|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 61 (9209 total) |
| |
The Rutificador chile | |
Total: 919,503 Year: 6,760/9,624 Month: 100/238 Week: 17/83 Day: 8/9 Hour: 1/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: What exactly is ID? | |||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1661 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
It's simple Smooth Operator,
quote:Even when they were one species a long time ago? When they were one species (the parent species) then they were not the distinct (daughter) species. They become distinct species by becoming incapable of interbreeding.
quote:Why not? have you ever heard of convergent evolution? Where totally distinct species converge to look very similar? If evolution was true, than I can see no problem in distinct species converging an becoming exactly alike and reproducing again. What exactly is stoping two distinct species from reproducing again? Convergent evolution does not imply that they become genetically similar, only that the external traits are similar. Inside they are quite different. Here we have a marsupial and a placental mammal that have converged on a common phenotype:
The sugar glider is genetically closer to the kangaroo than it is to the flying squirrel, and the flying squirrel is genetically closer to a bear than the sugar glider. Even their skull bones are different, the one being typical of placentals and the other being typical of marsupials. Without the superficial external appearance, fossilized specimens would not be confused one with the other.
But this is besides the point. I never said that they should reproduce again. I simply said that they can't do it now, ... Which makes it simply irrelevant. The definition of species is reproductively isolated populations, so there is no point in saying they can't -- it is mundanely true.
... and unless we have evidence that they once could we are not going to simply assume that they could. And as has been pointed out, the common ancestor is older than the species in question, and thus there never was a time when evolution would say that they could reproduce across species boundaries. It is a very simple concept. Here is a simplified version:
Great story! Now all you need to do is show me the evidence! Now, you didn't just make that story up in your head right as we speak, now did you? You do have the evidence, right? Since you asked, here is a more complete version: You can start here at REPTILOMORPHA:Palaeos: Page not found For BEAR ancestors go to SYNAPSIDA:Palaeos: Page not found quote: Note: NOT mammals, so CANNOT be bears. And then to THERAPSIDA:Palaeos: Page not found You can follow the lineage down to CYNODONTIAPalaeos: Page not found and then MAMMALIFORMESPalaeos: Page not found then to MAMMALIA,Palaeos: Page not found and on to EUTHERIA,Palaeos: Page not found before coming to FERAE, unfortunately incomplete at this timePalaeos: Page not found So for more on FERAE go toFerae - Wikipedia Then to CARNIVORACarnivora - Wikipedia And finally to URSIDAE (FAMILY TAXON for all bears)Bear - Wikipedia Which is where your bear resides. ... Now we go back to REPTILOMORPHAPalaeos: Page not found For ALLIGATOR ancestors go to ARCHOSAUROMORPHA:Palaeos: Page not found quote: Note: NOT crocodilians, so CANNOT be alligators. And then to CROCODYLOMORPHAPalaeos: Page not found Then to CRODODYLIFORMESPalaeos: Page not found And on to CROCODYLIAPalaeos: Page not found And then to ALLIGATORIDAEPalaeos: Page not found Switch again to wiki for more on ALLIGATORIDAE (FAMILY TAXON for all alligators)Alligatoridae - Wikipedia Which is where your alligator resides. Here's how it looks with these lineages of descent laid out as above:REPTILOMORPHA Note that many intermediate forms have been omitted for simplicity. Note further that there are fossils of every one of these stages, known, documented, validated. As any reasonable person can see, the relationship between bear and alligator is very distant, and occurred long before the ancestors of alligators and bears were even the beginning to form a family taxon. The ancestors were not bears nor alligators for most of the time since their common ancestor to the present. By the time we had URSIDAE and ALLIGATORIDAE in existence their ability to reproduce would be no more likely than modern bears and alligators reproducing.
quote:Why? It would tend to invalidate common descent of hereditary lineages. Unfortunately, for you, this has not happened. Enjoy. we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1661 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Ah, yes bro, but will it even cause a ripple on the smooth surface of lake placid under the noon day sun?
Enjoy. we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1661 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi Taq, lemme help with a little diagram.
You are arguing that intelligences produce CSI. You then find CSI and claim intelligence. This leaves out the rather obvious possiblity that CSI can be produced by something other than intelligence. What you are talking about is the logical fallacy of affirming the consequent quote: It's popular with people with no formal education in logic. To paraphrase:
You are arguing that intelligence {A} produces CSI {B}. You then find CSI {B}, and claim intelligence {A}. This leaves out the rather obvious possiblity that CSI {B} can be produced by something other than intelligence {notA}. This pretty well sums up all IDologist arguments, from IC on down -- they only work if there is absolutely no {B} that is not {A}. When the typical creationist, IDologist, or other logically challenged person, states something like "we know that{B} produces {A}, therefore any {B} is evidence of {A}" they are assuming that the conclusion is true in their premise. Likewise they normally fail to see that concepts like IC are invalidated by a single example of {B} that is {notA}, and thus needs to be discarded if they want ID to be considered scientific (that's what science does with invalidated concepts). See Irreducible Complexity, Information Loss and Barry Hall's experiments for an example of IC invalidation AND the "information is always lost" invalidation. For good sources on logic see:http://onegoodmove.org/fallacy/toc.htm http://theautonomist.com/aaphp/permanent/fallacies.php Formal fallacy - Wikipedia Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : .. we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1661 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi Smooth Operator.
Great. Can you tell me what actually happened for them not to be able to reproduce anymore? I can, whether you will consider understanding it, or not, is the bigger question. Simply put, they died. As your great great ancestors are no longer able to reproduce because they are dead, so too are all organisms that have died. In this case, millions of years ago, including all the other dead ancestors of the living populations of bears and alligators. It's a simple concept. Each generation reproduces while that generation lives, not before nor after. Evolution is the change in proportion of hereditary traits in breeding populations from generation to generation in response to ecological opportunity.
I agree that they are phenotipically different but genetically different. But tell me, if they became phenotipically similar. WHat would stop evolution, to also make them genetically similar. Actually, identical. What is this force that precludes evolution from doing that? ps - it's phenotype ... For another very simple reason: there is no (natural) mechanism that would cause this to happen. You don't need to worry about stopping something that will never start. There is no way for natural selection to operate, or any other mechanism known to biology and the real world, to draw the genes closer to similarity. DNA doesn't change because you want it to, the change is mostly random, and the results are then filtered by selection processes to adapt the organism to the ecology it inhabits. Both organisms are adapted to their ecology and don't need to turn into the other to be adapted to their ecology.
Oh, but it very relevant. Because if 2 species can't reproduce now, how do you know that those species could have ever reproduced. Basicly, being one species that reproduced. ... Okay, I get your point. Good, I'll mark this down as a step forward.
Okay, they say that this particular species developed a special opening which later on allowed for a superior jaw. How do they know that? How exactly did they determine that happened? Because they found (and continue to find) skulls with this opening and arch belonging to therapsids and therapsid descendants, but not in ancestral species or in other hereditary lineages. In later descendants the opening closes, leaving the arch as a derived new feature in all descendant species. You have this arch, as do bears. For clarity, the arch "giving a superior bite" is present in the therapsids and descendants. Descendants can take advantage of opportunities to improve the jaw further, but they don't have to: not all descendants of therapsids evolved into cyconodonts.
Can you please explain to me how do you know that all these animals are related? I have the same question about this graph also. How do you know that all those species are related. Do you know it? Do you have any evidence for it, or do you simply assume it? By following the evidence of derived and inherited ancestral traits. The whole pattern of the fossils show many aspects that are not altered from ancestral forms (ancestral traits), and some that are undergoing transitions that become more derived over time (derived traits). The synapsid arch is a case in point: it appears in one species (derived), and then you see it inherited (ancestral) in descendant species with continued development (further derived) as the arch becomes more developed and the skull closes back together under the arch. This occurs through the evolution in many species, that each inherit their pattern/s of derived and ancestral traits as they evolve generation by generation. See Derive - Wikipediafor what is meant by "derived": "In phylogenetics, a trait is derived if it is present in an organism, but was absent in the last common ancestor of the group being considered. " An ancestral trait is a trait that is shared between the species and an ancestral species (common ancestor). When a fossil is >90% similar to an ancestral species with <10% derived (evolved) from the remaining ancestral features, as we see with the synapsid arch, then hereditary lineage is the most logical explanation. This is no different than looking at species that are all similar fossils and concluding that they are all the same species.
Speaking of the intermediate forms you presented. I would like to know, how do you tell a specimen is intermediate? When it is between an ancestral species and a descendant species in the development of the derived traits. See Transitional fossil - Wikipediaor Transitional features - Understanding Evolution quote: Again, it is a simple concept: species evolve, there is no species alive today that is not going through changes in the proportions of hereditary traits in breeding populations from generation to generation in response to ecological opportunities. Thus population A evolves into population B as the old members die and new members are born, and population B evolves into population C as the new members age, older ones die, and new ones are born: the members of population B are intermediate between population A and population C. Now introduce increasing numbers of generations between A and B and between B and C and you still have intermediate forms in population B that have ancestral traits in common with the ancestral traits in population A and derived traits in common with some of the derived traits in population C.
Actually no. What any reasonable person can see, is that you have made a drawing. That is all. Oh dear, you've made the unfounded assumption that you are a reasonable person. The vast evidence of this thread and the one about the earth being fixed with the sun orbiting around it, speak volumes to your not being a reasonable person, but an unreasonable and obstinate person. I expect you will now demonstrate how unreasonable and obstinate you are.
Now, you simply ASSUME they represent their descent. Do you know that, or do you simply assume that? Do you have any evidence for that? The evidence is available in the information already presented, evidence that any reasonable person can take as a starting point and investigate further if they want to. Denying that this evidence exists is not being reasonable, and I'm not about to spend a lot more time on someone that I don't consider willing to confront the evidence realistically.
How do you know that they didn't exist from the start? Because there are no fossils of existing species in the fossil record at the time of the reptilomorphs, while there are fossils that show their evolution from the ancestral forms from reptilomorphs to today Because there is evidence that shows the evolution pattern given and there is no evidence that shows your pattern.
So you are sayign that if two different species would be able to reproduce, that are not the same species, that would invalidate common descent? What if it went even higher? What if two different genera reproduced? Surely this would be even worse? Does this falsify common descent? Look at the case of the beefalo. A simple bison (genus Bison), and a simple cow (genus Bos). Their offspring is fertile, and is called teh beefalo. What's up with that? I said that observing a bear and an alligator reproduce viable offspring would tend to invalidate common descent, not that any hybrid between closely related species would invalidate it. American bison - Wikipedia
quote: Cattle - Wikipedia
quote: So they are interbreeding between members of the same subfamily, not between organisms from different class levels of ancestry. Alligatoridae - Wikipedia
quote: Bear - Wikipedia
quote: There is much much more genetic difference between bears and alligators than there is between cows and bison.
Look at the case of the beefalo. A simple bison (genus Bison), and a simple cow (genus Bos). Their offspring is fertile, and is called teh beefalo. What's up with that? They are not much more different that the hybrids of horse and donkey and zebra, some of which are fertile. Horse - Wikipedia
quote: Donkey - Wikipedia
quote: Zebra - Wikipedia
quote: Interfertility does not necessarily cease between sibling species if there is no opportunity to interbreed and no selection pressure to change. The cow and bison did naturally interbreed, once they were introduced to the same area, but not all of the offspring were fertile, and it took a while for humans to develop a complete separate breed. There is also the "cama" - part camel part llama (only 3 so far, don't know if they are fertile). http://taylorllamas.com/Camel-LamaCrossPhotos.html Camel - Wikipedia
quote: Llama - Wikipedia
quote: Members of the same family, but cannot breed naturally. Cama (animal) - Wikipedia
quote: So we see that evolution doesn't necessarily change the ability to breed between species that do not normally come into contact. There have also been no successful attempts to mate cows and camels even though they have coexisted for thousands of years and belong to the same order level above family (but which excludes horses and bears). There have been no successful attempts to mate species at higher\older levels of ancestry, and the common ancestor level of alligator and bear is significantly higher\older than these examples. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : splng we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1661 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi Smooth Operator,
Thanks for confirming that you are simply unreasonable when it comes to understanding reality. I'll just hit the high points.
Okay, but you see, this doesn't really answer my question. You claimed that a species reproduced among itself. Now it can't. If that species is still alive. ... It isn't. The descendants have become different species. That's what happens over long periods of time, such as the span of time between the common ancestor between alligators and bears to the present.
... Not the old individuals, but the new ones, what keeps them from reproducing? Nothing, but what they reproduce are their current species, not the original species. All the individuals in the population have evolved into a different species that continues to be a breeding population, but it is not the same as the ancestor population.
But, where you go painfully wrong. Oh so terribly wrong. Is when you apply this explanation for change over time, to species that were NEVER, and I do mean NEVER, EVER know, or have been seen to reproduce. You can NOT, say that the same applies to polar bears and horses becasue you do not know that they were ever able to reproduce. You simply ASSUME! I repeat, you simply ASSUME that they once could have reproduced, them being one species. But that's just it. It's a pipe dream. An illusion. An evolutionary just so story. With no evidence to back it up. ... Again, great, I'm happy for you. This is all irrelevant information. The point remains you can't reliably group animals and infer their ancestry while they are alive. And than to turn and say you can do it for dead bones you find in teh ground is laughable to the highest extreme! Curiously, your opinion is completely unable to affect reality in any way. Below is an example of the type of evidence used by reasonable people to come to reasonable conclusions about reality:
quote: Here, not only do we see that the ancestral population had no trouble interbreeding among their members, and that the daughter species at the top are now reproductively isolated, but we also see the level by level transition from the ancestral forms to the derived forms. We also see that each level reproduces, but that at the top there are no more Pelycodus ralstoni being produced by that reproduction. This in only 5 million years, compared to the hundreds of million years between the common ancestor to bears and alligators and these animals today.
Oh, I see it now! Yeah, I get it. You are basing your conclusions of relatednes on similarity. Except that it is much more than simple similarity - more than the similarity between sugar gliders and flying squirrels for instance (that you find curiously compelling) - rather it is based on a preponderance of homological identity. A fossil that is 90% homologically identical to a previous fossil is more than just similar. In the above example we see that there are many individuals at one level that could belong to the level above or the level below, and that it is only the ones at the end of the spectrum of change in the direction of the overall trend that lie just outside the parameters of the previous population, but within the parameters of the next. We know that they are related to the rest of their level population, and hence can readily conclude relation to the previous generation. IMHO, any person who claims that ancestry cannot be logically and rationally inferred from evidence like this is not just smoking ignorance, but holding firmly onto delusion.
Where you fall on that scale is up to you. A 1b is curable, a 2 may need some work, but a 3 is clinical. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : ... we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1661 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi Smooth Operator, still jousting at windmills?
Wait, what? i'm unreasonable? Why? Because your arguments are based on fantasy, false analogies, logical fallacies, your personal opinions and your assumption/s that your personal worldview is an accurate representation of the reality, all the while refusing to validate it against reality. If anyone needs any proof of this they can just read your latest post and realize that you are claiming that it is possible for cups to breed and produce offspring with hereditary variation, and that because of this logical fallacy (which you seem to regard as a "fact" in your fantasy world), that it is not logical to conclude that this diagram represents successive generations of related organisms:
And further, you appear to be claiming that we cannot even logically conclude that fossil bones at the same level can be related.
You have no obervable evidence that animals on the bottom were not sterile. You have no obervable evidence that animals on the bottom were had any offspring. You have no obervable evidence that animals on the top are offspring of the animals on the bottom. You have no obervable evidence that animals on the top and the animals on the bottom EVER EVEN MET! You have not evidence that the observed pattern is a pattern of transition from the animals on the bottom to the animals on teh top. You don't have any evidence that any of those animals even died there! The only facts we have is that we have a bunch of bones in teh ground. Curiously, in the real world, paleontologists can and due tell whether female bones show the effects of childbearing. Once again your opinion is at odds with reality. Essentially your behavior is just as I predicted, when I said (Message 1129):
IMHO, any person who claims that ancestry cannot be logically and rationally inferred from evidence like this is not just smoking ignorance, but holding firmly onto delusion.
Where you fall on that scale is up to you. A 1b is curable, a 2 may need some work, but a 3 is clinical. It appears you have chosen clinical delusion.
Excuse me, but no. I can't just let you go on this one. I was not unreasonable. I didn't express my opinion. I stated a FACT. A pure logical FACT. If you disagree with it, than fine, you should say why it's invalid, but don't say that logical facts are my opinion. They surely are not. It's like saying that 1+1=2 is my opinion. It's not, it's a fact. Curiously, this just proves that your opinion is indeed incapable of affecting reality. Logical conclusions are not facts, they are constructs, and they can only be valid if (a) the premises are valid, and (b) the construction is valid. Even if the conclusions are valid they do not become fact. This statement of yours:
Message 1127: The point remains you can't reliably group animals and infer their ancestry while they are alive. And than to turn and say you can do it for dead bones you find in teh ground is laughable to the highest extreme! ... is not a fact, nor is it a valid logical conclusion, it is an assumption that you have made based on your opinion about reality. Your opinion is not fact, and any conclusion based on it is not, cannot be, fact. Just for comparison on what reasonable conclusions that can be reached from the evidence,
Here we have you inconsistently claiming that (a) you cannot form any logical conclusions from the evidence available, but that (b) you can form a logical conclusion from a lack of evidence. By comparison, in both cases I've claimed that you can form reasonable, valid and logical conclusions that are consistent with the evidence.
quote:Such long time spans actually existed? The evidence from uranium halos show that this is a reasonable, valid and logical conclusion from the evidence. I need say no more. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : added we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1661 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi Smooth Operator,
Please name me those fantasies, false analogies, logical fallacies etc... One is your claim that cups and frying pans show the same patterns as evolution, in spite of the facts that (a) they are not breeding organisms, (b) they have no hereditary traits, and (c) there is no selection process that makes survival and breeding of one more likely to be passed on to later generations than the other. That is why it is a false analogy. Your assumption that it does represent evolution is one of your fantasies. Likewise, your claim that because we cannot absolutely positively know something that we therefore cannot infer anything is one of your logical fallacies.
You misunderstood me. My image was supposed to be irony. Obviously frying pans did not evolve from cups. You are the one who claimed that similarity is evidence for evolution. I claimed that it's not. Than I made that picture and you said that it does not show evolution, because frying pans do not reproduce. Now think about it for a minute. Animals are similar. Frying pans and cups are similar. Animal similarity is evidence of their evolution. But, similarity of frying pans and cups is not evidence of their evolution. We have a contradiction here. What contradiction? You yourself said "frying pans do not reproduce" and that is one of several reasons why it is a false analogy. There is no evidence of the change in hereditary traits in breeding populations from generation to generation in response to ecological opportunity in the inanimate objects: they don't have hereditary traits, they do not have breeding populations, they do not have generations, they do not have ecological opportunities, they do not have selection mechanisms, so they cannot be analogous to organisms that do possess these elements of biological life. We also see evolution in living breeding populations today, including speciation events, and we can compare the trends and tendencies seen in the living world with the evidence we see in the fossil record.
Did this fish have any offspring? Here you are (intentionally?) confusing and conflating what we can know with absolute truth with what we can logically infer from the evidence. This is a logically false argument (what a surprise eh?). Is it logical to infer that the population of this species of fish (including the parents of this fish) produced no offspring? Or does your fantasy extend to propose instant de novo creation of individual fossils? Amazingly, it is not necessary to conclude whether or not this individual fish produced offspring to infer that the breeding population of the species it represents produced offspring. Curiously, this fish is, of itself, such strong evidence of this process of reproduction that one needs to posit some other totally unknown and unobserved process to the fish into existence without friends and relations.
How would you do that? I showed you bones A and B in previous post. How would you show that they were related and or had offspring? Once again, you are (intentionally?) confusing and conflating what we can know with absolute truth with what we can logically infer from the evidence. Curious how so much of your arguments depends on logical fallacies eh? Obviously one cannot show that two randomly chosen bones, presented devoid of any context or knowledge of where they came from, are related, but this does not mean that one cannot logically infer that fossils, found and cataloged with full context, in close proximity, with multitudinous homologies from level to level, and consistent geological stratigraphy, as in the case with Pelycodus, are related. And when the differences from level to level are less than the overall differences we see within the dog species (just for example), then it is not logical to claim that one cannot infer that they are related.
3.) I never said that it did form in 5 minutes. I said that it could have. That is also a possibility. Becasue that's how rapid layer deposition is brought about. It could have been in 10 minutes, 1 day, 100 days 1000 years, 5 million years, 20 million years etc... I never said that it actually happened in 5 minutes. Unlike you who said it did happen in 5 million years. Now you are equivocating. Small surprise. What you claimed was that it was as logical to infer that the deposit was made in 5 minutes, involving unrelated organisms in a catastrophic event, than to conclude that the pattern is due to evolution, hereditary relationships, and normal geological processes. Interestingly, it is the scientific evidence that shows that it happened over a5 million year period: A Smooth Fossil Transition: Pelycodus
quote: Curiously, I'll trust the evidence over your opinion that is based on denial, fantasy and logical fallacies, especially when you have no evidence for a single element of your claims. I can link you to the original PDF from Gingrich if you are interested. What you said was that it is not logical to infer that they are related, and then set up some imaginary scenarios based on fantasy and denial that have nothing to do with the evidence, and claim that they are equally logical conclusions. They aren't, because your proposed scenario is not supported by any evidence, while the evidence of hereditary relationships is supported by the evidence. Fascinatingly, your scenario cannot explain how the fossils come to be sorted in the specific layers and not jumbled together in one mixed bag (as is the case when we do find evidence of a catastrophic flooding event) or all laid out in one horizontal layer (as is the case when we do find evidence of a catastrophic burial event). So in addition to a lack of evidence for a catastrophic event, you have no mechanism to cause rapid layer formation AND the sorted pattern of the fossils.
They are logical facts. For an example IF A = B THAN B = A. This is a logical fact. No, that is another logical fallacy:
Everything within the A circle = B but not everything within the B circle =A. http://onegoodmove.org/fallacy/affirm.htm
quote: (ps note that it is IF ... THEN ..., not IF ... THAN ... ) Because it is a logical fallacy it cannot be a fact. Because any logical conclusion can be false it cannot be a fact. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : subtitle we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1661 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi Smooth Operator, I'm separating this out from the other posts.
quote:Please explain how. "This" being related to the actual old age of the earth, the previous context being
Message 1145 quote:Such long time spans actually existed? The explanation is fairly simple. Halos form around radioactive material in certain types of rock. The halos form a characteristic pattern for each radioactive decay chain for the material in question. The pattern is based on the alpha decay energy for the decay of the different isotopes in the decay chain. The four basic decay chains for the radoactive elements are found at Decay chain - Wikipedia For halo formation only the alpha decay events are important (beta decay does not affect halo formation). Note that each alpha decay event in each of the four different chains is unique, and this is important because the diameter of the halo formed for each isotope is related to the alpha energy of that isotopes decay event and the density of the rock where the halo is formed. Radiometric Dating
quote: The reason it takes a long time is that it takes many decay events to build a halo, as each decay event only makes a point, so it takes many decay events to build a visible halo. So we have these conditions:
In order to have sufficient decay events to form a halo for a radioactive isotope with a long half-life a very long time, "hundreds of millions of years", needs to pass. This is a 238U halo:
(original image provided by Gentry at Evidence for Earth's Instant Creation - Polonium Halos in Granite and Coal - Earth Science Associates) This is the 238U decay chain:
You will note that the top alpha decay event listed is 238U with a half life of ~4.5 billion years, (with the next two being 234U with a half life of ~245 thousand years and 230Th with a half life of ~75 thousand years). Simply put, this means that a long time needs to pass before you have enough decay events to form the halos. Or you need a lot of the 238U atoms to have enough atoms decay in shorter time periods, however to have this occur in significantly less time, the particle quickly becomes too large to form a clear halo. * Or you assume (by some unknown magical process that has no evidence for it) that the rate of decay was significantly different in the past. Which gets us to the fun part: The alpha particle decay energy is related to the half-life of the radioactive isotope. If you change the rate of decay, so that the halos could form in a shorter time period, then you also change the alpha particle energy. If you change the alpha particle energy, then you change the diameter of the halo formed by the decay for that particle. The evidence shows no variation in the diameter of the halos, so it is logical to infer that there was no change to the decay rates during the time that the halos formed. Thus it is logical to infer that "several hundred million years to form" the evidence that you see in the picture above have indeed occurred. Enjoy. * the math Remember the decay curve is exponential: Nt=No*(1/2)^(t/hl) To have the same (No-Nt) decay events in 10 thousand years as would occur in 200 million years you need No to be ~20,000 times as big as the particle seen in the picture above: Noa-Nta = Noa-Noa(1/2)^(200e6/4.468e9) = 0.03055078Noa Nob-Ntb = Nob-Nob(1/2)^(10e3/4.468e9) = 0.00000155Nob And Nob/Noa = 0.03055078/0.00000155 = 19,693 we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1661 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Once again, Smooth Operator, we see an inability to deal with the facts in a reasonable manner.
Is this stupidity, ignorance, delusion or maliciousness? Hard to say, could be a combination. The concepts are simple.
Which they do. Which they can not possibly do, for the simple reason that they cannot reproduce. An evolutionary pattern is based on reproduction and the descent of hereditary traits, and multiple lines of evidence, not on ad hoc similarities complied by a person on a computer. Convergent evolution is not an evolutionary pattern, as it does not show direct descent from common ancestors, it shows analogous features that have evolved independently of homologous features. Your cups and frying pans are only based on superficial analogous features, and thus cannot be similar to the treed structure of homologous features in a hereditary lineage. If you cannot (or refuse to) understand this simple point then you are incapable (by choice or by ability) of understanding evolution.
Your point was to show that such similarities are due to CD. My point was to show that they exist apart from CD. I made that quite clear. Except that the structure of cups and frying pans does not exist in the real world or anywhere outside your imaginary ad hoc assemblage. No body else would come up with the same pattern you did by taking random pictures off the internet. Scientists, on the other hand, would (will and have) come up with the same pattern/s of hereditary descent in nested hierarchies due to the multiple lines of evidence that are available. All you made clear was an inability to grasp a simple point: reproduction in breeding populations produces variations in the following generations, we see this pattern in the world around us, and we see this same pattern in the fossil record. Thus what we see in the world around us explains what we see in the fossil record. Your pots and pans are missing several elements that are part of the picture when it comes to Pelycodus, as an example. The most critical is context in time and space. Being an ad hoc arbitrary compilation of pictures there is no context in time and space of where the individual components were taken from. With Pelycodus you have location in a geographical location that does not vary, and you have a time-line from top to bottom that delineates lineage from older at the bottom to younger at the top. At each level you have fossils of organisms that are the product of reproduction, that had ancestral parents, and they have similarities to the fossils below that show a homologous pattern in their skeletons. This is the same pattern that we see in living populations. It is therefore logical to infer that they are both of the same hereditary lineage and that the lower level is older, ancestral, to the upper level. This holds for every layer in the whole matrix from top to bottom. You cannot infer such a pattern from pots and pans because you have no logical basis to infer hereditary lineage, and you have no context placing them in proximity in time and space.
In one case you claim that similarity implies CD. In another case you say that similarity does not imply CD. You have a contradiction. You have a variable A (similarity) that in one instance (animals) produces B (common descent), and in another instance (frying pans), this same variable produces ~B (not-B). Therefore, you have a contradiction. Because the reality is not as simple as your little diagram. In one case you have multiple lines of evidence pointing towards a conclusion, while in the other you have no lines of evidence pointing to any conclusion, because of that simple little difference your analogy fails to represent reality, just your delusion/s.
Those animals simply got burried by a catastrophe? What's so fantastic about that? Layers and fossils form that way. Here is an example of Mt. St. Helens. It's layers formed in just that fashion. Curiously that does not even begin to answer the question of how the layers of fossils show the evidence of hereditary lineage. Fascinatingly, what I said was that when you have burials by catastrophic events that you do not end up with the pattern seen with Pelycodus, not that such layers are not formed by catastrophic events. Providing examples of catastrophic events that provide multiple layers formed in rapid fashion fails to provide the evidence of burial of animals in discrete layers that are sorted in the manner seen with Pelycodus: they are generally all lumped and jumbled.
I said that: IF A = B THEN B = A. Which is true. You did not present that. What you made is a set and proper subset. The difference between a subset and a proper subset is that a subset may imply that A = B and B = A, yet a proper subset implies that A ⊂ B and B ⊃ A. Thus we have that A ≠ B and B ≠ A. That is what you presented. Yet that is nto what I said. A linear equation and a polynomial equation can have the same values of y for given a given x, but one or more points in common does not mean that the curves are identical or that one is analogous to the other. Here you are equivocating between such simple equalities and actual identities. If, and ONLY If A ≡ B Then and ONLY then does B ≡ A Obviously, for the average reader anyway, your pots and pans are not equivalent to hereditary lineages in living breeding organisms, so you cannot have A ≡ B, and your analogy fails as a result -- because you have parts of B ≠ A ... the parts that apply to living breeding reproducing populations of organisms, the parts that apply to evolution. In one case the pattern seen is arranged in nature due to natural processes, while in the other case the pattern is arranged in your computer by ad hoc selection of images, images unrelated in time and space, images devoid of any context.
But a logical statement is a fact. It is a logical fact. A pure logical statement is a fact. IF A = A THEN A ≠ ~A. This is a logical fact. It's called the law of identity and it means that if something is itself than it is itself and not something that is not itself. Sorry, no, you are still confused between assumptions made and conclusions that follow. Mathematics in general and logic in particular are based on assumptions, and these assumptions can be false. As a result the conclusions can always be false. What you have stated here is one of the beginning assumptions, on which further conclusions can be based. It is taken as (assumed to be) fact for the purpose of the argument, but it is still just an intellectual construction and not fact. In logic there are no conclusions that do not rest on assumptions. Asserting otherwise does not make it any more valid than before, as your point has been invalidated, and you should know that any logical statement that has been invalidated is falsified, not fact. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : englss, clrty. we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1661 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi again Smooth Operator, trying to pull a fast one?
Well here we have evidece that rates of decay can change.
quote:http://www.astm.org/JOURNALS/JAI/PAGES/JAI12421.htm Interestingly, the study attached has absolutely nothing to do with accelerated decay. Either you did not read the abstract or did not understand it. The subject addresses the damage to a proposed containing material for nuclear damage by accelerating the exposure of the material to the radioactive decay. This is their conclusion:
quote: No change to any rate of radioactive decay of any of the materials in the study was noted. Color me surprised. Enjoy. we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1661 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi again Smooth Operator, trying to pass off fantasy in place of reality again?
No, not always so. It can also be changed without changing the energy of the particle.
quote:http://static.icr.org/...erated-Decay-Theoretical-Models.pdf Curiously, not only does this paper NOT demonstrate what you claim is actually true, but it doesn't even demonstrate what IT claims is actually true, just that one can fantasize about it in never never land. The problem is that this article is bogus. It is made up fantasy not science. Here we see phaque science at it's most despicable -- pretending to be real to fool gullible people. Amusingly, they started with the assumption that there is a young earth to explain, without providing any evidence for it being so:
quote: Then they conclude that physics must have been different at some time in the past to accommodate this young earth fantasy concept. Next they play with mathematics (which can be made to show anything) to pretend to demonstrate something, without having a single piece of empirical evidence to substantiate it. Fascinatingly, they do not show that there is in fact any variation in energy well levels in the real world, nor do they show (the critical part that you need) that this actually occurs without changing the overall decay energy. Note that changing the well depth means you are in effect changing the initial isotope that you are then calculating the alpha decay from. Just a little slight-of-hand bogus science from your typical creationist fraud factory. Here's their conclusion:
quote: In other words, god-did-it, pull out the magic rabbit, but not a fact to be had to support a single word. And do they show how this magic increase in decay rate could actually occur? By changing the whole universe? Sorry, but somehow I missed the relevant evidence for such fantasy. Here's a clue that this is bogus fantasy wish fulfilling writing rather than a logical conclusion based on facts:
quote: Do you know why? The quote is complete - what is missing? Where is your skepticism for this (not good for toilet) paper? What this in effect proves is that the Uranium halos are evidence for an old earth, or else you need to turn physics inside out with magic to then produce fake evidence of an old earth, and that as a consequence your god is a joker, a jester, a prankster. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : clrty Edited by RAZD, : ... we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1661 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi Theodoric,
You would think that sooner or later SO would quit posting crap he doesn't understand that is posted on websites that don't understand it. It would be funny if it weren't so pathetic, and transparent a denial of reality. Not only to post something that does not say what he claims, but then to try to argue that it does say what he claims. Another display of his stunning inability to deal with reality. Enjoy. we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1661 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi Smooth Operator, still struggling with reality?
Message 1194:
Well here we have evidece that rates of decay can change.
quote:http://www.astm.org/JOURNALS/JAI/PAGES/JAI12421.htm Interestingly, the study attached has absolutely nothing to do with accelerated decay. Either you did not read the abstract or did not understand it. The subject addresses the damage to a proposed containing material for nuclear damage by accelerating the exposure of the material to the radioactive decay. This is their conclusion:
quote:No change to any rate of radioactive decay of any of the materials in the study was noted. Please refer to this paper for the details of what this paper is based on and don't try to change the topic to something else. It is rather explicit:
quote: There is absolutely no mention of accelerating the rate of decay by any mechanism:
quote: There is no mention of any change in the rate of decay of the plutonium.
quote:You didn't understand the article. I'll show you the technologfy that this experiment was based on. quote: quote:Method for enhancing alpha decay in radioactive materials - Altran Corporation Now it seems, that not content with fabricating fantasy physics for yourself, you are fabricating what the researchers in the original paper you cited were using in their study of the effect of four years of (normal) plutonium decay on the proposed containment materials. There is no link between the paper Plutonium-238 Alpha-Decay Damage Study of A Glass-Bonded Sodalite Ceramic Waste Form, Journal of ASTM International (JAI) Volume 2, Issue 1 (January 2005) ISSN: 1546-962X Published Online: 3 January 2005 by Frank, SM, DiSanto, T, Goff, MK, Johnson, SG, Jue, J-F, Barber, TL, Noy, M, O'Holleran, TP, and Giglio, JJ and the invention of Barker that I could find. I did a little background check on this "invention" to see if I could find any mention of it. What I found was interesting ... Adept Alchemy (Robert Nelson): Cold Fusion Transmutations
quote: ooo it's cold fusion time? And http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/BarnhartBtechnology.pdf
quote: So far they have not been shown to produce any marketable result. Wonder why? I also found that this patent is about to expire: United States Patent 5,076,971 Barker Dec. 31, 1991, Method for enhancing alpha decay in radioactive materials,Inventors: Barker; William A. (Los Altos, CA). Assignee: Altran Corporation (Sunnyvale, CA). Appl. No.: 400,180, Filed: Aug. 28, 1989. This invention is 20 years old and has not been used for anything practical, nor has it been studied further. So much for the gay art of cloud riding. Now perhaps you could prove me wrong by citing the journal published information on the actual documented change in the rate of decay in plutonium from the Frank et al paper, but I won't hold my breath. And just for chuckles, even if your Barker invention is the real thing, what they would have done would have changee the energy of the alpha particles, thus still leaving you with the problem mentioned before: Change the decay rate and you change the alpha energy.Change the alpha decay energy and you change the halo diameter. Aside from the problem of somehow pretending that a massive world wide Van de Graaff generator big enough to affect the whole world magically operates in a natural universe. Fantasy is like that. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : citation fix we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1661 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
The numbers are where they peed in the snow, it just happens to look like numbers, because obviously woolifs can't write.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1661 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Sorry AZPaul, but this is the source of this knowledge
Method for enhancing alpha decay in radioactive materials - Altran Corporation It is the effect of the electromagnetic field from the Van de Graaff generator at different voltages that causes the apparent color of the numbers as well, similar to the way that oil sheens appear to be colors due to the effect on wavelength interactions. Obviously you did not understand the article or you would see this. enjoy. we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024