I will respond to this statement only be reasserting that I am not a creationist, never argued in favor of creation, and don't see myself ever arguing in favor of creation. All I ever said was that evolution is not a "scientific fact" as people are so found of stating; I will continue to stand by this assertion. I further said that I could present much evidence that would argue against it, which I did. If someone can point out to me where I've argued for creation over evolution please do.

Otherwise, I will for the moment say thanks for the informative post. I can't say I familiar with any of the info you've presented and will need to examine it for myself.

Aeon, with respect to Zircon, while I do believe that there are unresolved issues with radioisotope dating techiniques, the point of the zircon argument was based more on the rates of diffusion of He from zircon crystals. My point was there is evidence contained in Zircon crystals in the form of undiffused He, suggesting that these crystals may not be as old as initially postulated.
While I appreciate the obvious effort that went into assembling this post, I can't say that I am familiar with most of it. I will need to spend some time reviewing what you've written here and do some literature searches.

Forgive me, but I get the distinct impression from the data you present, as well as arguments, that you are advancing the idea that Earth's age is small and evolution is a ruse or chimera. Such ideas are consistent with those of religious fundamentalists.

I certainly maintain that science is dynamic, both in theory and practice (literally and figuratively). But perhaps I am convinced beyond any doubt that evolution is fact, as is the Earth's extreme age. And this is due to many lines of evidence.

Indeed, this thread is proving quite informative, not to mention enjoyable. Similarly, I do not desire detract from your enjoyment by way of assuming any untruth.

[edit on 11-11-2004 by Aeon10101110]

Aeon, thanks for giving me the benefit of the doubt. I can understand why you might interpret this based on the nature of my refs., the flavor of my posts, and in some cases the derivation of the information. While you might be convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt that (macro)evolution is a fact, I personally am not. There are reasons for this. As I said, I grew up an atheist, and my training for more than the last decade of my life is as a molecular biologist. I work in a very mainstream molecular biology job, and I publish in mainstream scientific journals. Despite my strong ties to evolutionary theories, based on all the information I've been exposed to, I can no longer insist it is a fact. If you had caught me 5 or 6 years ago, I'd be right here with you arguing against the 'fundies'. There is obviously evidence of adaptation in organisms, but there exists spotty, inconsistent, and often highly speculative evidence in support of macro evolution. While it may appear that I am arguing for a young earth, which I stated I was something I could do, it's because I was. But I am doing this in a particular context. I am bringing it up to encourage people to explore the info for themselves. Contrary to what seems to be the consensus opinion on this thread, bad science does NOT equal science that goes against what you personally believe. Bad science needs to be judged on a case by case basis, and not applied wholesale to entire schools of thought. Different beliefs, different schools of thought, and contradictory results are some of the aspects that fuel true scientific progress. Many people, yourself probably included, were probably unaware of many of the issues that I raised. Maybe someone will be inspired to explore for info for themselves. If the price of waking up some members of the populace is appearing to be a fundie in an anonymous on-line forum, then so be it. It's really a small price to pay. People, this info is out there; it exists, and it's up to you to access it, read it, process it, and form your own opinion. You don't need Aeon, mattison0922, or frickin' talkorigins.com to spoonfeed it to you. Knowledge, and science in particular, is not about perpetuating or maintaining your own narrow system of beliefs; evangelical and fundamentalist religions do a good enough job of this. Thus, I make it my business to read as much as I can about not only my own area of expertise, but my 'hobby' areas as well. This occasionally may draw me into realms not typically traversed by mainstream scientists. However, IMO, this makes me a better, more critical scientist. It would actually be nice to be able to put my faith in evolution; it would certainly make my life easier, and conversations in the breakroom, over lunch, and in the halls a little less intense.

[edit on 11-11-2004 by Aeon10101110]

That would however be predicated on evolution being a beleif, rather than a science. Since its a science, it gets taught to everyone in science class. One should no more keep regular students from learning evolution than one should allow luddites to have their children taught in special 'no electricity' class rooms. Also, religion, as religion, shouldn't be taught in any public schools, even as an elective. As you noted, there are religious private schools that can address those issues. If a student wants to learn more about a religion, then they can do it on their own time, not suck up tax dollars and staff to do it.

Why? Does being forced to know the 'theory' of evolution add any additional value or skill sets in life?

With this attitude, do we wonder why there are so many ignorant people on the face of this earth with no idea what the other 90% of the world believe? Do you live in the USA by any chance? I would have thought that learning what other people believe, would be a great asset when dealing and communicating with these people? Unless you live a really sheltered life, I am sure you have mixed with people outside the evolution train of thought.

What I hear you saying is: My theories of evolution are proved to beyond such a shadow of a doubt, that screw what the 95% believe, we can only teach this!! Hmmm sounds like communism to me.



And a religiously intolerant war isn’t sucking up the tax dollars?




Your right. Nothing, unless that student has a desire to learn it. This is called freedom or will. Some students drop out of school at year 10 because they do not like to learn. Others continue through to university. For instance, I was useless at maths at school but good at arts. Lucky for me I could choose to do art, English and other subjects that interested me over the subjects I had no interest in at all. So do emphasise your point, I have no idea what calculus is! and I have never had the chance to use it. Am I a worse person for know knowing this?




You seem to be arguing my point very well. Students who wish to study science at a tertiary level, should have the option of taking evolution. They obviously have an interest in this field.




Yes, cant agree more. They would not be using their brain matter if they were not given the opportunity to think about other theories outside of what you personally believe.




Um, let me think. Possibly, English, writing, maths, sport.. do I have to really name every one?



Because that is what we are talking about



I think that lack of freedom of thought would make anyone uncomfortable




Say that to one of the millions of people that say they have had answers to prayer. Oh, but you still wouldn’t believe it as you cant put them in a test tube right?

As mattison has repeatedly pointed out, what is so wrong with being open minded. I find that people that are not miss the forest because of the trees.

Just my opinion.

Mattison, a few questions for you if I may. I gather you neither believe in creation nor evolution. Is there a theory you have to advance? Do you believe that advancing both the theories of evolution and creation within any level of the education system is not beneficial to the students? And finally, Since you no longer believe in evolution, you must believe that science has come to a dead end with that research, therefore do you think that scienctists are wasting time, energy, effort and money on pursuing the theory of evolution, and should abandon same? If so, is there another direction?

[edit on 11/11/04 by SomewhereinBetween]

Probably because so many people are fighting against proper science educations in schools and even having non-religious secular schools.


I am aware of what other religions beleive and what different streams of thought within those different religions beleive. Public school is not a place where religion should be taught. Period. Its public school. I haven't received anything more than a superficial and vague public school instruction on 'world religions', and even then its not taught as religion, but as different cultures and in the context of what in some places is called 'global studies'. Religion, specifically and only as religion, is not something that should be taught, studied, and tested on in public schools.

Actually the overwhelming majority of anti-evolutionists I have come across have been immoral, repugnant, raving liars.

I don't care what anyone beleives. This isn't play school. I don't have to consider what other people beleive without reason to be equally valid to what I've studied and what I know. I don't care if 99% of the planetbeleives evolution doesn't occur, I want to see the reasons for why it isn't supposed to occur. Do you just leave all of your conlusions to a super-majority? Do you only operate by consensus?

Irrelevant to the discussion. Because you disagree with the war, therefore religion should be taught in schools?

I'd say so yes. I'm god awful at calculus and other types of math, but its an entire way of thinking and analyzing things that is worth knowing.


Well thats not how its done in the US. In the US, every each student in a school gets the same education. No one gets huddled off into an 'automechanics' group and a trash collectors group and doctors and lawyers group. Students are given the oppurtunity to learn, not be trained for a job. And, again, if anyone think that their kid shouldn't have to learn nothin', they can homeschool them, put them in parochial school, or put them into a sperate vocational school. But as long as their a regular student, they get the whole education.



And without the an understanding of the world and the way that it works, they won't be able to think very much about it. If all they know is how to file a particular set of papers properly, or how to fill out a credit card application, well they certainly aren't going to be able to weight independent sets of evidence for different natural phenomena that constantly affect their lives and make up their very existence.



So you think that after a person can more or less talk, can do enough math to count and maybe add, and can scrawl out something with a pencil, then they've had enough education? You mentioned english. Fair enough. However, one doesn't learn to speak english at school. English classes, outside of short lessons on grammar and vocabulary, focus on works of literature and creative writing and the like. So none of that is necessary for the average joe working down at the shop. Heck, even that grammar and vocabulary isn't particularly important, since he probably hasn't used any of it outside of the tests he had in school on it.And math? When was the last time anyone sat down and did long division or converted between decimals and fractions as a part of their day to day routine? 'I'd like .5 and .5 in my coffee please' Heck, why should the government teach math at all, just give everyone in teh country a calculator, maybe one that can display in fractions if one wants to be stodgy, that'd be a lot more effiicient no? SInce you are saying that people only need to lear enough to be able to perform their work related tasks efficiently.

Ah, so normally you do call for all those other things to be eliminated from school curricula then? Just not in this thread right?

And yet, you want religious instruction in schools, and think entire branches of science shouldn't be taught, because they aren't 'useful' to everyone.

Normally I just nod and smile when I run into one of those people.

Of course I wouldn't belevie them. There have been studies on the so called power of prayer. It doesn't work. Sometimes people pray and they say their prayers are answered. And yet, they're all praying to different gods, heck opposing gods. Are you actually contending that all these gods exist and they are answering everyone's prayers and competeing with each other, ala 'clash of the titans'?

Excuse me, but I have not been close minded at any point in this particualr discussion nor on the entire topic of creationism at any time. I have been completely open minded and I have listened to pro and con arguements on all sides of this multifaceted issue. I find it entirely ironic that someone who is calling the the elimnation of evolution from school curicula and other 'useless' branches of science while at the same time thinking the secular schools should have religious instruction courses is calling anyone else close minded. How is this mass of religiously educated early sorted dockyard workers going to be able to asses the veritable mountains of information on just this one issue, let alone the hundreds of thousands of other science policy issues that control their lives and world, if they've spend a few semesters learning various hindu and northwest native american god's names, but don't know what a cell is or what affect greenhouse gases have on their local environment?

Please quote where I have stated that I want evolution totally removed from schools? I thought I was arguing that I wanted to make it an elective.



Do they also misquote posts?

Thanks for you comments, it has been fun! Guess we should stick to the tread.

Ahhhh Nygdan…. You certainly are tenacious; I’ve got to give you credit for that. Your efforts are commendable, even if, IMO, they are a little misguided. Imagine how much you could learn if you instead of simply trying to prove me wrong, which based on my initial statements won’t be done, you actually were to review all available sources and make as truly objective opinion as possible. Is it that you are trying to prove me wrong? Do you believe that I am unaware of the majority of these things you’re mentioning, and you’re trying to educate me? I’m not trying to be sarcastic or rude; I am genuinely curious about your motives. Don’t indulge me if you don’t want though.

So… let’s get into it.


Well, if you’ve been reading my posts, which it appears you have, you’d have seen the statement I made about looking at PRIMARY sources for yourself. Evaluate each claim individually for yourself, which you claim you are perfectly capable of doing, and make an informed decision WITHOUT the handicap of someone else’s ‘filter.’


Trees at Joggins fossil cliffs, for example.



I will rephrase this particular question: Nygdan, perhaps you can list your particular set of experiences analyzing scientific data, evaluating scientific data, critically examining scientific data, or writing scientific reports on any level above that of a 200 level college course. Perhaps, you will also inform us as to the nature of your personal scientific research and what methods you personally have personally have any hands-on familiarity with. In what fields were these particular experiences undertaken?


I know who Ostrom is. My point was more in the big picture: What possible motivation would someone whose research funds depend on a particular hypothesis have for refuting said hypothesis.


Never said he was. At the very worst, I called him biased; and I did that just now.


Perhaps you should consider some quotes from one of your fellow evolutionists, Dodson, who stated: “I hasten to add that none of the known small theropods, including Deinonychus, Dromaeosaurus, Velociraptor, Unenlagia, nor Sinosauropteryx, Protarcheaeopteryx, nor Caudipteryx is itself relevant to the origin of birds…”( Dodson, P., Origin of birds: the final solution? American Zoologist 40:505–506, 2000.)
“I am tepid on endothermic dinosaurs; I am skeptical about the theropod ancestry of birds.”( Dodson, P., Mesozoic feathers and fluff, American Paleontologist 9(1):7, 2001).

Or how about this: “I continue to find it problematic that the most birdlike maniraptoran theropods are found 25 to 75 million years after the origin of birds … . Ghost lineages are frankly a contrived solution, a deus ex machina required by the cladistic method. Of course, it is admitted that late Cretaceous maniraptorans are not the actual ancestors of birds, only “sister taxa”. Are we being asked to believe that a group of highly derived, rapidly evolving maniraptorans in the Jurassic gave rise to birds, as manifested by Archaeopteryx, and then this highly progressive lineage then went into a state of evolutionary stasis and persisted unchanged in essential characters for millions of years? Or are actual ancestors far more basal in morphology and harder to classify? If the latter, then why insist that the problem is now solved?” Please see: Dodson, P., Response by Peter Dodson, American Paleontologist 9(4):13–14, 2001.

Ruben, a respiratory physiology expert at Oregon State University, analyzd fossil outlines of Sinosauropteryx’s internal organs. His research indicates their bellowslike lungs could not have evolved into the high-performance lungs seen in observed in modern birds (Lung Fossils Suggest Dinos Breathed in Cold Blood, Science 278(5341):1229–1230, and in the same issue, see: Lung Ventilation in Theropod Dinosaurs and Early Birds, pp. 1267–1270)

As a futher general reference some research incdicates that birds lack the embryonic thumb that dinosaurs had, suggesting that it is “almost impossible” for the species to be closely related (Ann C. Burke and Alan Feduccia, Developmental Patterns and the Identification of Homologies in the Avian Hand, Science 278(5338):666–8, 24 October 1997, with a perspective by Richard Hinchliffe, The Forward March of the Bird-Dinosaurs Halted? on pp. 596–7).


This is not surprising. Perhaps you are unaware of the computer studies of australopithecines that have demonstrated that their bodily proportions were not intermediate between man and living apes. For example: Charles E. Oxnard, “The Place of the Australopithecines in Human Evolution: Grounds for Doubt?” Nature, Vol. 258, 4 December 1975, pp. 389–395. and “Human Fossils: New Views of Old Bones,” The American Biology Teacher, Vol. 41, May 1979, p. 273.

Perhaps you are unaware of evidence discovered by R.E.F. Leakey, in which he clearly stated: “The Rudolf Australopithecines, in fact, may have been close to the ‘knuckle-walker’ condition, not unlike the extant African apes.” Please see: Richard E. F. Leakey, “Further Evidence of Lower Pleistocene Hominids from East Rudolf, North Kenya,” Nature, Vol. 231, 28 May 1971, p. 245.

Perhaps you are unaware of another study involving their inner ear bones, which are used to maintain balance, showed a striking similarity with those of chimpanzees and gorillas, but significant differences with those of humans. Likewise, their pattern of dental development corresponds to chimpanzees, not humans. Please see: Bruce Bower, “Evolution’s Youth Movement,” Science News, Vol. 159, 2 June 2001, p. 347.

Perhaps you’re familiar with ‘Lucy.’ ‘Lucy was presented as evidence that all australopithecines walked upright in a human manner. This being based on a single knee joint. However, studies of Lucy’s entire anatomy, not just a knee joint, now show this is very unlikely (Fred Spoor et al., “Implications of Early Hominid Labyrinthine Morphology for Evolution of Human Bipedal Locomotion,” Nature, Vol. 369, 23 June 1994, pp. 645–648), and suggest in fact that ‘Lucy’ most likely swung from trees (Lucy’s Limbs: Skeletal Allometry and Locomotion in Australopithecus Afarensis,” Nature, Vol. 297, 24 June 1982, pp. 676–678, Jack T. Stern Jr. and Randall L. Susman, “The Locomotor Anatomy of Australopithecus Afarensis,” American Journal of Physical Anthropology, Vol. 60, March 1983, pp. 279–317, and Jeremy Cherfas, “Trees Have Made Man Upright,” New Scientist, Vol. 93, 20 January 1983, pp. 172–178.

Evolutionist Carroll doesn’t find any particular difficulty with Icthyostega and in a major vertebrate palaeontology text described Ichthyostega as a fairly typical land animal (Carroll, R.L., Vertebrate Paleontology and Evolution, W.H. Freeman and Company, New York, p. 164, 1988)
Some researchers feel that the fossil record imposes difficult constraints on the timing of the supposed transition. The earliest tetrapod fossils are found in late Frasnian sediments, but their presumed ancestors are hardly much older. To exacerbate the situation, the Frasnian ‘near tetrapods’ (Obruchevichthys, Elginerpeton, Livoniana) are already morphologically diverse at their first appearance. “Panderichthys and Elpistostege flourished in the early Frasnian and are some of the nearest relatives of tetrapods. But tetrapods appear only about 5 to 10 million years later in the late Frasnian, by which time they were widely distributed and had evolved into several groups, including the lineage leading to the tetrapods of the Famennian. This suggests that the transition from fish to tetrapod occurred rapidly within this restricted time span.”(Clack, J.A., Gaining Ground: The Origin and Evolution of Tetrapods, Indiana University Press, Bloomington, 2002). More problems: Key morphological transitions, such as the purported change from paired fins to limbs with digits, remain undocumented by fossils. Appendages that are known they are clearly either fish-like fins or digit-bearing limbs, not at some transitional stage from one to the other.

I think my point is further demonstrated here. There is lots of information out there, tons and tons and tons to sort through. While many have claimed evolution to be a ‘scientific fact’ clearly there are numerous exceptions and dissenting opinions. I suppose it comes down to what is the ‘definition’ of a fact. In my mind, a theory with data that stands in such stark opposition to other available is hardly a ‘fact.’ This is not to say that the theory of evolution is without value. Surely, scientific progress has been made based on this theory, and this alone makes it valuable. However to close your mind, and pretend we’ve got it all figured out when it’s quite clear we don’t is certainly doing nothing to advance scientific progress.

Somewhere... thanks for your highly thoughtful questions. I do not subscribe to many of the currently accepted dogma's with respect to evolution. To put my scientific integrity on the line in defense of Genesis would be 'intellectual suicide.' However I do recognize the fact that my understanding of religious doctrine in general is limited... I would say probably less than average, and this may influence my apparent inability to reconcile science and religion. However, as I stated in my response to Nygdan, certainly proven facets of evolution do exist, certainly things that argue against creationist notions. For example creationists are fond of claiming that mutations are never beneficial. This is complete rubbish. I can think of numerous examples off the top of my head demonstrating beneficial mutations without even doing a literature search or looking at a single reference. Whether or not that's evidence of macroevolution is debatable, but certainly valuable information has yet to be obtained from evolution based study. Much of the info I've cited is from scientists considered to be evolutionists. Obviously there is still worthwhile science happening in this field still.

Do I have a theory... I wish. Not much of a theorhetical scientist. I am much better at compiling and sorting through massive amounts of data and information and deciding how it fits in with the big picture. Unfortunately, it often leaves me suffering from extreme information overload, and as you've forced me to admit, lacking for a rational explanation of things.

I definitely do not believe evolution is a dead end. Information is information, the more of it there is the better. I am not biased for or against most sources, as long as the science appears sound, the techniques make sense in the context of the experiment being performed, and the conclusions seem reasonable.

Good science is never a waste of time or money, irrespective of the intentions, and there are ALWAYS other directions worthy of pursuit.

Thanks for your interest.

Measuring helium content in zircons and apatite represent a recently developed dating technique. Apparently, there are problems with samples from surface formations that produce thermochronometric ages younger than the rock's actual exhumation age. Recently, articles in both
Geotimes and Geology detail the anomaly, which can affect rocks containg apatite to a whopping depth of 3 centimeters (if they are exposed to temperatures exceeding 70 degrees celsius). But zircons are more resilient, the temperature must be raised to 180 degrees for helium to be lost. However, thermochronometry is developed to the extent that there is consistency with helium dating considering uranium-thorium (U/Th) ratios, in that established events are reflected when comparing U/Th to zircon helium content.

Helium is one of the daughter products when uranium decays, thorium is another. Thus, U/Th more reliably dates rock because neither of the metals is subject to loss as the miniscule helium atom. And it is the U/Th methodology that was referred to in my post!

Many times I've read opposing viewpoints which merely dismiss some dating techniques ,without proper attribution, citing a few anomalous data very briefly. Never is the methodology discussed with any details at all, such as sample location, credentials or institutions. Such dubious citations amount to anecdotal evidence and are designed only to posit biblical veracity.

An interesting use of the radiocarbon technique (more precisely, Accelerator Mass Spectrometry) was recently employed with the Dead Sea Scrolls for confirmation of paleographic dates and ages of other objects on site such as coins. A total of eight scrolls that were not contaminated by oils were subjected to the analysis and the resulting data were found to be consistent with all other indications, overwhelmingly within +/- 50 years. Moreover, some scrolls were actually dated by their respective scribes and as mentioned, the Carbon 14 dates were in agreement with this very significant corollary (Davies, P., Brooke, G., Callaway, P., 2002, "The Complete World of the Dead Sea Scrolls," Thames & Hudson, Ltd., London, pp. 12, 13, 70, 74-75, 181, 207).

Aeon, I was under the impression that the diffusion of He through zircons was mostly a function of the crystal lattice. While obviously temperature plays a role in any diffusion process, I thought the point was that since the crystal lattice is big enough to accomodate a large atom, such as uranium, the diffusion of He, through the crystal lattice was relatively unimpeded, and thus could be used as reliable dating mechanism. Please advise.

I am unfamiliar with the website you referred to regarding radioisotope dating. It seems though that you have some degree of familiarity with isotope dating based on your previous posts. Does it not make sense that radiocarbon dating of something as recent as the dead sea scrolls might coincide with other verifiable evidence. These are relatively recent documents. Given that 14C has a half-life of more than 5000 years, this is more than within a reasonable time frame. Furthermore, there may be adequate tree ring evidence with which to 'calibrate' said radiodating method. However, I will not back down from the verifiable controversy that does exist surrounding these techniques.

I would like to make one additional point on this thread re: information. I think I read this here, I can't say what the original source was, but this reflects my ignorance regarding much philosophical and spiritual literature.

The analogy is something like this: It takes an organized collection of bricks to build a house. Well, facts are like these bricks. It takes an organized collection of facts to make a coherent story. And while a house is made from organized stacks of bricks, an organized stack of bricks doesn't make a house. Similarly a series of organized facts does not necessarily make a coherent story. You can have multiple organizations of bricks that are logical and represent some organization, but if those bricks don't interact with, or 'dovetail' into the other exsiting brick structures you don't have a house. And while many of the facts of evolution represent 'organized and coherent brick piles' they definitely do not combine to form a livable house. Until we uncover the missing bricks and plans to link the organized piles, we don't have a house.

Perhaps someone could point me to the original source of that quote, as I am sure it was much more eloquently stated than mine.

Thanks in advance.

Making it an elective for 'smart kids' to take is effectively removing it. Shop is an elective, but not every takes it. 'Home Economics' is an elective, but people don't take it unless they are looking for an east A or something like that. There is absolutely no reason to start making core courses electives merely because you think people ain't got no need for them.



Do they also misquote posts?

Actually that is exactly what I try to do. I am not trying to convince you or anyone else of any particular postion. The sum of the evidence I have seen and the assesments I have been able to make of them lead me to conclude that, amoung other things, evolution does indeed occur. I am not trying to back up one 'side' to an argument or another.


Of course not. I know your background. Thats why in particular I want to explore the reasons why you have come to the conclusions you have. As you have said you are not a creationist, you merely notice that there are 'anomolous phenomenon' and such, and that people often accept conclusions that they haven't really thought out. Darwin himself had the initial ideas for his theory of natural selection years before he published them. He thought them through in detail, he considered alternate lines of evidence, and correpsonded with numerous other naturalists. That, I think, is the proper way to go about these things. Consider all possibilities and all arguements before arriving at a definite conclusion.


Yes but, admitedly, talkorigins provides an excellent introduction to the material, especially for 'laymen', and does close its papers with full listings of sources and references that a person can check on their own. On this issue, I think we are in complete agreeance, the primary sources is whats important. I don't think TO makes itself out to be a thing that can replace those sources or supersede them.

Trees at Joggins fossil cliffs, for example.