Sadly this just isn't true. The atmospheric levels of CO2 (pre-modern human society) is roughly in equilibrium (ie. the amount of CO2 going in from natural processes is approximately the same as the amount of CO2 being removed by natural processes). If a new source of CO2 appears (ie. us) the global CO2 levels will rise until a equilibrium is reached again.
There is considerable evidence that human activity is causing a significant increase in atmospheric CO2 levels:
* Recorded CO2 levels have risen considerable as human society has developed. These increases are consistant with estimated human CO2 production.
* The radioactivity of CO2 has been dropping since the 1950s. This suggests that an increasing amount of CO2 has come from fossil fuels (which tend to be less radioactive than natural sources).
Given that for the past 1000 years (until approx. 1800 CE) atmospheric CO2 levels have been in the 270 to 290 ppm range, and that now they are much much higher (in 1994 they were at 358 ppm), it seems that we can, in fact, make a difference.
Wow... is the psuedoscientific industry so desparate that Newsweek is now a source of scientific information?
For those who are interested, in the 70's it was predicted that the earth's climate would start to cool slightly (due to several longterm cycles). Now the effects of global warming would easily outweigh this cooling effect, so global cooling isn't really a concern. However has been misused by several antiscience lobby groups to attack climatic science.
Another variation of this claim is about scientists predicting a coming ice age. This is untrue.
Hmm, don't have one of my books around, but it mentioned some of the things that affect the rate of C14 in the atmosphere, and how much is absorbed.
Yes, this is well known and calibrated for. This is due to the way that C14 is formed. I believe that if you see a date written as BCE it is calibrated, whereas bce isn't (or maybe round the other way, I can't remember off the top of my head.
Are there any websites of good science lit that undergo a good peer review process? I agree that this is essential to filter rubbish.
To my knowledge there isn't (unless you belong to a university with a online subscription to a scientific journal). Your best bet, when checking up articles is head over to your nearest university and raid their library. While not peer reviewed, a academic textbook can be execellent in get a good overview of a particular field.
As for fraud from the ICR, what are you talking about? Honest mistakes? Evolution has had it's fair share of red herrings, so using that logic I could reject evolution on the basis that scientists have given fraudulant data and red herrings.
No, I'm not talking about honest mistakes. I'm talking about fraud. One on the most well known creationists, Duane Gish, has a very bad habit of having claims refuted to him, and then ignoring the refutation and making false claims to his audiences (who are ususally not particularly scientifically literate). An example of this can be found here.
Anyway, if you have any good websites on information for learning more about physics, chemistry and biology I would appreciate it. Also any sites that publish good quality science lit.
This is differcult, as you've named a pretty massive field, and whereas my chemisty knowledge is pretty good (I'm doing a PhD in it), I wouldn't the best judge on physics and biology.
But ignoring all that, here goes:
The best site on evolution and creationism from a scientific perspective is talk origins.
A site which may interest you is this one from the Christian Geologists, who find that their faith is fully compatible with science. Another interesting geogogy link is this one (it has, to my knowledge, no religon in it).
I'm not sure if this is exactly what you where after. If it's general science, then I'll have to know more about your science background to even know where to start looking.
Sorry for the late reply, but I've been kind of busy.
Working on the assumption that their was a worldwide flood (this is a extremely tenous assumption given the complete lack of evidence for a worldwide flood - especially when one considers that several ancient civilisations lived right through it apparently unaware of the whole thing), radiodating should still work fine. The only way to alter radioactive decay involves conditions which are far more extreme that just the presence of massive amounts of water (they include travelling close to the speed of light).
As for the accuracy of dating, isochron dating is a execellent check for accuracy. However, because dating is a very complicated technique (one must remove feldspars and the like from material - just to give one example), it is a rich field for creationists to abuse. In all of the links that you have cited about dating, there is a element of deception. For example, Snelling not informing his readers that there is debate over whether or not the wood in his rock is actually wood.
The best place to find your science info is in the science lit. The peer review process (while far from perfect) acts as a rubbish filter. When someone submitts a incorrectly prepared sample and then measures with the wrong technique (such as Austin in St Helens) it gets knocked back. If you look here, you will find the real science.
And when you look in the science lit. you will find that isochron dating works. When done correctly it gives consistant dates, only when it is abused does it fall down.
As for Henry Morris (I believe that the other guy was Whittcombe (sp?)), I've seen enough fraud from ICR (which he was a founding member) not to trust anything he writes.
No, my sig is unrelated to this post (it comes more from my experiences with debating creationists both online and off). I'm not superfamilar with the Gaia hypothesis (but I have brought Lovelocks autobiography - and will even get round to reading it one day). But, as I understand, the basic tenets of it have been incorportated into mainstream science (your example of O2 in the atmosphere is a good one), however most scientists don't like the name (which personally doens't bother me - but I don't make the rules).
Given that there is huge amounts of bacteria just about anywhere, it's not too surprising that they can have a significant effect of the world. Especially a system like the weather which is controlled by many different interplaying forces.
Here is the webpage where I got these numbers from. Within it are links to the science lit.
The problem with your flood theory is that there are essentially no ways to alter radioactive decay significantly which could realistically happen on earth. What your proposing isn't science. If you want to propose extrondary events, you should back them up with massive amounts of evidence, not wishful thinking.
If you want a good example of calibrating radiodating, a good paper to read (sorry I don't think that it's online - you'll have to go to the library) is by Renne and coworkers. They used Ar/Ar dating on Vesuvius lava (dated from Roman records as occuring 1918 years ago) and got a date of 1925 +/- 94 years ago. (Science, vol 277, 1997).
Ok, I look at a few more of the articles, but bear in mind, that I'm extremely distrustfully of AIG, due to it's use of highly misleading (completely dishonest, IMHO) information.
But first, a small opps on my part. K/Ar dating should only be used on samples >2 Mya, not 30 as I stated in a earlier post. My mistake, this is due to the very long half life of K (in the billions of years). Ar/Ar dating is much better for geological dating of much more recent objects.
Ignoring critisms of Snelling's ethics (he also publishs in the science lit. quoting dates in the millions and billions of years without mentioning that he disbelieves them), this paper is very sparse on experimental details. In particular, the inclusions of xenoliths (which are well known to give a false reading if the sample isn't correctly prepared). There may be many other problems with his analysis but it is impossible to tell, as he really hasn't given any experimental details away. Also (admittly a not a major part of this paper) there is a real problem with his explaination of the false dates (" fluctuating, magnetic field affected the incoming cosmic ray influx, resulting thus in a lower radiocarbon production rate and therefore radiocarbon ?ages? much greater than the true ages"), when carbon is celibrated it tends too underestimate the ages, therefore, if anything the dates are too low, not too high.
I couldn't connect to your second link.
The next page which I looked at Superbugs: Not super after all, is just plain stupid. The whole paper is just a giant strawman arguement. Evolution doesn't have to lead to a gain of information (loss of eyesight in cave fish is a good example), so the authors foundation is built on a falsehood. He then presents no evidence to support his claim (instead he pretty much states some dumbed down first year cell bio information). This isn't a arguement, it's a joke.
I couldn't get the next three links to work (this is quite strange as I managed to get the third one to go yesterday, but didn't get time to read it), however, on the basis of the four that I've read, I really aren't impressed. What your presenting is propaganda not science.
If your interested, here is a article by a Christian geologist on radiodating.
As a postscript, I found this site which mentioned Snelling's paper. Apparently, there is considerable doubts over whether or not it is wood at all in the rock. Alex Cherkinsky, of the Geochron Labs Radiocarbon group, stated "I remember this sample very well. So they called it "wood'? It wasn't wood at all and more looked like the iron concretion with the structures lightly similar to wood. I have told about that to submitter, but anyway they wanted to date the sample". If this is true, then Snelling is a downright lier. (Source)
I agree. They insult both themselves and the religion they claim to follow. The sad part is, that by using lots of scientific terminology that fool quite a lot of people. An example of this is large number of clueless creationists on the web raving on about the 2nd law of thermodynamics and how it contridicts evolution, because they read it somewhere and it sounds pretty technical.
Pity somebody forgot to tell the physicists, chemists etc this.
The BBC article has very few details, so I tried to track down more information on it. I found a recent paper in Science which appears to be about this meteorite (Yamaguchi et al, Science 2002, vol. 296).
However, in the article there is no claim to it coming from Mercury (rather it is a new type of basalt). Am I missing somebody else's intrepetation of the data, or is this media spin?
I did read a couple of the pages (the URLs are easy enough to put back together). The one on population growth was just plain stupid, and shows that the author has absolutely no clue about populations or is trying to mislead people into believing a lie. The St Helen's paper fits quite cleanly into the fraud paper. If this is the level of evidence that creationists are accepting nowdays, then I truely worry about them.
So let me get this straight. You consider K/Ar to be scientificly proven methods for dating - yet they are impossible to test? (because you can't use it on young samples - ie, the ones that form during our lifetime).
You don't need to test it on young samples. Isochron dating techiques are a good test. By testing the same sample with multiple techniques, one should get very similar results. An exmample of this is the dating of a Norweigen Fen complex. The results where as follows:
40Ar/39Ar 588 +/- 10 Ma K/Ar (whole rock) 575 +/- 25 Ma Rb-Sr 578 +/- 24 Ma Pb-Pb 573 +/- 60 Ma Th-Pb 570-590 MaK/Ar (mica) 565 Ma (error unknown)
The close promixity of these results (which were carried out by a number of different scientists) is very strong evidence for K/Ar accurate. Other techniques have been calibrated vs. known historical events (such as Ar/Ar being used to date a volcano erruption reported by Pliny.
Perhaps culture can hold a strong power over people to cause them to forget things.
Perhaps. But personally, I'll put my trust in scientists to know what science is, rather than a slashdot poster who has fallen for fraudulent reports, and who's earlier statements about science suggest that he doesn't know that much about it.
Seriously, are you telling me that if I could show you example(s) of fossils in the wrong strata, or strata in the wrong position (ie above a younger period when it should be below) that you would consider evolution to be false? I don't believe you. I have shown this sort of evidence before. I say "what evidence would demonstrate evolution false". So they say "any of the following...". I then show them the evidences they asked for, and suddenly it is no longer sufficient. So I remain unconvinced. Be careful about what you say would be sufficient to disprove evolution. I remain very skeptical on the falsafiable nature of evolutionary hypotheses. I will find these examples if I believe that there is any chance you will change your mind instead of finding excuses like "time did it" (evolutionary equivalent of "God did it").
Nice try about slipping the strata in the wrong position into this. Do a basic geology course before trying to slip traps like that into discussions.
However if you can find a modern fossil (such as a human) in a geologically ancient strata, which doesn't have a natural explaination (such as tampering, misidentification etc), which is published in a scientific peer reviewed journal, I would consider that to be strong evidence against evolution.
When creationists put forward stuff like the St Helens lava, they move themselves firmly into the fraud category (I'm talking about the authors of the research, not you). K/Ar dating cannot be used on young samples (30 years). This is widely known. I understand that the lab which Austin submitted the work to has a disclaimer about this. Yet there isn't a mention of this in the paper. What next will they try to do? Measure a atom with a meter ruler. What you have presented is nothing but fraud designed to trick laypeople.
Here [csicop.org] is a good definition on science that I found from a quick google search. But as you are a scientist, I shouldn't need to tell you that the theory of evolution is not science.
Ironic really that you are using a defination from a organisation which supports evolution. Perhaps you know more than the entire scientific community about what constitutes science?
If you are convinced that evolution is scientific, then perhaps you can present to me a falsafiable statement that can be tested using the process of science.
That human fossils (or any other recent species) won't be found in geologically ancient rocks.
That closely related species (such as chimps and humans) will have similar DNA, whereas species with similarities due to convergent evolution (such as dolphins and sharks) will have much less similar DNA.
If you would like to falsify either of these two statements (with full citations to the scientific lit. of course) be my guest.
So it boils(pun) down to our concerns about our species being able to survive. I think the fact that we are the only species capable of modifying our environment to survive in the most inhospitible conditions negates any real concern.
You had better hope that you are right. I wouldn't want to be around during a mass die off to discover that we can't survive in the new environment.
And shifting equilibriums can be quite bad. We evolved (both biologically, and socially) for a certain environment. If this environment shifts significantly, it might lead to a considerable decline in our quality of life.
Speciation events have been observed. Hence rendering your arguement moot.
Look up science and find out what qualifies for that title.
As a practicing scientist, I know what science is. I am, however, skeptical as too whether or not you do.
Just because a scientific journal mentions God does that make it unscientific?
It depends on the context. Also a unscientific article does not make a unscientific journal. And what relevance this has too evolution (which is god neutral) escapes me.
What if a scientific journal mentions some observed facts and then the scientist gives his unproven thoughts on what it might mean? Is it still scientific? The scientist is simply mixing science with philosophy.
Science doesn't deal with proofs (except in a mathematical sense). This is highly suggestive that you don't know what is and what isn't science.
BTW, what you described is calling hypothesising. It's a important part of science.
Recently Creation Scientists (even though evolution and creation as a theory for origins are philosophy and not science) proposed that the speed of light had changed over time.
Wrong (about evolution not being a science).
Evolution is a major part of biology (a science). It is studied by scientists, and pubished in scientific journals.
If your not specifically talking about evolution but rather the creation of the first lifeform, then this is strictly evolution (it isn't important to the theory of evolution, whether or not the first lifeform was placed by God, planted by aliens, or arose from chemical soups (which is a hypothesis and still science)).
Wow, the defination of trolling has just become a little bit bigger.
I think that you have misunderstood my post. While I personally discount religion, I also don't see anything wrong with it. That is, as long as doesn't try to mislead people into believing a lie (such as the above creationist strawman arguements.
Errr... large genetic changes do happen. Apes for example have lost the ability to biosynthesise certain vitamins, due to getting plenty of them in their natural food.
I think the first poster had a valid point, and that is that in the popular conception, any change over this timescale is seen as evolution, when, sometimes, it's just change.
The popular conception which you descibe is infact correct. Evolution is change over time. Evolution doesn't have to use the mechanism put forward by Darwin and refined by various others. Stellar evolution is a example of this.
Your post is also misleading in stating that the "The mechanism for evolution is a random process". Random processes are only a part of evolution. The natural selection bit also plays a very considerable role. To leave it out, leaves one open to creationist probability strawmen.
We are both agreeing that IC systems can occur in an evolutionary context, but since natural selection can't come into play until an entire IC system has been constructed, then the probability of it happening drops precipitously. (If natural selection comes into play beforehand, then the system is not IC.)
This statement is wrong, and with it goes the whole arguement for IC being a indicator of intelligent design.
There are a number of circumstances where a IC system could naturally evolve. Such as when a improvement becomes a nesscessity. Or a complex system is built up using another system as a base. Later, this other system becomes obsolete and is removed (or converted into something else - hemoglobin and myoglobin are a good example of this). The system is now IC, but wasn't in the past.
Slashdot Mirror
We just do not matter that much.
Sadly this just isn't true. The atmospheric levels of CO2 (pre-modern human society) is roughly in equilibrium (ie. the amount of CO2 going in from natural processes is approximately the same as the amount of CO2 being removed by natural processes). If a new source of CO2 appears (ie. us) the global CO2 levels will rise until a equilibrium is reached again.
There is considerable evidence that human activity is causing a significant increase in atmospheric CO2 levels:
* Recorded CO2 levels have risen considerable as human society has developed. These increases are consistant with estimated human CO2 production.
* The radioactivity of CO2 has been dropping since the 1950s. This suggests that an increasing amount of CO2 has come from fossil fuels (which tend to be less radioactive than natural sources).
Given that for the past 1000 years (until approx. 1800 CE) atmospheric CO2 levels have been in the 270 to 290 ppm range, and that now they are much much higher (in 1994 they were at 358 ppm), it seems that we can, in fact, make a difference.
Wow... is the psuedoscientific industry so desparate that Newsweek is now a source of scientific information?
For those who are interested, in the 70's it was predicted that the earth's climate would start to cool slightly (due to several longterm cycles). Now the effects of global warming would easily outweigh this cooling effect, so global cooling isn't really a concern. However has been misused by several antiscience lobby groups to attack climatic science.
Another variation of this claim is about scientists predicting a coming ice age. This is untrue.
Hmm, don't have one of my books around, but it mentioned some of the things that affect the rate of C14 in the atmosphere, and how much is absorbed.
Yes, this is well known and calibrated for. This is due to the way that C14 is formed. I believe that if you see a date written as BCE it is calibrated, whereas bce isn't (or maybe round the other way, I can't remember off the top of my head.
Are there any websites of good science lit that undergo a good peer review process? I agree that this is essential to filter rubbish.
To my knowledge there isn't (unless you belong to a university with a online subscription to a scientific journal). Your best bet, when checking up articles is head over to your nearest university and raid their library. While not peer reviewed, a academic textbook can be execellent in get a good overview of a particular field.
As for fraud from the ICR, what are you talking about? Honest mistakes? Evolution has had it's fair share of red herrings, so using that logic I could reject evolution on the basis that scientists have given fraudulant data and red herrings.
No, I'm not talking about honest mistakes. I'm talking about fraud. One on the most well known creationists, Duane Gish, has a very bad habit of having claims refuted to him, and then ignoring the refutation and making false claims to his audiences (who are ususally not particularly scientifically literate). An example of this can be found here.
Anyway, if you have any good websites on information for learning more about physics, chemistry and biology I would appreciate it. Also any sites that publish good quality science lit.
This is differcult, as you've named a pretty massive field, and whereas my chemisty knowledge is pretty good (I'm doing a PhD in it), I wouldn't the best judge on physics and biology.
But ignoring all that, here goes:
The best site on evolution and creationism from a scientific perspective is talk origins.
A site which may interest you is this one from the Christian Geologists, who find that their faith is fully compatible with science. Another interesting geogogy link is this one (it has, to my knowledge, no religon in it).
Answers In Science appears to have a ton of interesting links.
I'm not sure if this is exactly what you where after. If it's general science, then I'll have to know more about your science background to even know where to start looking.
Hope this helps.
Cheers,
Clem
Sorry for the late reply, but I've been kind of busy.
Working on the assumption that their was a worldwide flood (this is a extremely tenous assumption given the complete lack of evidence for a worldwide flood - especially when one considers that several ancient civilisations lived right through it apparently unaware of the whole thing), radiodating should still work fine. The only way to alter radioactive decay involves conditions which are far more extreme that just the presence of massive amounts of water (they include travelling close to the speed of light).
As for the accuracy of dating, isochron dating is a execellent check for accuracy. However, because dating is a very complicated technique (one must remove feldspars and the like from material - just to give one example), it is a rich field for creationists to abuse. In all of the links that you have cited about dating, there is a element of deception. For example, Snelling not informing his readers that there is debate over whether or not the wood in his rock is actually wood.
The best place to find your science info is in the science lit. The peer review process (while far from perfect) acts as a rubbish filter. When someone submitts a incorrectly prepared sample and then measures with the wrong technique (such as Austin in St Helens) it gets knocked back. If you look here, you will find the real science.
And when you look in the science lit. you will find that isochron dating works. When done correctly it gives consistant dates, only when it is abused does it fall down.
As for Henry Morris (I believe that the other guy was Whittcombe (sp?)), I've seen enough fraud from ICR (which he was a founding member) not to trust anything he writes.
I think he was replying to the Aussie a few posts up. On the otherhand the super 12 was great for expat Kiwi's like me living in Canberra.
No, my sig is unrelated to this post (it comes more from my experiences with debating creationists both online and off). I'm not superfamilar with the Gaia hypothesis (but I have brought Lovelocks autobiography - and will even get round to reading it one day). But, as I understand, the basic tenets of it have been incorportated into mainstream science (your example of O2 in the atmosphere is a good one), however most scientists don't like the name (which personally doens't bother me - but I don't make the rules).
Given that there is huge amounts of bacteria just about anywhere, it's not too surprising that they can have a significant effect of the world. Especially a system like the weather which is controlled by many different interplaying forces.
The term NMR is still used a lot in chemistry and physics. Of course we change the name to enima.
Part II
Here is the webpage where I got these numbers from. Within it are links to the science lit.
The problem with your flood theory is that there are essentially no ways to alter radioactive decay significantly which could realistically happen on earth. What your proposing isn't science. If you want to propose extrondary events, you should back them up with massive amounts of evidence, not wishful thinking.
If you want a good example of calibrating radiodating, a good paper to read (sorry I don't think that it's online - you'll have to go to the library) is by Renne and coworkers. They used Ar/Ar dating on Vesuvius lava (dated from Roman records as occuring 1918 years ago) and got a date of 1925 +/- 94 years ago. (Science, vol 277, 1997).
Ok, I look at a few more of the articles, but bear in mind, that I'm extremely distrustfully of AIG, due to it's use of highly misleading (completely dishonest, IMHO) information.
But first, a small opps on my part. K/Ar dating should only be used on samples >2 Mya, not 30 as I stated in a earlier post. My mistake, this is due to the very long half life of K (in the billions of years). Ar/Ar dating is much better for geological dating of much more recent objects.
Radioactive ?Dating? in Conflict
Ignoring critisms of Snelling's ethics (he also publishs in the science lit. quoting dates in the millions and billions of years without mentioning that he disbelieves them), this paper is very sparse on experimental details. In particular, the inclusions of xenoliths (which are well known to give a false reading if the sample isn't correctly prepared). There may be many other problems with his analysis but it is impossible to tell, as he really hasn't given any experimental details away. Also (admittly a not a major part of this paper) there is a real problem with his explaination of the false dates (" fluctuating, magnetic field affected the incoming cosmic ray influx, resulting thus in a lower radiocarbon production rate and therefore radiocarbon ?ages? much greater than the true ages"), when carbon is celibrated it tends too underestimate the ages, therefore, if anything the dates are too low, not too high.
I couldn't connect to your second link.
The next page which I looked at Superbugs: Not super after all, is just plain stupid. The whole paper is just a giant strawman arguement. Evolution doesn't have to lead to a gain of information (loss of eyesight in cave fish is a good example), so the authors foundation is built on a falsehood. He then presents no evidence to support his claim (instead he pretty much states some dumbed down first year cell bio information). This isn't a arguement, it's a joke.
I couldn't get the next three links to work (this is quite strange as I managed to get the third one to go yesterday, but didn't get time to read it), however, on the basis of the four that I've read, I really aren't impressed. What your presenting is propaganda not science.
If your interested, here is a article by a Christian geologist on radiodating.
As a postscript, I found this site which mentioned Snelling's paper. Apparently, there is considerable doubts over whether or not it is wood at all in the rock. Alex Cherkinsky, of the Geochron Labs Radiocarbon group, stated "I remember this sample very well. So they called it "wood'? It wasn't wood at all and more looked like the iron concretion with the structures lightly similar to wood. I have told about that to submitter, but anyway they wanted to date the sample". If this is true, then Snelling is a downright lier. (Source)
I agree. They insult both themselves and the religion they claim to follow. The sad part is, that by using lots of scientific terminology that fool quite a lot of people. An example of this is large number of clueless creationists on the web raving on about the 2nd law of thermodynamics and how it contridicts evolution, because they read it somewhere and it sounds pretty technical.
Pity somebody forgot to tell the physicists, chemists etc this.
The BBC article has very few details, so I tried to track down more information on it. I found a recent paper in Science which appears to be about this meteorite (Yamaguchi et al, Science 2002, vol. 296).
However, in the article there is no claim to it coming from Mercury (rather it is a new type of basalt). Am I missing somebody else's intrepetation of the data, or is this media spin?
I did read a couple of the pages (the URLs are easy enough to put back together). The one on population growth was just plain stupid, and shows that the author has absolutely no clue about populations or is trying to mislead people into believing a lie. The St Helen's paper fits quite cleanly into the fraud paper. If this is the level of evidence that creationists are accepting nowdays, then I truely worry about them.
So let me get this straight. You consider K/Ar to be scientificly proven methods for dating - yet they are impossible to test? (because you can't use it on young samples - ie, the ones that form during our lifetime).
You don't need to test it on young samples. Isochron dating techiques are a good test. By testing the same sample with multiple techniques, one should get very similar results. An exmample of this is the dating of a Norweigen Fen complex. The results where as follows:
40Ar/39Ar 588 +/- 10 Ma
K/Ar (whole rock) 575 +/- 25 Ma
Rb-Sr 578 +/- 24 Ma
Pb-Pb 573 +/- 60 Ma
Th-Pb 570-590 MaK/Ar (mica) 565 Ma (error unknown)
The close promixity of these results (which were carried out by a number of different scientists) is very strong evidence for K/Ar accurate. Other techniques have been calibrated vs. known historical events (such as Ar/Ar being used to date a volcano erruption reported by Pliny.
Perhaps culture can hold a strong power over people to cause them to forget things.
Perhaps. But personally, I'll put my trust in scientists to know what science is, rather than a slashdot poster who has fallen for fraudulent reports, and who's earlier statements about science suggest that he doesn't know that much about it.
Seriously, are you telling me that if I could show you example(s) of fossils in the wrong strata, or strata in the wrong position (ie above a younger period when it should be below) that you would consider evolution to be false? I don't believe you. I have shown this sort of evidence before. I say "what evidence would demonstrate evolution false". So they say "any of the following...". I then show them the evidences they asked for, and suddenly it is no longer sufficient. So I remain unconvinced. Be careful about what you say would be sufficient to disprove evolution. I remain very skeptical on the falsafiable nature of evolutionary hypotheses. I will find these examples if I believe that there is any chance you will change your mind instead of finding excuses like "time did it" (evolutionary equivalent of "God did it").
Nice try about slipping the strata in the wrong position into this. Do a basic geology course before trying to slip traps like that into discussions.
However if you can find a modern fossil (such as a human) in a geologically ancient strata, which doesn't have a natural explaination (such as tampering, misidentification etc), which is published in a scientific peer reviewed journal, I would consider that to be strong evidence against evolution.
When creationists put forward stuff like the St Helens lava, they move themselves firmly into the fraud category (I'm talking about the authors of the research, not you). K/Ar dating cannot be used on young samples (30 years). This is widely known. I understand that the lab which Austin submitted the work to has a disclaimer about this. Yet there isn't a mention of this in the paper. What next will they try to do? Measure a atom with a meter ruler. What you have presented is nothing but fraud designed to trick laypeople.
Here [csicop.org] is a good definition on science that I found from a quick google search. But as you are a scientist, I shouldn't need to tell you that the theory of evolution is not science.
Ironic really that you are using a defination from a organisation which supports evolution. Perhaps you know more than the entire scientific community about what constitutes science?
If you are convinced that evolution is scientific, then perhaps you can present to me a falsafiable statement that can be tested using the process of science.
That human fossils (or any other recent species) won't be found in geologically ancient rocks.
That closely related species (such as chimps and humans) will have similar DNA, whereas species with similarities due to convergent evolution (such as dolphins and sharks) will have much less similar DNA.
If you would like to falsify either of these two statements (with full citations to the scientific lit. of course) be my guest.
So it boils(pun) down to our concerns about our species being able to survive. I think the fact that we are the only species capable of modifying our environment to survive in the most inhospitible conditions negates any real concern.
You had better hope that you are right. I wouldn't want to be around during a mass die off to discover that we can't survive in the new environment.
And shifting equilibriums can be quite bad. We evolved (both biologically, and socially) for a certain environment. If this environment shifts significantly, it might lead to a considerable decline in our quality of life.
The evolution of HIV is a good example of a new species arising.
Speciation events have been observed. Hence rendering your arguement moot.
Look up science and find out what qualifies for that title.
As a practicing scientist, I know what science is. I am, however, skeptical as too whether or not you do.
Just because a scientific journal mentions God does that make it unscientific?
It depends on the context. Also a unscientific article does not make a unscientific journal. And what relevance this has too evolution (which is god neutral) escapes me.
What if a scientific journal mentions some observed facts and then the scientist gives his unproven thoughts on what it might mean? Is it still scientific? The scientist is simply mixing science with philosophy.
Science doesn't deal with proofs (except in a mathematical sense). This is highly suggestive that you don't know what is and what isn't science.
BTW, what you described is calling hypothesising. It's a important part of science.
Recently Creation Scientists (even though evolution and creation as a theory for origins are philosophy and not science) proposed that the speed of light had changed over time.
Wrong (about evolution not being a science).
Evolution is a major part of biology (a science). It is studied by scientists, and pubished in scientific journals.
If your not specifically talking about evolution but rather the creation of the first lifeform, then this is strictly evolution (it isn't important to the theory of evolution, whether or not the first lifeform was placed by God, planted by aliens, or arose from chemical soups (which is a hypothesis and still science)).
Wow, the defination of trolling has just become a little bit bigger.
I think that you have misunderstood my post. While I personally discount religion, I also don't see anything wrong with it. That is, as long as doesn't try to mislead people into believing a lie (such as the above creationist strawman arguements.
Errr... large genetic changes do happen. Apes for example have lost the ability to biosynthesise certain vitamins, due to getting plenty of them in their natural food.
I think the first poster had a valid point, and that is that in the popular conception, any change over this timescale is seen as evolution, when, sometimes, it's just change.
The popular conception which you descibe is infact correct. Evolution is change over time. Evolution doesn't have to use the mechanism put forward by Darwin and refined by various others. Stellar evolution is a example of this.
Your post is also misleading in stating that the "The mechanism for evolution is a random process". Random processes are only a part of evolution. The natural selection bit also plays a very considerable role. To leave it out, leaves one open to creationist probability strawmen.
We are both agreeing that IC systems can occur in an evolutionary context, but since natural selection can't come into play until an entire IC system has been constructed, then the probability of it happening drops precipitously. (If natural selection comes into play beforehand, then the system is not IC.)
This statement is wrong, and with it goes the whole arguement for IC being a indicator of intelligent design.
There are a number of circumstances where a IC system could naturally evolve. Such as when a improvement becomes a nesscessity. Or a complex system is built up using another system as a base. Later, this other system becomes obsolete and is removed (or converted into something else - hemoglobin and myoglobin are a good example of this). The system is now IC, but wasn't in the past.
D'oh, I forgot to put my citation in... so here it is now;
[1] For a few references to the evolution of the immune system see:
Sima P, Vetvicka V. Evolution of immune reactions, Crit Rev Immunol 1993;13(2):83-114
Marchalonis JJ, Schluter SF. Development of an immune system, Ann N Y Acad Sci 1994 Apr 15;712:1-12
Hughes AL, Yeager M. Molecular evolution of the vertebrate immune system, Bioessays 1997 Sep;19(9):777-86
Ohno S. The ancestor of the adaptive immune system was the CAM system for organogenesis, Exp Clin Immunogenet 1987;4(4):181-92
Langman RE. The evolutionary origins of immunoglobulins and T-cell receptors: possibilities and probabilities, Res Immunol 1996 May;147(4):214-7
Salter-Cid L, Flajnik MF. Evolution and developmental regulation of the major histocompatibility complex, Crit Rev Immunol 1995;15(1):31-75
If you need more (or details on other Behe "IC" systems) just ask.