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.

 

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

page: 11
18
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 7 2016 @ 10:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: Ghost147

concoctions manipulation enzymes to enzymes plants to plants...
Show me fish to plant...


I've already explained this to you. The process is the same from evolution within the same species, to evolution from one species to the next, to evolution from genus to genus.

Micro evolution and Macro evolution are the same thing, just different time scales.

Think of it as "time". We have a second, a minute, an hour, a day (and so forth). All of them describe different things, but are also the same thing in the end. We can relate these terms with Evolution by stating a 'second' is a 'mutation'. 'Over time' (reproduction and successive generations) a second (mutation) accumulates and accumulates. Eventually it accumulates so much that it becomes something new and turns into a minute (a new species). However, the seconds (mutations) continue to accumulate 'over time' (reproduction and successive generations), they form more minutes (species) yet are still related to that very first second, until they go so far as to create something new, an 'hour' (genus). those seconds (mutations) keep accumulating, and in that 'Hour' (genus) there are more and more 'Minutes' (species), all related to that initial second and to each other, and they drift further 'over time' (reproduction and successive generations) until they become a day 'Family', and then an 'week' (order) and so on.

That is a very basic way to explain Evolution that eventually becomes the hierarchy of biological classification's eight major taxonomic ranks.

Of course, Evolution branches, and isn't linear, but you get the idea. No scientific terms needed. I suppose we can make it even more accurate by saying that once we reach an hour (genus) we roll a few dice and whatever number it lands on we start counting again, forming a branch of counted time and make it exactly like Evolution (while still maintaining the count on the original time), as Genus' need two or more species within them to actually be classified as a Genus.




posted on Feb, 7 2016 @ 10:11 AM
link   
a reply to: Ghost147

Oh I see so it's always changing just like the theory of evolution or what's considered to be proof for it and you will provide that proof even if it has to be created in a lab and a leap of faith may be required to believe the results to be proof of a supposed natural process over time...
And if that does not sell it that's OK because with more time we can suppose something new is proof!



posted on Feb, 7 2016 @ 10:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: cooperton

Reply:

Contamination
Standard deviation and standard error calculations still put a small amount of C14 at zero.



Ah Great! I'm glad you brought this up. If this were true, then diamonds, coal, and dinosaurs should all show the same small amount of C14 at zero (if they are in fact hundreds of millions of years old). BUT, they show varying degrees of C-14 which is expectable; the data says that dinosaurs are younger than coal which is younger than diamonds:

Age of Dinosaurs < Coals < Diamonds

If these remains were all millions of years old, they would be showing the same background amount of C-14 reading, but they don't. This indicates these remains are in the thousands of years, not millions. Unless you want to backtrack and say carbon dating is now wrong because it disproves an old earth?



posted on Feb, 7 2016 @ 11:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: cooperton

Reply:

Contamination
Standard deviation and standard error calculations still put a small amount of C14 at zero.



Ah Great! I'm glad you brought this up. If this were true, then diamonds, coal, and dinosaurs should all show the same small amount of C14 at zero (if they are in fact hundreds of millions of years old). BUT, they show varying degrees of C-14 which is expectable; the data says that dinosaurs are younger than coal which is younger than diamonds:

Age of Dinosaurs < Coals < Diamonds

If these remains were all millions of years old, they would be showing the same background amount of C-14 reading, but they don't. This indicates these remains are in the thousands of years, not millions. Unless you want to backtrack and say carbon dating is now wrong because it disproves an old earth?


You'll have to read the entire analysis at the link below to understand about contamination. The methodology used in the research is deficient - there are multiple ways to detect C14 - looks like they used the most convenient one without comparative analysis. And their analysis and reporting of previous published data was conveniently "fixed" to show only data that supported their claims.

The most telling feature of the research is that they DID NOT mention that anthracite coal and other diamonds DO NOT contain any measurable C14.

So if you were a scientist in this field, the question would now be: Why does some coal and diamonds contain C14 while others do not?

There are numerous red lights in that research which the link below goes into. To date, I don't think that the original authors have addressed these questions about their research.

And I can tell you from my own experience in spectroscopy, particularly NMR, that contamination of solvents and other factors can be a huge problem. Typically, there are protocols which are included in the methods that describe how contaminants are eliminated. The paper you posted did make mention of contamination elimination, but no detailed comparative analysis was made with other laboratories using the same methods and materials.

Summary

Radioisotope evidence presents significant problems for the young earth position. Baumgardner and the RATE team are to be commended for tackling the subject, but their “intrinsic radiocarbon” explanation does not work. The previously published radiocarbon AMS measurements can generally be explained by contamination, mostly due to sample chemistry. The RATE coal samples were probably contaminated in situ. RATE’s processed diamond samples were probably contaminated in the sample chemistry. The unprocessed diamond samples probably reflect instrument background. Coal and diamond samples have been measured by others down to instrument background levels, giving no evidence for intrinsic radiocarbon.

While some materials, e.g., coals and carbonates, often do show radiocarbon contamination that cannot be fully accounted for, resorting to “intrinsic radiocarbon” raises more questions than it answers. Why do only some materials show evidence of this intrinsic radiocarbon? Why does some anthracite and diamond exist with no measurable intrinsic radiocarbon? Why is its presence in carbonates so much more variable than in other materials, e.g., wood and graphite? Why is it often found in bone carbonates but not in collagen from the same bone? Since intrinsic radiocarbon would be mistakenly interpreted as AMS process background, why do multi-laboratory intercomparisons not show a much larger variation than is observed? Why does unprocessed diamond seem to have less intrinsic radiocarbon than processed diamond?

These and many other considerations are inconsistent with the RATE hypothesis of “intrinsic radiocarbon” but are consistent with contamination and background. “Intrinsic radiocarbon” is essentially a “radiocarbon-of-the-gaps” theory. As contamination becomes better understood, the opportunities to invoke “intrinsic radiocarbon” will diminish. Most radiocarbon measurements of old materials, including many of shells and coal, can be accounted for by known contamination mechanisms, leaving absolutely no evidence for intrinsic radiocarbon. The evidence falsifies the RATE claim that “all carbon in the earth contains a detectable and reproducible ... level of 14C” [1].

www.asa3.org...
edit on 7-2-2016 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2016 @ 12:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: Ghost147

Oh I see so it's always changing just like the theory of evolution or what's considered to be proof for it and you will provide that proof even if it has to be created in a lab and a leap of faith may be required to believe the results to be proof of a supposed natural process over time...
And if that does not sell it that's OK because with more time we can suppose something new is proof!


This has already been explained to you several times now, in ways that even preschoolers can comprehend.

You either choose not to accept any answers due to your bias, or you lack the necessary level of cognition to understand the topic at hand.

The theory of evolution hasn't really changed at all, the concept that Darwin proposed is largely still in place. We've certainly made improvements upon further discoveries, but the original concept is still there. For some reason you believe that if there's new information, that must then erase the old information. It doesn't, it just adds to it.

Science doesn't deal with absolutes. Why do you continue to think it does?
edit on 7/2/16 by Ghost147 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2016 @ 01:16 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

Your cite is from a website that claims that there are serious problems with the theory of plate tectonics. No. In fact - (facepalm).



posted on Feb, 7 2016 @ 02:45 PM
link   
Clearly you can all see that's it's pointless to carry on a discussion with oracle. He's just trolling and he admits it. He's already said he's doing this to piss people off and it's not his first time. I've called him out in a number of threads in the past. It's the same tactics every time as well.

1. He refuses to learn or even read any info you give him. (Promotes his own ignorance)

2. Claims everything you say and that science is false. (Promotes ignorance in others.)

3. Claims to know the truth which is his version of Religion but offers no evidence to support it. (Spreads ignorance as truth.)

He even goes so far as to make the claim that science is religion and therefore can't be trusted as true. Which is an odd approach being that religion is what he believes thereby implying that what he believes cannot be trusted. Showing that even he admits to himself how false his own beliefs are. (Supreme ignorance and deception.)

But you're wasting your time with him. It doesn't matter what you say he doesn't care. He cannot offer anything in support of his ideas and doesn't care what you can offer in support of yours. He will just keep saying whatever you say is a lie and will ignore all evidence that shows different.

You cannot reason with someone who wants to be ignorant. He's a child that must cling to his imagined Father for security. Just let him do it by himself. Adults shouldn't argue with children because they don't have to.



posted on Feb, 7 2016 @ 03:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: mOjOm
Clearly you can all see that's it's pointless to carry on a discussion with oracle. He's just trolling and he admits it. He's already said he's doing this to piss people off and it's not his first time. I've called him out in a number of threads in the past. It's the same tactics every time as well.


The comment I made responding to Raggedyman would apply to oracle as well:

I'm not here to convince you [Raggedyman/oracle], 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.


Even though they may be trolls, delusional, or simply unintelligent, there are some people out there that hold the same beliefs, founded from the words of people such as Kent Hovind, or Ken Ham, or any other devious (or insane) individual like that, whom spread misinformation like a disease. These people may not be unintelligent, or delusional, but simply have been fed false information for years.

These people are the people I reach out to.

It's ironic really, the people try so desperately to protect their belief systems only serve to enlighten others. It's much easier to spot a ridiculous claim when viewed from a third party and seeing one side provide clear answers, backed by a substantial amount of evidence that anyone can go out and confirm, and the other side that provides nothing but opinions and at times even outright refuses to provide external sources that support their position where the only clear thing is their bias.



posted on Feb, 7 2016 @ 03:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: AngryCymraeg

Heh I knew they had been debunked...
But it's fun to piss off the evolution crowd for me...


So you are admitting to being a troll....



posted on Feb, 7 2016 @ 03:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Ghost147

I agree that they aren't delusional or dumb. They are worse than that. They are smart enough to know they are spreading poison yet they do it anyway and for there own selfish reasons. They know they've built their houses on sand but instead of having the courage to remedy that they pull others down with them instead of standing on their own two feet. Like i said they are children cralling around afraid to walk on their own.



posted on Feb, 7 2016 @ 03:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: Cypress

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: AngryCymraeg

Heh I knew they had been debunked...
But it's fun to piss off the evolution crowd for me...


So you are admitting to being a troll....


Read mOjOm's post two comments above your own



posted on Feb, 7 2016 @ 03:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: Ghost147

I agree that they aren't delusional or dumb. They are worse than that. They are smart enough to know they are spreading poison yet they do it anyway and for there own selfish reasons. They know they've built their houses on sand but instead of having the courage to remedy that they pull others down with them instead of standing on their own two feet. Like i said they are children cralling around afraid to walk on their own.


Perhaps for Oracle, but I think Raggadyman really believes his stuff. He wouldn't come off as so ticked-off at times otherwise.



posted on Feb, 7 2016 @ 03:50 PM
link   
a reply to: mOjOm
Most people with a solid theory and scientific data would use that information to shut down an argument

I guess going after the man and not the evidence indicates how flacky your argument is.

Evidence trumps slander

Just back your argument up with solid evidence

Not a fly evolving into a fly, that's assumption



posted on Feb, 7 2016 @ 03:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: mOjOm
Evidence trumps slander


Odd... I was under the impression that the opposite was more of your motto.

Out of all your posts in this topic, not once have you posted a single image or posted any sort of link to back up any of your claims.

Also, it's not 'slander' if the member actually admits to being a troll, and the accuser actually provides evidence to show that that particular member is actually a troll.

You're mistaking "Slander" for "fact" in this case.
edit on 7/2/16 by Ghost147 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2016 @ 03:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: Ghost147

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: Ghost147

I agree that they aren't delusional or dumb. They are worse than that. They are smart enough to know they are spreading poison yet they do it anyway and for there own selfish reasons. They know they've built their houses on sand but instead of having the courage to remedy that they pull others down with them instead of standing on their own two feet. Like i said they are children cralling around afraid to walk on their own.


Perhaps for Oracle, but I think Raggadyman really believes his stuff. He wouldn't come off as so ticked-off at times otherwise.


I know you really believe your stuff, I can show you the evidence of your belief

Talk it all up mr ghost
I would just love to see a jot of proof that evolution happened
That doesn't include a fly turning into a fly, not nearly good enough imho

Though I have been down the rabbit hole of your links and read only assumptions

I won't do that again
Kinda like the words I read in the opening post, makes evolution sound more like a superstition

Care to explain those words scientifically or you just want to lecture people some more



posted on Feb, 7 2016 @ 04:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: Raggedyman
I know you really believe your stuff, I can show you the evidence of your belief


It's not a matter of "belief" it's a matter of acceptance, and I in no way deny that I accept it. I'm not sure what your point is?


originally posted by: Raggedyman
Talk it all up mr ghost
I would just love to see a jot of proof that evolution happened
That doesn't include a fly turning into a fly, not nearly good enough imho


I've already shown you plenty, and you've already admitted to rejecting even the acknowledgement of any of my posts. Speaking of which, why are you responding to this one exactly?

It has been said to you plenty of times before, and I believe at least 3 times in this very topic. Micro and Macro Evolution are the same thing, the only difference is time scale. There have been several analogies that even a child could understand. You may simply be unable to comprehend such a topic.


originally posted by: Raggedyman
Though I have been down the rabbit hole of your links and read only assumptions


As I've said before, a number of times, I've tested it for myself, and you can too, that's the great thing about science. Anyone can do it.


originally posted by: Raggedyman
Kinda like the words I read in the opening post, makes evolution sound more like a superstition


To an individual free of knowledge of the topic or science of any kind, I'm sure it does



originally posted by: Raggedyman
Care to explain those words scientifically or you just want to lecture people some more


Which words are you referring to specifically?



posted on Feb, 7 2016 @ 04:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Ghost147

Neither have you

Just information that is based on assumption like the OP, it is make believe and you offer it as support.

I can make stuff up, I could link other sites but it doesn't make them true.
Just like all your links, they are at best a poor guess

They are religios drivel created by men

I can draw a pretty good picture of a monkey and a man and an arrow between them and say that evolved to this, that's my proof, you would believe the theory, you do, you just don't accept it was a monkey
For proof you show me the picture

Look everyone, evolution in progress, here is a fly, we tested and bread it over generations and now it's a,
FLY
Shazam, real evolution proof, a fly is now a fly

How about I just have my fun and poke holes in all the lies that I see offered

I don't want to argue stupidity, just highlight it



posted on Feb, 7 2016 @ 04:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: Ghost147

Neither have you


Neither have I, what?

It's best to quote the words you're responding to.


originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: Ghost147
Just information that is based on assumption like the OP, it is make believe and you offer it as support.


There are plenty of people who have explained to you how it isn't assumption or 'make believe'. This topic may simply be above your ability to understand.


originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: Ghost147
I can make stuff up, I could link other sites but it doesn't make them true.


Absolutely correct, that's why Science has Peer-Review, it gets cross confirmed or rejected off of several different studies. For the Theory of Evolution those peer-reviewed studies cross confirm it thousands upon thousands of times.

Believe it or not (that's a rhetoric, I already know you wont), but virtually the entire scientific community is in agreement that Evolution does in fact exist and that the Theory of Evolution adequately explains how it functions.


originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: Ghost147
Just like all your links, they are at best a poor guess


As you once said "Evidence trumps slander". Your accusations mean nothing unless you substantiate them (which you seem enjoy not doing)


originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: Ghost147
They are religios drivel created by men


Evidence trumps slander


originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: Ghost147
I can draw a pretty good picture of a monkey and a man and an arrow between them and say that evolved to this, that's my proof, you would believe the theory, you do, you just don't accept it was a monkey
For proof you show me the picture


For proof, I've given several scientific articles, several well-studied fossils, several definitions, several species, several reputable researchers. Those pictures aren't just made up, and you have yet to even attempt to dismiss any of the information I've given you with any valid argument.

What was that phrase again? oh, right... Evidence trumps slander.


originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: Ghost147
Look everyone, evolution in progress, here is a fly, we tested and bread it over generations and now it's a,
FLY
Shazam, real evolution proof, a fly is now a fly


Speciation has already been explained to you. It's not our fault you're incapable of understanding the information.


originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: Ghost147
How about I just have my fun and poke holes in all the lies that I see offered


You have yet to do that. You haven't offered any information at all to substantiate your claims/slander.


originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: Ghost147
I don't want to argue stupidity, just highlight it


Yes, what a tremendous job you're doing...

The only purpose you're serving in this topic is to show others who believe what you believe that your position is unfounded; it's one of the reasons I enjoy you being here so much.



posted on Feb, 7 2016 @ 04:30 PM
link   
One of the reasons I enjoy it so much is how easy it is to tear down your castle of pooh

Here is a simple thing for you to consider

Evolution is a pretty baseless science, until real solid evidence is offered I will show the fallacious nature of that evidence

I don't believe in evolution and you will just have to accept that

If solid evidence is offered I will be the first in line stating I was wrong

I am not selling anything just pointing out the fraud in what others are selling

You can call me names, say I am dumb, think I am a 12 year old girl in a party dress, whatever, I wil still be here explaining why I think the evidence offered is bunk

Now how about those words in the op that say that the belief offered is just assumption
Care to elaborate on that?
Care to explain how assumption is scientific evidence?

Same old same old

As for the issues with c 14 dating, if you think it's an exact science then you are, well I just suggest you study the issues, as should everyone who wants the truth



posted on Feb, 7 2016 @ 04:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: Raggedyman
One of the reasons I enjoy it so much is how easy it is to tear down your castle of pooh


Yes, you've done such a great job so far


originally posted by: Raggedyman
Here is a simple thing for you to consider
Evolution is a pretty baseless science, until real solid evidence is offered I will show the fallacious nature of that evidence


Alright, I'll consider it, once you provide evidence to support your claim. Remember "Evidence trumps slander"


originally posted by: Raggedyman
I don't believe in evolution and you will just have to accept that


I've already responded to you several times stating that I am not trying to make you accept it.


originally posted by: Raggedyman
If solid evidence is offered I will be the first in line stating I was wrong


Your track record states otherwise


originally posted by: Raggedyman
I am not selling anything just pointing out the fraud in what others are selling


Your pointing out fraud, how? You haven't once given any sort of material to validate your claims


originally posted by: Raggedyman
You can call me names, say I am dumb, think I am a 12 year old girl in a party dress, whatever, I wil still be here explaining why I think the evidence offered is bunk


That's fine, however, you've already stated you're not going to bother responding to my posts, or even acknowledging them.


originally posted by: Raggedyman
Now how about those words in the op that say that the belief offered is just assumption
Care to elaborate on that?
Care to explain how assumption is scientific evidence?


Once again, I have no idea what you're talking about. Why don't you quote the words so I actually know what you're referring to?


originally posted by: Raggedyman
As for the issues with c 14 dating, if you think it's an exact science then you are, well I just suggest you study the issues, as should everyone who wants the truth


You don't know what an 'exact science' is, and I have studied it. I, and many other members here have already explained how Radiocarbon dating is valid and accurate, if you don't think it is, explain your reasoning.



new topics

top topics



 
18
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join