Is Darwin's Theory of Evolution True? Part 4.1

[Techno2000]

Techno2000:

If they are so tiny how is that going overcome the environmental hurdle ?

There is no hurdle; there is a tiny environmental difference. If there was a ‘hurdle’ so nasty that no reproduction was possible, the species would cease.

I noticed that the environment just so happens to work in perfect harmony with random mutations to produce millions of different species of plants and animals.

 

[buffalo]

I noticed that the environment just so happens to work in perfect harmony with random mutations to produce millions of different species plants and animals.

Is that how God did it through evolution? He kept changing the environment?

 

[PetraG]

No. A tiny change takes no time at all. It takes hundreds of thousands of years for a whole succession of tiny changes gradually to produce a group of animals which are reproductively incompatible - a new species.

Modern theories of evolution do not actually make any necessary decrees about the time required. There is a theory called punctuated equilibrium which supposes that a species might change very little for a very long time because there is no environmental change to change what features are a competitve advantage. Then, when there is a big environmental change, it is like changing the playing field. Physical features that were once an advantage are no longer advantageous whereas other changes that might have been fatal previously are either neutral or even advantageous. In such an environment, changes might be relatively rapid.

Really, the only thing that is untenable is to say the question of evolution is settled. There is so much yet to be learned. The conditions under which a fossil record were left behind were rare and the places to find such a record are many. Any new theories would have a LOT of data to reconcile, but in science it is always wise to STAY TUNED.

 

[buffalo]

Rapid formation of a modern bedrock canyon by a single flood event

https://www.nature.com/articles/ngeo894

Now we should look at the sediment layering, the sorting of the buried organisms and see what their order looks like.

 

[Techno2000]

Techno2000:

I noticed that the environment just so happens to work in perfect harmony with random mutations to produce millions of different species plants and animals.

Is that hos God did it through evolution? He kept changing the environment?

For every mutation there was a tailor made environmental change.

 

[buffalo]

There is so much yet to be learned. The conditions under which a fossil record were left behind were rare and the places to find such a record are many. Any new theories would have a LOT of data to reconcile, but in science it is always wise to STAY TUNED.

Yes. Thumbs up.

 

[buffalo]

Amazing. God changed the environment all along and that is how Adam looked as God has planned.

In any case, directing the environment is DESIGN., intelligent design. Can’t get away from it.

 

[rossum]

How does 30,000 years old fit in with the 6,000 year interpretation of Genesis, buffalo?

Is the 30,000 year timescale correct or not?

rossum

 

[buffalo]

How does 30,000 years old fit in with the 6,000 year interpretation of Genesis, buffalo?

Is the 30,000 year timescale correct or not?

rossum

The carbon dating has to be wrong. Sound familiar?

I have never claimed a six thousand year earth. The Bible does not give an age. I tend to favor 10-12000 years as I have posted consistently over the years. If it goes back to even 50,000 years it is a long way from 4 Billion. See the point?

 

[Techno2000]

Amazing. God changed the environment all along and that is how Adam looked as God has planned.

In any case, directing the environment is DESIGN., intelligent design. Can’t get away from it.

No matter what the environment throws at random mutations…random mutations will always come out the WINNER !!!

 

[Hugh_Farey]

I almost always post links, but in this case I wanted you to seriously look at the data.

Really? Presented in that absurd column?

As predicted, the first thing you want to try and ad hominem attack the source.

Why would I want to do that? I’m not a creationist. Only the creationists on this thread are abusive.

You did notice the C-14, not C-12?

Yes.

Yes, so far I believe the data shows it cannot be 65 million ya. It shows magnitudes less.

It shows what cannot be 65 million ya? The dinosaurs. Possibly. It also shows this:

Dinosaur 1: An acrocanthosaurus from Texas. The results show that it is 23700 years old. And 29690 years old, and 30640, and 32400 years old. The spread of these results is 8640 years. The radiocarbon dating of the pieces alleged from this dinosaur cannot be from the same organism, unless it is grotesquely contamimnated.

Dinosaur 2: The allosaurus from Colorado is only dated from as single sample.

Dinosaur 3: Hadrosaur 1. A range of 5000 years.

Dinosaur 4: Triceratops 1. A range of 9490 years.

And so on. This table of results is fairly conclusive evidence that the dates are wholly unreliable.

But the rocks, the rocks are 65 million years old you stammer. The C-14 dating must be wrong. It has to be.

I don’t stammer. The radiocarbon data was provided by you, quoted from a source you believe in, and it either shows that material from the same organism can be up to 9000 years apart in date, or it is wrong. It comes from badly contaminated material. If you can provide a better explanation (you’re always asking me for them), please do so. If not, then a plain “I don’t know” will do.

I see many claims made by you but very few links and source data to back it.

Not usually necessary, but your presentation of the data was so clumsy and incomplete it needed viewing in its proper context.

 

[Hugh_Farey]

Oh my goodness. I’ve mentioned your confusion before, and now we get this!

1. You believe dinosaurs can be 30000 years old.
2. You believe the earth was created 12000 years ago.

And you have the chutzpah to ask for ‘better explanations’ and ‘better science’!
Way to go, Creationism!

 

[buffalo]

Dinosaur 1: An acrocanthosaurus from Texas. The results show that it is 23700 years old. And 29690 years old, and 30640, and 32400 years old. The spread of these results is 8640 years. The radiocarbon dating of the pieces alleged from this dinosaur cannot be from the same organism, unless it is grotesquely contamimnated.

Dinosaur 2: The allosaurus from Colorado is only dated from as single sample.

Dinosaur 3: Hadrosaur 1. A range of 5000 years.

Dinosaur 4: Triceratops 1. A range of 9490 years.

And so on. This table of results is fairly conclusive evidence that the dates are wholly unreliable.

But the rocks, the rocks are 65 million years old you stammer. The C-14 dating must be wrong. It has to be.

I don’t stammer. The radiocarbon data was provided by you, quoted from a source you believe in, and it either shows that material from the same organism can be up to 9000 years apart in date, or it is wrong. It comes from badly contaminated material. If you can provide a better explanation (you’re always asking me for them), please do so. If not, then a plain “I don’t know” will do.

I see many claims made by you but very few links and source data to back it.

Not usually necessary, but your presentation of the data was so clumsy and incomplete it needed viewing in its proper context.

Unfortunately, this forum does not copy tables correctly. But you worked through it.

Yes, carbon dating has a known error bar and you well know it. Contamination increases the range, but does not invalidate the approx age. Once again, these errors do not put the dates to 65 million years.

 

[buffalo]

Oh my goodness. I’ve mentioned your confusion before, and now we get this!

You believe dinosaurs can be 30000 years old.
You believe the earth was created 12000 years ago.

And you have the chutzpah to ask for ‘better explanations’ and ‘better science’!

Way to go, Creationism!

Better resolution will refine the dates. I said I favor 10-12000 years but better data may change that. We are talking in error ranges of thousands of years. Evo dating error ranges are millions and millions.

 

[Hugh_Farey]

I noticed that the environment just so happens to work in perfect harmony with random mutations to produce millions of different species of plants and animals.

Not at all. It only looks like that. A species which had no suitable genetic modification bank would be unable to adapt to the new environment and becomes extinct. We only see the evolution of species where there is appropriate genetic potential to be exploited.

For every mutation there was a tailor made environmental change.

Not at all. Some mutations never find expression, because the environment never changes in a way for which they would be suited.

 

[Hugh_Farey]

Better resolution will refine the dates. I said I favor 10-12000 years but better data may change that. We are talking in error ranges of thousands of years. Evo dating error ranges are millions and millions.

Billions and billions, actually. And we have observations from many disciplines which can be coherently related to provide a coherent explanation for this belief. You favour the idea that dinosaurs are more than twice as old as the creation of the earth, and want us to produce “better science”! Honestly, you couldn’t make it up.

 

[edwest211]

Here’s the thing. As the earth was cooling, the surface was unstable. It was floating on magma and volcanoes were common. The outgassing from these and cracks in the earth would mean the atmosphere would not be breathable for a long time. Dust and ash would mean a greenhouse effect that would eventually begin to clear as particulates and ash began to settle. Localized deposits of radioactive materials would harm any life nearby. If the earth is as old as claimed, radioactive decay would lower radiation levels in certain areas as time passed.

I doubt the dating methods because uniformity was not the result. The geologic column is not one great, big consistency but shows signs of catastrophic change.

 

[Hugh_Farey]

No. Absolutely not. At least, not if the earth was covered in fruit-trees three days after it was created.
Or do you not believe in buffalo’s literal six-day “constant and firm understanding” of Genesis?

 

[Techno2000]

Techno2000:

I noticed that the environment just so happens to work in perfect harmony with random mutations to produce millions of different species of plants and animals.

Not at all. It only looks like that. A species which had no suitable genetic modification bank would be unable to adapt to the new environment and becomes extinct. We only see the evolution of species where there is appropriate genetic potential to be exploited.

For every mutation there was a tailor made environmental change.

Not at all. Some mutations never find expression, because the environment never changes in a way for which they would be suited.

As seen through the lens of speculation .

 

[Hugh_Farey]

As seen through the lens of speculation .

Now, tut, tut. You were making such good, if slow, progress. We’ve done speculation. We know it’s not proof. We know that evolution is an coherent explanation for the observations we have made, not the observations we can’t make. As long as the speculation fits such observations as we have, that’s what evolution is. Now move on.