Is Darwin's Theory of Evolution True? Part 4.1

  • Thread starter Thread starter Techno2000
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Correct. But the “it” is not temperature change, it is "random mutation” that when expressed, will result in thicker or thinner scales. The temperature change selects from what is available, it does not induce the availablilty.
 
buffalo said:
Pollen found in rock supposedly much older is simply explained away as contamination. Could the dating of the rocks be wrong? No way they say.
Click to expand...
It is not explained away. It is explained. It is an observation welcomed into the great database of observations upon which the coherent explanation which is evolution is founded.
 
Hugh_Farey said:
40.png
benjamin1973:
Here I’d disagree. Evolution doesn’t cover an important base-- psychogony.
Click to expand...
Oh I dare say. I was thinking more in terms of coping with unpredictable environmental changes, which is what I thought Techno was aiming at.
Click to expand...
How does (random mutations/ genetic code/ survival DNA) help the organism to cope with unpredictable environmental changes ?
 
Hugh_Farey said:
Then there’s how many ‘kinds’. You jumped from thousands to six and back again in three posts, Richca went for all the millions of different species there have ever been
Click to expand...
I said I do not know how many kinds there were. I claimed more than one and less than 5 million. You claim 1. There could be six. I stated barminoligists are wroking on it. Science guesses at how many species there are and have been. They don’t know.

I asked you how many kinds you think there needed to be. 1 was your answer. In your world I have to know the exact number to be right? Oh my… All I have to know is more than 1.

I do not think you read my posts well enough and in context.
 
Hugh_Farey said:
Aha! I think I’ve got it. You are confusing radiometric dating generally with radiocarbon dating specifically aren’t you? You think that by, say K-Ar dating the dinosaurs are 65 million years old, but by C14 dating they come out much younger. Is that correct?

Oh you poor boy. The soft tissue of the dinosaurs was radiocarbon tested, and there was no C14 in it at all. There was plenty of C12, but that’s irrelevant. That means the bones must be older than it takes for all the C14 to decay. Depending on the size of the sample, this takes about 50,000 years. Once all the C14 has gone, there is no way of assessing how much older the specimen is, using radiocarbon dating.
Click to expand...
Carbon-14 in dinosaur bones

Dinosaur
(a)
Lab/Method/Fraction (b,c,d)
C-14 Years B.P.
Date
USA State
Acro
Acro
Acro
Acro
Acro
Allosaurus
Hadrosaur #1
Hadrosaur #1
Triceratops #1
Triceratops #1
Triceratops #1
Triceratops #2
Triceratops #2
Hadrosaur #2
Hadrosaur #2
Hadrosaur #2
Hadrosaur #2
Hadrosaur #2
Hadrosaur #3
Apatosaur
GX-15155-A/Beta/bio
GX-15155-A/AMS/bio
AA-5786/AMS/bio-scrapings
UGAMS-7509a/AMS/bio
UGAMS-7509b/AMS/bow
UGAMS-02947/AMS/bio
KIA-5523/AMS/bow
KIA-5523/AMS/hum
GX-32372/AMS/col
GX-32647/Beta/bow
UGAMS-04973a/AMS/bio
UGAMS-03228a/AMS/bio
UGAMS-03228b/AMS/col
GX-32739/Beta/ext
GX-32678/AMS/w
UGAMS-01935/AMS/bio
UGAMS-01936/AMS/w
UGAMS-01937/AMS/col
UGAMS-9893/AMS/bio
UGAMS-9891/AMS/bio
32,400
25,750 + 280
23,760 + 270
29,690 + 90
30,640 + 90
31,360 + 100
31,050 + 230/-220
36,480 + 560/-530
30,890 + 200
33,830 + 2910/-1960
24,340 + 70
39,230 + 140
30,110 + 80
22,380 + 800
22,990 +130
25,670 + 220
25,170 + 230
23,170 + 170
37,660 + 160
38,250 + 160
11/10/1989
06/14/1990
10/23/1990
10/27/2010
10/27/2010
05/01/2008
10/01/1998
10/01/1998
08/25/2006
09/12/2006
10/29/2009
08/27/2008
08/27/2008
01/06/2007
04/04/2007
04/10/2007
04/10/2007
04/10/2007
11/29/2011
11/29/2011
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
CO
AK
AK
MT
MT
MT
MT
MT
MT
MT
MT
MT
MT
CO
CO
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
buffalo said:
I said I do not know how many kinds there were
Click to expand...
Well, that’s fine.
You don’t know how many kinds there were. Richca doesn’t know how long it took. At least you’ve committed yourself to six days. That’s something. But really, you can hardly call for ‘better ideas’, and ‘better science’, when the best you can come up with is ignorance.

Now, about fruit-trees? Any answer?
 
buffalo said:
No bias? ROTFL Prediction: This post will be ignored.

Peer Review failure: Science and Nature journals reject papers because they “have to be wrong”

The peer review system has decayed to the point where the culture of the two “top” science journals virtually guarantees they will reject the most important research done today. It is the exact opposite of what we need to further human knowledge the fastest. Science and Nature are prestigious journals, yet they are now so conservative about ideas that challenge dominant assumptions, that they reject ground-breaking papers because those papers challenge the dominant meme, not because the evidence or the reasoning is suspect or weak.

http://joannenova.com.au/2013/02/pe...-reject-papers-because-they-have-to-be-wrong/
Click to expand...
It is easier to get published in one of the Proceedings of the National Academy than in Science or Nature. This is not a big surprise. You can have great results and not get accepted into Science or Nature.

“Watts Up drew my attention to an extraordinary paper showing that billions of dollars of medical research may have been wasted because researchers assumed mice were the same as men.”
Scientist who work with mice do not believe they are “the same as humans” and they never have. Humans and rodents can be similar in some ways, but mice have much shorter life spans and it is (surprise, surprise) a lot easier to get permission to experiment with them.

Most papers that I personally know of that were submitted to Science or Nature were not accepted and had to be submitted elsewhere. It isn’t unusual to go a year to publication, especially if the authors decide to have a go at the gold ring of getting into Science or Nature. That is not evidence of collusion to exclude results from the public.

Proceedings is a highly-esteemed journal. If there were a “results black-list” in science, the results would not be getting into PNA, either.

If the “liberals” were behind this, I hardly think the story would be in the NY Times, either:

Loading…

www.nytimes.com

The authors were saying that they had evidence that mice were a bad model for treatments having to do with sepsis, burns and trauma. Could they have gotten reviewers who were doing that kind of work and didn’t want to have their work discredited? It is possible. The issue is that there are far too many journals for a few peer reviewers to keep important results from being published. You will see in the Times article that major researchers in the field are calling the results “a game changer” and saying of the authors “they are absolutely right on.”

The complained-about rejection did not keep the results from being recognized and will not stop the results from being read, cited and used to plan future research. Your premise doesn’t hold water.
 
Hugh_Farey said:
The temperature change selects from what is available, it does not induce the availablilty.
Click to expand...
So in other words… if a SCUBA Tank is needed, that is selected, if Water Tanks are needed. that is selected, if Heat Shields are needed, that is selected, If available…correct ?
 
Last edited:
PetraG said:
our premise doesn’t hold water.
Click to expand...
Hmmmm.

Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals

Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals​

Let’s stop pretending peer review works

What Peters and Ceci found was surprising. Nearly 90 percent of the peer reviewers who looked at the resubmitted articles recommended against publication this time. In many cases, they said the articles had “serious methodological flaws.”

This raised a number of disquieting possibilities. Were these, in fact, seriously flawed papers that got accepted and published? Can bad papers squeak through depending on who reviews them? Did some papers get in because of the prestige of their authors or affiliations? At the very least, the experiment suggested the peer review process was unnervingly inconsistent.

Researchers who have examined peer review often find evidence that it works barely better than chance at keeping poor-quality studies out of journals or that it doesn’t work at all. That conclusion has been arrived at in experiments like this one or this one and systematic reviews that bring together all the relevant studies, like this one and this one.

Robbie Fox, used to joke that his journal “had a system of throwing a pile of papers down the stairs and publishing those that reached the bottom.” Not exactly reassuring comments from the editors of the world’s leading medical journals.

Loading…

www.vox.com
 
Last edited:
Any question about darwins theory can be answered “just wait some millions of years longer and then anything can happen randomly”
 
buffalo said:
What is your issue with fruit trees?
Click to expand...
You don’t keep up, do you? I keep asking this. What is the “constant and firm understanding” of the Genesis account that fruit-trees were created on day three, before the sun, moon and any marine life? Do you think that is an accurate account of what happened?
Techno2000 said:
So in other words… if a SCUBA Tank is needed, that is selected, if Water Tanks are needed. that is selected, if Heat Shields are needed, that is selected, If available…correct ?
Click to expand...
Yes. Exactly. But the modification must have been there (via random mutation) first. Extra lung capacity would benefit diving mammals, extra fat capacity would benefit animals living in nutrition-and-water poor environments, and a fluffier tail might shelter animals form intense solar heat.
 
Hugh_Farey said:
Yes. Exactly. But the modification must have been there (via random mutation) first. Extra lung capacity would benefit diving mammals, extra fat capacity would benefit animals living in nutrition-and-water poor environments, and a fluffier tail might shelter animals form intense solar heat.
Click to expand...
And a animal would need this to overcome a environmental obstacle…correct ?
 
Hugh_Farey said:
I keep asking this. What is the “constant and firm understanding” of the Genesis account that fruit-trees were created on day three, before the sun, moon and any marine life? Do you think that is an accurate account of what happened?

Techno2000:
Click to expand...
Asked and answered, but one more time - Vegetation and fruit trees on land before marine life? Yes. Why not? Then they seed and spread.

Chicken came first before egg science says.
 
Last edited:
Techno2000 said:
And a animal would need this to overcome a environmental obstacle…correct ?
Click to expand...
I’m not sure what you’re getting at. In the long term, yes, but most of the time, if it could dive a little deeper, keep fed a littler better or keep a little cooler, it just has a few more babies than its fellows without the modification. If the environment continues to change, then eventually the last of the ones without the modification fail to breed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top