Evidence of Evolution

[john5746]

But please will someone get back to evolution?!

Here let me try.. . .

Imagine this scenario; an insect is moved out of its environment into an alien one and becomes an invasive species. In ten thousand years a descendant of the insect is moved back into it's ancestors original breeding population and native environment. How would it fare?

 

Probably not very well, I would think it wouldn't be attractive to mates and probably seen as hostile or it could have some advantage that favors the survival of its ancestors over the others.

[SkepticLance]

Bjaminwood.

Obviously the key to puncturing your bubble is to disprove your idea that the world is 10,000 years old at most. If you are able to think rationally, and cling to real facts (are you?) then we can do that.

 

1. Dendrochronology. The science of tree rings. When a tree grows, it lays down rings, whose width differs according to the season. A good growing season, and all the trees in a particular province lay down a thick ring. Poor growing season sees a thinner ring. Any period of, say, 6 years, leaves a pattern of thicker and thinner rings that is every bit as distinctive as a bar code. These patterns can be followed back in time. Due to these 'bar codes' the same period in time can be identified from tree to tree. Thus, a tree just felled can show a 'bar code' representing a time 3000 years old (many trees survive more than 3000 years). Then a dead tree that fell 2500 years ago can be identified by the same bar code. Another bar code, say 5000 years old, can then be identified. And so on back in time.

 

There is a museum in Europe with slices of trees, beginning with one recently felled, and going back to trunks dug out of wetlands, going back to, at least 20,000 years. A continuous record going back more than 20,000 years.

 

bjaminwood. If you are able to think rationally, this alone bursts your bubble.

 

2. Alpine lakes.

Certain lakes that freeze in winter, and thaw in summer, lay down layers of sediment. The way it works is this. In summer, with no ice layers, the water is turbulent. This keeps fine sediment suspended. Only coarse sediment settles to the bottom of the lake. In winter, with ice cover, the water is still. The fine sediment settles. Over the years, this leaves layers. Coarse/fine, coarse/fine etc. A core sample taken from such a lake allows scientists to count back through the layers, and count years. This has been done. Sorry, your 10,000 years takes a dive. These layers go back many times that.

 

3. Carbon dating. Tree rings and lake sediment dating allows us to check the carbon dating system. 20,000 year old tree rings are dated by the carbon dating method. 30,000 year old shells, found in a lake sediment layer, is dated by the carbon dating system. I both cases, carbon dating is shown to be accurate. And other carbon dating takes us back to 50,000 years. The world is PROVEN to be at least 50,000 years old.

 

4. Glacial layers. Ice is laid down seasonally, leaving annual layers in glaciers. Ice core samples are taken and the layers counted. These have now taken us back a million years. The world is at least a million years old.

 

5. Ocen sediment. The rate of ocean sediment layer deposition has been measured. We know the total depth of these ocean sediments. This takes us back 50 million years. These measurements have been made on numerous sediment types. The results are consistent.

 

6. Sedimentary rocks. Knowing how quickly sediments form allows us to calculate how long sedimentary rocks took to form. This calculation leads us to the inevitable belief that the world is at least hundreds of millions of years old.

 

7. Radiodating. The same principle used, and proved in carbon dating, can be used with other radio-isotopes. For example Uranium 235, which breaks down over a known period, leaving other known isotopes. This method has ben cross tested against other methods such as 5, and 6 above. It works!

 

All methods have been tested against other methods. Cross testing is meticulous and extraordinarily thorough. There are experts who could detail this process in far greater length than I can, and write entire books on all the dating methods, and how they have been used to cross test each other and demonstrate the essential correctness of our current dating systems.

 

The inevitable and final conclusion is the the world is 4.5 billion years old. Any attempt to deny these very thoroughly tested and proven scientific results, can only be based on an irrational willingness to deny facts.

[ydoaPs]

Firstly, why say that Genesis is "mostly myth and Legend" when you can't prove that. I will continue to believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis until it has been proven beyond all doubt to be a myth.

we can see farther than 6000 light years. that wasn't hard.

[Rakdos]

The reason that I go on about my faith in a literal interpretation of the book of Genesis is that it does not allow for the theory of evolution as an explanation for the state of the universe today. So my comments are linked to the topic. In my view the universe has not yet experienced millions of years only thousands. At the very most 10,000 years. If you have not already seen it there is an excellent video which demstrates this point. It has been mentioned in a previous thread. http://www.christiananswers.net/creation/aqoo/home.html

 

 

That "excellent video" has been shown to be pure propaganda for the creationist movement.

Might I suggest that you visit here for a scientific dissection of this "excellent video" .

[Severian]

The inevitable and final conclusion is the the world is 4.5 billion years old. Any attempt to deny these very thoroughly tested and proven scientific results' date=' can only be based on an irrational willingness to deny facts.[/quote']

 

Not really. The 'inevitable and final conclusion' is that all the evidence is compatible with the hypothesis that the world is 4.5 billion years old. That is not quite the same thing.

[Dr. Dalek]

The inevitable and final conclusion is the the world is 4.5 billion years old. Any attempt to deny these very thoroughly tested and proven scientific results, can only be based on an irrational willingness to deny facts.

 

Not really. The 'inevitable and final conclusion' is that all the evidence is compatible with the hypothesis that the world is 4.5 billion years old. That is not quite the same thing.

 

Very few things in science are certain.

[Severian]

Very few things in science[/b'] are certain.

 

That is true, and notice that you are using the word 'science' here. If one disagrees with the scientific method, then even the things for which there is good evidence become uncertain.

[bjaminwood]

Bjaminwood.

Obviously the key to puncturing your bubble is to disprove your idea that the world is 10' date='000 years old at most. If you are able to think rationally, and cling to real facts (are you?) then we can do that.

 

1. Dendrochronology. The science of tree rings. When a tree grows, it lays down rings, whose width differs according to the season. A good growing season, and all the trees in a particular province lay down a thick ring. Poor growing season sees a thinner ring. Any period of, say, 6 years, leaves a pattern of thicker and thinner rings that is every bit as distinctive as a bar code. These patterns can be followed back in time. Due to these 'bar codes' the same period in time can be identified from tree to tree. Thus, a tree just felled can show a 'bar code' representing a time 3000 years old (many trees survive more than 3000 years). Then a dead tree that fell 2500 years ago can be identified by the same bar code. Another bar code, say 5000 years old, can then be identified. And so on back in time.

 

There is a museum in Europe with slices of trees, beginning with one recently felled, and going back to trunks dug out of wetlands, going back to, at least 20,000 years. A continuous record going back more than 20,000 years.

 

bjaminwood. If you are able to think rationally, this alone bursts your bubble.

 

2. Alpine lakes.

Certain lakes that freeze in winter, and thaw in summer, lay down layers of sediment. The way it works is this. In summer, with no ice layers, the water is turbulent. This keeps fine sediment suspended. Only coarse sediment settles to the bottom of the lake. In winter, with ice cover, the water is still. The fine sediment settles. Over the years, this leaves layers. Coarse/fine, coarse/fine etc. A core sample taken from such a lake allows scientists to count back through the layers, and count years. This has been done. Sorry, your 10,000 years takes a dive. These layers go back many times that.

 

3. Carbon dating. Tree rings and lake sediment dating allows us to check the carbon dating system. 20,000 year old tree rings are dated by the carbon dating method. 30,000 year old shells, found in a lake sediment layer, is dated by the carbon dating system. I both cases, carbon dating is shown to be accurate. And other carbon dating takes us back to 50,000 years. The world is PROVEN to be at least 50,000 years old.

 

4. Glacial layers. Ice is laid down seasonally, leaving annual layers in glaciers. Ice core samples are taken and the layers counted. These have now taken us back a million years. The world is at least a million years old.

 

5. Ocen sediment. The rate of ocean sediment layer deposition has been measured. We know the total depth of these ocean sediments. This takes us back 50 million years. These measurements have been made on numerous sediment types. The results are consistent.

 

6. Sedimentary rocks. Knowing how quickly sediments form allows us to calculate how long sedimentary rocks took to form. This calculation leads us to the inevitable belief that the world is at least hundreds of millions of years old.

 

7. Radiodating. The same principle used, and proved in carbon dating, can be used with other radio-isotopes. For example Uranium 235, which breaks down over a known period, leaving other known isotopes. This method has ben cross tested against other methods such as 5, and 6 above. It works!

 

All methods have been tested against other methods. Cross testing is meticulous and extraordinarily thorough. There are experts who could detail this process in far greater length than I can, and write entire books on all the dating methods, and how they have been used to cross test each other and demonstrate the essential correctness of our current dating systems.

 

The inevitable and final conclusion is the the world is 4.5 billion years old. Any attempt to deny these very thoroughly tested and proven scientific results, can only be based on an irrational willingness to deny facts.[/quote']

 

please see

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/docs/tree_ring.asp

and

http://christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c007.html

[woelen]

I have read that Wiki-letter and it is a decent piece of work. To a large extent I can agree with it, but for me (as christian) a very big question remains unanswered.

 

As a christian, I stand somewhere in the middle, not accepting the 6000 (or 10000) year young earth view, but I also have some large problems with the theory of evolution (toe, as it is mentioned in the letter).

 

I accept that earth is very old (around 4.3 billion years??) and also that the universe is very large and possibly infinite, and increadibly old. I also agree with the observations of the fossils and the presence of species through time. However, as a christian I also fully believe that at a certain point in time sin came into the world ("the world is fallen in sin", as some church-leaders call it). This is a central theme of christianity. If you do not accept that, then why would you even continue believing? Then Jesus' work was void and without any meaning and He would be a fool. So, I fully accept that the world is fallen in sin.

 

Now the problem with the toe. I see no way, how this falling in sin can be unified with the current toe. If there are any other christian members of SFN over here, who accept evolution, and who really are christian and accept that the world is fallen in sin, then I would be really eager to read how they think these two things can be unified.

 

So, for me, up to now, the answer simply is open, and I have to leave it open. There are the observations, and there is the dogma of a world, fallen in sin, and both I have to accept, but I see no theory, which fits both of these in an acceptable way.

[Royston]

Now the problem with the toe. I see no way, how this falling in sin can be unified with the current toe. If there are any other christian members of SFN over here, who accept evolution, and [/i']who really are christian and accept that the world is fallen in sin, then I would be really eager to read how they think these two things can be unified.

 

Do we really need another debate on someone trying to amalgamate religion with a scientifc theory. Evolution has nothing to say on sin, morals or God. People have tried plently of times on here, and it gets nowhere...please can we keep the two seperate.

 

So, for me, up to now, the answer simply is open, and I have to leave it open.

 

Agreed, let's keep it that way, and stop all this science / religion bashing because people can't keep the two distinct.

[Severian]

Now the problem with the toe. I see no way' date=' how this falling in sin can be unified with the current toe. If there are any other christian members of SFN over here, who accept evolution, [i']and [/i]who really are christian and accept that the world is fallen in sin, then I would be really eager to read how they think these two things can be unified.

 

My personal view is that it is all tied in with sentience. We don't regard animals as sentient because they don't (we presume) have a well developed sense of self. Part of that sense of self is our morality - having an opinion about whether we (or more correctly our actions) are right or wrong.

 

So I would say that the coming of sin to the world was really us gaining our self awareness. By eating the apple of the 'Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil' we learn right from wrong and so when we do wrong we sin - we go against God (which is our definition of good).

 

Now clearly if we are sentient (with morality) and animals are not, then there had to be a point in evolution where man became sentient. It is our self awareness which made Adam hide his nakedness. It is our self awareness which allows us to distinguish right from wrong and indeed which makes our actions right or wrong.

 

We even have this distinction in our vocabulary. Someone who is immoral is a bad person, but someone who is amoral is less than human.

[Severian]

As a matter of interest (and in an attempt to bring this back on topic), what is the general view these days on punctuated equilibrium?

[Dr. Dalek]

As a matter of interest (and in an attempt to bring this back on topic), what is the general view these days on punctuated equilibrium?

Punctuated equilibrium is a theory which states that most sexual species will go through extended periods where they don't change too much and suddenly will begin to split and speciate.

 

 

See :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_Equilibrium

[CharonY]

Essentially there is no real conflict between gradualists and punctualists (as in fact the dissent was rather smaller than it appeared to the public to begin with) any more.

It is clear that evolutionary rates can and do vary. The real question is whether apparently faster evolution in terms of geological time scales can be interpreted as an absence of microevolutionary modifications (based on estimates of reproductive time scales). That is if there are macroevolutionary events that are not linked to microevolutionary ones. The evidence is quite lacking though, therefore the general consesus (as far as I am aware of) is that it is still explainable by microevolutionary models.

[Dr. Dalek]

Punctuated Equilibrium probably only happens quickly in terms of geological time. What would really be interesting is if we humans could read the signs of speciation or a period of rapid change and study it first hand. It would be a study that took centuries to finish but it would be enlightening.

[bjaminwood]

I have read that Wiki-letter and it is a decent piece of work. To a large extent I can agree with it' date=' but for me (as christian) a very big question remains unanswered.

 

As a christian, I stand somewhere in the middle, not accepting the 6000 (or 10000) year young earth view, but I also have some large problems with the theory of evolution (toe, as it is mentioned in the letter).

 

I accept that earth is very old (around 4.3 billion years??) and also that the universe is very large and possibly infinite, and increadibly old. I also agree with the observations of the fossils and the presence of species through time. However, as a christian I also fully believe that at a certain point in time sin came into the world ("the world is fallen in sin", as some church-leaders call it). This is a central theme of christianity. If you do not accept that, then why would you even continue believing? Then Jesus' work was void and without any meaning and He would be a fool. So, I fully accept that the world is fallen in sin.

 

Now the problem with the toe. I see no way, how this falling in sin can be unified with the current toe. If there are any other christian members of SFN over here, who accept evolution, [i']and [/i]who really are christian and accept that the world is fallen in sin, then I would be really eager to read how they think these two things can be unified.

 

So, for me, up to now, the answer simply is open, and I have to leave it open. There are the observations, and there is the dogma of a world, fallen in sin, and both I have to accept, but I see no theory, which fits both of these in an acceptable way.

 

A very good website that WILL answer SOME of your questions is

http://www.answersingenesis.org

[ydoaPs]

A very good website that WILL answer SOME of your questions is

http://www.answersingenesis.org

LOL

Try talkorigins' date=' bjaminwood. These two pages should take you a while to get through. I can almost guaruntee every piece of "evidence" against evolution you find at AIG is refuted on talkorigins.

[insane_alien]

can we leave religion(that includes answers in genisis) out of this. were talking scientific evidence here.

[SkepticLance]

bjaminwood.

You try to refute dendrochornology measurement of time by quoting someone who claims Pinus radiata sometimes has more tree rings than years of growth. Maybe. However, the guy that makes that claim is wrong on matters of fact in the same article, such as the maximum number of tree rings seen in bristle cone pines (counted to over 5000).

 

However, it is irrelevent. Datings are made by a wide range of hardwoods, and slow growing softwoods. Even if radiata pine can double its tree rings, which I seriously doubt (Your author lied about bristle cone pines. Why should I believe him on this?), we do not use radiata pine for dating.

 

Also bjaminwood, you have not explained the datings measured from alpine lakes, glacier deposition, sedimentation measures etc. The total bulk of evidence is overwhelming.

[Dr. Dalek]

Faith is impossible to prove or disprove! We had a lengthy discussion about this in "Intelligent Design in Schools."

God might exist, we don't know, we might one day, but it's irrelevant right now.

Prove that I exist! Prove to me that you exist! Prove that the world wasn't created from the void two decades ago and all we know about science and history is just false memories implanted by the Gods to keep us under their petty rule!

I can't prove that the Jewish/Christian God does or doesn't exist! We can't truly prove evolution is true; we can just prove that it is likely through the accumulation of evidence.

Let's not argue about weather faith or science is right because its impossible to come to a sound conclusion!

Nothing in science or life is certain! Some things are just more near certain than others.

[Aardvark]

Let's not argue about weather faith or science is right because its impossible to come to a sound conclusion!

 

If you are ill, it's antibiotics and sciencitific medicine that will cure you, not chants, mantras and charms. If you go on holiday it will be in a plane obeying the laws of physics, not on a magic carpet.

 

It is not only possible to come to a sound conclusion. It is inescapable. Science works, science demonstrates repeatable and consistent results. Faith does not.

 

Trying to imply or argue for a parity of esteem for faith and science is to wilfully ignore reality.

[the tree]

It is not only possible to come to a sound conclusion. It is inescapable. Science works, science demonstrates repeatable and consistent results. Faith does not.

True, but only pointful from a scientific perspective. From the point of view of faith: the tendancy of carpets that you have faith in the flying abilities of, staying firmly affixed to the ground, does not make the faith any less valid.

[zyncod]

From the point of view of faith: the tendancy of carpets that you have faith in the flying abilities of, staying firmly affixed to the ground, does not make the faith any less valid.

 

It does make you seem kind of stupid, though, as the carpet continues sticking to the ground, especially if you base your entire moral system on that carpet.

[Dr. Dalek]

If you are ill' date=' it's antibiotics and sciencitific medicine that will cure you, not chants, mantras and charms. If you go on holiday it will be in a plane obeying the laws of physics, not on a magic carpet.

 

It is not only possible to come to a sound conclusion. It is inescapable. Science works, science demonstrates repeatable and consistent results. Faith does not.

 

Trying to imply or argue for a parity of esteem for faith and science is to wilfully ignore reality.[/quote']

 

I think you misinterpreted what I was saying,

I was saying that it is not possible to come to a sound conclusion, when you argue faith verses science.

I also was trying to imply that science has limits, we can study the world soundly but we don’t know how accurate our limited human perceptions are.

 

Now get off your high horse and let us get back to evolution!

[FreeThinker]

If you doubt science has the answers, turn of your computer.