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.
I simply stated that the study of evolutionary theory is NOT empirical science.
The problem with involving evolutionary theory with any belief in a higher purpose is that evolution is based on random mutation, not consciously directed mutations.
originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: AshFan
Uranium-Lead series is one way of determining the ages of the oldest rocks because of the very long half-life of U-238 and U-235. In U/Pb series, there are actually there were actually 2 separate tests involved. The first compares the ratios of U 238 to Pb 206 and the second is called the Actinium series and it compares the ratios of U-235 to Pb 207. These tests are the oldest and most refined radiometric dating techniques being used in geology and archaeology because of the predictable rates of decay. U 238 has a half life of 4.47 billion years and U 235 has a half life of 710 million years. The ability to compare the ratios of both Uranium/Lead series makes this very accurate for dating rock that is at least 1 million years old and can go as old as its half life of 4.47 Bn.
www.berkeley.edu...
geology.about.com...
en.wikipedia.org...
originally posted by: Barcs
I define evolution as per the theory of Modern Evolutionary Synthesis. No room for mixing that up. Genetic mutations and natural selection leading to the increase in frequency of certain traits within a population. This is slam dunk proven.
There's no way to know completely how much of an impact natural selection has had on the frequency of traits of any given population.
FIrst off, what's this about "slam dunk proven"? You should know better than to make a claim like that. Nothing in science is proven, let alone by a slam dunk.
originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: PhotonEffect
Simple strokes for simple folks. You love to ambush me and nitpick when I try to keep things simple. I do this because the person I responded clearly has deficiencies when it comes to understanding science.
originally posted by: Barcs
The change in the frequency of alleles in populations has been directly observed first hand. I don't see what you are getting at by saying that it hasn't been proved or which fallacy you are saying that I used. Are you really suggesting that this has not been proved by scientific standards?
originally posted by: Barcs
Also I don't disregard migrations and other effects. I consider them part of it. You seem to think that general statements about evolution, automatically don't include every last detail. It doesn't matter. The part I describe above absolutely has been witnessed and verified.
originally posted by: Barcs
Natural selection always has an affect on the population, even in cases of genetic drift. If an organism has a harmful mutation, it dies. This still happens so selection still plays a role, even if that role is simply keeping things the same for a well adapted organism.
There's no way to know completely how much of an impact natural selection has had on the frequency of traits of any given population.
originally posted by: Barcs
So when a population of South American crickets get isolated into a cave system that is mostly under water and the population starts experiencing changes that make it more adaptable to water (smoother slimier skin, change in diet, webbing between limbs, swimming ability,etc), you really don't see how much a factor NS is? How does that differentiate from other factors and how does that even go against anything I said before? Obviously one must analyze each situation individually if you really want to break down what % each factor has in each situation, but I still don't see why you are arguing with me on this.
originally posted by: PhotonEffect
a reply to: Phantom423
Interesting how Barcs sidestepped the slam dunk comment, but at least you make an attempt to address the matter. Evolutionary theory as presently constructed under the MES is based on probability distributions (population genetics) and presumptions that moonlight as inferences which then extrapolate back in time to explain everything. (Hence Lewontin's comment.) An organisms interaction with its environment or others within the population may have nothing to do with fitness. I'm sure there is a variable for this and all others, the weight they are given eludes me though, but somehow NS comes out on top. I know the mathematical models are rigorous and internally tested, but statistical models are not true representations of the dynamics of populations within their natural environments. We are not privy to the interactions of every population to think that our models are enough to determine how that population's allelic distribution came to be. Or how an trait became adaptive. At what time did we catch this distribution in it's movement through the population?
And it's nice of you to suggest that my not being a scientist automatically precludes me from making cogent points on this matter. As if I don't understand it. It does not change the fact the evolutionary theory is largely based on assumptions.
originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: Masterjaden
Well you apparently are another one that bit the dust, dissolved into the aether - Poof, they're gone!.
When you come back, even under another name, we will be here, ready to present the EMPIRICAL evidence, to educate the lame, lazy and the crazy even when they resist!
originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: AshFan
These tests are the oldest and most refined radiometric dating techniques being used in geology and archaeology because of the predictable rates of decay.
originally posted by: cooperton
originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: AshFan
These tests are the oldest and most refined radiometric dating techniques being used in geology and archaeology because of the predictable rates of decay.
How is the starting date determine? We know decay rate, and the currently measured ratio, but how do we know the starting Uranium-Lead Ratio ? Or is this based on assumptions?
originally posted by: cooperton
originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: AshFan
These tests are the oldest and most refined radiometric dating techniques being used in geology and archaeology because of the predictable rates of decay.
How is the starting date determine? We know decay rate, and the currently measured ratio, but how do we know the starting Uranium-Lead Ratio ? Or is this based on assumptions?