NIF

Thank you all for your replies. judging by some of your responses, I think it is best if I clarify my personal views and also the the tangent I was wishing my question to follow: I would like to point out that proving creationism to be 'demonstrably false' (which you have claimed but not backed up, I might add) is no more a valid argument for evolution accuracy then if I was to make the same claim in reverse. its like claiming babies come from stalks because they don't grow in the cabbage patch. very true, and with just reason. if a fossil is found and then dated to be 10 million years old, that fossil will then influence the 'evolutionary model' for species in the area. on the reverse side, if a 'dino' was dated as being only 200 years old... that then throws a spanner in the works for evolutionists until they decide "it somehow survived for x years without evolving. amazing..." go and read any evolution forum at random. I can guarantee you will find someone use radiometric dating, either directly or indirectly, as supporting evidence for the accuracy of the evolutionary model. all this being said, you are right that strictly speaking evolution could still exist even if you completely reshuffled the fish-frog-monkey-man timeline of WHEN things evolved. But that will still change the 'standard theory of evolution.' I am sorry for not being more clear with my OP. yes, I did use plasma as the example for increase rate of decay. yes, plasma is rare and short lived in nature. what I failed to get across is that this is only the upper bracket. a key point I was trying to bring forward is that an atom of a lesser charge will see a decay rate increase of a lesser amount. I will say that again... it will see a decay rate increase... my intended question was never meant to be about the plasma. it was meant to be about the possibility of an increase in the rate of decay of "radiometric clocks". a change in decay rate of any type will make the 'clocks' inaccurate. and depending on the material, the charge amount, the time the charge is held, the temp.... will all change the decay rate. thus "rate" is no longer a constant......................... I feel like I'm going around in circles with this explanation. I believe you are smart enough to ascertain both my intended meaning and the implications of it. so, with all of this in mind: do the rest of you share overtones view that the radiometric dating method will not "somehow influence the current standard theory of evolution."

Sorry if this is in the wrong forum. I saw 'evolution' and put it there I blame my noobishness. I would be grateful if the admin could move this to the correct forum. We may as well have the right kind of people reading/replying to this thread

Surely you don't think that it has no effect on evolution. I agree that such atoms would not stick around for very long at all, therefore would have a negligible effect. If we assume a linear relationship. if full electrons have a normal decay rate, and no electrons have a billion fold decay rate, then half electrons should yield half a billion fold decay rate. The implications are not limited to a fully ironised atom So what say you about the concept of decay rate increase of 2% ? Or 200% ?

Hi all. I remember a while back I introduced myself as a new member... and then needed to disappear for two weeks. well, the two weeks turned into something like 4 months, But Im back now for a while anyway. so excuse me if I don't respond to posts daily. anyway here is a link to an article describing how radiometric decay can be sped up significantly by the removal of electrons from around the atom. after reading the article, discuss what implications this will have on accurate radiometric dating, and thus on the accurace of the theory of evolution. http://creation.com/billion-fold-acceleration-of-radioactivity-demonstrated-in-laboratory also, please completely ignore the second half of the article titled "A Creation Week scenario". this forum is neither the time nor the place to be discussing the theological implications. we shall focus on the scientific implications here. If you strongly feel the need to bring God or Religion into the debate, then feel free to use this link and open a new thread in the Teological forums. for those who want an overview of the article: basicly...the normal, natural, state of an atom (a) is with the same amount of electrons orbiting the atom as there are protons within the neucleus. And a fully ionised atom (b) is one where all orbiting electrons have been stripped away. The energy required to escape an atom when the electron shell is filled (a) is greater than the energy required for the electron to jump to a vacant spot in an electron shell (b) Thus, if you strip away the electrons... the decay rate increases. if that happens then the "age" of a radiometric material also increases. discuss:

G-day everyone it would seem that I have become the subject of a bit of ill will. But that is fine. I am used to the pettiness of evolutionary debaters. I shall now point out how each of your negative points about me are either inaccurate, or how they can also be applied to you. it is my hope that after this post we can base all of our disagreements on scientific merit, and not personal opinion of an individual's views. I'm sorry to clump this in with the following points. it is probibly the only argument that was based against my argument. well, a miss read and miss represented version of my argument (a stickman in other words). you are claiming that I portrayed the term 'survival of the fittest' to mean something like 'survival of the biggest, strongest, and most healthy'. it is true that I used an example where the big lion got the most cubs. However you need to take note that this was an example and was Not my entire argument. another example I gave was the red head example. this example fits in perfectly with how your saying 'evolutionary fitness' should be explained. the funny thing here is that I wrote more than 3 Times as much about my red head example than I did with my lion example. And I used it as a direct counterpoint to my lion example. actually I already said this, perhaps you missed it: and just to top it off, I also gave 3 citations were bigger IS better for 'evolutionary fitness' (Although my main point here is still that bigger is not the only variable) if you would read over my posts again you will notice 2 things. 1) my first post placed the 'creationists' answer along side the 'evolutionists' answer. and all subsequent referrals to Creationism were based against direct questions/points given by other members. 2) I have on multiple occasions requested that all counter arguments against me be based against my points directly, and not on personal opinions of concerning my belief system so, I will gladly stop all referenced, quotes, points, arguments, etc about Creationism (not that I have really been doing that to begin with) if it means that we can debate evolution purely on its scientific merits. and the fact I will be the one providing arguments against evolution will be the only reminder that I am a Creationist. If I can't say I was right based on a technicality, then you shouldn't be allowed to say I was wrong based on a generalization. this is a honest and level headed response. I will acknowledge that. However it is also hypocritical. You have already decided my counter arguments will be not worth discussion. And that my 'argument for evolution being unable to explain eye evolution' can also be ignored. These are based on your preconceived notions about creationists. in other words You are biased against creationists. Your view can't be based on how I answered the question "why do you choose to place more value in one than the other?". Because I Haven't answered the question yet. I never even got the chance. your Bias viewpoint is based on your preconceived idea That I place more value in one than the other. Your view can't be based on my 'counter arguments against evolution', because I simple haven't given any yet (and I have been very clear as to why) Your view can't be based on my 'argument for evolution being unable to explain eye evolution', because all I gave was my opinion. (see above) and now we get to the petty post: childishness? like, say, calling names? I'm not going to waste my time pointing out the irony here.

I never said they would be evidence for a new theory. Thus for you to claim I did so and then your subsequent arguments against it are nothing more than a strawman argument. This is an attack against the opposition, and not the opposing argument. And what is this statement even based on? your personal opinion perhaps? I look forward to hearing more capable rebuttals in the future.

I would offer counter arguments on how evolution is flawed. and only offer Creationisim as an alternative beliefe, for that is how I see it. and as a reminder, I will be offline for 2 weeks starting monday, so those counter arguments will have to wait. just like my example of the red head?so then I wasn't wrong. and you saying that I was would then put you in the wrong... extra smug smile ->

I believe I have made it clear that I am a creationist (more or less). as such I believe in the theory of creationisim. so to answer the question in more direct terms: my explanation is that the eye lens never 'evolved', it was 'created'. point 1 is a simple explanation of evolution. point 2 is a rejection of evolution. thus, according to point 2, the answer to the question "how did the eye know to evolve a lens?" is "it didn't evolve, so the 'how' is irrelevent" the assumption that they lens evolved to begin with. I can see now that not attaching the creationist explanation to point 2 meant that I was not providing an alternative explanation the the lens' existance. But I hope that after reading this post you can see that point 2 was still an alternative answer to the question. @YemSalat am I correct in thinking that the last few posts on this thread have answered your original question?

incorrect. speed warming your testies may result in a noticable amount of mutations within a single generation, but isn't evolution all about the 'gradual mutations over millions of years'? just because you children don't have 3 heads, doesn't mean that they havn't had some mutation.

Wow. I really stirred the hornets nest. didn'tI ! seeing as this is still one of my first posts(first impressions and all), I will now go through and respond in detail to allof your queries/points. Correction: fitness is not Only about strength, or health.if you were to look up "define: fitness" you would recive the following results: 1.The condition of being physically fit and healthy. 2.The quality of being suitable to fulfill a particular role or task. So being healthy IS a requirement for fitness. and although being big and being physically fit is not necessarily mutually inclusive, size is generally a good 'rule-of-thumb' for measuring ones physical fitness. And even under definition 2. (which I believe to be the one you would prefer to use) size does play a role in the suitability for many of the lions roles inlife. ie: longer reach/more weight for fighting other potental males. looking bigger = looking more scary (a common trait in the animal kingdom) do I have a citation for the lion? nodo I have a citation for other animals where size = more mates? yes. undersub-title "age" , under sub-title"size" , a ten page report. if you could please reread my post, you will clearly see that myargument was not focused on "strength/size = more mates". this was simply a small section of the overall post. in fact it was only One sentence within 2 paragraphs dedicatedto my response (highlighted in BOLD). Also you use "shaggiest mane" as an alternative trait that increases propogation. This is funny because I too used hair color as an alternative. Not just an alternative, but I actually used itas a counterpoint to my 'large lion' example (highlighted in Italics) And just for the record. No, I do not think that my understanding on fitness is flawed the requested explanation was concerning a given view point that rested on a particular assumption. If said assumption is inaccurate (and I understand you may not necessarily agree on this fact) , then the requested explanation is entitled to counter the given assumption. I hope that made sence… the viewpoint I hold has been around forquite a while and held by many other (but not all) Creationists. The main pointof conflict between my viewpoint and the theory of evolution stems from whathas been categorized as "the difference between Macro and Micro Evolution". So as a word ofadvice, there are some very crazy people out there calling themselvesChristians. If you want to get anywhere with me in these forums then it is bestnot to categorize me with any of them. Instead take my posts at face value. And I do believe in specialization. Only as an alternative. Butas stated above, it's best not to categorize me with them. the mutations ARE random. The natural selection process isn't. Nope. If an area gets compressed regularly (lets say the bottom of the foot). Then those with the random mutation of tough skin survive and propagate, while those with the random mutation for soft skin get saw feet. Thus they can't run, can't catch food and die of starvation. This is as close as you will get to a guiding mechanism. In other words. The giraffe didn't get a long neck because it really, REALLY wanted to eat the leafs on top of the tree. @iNow I am aware of such theories. In fact I personally could go into even greater detail on how the eye was thought to evolve than they did in the video (all thanks to other forums like this one) thanks for this piece ofinsite. Here is a quote where I said the same thing: @YemSalat in a nutshell, it (the creature or its genes) does not know to make it transparent, but the creatures that comprise the gene pool do know to keep it once the random mutation has occurred. I believe this canfall under "viewpoint 2" I gave in response 5. And about the cow.Definitely no…. but that has been covered @Ringer ref. YemSalat's quote I believe heredityconditions fall under natural selection based on pre-existing mutations. Thereforeit still can be said that it is "random mutations which will then be sorted out bynatural selection"

Your explanation fits close enough into the theory of evolution. Im not sure what the leading hypothosis is, but it very well might be exactly what you said Of the two points I gave, My view point would definately fall into the second catagory. But for me to explain in detail WHY I think this over the 'scientific' explanation. we would have to start a new thread for irreducible complexity. and from there the conversation would branch out into new threads for: radiometric dating methods, evolutionary jumps and missing links, ...... and so on all this can happen in good time, but as of this Monday Im off line for 2 weeks, so didn't think it prudent to start a new thread just yet ;-)

a few good points have been put forward concerning 'cultural trends' and 'interlectual prowess' influencing natural selection. However I don't think anyone has touched on the other half of evolution: mutation rates. Kitchen microwaves, mobile phones, Radio transmiters, remote central locking, TV screens and Computer monitors, iPods, anything WiFi / BluTooth / wireless... and the list just goes on... it has been Proven that radiation (including low level radio waves) up the mutation rate. Here is one such study done on the Fukushima area.

building on what Ringer and iNow said: evolution happens by chance. each time there is an offspring born (well, formed in the womb), it has the chance to have its genes altered in a manner that is different from either of its parents genes. aka: it has a mutation. Unlike in the movies, a single mutation will not turn a human into a lizard hulk (but how we wish it were so). most mutations are so small and suttle that they go completely un-noticed. such as immunity genes. that being said, there are some mutations that can cause a domino effect within the body resulting in very noticeable changes in the offspring, such as Dwarfisim. the mutations themselves happen completely by chance. (not including outside factors such as radiation) However, deciding what mutations to keep is not random. instead it is controled by the very compex system that is commonly dulled down to "survival of the fittest". most of the time the survival of this mutation IS based of fittness. its the Biggest lion that gets to propogate his genetic code. But sometimes it is based on other factors. an example is the redhead. once apon a time there were NO redheads, then one day a pretty young lass is born with red hair. She grows up, and has lots of babies because lots of people are attracted to this strange new hair color. and this totally over looks the fact that she will burn to a crisp on a clowdy day. so although redheads are "less fit" they have survived and propogated simply because they can. Enough of that, lets get back to your specific question on how individual compex steps in the evolutionary chain happened. well there are Two answers to that question. both are very simple: 1) these evolutionary jumps were made the same way every other part of the creature was made. the progressive adition of mutations (genetic level) resulted in the final, benificial, mutation (organ level) currently seen today. By the combined effects of chance mutations and logic based selection. 2) such a thing never happened. and could never happen. evolution is a flawed theory proof by this fact and many more. Although I am not giving the creationists (or even just anti-evolutionists) any justice with how I worded opinion 2, you will find that the majority of people will give you an answer that boils down to one of these two. Aww. looks like you posted a reply as I was typing up one for you. personally, not in the slitest. (all you did was jusmp from "how did it form a lens" to "how did it form a protective cover that could let light in but keep 'rubbish' out") But many evolutionist will disagree with me...