10 popular fallacies and misconceptions about evolution

originally posted by: peter vlar

originally posted by: Masterjaden

I had to stop at number two.

If you believe what you wrote, you don't understand the difference between logical validity and paradigmic validity...

The premises required for this to be accurate are logically invalid because they rely on a unknowable quantity of carbon in the air in the distant past that is impossible to measure.

And any methods for attempting to verify that (i.e. ice core samples) fall under the same fallacy of not being verifiable as being a certain age as in even the recent past they extrapolate for the dating of core samples and carbon samples based on extremely short durations of time all in recent history.

There is no way to know that these amounts or rates of application/erosion were the same even two hundred years ago, let alone 60 or 100K years ago.

BTW, I'm not a denier of anything except paradigmic fact based on logical fallacy...

Jaden.

I'm not a geologist so I'm going to skip over yr claims on erosion and get to the crux of your issues with C-14. You have an problem with it because you can't know the amount of C-14 at Amy given time in the past. This tells me you're not terribly familiar with how this particular dating method works. It's not based on the amount of carbon X amount of years ago, its based on the amount of carbon the organic material contains at the time it was tested. The beta particles decay at a constant rate with a fairly negligible margin of error. This margin of error is almost always included in the dates given. If it is not and there is only a single date with no +/- given for the margin tht means that they are giving you the median date, I.E. the very middle of what the margin of error is. The constant rate of decay for beta particles in C-14 converting back to N-14 has a half life of 5370 years. It's not a matter of paradigm, its a matter of fact.

Sorry but you're wrong...

It's based on an estimate of the amount of starting C14 that the organic that is being tested had in it when it died.

It uses that starting estimate and the amount of measured C14 left in it based on the half life of C14 to determine the age of the material being tested.

Jaden

a reply to: Masterjaden

Exactly what I said. That C-14 decays I to N-14 at a constant rate and the measurement is based on how much C-14 is in the organism when it expires. So you claiming it does t work or is inaccurate because we can't know how much of that isotope existed at point X has no bearing. You know your starting point which is the amount of C-14 in the sample you are testing. You know that constant rate of decay. Therefore it's a simple mathematical formula to determine the age of the object. The variables you object to are irrelevant and it's the actual amount of C-14 in the sample you're testing not an estimate. But you're saying in wrong and then repeated what I said in simpler terms.

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: Masterjaden

Exactly what I said. That C-14 decays I to N-14 at a constant rate and the measurement is based on how much C-14 is in the organism when it expires. So you claiming it does t work or is inaccurate because we can't know how much of that isotope existed at point X has no bearing. You know your starting point which is the amount of C-14 in the sample you are testing. You know that constant rate of decay. Therefore it's a simple mathematical formula to determine the age of the object. The variables you object to are irrelevant and it's the actual amount of C-14 in the sample you're testing not an estimate. But you're saying in wrong and then repeated what I said in simpler terms.

Yes, but to know how much C14 the organism started with, they have to make estimates of how much was in the atmosphere and therefore how much the organism breathed in. This is why some modern living animals can be dated to vastly long time frames, because they breath in C14 at different rates and therefore have different starting rates of C14 accumulation.

If they don't know how much C14 the organism started with, they can't very well know what to compare how much is left to, in order to figure out how long the organism has been dead...

Jaden

p.s. the same issue exists with potassium argon dating. There is no way to know that the amount of potassium argon coming up in new magma is the same amount that was coming up 2 or 300 thousand years ago...

a reply to: Masterjaden

Howdy,

I don't usually deal with Carbon-14 dating in my... studies. You're mentioning of the potassium-argon dating method, however, is very much something I am familiar with.

See, argon is a noble gas, and "inert" substance, and one that is very light with respect to density. Now, potassium-40 (the specific isotope of potassium measured) decays to argon-40, specifically. Granitic magmas that cool quickly (so a rock we might call a rhyolite) are somewhat ideal for this method of dating. No mineral (crystal lattices) incorporate argon, a gas, into their molecular structure. None. Potassium is commonly incorporated into clays, micas, and feldspars. As a magma is hot, the gases will rise to the top of the magma and density further drives them upwards through the Earth's crust. A similar thing can be seen with the solid state flow of salt (salt domes) through the Earth's crust. As the magma cools, the argon-40 that is produced from decay of potassium-40 actually accumulates within the rock, trapped in the crystal lattices of the minerals, as well as any pockets that may have formed in the rock matrix itself...
en.wikipedia.org...

So it doesn't matter how much potassium-40 comes "up" to form a rock. The ratio of potassium-40 is specifically used with argon-40 to determine the amount of time since the rock cooled and solidified, trapping the argon gas. Now, it is true that secondary fractures and remelting would release the argon, making the rock look younger than it is, but those two things would be clear to any geologist based on texture and mineralogy.

Also, I should mention that the K-Ar thing has been demonstrated in laboratory experiments with crucibles. There are limitations to the test, but these limitations are well understood. Perhaps you will find this section helpful in understanding them.
en.wikipedia.org...

Finally, I'd like to point out that one method of dating is never enough. You need more than one clock to compare the results to know if they are accurate or if something has been gained or lost in a system. It is only when ALL(/the statistical majority) of the tiny clocks say the same age that we know that the interpretation is likely accurate.
en.wikipedia.org...

I'm quite a fan of the Uranium-Lead method, as it is usually used with zircon crystals (which can be a common accessory in granitic rocks, with which to compare K-Ar results and of course the rubidium-strontium method of dating works well with granitic rocks, too...). So, are all of these methods wrong?

Sincere regards,
Hydeman

originally posted by: guitarplayer
a reply to: kayej1188

The mutation rate to form a human body with 50 trillion cells would take more time than the earth has been here. To reach the mutation rate it would take 34 mutations per day of a single cell to mutate into a human over a 4 billion year time span. And we have not even discussed where the DNA information came from to have the very first cell.

You did read the part that evolution does not take into account HOW life got here right? SO therefore it does not discount God. Also WHen you are a immortal timeless being your time scale is diffrent than mortals.billions of years to him may be like a day to us.

originally posted by: Masterjaden


Yes, but to know how much C14 the organism started with, they have to make estimates of how much was in the atmosphere and therefore how much the organism breathed in. This is why some modern living animals can be dated to vastly long time frames, because they breath in C14 at different rates and therefore have different starting rates of C14 accumulation.

If they don't know how much C14 the organism started with, they can't very well know what to compare how much is left to, in order to figure out how long the organism has been dead...

Jaden

p.s. the same issue exists with potassium argon dating. There is no way to know that the amount of potassium argon coming up in new magma is the same amount that was coming up 2 or 300 thousand years ago...

You say modern living animals have been dated to vastly long time frames, do you care to provide a citation for the plurality of that claim. There is only one exception to the rule and it had nothing to do with atmospheric variation and that is freshwater mussels. As I explained in my first Reply regarding this dating method, there is a known margin of error involved in the results and these margins are almost always included in the dates assigned to the samples. When you see just a singular date with no +/- that means the date is the median age given the margin of error. The C-14 dating has been able to be compared with tree ring data and the data from both was equitable thus verifying the accuracy of C14 dating method.in case you're wondering, they counted tree rings and then carbon dated the same sample of wood. The only time frame this will not work is when trying to date specimens that expired after the early 20th century specifically after 1945 because above ground nuclear testing has diluted the ratios of C14:C12 in the atmosphere. Prior to that time frame there is actually a great deal of accuracy going back to 40,000 BPE. I've seen others say its effective as far back as 60,000 but in my experience I don't like it that far back but can say with a great deal of veracity that something dated as old as 40,000 BPE is indeed very accurate.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I appreciate your attempt to educate scientific illiterates but it's futile because they are willfully ignorant. I find it much more productive to laugh at them.

originally posted by: Masterjaden

p.s. the same issue exists with potassium argon dating. There is no way to know that the amount of potassium argon coming up in new magma is the same amount that was coming up 2 or 300 thousand years ago...

This is incorrect. Until crystallization of the minerals, the Argon is able to escape; therefore, we know how long since crystallization. The ratio of the isotopes is all that matters, not the starting amount.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Krazysh0t

cont.

6. Evolution has never been observed

Perhaps you are familiar with this study?
E. coli long-term evolution experiment

Here's a great example: en.wikipedia.org...

originally posted by: Tangerine
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I appreciate your attempt to educate scientific illiterates but it's futile because they are willfully ignorant. I find it much more productive to laugh at them.

I feel that that is a good way to push them further from being properly educated. Sure at times my frustration comes through with trying to explain these things, but to laugh derisively at them won't help anything. Remember they are people too and not to mention some of these people make decisions (or try to convince people who do) that effect all of us. Though I do admit it is rather hard to break the conditioning that religion uses to cement these fallacies and misconceptions in their minds. "Can't teach an old dog new tricks."

originally posted by: hydeman11
a reply to: Masterjaden

Howdy,

I don't usually deal with Carbon-14 dating in my... studies. You're mentioning of the potassium-argon dating method, however, is very much something I am familiar with.

See, argon is a noble gas, and "inert" substance, and one that is very light with respect to density. Now, potassium-40 (the specific isotope of potassium measured) decays to argon-40, specifically. Granitic magmas that cool quickly (so a rock we might call a rhyolite) are somewhat ideal for this method of dating. No mineral (crystal lattices) incorporate argon, a gas, into their molecular structure. None. Potassium is commonly incorporated into clays, micas, and feldspars. As a magma is hot, the gases will rise to the top of the magma and density further drives them upwards through the Earth's crust. A similar thing can be seen with the solid state flow of salt (salt domes) through the Earth's crust. As the magma cools, the argon-40 that is produced from decay of potassium-40 actually accumulates within the rock, trapped in the crystal lattices of the minerals, as well as any pockets that may have formed in the rock matrix itself...
en.wikipedia.org...

So it doesn't matter how much potassium-40 comes "up" to form a rock. The ratio of potassium-40 is specifically used with argon-40 to determine the amount of time since the rock cooled and solidified, trapping the argon gas. Now, it is true that secondary fractures and remelting would release the argon, making the rock look younger than it is, but those two things would be clear to any geologist based on texture and mineralogy.

Also, I should mention that the K-Ar thing has been demonstrated in laboratory experiments with crucibles. There are limitations to the test, but these limitations are well understood. Perhaps you will find this section helpful in understanding them.
en.wikipedia.org...

Finally, I'd like to point out that one method of dating is never enough. You need more than one clock to compare the results to know if they are accurate or if something has been gained or lost in a system. It is only when ALL(/the statistical majority) of the tiny clocks say the same age that we know that the interpretation is likely accurate.
en.wikipedia.org...

I'm quite a fan of the Uranium-Lead method, as it is usually used with zircon crystals (which can be a common accessory in granitic rocks, with which to compare K-Ar results and of course the rubidium-strontium method of dating works well with granitic rocks, too...). So, are all of these methods wrong?

Sincere regards,
Hydeman

Again, release the paradigm...

There is plenty of evidence to suggest that gravity rates have not been constant throughout time. If gravity changes over time, you're measurements will be off.

There is too much we don't know to claim certainty the way paradigms do...

Remember, the only historically accurate scientific fact is that science is never currently accurate...

Jaden

a reply to: Masterjaden

Howdy,

All right, I will change how I think if you can provide me some scientific evidence that radioactive decay is somehow changed by gravitational changes.

Of course, I've never seen any research indicating gravity as a variable that has an effect on radioactive decay, so do forgive me my skepticism. If you have evidence I will more than gladly look at it.

That said, can you also show some support for your claim that "gravity rates" have changed over time? I mean, sure, local gravity is not constant. It is based upon the density of the crust/rock below you at any one given location, and that changes with erosional processes, uplift, thrusting, tectonic activity, and a few other processes... But what specifically do you mean by "gravity rates?"

Sincere regards,
Hydeman

originally posted by: Cypress

originally posted by: OptimusSubprime
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I would take issue with your 6th point, that evolution has been observed. MICRO-evolution has indeed been observed, and this e-coli study is certainly an example of that. Also, what exactly is "long term"? No study observable by humans could ever be considered long term in relation to the supposed age of the Earth, and even more so when the supposed age of the universe is taken into account. There are 6 types of evolution that make up the Theory of Evolution, and they are as follows: Micro-evolution which is defined as the variation within kinds of species, Macro-evolution which is defined as the changing from one kind of species to another kind of species, Stellar and Planetary evolution which is defined as the origin of stars and planets, Organic evolution which is defined as the origin of life, Chemical evolution which is defined as the origin of higher elements from hydrogen, and Cosmic evolution which is defined as the origin of time, space, and matter by the Big Bang.

The ONLY one of these 6 types of evolution that has EVER been observed is Micro-evolution, and we have already covered that. The other 5 types HAVE NEVER been observed, and although they are widely accepted as "scientific", the Scientific Method has not been applied, nor can it be, therefore it is not science... it is pseudo-science.

First off micro and macro evolution are the same thing. It's a strawman argument.

Secondly, once again you are making a strawman argument because there are not 6 definitions of evolution that make up the theory of evolution. That is simply untrue.

How are they the same? I've never understood that. Species to Species evolution has never been witnessed. Therefore, MACRO evolution IS different. It's not just a "long term process" I very much doubt that strain of E-Coli would have morphed into a frog if we'd given it the time. Granted, i'm being facetious, but you get the idea.

How are Macro and Micro the same? They count for 2 different types of evolution/development. One of which has been observed. The other, hasn't. MICRO evolution can not stand on it's own as proof of evolution from species to species. Therefore it's just a theory. Granted - a great theory and probably one of the best we have to try explain some of why we are here - But a theory nevertheless.

Like replies have mentioned - I truly believe the moment we stop trying to DISPROVE each other and realise this is 2 sides of a very confusing coin, the more progression will take place. It's all one-upsmanship at times and it's so misguided.

Or, it's Aliens.

a reply to: hydeman11

Funny you should say that... I was just commenting on a facebook post about the problems with paradigms and I will just copy and paste my response, which was unrelated to this topic specifically but referenced a mislabeling of the results of the atomic clock experiments so here's something to chew on...

Let's take this further... Often times special relativity is related as being proven based on atomic clock experiments showing time dilation. This is a perfect representation of the problems with scientific paradigms, a claim of fact where one doesn't exist. Atomic clocks work based on the measurement of the oscillation of an atom. They specifically use an atom that oscillates at a rate that best approximates a second. Cesium was used in early atomic clocks and more recently they have used even more accurate materials. They took two atomic clocks and synced their times out to like 12 decimal places and then took one deep underground and put one in a plane and flew it high in the atmosphere. When they brought them back together they were out of sync. The one deep in the earth had moved more slowly than the one high in the atmosphere. People (even noted scientists) have stated that this proves time dilation (a prediction based on Einstein's special theory of relativity) but it doesn't do this at all. It supports it, but does NOT prove it. The only thing that it proves is that greater gravitational forces affect the oscillation rate of an atom. relativity suggests that gravity wells compress space/time and that it is this compression of space time that slows time down and this slowing of time is what is affecting the rate of oscillation of the atom. It is just as feasible though and possibly even MORE feasible that it's just more difficult for an atom to oscillate against a stronger gravitational force. This type of misrepresentation of evidence and exacerbated implications of evidence is rampant throughout the scientific paradigms. Descartes was absolutely correct to believe that the only certainty is that your consciousness exists, (I think therefore I am) All else can be a construct of your consciousness. Most people aren't aware that Descartes was evaluating the paradigms of science when he established one of the most famous quotes in history....

Jaden

originally posted by: MrConspiracy

How are they the same? I've never understood that. Species to Species evolution has never been witnessed. Therefore, MACRO evolution IS different. It's not just a "long term process" I very much doubt that strain of E-Coli would have morphed into a frog if we'd given it the time. Granted, i'm being facetious, but you get the idea.

How are Macro and Micro the same? They count for 2 different types of evolution/development. One of which has been observed. The other, hasn't. MICRO evolution can not stand on it's own as proof of evolution from species to species. Therefore it's just a theory. Granted - a great theory and probably one of the best we have to try explain some of why we are here - But a theory nevertheless.

Like replies have mentioned - I truly believe the moment we stop trying to DISPROVE each other and realise this is 2 sides of a very confusing coin, the more progression will take place. It's all one-upsmanship at times and it's so misguided.

Or, it's Aliens.

The way the terms micro and macro are used in biology with regards to evolution are merely for taxonomic (classification) purposes. Basically, macro is used to describe when adaptations cause populations to no longer interbreed with each other. We would then technically classify them as separate species; however, it is really only an accumulation of adaptations over time. They are the same process. We know that DNA determines the morphological features of life on earth. We know that DNA changes from one generation to the next. We have a pretty good understanding of the mechanisms by which DNA changes. Whether we see one creature turn into something else entirely is irrelevant.

originally posted by: Masterjaden
a reply to: hydeman11

Funny you should say that... I was just commenting on a facebook post about the problems with paradigms and I will just copy and paste my response, which was unrelated to this topic specifically but referenced a mislabeling of the results of the atomic clock experiments so here's something to chew on...

Let's take this further... Often times special relativity is related as being proven based on atomic clock experiments showing time dilation. This is a perfect representation of the problems with scientific paradigms, a claim of fact where one doesn't exist. Atomic clocks work based on the measurement of the oscillation of an atom. They specifically use an atom that oscillates at a rate that best approximates a second. Cesium was used in early atomic clocks and more recently they have used even more accurate materials. They took two atomic clocks and synced their times out to like 12 decimal places and then took one deep underground and put one in a plane and flew it high in the atmosphere. When they brought them back together they were out of sync. The one deep in the earth had moved more slowly than the one high in the atmosphere. People (even noted scientists) have stated that this proves time dilation (a prediction based on Einstein's special theory of relativity) but it doesn't do this at all. It supports it, but does NOT prove it. The only thing that it proves is that greater gravitational forces affect the oscillation rate of an atom. relativity suggests that gravity wells compress space/time and that it is this compression of space time that slows time down and this slowing of time is what is affecting the rate of oscillation of the atom. It is just as feasible though and possibly even MORE feasible that it's just more difficult for an atom to oscillate against a stronger gravitational force. This type of misrepresentation of evidence and exacerbated implications of evidence is rampant throughout the scientific paradigms. Descartes was absolutely correct to believe that the only certainty is that your consciousness exists, (I think therefore I am) All else can be a construct of your consciousness. Most people aren't aware that Descartes was evaluating the paradigms of science when he established one of the most famous quotes in history....

Jaden

And how exactly is a personal anecdote from a Facebook post the same as scientific evidence for something? It's just your interpretation and has nothing to support it. No facts, no citation...just opinion fluffed up with Descartes.

a reply to: Masterjaden

Howdy,

I'm afraid I'm going to have to agree with Peter on this. You've not given any evidence to support the hypothesis that gravitational changes have an effect on radioactive decay rates. What you have written has nothing to do with radioactive decay. (I'm not a theoretical physicist, and I certainly have been told that gravity does play into the phenomenon of time dilation, but time dilation is unrelated to decay rate, right?)

Do ponder this, though, all laboratories that have instruments that can measure decay rates independent of one another have found constancy (within small variations of the instruments) of decay rates, despite the lithospheric blocks they are on top of being in different locations. Therefore, microgravitational differences must exist due to the differential rocks comprising these blocks and yet this change in gravity does not appear to affect the constancy of decay rates.

Although I do agree with your sentiment that correlation does not imply causation. That's true of all things, and I certainly appreciate it when people understand that.

Sincere regards,
Hydeman

these 10 facts about evolution are actually true to the bone:


according to entropy along with expansion of the universe, evolution is a waste of effort. and then mutations that increase by time,along with the general law of degradation by time, proved by the 99% of life is extinct against evolution. The claim of punctuated equilibrium sounds much like the new spesies after extinction episodes was caused ratherby new creation. Mutations that increase by time can only make harmful genes (harmful mutations that protect against diseases can not be counted beneficial mutation). carbon dating showed many times the recent age of bones where then were dismissed by evolutionists that carbon dating must have been due to dating the contamination not the bones because the bones have to be old (????)(forcing their own premise on the research and testing!.

not to forget that the first 3 skuls since Darwin, 2 were forged with the knowledge of Darwin of one of the forged bones.
so at least 66% of later discovered bones you would expect the same trend 70% forged making fraudelant samples (predetemined samples)

a reply to: Starbucks

And here we go again where you make ludicrous claims and don't back anything up with a citation. The bull # regarding skulls being forgeries 70% of the time is just pathetic. Don't you realize by now that everyone knows you're a troll who doesn't provide citations because you know your claims lack validity and integrity? seriously, invest in a library card. It'll be the wisest thing you could ever do for yourself. At least engage in some due diligence and stop making crap up.

the most famous skulls were the first 3 ones and 2 were proven forgeries the piltman skul mentioned earlier in the first post.
the 99% of life extinct refernced by the first post and is also against evolution.
the law of enrtropy and degradation by time are found in any online dictionary.

punctutated equilibrium is referenced by the first post and claim slow evolution is not seen but mass extinctions followed by different species explained by evolutionists that mutations scramble to fix the problem (sounds like intelligent design not thinking by the mutations about what to do to preserve the species!!!

no beneficial mutations (evolution ) have ever been noticed.
out of thousands of mutations classified by National Institute of Health, all of them harmful.
the website wiki about mutations mentions two examples of so called beneficial mutations
the first a harmful mutation found in whites protect them against HIV.
the second is yet another harmful mutation that causes the deadly Sickle cell anemia protects against Malaria?

no beneficial mutations were seen so far.

carbon dating is neglected because it shows recent date contradicting 10 folds over date made by several unsensitive tests.