Slashdot Mirror
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."
Only a few more divisions and they will be down to the 7 days.
I had a professor who was "older than dirt." We could ask him.
Anything you say will be held against you.
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.
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.
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.
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?
Unity in Diversity
This might be what you're looking for:
t ml
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/isochron-dating.h
Cthulhu loves you.
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.
I have no sig, does anyone have one to spare?
Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people.
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.
> 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.
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.
Warning: Some ideologies on the Net are smaller than they appear.
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.
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.
> 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.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
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.
Warning: Some ideologies on the Net are smaller than they appear.
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?
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.
gi-tux shows signs of being such a victim.
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.
Scientists restrict study to entire physical universe; creationist
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.
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".
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.
Warning: Some ideologies on the Net are smaller than they appear.
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.
Scientists restrict study to entire physical universe; creationist
As dumb as that sounds, it's still more intelligent than the parent post.
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).
Warning: Some ideologies on the Net are smaller than they appear.