Evolution

darthtang aw

darthtang aw

Active Member

 
We once thought that the Earth was flat, and we were wrong.
 
Then we thought that the Earth was round, and we were wrong.
 
Then we thought that the Earth was an imperfect oblate spheroid...and we were right.
 
Some people would argue that correct is correct and wrong is wrong, but that's like saying that downloading a song is as bad as murder (again some people...)
 
That's science though, we were wrong when we decided that the earth was round, but to say that this wasn't progress is (in my opinion) ridiculous.
 
Darwin's ideas were not perfect either and they have changed a little, but they laid a foundation for a young and still evolving theory. You can't always just take something flat and make it into the shape you want. Sometimes you need to make it round first. So you're right, science isn't infallible, but that doesn't mean it isn't close and that doesn't mean that it isn't improving and that doesn't mean that it isn't important.
 
This is my issue with science......(flat earth is not science).........it is in a constant state of flux.......so when someone says science is proven I chuckle.
 
geridoc

geridoc

Well-Known Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///forum/thread/384994/evolution/120#post_3375846
Quote:
Originally Posted by GeriDoc http:///forum/thread/384994/evolution/120#post_3375840
Please don't accuse science of ignoring things that you feel you have observed. The argument that you raise is called "irreducible complexity", and has been argued forcefully by Michael Behe for many years. Unfortunately, every example of irreducible complexity that he has cited (the flagella of bacteria, the blood clotting cascade of human beings, for example) have turned out to be reducible. Evolution seems to prefer to work with existing genes, rather than relying on mutation to produce new genes from scratch. This has actually be observed to happen in laboratory experiments in which the common bacterium, E. coli, when grown over many years in a glucose deficient medium, repurposes other genes to play the role of metabolizing other substrates for survival and reproduction.
You are correct when you say that "Natural selection does not produce new genes." Natural selection simply selects for new expressions of genes that are more beneficial to the organism. New genes arise all the time - many are detrimental, occasionally one is beneficial, but modern evolutionary theory is focusing more and more on how evolution repurposes existing genes, and then natural selection goes to work to pick the winners.
The lava story you are choosing to believe is a common misstatement first committed by Morris in 1974, based on an even earlier report. What Morris "forgot" to mention was that the dates were based on argon content in xenoliths, which are inclusions in lava, and which contain large amounts of argon. The lava itself was not dated, because it did not contain sufficient argon to conduct the dating, consistent with an age on the order of hundreds of years, which is the true age of the flow. Don't rely on what you hear from others, get the facts!
Your population projections are also from a report by Morris, in 1985 (he didn't get any better since the argon fiasco, by the way). Morris assumes a population growth rate of 0.5%, which is inaccurate. Using that assumption, and assuming that the Great Pyramid at Giza was built 100 years after the putative date of the flood (it was actually built before the flood, but for calculation's sake...), then the human population at a growth rate of 0.5% would have been 13 people. The Exodus of Moses, which is believed to have included 600,000 people, the total population of the world would have been 726 using Morris' calculation method.
And finally, heres one we agree on, that evolution has no explanation for the creation of matter - where it came from. It also doesn't explain television, or why the Mets beat Philadelphia in their first game this year. Evolution only speaks about the changes that occur in living organisms after life appears. It does not address how life arose, nor the origins of the universe. Just life.
/div>
Hey, I believe a lot of science...just some science is inaccurate..man is not infallable..so mans observations onto science would follow the sam path.
The volcanos are just one example...how long did those numbers stand for before corrected....another example of dating that science itself called in correct and changed the dating period due to other fossils............
KNM-ER 1470
The lava data were refuted almost the day they were published. That is the nature of science - it self corrects as later investigators attempt to replicate or refute earlier findings. That is what makes Darwin's theory so amazing - it has withstood 150 years of testing and the accumulation of new knowledge, and has not been refuted in any of its major assertions.
 
stdreb27

stdreb27

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by GeriDoc http:///forum/thread/384994/evolution/140#post_3375972
The lava data were refuted almost the day they were published. That is the nature of science - it self corrects as later investigators attempt to replicate or refute earlier findings. That is what makes Darwin's theory so amazing - it has withstood 150 years of testing and the accumulation of new knowledge, and has not been refuted in any of its major assertions.
That might be a little salacious...
 
pezenfuego

pezenfuego

Active Member
I wanted to do this. I have no authority on this matter, but it is simple maths and should provide a shadow of what was happening. Here's my source for what it's worth. http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0762181.html
I checked these numbers with wolframalpha for what it's worth. This may shed some light on that 4000 number.
Now the model for this is going to be slightly changed by me for ease, but only in an aesthetic sense, not in function.
F=B (e^(rt))
Where F is the final amount, B is the initial amount, e is euler's number (approx 2.718281828459045), r is the growth rate, and t is time.
So I don't know the rate for human growth, but that's fine. I do know enough to find it. Let's rearrange the formula
F=B (e^(rt))
F/B= e^(rt)
ln (F/B)=rt
(ln(F/B)/t)=r
Now we plug in some numbers. I'm going to use 1950 as the beginning amount (2556000053 people) and 2000 (6082966429 people) The difference between 1950 and 2000 is 50 years, so that's my t.
(ln(6082966429/2556000053)/50)=r
r=approx (0.0173409783849915583323504)
I want to use this r to check how well this formula works. Going back to the chart I see 3,039,451,023 as the value for 1960 and value for 1990 is 5,278,639,789. That is a 30 year difference. I am going to use the population values and see if I can hit on that 30 years.
F=B(e^(rt))
F/B=(e^rt)
ln(F/B)=rt
t=(ln(F/B)/r)
t=(ln(5,278,639,789/3,039,451,023)/0.0173409783849915583323504)
t=31.83 years. Not too far off.
1.83*100/30= 6.1% error which isn't too bad.
Okay, so now we want to know how much time it would have taken to go from two human beings (Adam and Eve) to 6 billion human beings. So we solve for T and we use the population in 2000 as our final value. F=6082966429 and B=2
F=B (e^(rt))
F/B (e^(rt))
ln(F/B)= (rt)
t=(ln(F/B)/r)
t=(ln(6082966429/2)/0.0173409783849915583323504)
t=1259.1914 and then let's factor in that percent error. 6% of 1259.1914 is 75.5515 so we have a date between 1184 and 1335 and we subtract it from 2000 to get 665 and 816 as being the years for the dawn of civilization.
Why was my number so far off?
Well that probably has to do with using two pieces of information that were so close together (time-wise) to find my growth rate constant that when attempting find the difference between 6 billion people and 2 people made things behave poorly. More likely however is that a gap formed when we discovered antiseptics and medical treatment bettered. The rate of population growth must have drastically changed. These models are great for making predictions, but their real world applications are slim. Even if we used two dates that were few thousand years apart we would get similar results, however it is likely that they would be closer to the truth. The problem with doing so is that the information we are given is not going to be very precise and would not factor in the big changes throughout the history of man and their effects on population.
 
mantisman51

mantisman51

Active Member
Mkay, nuff said. The point of the thread was how can so many people not believe in evolution. There are a lot of holes in the theory and it directly contradicts much of the accepted scriptural interpretation. And enough of creationism can be explained in the natural world to make it plausible. And because of my faith, I (like the evolutionists) will not be pursuaded by what I find to be dubious evidence. So those three sentences are all I got on the subject.
 
flower

flower

Well-Known Member
I don't know the person I am quoting but it so very true....
For those who believe no proof is necessary, and for those who don't believe not proof will ever be enough.
 
pezenfuego

pezenfuego

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by mantisman51 http:///forum/thread/384994/evolution/140#post_3375988
Mkay, nuff said. The point of the thread was how can so many people not believe in evolution. There are a lot of holes in the theory and it directly contradicts much of the accepted scriptural interpretation. And enough of creationism can be explained in the natural world to make it plausible. And because of my faith, I (like the evolutionists) will not be pursuaded by what I find to be dubious evidence. So those three sentences are all I got on the subject.
Faith is defined as complete trust or confidence in something. I don't have faith in evolution. I believe evolution. Those two things are not equivalent. As a rational human being I don't have faith in anything. I accept the fact that I could be wrong about anything and everything I believe...but that doesn't change what I believe. I am not trying to convince you to believe in evolution. I am simply clearing up misconceptions and showing my reasons for believing in it.
 
mantisman51

mantisman51

Active Member
You take it by faith in science. Carbon dating has been shown to be flawed more times than I can contemplate. One skull, Lucy, is found. Just 1 skull, forget about how long it's been, there's been a lot of changes in geology...blah, blah. Just 1 skull is found and you take it by faith that that 1 skull is not an abnormal human, nope that skull is one of millions and millions and proves that there were millions of biological accidents like Lucy...can't find them, but trust us there are millions and this skull proves it. We can't find anything that supports the fact that this one skull is more than a one-of-a-kind anomaly, but you "believe", not have faith that the scientist is telling the truth. 1 skull, could be a birth defect, could be warped from sitting in the ground. But nope, it shows millions of others existed and trillions more accidents ended up with you sitting in front of your screen reading this. Nope, no faith needed to buy into that intellectual gem.
 
bang guy

bang guy

Moderator
"it shows millions of others existed"
What? Where did you pull that number from? Nobody believes there were anything close to millions.
 
pezenfuego

pezenfuego

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by mantisman51 http:///forum/thread/384994/evolution/140#post_3376003
You take it by faith in science. Carbon dating has been shown to be flawed more times than I can contemplate. One skull, Lucy, is found. Just 1 skull, forget about how long it's been, there's been a lot of changes in geology...blah, blah. Just 1 skull is found and you take it by faith that that 1 skull is not an abnormal human, nope that skull is one of millions and millions and proves that there were millions of biological accidents like Lucy...can't find them, but trust us there are millions and this skull proves it. We can't find anything that supports the fact that this one skull is more than a one-of-a-kind anomaly, but you "believe", not have faith that the scientist is telling the truth. 1 skull, could be a birth defect, could be warped from sitting in the ground. But nope, it shows millions of others existed and trillions more accidents ended up with you sitting in front of your screen reading this. Nope, no faith needed to buy into that intellectual gem.
I'm sorry but there is more than one skull. Go to a museum. You may not find the actual skulls, but any good museum will have a casted copy. And not just links for humans either, but other animals as well.
The problem with the fossil record is that once an intermediate is found to fill a gap, two more gaps are created. Antievolutions love these gaps and evolutionists are great at creating them. If we had a perfect fossil record, the transition would be so smooth that we wouldn't be able to classify anything properly with genus or species. There's tons of evidence about intermediates in human fossils and you have various species of intermediates between Australopithecus and Homo. Go look in a museum for yourself. How smooth of a transition do you need?
 
mantisman51

mantisman51

Active Member
Does anyone else have trouble with being able to type or paste in this new reply box? Antway, here is the first google link: www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/johanson.html . I can find thousands. One "Lucy" skull and several other "distinct" hominid skulls. But Lucy is considered the first "link" between homosapien and apes. So Bang Guy, read the part where it talks about the changes taking place over hundreds of millions of years; were these early "humans" living for millions of years each, or were there millions of them "evolving". You can't have it both ways. Either there were millions of these early humans or just a few that lived a long, long time. Either idea directly contradicts the millions of small biological changes that were supposed to take place throughout the millenia to explain apes to human evolution. This is but one small piece of the quandry that evolutionists face and why it is still just a theory.
 
mantisman51

mantisman51

Active Member
p.s. I'm bored with this. Have fun with shooting holes in what I wrote. I won't change any minds and you won't change my mind. I do find the overall debate great fun, but I am really not trying to cause a fuss. So, I will excuse myself and simply be a passive observor from here out. I just think that sometimes another side needs voiced.I think discussions like this assist us both in clarifying why we believe what we believe, more than winning an argument.
 
geridoc

geridoc

Well-Known Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by PEZenfuego http:///forum/thread/384994/evolution/140#post_3375977
I wanted to do this. I have no authority on this matter, but it is simple maths and should provide a shadow of what was happening. Here's my source for what it's worth. http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0762181.html
I checked these numbers with wolframalpha for what it's worth. This may shed some light on that 4000 number.
Now the model for this is going to be slightly changed by me for ease, but only in an aesthetic sense, not in function.
F=B (e^(rt))
Where F is the final amount, B is the initial amount, e is euler's number (approx 2.718281828459045), r is the growth rate, and t is time.
So I don't know the rate for human growth, but that's fine. I do know enough to find it. Let's rearrange the formula
F=B (e^(rt))
F/B= e^(rt)
ln (F/B)=rt
(ln(F/B)/t)=r
Now we plug in some numbers. I'm going to use 1950 as the beginning amount (2556000053 people) and 2000 (6082966429 people) The difference between 1950 and 2000 is 50 years, so that's my t.
(ln(6082966429/2556000053)/50)=r
r=approx (0.0173409783849915583323504)
I want to use this r to check how well this formula works. Going back to the chart I see 3,039,451,023 as the value for 1960 and value for 1990 is 5,278,639,789. That is a 30 year difference. I am going to use the population values and see if I can hit on that 30 years.
F=B(e^(rt))
F/B=(e^rt)
ln(F/B)=rt
t=(ln(F/B)/r)
t=(ln(5,278,639,789/3,039,451,023)/0.0173409783849915583323504)
t=31.83 years. Not too far off.
1.83*100/30= 6.1% error which isn't too bad.
Okay, so now we want to know how much time it would have taken to go from two human beings (Adam and Eve) to 6 billion human beings. So we solve for T and we use the population in 2000 as our final value. F=6082966429 and B=2
F=B (e^(rt))
F/B (e^(rt))
ln(F/B)= (rt)
t=(ln(F/B)/r)
t=(ln(6082966429/2)/0.0173409783849915583323504)
t=1259.1914 and then let's factor in that percent error. 6% of 1259.1914 is 75.5515 so we have a date between 1184 and 1335 and we subtract it from 2000 to get 665 and 816 as being the years for the dawn of civilization.
Why was my number so far off?
Well that probably has to do with using two pieces of information that were so close together (time-wise) to find my growth rate constant that when attempting find the difference between 6 billion people and 2 people made things behave poorly. More likely however is that a gap formed when we discovered antiseptics and medical treatment bettered. The rate of population growth must have drastically changed. These models are great for making predictions, but their real world applications are slim. Even if we used two dates that were few thousand years apart we would get similar results, however it is likely that they would be closer to the truth. The problem with doing so is that the information we are given is not going to be very precise and would not factor in the big changes throughout the history of man and their effects on population.
I agree with you that the problem with the projection is that the growth rate constant is probably only valid for the relatively narrow range of dates you had available to you. There are projections of earlier growth rates, but I don't know that they are necessarily correct. Nevertheless, I think that it is reasonable to project that in primitive cultures (which we were for most of our species' history), the growth rate was probably quite low due to disease, lack of medical care and predation, etc.
 
pezenfuego

pezenfuego

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by GeriDoc http:///forum/thread/384994/evolution/140#post_3376162
I agree with you that the problem with the projection is that the growth rate constant is probably only valid for the relatively narrow range of dates you had available to you. There are projections of earlier growth rates, but I don't know that they are necessarily correct. Nevertheless, I think that it is reasonable to project that in primitive cultures (which we were for most of our species' history), the growth rate was probably quite low due to disease, lack of medical care and predation, etc.
Right. All that my little math problem there showed was some weird alternate reality where the human population was completely evolved and had all of the amenities it has today namely sanitation. If that were true it wouldn't take long at all for us to get to the numbers we have. It also shows that in order to get any result at all, somewhere along the line you either have to assume the growth rate was constant (which is a ludicrous idea) or guess at what the growth rate was (which completely invalidates what you are doing in the first place.
Growth rates are pretty constant for certain animals though and this works splendidly for bacteria.
 
darthtang aw

darthtang aw

Active Member

The lava data were refuted almost the day they were published.  That is the nature of science - it self corrects as later investigators attempt to replicate or refute earlier findings.   That is what makes Darwin's theory so amazing - it has withstood 150 years of testing and the accumulation of new knowledge, and has not been refuted in any of its major assertions.
 
The kbs tuff was also dated wrong for decades......the skull I mentioned dated wrong as well for years.........not corrected immediately....a lava rock from the mt st helens eruptions was dated hundreds of thousands years old...........had the scientists not known otherwise this rock would have been datedd then.
Oh and pez, are you calling those that believe in creation over science irrational........
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top