Instant Earth, Just Add Dust Particles

EvilSuggestions writes "Apparently, the estimate for how long it took for the Earth to form just got chopped in half. Now just a paltry 30 million years (which, IIRC, is less than one day on Carl Sagan's 1 year = the life of the universe calendar). So, adjust your terraforming plans appropriately. The good folks over at Science News have been following the gory details behind this conclusion."

Comments

They're getting closer to correct

[Anonymous Coward]

Only a few more divisions and they will be down to the 7 days.

Re:They're getting closer to correct

[decaheximal]

Actually i believe they have it. As we all well know, the Earth was actually created in six days, and on the seventh God rested. So how does this add up, you ask?

a paltry 30 million years (which, IIRC, is less than one day on Carl Sagan's 1 year = the life of the universe calendar).

Simple: Where do you think us geeks inherited our "finish half a project and come back to it tomorrow" genes from? The MASTER, of course.

Re:They're getting closer to correct

[CProgrammer98]

Actually the hebrew word that was translated to "days" can also be translated as "period" so the earth was form in 6 "periods"

Re:They're getting closer to correct

[Alsee]

the earth was form in 6 "periods"

And here they are: . . . . . .

-

accuracy?

[a302b]

Hmm. It does raise questions about the accuracy of radioactive dating. Does anyone know what methods are in place to prove the accuracy of such radioactive dating techniques?

Re:accuracy?

[tiedyejeremy]

I had a professor who was "older than dirt." We could ask him.

Re:accuracy?

[roachmotel3]

How does this raise any questions about radioactive dating? As far as I can tell, that's not even part of this conversation!

Re:accuracy?

[roachmotel3]

Further research on my part:

From the article:
Kleine suggests that in previous studies, researchers came up with formation times that were twice as long because they had less accurate determinations of the amount of tungsten-182 in meteorites.

It has nothing to do with the accuracy of the radioactive dating, but rather the sampling techniques used in the original estimates.

Re:accuracy?

[a302b]

I suppose I wasn't clear in my earlier post.

I'm quite confident radioactive dating is very accurate in lab contitions. The amount of trace elements can be accurately determined, and based on the half-life, an age can be fairly accurately estimated.
However, how accurate are field conditions? Minerals move and change over such a large period of time, so how does one know when one has a representative ratio of (say) tungsten-182 and hafnium-182? A you pointed out, it was the sampling techniques that were flawed in the original estimate. How does one show that the techniques used in this sample (and others) are accurate?

Re:accuracy?

[Quelain]

This might be what you're looking for:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/isochron-dating.ht ml

Re:accuracy?

[gi-tux]

I have often wondered along this same line. How do we know that the ratio of (say) tungsten-182 and hafnium-182 is a constant? Or how do we know that the change in the speed of light didn't change the half-life of hafnium-182?

I agree that in lab conditions the process works very well, but we are talking about very controlled testing. And even very controlled testing isn't perfect, as bugs are accidentally released with software, and consumer products aren't all hugh successes.

Also, in the "real world" environment, how are they sure that there hasn't been a loss of one of the elements? A loss of tungsten-182 would make the time measurement be less as the ratio would be higher in favor of hafnium-182. And how do they know that the astroids that they used were not from a planet, moon, or something that didn't form a core? I seriously doubt that they can prove where that astroid came from.

It seems to me that they are extending the scientific process over things that aren't controllable. The scientific process is susceptible to error when a lack of control is allowed to enter the experiment.

Re:accuracy?

[cp99]

However, how accurate are field conditions? Minerals move and change over such a large period of time, so how does one know when one has a representative ratio of (say) tungsten-182 and hafnium-182? A you pointed out, it was the sampling techniques that were flawed in the original estimate. How does one show that the techniques used in this sample (and others) are accurate?

There are several ways in which one can check the accuracy of radiodating in the field.

For recent (on the historical timescale) events, one can compare radiodates with historical dates. For example, radiodating lava from Pompay gives the same date as what can be derived from Romen records).

Another much more general method (as it doens't rely on other information), is compare radiodates of various techniques.

For example, the Meteorite named Saint Severin was radiodated with Sm-Nd, Rb-Sr and Ar-Ar dating. If one isotope was migrating, then one dates optained would be off, if all of the isotopes were migrating, then all of the dates would be off (they would migrate at different speeds).

We get the following results:

Sm-Nd 4.55 +/- 0.33

Rb-Sr 4.51 +/- 0.15

Ar-Ar 4.43 +/- 0.04, 4.38 +/- 0.04, and 4.42 +/- 0.04

However, that being said, many individual radiodates are heatly debated in the science lit., however, the accuracy of the technique as a whole is well established.

Re:accuracy?

[young-earth]

Actually according to G. Brent Dalrymple, a geologist with the USGS, there are a number of cases where radiometric dating was very far off. Not to mention the case of Mt. St. Helens, where rocks were taken from the newly formed lava dome and K-Ar dated. They were known to be roughly 8 years old (how long the dome had been forming). Yet the labs tested them and the youngest date was over 200,000 years (oldest test date was in the millions). Now yes many apologists will claim that this was due to excess Argon. Of course it had to be either excess Ar or depleted K, since this is a ratio measurement. And they'll mention that the rock selected must have either heated insufficiently to achieve full Ar bleedout, or that chunks of the rock were never liquified and therefore were pockets of ancient ratios.

Certainly the explanation is some combination of those causes. However it does bring up a significant methodological question. Since cases where the age is known result in conclusively incorrect data, even if it can be explained, why should anyone accept as accurate rocks which are from an unknown time frame? The same explanations used to excuse the immensely incorrect ratios in known-age rocks could apply to rocks with an unknown history.

Isn't it true that some of the methods have been falsified, and we should look for better tools?

Re:accuracy?

[cp99]

Actually according to G. Brent Dalrymple, a geologist with the USGS, there are a number of cases where radiometric dating was very far off.

And...

Nobody denies that there are strange results, however, these occur when there is a result for the isotope compositions to be disturbed. For example, one of the early North American archeology sites is subjected to heated debate because of controversial dating due to possible carbon contamination.

Not to mention the case of Mt. St. Helens, where rocks were taken from the newly formed lava dome and K-Ar dated. They were known to be roughly 8 years old (how long the dome had been forming). Yet the labs tested them and the youngest date was over 200,000 years (oldest test date was in the millions).

Given that K-Ar dating has a lower limited on the age required for a accurate answer (which is much greater than 8 years), the person who submitted them to the labs for testing must have been either (a) clueless, or (b) only after propaganda. Not surprising that this comes out of the creationist world.

Now yes many apologists will claim that this was due to excess Argon. Of course it had to be either excess Ar or depleted K, since this is a ratio measurement. And they'll mention that the rock selected must have either heated insufficiently to achieve full Ar bleedout, or that chunks of the rock were never liquified and therefore were pockets of ancient ratios.

Which are all good reasons. Did Austin and co-workers perform Ar testing on the rocks like a geologist would? Or might that kill their little story?

Certainly the explanation is some combination of those causes. However it does bring up a significant methodological question. Since cases where the age is known result in conclusively incorrect data, even if it can be explained, why should anyone accept as accurate rocks which are from an unknown time frame? The same explanations used to excuse the immensely incorrect ratios in known-age rocks could apply to rocks with an unknown history.

Unlike creationists, geologists are extremely careful of the rocks which test. Radiodating is complex, and one must be careful in it's application.

However, what the creationists are doing is the equilivent of the trying to measure a atom with a meter ruler, failing and them claiming that all measuring equipment doesn't work.

Isn't it true that some of the methods have been falsified, and we should look for better tools?

No, it's been abused not falsified. There is a massive difference.

Re:accuracy?

[barawn]

Depends on the foundations of the assumptions. Take C12/C14, for instance. Here we know that the C14/C12 ratio is NOT constant, because C12 is being turned into C14 all the time in the upper atmosphere, and that depends on the solar cycle and activity. Most likely things like the Maunder minimum would strongly affect C14 production, and thus the C12/C14 ratio over the Earth. This can be corrected for with other calibration techniques, of course, to get through isolated events like this.

Here, it's much more likely that their assumptions are solid, as they're chemical in nature, rather than astrophysical: hafnium is bound in the mantle, tungsten is unbound. Since hafnium is bound, when tungsten forms, it's bound as well. As for loss, you'd lose both at the same rate, so the ratio should be fine (it'd be a proportional loss, rather than an absolute).

As for the location of the asteroid, if it came from a core, it'd show other signatures of coming from a core. Cores are molten, so they form different alloys, and all that.

And finally: ignore the whole "change in the speed of light" thing, or at least read up on it more closely. The current data (which is not convincing in the least: it's only 2 sigma from no change!) indicates less than a 1 part per million change over a good fraction of the life of the Universe. It's not important. It's probably not even true.

Re:accuracy?

[young-earth]

You stated that

Given that K-Ar dating has a lower limited on the age required for a accurate answer (which is much greater than 8 years), the person who submitted them to the labs for testing must have been either (a) clueless, or (b) only after propaganda. Not surprising that this comes out of the creationist world

Sticking just to the facts, if the rocks being too young to be tested were the only problem, then ALL of the rocks should have had the same age - same K and Ar levels. But the age varied by a factor of greater than an order of magnitude. That's way too big to be called a reliable method. If I took a fever temperature reading on you, and it was 37C to 370C, you'd be either perfectly healthy or a glowing ember. Clearly my temperature measurement method would be condemned as completely useless. Why then accept +/- an order of magnitude in radiometric dating?

Unlike creationists, geologists are extremely careful of the rocks which test. Radiodating is complex, and one must be careful in it's application

Steve Austin has a Ph.D. in geology, so he is a geologist. If his philosphical belief is towards a young earth and that disqualifies him, then atheistic geologists with a belief in an old earth should be similarly disqualified by your criteria - or is balance a problem here?

Re:accuracy?

[cp99]

Sticking just to the facts, if the rocks being too young to be tested were the only problem, then ALL of the rocks should have had the same age - same K and Ar levels. But the age varied by a factor of greater than an order of magnitude. That's way too big to be called a reliable method. If I took a fever temperature reading on you, and it was 37C to 370C, you'd be either perfectly healthy or a glowing ember. Clearly my temperature measurement method would be condemned as completely useless. Why then accept +/- an order of magnitude in radiometric dating?

It's a lot more complicated than what your making it out to be. Some rocks are good at certain types of radiodating, some rocks are good at other typers of radiodating, other rocks are just plain bad at it. It all depends on their makeup and history. This is well known in geology. Geologists are very careful in what rocks they date, and even then there is considerable debate about. That's science in action.

Sadly this allows some individuals with a ideological hangup to misrepresent it.

Steve Austin has a Ph.D. in geology, so he is a geologist. If his philosphical belief is towards a young earth and that disqualifies him, then atheistic geologists with a belief in an old earth should be similarly disqualified by your criteria - or is balance a problem here?

What's this about my "criteria"?

I've never told you what my criteria is, so could you not just make it up?

I have no problem with Austin believing in a young earth. If he was willing to present a honest case for it, I would respect that (and him, for giving it a go). However, he hasn't. Rather he only misrepresents a scientific technique in order to score cheap brownie points.

And given that Austin (plus all the other young earthers) disagree with pretty much all of modern geology, describing them as geologists would be a surefire way to lead to confusion.

Re:accuracy?

[young-earth]

You stated your criteria twice now:

Unlike creationists, geologists are extremely careful of the rocks which test

and

Austin (plus all the other young earthers) disagree with pretty much all of modern geology, describing them as geologists would be a surefire way to lead to confusion

In both of those statements, you made sweeping generalizations, essentially ad hominem attacks on any person who interprets data differently than you do. There is a simple fact here: Steve Austin has a Ph.D. in geology. Are you demanding a further standard that he achieve in order to be called a geologist by you? Must he subscribe to a belief system you approve of? That certainly seems to be a reasonable interpretation of your twoposts on this thread.

You attack Dr. Austin, but have you read his thesis? Do you have a basis for attacking him other than his beliefs? Are you aware of the solid evidence he has put forward for a young earth? Have you considered the published articles (in Science and in Nature) by Gentry which show a rapidly-formed earth?

Re:accuracy?

[cp99]

Neither of those statements which I made are criteria.

Well I could see that the first could be a ad hominem (however, can you name a single radiodate from a young earther which is good enough to pass peer review - if not, my statement stands), the second one is not. Young earthers disagree with massive amounts of modern geology (age of earth, geological column, global flood etc), to call them by the same name would not only be confusing, but let young earthers ride off the reputation of mainstream science.

There is a simple fact here: Steve Austin has a Ph.D. in geology. Are you demanding a further standard that he achieve in order to be called a geologist by you? Must he subscribe to a belief system you approve of? That certainly seems to be a reasonable interpretation of your two posts on this thread.

Look, I know you've got a ideology to defend, and I know that many from the young earth community are masters of misleading quotations, and selective use of evidence, but your "reasonable interpretation" is pretty unreasonable given that in the very post to which you replied I stated "I have no problem with Austin believing in a young earth. If he was willing to present a honest case for it, I would respect that (and him, for giving it a go). However, he hasn't. Rather he only misrepresents a scientific technique in order to score cheap brownie points." That should make it pretty clear to anybody that Austin can follow whatever belief he wants to, I just want him to put forward a honest case for it. Not the deception he puts presents.

You attack Dr. Austin, but have you read his thesis?

No, but I have read some of the reports he has published. And given that I haven't attacked him on the quality of his thesis, rather the quality of his reports, I think that it's not unfair.

Do you have a basis for attacking him other than his beliefs?

His dishonesty.

Are you aware of the solid evidence he has put forward for a young earth?

Some of it, I dear say that there is more that I haven't seen, but I get skeptic about people who use misleading statements like him.

Have you considered the published articles (in Science and in Nature) by Gentry which show a rapidly-formed earth?

Irrelevent, but yes I have considered them.

Oh by the way, in which nature or science article does his rapidly formed earth conclusion appear. To my knowledge it actually works more like this: holes in rocks (peer reviewed) - one researcher concludes that they are due to Po (peer reviewed) - that same researcher concludes that this is evidence of a rapidly formed earth (not peer reviewed).

Crappy science

[Caractacus Potts]

Looks like Science News is going the way of Scientific American. Yet another magazine I used to admire is getting watered down for the masses.
Let's see, two teams of researchers misusing the same radiodating technique get similar answers. Obviously, we can report that "researchers finally reach a consensus..." and state that the results are "clearly" definite.

Re:The our/other moon's formation

[CheshireCatCO]

Actually, the leap from Earth's Moon to other moons isn't a safe one to make. I can think of only one other moon in the solar system believed to have been formed in a giant impact. (Namely, Pluto's Charon.)

Almost all other moons are either believed to be captured (based on their orbits) or giant planet moons, which were believed to have formed in the accretion disks around the planets. In this light, these moons wouldn't collide with their parent planets as accretion occurred because the colliding particles would be in similar orbits about the planet.

The Truth About What Happened

[Amazing Quantum Man]

All we had to do was to ask Johnny!

Well, let's see. First the earth cooled. And then the dinosaurs came, but they got too big and fat, so they all died and they turned into oil. And then the Arabs came and they bought Mercedes Benzes. And Prince Charles started wearing all of Lady Di's clothes. I couldn't believe it.

Re:Mega-crap

[Praseodymn]

hey ah..you ever read the slashdot story about the walking fish? yea..and evolution doesnt happen..everything just went *POP*!, species don't go extinct, individuals don't matter-its the population! you catastrophist you.

Read up about evolution before opening your mouth.
Pras

Re:Mega-crap

[offpath3]

Being a resident of Hawaii, I really must throw in my two cents here. A few years back some austrailian wallabes go loose in the Koolaus (mountain range) in Hawaii. Drastic adaptive changes were seen within only several generations of wallabes and this is one of the main pieces of evidence to support the "punctuated equilibrium" theory of evolution. Don't have a link on me, but I'm sure you can google it yourself. Just because you don't know of any evidence doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

If I remember my highschool bio correctly, there was also a moth that evolved a darker coloring after a nearby coal plant blackened the forest the moth lived in.

Re:Mega-crap

[bcboy]

> To the best of my knowledge,

Well, there's the problem. Educate yourself.

Evolution is a theory in the same manner as the "theory of gravity", and "copernican theory", and "atomic theory", which is to say by every standard of science evolution is a fact.

Not enough....

[phagstrom]

IIRC Pinkey and Brain did it in like one night.....

Narf.....

Re:Mega-crap

[cp99]

But evolution is a theory. It can't be proven unless (according to the scientific process) someone sees it happen. To the best of my knowledge, no one has seen anything evolve into something else. Thus it remains a theory.

This statement is so wrong in so many different ways. The first sentence is correct, but that's about it.

Evolution (along with gravity, relativity, and a spherical earth) is a theory. Whether or not they are observed, will not change their status. However, contary to creationist propaganda evolution has been observed. Both in the lab, and if the field.

I just can't understand how anyone can look at the world/universe in all of the splendor with all the mechanical and physical laws that work so tightly together and say "It just happened that way". To me that would be like saying "my computer built itself from the sands on the beach". It took intelligence to build a computer and it took even more intelligence to build the universe.

Luckly nobody is suggesting that it just happened that way. Therefore this statement is based on a misunderstanding.

Radio radio

[Bazzargh]

Look, radioactive dating is very simple:

Boy meets girl. Girl fuses with boy. Girl discovers boy's fusing with best friend Kelly Marie. Girl splits from Boy, and becomes too dangerous to approach for about 30 million years. Sometime later, Girl files claim for fission byproduct support.

Re:Mega-crap

[gi-tux]

Thank you for agreeing with me that it is a theory. A theory is not a fact (check the dictionary or a definition of the scientific process). Are you saying that you have proof that a species has evolved into a completely new species? This is breaking news, why isn't it on the headlines page here? I do not accept that slight modifications of a species proves evolution. As I stated before, that happens all the time, but it is still the same species.

Oh, no it isn't based on misunderstanding. The theory that started this whole conversation is the beginning of the universe. And if there isn't a superior being that created the universe, then it just happened. The laws of mechanics and physics must have evolved over time and thus could be changing regularly and thus anything done using the scientific process would be invalid as the laws could change right our from under it. In other words, the theory turns on itself over time.

That refers to creationism, right?

[Spamalamadingdong]

But evolution is a theory. It can't be proven unless (according to the scientific process) someone sees it happen. To the best of my knowledge, no one has seen anything evolve into something else. Thus it remains a theory.

Are you saying that there is no theory of gravity, because it's been observed? (In other words, you're a sloppy thinker and a very poor troll.)

Evolution has been:

1. Observed to create new species in nature.
2. Observed to promote adaptation via selection both via natural and artificial forces.
3. Observed via living species (both from their morphology and their DNA) and the fossil record; there are heaps and heaps of evidence for evolution.

So, have you ever seen a species (or a universe) being created? Didn't think so. And if you're hearing voices in your head, medication can probably help you.

Re:That refers to creationism, right?

[gi-tux]

There used to be a theory of gravity, it is now the law of gravity. It has been proven. It has been observed many times. Gee even the folks in east Tennessee call it Newton's 2nd law. And in Oregon. And in Winnepeg. Or do a Google search.

So you are saying that you have proof of the three items you mentioned? Would you please post them for our education? But number 2 is not evolution, it is adaptation and that is totally different and can't be used to prove number 1 (see my previous post concerning the wallabys, they are still wallabys). I am not sure that number 3 can be used to prove number 1 either. There are very good arguements against DNA proving evolution. The fossil record could be misintrepreted, just as the length of time in the earth's creation is being misintrepreted. And morphology is simply studying change which is another way of saying adaptation (using big words to hide the truth).

No, I haven't seen a species or a universe being created. But I also don't refer to it as a theory (nor as a law). It is simply fact and has been declared since the beginning. The "theory of creationism" was created by scientist attempting to drag creation down to the same level as evolution.

I don't hear voices in my head, and I have never heard voices in my head. And you called me a very poor troll.

Re:That refers to creationism, right?

[Yunzil]

There used to be a theory of gravity, it is now the law of gravity. It has been proven

No. Nothing is ever 'proven' in science. All we have are theories that haven't been overturned -- yet.

Now, there is a thing we call 'gravity', which seems to cause masses to be attracted to each other. This is a fact. We have several theories that try to explain how it happens. There's the classical Newtonian force theory, there's General Relativity, where gravity is a curvature of spacetime, and some day we hope to have a quantum theory of gravity.

Similarly, there is something called 'evolution', in which species change over time. This is a fact. As with gravity, we have different theories that attempt to explain exaclty how it happens.

So you are saying that you have proof of the three items you mentioned? Would you please post them for our education?

I'm not the original poster, but here is a list of observed speciation events.

But number 2 is not evolution, it is adaptation and that is totally different

No. Adaptation IS evolution.

Re:That refers to creationism, right?

[gi-tux]

Wow, a good point, one I hadn't thought about. Scientific theories are proposed to be shot down. Why are you working so hard to support it, when you should be attempting to shoot it down so that it can be refined to better describe the true facts?

However, this also contradicts an arguement made eariler by someone claiming to support the same side of this discussion as you. They stated that "Evolution (along with gravity, relativity, and a spherical earth) is a theory." And by putting your spin on this "No. Nothing is ever 'proven' in science. All we have are theories that haven't been overturned -- yet.", I can not determine that the earth has been proven to be spherical? Quick post it to the /. main page, we have another new scientific discovery!!! And all this time, I thought that the earth was spherical, maybe those pictures from space were really faked (ooops, that would be another arguement).

While I agree that species do adapt over time, that still doesn't show a fact that points to evolution. I must say that I haven't had time to read the document that you pointed out. However, I suspect that it involves hybrids that are not sterile (not really a new species) or outcomes that go in favor sometimes and against sometimes but the in favors get more press coverage. In other words half of them did something that the scientist predicted so he talks about that and not about the half that behaved normally. Not conclusive!

Re:That refers to creationism, right?

[corey_lawson]

...then if it was a fact, then it has been observed.

If it hasn't been observed, it cannot be a fact, per your logic.

If the fossil record can be "misinterpreted" (or, interpreted differently at a later time), then why can't the Bible (or Koran, Torah, et al? Oh, wait. We already have arguments going on that such works are also misinterpreted by others...)?

Are you saying that the Bible's interpretation by humans has remained constant over time? The fact that there are several versions of Bibles in use today should reflect that the "Bible" isn't really a good axiomatic text to view the world.

Re:That refers to creationism, right?

[Yunzil]

Scientific theories are proposed to be shot down. Why are you working so hard to support it, when you should be attempting to shoot it down so that it can be refined to better describe the true facts?

Because I am not a scientist. I can only report what thousands of other scientists have already reported. And scientists have shot down evolutionary theories. At first, it was thought that evolution generally proceeded at a very slow pace. Now the prevailing idea (I may be wrong about this) is that it tends to proceeds in fits and starts [punctuated equilibria].

I can not determine that the earth has been proven to be spherical?

No, no, no. That the earth is spherical is a fact. Why is is spherical? Theory: Gravity tries to pull everything as close as possible. Theory: The Magratheana built it that way. Theory: It's being pushed equally from all sides by Mysterious Space Rays.

We invent theories to try to explain the facts.

And here is the crux of the matter:
While I agree that species do adapt over time, that still doesn't show a fact that points to evolution.

The term "evolution" just means that the genetic makeup of a population of organisms changes over time. Therefore, adaptation is evolution by definition!

That species change is a fact. No one disputes this. There are theories of evolution that explain how it happens. This is what people mean when they say evolution is both a fact and a theory.

In other words half of them did something that the scientist predicted so he talks about that and not about the half that behaved normally

Read the document.

Re:That refers to creationism, right?

[keithlarsen]

The fact that there are several versions of Bibles in use today should reflect that the "Bible" isn't really a good axiomatic text to view the world.

To quote Spamalamadingdong, "If you had any idea of what you were talking about, you would know this."

You think you are so smart, the different versions of the Bible all say the same thing. They are just re-prints of the Bible to the common vernacular of the time.

Re:That refers to creationism, right?

[agentelmo]

It remains a theory as we have not had a significant environmental change in our lifetime to observe a response to it.

Re:Mega-crap

[scot4875]

My only observation:

People use this argument all the time (how could the universe just create itself? It's so perfect, it doesn't make sense!) I don't buy it.

How's this:

How did God just create itself? It's so perfect, it doesn't make sense!

And another thing I don't understand:

Why does evolution preclude the existence of God? Why couldn't God have created all these rules and this perfect universe, and then just sat back and said "go!"

--Jeremy

Re:Mega-crap

[grayhaired]

But evolution is a theory. It can't be proven unless (according to the scientific process) someone sees it happen. To the best of my knowledge, no one has seen anything evolve into something else. Thus it remains a theory.

People see evolution all the time. The simplest example, in bacteria, is the development of antibiotic resistance in strains that had no resistance before. There is also the classic example of the peppered moth in England, going from a peppery wingspan to a black wingspan as England used more and more coal, and then back
to a peppery wing when the coal use went away.

These are documented examples of evolution in historic times.

Stephen Jay Gould said it best, when he mentioned that evolution was a theory, but it is also a fact. People tend to forget that when they try to wish away the facts of evolution.

Gray

Re:Mega-crap

[gi-tux]

God did not create itself. We are told that God is an eternal being.

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

And in

Revelation 22:13 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.

There are certain things that man does not understand while on this earth. God, being such a different type of being, is one of those things.

John 4:24 God is a spirit and they that worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth.

As to your second point, in Genesis the words "after his kind" would eliminate evolution. You could still adapt, but not change species for your offspring.

Re:Mega-crap

[gi-tux]

That is not evolution, despite what some try to tell you. That is adaptation and is not a changing from one species to another. No one has shown an example of true evolution. I have retrieved the definition of evolution from dictionary.com (under biology) as

Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.

I will agree that the development of antibotic resistance is a change. Or that the change in the wing color on the moth is a change (this is cool and it even adapted back to its normal state later). I will not agree that the result was a new species in either case. You have taken a hugh leap from adaptation to evolution. Humans even show similar traits. After all we develop antibodies to kill off bacteria and that changes us as we are no longer vulnerable to those bacteria. And some time in history we developed different skin colors. But we are still all humans.

As to Stephen Jay Gould's statement that you quoted, a theory isn't a fact until it is proven. He might want it to be a fact and he might call it a fact, but no one has presented proof of a new species by evolution yet. Proof by the same scientific rules that are universally accepted for scientific discovery.

Re: Mega-crap

[Black Parrot]

> As to Stephen Jay Gould's statement that you quoted, a theory isn't a fact until it is proven. He might want it to be a fact and he might call it a fact, but no one has presented proof of a new species by evolution yet.

You really don't understand science.

A theory is just a model that explains some facts. "Evolution", the theory, explains "evolution", the fact. The basic fact is that the collection of species that make up the earth's population has been in continual change over time. (There're lots of other relevant facts too, but that's the biggie.) The theory, the modern version of which goes by the name "neo-darwinian synthesis", is our best model for explaining those facts.

Cf. "gravity", the fact, and "gravity", the theory that explains it (the latter usually called "relativity" these days).

Notice in passing that if someone shows a theory to be wrong, the facts that the theory attempted to explain don't automatically disappear along with the theory.

> Proof by the same scientific rules that are universally accepted for scientific discovery.

The ToE does play by the universally accepted rules for scientific discovery. That you think those rules can be described as 'proof' tells the science-literate how ill-informed you are about what science is and how it works.

Re: Mega-crap

[Black Parrot]

> This just in. Another stupid theory regarding evolution. Yeah those scientists won't have to follow biblical law now; they have another theory to approve of evolution. Even know all they did was contradicted themselves, they have to keep evolution moving along somehow.

Hope you're a firkin' troll, 'cause otherwise you're a firkin' idiot.

Re:Mega-crap

[young-earth]

Kettlewell's peppered moth experiments have been revealed as fakes (the pictures in textbooks are of moths glued to tree trunks).

Personally I think the peppered moth case though is quite true, there was an adaptive pressure on the moths, and the population ratios changed. However there had always been a small percentage of dark moths; the change in environment just altered the ratio. Sort of like if someone shot all the orange cats in your neighborhood, you'd see a general change in the color mix of cats in your area. Doesn't mean evolution was observed, just that a sicko with a gun was on the loose. There were already a variety of cat colors, and the whacko exerted a selection pressure on one color. Lock up the nutcase, throw away the key, and the cat population will return to normal.

One point not mentioned in the textbook summaries of Kettlewell's experiments is that once legislation forced a cleanup of the pollutants, the black moths were predominant for a long time (many years) after the tree trunks lightened up. There was a pressure, but it wasn't from the color of tree trunks.

Re: Mega-crap

[gi-tux]

Notice in passing that if someone shows a theory to be wrong, the facts that the theory attempted to explain don't automatically disappear along with the theory.

And you finally got the main point of my arguement. The theory of evolution is not correct! You finally got it! The only fact is adaptation, and people have come up with a theory that goes so far past the facts. I have agreed to the fact of adaptation, but everyone keeps calling that evolution and it isn't. The theory of evolution is attempting to expand the scientific process to explain "facts" that don't exist.

Re:Mega-crap

[cp99]

Thank you for agreeing with me that it is a theory.

My pleasure.

A theory is not a fact (check the dictionary or a definition of the scientific process).

Correct. Theories try to explain facts.

Species changing over time (ie. evolution) have been observed, therefore evolution is both a fact and a theory.

Are you saying that you have proof that a species has evolved into a completely new species?

Yes.

This is breaking news, why isn't it on the headlines page here?

This is oh so wrong. Speciation events have been known for a long time. Creationists may live in the distant past, but science doesn't.

To help you catch up with the rest of the world you should investigate cichlid fishes, the Faroe Island mouse, goatsbeards flowers, and Rhagoletis pomonella. And that's just to get you started...

I do not accept that slight modifications of a species proves evolution. As I stated before, that happens all the time, but it is still the same species.

If a speciation event occurs, by very defination, it is not the same species.

Re:Mega-crap

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

So stick around for 1,000,000 years, and watch it in action, you fool.

I mean seriously... science also predicts the half-life of the proton as something that is all but inobservable. But since you don't see that as a threat to your superstitions, that's not an issue for you.

Christianity is full of retards and cretins like yourself, incapable of anything approaching enlightenment. Next time the Fundy preacher starts howling about the evil of evolution, stand up and ask him if God really cares if rationality would seem to support one view or another on a natural process. You idiots have no trouble interpreting the bible non-literally when it suits you. Why not now?

Even if we could prove conclusively that evolution is the big mover and shaker, by your impossible standards, what would it change? Do you think evil scientists would walk past you mumbling "Hah, we proved God doesn't exist!" ??? It has nothing to do with it either way. By your silly little superstitions, at best all we're doing is explaining a process He used or set in motion. But no, refuse to understand that. I dare you. And when moderately reasonable people see how stupid your religion/cult is, they'll wonder why they ever wanted to be a part of it.

Crazy me, I can't help but wonder what God thinks of people like yourself, wasting time refusing to understand, and making a nuisance of yourself to those making the attempt. Hmm, I wonder if that's a sin?

Re:Mega-crap

[gi-tux]

Christianity is full of retards and cretins like yourself, incapable of anything approaching enlightenment.

Thank you for stooping to the normal level of the "enlightened" side of this discussion. You simply stoop to name calling and insults. You call my beliefs "superstitions" and call me a "retard and cretin".

By your silly little superstitions, at best all we're doing is explaining a process He used or set in motion.

I agree that God most likely used each creation to build upon for the next. However, this in no way implies that everything evolved. Each species was created in its order and has adapted when necessary.

Backasswards, like most fundamentalist drivel

[Spamalamadingdong]

The problem with the fundamentalists and their "theories" is that they have to destroy people's ability to think before they can put forth their dogma. If someone analyzes the dogma for truthfulness and consistency, it fails; ergo, the victim must not be allowed to perform such analysis.

gi-tux shows signs of being such a victim.

There used to be a theory of gravity, it is now the law of gravity. It has been proven. It has been observed many times.

As before, you are wrong. The law of gravity was an observed fact (back to the days of Newton and Kepler in the 17th century) long before there was a theory to explain why gravity should exist (Einstein's theory of General Relativity in the 20th century). There are numerous phenomena which are observed, which are so consistent and without proven exception (despite our searching for them) that we call them "natural laws". These include the law of conservation of energy, the Second Law of Thermodynamics, and so forth.

If you had any idea of what you were talking about, you would know this. Instead, you are spouting drivel, such as one might get from some televangelist's radio program. When you have learned how to think critically, you will be able to participate meaningfully in discussions such as this; until then, you should stop repeating the dogma which has reduced you to the state in which you find yourself and start reading the background material which proved that the dogma was wrong.

The other poster has done a wonderful job of pointing you to facts. I won't presume to go over that material again; either you'll take the time to read it and learn, or you'll remain what you are.

Re:Mega-crap

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

Thank you for stooping to the normal level of the "enlightened" side of this discussion. You simply stoop to name calling and insults. You call my beliefs "superstitions" and call me a "retard and cretin".

How else do you expect me to act? Me, if someone proves, or even offers good evidence, that God created mankind, and evolution never happens, I'm open minded enough to accept that after we've confirmed it. You, it doesn't matter. God himself could walk up to you and say "Yes, I do exist, but the scientists were right all along, you evolved." and you'd stand there and argue with him, just because that's how you are. You've already decided how things "have to be", and anything you can't bludgeon into that mold can only be discarded. Science doesn't claim to have many answers, or even any. It's entire purpose is to try and discover them... so why are you giving it a hard time? We've only had a few hundred years, and we've had to start from scratch thanks to fanatics much like yourself. You've had 2000 years or more, depending on which superstition you hold dear. Even if science somehow proves you right, you'll still mock it, claiming "it took them 400 years to prove what we knew all along", never remembering that until science proved it one way or another, you were just a stupid freak that got lucky with a superstitious guess. Not that I think that will happen.

Besides, science isn't stingy, it generally only asks the boring and mundane questions. It can't touch and of the truly important questions... something religion might be able to do. But do you take the opportunity? No. You quibble over how many adaptations it would require before it was evolution, and then summarily dismiss the few good examples that we've managed to dig up. How smart is that? Is it so unfair to denounce you as an imbecile? For fuck's sake, are you that terribly afraid that if people get caught up in trying to explain the diversity of species, that they might forget the big bearded dude in the sky? Haha. No, I wasn't name-calling... I was identifying someone by the words they had written, it would only be name-calling if the probability of the label being true were small. It isn't. Supposedly, God gave you a brain more powerful than any other animal, and you waste time trying to get others to stop using theirs. Do you think He could possibly be happy about that?

I agree that God most likely used each creation to build upon for the next. However, this in no way implies that everything evolved. Each species was created in its order and has adapted when necessary.

If you are stating your true beliefs at this point, these aren't completely incompatible with science. Which begs the question why you immediately adopt such an adversarial approach. Yes, there are some scientists that would still be pissed at you, but most wouldn't, including myself. But still, I'm not sure what you mean. Are you throwing out all of evolution, or just in a few key instances? Even if you are wrong, healthy skepticism and speculation are fun, and serve a useful purpose. So which is it, no evolution ever, or just "no human evolution". Have you ever bothered to investigate it, or do you just read out of the bible? When you investigate, does it amount to just reading those religious pseudo-science articles written by those with an agenda? Even though I can't imagine myself believing it, would still be fun to hear a few off the wall theories... hell, sometimes they turn out true. Just don't get pissed if people finally agree with you and say "even if humans didn't evolve, still doesn't mean a deity created them".

Re:Mega-crap

[young-earth]

Please check your definitions, you're blurring natural selection and evolution when you state

Er. That orange cat example _is_ evolution, it's not a complicated concept

Natural selection is a process whereby the population mix is altered based on the survival through parenting age of members based on criteria that affect their ability to produce interfertile offspring (being alive being one of those factors). Evolution in its typical definition, more accurately macro-evolution, involves cats eventually becoming a sufficiently different kind of animal that there is clear morphological and reproductive differentiation, with the descendent having gained some new feature which was not present in the ancestor. This is "descent with modification", the root of Darwin's theory. Merely losing interbreeding ability can be just loss of inherent variation within the original kind, and is not demonstrative of a new kind. A simple example - the mosquitos in the tube in London can no longer interbreed with the above-ground relatives. Not that they're a different kind (still mosquitos), just that they have lost some of the richness in their DNA and are no longer compatible with their cousins.

Re:Mega-crap

[agentelmo]

you obviously don't know very much about biology

Re:Mega-crap

[agentelmo]

Evolution will always remain a THEORY, unless some enlightened person finds a way to travel through time with their video and prove it. However it has a lot of biological support. When one looks at embryos and see's so many simalarities and the function of vestigal organs. If you were God why would you design three different sets of kidneys for a human foetus. In early development one develops kidnyes similar to a fish, they are destroyed, replaced by kidneys similar to an amphibian and destroyed, then eventually a mammalian pair are formed and remain. And why would God form half a billion species of beetle?? Evolution occurs as a response to an environmental stimulis. It can be observed at the molecular level in micro organisms, it can be observed in generations of finches. It can be observed in fossils. Before you start shooting down a theory try and provide an arguement against it.

Re:Mega-crap is mega crap

[agentelmo]

haha i love it. I'll agree that i've had enough of ignorant people who haven't even picked up an evolutionary textbook slamming the theory and self riteously glorifying the bible and saying it's right, just coz. Rather than creating a well educated arguement and analysing both aspects of the arguement.

Re:Mega-crap

[agentelmo]

Yes, but the next logical step is that after so much change these species will eventually fill different ecological niches and after a time their needs be so different they will be unable to interbreed. The classic example is Darwin's finches, of a genus so similar but the specimens different enough to be considered separate species. How do you account for all the similarities in design and DNA? After all, if evolution is wrong, what is right?

Re: Mega-crap

[agentelmo]

enviromental change leads to adaption. Change leads to evolution.

Re:Mega-crap

[agentelmo]

as a matter of fact timmie, yes i do. I had a personal chat to God and he told me the creationism theory is full of shit. =) That stuff about Job just sounds like someone *trying* to have an intellectual wank. As to socrates. I know that there is a limit to the amount of knowledge a person can attain. However one does not need to know every single fact in order to form an opinion or a theory. Just as, one does not need to make every mistake in order to learn. God created every single one of those 500 000 000 beetles for out personal entertainment??? BAH HAHAHAHAHAHAHA. When was the last time you were getting to know all 500 000 000 personally? kidneys... it is believed amphibians arose from fish and mammals from amphibians. I would give you the scientific background on this though it would take me all night and i don't have the time. If you wish i could fish it out for you. At early development the blastula of all mammals is virtually the same. This begins to differentiate as an organism develops. Try looking at an 8 week picture of a turtle, a human, a mouse and a chicken foetus and tell me which one is which. no you are incorrect. Those finches were not adapted. They were very similar yet different enough that they were regarded as separate species. (A species is a group of organisms that can interbreed and procuce viable offspring). Once again the question arises? Why so many different species of finch when there could just be one or two. (environmental pressure, need to find a new ecological niche so they differentiate.) There is a biological law that no two organisms can inhibit the same niche at the same time. A trademark of a creationist is that they have never picked up a textbook on evolution nor have they any evidence for their own belief. Then they try to apply drivel out of the bible, which is very open to interpretation (a little like horoscopes). Maybe you can be the first and provide some evidence and create a well educated arguement, not blind faith.

Wrong again

[Spamalamadingdong]

The only way you could say that is if you are completely ignorant of the facts. There have been many examples of environments changing around species, or species moving to new environments (e.g. the Hawiian wallaby) which created new selective pressures on them, which the species evolved to meet. In several cases, the strategy created a new species.

Re:Mega-crap

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

As dumb as that sounds, it's still more intelligent than the parent post.

Of course, you could go to the *primary* sources..

[matzim]

Looks like Science News is going the way of Scientific American. Yet another magazine I used to admire is getting watered down for the masses.

Science, Nature, and Physical Review Letters are in your local academic library. IMHO, it's better that a popular science journal "water down" the science a little and keep it accessible rather than have John and Jane Q. Public think that scientific research is not understandable and irrelevant to their lives.