It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

10 popular fallacies and misconceptions about evolution

page: 7
47
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 23 2014 @ 05:47 PM
link   
a reply to: MrConspiracy


Ok, you chose to believe we came from primates. To an extent - we might have. But no, merely saying we came from primates gives me nothing.

I don't "believe" we came from primates. The evidence strongly suggests that we came from primates. There's no faith required. And why the equivocation of "we might have"? And, again, I'll ask -- what questions are you looking for the answers to that aren't being satisfied? You keep saying things along the lines of how that answer "gives you nothing", but you never really expound on what would or what you're trying to get.


Those who follow the evolution theory will always have more ammunition in a debate because it's physical. All i'm trying to get at is, I 100% believe we are more than just an advanced primate - I believe that mindset is illogical.

Then what are we, in your opinion?


Primates exist. Humans exist. I haven't seen any credible evidence to suggest we are direct descendants. Please note the "direct" part of my sentence. I'm not saying, somehow, we aren't linked. It's often startling how similar (in some ways) we are to some primate species. Hey, who knows - we might find that missing link. Personally it opens just as many doors as it closes.

You seem to be suggesting that we're somehow descended from the primates that we see around us today. If you're not suggesting that, I apologize for misunderstanding you. If you are suggesting that, then I'd simply say that's not what evolution posits and your position against it is simply a strawman argument.


I've mentioned how FOR the evolution theory i am. It's massively interesting. I just dislike those who use it to bash anyone who believes anything outside of the physical (science).

I think you'll find that the "bashing" from people who subscribe to evolution is usually in response to anti-science claims, creationists trying to force the teaching of religious dogma in public schools, etc.


Evolution doesn't explain the origins of man nor does it explain the origin of species. I personally believe the answer to those questions are a lot more complex than the adaptation of a species.

You keep saying that you believe that the answers to those questions aren't addressed by evolution, but you never really say why.


Just a side edit - I hope you're all aware by my posts. I am not ignorant or some "crazy Christian who hates science" That's certainly not me. However, on this post I am aware i'm probably in the minority who doesn't believe science itself can answer everything - let alone our origins.

I'll ask again -- why isn't science able to answer the question of the origins of man (in particular) or the origin of species (in general)?




posted on Aug, 23 2014 @ 10:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: hanyak69
3 letters alone disprove evolution ( which is just a theory) DNA..... If we all came from a single cell organism. Albeit plant animal etc..... then why can't we take human DNA an make a plant out of it? If evolution is true then we should be able to genetically build from the past. Meaning that we should be able to stair step back through genes and make anything that we have evolved from. Also how did one cell decide to be a plant while another an animal. I am tired of evolution being treated as fact when it is nothing short of a religion. But it's followers Ignore that they are asking you to believe in a theory. Most evolutionists are atheists and claim they are not religious the whole time spouting the religion of evolution...... hmmmmmmm..... a reply to: Krazysh0t



It is not impossible to take DNA from any creature and make a strand of DNA equal to any other creature. DNA is the same in all life, just a matter of different amounts and sequence. We just aren't there technologically there yet.
edit on 23-8-2014 by Cypress because: (no reason given)

edit on 23-8-2014 by Cypress because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 24 2014 @ 12:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: MrConspiracy


Exactly. They are 2 different terms with 2 different meanings. I haven't seen a spot of truth regarding species-species jumps. If this takes thousands or millions of years the same stands - we SHOULD be seeing changes from one species to another if evolution is happening...

I'm here for evolution - there's merit to it. It's not really THAT tough to believe that life on this earth has mated, evolved and adapted. We're all made up of pretty much the same 'stuff'. But there's SO much missing to the point where I feel it's silly how much people pin on it just because it's the "other option"

Like i said in my previous comment - it's more than likely 2 sides of the same coin when it comes to WHY we are here (you know the 2 sides i mean...)


I'll try explaining this another way:

If Micro =/= Macro; they would be separate processes.

First: There must be a clearly defined divide where "speciation" occurs. This means "speciation" would occur in one generation. Which leads into the second condition.

There must be a difference between mutations. Minor (micro) mutations that do not affect reproduction and major (macro) mutations that prohibit members being able to reproduce with members that do not contain that mutation. (Note> this poses an issue for bacteria since it does not reproduce sexually, which is why any mutation to bacteria is called a micro mutation or an adaptation by proponents o the idea that they are separate processes.)

In order to meet that criteria, in the case of multicellular life at least, two separate species would not be able to mate and have offspring. As an example, tigers and lions can mate successfully. If micro =/= macro; This would mean that lions and tigers are members of the same species and we should observe a healthy population of reproducing ligers or tigons in the wild; however, that is not the case. They are separate species, do not reproduce in the wild but can in extreme pressures in captivity and the offspring has been sterile with one or two rumored exceptions.

There is no specific divide where a species separates and it happens over a series of generations; therefore, micro and macro are the same thing.



posted on Aug, 24 2014 @ 02:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: MrConspiracy
Primates exist. Humans exist. I haven't seen any credible evidence to suggest we are direct descendants. Please note the "direct" part of my sentence. I'm not saying, somehow, we aren't linked. It's often startling how similar (in some ways) we are to some primate species. Hey, who knows - we might find that missing link. Personally it opens just as many doors as it closes.


You do realize that humans ARE primates, right? It's kind of hard to say we didn't descend from primates, when that's the order that we belong to. That's kind of like saying lizards didn't descend from reptiles. Primates encompass a large amount of mammals.


Evolution doesn't explain the origins of man nor does it explain the origin of species. I personally believe the answer to those questions are a lot more complex than the adaptation of a species.


Actually, evolution explains exactly that, and it's not simply adaptation, it's genetic mutations and extinctions. It seems like you are looking to explain the origin of life. Evolution certainly cannot explain that, and it's a question that even the greatest scientific minds have not yet figured out. Maybe there is more than strictly evolution and extinction to explain the bigger species shifts throughout history, but we haven't found evidence of that yet.
edit on 24-8-2014 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 24 2014 @ 07:44 AM
link   
a reply to: MrConspiracy

You edited your original post to add a pretty significant paragraph, and I don't want to do you the disservice of only replying to 80% of your post.


Primates exist. Humans exist. I haven't seen any credible evidence to suggest we are direct descendants. Please note the "direct" part of my sentence.

I think you may be underestimating the size of the scientific order of Primates and the diversity it encompasses. The order includes lorises, lemurs, tarsiers, monkeys, gibbons, orangutans, chimpanzees, bonobos, gorillas, and us. We don't even really move out of the same taxonomic classification, which in the case of primates reflects the genetic and paleontological evidence for their evolution, as the other members of the order until you get to the genus level, where we're finally separated from our cousins in genus Pan (chimpanzees) and genus Gorilla (I think you can guess this one). Again, we're not descended from any of the animals I've mentioned here and evolution makes no such claim.


I'm not saying, somehow, we aren't linked. It's often startling how similar (in some ways) we are to some primate species. Hey, who knows - we might find that missing link. Personally it opens just as many doors as it closes.

The concept of a "missing link" is not a scientific concept. It's predicated on a model of a linear progression of species, which isn't what evolution claims to have happened. Here's a brief article that should give you some sense of why looking for some kind of missing link that will be a smoking gun to "prove" evolution is silly. Now, if you're looking for evidence of transitional species, we have plenty. In fact, we have an almost embarrassing amount of transitional fossils just within our own cladistic family (Hominidae), to the point where we're still trying to understand how we're all related as we move back the family tree.

This may not be the best analogy, since I'm coming up with it on the fly early on a Sunday morning before my coffee has kicked in, but imagine a house populated with five brothers from one family and five sisters from another. It's a big house. They've paired off into husband and wife couples and started having kids. For the sake of argument, let's say each couple has five kids one kid per year. They've agreed to raise the kids communally, in such a way that each parent will treat all of the children as if they're his or her own, and never tell the children who their "real" parents are. Fast forward several decades and the parents have all passed away. Now imagine the fun of trying to disentangle which of the twenty-five kids is the genetic offspring of which of the five couples when the parents aren't there to try and clear it up and the kids don't know.



posted on Aug, 24 2014 @ 08:30 AM
link   
I quite simply don't have the time to reply to the backlash of my comments haha. Please don't be offended, I appreciate your replies. And I don't mean "backlash" in a negative way - debates are why I'm here.

Here's the thing, and i'll try my best to put it simply. I'm not a fan of people using the "Evolution" theory to explain away the origins of LIFE as we know it TODAY. Now, as someone kindly mentioned, perhaps i should have used the word LIFE rather than origins of MAN - my bad.

I've seen, countless times, people get mocked for believing that life isn't as simple as an evolution/adaptation of a species. I truly believe we are more than just a physical bag of bones. What i'm trying to get at, as one of you has replied regarding the answer i'm looking for is WHERE did we come from? I personally never said we came from monkeys, and I used primates to simplify. But... what species did we originally come from? Trace it back as far as possible and tell me where you get. I'm genuinely interested. And whilst you're at it, HOW did we evolve? How do you explain away things like DNA? That's always interested me.. To me, that's enough proof that this might not be just a "natural, physical" process.

Where i'm going with this is - IF we evolved where did our pre-evolved state originate from? This is what i mean by the Evolution theory doesn't give me the answers i'm looking for. It gives me the IDEA that Evolution from species to species COULD happen but it doesn't answer where it all started. Do I expect it to? No, that would be short sighted. But I have seen, time and time again, people who have faith in anything other than SCIENCE get slated when it comes to the origins of LIFE.

God (pun... kinda intended) forbid we have an opinion outside of COLD HARD SCIENTIFIC FACTS. That's the good stuff, right?
edit on 24-8-2014 by MrConspiracy because: (no reason given)

edit on 24-8-2014 by MrConspiracy because: (no reason given)

edit on 24-8-2014 by MrConspiracy because: (no reason given)

edit on 24-8-2014 by MrConspiracy because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 24 2014 @ 08:45 AM
link   
a reply to: MrConspiracy

Howdy,

I know I'm probably not a familiar face in your discussion, so I hope you don't mind my intrusion.

If anyone, and I do mean anyone, tries to tell you that the theory of evolution explains or even attempts to explain the origin of life, that person is quite mistaken. There is no clearer way of saying this. I understand you want to know how life started from inorganic means to actual living organism, but humans simply don't know and the theory of evolution does not* even attempt to answer that question. Evolutionary theory is based on facts entirely independent of abiogenesis, and thus the evidence of evolution is not invalidated by the lack of evidence for abiogenesis (although I think there is some strong evidence for abiogenesis in the realms of organic chemistry...).

It is my strong opinion that people get mocked when they do not understand the theory of evolution and yet claim to whilst asking about topics of abiogenesis, or cosmology, or physics... It isn't ignorance that frustrates people, it is willful and stubborn defiance in ignorance. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying I'm (or scientists) are infallible here (although the evidence strongly supports the claims of scientific theories), and you can certainly disagree with what I say, but when you argue that red is not red, then you are wrong. When you argue that evolution should involve the origin of life from inorganic material, you are wrong.

Sincere regards,
Hydeman
edit on 24-8-2014 by hydeman11 because: *missed word



posted on Aug, 24 2014 @ 09:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: grumpy64
One fallacy or misconception you missed really pees me off when I hear at and I heard it again from someone recently who should know better. When I hear this I lose all respect for that person as a sentient being. The question is " If we come from monkeys why don't we have tails?" Ahhhhhhhhhhrrrrrrrrggggg!!!!!!
We come from apes (or common ancester) and apes don't have tails. No one ever said we came from monkeys.


We do have tails though. They just grew away before we were born. that's why our spine ends with a small vestigial tail. It is the remains of the tail we used to have.



posted on Aug, 24 2014 @ 10:30 AM
link   
Yup..and sometimes people are borne with tails like that gene was activated somehow.




posted on Aug, 24 2014 @ 01:22 PM
link   
a reply to: MrConspiracy


I quite simply don't have the time to reply to the backlash of my comments haha. Please don't be offended, I appreciate your replies. And I don't mean "backlash" in a negative way - debates are why I'm here.

It's not a debate if you don't take the time to reply.


Here's the thing, and i'll try my best to put it simply. I'm not a fan of people using the "Evolution" theory to explain away the origins of LIFE as we know it TODAY. Now, as someone kindly mentioned, perhaps i should have used the word LIFE rather than origins of MAN - my bad.

I feel pretty comfortable asserting that anyone who claims modern evolutionary synthesis explains the origins of life on our planet is about as ignorant of what evolution is as those who claim evolution says we evolved from chimpanzees. Evolution, summed up in about as short a way as possible as I can think of, is a change in allele frequency within a given population over successive generations. The origins of life, of which abiogenesis is probably the most accepted hypothesis within the scientific community, are not within the scope of what evolution seeks to explain.

I think you may need to untangle your questions of how life began from your concept of evolution before you can make some headway into finding answers.


I've seen, countless times, people get mocked for believing that life isn't as simple as an evolution/adaptation of a species. I truly believe we are more than just a physical bag of bones.

And I've seen, countless times, people getting mocked for accepting that evolution explains how we evolved from an earlier ancestor instead of believing the creationist account of our origins. It's unfortunate on both sides, but not really part of any discussion of the validity of either position.


What i'm trying to get at, as one of you has replied regarding the answer i'm looking for is WHERE did we come from? I personally never said we came from monkeys, and I used primates to simplify. But... what species did we originally come from? Trace it back as far as possible and tell me where you get. I'm genuinely interested. And whilst you're at it, HOW did we evolve?

I'm still not grasping exactly what you're looking for. I apologize, it may very well be that I'm just not entirely with it today, even though my coffee did kick in eventually. I'm inferring from this that you're asking for an unbroken chain of species-to-species transitions that will take us from the first cell that appeared on Earth all the way to right now. If that is correct, then I don't think you'll ever be satisfied with any explanation that science will give you, and would ask the rebuttal question of whether you apply the same standard of evidence for everything else, or just for evolution. If i'm incorrect in my inference, then I'd just ask that you clarify what it is you're looking for.


How do you explain away things like DNA? That's always interested me.. To me, that's enough proof that this might not be just a "natural, physical" process.

I don't understand why one would have to "explain away things like DNA". Can you elaborate?


Where i'm going with this is - IF we evolved where did our pre-evolved state originate from?

If I'm remembering correctly, the evidence points to H. sapiens evolving from H. rhodesiensis, which evolved from H. mauritanicus, which evolved from H. ergaster, and so on. What do you mean by "pre-evolved state"?


This is what i mean by the Evolution theory doesn't give me the answers i'm looking for. It gives me the IDEA that Evolution from species to species COULD happen but it doesn't answer where it all started.

I posted links for you earlier in this discussion that gave examples of speciation, so it's not that speciation could happen... it does. It's a fact. If you're looking for where life started, that's a wholly different topic from evolution.


God (pun... kinda intended) forbid we have an opinion outside of COLD HARD SCIENTIFIC FACTS. That's the good stuff, right?

I think the problem is that some people have a hard time differentiating between what's a faith-based opinion and what has actual evidence backing it up.



posted on Aug, 24 2014 @ 03:43 PM
link   
a reply to: MrConspiracy



Is this what you're looking for? Here is a simplified chart. It only seems to display clearly with the light font for some reason. If you click the half moon symbol on the top right you can temporarily shift from dark to light. Now this doesn't include every single hominid species, there are actually near 20 of them, but this gives a basic idea based on the skulls.

humanorigins.si.edu...

This is another good link that break it down.
edit on 24-8-2014 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 24 2014 @ 05:10 PM
link   
a reply to: iterationzero

I did reply. But it just wasn't directed towards you as others had replied to me too. Because i've made claims that people aren't happy with. I thought i'd summarize and anyone who cared enough to come back and read would. You did, so here's a reply wholly for you. I'll be simple

1- What I am looking for : Origins of life. I understand Evolution can not explain this nor did I ever expect it to

2 - Why I came here : I believe, as many ignorant people who won't even listen to Evolution, there are as many who believe it explains everything. You may not be one of those and I'd never claim you were. My comment wasn't to throw Evolution in the bin. It was to state how there is a lot more to our history than what Evolution can offer/explain.

3 - Tracing back to our earliest ancestor : We can go back to certain "species" or "adaptations" but what I was talking about when i mentioned "more to our history than Evolution can explain" is where it all came from. Now, remember, I didn't expect to get this answer from Evolution - my posts were in relation to the previous point (2) to those who grasp on to the theory to whole heartedly disprove ANYTHING else, be it spiritual, otherworldly etc. NOTE: I wasn't 100% comfortable saying that because you seem like a person who's very down to earth and based solely on what facts are in front of you - and that's not a bad thing.

I hope that helps. I never meant offence to those who trust Evolution a little more than I. If you need any more clarification, please ask. But i truly tried my best to be simple.



posted on Aug, 24 2014 @ 05:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

I am familiar with this. But I appreciate your efforts. Thanks. And thanks for not questioning everything i say. It's hard to keep up with so many replies! I only mentioned I don't trust the Evolution theory 100% and it's ruffled some feathers.


edit on 24-8-2014 by MrConspiracy because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 24 2014 @ 05:17 PM
link   
a reply to: hydeman11

People shouldn't get mocked for ignorance. And I try my best not to be ignorant.

All I said (in a round about way - many moons ago now) was that I don't think Evolution fully explains origins of life, and the complexity of modern man. I hope this doesn't seem ignorant. I never expected these answers from Evolution - My original post was to mention how, those who are unwilling to accept anything outside of Evolution (or scientific facts) to explain life are as ignorant as those who disregard Evolution as a theory completely.

Don't apologise for your "intrusion" You spoke sense - I can't complain.



posted on Aug, 24 2014 @ 05:18 PM
link   
Looks like i'm all caught up. See you soon i presume!



posted on Aug, 24 2014 @ 05:45 PM
link   
a reply to: MrConspiracy

Thanks for the reply!


1- What I am looking for : Origins of life. I understand Evolution can not explain this nor did I ever expect it to

Good deal. Again, sorry if I misunderstood that you were claiming evolution should or can explain origins of life. If you're interested in that topic, there have been quite a few threads in this part of ATS that have been started to discuss that very topic. If you're interested in reading the scientific literature, start with the original Miller-Urey experiment and the major modifications and improvements that have been made to their work since then. There was a paper published in the last couple of years showing that autocatalytic biopolymers (like RNA) can readily form under the conditions we believe were present on Earth 4Bya or so.


2 - Why I came here : I believe, as many ignorant people who won't even listen to Evolution, there are as many who believe it explains everything. You may not be one of those and I'd never claim you were. My comment wasn't to throw Evolution in the bin. It was to state how there is a lot more to our history than what Evolution can offer/explain.

I'm curious to hear what parts of our history you think aren't explained by evolution. Not that I think it can, it's just an interesting statement and I'd like to hear what you think on the subject. I assume by your first item that you're specifically not talking about the origin of life here.


3 - Tracing back to our earliest ancestor : We can go back to certain "species" or "adaptations" but what I was talking about when i mentioned "more to our history than Evolution can explain" is where it all came from. Now, remember, I didn't expect to get this answer from Evolution - my posts were in relation to the previous point (2) to those who grasp on to the theory to whole heartedly disprove ANYTHING else, be it spiritual, otherworldly etc. NOTE: I wasn't 100% comfortable saying that because you seem like a person who's very down to earth and based solely on what facts are in front of you - and that's not a bad thing.

I agree with your larger principle here -- that there's no reason to try and use science to try and disprove anything that I'll very broadly classify as "supernatural", for want of a better word for it. Evolution doesn't disprove God any more than the Bible disproves evolution.



posted on Aug, 24 2014 @ 05:45 PM
link   
a reply to: MrConspiracy

Howdy,

I absolutely agree that ignorance should not be mocked, but that's just the school of thought I prescribe to. Obviously others think differently and act accordingly. I do, however, feel that willful ignorance (as in the denial of demonstrable facts) is ridiculous enough to perhaps warrant such mockery if all other means of civil discussion fail. In this way, sometimes it is not mockery, but rather calling a "clown" what he is.

I also absolutely agree that evolution does not explain the origin of life. Not fully, not at all. It only describes the diversity of life, which is what I was trying to make clear. As for the complexity of man, consciousness is perhaps currently "unexplained," but psychologists do have some theories on the subject. I won't make claims on psychology, though, so I can agree that there is some current grey area gap of knowledge. That said, if you wish to explain the physical complexity, I'm pretty sure biology and evolution in particular do a good job of explaining things like that... (You know, shared characteristics with primates, mammals, fishes, all life...). But I'm not here to argue for that, you can make your own informed decision on the matter.

I also tend to favor the non-overlapping magisteria viewpoint of science and religion. That said, I am an agnostic atheist, as science has demonstrated that natural means COULD account for most, if not all, of what we see. For this reason, I tend to favor (perhaps a bias) simpler natural explanations of phenomena over superfluous assumptions in how the world works (adding a highly complex deity to a system which could theoretically work without said deity). Now, just because science indicates that what we see could have (and indeed likely in many cases) occurred without the invocation of miracles or supernatural acts, doesn't mean that such is truly the case.

Really, I think I agree with your sentiments, but I think you missed a few of the things I was trying to clarify. All I wanted to say was that evolution makes no claims about the origin of life, which you seem[ed to be implying that it did]*. This is a demonstrable thing, the definition of evolutionary theory has nothing to do with the ORIGIN of life, but rather with the origin of species, that is diversification of life.

Sincere regards,
Hydeman
edit on 24-8-2014 by hydeman11 because: *[] clarification



posted on Aug, 25 2014 @ 05:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: hydeman11
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


You're right that it wasn't in regards to radioactive decay rates, it was in regards to atomic oscillation rates, which is NOT time dilation. You didn't read that post if you think that it is time dilation. The idea of time dilation as predicted by special relativity is SUPPORTED by the effect of gravity on the oscillation rate of atoms, but is not confirmed by it.

I only showed that gravity has an effect on atomic oscillation rates and did NOT show an effect on decay rates. I was not attempting to show that it did.

I was merely showcasing the problems with paradigmic assumption which is absolutely rampant throughout the scientific establishment and rather than different branches of science being inter supportive, it is actually illustrative of the problems of paradigmic building blocks being used for scientific advancement.

What it does is create a greater difficulty for paradigm correction rather than a more interwoven and better understood reality.

Jaden



posted on Aug, 25 2014 @ 05:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: peter vlar

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.


I didn't claim that it did have to do with the content in the air. It had to do with respiratory rates and types...

I only claimed that we cannot take measurements of CURRENT C14 content in the air and that measured for the last fifty years and expect to correctly extrapolate it out to 20 or 30K years ago...

Jaden



posted on Aug, 25 2014 @ 05:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Masterjaden

Howdy,

Okay, so you claim that paradigms hold back scientific advancement. That certainly was the case in the past, so I can't say it has not been so, but I will say that evidence grows to support theories and as time passes more evidence is collected to support said theories (possibly using technological advancements that were previously unavailable or unknown). For example, let us consider the cellular theory. The creation of microscopes enabled users to see what was previously unknowable, un-seeable by the the human eye. This of course shifted the paradigm of biological theory, did it not? Since then, better microscopes have added more evidence to support the cellular theory, and modern microscopy can even represent the atomic. Of course, shifting the paradigm when so much evidence exists to support the paradigm might be a bit difficult, don't you agree?

Now consider the realms of organic chemistry. The same technological advancements allowed for the same kind of ability to better understand the world around us with respect to organic chemistry. Now consider that organic chemistry and biology overlap a great deal. Biological entities create, consume, use, and are even made of organic chemicals, yet an organic chemist could go his or her life without ever actually "dealing with" biological specimens. (Perhaps they synthesize pharmaceuticals for instance and use modeling of thermodynamically favorable molecules for reactions instead of testing? Or perhaps they are completely uninvolved in the biological testing and application, sticking solely to synthesis...)

Paradigms are not problems. They represent what we know, and the sciences do overlaps. (Do you know how many geologically, naturally occurring minerals are precipitated by bacteria and other lifeforms? I don't, but the answer is A LOT. So geologists need to consider biology...)
www.cssm.info...

Really, the general understanding of the basic theories in the fields of biology, geology, chemistry, and physics have been understood for some time now. They are constantly being refined and added to by new evidence, often supported by technological advancements, and that is why it is "(difficult) for paradigm correction," because the correction is only of smaller, more specific components of the modern theories.

If you do not think this is the case, I ask that you provide some modern examples of this problem where scientific has not indeed shifted as the evidence mounted. I'm pretty young, so take that into account when I say recent, as even in my short life I've seen some great advancements in the fields of science and technology (so say about 30 years). If you cannot do so, is it not more reasonable that scientific theory truly does interrelate in such a way as to weave a better understood reality?

Sincere regards,
Hydeman



new topics

top topics



 
47
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join