Question for Serious Sam: How do new species form?
Jim Willemin
If evolution is not responsible for the appearance of new species, then how
do new species form? The stratigraphic record everywhere clearly shows a
history of new species appearing, changing, and disappearing for at least
the last half billion years - for example, one never, ever finds trilobite
fossils and whale fossils in the same strata. So how did the new species
form? I'm not talking technical biology here: what does a species
formation event look like? If I made a movie of the appearance of a new
species, what would I see? A puff of smoke, or perhaps a chicken hatches
out of a dinosaur egg, or a hippo gives birth ot a whale? How many
individuals of the new critter would I see? Two? Under normal conditions
that isn't enough to guarantee survival. Does God's hand protect them
from predators, famine and disease until a viable population exists, or
does God create a viable population to begin with?
The point I want to make is that the stratigraphic record shows that the
creation of new species is a common event in the history of life on earth -
it didn't happen all at once, but rather again and again and again. Given
that, and the fact that we don't see new critters appearing in puffs of
smoke or whatever, it seems to me that new forms appearing gradually from
earlier forms, new features appearing as modifications of earlier features,
just makes a lot more sense. Besides, if you can't even tell me what a
species creation event might look like, or how many new critters are
formed, then it seems to me that this 'creation' idea needs a lot more
work.
--
Jim
"Value nothing but truth, compassion, and love"
TomS
<Xns97A45C857A5BDji...@216.196.97.142>, Jim Willemin stated..."
Your question is quite appropriate. Moreover, it has been
asked, without getting any answer, for over a hundred and fifty years.
Herbert Spencer asked it in an 1852 essay, "The Development Hypothesis"
- a later version of this is available on the web at:
<http://www.victorianweb.org/science/science_texts/spencer_dev_hypothesis.html>
--
---Tom S. <http://talkreason.org/articles/chickegg.cfm>
"It is not too much to say that every indication of Design in the Kosmos is so
much evidence against the Omnipotence of the Designer. ... The evidences ... of
Natural Theology distinctly imply that the author of the Kosmos worked under
limitations..." John Stuart Mill, "Theism", Part II
Deep Burke
I'm not Sam, or even a son of Sam, but I'd like to make a few
observations. Your point begins with the assumption of the
stratigraphic record and how "trilobite and whale fossils are never
found together". Have you considered your assumptions in the
stratigraphic layering? Dates are determined by the fossils found
http://geologyonline.museum.state.il.us/tools/lessons/12.3/lesson.html
... and the age of the fossils are assumed based on the principle of
uniformitarianism, which is a debatable principle in regards to the
worldwide geologic column.
You should ask why the modern landscape shows major erosion and major
geological non-conformities, but such features are a relative rarity in
the strata in which fossils are found. You should acknowledge that
uniformitarianism is your presupposition in the interpretation of the
geologic column. Consider the Grand Canyon, where you can easily view a
section through the Paleozoic portion of the geological column. You can
easily see the various layers lie like vast flat sheets one on top of
each other, and each flat layer covers thousands of square kilometers.
If these layers represent such long periods in the earth's history,
then one would expect to find evidence in the form of river channels,
valleys, and erosional features between them, but these are lacking.
In the Grand Canyon series, standard geology accepts that the missing
rocks of the Ordovician and Silurian layers were removed from the
record by erosion. The Ordovician layer that was supposedly eroded away
represents some 100 million years. Actually, based on normal erosion
rates, the continents should have eroded down to sea level 300 or so
times over in the amount of time they've supposedly been around.
Also, the fact that "index" fossils are found in vast numbers in
general is a problem for me. Why would there be millions of trilobite
fossils, but no fossils of creatures that you can say "common
anscestor" or "common descendant" with any accuracy? You can't even say
that the fossil evidence runs from simple to complex, as even
trilobites were very complex creatures and even had unique compound
eyes. According to evolution, they "appeared" suddenly (along with
pretty much every major order of creatures) during the Cambrian
"explosion" and stuck around for 300 million years....then went extinct
(supposedly 5 times they went extinct).
So, could it be possible that the geologic column that you assume has
items sorted by age, is actually sorted in a different order? Sediment
can be deposited quickly, be eroded quickly, and be moved quickly.
Perhaps there is yet more to discover on that end.
I'll ask this question, though... IF a whale fossil was found near a
trilobite, would that falsify common descent? I'd wager that
evolutionists would merely say "Wow! Whales are older than we first
thought" or "Wow! Trilobites didn't go extinct when we first thought!".
Much like thier reaction to coelocanths being hauled up in Indian
fishing boats.
In answer to your question, however, I think there is no way to know
how a creation event would "look", or if it occurred, or the time
frame, or the extent. Just like there is no way to know how an
abiogenesis event would look according to evolutionary theory when life
sprang from non-life.
I guess the movie made there would have to be in time-lapse photography
and we'd see the "puffs of smoke" of evolutionary creation.
John Harshman
You are confused. Fossils are used to correlate rocks, not to date them.
That is, index fossils can tell you whether a rock is Silurian or
Devonian, but not how old the Silurian and Devonian are. For that, you
need a radiometric date. And the only uniformitarian assumption
necessary is that the rate of decay is constant. If it weren't, we'd
have bigger problems than deciding the ages of rocks.
> You should ask why the modern landscape shows major erosion and major
> geological non-conformities, but such features are a relative rarity in
> the strata in which fossils are found.
Beg pardon? That made no sense. First, the modern landscape can't show a
non-conformity, because non-conformities are a feature of the contact
between two geological strata. As such they can be known only from those
strata. Second, both erosional features and various types of
non-conformities are pretty common in the stratigraphic record. (I think
you probably meant "unconformity" anyway.)
> You should acknowledge that
> uniformitarianism is your presupposition in the interpretation of the
> geologic column. Consider the Grand Canyon, where you can easily view a
> section through the Paleozoic portion of the geological column. You can
> easily see the various layers lie like vast flat sheets one on top of
> each other, and each flat layer covers thousands of square kilometers.
> If these layers represent such long periods in the earth's history,
> then one would expect to find evidence in the form of river channels,
> valleys, and erosional features between them, but these are lacking.
I don't know where you get your information, but it's wrong. There are
plenty of erosional features. Not all that many river channels, though,
because the great bulk of the Grand Canyon sediments are marine.
> In the Grand Canyon series, standard geology accepts that the missing
> rocks of the Ordovician and Silurian layers were removed from the
> record by erosion. The Ordovician layer that was supposedly eroded away
> represents some 100 million years. Actually, based on normal erosion
> rates, the continents should have eroded down to sea level 300 or so
> times over in the amount of time they've supposedly been around.
So the guy who criticizes uniformitarian assumptions now assumes that
the rate of erosion is constant? The parts of continents that stick up
(mountains) erode at a high rate. The parts that don't stick up erode at
a low rate. The parts that stick up do so because they're being
uplifted. The parts that are accumulating sediments do so because
they're being, uh, downlifted. None of this is constant.
> Also, the fact that "index" fossils are found in vast numbers in
> general is a problem for me. Why would there be millions of trilobite
> fossils, but no fossils of creatures that you can say "common
> anscestor" or "common descendant" with any accuracy?
Because there is no way to determine that any fossil is an ancestor.
There are, however, plenty of fossils that can't be ruled out as the
ancestors of living species. Trilobites happen to be extint, but there
are plenty of other arthropod groups for which we have fossils that
aren't extinct.
> You can't even say
> that the fossil evidence runs from simple to complex,
Which is good, because that would be a silly thing to say. There is no
general trend in evolution.
> as even
> trilobites were very complex creatures and even had unique compound
> eyes. According to evolution, they "appeared" suddenly (along with
> pretty much every major order of creatures) during the Cambrian
> "explosion" and stuck around for 300 million years....then went extinct
> (supposedly 5 times they went extinct).
This is very confused. Trilobites appeared in the Cambrian explosion.
They're generally considered a class, not an order. They evolved quite a
bit during their time on earth. And there are interesting potential
precursors, like Naraoia. "Pretty much every major order of creatures"
is nonsensical. If you mean orders in the Linnean sense, these have
appeared at all sorts of times throughout history from the Late
Precambrian through the Cenozoic. If you meant phyla instead, the
majority have no fossil records. What you can say is that most of the
marine invertebrate phyla with mineralized skeletons appeared for the
first time in the fossil record somewhere during the early Cambrian, a
length of about 30 million years.
Trilobites experienced several waves of extinction, but never became
extinct until the last one. Silly thing to say.
> So, could it be possible that the geologic column that you assume has
> items sorted by age, is actually sorted in a different order? Sediment
> can be deposited quickly, be eroded quickly, and be moved quickly.
> Perhaps there is yet more to discover on that end.
Sure, but not the way you think. The geologic column is indeed sorted by
age, as radiometric dating proves, if we needed more confirmation than
was already provided by Steno's laws.
> I'll ask this question, though... IF a whale fossil was found near a
> trilobite, would that falsify common descent? I'd wager that
> evolutionists would merely say "Wow! Whales are older than we first
> thought" or "Wow! Trilobites didn't go extinct when we first thought!".
> Much like thier reaction to coelocanths being hauled up in Indian
> fishing boats.
Depends on what strata the fossils were found in. A Devonian whale is
just not credible. But an Eocene trilobite is just barely credible. A
Devonian whale wouldn't falsify evolution for me, exactly. It would more
likely induce despair about the ability of science to tell us anything
about the world.
> In answer to your question, however, I think there is no way to know
> how a creation event would "look", or if it occurred, or the time
> frame, or the extent. Just like there is no way to know how an
> abiogenesis event would look according to evolutionary theory when life
> sprang from non-life.
He wasn't asking about abiogenesis, but on the origin of new species. Focus.
> I guess the movie made there would have to be in time-lapse photography
> and we'd see the "puffs of smoke" of evolutionary creation.
That wasn't answering the question. That was avoiding the question.
CreateThis
> ... You should acknowledge that
> uniformitarianism is your presupposition in the interpretation of the
> geologic column.
You should acknowledge that creationism is your presupposition and that
you don't know what you're talking about (although I believe that's
redundant).
CT
Jack Frieze
> Deep Burke wrote:
<SNIP>
> >
> > I'm not Sam, or even a son of Sam, but I'd like to make a few
> > observations. Your point begins with the assumption of the
> > stratigraphic record and how "trilobite and whale fossils are never
> > found together". Have you considered your assumptions in the
> > stratigraphic layering? Dates are determined by the fossils found
> > http://geologyonline.museum.state.il.us/tools/lessons/12.3/lesson.html
> > ... and the age of the fossils are assumed based on the principle of
> > uniformitarianism, which is a debatable principle in regards to the
> > worldwide geologic column.
>
> You are confused. Fossils are used to correlate rocks, not to date them.
> That is, index fossils can tell you whether a rock is Silurian or
> Devonian, but not how old the Silurian and Devonian are. For that, you
> need a radiometric date. And the only uniformitarian assumption
> necessary is that the rate of decay is constant. If it weren't, we'd
> have bigger problems than deciding the ages of rocks.
>
> > You should ask why the modern landscape shows major erosion and major
> > geological non-conformities, but such features are a relative rarity in
> > the strata in which fossils are found.
>
> Beg pardon? That made no sense. First, the modern landscape can't show a
> non-conformity, because non-conformities are a feature of the contact
> between two geological strata. As such they can be known only from those
> strata. Second, both erosional features and various types of
> non-conformities are pretty common in the stratigraphic record. (I think
> you probably meant "unconformity" anyway.)
At last a chance to speak from knowledge on t.o. IANA geologist,
but even I can recognize unconformities and ancient river channels
from the hundreds of seismic sections and dozens of seismic maps I
have seen of the Gulf of Mexico (GOM) continental shelf, and of the
thousands of abyssal GOM sections I've looked at, nonconformities
over salt or carbonate are the seismically dominate feature of the
stratigraphy. Unless the bug guys I know have been making things
up for years, fossils are common here. In fact, I'll go out onto
a limb and suggest that all of that carbonate, plus the abundant oil
and gas, would suggest that living things were pretty common here
when some of those layers were at the sub-surface.
Jack Frieze - cold of heart, dull of wit, void of soul, short on guts
Victor Eijkhout
> That is, index fossils can tell you whether a rock is Silurian or
> Devonian, but not how old the Silurian and Devonian are.
From that Illinois web site:
Students will determine the age of each rock layer by using the fossils
found in them. They will use a sheet to identify the fossils and then
use the periods tin which they existed to determine the age of the
layers.
Other tack: you say a fossil tells you that rock is Silurian. What's the
definition of Silurian? The era in which those fossils appear? Then your
statement is circular. Or the era so many year ago, and then you
contradict yourself.
Victor.
Victor
--
Victor Eijkhout -- eijkhout at tacc utexas edu
ph: 512 471 5809
DougC
Deep Burke wrote:
> Consider the Grand Canyon, where you can easily view a
> section through the Paleozoic portion of the geological column. You can
> easily see the various layers lie like vast flat sheets one on top of
> each other, and each flat layer covers thousands of square kilometers.
> If these layers represent such long periods in the earth's history,
> then one would expect to find evidence in the form of river channels,
> valleys, and erosional features between them, but these are lacking.
We can't know that each flat layer covers (completely) thousands of
square kilometers unless we excavate extensively. It's easy to find
erosion, river channels, or valleys cutting through flat layers. We do
not know how many other cuts were made in the last billlion years and
then filled in or covered over by seismic activity.
> The Ordovician layer that was supposedly eroded away
> represents some 100 million years. Actually, based on normal erosion
> rates, the continents should have eroded down to sea level 300 or so
> times over in the amount of time they've supposedly been around.
You are overlooking seismic activity. How did those fossil sea shells
get into the rocks at the 7000 feet elevation?
> Also, the fact that "index" fossils are found in vast numbers in
> general is a problem for me. Why would there be millions of trilobite
> fossils, but no fossils of creatures that you can say "common
> anscestor" or "common descendant" with any accuracy?
Before the time of the seismic upheavel, there was no fossilization on
the sea bed. Only the then-current generation of critters came up from
sea bed to 7000 feet to take part in rock formation.
> You can't even say
> that the fossil evidence runs from simple to complex, as even
> trilobites were very complex creatures and even had unique compound
> eyes. According to evolution, they "appeared" suddenly (along with
> pretty much every major order of creatures) during the Cambrian
> "explosion" and stuck around for 300 million years....then went extinct
> (supposedly 5 times they went extinct).
In other words, if we can't explain it to the last detail then it
cannot be true.
The physicists have not yet clinched the unified field equation, so we
can disregard their claims about the speed of light?
Doug Chandler
Inez
Victor Eijkhout wrote:
> John Harshman <jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> > That is, index fossils can tell you whether a rock is Silurian or
> > Devonian, but not how old the Silurian and Devonian are.
>
> From that Illinois web site:
>
> Students will determine the age of each rock layer by using the fossils
> found in them. They will use a sheet to identify the fossils and then
> use the periods tin which they existed to determine the age of the
> layers.
Presumably this is not basic sience research, but rather a class where
the teacher uses previously acquired knowledge about the age of known
fossils.
>
> Other tack: you say a fossil tells you that rock is Silurian. What's the
> definition of Silurian? The era in which those fossils appear? Then your
> statement is circular. Or the era so many year ago, and then you
> contradict yourself.
>
This is silly. If you want to pretend that Mr. Harshman was unclear
you certainly may, but if you take a moment to think about what he said
the "difficulty" goes away. Age is established radiometrically. We
note that certain fossils occur in certain time periods. Once you've
determined that certain fossils occur in certain time periods, you are
not surprised when you're predictions of their age based on what type
of fossil they are is borne out by the radiometric data.
neverbetter
Victor Eijkhout kirjoitti:
> John Harshman <jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> > That is, index fossils can tell you whether a rock is Silurian or
> > Devonian, but not how old the Silurian and Devonian are.
>
> From that Illinois web site:
>
> Students will determine the age of each rock layer by using the fossils
> found in them. They will use a sheet to identify the fossils and then
> use the periods tin which they existed to determine the age of the
> layers.
>
> Other tack: you say a fossil tells you that rock is Silurian. What's the
> definition of Silurian? The era in which those fossils appear? Then your
> statement is circular. Or the era so many year ago, and then you
> contradict yourself.
Is it reasonable to think this way? I am not a geologist and have never
looked into it at any depth -no pun intended- so please tell me if I've
got this wrong. The first geologists who looked at the index fossils in
different strata had no way to figure out absolute dates, only relative
dates. They named the different strata Devonian, Silurian and so on and
used the index fossils to correlate strata from different sites. Later
on when radiographic datings were developed, it became possible to put
absolute dates to different strata and consequently index fossils in
the strata got a date too. (If a bit too late to enjoy it) So while
it's correct to say that the index fossils weren't used to
absolute-date the strata originally and radiographic datings were
needed for that, now when a lot of data has been accumulated and
different index fossils have been associated with ages for their
strata, students can use this base of knowledge to put a date to strata
on the basis of index fossils. That is, knowing the absolute
radiometric datings in a sufficient number of sites and if these are
consistent it can be assumed that the fossils are from the same period
everywhere and the strata in which they are found can be dated on the
basis of the fossils under the assumption that the index fossil
appeared and disappeared in the fossil record about the same time
everywhere it's found. So it's both correct to say that A) the strata
weren't dated on the basis of index fossils and B) that the strata can
be dated on the basis of index fossils if we are talking about A) how
the datings were done originally when there was no previous data and B)
how the datings can be done now if there is enough information about
the ages of that particular fossil elsewhere. Obviously this is more
accurate if it's a fossil which was there for a short time only and
then disappeared than if it's a fossil that has been there for several
geological periods.
Victor Eijkhout
> If you want to pretend that Mr. Harshman was unclear
> you certainly may,
That's what I was implying. But after thinking about it for a minute I
got the gist of the argument. Still, given that creos still seem to use
that circularity argument, maybe it doesn't hurt spelling it out
clearly.
Victor.
Dave
> Jim Willemin wrote:
> > Sam:
> > would I see? A puff of smoke, or perhaps a chicken hatches
> > out of a dinosaur egg, or a hippo gives birth ot a whale? How many
> > individuals of the new critter would I see? Two? Under normal
>
> [...]
> I guess the movie made there would have to be in time-lapse photography
> and we'd see the "puffs of smoke" of evolutionary creation.
So millions of times over billions of years we have these little puffs
of smoke, and yet this kooky non-Biblical idea is justified because a
single puff of smoke for abiogenesis is too offensive, or too Biblical?
Gary Bohn
news:1144939092....@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com:
>
> In the Grand Canyon series, standard geology accepts that the missing
> rocks of the Ordovician and Silurian layers were removed from the
> record by erosion. The Ordovician layer that was supposedly eroded
> away represents some 100 million years. Actually, based on normal
> erosion rates, the continents should have eroded down to sea level 300
> or so times over in the amount of time they've supposedly been around.
>
Although John has already given his usual outstanding rebuttal to your
post I would like to add something in regard to your claim of a lack of
erosion. I live in central Canada where aside from the incredible
flatness, two past geologist events are evident.
The first one is that everyone living in central Canada lives on a
geologic suture. That is an area where two continental plates slammed
together, experienced the normal upheaval of one plate and subduction of
the other plate only to eventually run out of steam and become
relatively stable. In my 50 years living here I have never felt an
earthquake. My father can make a similar claim. During the upheaval
phase, a normal mountain range was built up, which contained a number of
volcanoes. These volcanoes, well after the subduction/upheaval process
stopped and they became dormant, started to erode. All we have left of
those mountains are the eroded unconformities produced by the process of
upheaval. All we have left of the volcanoes are the fields of kimberlite
associated with past volcanic activity. Those fields of kimberlite are
enormous and extensive, we have them everywhere.
The second event, or I should say set of events, is the growth of
multiple reef systems, where organisms, some of which are similar to
modern corals, some are not, have created their own underwater
mini-mountain ecology. Each new reef system is built above the previous
system, frequently separated by a layer of sediment. These layers now
supply the potash and salt Sask. is famous for.
So we have, in sequence, a period of mountain building, a period of
dormancy and erosion, a period of emersion under water, a period of
evaporation, followed by up to 20 more (if memory serves) cycles of
emersion and evaporation.
Each of these events takes time and an active geology to occur.
Mountains need plate movement, and except for hot spot activity
volcanoes also need plate movement (subduction). For the mountains and
volcanoes to be reduced to the incredibly flat plains we now see, active
mountain building must be slower than erosion, and volcanic activity
must cease alltogether. For layers of salt water reefs to exist the sea
level and/or land height must repeatedly and dramatically vary, with
salt water periods existing long enough to allow the reef building
organisms enough time to produce some rather large reefs. Those areas
covered by salt water would have to also repeatedly lose their water
through evaporation to leave the amount of salt we are now digging up.
From this it is easy to conclude that the Earth has never been still
enough for erosion to be the dominant force sculpting our continents. It
has been a constant tug of war between active mountain building and
erosion, with neither able to permanently outdo the other.
--
Gary Bohn
Science rationally modifies a theory to fit evidence, creationism
emotionally modifies evidence to fit a specific interpretation of the
bible.
John Harshman
> John Harshman <jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>
>>That is, index fossils can tell you whether a rock is Silurian or
>>Devonian, but not how old the Silurian and Devonian are.
>
>
> From that Illinois web site:
>
> Students will determine the age of each rock layer by using the fossils
> found in them. They will use a sheet to identify the fossils and then
> use the periods tin which they existed to determine the age of the
> layers.
Sloppy language on a lesson plan is all you have there. Given that we
know the ages of the various periods through radiometric dating, you can
use index fossils to determine the period and, through that, the ages of
the rocks. But that's only because the ages of the periods have
previously been determined by non-fossil means.
You, like the previous poster and the Illinois web site, are confusing
dating with correlation. Dating is radiometric. Correlation is by many
methods. Once you have a date for a particular stratum at a particular
locality, you can correlate that with other localities to get their ages.
> Other tack: you say a fossil tells you that rock is Silurian. What's the
> definition of Silurian? The era in which those fossils appear? Then your
> statement is circular. Or the era so many year ago, and then you
> contradict yourself.
The definitions of geological period boundaries all depend on type
sections. That is, there is a particular locality at which some point in
a vertical sequence of rocks has been designated as the
Ordovician-Silurian boundary. And there's another locality that's the
type section for the Silurian-Devonian boundary. And that's the
definition of Silurian: any rock that falls in age between the two
boundaries. Other rocks are correlated to these by various methods,
including index fossils. The ages are, like I said, determined by
radiometric dating of sections that can be correlated to the type
sections. Not circular at all.
Robert Carnegie
> Sam:
A suggestion:
Don't encourage him.
That is, don't encourage him to hold on more tightly to a dogmatic
belief in a collection of bizarre origin-myths plagiarised from one
ancient culture to another.
Encourage him to take an open-minded interest in science, maybe.
But overall, the roles in talk.origins are that creationists propose
and and scientists and philosophers rebut. Creationists certainly
don't come here to read. They come here to try to convert.
And hmm, ironic that the bible origin stories aren't original.
Robert Carnegie
Serious Sam
The short answer:
DNA had been programmed to allow for new species to appear at a
relevant time. This could have also been accomplished through viral
transmutation.
Serious Sam
TomS wrote:
> "On Thu, 13 Apr 2006 08:05:41 -0500, in article
> <Xns97A45C857A5BDji...@216.196.97.142>, Jim Willemin stated..."
> >
> >Sam:
> >
> >If evolution is not responsible for the appearance of new species, then how
> >do new species form? The stratigraphic record everywhere clearly shows a
> >
>
> Your question is quite appropriate. Moreover, it has been
> asked, without getting any answer, for over a hundred and fifty years.
>
> Herbert Spencer asked it in an 1852 essay, "The Development Hypothesis"
> - a later version of this is available on the web at:
>
> <http://www.victorianweb.org/science/science_texts/spencer_dev_hypothesis.html>
>
> <http://snipurl.com/lxa5>
>
>
> --
> ---Tom S. <http://talkreason.org/articles/chickegg.cfm>
> "It is not too much to say that every indication of Design in the Kosmos is so
> much evidence against the Omnipotence of the Designer. ... The evidences ... of
> Natural Theology distinctly imply that the author of the Kosmos worked under
> limitations..." John Stuart Mill, "Theism", Part II
Evolution is still a theory. It leaves the impression of being
indisputable. But many what seemed to be solid theories were
historically debunked.
The theory of evolution shows an impressive use of abstract reasoning.
In fact, you see on this board, many people parrot the idea.
If it appears to the hoi polloi to be true, it demands further inquiry.
Serious Sam
That would have been my answer if I had similarly been educated. Thank
You Mr. Deep Burke.
Serious Sam
It would be reasonable to believe in dating of a living being by the
comparison of the ratio of carbon 14 to carbon 12. It would be
reasonable for 40,000 years, 50,000 years or even 200,000 years. But
how accurate is it over millions of years?
Serious Sam
There you go. You are trying to make science appear as a religion.
Scientific theories should for ever be questioned.
B Richardson
> Inez <savagem...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> If you want to pretend that Mr. Harshman was unclear
>> you certainly may,
>
> That's what I was implying. But after thinking about it for a minute I
> got the gist of the argument. Still, given that creos still seem to use
> that circularity argument, maybe it doesn't hurt spelling it out
> clearly.
>
I like Rastall's verbage under the Geology heading in the 1956
Britannica
<quote>
Consequently, when the purely physical evidence
of superposition cannot be applied, as for example the
to the strata of two widely separated regions, it is safe
to take the fossils as a guide; this follows from the fact
that when both kinds of evidence are available there is
never any contradiction between them; consequently, in the
limited number of cases where only one line of evidence
is available, it alone may be taken as proof.
</quote>
B Richardson
[snip]
> The second event, or I should say set of events, is the growth of
> multiple reef systems, where organisms, some of which are similar to
> modern corals, some are not, have created their own underwater
> mini-mountain ecology. Each new reef system is built above the previous
> system, frequently separated by a layer of sediment. These layers now
> supply the potash and salt Sask. is famous for.
Is this a stacked reef complex?
[snip]
Martin Hutton
Not at all.
That's why C14 dating is only used for dates of once living carbon
containing sources 300 to 30,000 ya (above that contamination by
neutron radiation [e.g. uranium decay] tends to overwhelm the result).
Other radiometric techniques are used to date igneous rocks. Please
check out "A Radiometric Dating Resource List"
(http://www.tim-thompson.com/radiometric.html) and its included links.
Within those links radiometric dating techniques are discussed (check
Wien's article and the isochron links) and all of the creationist
arguments are refuted (especially, check the ICR RATE project
refutation).
Have at it
--
Martin Hutton
eerok
[...]
> Scientific theories should for ever be questioned.
I suspected that with all your random blathering you might
eventually say something that accidentally made sense.
You probably don't understand what's sensible about it,
though ... for example, none of the comments you've made here
amount to "questioning" in a manner useful to science.
--
"The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality."
- George Bernard Shaw
.
Martin Hutton
Not at all.
Jim Willemin
>
<snip OP>
>
> I'm not Sam, or even a son of Sam, but I'd like to make a few
> observations. Your point begins with the assumption of the
> stratigraphic record and how "trilobite and whale fossils are never
> found together". Have you considered your assumptions in the
> stratigraphic layering? Dates are determined by the fossils found
> http://geologyonline.museum.state.il.us/tools/lessons/12.3/lesson.html
> ... and the age of the fossils are assumed based on the principle of
> uniformitarianism, which is a debatable principle in regards to the
> worldwide geologic column.
>
Well, yes, I *have* considered my assumptions, actually in some detail.
Uniformitarianism has nothing to do with faunal correlation. Rather, the
appropriate principles are those of stratigraphy: the principle of
superposition (the rocks on the bottom were deposited before the rocks on
top of them were deposited, or 'younger over older'), and a corollary of
the principle of faunal succession: once a critter becomes extinct, it
never comes back. These, along with the principle of lateral continuity
(sedimentary rocks are originally deposited in continuous sheets across a
basin, varying but slowly in thickness and character) allow for
correlation of strata - this rock was mud at the same time that rock on
the hill over there was mud. As was pointed out in another response,
this allows one to construct a relative sequence of formation, always
based on the simple observation that the youngest stuff is on top.
> You should ask why the modern landscape shows major erosion and major
> geological non-conformities, but such features are a relative rarity
> in the strata in which fossils are found.
Um, perhaps it is because the modern landscape is generlly a surface of
non-deposition, and fossils more or less require a depositional
environment for preservation. There are damn few critters forming
fossils on the present land surface compared to the number of them
forming fossils in muddy lake bottoms or offshore in the marine muds and
oozes.
And I take issue with your claim that surfaces of erosion and non-
deposition are uncommon in the stratigraphic record - in fact, those
suckers are everywhere in varying degrees of severity.
> You should acknowledge that
> uniformitarianism is your presupposition in the interpretation of the
> geologic column. Consider the Grand Canyon, where you can easily view
> a section through the Paleozoic portion of the geological column. You
> can easily see the various layers lie like vast flat sheets one on top
> of each other, and each flat layer covers thousands of square
> kilometers. If these layers represent such long periods in the
> earth's history, then one would expect to find evidence in the form of
> river channels, valleys, and erosional features between them, but
> these are lacking.
>
But the lithology of the sediments in the Grand Canyon suggest a marine
depositional environment - there are not a whole lot of river channels,
valleys, etc, on the continental shelf. In fact, I'd be pretty surprised
to find river channels between a marine limestone and underlying marine
shale. There are unconformities in the Grand Canyon, and I believe that
along that surface one does find erosional features.
> In the Grand Canyon series, standard geology accepts that the missing
> rocks of the Ordovician and Silurian layers were removed from the
> record by erosion. The Ordovician layer that was supposedly eroded
> away represents some 100 million years. Actually, based on normal
> erosion rates, the continents should have eroded down to sea level 300
> or so times over in the amount of time they've supposedly been around.
Two points here. First, as has been pointed out earlier by Harshman, the
rate of erosion is directly related to the local relief - steep slopes
erode quickly, flat plains do not. Second, how do you know how much
Ordovician and Silurian rock was removed? How do you know that the
period of erosion wasn't confined to the late Silurian? Just because
there is no Ordovician rock there now doesn't mean it was never there.
The point is, we don't know and cannot tell.
> Also, the fact that "index" fossils are found in vast numbers in
> general is a problem for me.
But index fossils are NOT found in vast numbers, really, compared to
everything else. An index fossil, sort of by definition, has a limited
stratigraphic range (i.e. it went extinct fairly shortly after
appearing), and a broad geographic range.
> Why would there be millions of trilobite
> fossils, but no fossils of creatures that you can say "common
> anscestor" or "common descendant" with any accuracy? You can't even
> say that the fossil evidence runs from simple to complex, as even
> trilobites were very complex creatures and even had unique compound
> eyes. According to evolution, they "appeared" suddenly (along with
> pretty much every major order of creatures) during the Cambrian
> "explosion" and stuck around for 300 million years....then went
> extinct (supposedly 5 times they went extinct).
This has been answered elegantly by others.
> So, could it be possible that the geologic column that you assume has
> items sorted by age, is actually sorted in a different order? Sediment
> can be deposited quickly, be eroded quickly, and be moved quickly.
> Perhaps there is yet more to discover on that end.
>
Well, if you can figure out how to have mud settle out on the bottom of a
body of water while suspending a vast sheet of rock above it, so that
older occurs over younger, then I might begin to question the fundamental
principles from which everything else flows. Otherwise, I just can't see
how you can escape younger over older over older still - and that simple
layering is what gives us the record.
> I'll ask this question, though... IF a whale fossil was found near a
> trilobite, would that falsify common descent? I'd wager that
> evolutionists would merely say "Wow! Whales are older than we first
> thought" or "Wow! Trilobites didn't go extinct when we first
> thought!". Much like thier reaction to coelocanths being hauled up in
> Indian fishing boats.
If I found a trilobite near a whale fossil, I would look very carefully
to see if 1) the trilobite was in fact a reworked bit eroded from some
older material and redeposited with the dead whale; 2) that the trilobite
was in fact a trilobite and the whale a whale; and 3) that both fossils
were in fact in the same strata and that there was no fault or
dislocation between them. In fact, my first response would be to look
for other evidence of a fault or subtle contact.
> In answer to your question, however, I think there is no way to know
> how a creation event would "look", or if it occurred, or the time
> frame, or the extent. Just like there is no way to know how an
> abiogenesis event would look according to evolutionary theory when
> life sprang from non-life.
>
> I guess the movie made there would have to be in time-lapse
> photography and we'd see the "puffs of smoke" of evolutionary
> creation.
>
So why don't we see those puffs of smoke now, especially when we DO seem
to see differentiation through variation and selection?
Robert Carnegie
No.
Robert Carnegie
If you're a bible literalist, observe that your answer implies that God
intended from the moment of creation to exterminate most of the species
on earth and repopulate from an ark containing a handful of baramin
representatives, which would mutate after the Flood to produce the
vastly greater number of species that exist now.
In other words, that everything that supposedly happened against God's
will, or that made God angry, was planned by him to happen. That God
designed man to sin. That he /prefers/ disobedience, because he enjoys
getting angry.
That's dysfunctional parenting.
So maybe you need to reconsider.
Ron O
Shouldn't the tag be soapy sam. Why do creationists go for misnomers?
Is this Philosopher or Logos making a comeback?
Ron Okimoto
TomS
<pan.2006.04.14....@is.invalid>, nmp stated..."
>
>Serious Sam wrote:
>
>> Evolution is still a theory.
>
>
>Meaning, the theory (of evolution) is there to explain the fact (of
>evolution).
[...snip...]
Myself, and I'm no authority, I don't like saying that.
Evolution is something that occurs in the world of life on earth.
It is an ongoing natural phenomenon for which we have a theory to
explain it. That theory is the theory of evolution.
I think that it's misleading to say that evolution is a theory.
The theory of evolution is a theory, but that is something else.
The theory of evolution is a theory which explains the real
phenomenon which is evolution.
Just like the theory of flight explains the phenomenon of flight.
And nobody would ever think of saying that flight is a theory, just
because there is a theory of flight.
Just like the theory of antennas explains the behavior of
antennas, and nobody would say that "antennas are a theory and a
fact".
Just like there is a theory of direct current circuits, a theory
of tides, a theory of concrete structures. But DC circuits, tides,
and concrete structures are not theories.
For that matter, there is a theory of music, which is something
different from musical performance.
TomS
<pan.2006.04.14....@is.invalid>, nmp stated..."
>
>TomS wrote:
>
>> "On Fri, 14 Apr 2006 12:28:29 +0200, in article
>> <pan.2006.04.14....@is.invalid>, nmp stated..."
>>>
>>>Serious Sam wrote:
>>>
>>>> Evolution is still a theory.
>>>
>>>Evolution is both fact and theory, and it will always be fact and theory.
>>>
>>>Meaning, the theory (of evolution) is there to explain the fact (of
>>>evolution).
>> [...snip...]
>>
>> Myself, and I'm no authority, I don't like saying that.
>
>newsgroup :)
>
>> Evolution is something that occurs in the world of life on earth.
>> It is an ongoing natural phenomenon for which we have a theory to
>> explain it. That theory is the theory of evolution.
>>
>> I think that it's misleading to say that evolution is a theory.
>> The theory of evolution is a theory, but that is something else.
>
No, I'm not a linguist, either. I am not a expert on
anything.
>get into wordplay. Depending on context, when the word "evolution" is
>used one should be able to discern whether the theory or the phenomenon is
>meant.
>
>Of course it is true that there are people who lack the sophistication for
>that. Well, they should be educated, or start educating themselves.
>
>> The theory of evolution is a theory which explains the real
>> phenomenon which is evolution.
>
>I believe that is what I said, so no disagreement there :)
OK with me, too.
John Harshman
No it wouldn't. Only dead beings can be dated by C-14. You have to stop
exchanging carbon with your environment in order for the method to work.
> It would be
> reasonable for 40,000 years, 50,000 years or even 200,000 years. But
> how accurate is it over millions of years?
It's useless. But who mentioned carbon 14? There are lots of methods
using a variety of different isotopes of many elements, each with a
different half-life. U-Pb, Sr-RB, K-Ar, etc. are useful over millions,
even billions of years.
John Harshman
Don't confuse what Burke has with education. He's read a few creationist
web sites, nothing more, and is parroting them back.
John Harshman
Ah, then you're an old-earth, common descent type of creationist.
That's a sort of evolution then: new species are descended from old
species, but the transformations happen through some sort of instant,
engineered mutation. Well, there's certainly no way to use the fossil
record to refute this, except in those rare cases in which we appear to
have smooth, gradual transitions between morphotypes.
However, molecular biology would seem to refute that theory
conclusively. There is no trace of any pre-programmed mechanism in any
species, and no trace of viral transmutation being important. Species
differ genetically in the same sorts of ways we see happening all the
time as plain old random mutations. In particular, the complete human
and chimp genomes show nothing other than that.
Inez
I don't understand how this is very much different than evolution. DNA
changes, or mutates, and new species appear when they are relevant. It
sounds to me as if you're saying evolution is part of God's plan.
Athiests may argue with you about this, but the theory of evolution
does not, as it has no comment on God or His plans.
Victor Eijkhout
> I like Rastall's verbage under the Geology heading in the 1956
> Britannica
>
> <quote>
> Consequently, when the purely physical evidence
> of superposition cannot be applied, as for example the
> to the strata of two widely separated regions, it is safe
> to take the fossils as a guide; this follows from the fact
> that when both kinds of evidence are available there is
> never any contradiction between them; consequently, in the
> limited number of cases where only one line of evidence
> is available, it alone may be taken as proof.
> </quote>
Nice.
I wonder if Wikipedia has something as concise :-)
Victor.
--
Victor Eijkhout -- eijkhout at tacc utexas edu
ph: 512 471 5809
Gary Bohn
news:443f05df...@ediacara.org:
I'm not sure if there are any stacked reefs. I'll have to dig up my old
papers and texts and check.
--
apatriot #23, aa #1779, Grand Poobah, EAC Department of Oxygen
Deprivation
Responsible for brain damage everywhere!
Gary Bohn
Science rationally modifies a theory to fit evidence, creationism
emotionally modifies evidence to fit the bible.
Robert Carnegie
Victor Eijkhout wrote:
> B Richardson <br...@nym.hush.com> wrote:
>
> > I like Rastall's verbage under the Geology heading in the 1956
> > Britannica
> >
> > <quote>
> > Consequently, when the purely physical evidence
> > of superposition cannot be applied, as for example the
> > to the strata of two widely separated regions, it is safe
> > to take the fossils as a guide; this follows from the fact
> > that when both kinds of evidence are available there is
> > never any contradiction between them; consequently, in the
> > limited number of cases where only one line of evidence
> > is available, it alone may be taken as proof.
> > </quote>
>
> Nice.
>
> I wonder if Wikipedia has something as concise :-)
I write sentences that long, but people complain. Henry James gets let
off for some reason, I don't know why.