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.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Proof that evolution is the only answer

page: 21
13
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 12 2016 @ 04:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Phantom423

What??? Because I have a life and don't come in here more than ever so often, I've disappeared into the Aether? A thing that you, being an adherent of the paradigms, obviously must not believe in to begin with??? LOL

I'm still here and still waiting for even a semblance of empirical evidence for something that by it's very nature cannot have any. Please, I'll ask you again, provide any evidence that any of the premises from my earlier logical statement are false.

Jaden




posted on Oct, 12 2016 @ 04:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Masterjaden

Why would we bother offering you, or anyone else, emperical evidence when you and others ignore the actual definition of what emperical evidence is?



posted on Oct, 12 2016 @ 04:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

LOL, so now if there are another group with traits that are shared with the trapped group, you assume that it was derived from natural selection, and then you claim that that bolsters your opinion that what you believe is true? This is absolutely laughable.

You do realize that you just did exactly what some of us are saying you must do right? That being making huge assumptions...

You literally just stated that if there was a group that shared the traits with the trapped group that it STILL supports natural selection because how else would they have gotten the traits themselves....LOL...

That's the equivalent to crazy hair saying It had to be aliens, because aliens...LOL...

Jaden



posted on Oct, 12 2016 @ 04:42 PM
link   
a reply to: peter vlar

I think you got that backwards. If your sample is almost entirely LEAD, then it would be ~4.5bn years old based on time based on a currently measured year.

Jaden



posted on Oct, 12 2016 @ 04:43 PM
link   
a reply to: TerryDon79

LOL, we're not the ones ignoring what empirical evidence is. You can't even acknowledge what can be known from the empirical evidence that you've shown. Until you can do that, you won't get anywhere.

So what do you think that the atomic clock experiments showed?

Jaden



posted on Oct, 12 2016 @ 04:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Masterjaden

You and others completely ignore the last part of the definition. You know? The "....or experimentation." part.

And you also don't have ANY evidence to counter MES. You and others just throw out your opinions like it's meant to be taken as truth. No, I won't accept your, or anyone elses, word over evidence.
edit on 12102016 by TerryDon79 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 12 2016 @ 04:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: peter vlar

No, (the start date for uranium-lead decay is) not assumption.


from Georgia State's page on uranium-lead dating:

"Ages determined by radioactive decay are always subject to assumptions about original concentrations of the isotopes."

Link



The starting ratio is that there is zero lead, and thus pure uranium.


How is this not an assumption? How do we know it was ever at one time pure uranium?



posted on Oct, 12 2016 @ 04:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Masterjaden

Jaden during the course of this thread many of the people arguing against you resorted to insinuating if not flat out saying that you are a child, you are the son of Will Smith, and that your movies suck.

I know I don't have to tell you this, but to an rational reader that speaks volumes to the intelligence and maturity of said posters. As much as I have enjoyed the discourse I hesitate to venture a guess that things will become less childish or more appealing from here. I can't imagine you would, but I mention this at the very slim chance you believe anyone might actually acknowledge any of your points even if they understood them.

I am certain I am speaking to the choir but I guess you never know. At the very least it has been very educational as to the attitudes of said posters. Strangely enough I happened to click on a new thread along the same topic and what do you know, the entire cast of characters all made their debut within the first page, with the same witty banter. If one was conspiracy minded they may read further into that.



posted on Oct, 12 2016 @ 05:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Barcs


originally posted by: Barcs
You are pretty much wrong on all fronts, and accusations are baseless.

Why don't you take the time again to show me exactly how it is I was wrong on all fronts. Otherwise your accusation is unfounded. Nothing that I said was in anyway baseless. I even provided links in the hopes that you'd at least educate yourself a bit before trying to argue with me.

You're wrong to automatically assume that selection is the cause of all existing beneficial traits. If you want to talk about baseless claims you can start by looking in the mirror.


originally posted by: Barcs
My cricket example is absolutely related to natural selection because the characteristics of the crickets are all aqua dynamic. If NS were not a factor, they wouldn't have become perfectly adapted to that environment.

Why do you assume that all perfectly adapted traits must be the result of natural selection in every instance that a beneficial trait has ever existed? Where does one even begin to empirically support a leap of faith like that?


originally posted by: Barcs
And even if you consider that there may have been another species of cricket with these characteristics to share with this newly trapped species, you have to determine where THEY got those traits from, so either way natural selection is a huge factor in that scenario.

Your problem is you've been indoctrinated to think selection is the automatic causative reason that a trait of any kind exists. You assume quite erroneously that selection has some sort of creative power to create beneficial traits. News flash, it doesn't have this power. It does not create anything. It is not a thing. It is simply the result of differential survival and population dynamics. You've often heard it compared to a sieve or a filter. By these very metaphors the process is subtractive in nature not additive. The trait has to be there before any act of selection can come into play. Logically the result of a process can never be it's own cause.


originally posted by: Barcs
You can't just say, "OMG gene flow", because the traits had to originate somewhere. If another species shared genes with them and the traits were not aqua dynamic, there's a good chance the species dies out.

Who's saying "OMG gene flow"?? I'm asking you how do you know if gene flow or any of the other processes didn't impact the trait distribution of any given population. I asked before if there was another population of crickets to hint at the possibility of flow due to migration. I was not talking about another species since typically species don't interbreed. The other factor to consider is that some of these traits were already present but invisible to selection at the time they moved into the cave. IOW these little buggers may have already had these so called aqua dynamic properties.

Tough to say without knowing the species of cricket. Can't you at least post the paper you are citing from so I can read it for myself? Crickets can have very plastic phenotypes that can change completely due to environments without any changes to their underlying genotypes.


edit on 12-10-2016 by PhotonEffect because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 12 2016 @ 05:52 PM
link   
a reply to: TerryDon79

Hello TerryDon79.
Would you be able to layout the current framework of evolutionary theory as defined by the MES ?


edit on 12-10-2016 by PhotonEffect because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 12 2016 @ 06:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Phantom423

Okay, fair enough

But what's the verifiable data supporting selection acting on the now estimated 1 trillion species occupying earth, of which we only know a fraction of a percent about? How can we make that leap?



posted on Oct, 12 2016 @ 06:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: Masterjaden
a reply to: Phantom423

What??? Because I have a life and don't come in here more than ever so often, I've disappeared into the Aether? A thing that you, being an adherent of the paradigms, obviously must not believe in to begin with??? LOL

I'm still here and still waiting for even a semblance of empirical evidence for something that by it's very nature cannot have any. Please, I'll ask you again, provide any evidence that any of the premises from my earlier logical statement are false.

Jaden


I posted the links to the papers that addresses your misguided positions. If you choose not to read them, that's your problem. If you disagree with the methods and results of those papers, then you need to post exactly what you disagree with. Is it the methods, the results, the design of the experiment? I won't allow you to change the subject by inserting the "empirical" bullssss.



posted on Oct, 12 2016 @ 06:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: PhotonEffect
a reply to: Phantom423

Okay, fair enough

But what's the verifiable data supporting selection acting on the now estimated 1 trillion species occupying earth, of which we only know a fraction of a percent about? How can we make that leap?


I can't give you a definitive answer to that. Barcs and Peter Vlar are experts in the field and should be able to answer your question. If I had to render an opinion, I would say that the overwhelming evidence points to natural selection. Molecular genetics suggests that there is a connectivity between species which is the basis for common ancestry. Is every species on this planet the result of natural selection? Probably not. For instance, there's a marine species I read about that has an entirely molecular genetics structure never seen in other species. So like everything else in science, particularly anthropology and physics, there are a lot of unanswered questions. But that's why we get up every day and go into the lab.



posted on Oct, 12 2016 @ 08:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: peter vlar

No, (the start date for uranium-lead decay is) not assumption.


from Georgia State's page on uranium-lead dating:

"Ages determined by radioactive decay are always subject to assumptions about original concentrations of the isotopes."


First, let me address something. You quoted me as saying-

No, (the start date for uranium-lead decay is) not assumption


This is not what I said. The way you have attributed not just words, but context to me, paints a different statement than the one I actually made. Please don't put words in my mouth so that you can attempt to make a disingenuous point. What I said was-

The startingRATIOis that there is zero lead.


Now, let's move on to your citation. Did you not read the entire section on U-Pb series that you cited? Or was it your genuine intention to bring intellectual dishonesty to the table simply because that first line warmed your heart just so with a nice, toasty mug of confirmation bias while the rest of your citation, when presented in full, gives proper context to the thesis statement and paints a far different picture than the one you try to present.

Let's look at the citation in full for everyone else to judge for themselves shall we? In the name of full disclosure, the only thing I've left out is the very first sentence of the citation. This sentence is the only piece cited by Cooperton above.



The natural radioactive series which involve lead as a daughter element do offer a mechanism to test the assumptions.


See, this second sentence of the citation makes your tirade about assumptions a little less certain when the lead gives you a way to test the above mentioned assumptions, wouldn't you agree?


Common lead contains a mixture of four isotopes. Lead 204, which is not produced by radioactive decay provides a measure of what was "original" lead. It is observed that for most minerals, the proportions of the lead isotopes is very nearly constant, so the lead-204 can be used to project the original quantities of lead-206 and lead-207 . (Lead-208 is the final stable product of the Thorium series, so is not used in uranium-lead dating.) The two uranium-lead dates obtained from U-235 and U-238 have different half-lives, so if the date obtained from the two decays are in agreement, this adds confidence to the date. They are not always the same, so some uncertainties arise in these processes.


There may be uncertainties, but that isn't the same as assumptions now is it? In fact, I'd go out on a limb and say that its the exact opposite of making assumptions if they are admitting that there can be uncertainties in some instances. that doesn't rule out the efficacy of the dating method over all either. just straight honesty about instances where additional corroborating data is essential to verifying


There are powerful rationales for using lead isotopes as indicative of concentrations at the point when the lead-containing mineral was in the molten state. Since the isotopes of lead are chemically identical, any processes that brought lead into the mineral would be completely indiscriminate about which isotope was brought in. The forming mineral will incorporate lead-204, lead-206 and lead-207 at the ratio at which they are found at that location at the time of formation. Any departure from the original relative concentrations of lead-206 and lead-207 relative to lead-204 could then be attributed to radioactive decay.


what this is saying is that based on which lead isotopes are found, you can determine which parent elements were involved and in what ratios because each parent element decays into a specific daughter element, each daughter element can only come from its specific parent element. the principles of chemistry are entirely sound here, there really isn't any wiggle room for you on this one.


Making use of the decay constants of both 238U and 235U, plus the fact that the consistent isotopic ratio of 238U/235U = 137.88 is found, Holmes and Houtermans developed a system to use the ratios of the lead isotopes to produce Pb-Pb isochrons for dating minerals. This approach is generally considered to be the most precise for determining the age of the Earth.


The most precise approach for determining the age of the Earth? You don't say.... thanks for linking this citation. it saved me the trouble of digging around myself to support my earlier assertions.





How is this not an assumption? How do we know it was ever at one time pure uranium?


Uranium is an element on the periodic table. U 238/U 235 are radioactive (also referred to as unstable) isotopes of Uranium. These isotopes are highly radioactive and as such, decay at a constant, predictable rate. The daughter element is Lead, in the case of U 238, it decays into Pb 206. Pb 206 only exists as the end result of U 238's radioactive decay. The only way for this isotope to be present, is if U 238 has gone through radioactive decay. U 238 is NOT a stable isotope and will always decay at the same rate and always ends up as the daughter element of Pb 206. This is not an assumption. It's chemistry.



posted on Oct, 12 2016 @ 09:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: peter vlar
The startingRATIOis that there is zero lead.


How do we know that? This is what the paper, which you seem to support, was referring to as an assumption regarding the original concentrations of the isotopes.



Now, let's move on to your citation. Did you not read the entire section on U-Pb series that you cited? Or was it your genuine intention to bring intellectual dishonesty to the table simply because that first line warmed your heart just so with a nice, toasty mug of confirmation bias while the rest of your citation, when presented in full, gives proper context to the thesis statement and paints a far different picture than the one you try to present.


The natural radioactive series which involve lead as a daughter element do offer a mechanism to test the assumptions.


See, this second sentence of the citation makes your tirade about assumptions a little less certain...


My tirade? I asked you two questions. You should relax when answering questions.



It is observed that for most minerals, the proportions of the lead isotopes is very nearly constant
, so the lead-204 can be used to project the original quantities of lead-206 and lead-207


Here is one of the assumptions Uranium-lead dating relies on. They don't know for sure, they are just extrapolating. Using lead-204 to predict the original quantities of lead-206 and lead-207 is an assumption, and also implies an initial concentration of lead, which you said otherwise:

"The startingRATIOis that there is zero lead."

How do they know the starting concentrations of uranium-lead?


edit on 12-10-2016 by cooperton because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 12 2016 @ 11:16 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

Since you seem to be having issues with Radiometric dating. Here is some reading for you

Dalrymple, G. B., (2004) Ancient Earth, Ancient Skies: The Age o the Earth and Its Cosmic Surroundings. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Marshak, S., (2008). Earth: Portrait of a Planet. Third Edition. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.

Hedman, M. (2007). The Age of Everything. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Isaak, M. (2004). CF210: Constancy of Radioactive Decay Rates. Talk.Origins. www.talkorigins.org... Accessed 2011-08-12.

Isaak, M. (2004). CD001: Geochronometry and closed systems. www.talkorigins.org... Accessed 2011-08-12.

Isaak, M. (2004). Geochronology and initial conditions. www.talkorigins.org... Accessed 2011-08-12.

That "paper" you linked, was not a paper. The APPT is the American Association of Physics Teachers
edit on 12-10-2016 by Noinden because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 13 2016 @ 12:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: AshFan
"Creation science" is a contradiction in terms. A central tenet of modern science is methodological naturalism--it seeks to explain the universe purely in terms of observed or testable natural mechanisms. Thus, physics describes the atomic nucleus with specific concepts governing matter and energy, and it tests those descriptions experimentally. Physicists introduce new particles, such as quarks, to flesh out their theories only when data show that the previous descriptions cannot adequately explain observed phenomena. The new particles do not have arbitrary properties, moreover--their definitions are tightly constrained, because the new particles must fit within the existing framework of physics.

Read and learn:



www.scientificamerican.com...
evolution is real so is creation. I work for the universe.



posted on Oct, 13 2016 @ 12:29 AM
link   
The earth cannot be measured by time.



posted on Oct, 13 2016 @ 08:09 AM
link   

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?


Actually, that's a good question - but I wish you would STOP using "assumptions". Assumption in laymans' terms implies that there is no hard data to support the result of the experiment. That is INCORRECT. I know the crackpot websites like ICR use that excuse all the time - everything is an assumption. Ridiculous.

Anyway, on to the the crux of uranium/lead dating methods (note the "s" - there are several methods).

Lead leaching from samples was indeed a problem with U/Pb dating methods. Extensive research and testing resulted in much more accurate method(s) of dating geological samples - see page 356, "4.10.5 Precision and Accuracy of U–Th–Pb
Geochronology" in the citation link below.

Coop, this paper is an excellent example of how detailed testing and analysis can overcome inherent problems in certain methods. Sophisticated instrumentation and statistical models continue to improve how well we understand these processes.

I think you're really interested in this stuff so please take the time to go over the plots and diagrams - there's a lot of excellent information in this paper. Many of your questions would be answered in the Methods section on page 351:
"4.10.4 Measurement Techniques". Methods is where the rubber meets the road in all science - how it was done.

Peter gave an excellent explanation about the occurrence of the element uranium in nature. Uranium is found mostly as oxides - uranium dioxide, etc. The basis for the U/Pb dating method was actually the concordant decay rates of uranium and lead - if you read the paper, you'll come across an explanation of concordant/discordant plots.

U–Th–Pb Geochronology
Blair Schoene, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ, USA

www.princeton.edu...

4.10.1 Introduction
The year 2011 marked the one hundredth anniversary of what
may be the first real geochronology paper, published by Arthur
Holmes, entitled “The Association of Lead with Uranium in
Rock-Minerals and Its Application to the Measurement of
Geological Time” (Holmes, 1911). Holmes’ early work was
surprisingly accurate, even though it was carried out prior to
the discovery of isotopes (Soddy, 1913) and restricted to
whole-rock geochemical analyses. This and complementary
efforts examining U decay and utilizing U–Pb chemical geochronology
laid the foundation for what was to become one of the most important isotopic dating
methods, capable of measuring the timescales of events from
the early solar system !4.57 Ga into the Pleistocene.

We now know that the element lead has four naturally
occurring stable isotopes, 204Pb, 206Pb, 207Pb, and 208Pb, of
which the latter three have a radiogenic component produced
through the independent decay of 238U, 235U, and 232Th,
respectively.

The abundance of high-U minerals in most rock
types, as well as the resistance of many of these minerals to
chemical and physical weathering, contributes to the popularity
and prolificacy of the U–Pb system. Though zircon is by far
the most commonly utilized mineral for U–Pb dating
(Hanchar and Hoskin, 2003), monazite, apatite, xenotime,
titanite, rutile, baddeleyite, allanite, and perovskite are also
commonly dated and provide a spectrum of geochronologic
and thermochronologic applications in i Combined with whole-rock partial
dissolution techniques of increasing sophistication (Amelin
et al., 2009; Connelly and Bizzarro, 2009; Connelly et al.,
2008; Wadhwa et al., 2009), the U–Pb system has provided
crucial time constraints for the formation of the solar system,
the calibration of the geologic timescale, the rates of tectonothermal
processes in the lithosphere, and the reconstruction
of paleogeography and supercontinent cycles.

The amount of material in a given analysis has continually
decreased and the precision of analyses has increased since mass
spectrometers were first applied to U–Pb geochronology in the
1960s. The last decade has seen an explosion of U–Pb data in the
literature (Figure 1), in part because of the ease of dating high-U
minerals in situ through the application of laser ablation
methods to geochronology. However, more time-intensive
high-precision U–Pb geochronology has remained the standard
to which all other geochronologic methods are compared. An
increasing number of other radioisotope decay constants are
calibrated directly against the U decay constants through geochronologic
methods (Nebel et al., 2011; Renne et al., 2010; Scherer
et al., 2001; Selby et al., 2007), and the timescales of early solar
system differentiation based on the decay of extinct radionuclides
are connected to the absolute U–Pb timescale (Kita et al., 2005;
Wadhwa et al., 2009). This is in part because the U decay
constants are the most precisely determined among all geochronologic
decay schemes (Begemann et al., 2001; Jaffey et al.,
1971), but also because their accuracy is cross-calibrated with
one another through high-precision geochronology of closedsystem
minerals (Mattinson, 2000, 2010; Schoene et al., 2006).
The benefit of the dual U decay thus goes further to provide an
internal check for closed-system behavior over long timescales,
cross-checking the accuracy of many age determinations and also
yielding information on multiple geologic events from single
datasets (Tera and Wasserburg, 1972a; Wetherill, 1956).

This chapter focuses on modern U–Th–Pb geochronology
of relatively high-U–Th minerals in high-temperature systems.
It does not adequately cover exciting related fields of geochronology,
such as U-series dating, for which the reader is referred
elsewhere (e.g., Bourdon et al., 2003; Chapters 4.5 and 4.15,
and references therein).

edit on 13-10-2016 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)

edit on 13-10-2016 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 13 2016 @ 09:43 AM
link   
a reply to: Phantom423

Thanks for that. From what I've read, the term for initial lead concentration is called "common lead". But they avoid the question of how to the isotopic ratio that would have been present millions, and billions of years ago. I understand mass spectrometry is very accurate, and that is not what I am disputing, because I am well aware we can accurately measure isotopic ratios. One of the nicer things about carbon-dating is that we have a reasonable estimate of initial C-14 in the system due to presently observed C-14 atmospheric levels.

But for Uranium-Lead dating I see no reliable way to estimate, let alone know, the initial isotopic ratios. and without such a certainty, I don't see how they can be certain about any dates that result from this method.
edit on 13-10-2016 by cooperton because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join