are still learning new things. The basics of evolution as so sound as to be irrefutable. We have had our predictions of the age of the world, the age of life, and the gradual increment in complexity of it over that time supported in multiple different fields using vastly different methodologies. Radiometric dating is not the only way we know the age of the world.


I am a scientist.

How about carbon dating on living organisms? :sneaky:

"Living penguins have been carbon dated and the results said that they had died 8,000 years ago! This is just one of many inaccurate dates given by Carbon dating"

"Shells from living snails were dated using the Carbon 14 method. The results stated that the snails had died 27,000 years ago. (Science vol. 224 1984 pg. 58-61) "

"The biggest problem with dating methods is the assumption that the rate of decay has remained constant. There is no way to prove it. In fact there is much evidence to show this rate has not remained constant, and that it is decaying quicker and quicker. Just what the bible, and a Devolution and degenerating model of the earth would predict. "

"If you Carbon Date samples of a KNOWN Age, it DOES NOT work.
If you Carbon Date samples of UNKNOWN Age, it is ASSUMED to WORK."

https://sepetjian.wordpress.com/2011/10/17/carbon-14-dating-an-unlikely-young-earth-apologist/

Just so you know..I did run down several of the sources as well.

Since you are a scientist,you know that they used correct techniques and have "Empirical evidence"

https://s3.amazonaws.com/Antarctica/AJUS/AJUSvVIn5.pdf Seal claim ..research sponsored by NASA ..page 211

Snails assertion: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/141/3581/634.full.pdf


..and other methods of dating as well:
Lava from the 1801 Hawaiian volcano eruption gave a K-Ar date of 1.6 Millions years old. Dalyrmple, G.B., 1969 40Ar/36Ar analysis of historic lava flows. Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 6-47, 55.

• Basalt from Mt. Kilauea Iki, Hawaii (AD 1959) gave K-Ar age of 8,500,000 years old. Impact #307, Jan. 1999

In other words,the dating methods can't be trusted.

If someone tries to post some mind-numbing 2-hr Youtube video as a rebuttal...that's fail.

 

[witeken]

Why not visit Wikipedia instead of some vague Wordpress site?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating

 

[schmuckley]

Why not visit Wikipedia instead of some vague Wordpress site?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating

Because Wikipedia, unlike written text already in someone's hands,can be edited with the stroke of a keyboard and is therefore unreliable for any source.Never use Wikipedia for a source.

You can use Wikipedia as a way to find a real source,but not Wikipedia itself. 😉

I'm not claiming it's not useful;just that it is not a credible source for anything.

Also,I had to link that because that's where the quote came from.

 

[JD50]

Because Wikipedia, unlike written text already in someone's hands,can be edited with the stroke of a keyboard and is therefore unreliable for any source.Never use Wikipedia for a source.

You can use Wikipedia as a way to find a real source,but not Wikipedia itself. 😉

I'm not claiming it's not useful;just that it is not a credible source for anything.

Also,I had to link that because that's where the quote came from.

You're right, wikipedia by itself is not a credible source. However, that page has over 70 footnotes and 27 sources listed at the bottom of the page.

What, specifically, in that wiki article are you refuting?

 

[SMOGZINN]

How about carbon dating on living organisms? :sneaky:

Carbon dating works by looking at the decay rate of C14 to C12. As long as a organism is still living is is continually replenishing it's C14 from atmospheric carbon and so can not be carbon dated. (There are some still experimental methods for doing radiometric dating on core DNA, but I'm not really up on the method and I don't think it has been accepted as accurate yet)

"The biggest problem with dating methods is the assumption that the rate of decay has remained constant. There is no way to prove it. In fact there is much evidence to show this rate has not remained constant, and that it is decaying quicker and quicker. Just what the bible, and a Devolution and degenerating model of the earth would predict. "

This is one of those quotes that you hear from people who don't understand even basic physics. If radiodecay is not a constant, and changing at a rate that would affect radiometric dating, it would be pretty trivial to detect. Atomic clocks are pretty damn good proof that the decay rate of atomic nuclei are constant.

https://sepetjian.wordpress.com/2011/10/17/carbon-14-dating-an-unlikely-young-earth-apologist/

Just so you know..I did run down several of the sources as well.

Since you are a scientist,you know that they used correct techniques and have "Empirical evidence"

They got their science wrong. We know that the rate of C-14 created in the atmosphere is not constant, it is modified by the solar cycle and our own use of nuclear energy. This has been known for 40 years.

https://s3.amazonaws.com/Antarctica/AJUS/AJUSvVIn5.pdf Seal claim ..research sponsored by NASA ..page 211

And of course your next 'evidence' would be research from 42 years ago.
Once again, all these problems was solved when we realized that solar conditions and our use of nuclear testing modifies C14 input. We since calibrated for this.

I got tired of reading your links. Here is something that debunks all your misunderstandings of the science.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

If this forum should exist in a hundred years and I could come back to read it I'd find this thread or one like it bumped at least a hundred times. It's pointless.

 

[alzan]

So..
Scientific study is not not scientific?
Science :
sci·ence

noun \&#712;s&#299;-&#601;n(t)s\ : knowledge about or study of the natural world based on facts learned through experiments and observation.


Who observed evolution over millions of years? No one.

Has period dating been proven to be inaccurate? Yes it has;by the scientific method

Is the theory of Evolution full of more holes than Swiss cheese? Yes it is.

You sir;subscribe to the school of non-critical thinking.

and umm..Most of those links you provided are common knowledge for 8th graders?
Does that make you a 9th grader?

I never claimed to be a scientist,but I do have a rudimentary knowledge of it.

Who observed G-d creating the Universe and everything in it over a period of six days roughly 6000 years ago?

If this forum should exist in a hundred years and I could come back to read it I'd find this thread or one like it bumped at least a hundred times. It's pointless.

You could always choose to not read/post in threads like these since you think they're pointless.

 

[schmuckley]

Carbon dating works by looking at the decay rate of C14 to C12. As long as a organism is still living is is continually replenishing it's C14 from atmospheric carbon and so can not be carbon dated. (There are some still experimental methods for doing radiometric dating on core DNA, but I'm not really up on the method and I don't think it has been accepted as accurate yet)



This is one of those quotes that you hear from people who don't understand even basic physics. If radiodecay is not a constant, and changing at a rate that would affect radiometric dating, it would be pretty trivial to detect. Atomic clocks are pretty damn good proof that the decay rate of atomic nuclei are constant.


They got their science wrong. We know that the rate of C-14 created in the atmosphere is not constant, it is modified by the solar cycle and our own use of nuclear energy. This has been known for 40 years.


And of course your next 'evidence' would be research from 42 years ago.
Once again, all these problems was solved when we realized that solar conditions and our use of nuclear testing modifies C14 input. We since calibrated for this.

I got tired of reading your links. Here is something that debunks all your misunderstandings of the science.

I'd bet $20 pp you are NOT a scientist.
Survey says: Dating method is flawed and unpredictable.
PS: I have relatives that are scientists.
They still believe in God..