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.
You do realize that wasn't the point he was trying to make by asking his question, right? Here's why nylonase is further proof of evolution: LINK
bacteria capable of hydrolysing nylon were found in wastewater from nylon plants.
Originally posted by MrXYZ
Originally posted by edmc^2
Originally posted by rhinoceros
reply to post by edmc^2
So much stuff about C14 dating, although it's not really relevant in any way when it comes to dating of fossils, which are millions of years old. Try again. Also, you failed to answer all the questions I posed. Try that again too. Or you can't?
hahahaha...so you can't refute the problems inherent to carbon dating.
The fact that the tool is so inaccurate for dating "fossils" it leads one to wonder if evolutionists are that so gullible.
Looki here - a 150 million fossil!! proof of evolution. Not!!
Except...we just refuted those "problems". Again, you don't need C14 to date fossils
So you use radiometric dating, correct?
Originally posted by edmc^2
Originally posted by rhinoceros
reply to post by edmc^2
So much stuff about C14 dating, although it's not really relevant in any way when it comes to dating of fossils, which are millions of years old. Try again. Also, you failed to answer all the questions I posed. Try that again too. Or you can't?
hahahaha...so you can't refute the problems inherent to carbon dating.
The fact that the tool is so inaccurate for dating "fossils" it leads one to wonder if evolutionists are that so gullible.
Looki here - a 150 million fossil!! proof of evolution. Not!!
Originally posted by MrXYZ
I have to give edmc props for his avatar though...it's very ironic, like mine, or Stephen Hawking using a Mike Tyson avatar, or Hitler using a Mother Teresa avatar
“Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.”—Albert Einstein.
Originally posted by rhinoceros
Originally posted by edmc^2
Originally posted by rhinoceros
reply to post by edmc^2
So much stuff about C14 dating, although it's not really relevant in any way when it comes to dating of fossils, which are millions of years old. Try again. Also, you failed to answer all the questions I posed. Try that again too. Or you can't?
....
Again. C14 is not used to date things that are millions of years old, thus your (baseless) criticism of it is irrelevant to the matter at hand. Are you ever going to answer my questions?
”Slowly the weight of the sediment compacts the underlying areas, pressing the grains together, driving excess water out, and depositing minerals in the pores, and ultimately turning the soft sediment to hard rock - a process known as lithification.”
“were so virtually indistinguishable from those of today that even the most skeptical had to concede that they were humans,” -- book Lucy, p. 29.
“ ...“dates determined by radioactive decay may be off—not only by a few years, but by orders of magnitude.” ...
Man, instead of having walked the earth for 3.6 million years, may have been around for only a few thousand.” - Popular Science, “How Old Is It?” by Robert Gannon, November 1979, p. 81
“Only six or seven thousand years ago . . . civilization emerged, enabling us to build up a human world.” -- The Fate of the Earth, by Jonathan Schell, 1982, p. 181.
“It is not even possible to make a caricature of an evolution out of palaeobiological facts. The fossil material is now so complete that . . . the lack of transitional series cannot be explained as due to the scarcity of material. The deficiencies are real, they will never be filled.” - Synthetische Artbildung (The Synthetic Origin of Species), by Heribert Nilsson, 1953, p. 1212.
Not every transitional form appears in the fossil record, because the fossil record is not complete. Organisms are only rarely preserved as fossils in the best of circumstances, and only a fraction of such fossils have been discovered. The paleontologist Donald Prothero noted that this is illustrated by the fact that the number of species known through the fossil record was less than 5% of the number of known living species, suggesting that the number of species known through fossils must be far less than 1% of all the species that have ever lived.[38]
Because of the specialized and rare circumstances required for a biological structure to fossilize, only a very small percentage of all life-forms that have ever existed can be expected to be represented in discoveries, and each discovery represents only a snapshot of the process of evolution. The transition itself can only be illustrated and corroborated by transitional fossils, which will never demonstrate an exact half-way point between clearly divergent forms.[39]
The fossil record is very uneven and, with few exceptions, is heavily slanted toward organisms with hard parts, leaving most groups of soft-bodied organisms with little to no fossil record.[38] The groups considered to have a good fossil record, including a number of transitional fossils between traditional groups, are the vertebrates, the echinoderms, the brachiopods and some groups of arthropods.[40]--en.wikipedia.org...
Originally posted by Daemonicon
To end on the nylon point:
These bacterium needed to evolve to handle Nylon. As Nylon is NOT naturally occuring, there is no need to be able to eat through it. Once Nylon was invented, there was a reason. So, the bacterium evolved to be able to handle the nylon. Evolution doesn't meant that you cease to be the organism you were originally, it just means that you have ADAPTED.
These bacterium needed to evolve to handle Nylon.
Originally posted by Daemonicon
I give up. It is painfully obvious that the OP knows NOTHING about Biological Evolution, and instead is content in using misapprehensions about evolution as arguments against it.
If you decide to actually read and study the subject, I would be more than willing to have an intelligent conversation with you, but I won't hold my breath on that one.
You CANNOT deny that things start simple, and work towards complexity.
Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by edmc^2
So c14 dating is accurate around it's half-life - great for carbon life-forms.
That old argument again, really?
We don't have to date the actual fossil if all the earth/rock around it can be dated much more accurately. Because if all the rock/earth around the fossil is of the same age, it makes perfect sense that the fossil is of the same age. That is, unless you're completely bat# crazy and believe in nonsense like god(s) beaming the fossils there to "test people's faith".
Chapter 12:
Recycling the Earth's Crust Rocks at the surface of the Earth are of many different ages, ranging from over 3 billion years old to less than 1 million years old. Because under ordinary circumstance matter can neither be created or destroyed, the new, younger rocks must have originated from older crustal material - older rocks. Older rocks are destroyed by weathering processes and the remains are recycled into new rocks. This cycle from old rocks to new rocks is called the rock cycle.
Rocks are heated, metamorphosed, melted, weathered, sediment is transported, deposited and lithified, then it may be metamorphosed again in yet another cycle. This recycling of the material of the Earth's crust has been going on for billions of years, as far back as there is a preserved geologic record (about 4 billion years). The diagram above represents the different processes involved in the rock cycle. Weathering and erosion at the earth's surface can break down rocks into small bits. These can be deposited as sediments that become sedimentary rocks. Burial, with rising pressure and temperature, can alter sedimentary (as well as any other) rocks to form metamorphic rocks. Continued rise in temperature can eventually melt rocks and produce magma. Cooling of magmas leads to igneous rocks, etc.
Originally posted by edmc^2
Thus like I said - a statement like "150 million year old fossil" is not accurate because the "fossil" is NOT the actual (once living) carbon life-form but a replica of the original life-form formed by sediments.
But if you really know your science - you should know this.
Originally posted by edmc^2
In short there are NO clear and evident "transitional fossils" - changing from one form to another. All you've got is speculation and interpretation of the data.
Originally posted by edmc^2
In other words - what's old is new and what new is old depending on the recycle stage / time. So if your "fossil" - get's recycled over and and over then the data gathered - date - is subject to interpretation.
Yes, this is usually the case. In some rare instances also soft tissue survives. They sequenced T-rex proteins (not DNA) a couple of years ago. Anyway, the fact that bone has transformed into rock does not pose any problems. We still see what the original bone was like, and we can date it to the time it transformed. Why are you implying that there's a problem here?
You keep saying that, but it's not true. There are thousands upon thousands of "transitional" fossils. In fact, every single fossil is transitional. With a few exceptions, species are not static in longer time-scales.
the fossil record does not convincingly document a single transition from one species to another. Furthermore, species lasted for astoundingly long periods of time.” — The New Evolutionary Timetable, p. 95
You still haven't answered why there are no 100 million year old fossils of contemporary animals, but instead there's a trail of transitional fossils for many species, including humans ever since we diverged from the chimpanzee lineage.
Wait, you actually think fossils can be recycled through molten rock stages? Further, you make it seem as if rocks just randomly get recycled. This is very much location dependent. A rock in the middle of a continental plate is not going to get recycled anytime soon.
These can be deposited as sediments that become sedimentary rocks. Burial, with rising pressure and temperature, can alter sedimentary (as well as any other) rocks to form metamorphic rocks....
Originally posted by edmc^2
If you believe that none of these affect the c14/radiometric readings then explain how and why not.
Originally posted by edmc^2
If this is the case then we won't have any problem showing the transition - say from a lung-fish to amphibian, from amphibian to reptile, etc. But what we see is VARIATION within the same "kind" / species of birds, horse, cats, dog, etc. Any so called "transitional fossil" to bridge the gap is based on pure speculation / assumption / guesses. In other word not a clear cut evidence of transition.
Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by edmc^2
The rock/soil immediately surrounding the rock wouldn't get shifted without the bone...mostly because that's how plate tectonics work
In your fantasy world, all the rock/earth, even that immediately surrounding the fossils would get moved so much, that the time period of those rocks would be DRASTICALLY different from the fossil. And during all that time, the bone would essentially stay still. Well, that, or the bone moves and the rock remains. Either way, it's completely illogical and makes NO SENSE whatsoever
So again, we can use radiometric dating other than carbon dating to accurately date fossils!edit on 8-6-2012 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by edmc^2
C14 like I said only last around 5700 years. Since "fossils" are just mineral deposits thus when they turn into "rocks" - they will retain the long-live radioactive isotopes, like 'rubidium/strontium, thorium/lead, potassium/argon, argon/argon, or uranium/lead, all of which have very long half-lives, ranging from 0.7 to 48.6 billion years.
Thus like I said - a statement like "150 million year old fossil" is not accurate because the "fossil" is NOT the actual (once living) carbon life-form but a replica of the original life-form formed by sediments.
In short there are NO clear and evident "transitional fossils" - changing from one form to another. All you've got is speculation and interpretation of the data.