New Resarch Suggests Chimp/Human Fossil Record May Be Inaccurate Depiction Of Divergence

originally posted by: Raggedyman
I mean a certain book that was written 150 years after some event was supposed to take place.

Science is about observing what has actually happened. You know, with actual proof?

Religion is about believing something happened 2000 years ago where there is no solid proof for it.

Science is about observing what happened

Think about how silly that comment is and why your argument is so easily dismissed

We can't observe what happened, it's all just assumption
Read the op, it's assumption, not science

You have stated as such yourself

We've never observed the Earth orbit the sun, but we know it happens through objective observation. The vast majority of science is objective observation and reasoning. We don't need to see it first hand in order to come to a conclusion, in fact subjective observation is the least accurate of the two.

I've explained this to you probably a good 100 times over the span of dozens of topics.

originally posted by: Raggedyman
Hey Phantom

I will have a crack without reading your link

It's all imaginary, assumption, make believe

Once again, we see no citations. So I can only assume this is all opinion based on nothing but your bias.

Cite your reasoning, or get out. The validity of science isn't a place for opinion. If you've come to that conclusion, give us the evidence you've found to get there.

I don't respect your science or opinion

originally posted by: Raggedyman
And that doesn't make the data of dating accurate because you don't have evidence for a constant

Actually, we do.

Dr. Dalrymple, an expert in radiometric dating, who noted that: "Modern counting instruments, available for more than two decades, are capable of counting the C-14 activity in a sample as old as 35,000 years in an ordinary laboratory, and as old as 50,000 years in laboratories constructed with special shielding against cosmic radiation. New techniques using accelerators and highly sensitive mass spectrometers, now in the experimental stage, have pushed these limits back to 70,000 or 80,000 years..." (Dalrymple, 1984, pp.86-87).

We can also explore this issue from first principles.

Given that the half-life of carbon-14 is 5730 years, one can calculate that 4 billion C-14 atoms will produce 1 decay per minute on the average. Converting the 4 billion atoms to grams (a nickel weighs 5 grams), we get 0.000000000000093 grams of carbon-14. Consequently, by tallying one click per minute on the Geiger counter, we can measure a whole lot further than 7 decimal places!

A 1-gram, fresh sample of carbon, containing the atmospheric concentration of one ten-billionth percent of carbon-14, will yield about 12 decays per minute. That figure follows directly from the mathematics and, as the atmospheric portion of carbon-14 given above is an approximation, is close enough to Dr. Hovind's present-day figure of 16 counts per minute per gram. Because of atomic bomb tests, the rate is slightly higher today, but the present rate would not apply to animals and plants which died before such tests. One book used a figure of about 13.5 decays per minute per gram for the pre-bomb rate. Consequently, a 64-gram sample of fresh carbon will still give about 7 clicks per minute after 40,000 years. Because of background radiation, that's about as far as one can normally go with this counting method. As noted above, Dr. Dalrymple would extend that to 50,000 years in special laboratories.


You can only assume a constant, not science without hard data

Yes, actually it is constant.

I assume you're referring to Kent Hovinds argument about the changes in the sunspot cycle do have a noticeable, short-term effect on the rate of C-14 production inasmuch as sunspots are associated with solar flares, which produce magnetic storms on Earth, and the condition of the earth's magnetic field does affect the number of cosmic rays reaching the earth's upper atmosphere. (Carbon-14 is produced by energetic collisions between cosmic rays and molecules of nitrogen in the upper atmosphere.) Sunspots have absolutely nothing to do with the rate of C-14 decay, which defines the half-life of that radioactive element. Dr. Hovind has confused two completely different concepts.

Quantum mechanics, that stout pillar of modern physics, which has been verified in so many different ways that I couldn't begin to list them all even if I had them at hand, gives us no theoretical reason for believing that the C-14 rate of decay has changed or can be significantly affected by any reasonable process. We also have direct observation:

That radiocarbon ages agree so closely with tree-ring counts over at least 8000 years, when the observed magnetic effect upon the production rate of C-14 is taken into account, suggests that the decay constant itself can be assumed to be reliable.

(Strahler, 1987, p.157)

originally posted by: Raggedyman
Oh and ghost, save your lecture at me
I don't respect your science or opinion

How very Christ-like of you.

To learn more about Radiocarbon Dating, please go here

See, my 'opinion' transcends into fact when I use citations. Perhaps you should consider substantiating your claims?

Oh, and I do respect your opinion, but I will correct any misunderstandings within them if you bring it up.

originally posted by: Raggedyman
Bit childish isn't it

Like how you always accuse me of stalking you (even on my own topics), or resort to "plug your ears and scream" tactics instead of acting mature, or how you slander everyone and everything that doesn't abide by your warped view of things and provide no information to back your claims?

Right... And he's the childish one...

a reply to: mapsurfer_

Mapsurfer, you need to understand the process - a monkey did not turn into a man. A monkey today will not turn into a man and a man will not turn into a monkey. All life on Earth is derived from a COMMON ANCESTOR. Ask yourself: Why do other life forms have DNA commonality with humans? Why do primates have about 97% genetic commonality with humans? It's not an accident. Speciation, divergence and genetic drift are all part of the PROCESS. Think PROCESS - not monkey turning into a man.

Go to this website and sift through the information there.

ats-library.wix.com...

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: Raggedyman

Well you weren't there when the Bible was written, were you? But I would bet you get all your "science" from the Bible.
Explain that please.

I don't call the bible a scientific book, irrespective of more of your wild assumptions
Don't try and explain me to yourself, you will be wrong

Christianity is a faith, can you understand that simple and obvious statement

Right - skip over the obvious - if you didn't get your opinions from a wacko Creationist website where they claim that the Bible is legitimate science, but nothing about evolution is, then where did you get it?

You weren't there when the Bible was written. It's also obvious that you have no science education.

The "proof" is contained in thousands of legitimate research articles that have appeared in over 500 scientific journals that publish research about evolution. Your "proof" is non-existent - bottom line - you don't have any proof - it's pure speculation based on what the Creationist cult has poured into your brain.

Get over it - you don't know science, you don't care about science, you shouldn't even be part of the discussion.

a reply to: Ghost147

As I have said
I don't believe your religiously science links or respect your opinion.

I don't care to read your posts or argue against your faith

We have different opinions, you are welcome to yours, I will stay content in mine

I could offer my religiosity science links but you don't respect them, I disagree strongly, yours is a science religion based on assumption, no more

Your links in my opinion are lies, propaganda to justify government grants, keep lazy scientists employed

Read all those flacky words I pointed out in your own OP, it's a fallacy, a myth, a legend, mere childish assumption where evidence is gathered that fits in with the faith of evolution any evidence that doesn't is disregarded


If you address a post to me I won't bother reading it, save your evangelizing for those who may be interested

Do you get it ghost, you are wasting your time trying to convert me.

Post something dubious out and I will challenge what I think is fraudulent
I won't link Nothing because if people care they will search the truth for themselves

a reply to: Raggedyman

So you're against science and "lazy scientists"?

Says the person using a device created by science. On the Internet created by science. On a forum created by science.

Makes perfect sense

As I have said, assumption, best guess is not science phantom
Say what you will but believing in what you can't test is religion

Though you may accept the words of scientists as infallible ( faith/religion) their research articles as gospel, I don't
Go figure who is more fundamental, your hope is in scientists and you fight like a fundamentalist.

Funny isn't it

Here I am, poking holes in your faith, asking real questions, pushing science for answers.

It's those who disagree that push science, not the true believers like you.

Long way to go before you can do a victory dance

Lecture over

a reply to: Raggedyman

As has been explained to you god knows how many times. Science is testable. Just because you can't/won't doesn't mean people who can, will.

a reply to: TerryDon79

I am against stupid science, religious science

I am all for science, silly to suggest otherwise, it's a very silly argument to attack me, attack my position, assume my position to try and win an argument.

I am happy evolution is studied, shows people how ludicrous it is.

Monkeys to mankind, no evidence, none at all, just assumption, no proof, just bones in the ground

Terry don we agree
That's right, science is testable, evolution is not, therefore evolution is a religion, a faith, a belief

Who would have imagined you would understand my position so simply

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: TerryDon79


Monkeys to mankind, no evidence, none at all, just assumption, no proof, just bones in the ground

And that sums up your ignorance right there.

originally posted by: Raggedyman
Terry don we agree
That's right, science is testable, evolution is not, therefore evolution is a religion, a faith, a belief

Who would have imagined you would understand my position so simply

But evolution is testable.

It has been tested.

There have been many tests.

There is no proof of ape to man...
Lucy is not the missing link...
Evolutionists were too early on thier fossil record assumptions now the family tree has no trunk just branches floating in air...
You have no proof of evolution from simple life forms to complex life forms nor have you observed this transformation...
We see similarities here we think this we thought that now we assume...
Yada Yada Yada...
Evolutionists assume proof is today's best guess...
And the fossil record will be it's demise...
The only evolution that occurs is contained within individual species...

originally posted by: mapsurfer_
I've no problem with evolution but the actual speciation or split I don't have a clear understanding on the monkey to man event. What is a "split"? I just want to hear how the first baby human was born, and what it might have looked like.Why have today's monkey's not evolved?

These are very reasonable questions.

The thing to understand is that speciation (the divergence from one species to another) doesn't occur on an individualistic scale. Evolution is essentially the event of reproduction with variation. When two organisms of the same species reproduce, their DNA is shared and mixed. That mixing of DNA produces new mutations, some which may eventually become adaptations for that species. The mutations are very small, and usually visibly unnoticeable, but we can still count the amount of mutations that occur, this is called "Mutation Rate" as mentioned in the OP.

These mutations are random, but out of the many mutations that occur, if one happens to be beneficial to the survivability of the organism, it has a chance of being passed down through successive generations once it gets to reproduce. So if we look at a species that has 100 offspring in one clutch, that single organism that had that first beneficial mutation then gives it to 100 more organisms in one generation, and if they all survive and breed then those 100 organisms give that mutation to 10,000 organisms in the third generation, and so forth. It's a bit more complex than that, considering not all 100 will survive to reproduce, bu that's the basics.

So, now there is a sizable population of organisms that has this mutation, and they still exist alongside other organisms within the same species that don't have that mutation. So as you can see, it's populations that are effected, not the species as a whole. It's kind of like how Europeans came over the the Americas, now we have Americans, but we still have Europeans.

So how does this turn into a new species? First we would have to define what a species is. At the most basic level, a is a group of organisms so closely related at a genetic scale that they can reproduce with each other and produce fertile offspring.

Continuing with the mutation example above, let's say that population that has the beneficial mutation has the ability to 'explore' new environments because of that mutation. The original population can't survive in that new environment as easily, so even though some may follow, their population either stays really low in that environment, or dies off from environmental factors (such as predation, or disease, or starvation, depending on what that beneficial mutation gave to the population that has it). So the original population stays at it's old environment that it thrives in, and the population that has the Beneficial Mutation thrives in this new environment.

Over the generations more and more mutations build up and are either beneficial, destructive, or are neutral (this occurs in all populations in every organism at all times). The population with that original beneficial mutation now has new opportunities in this new environment, so the mutations that naturally occur in every generation can be 'selected for' because they too can help the organisms survivability. So now more and more mutations accumulate, and that population develops adaptations to that specific environment, and the original population continues to develop adaptations to their own original environment (remember, this is all occurring over 100's or thousands of generations). The accumulation becomes so great in the two respective populations that they diverge far enough from each other at a genetic scale that if the two were to meet again and try to reproduce, the offspring either come out infertile, or they cannot successfully create an offspring at all. Thus, a new species arises. This is called, speciation.

We've actually witnessed speciation first hand many times, too (I can link you to several cases if you're interested).

The thing is, Speciation is just the result of Evolution. What confuses many people is that they cannot picture something as distantly related as say, a lizard and a snake evolving from one another, but it doesn't work like that. We can trace back their genetic history through things like the fossil record, and we can see common ancestors which they both diverged from. Of course, as we learned above, they didn't simply appear as a lizard and appear as a snake, but they very gradually became what we see today through a very slow process of Evolution with natural selection. Or more simply, their ancestor's populations adapted, "Split"/diverged thanks to changes in the environment, or moving into new environments, and adapted to their new environments.

It's just a matter of accumulation of mutations, but the initial mechanisms needed to do that (reproduction with variation), are constant throughout all those generations and populations.

Let me know if you need any more clarification on these points

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: Ghost147

As I have said I don't believe your religiously science links or respect your opinion.

That's fine, it is your right to remain ignorant and reject reality. Nevertheless, it is also my right to correct the ignorance you continue to spout. You're free to continue to plug your ears and close your eyes and shut your mind off, just as I am free to continue to respond to your comments.

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: Ghost147
We have different opinions, you are welcome to yours, I will stay content in mine

That's great. So why are you even here?

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: Ghost147
I could offer my religiosity science links but you don't respect them, I disagree strongly, yours is a science religion based on assumption, no more

I don't respect your links because they aren't actually science. We don't even need other science to prove their not science, all we have to use is reason. Something you lack entirely.

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: Ghost147
Your links in my opinion are lies, propaganda to justify government grants, keep lazy scientists employed

That's great! you're free to believe that, but your opinion on their validity means nothing unless you actually provide evidence to show they are lies, propaganda, and lazy scientists.

The great thing about science is, anyone can do it! I have done it. There aren't any shut doors where no one is allowed to see and and we just have to 'believe' what the scientists are saying. You can go out and test all this yourself, like I have, and confirm your results.

Another thing about your links is that, unlike your comments, mine actually show how your links' information is invalid. You continue to do nothing but just state that "yours are lies" without actually providing any information to back up your claims.

It is the sole reason why your comments are pure opinion, substantiated by absolutely nothing, and are clearly false, where as mine actually contain substance and reputability.

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: Ghost147
Read all those flacky words I pointed out in your own OP, it's a fallacy, a myth, a legend, mere childish assumption where evidence is gathered that fits in with the faith of evolution any evidence that doesn't is disregarded

yes, I know, you keep spouting this nonsense. Once again, the thing about proving someone wrong is that you actually need proof to do it.

You can yell at the top of your lungs that my position is wrong, but it doesn't make it so if you've given no reason, logic, or evidence to back your claims, like I have.

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: Ghost147
If you address a post to me I won't bother reading it, save your evangelizing for those who may be interested

Don't flatter yourself, I'm not here to convince you, some people are far too delusional to be saved, or far too unintelligent to comprehend the answers anyways.

The only reason I respond to you is because there are other people, whom aren't delusional, and whom are intelligent, yet have been simply misguided, or perhaps just haven't learned about the inner workings of Evolution. My posts are for these people, not you.

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: Ghost147
Do you get it ghost, you are wasting your time trying to convert me.

Read above. I'm not trying to 'convert you' to anything. You've made your choice to reject reality, and you're free to do that.

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: Ghost147
Post something dubious out and I will challenge what I think is fraudulent

This entire post you've been saying you aren't even going to bother reading my posts, now you're saying you're going to respond to every one?

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: Ghost147
I won't link Nothing because if people care they will search the truth for themselves

I know you wont. In the many months, if not years that I've responded to your comments and you've responded to mine, you've never once provided valid evidence to back your claims.

I don't expect you to start now, but I will show how ridiculous and pointless your argument is when you choose not to back it with valid evidence. The more you respond to me, the more delusional you appear.

The reason I provide links isn't merely to give power to my argument, it also serves as a resource to help those who are unaware or misguided in finding solid answers or correcting their confusion. I don't expect someone who rejects evolution to go out and try to learn it because why would anyone waste their time on something they don't believe is factual?

Citations are there to give quick, accessible information, and they are convincing even to people who reject the opposing argument.

Unless, of course, they are like you, and simply ignore every response you get in order to protect your position. It really makes your position and mentality seem extremely fragile when you won't even acknowledge the opposition.

a reply to: TerryDon79

What when a fly evolved into a fly

Really, that your best evidence

Where is it testable, in the fossil record, the Flintstones, Jurasic Park

Evolution is not testable, never as, never has been

originally posted by: Raggedyman
As I have said, assumption, best guess is not science phantom
Say what you will but believing in what you can't test is religion

This has already been explained to you several times already

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: TerryDon79
I am all for science, silly to suggest otherwise, it's a very silly argument to attack me, attack my position, assume my position to try and win an argument.

There are no assumptions on your position, it is quite clear why you reject Evolution. It goes against your views, simple as that.

What I find humorous is that you don't reject light or gravity, things that also go completely against your views.

It is clear you know nothing of science

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: TerryDon79
I am happy evolution is studied, shows people how ludicrous it is.

Ever take any modern medicine? You can thank Evolutionary biologists for that

Ever eat non-organic food? You can thank Evolution biologists for that

Ever needed a surgery? You can thank Evolutionary biologists for that

Ever had a kid (I hope not)? You can thank Evolution for that

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: TerryDon79
Monkeys to mankind, no evidence, none at all, just assumption, no proof, just bones in the ground

This has already been explained to you a number of times by a number of people. You have still not refuted their information.

originally posted by: Raggedyman
Terry don we agree
That's right, science is testable, evolution is not, therefore evolution is a religion, a faith, a belief

I've already stated many times that I have tested the theory of evolution personally. You can too! that's the great thing about science. Everyone can do it!

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
There is no proof of ape to man...

We've already answered this for you, you have yet to respond to that information.

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
The only evolution that occurs is contained within individual species...

Actually, we've personally witnessed a species becoming another species. It's called 'Speciation' and the process that causes it isn't any different that the process that causes evolution within the same species. Micro and Macro evolution are the same thing, just different time-scales. Kind of like an hour and a second, they describe different lengths, but are the same processes.

If you need some examples of speciation that has been witnessed you can review some of these:

Oenothera lamarckiana, de Vries (1905)
Primula verticillata and Primula floribunda(1912)
Tragopogon dubius and Tragopogon pratensis (1950)
Madia gracilis and Madia citriodora (1945)
Drosophila melanogaster (1962)
Drosophila pseudoobscura (1966)
Drosophila willistoni (1980)

And more. If you're interested I can post them.

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: TerryDon79

What when a fly evolved into a fly

Really, that your best evidence

Where is it testable, in the fossil record, the Flintstones, Jurasic Park

Evolution is not testable, never as, never has been

The evidence and tests have already been made apparent to you many times. Your rejection of that information with nothing more than "those are just lies" is only evidence of your continued delusion.

a reply to: Ghost147

concoctions manipulation enzymes to enzymes plants to plants...
Show me fish to plant...
Not naturally occouring...
As for hybridization this is contained within individual species...