Login

Join for Free!
117086 members


5 best proofs of evolution

Discussion of everything related to the Theory of Evolution.

Moderator: BioTeam

Postby canalon » Thu Apr 07, 2011 8:58 pm

A paper by the Prof. Sturrock discussing the cause, but not the extant (as far as I can understand):
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Lo ... =ADA523527

And here is another very interesting discussion, although it might be suspected of bias, it seems to be only based on scientific litterature. The comment section is interesting:
http://dealingwithcreationisminastronom ... earth.html

So it appears, that there might not be much in fact here.
Patrick

Science has proof without any certainty. Creationists have certainty without
any proof. (Ashley Montague)
User avatar
canalon
Inland Taipan
Inland Taipan
 
Posts: 3909
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2005 2:46 pm
Location: Canada

Re:

Postby Zenithar66 » Fri Apr 08, 2011 1:18 am

canalon wrote:A paper by the Prof. Sturrock discussing the cause, but not the extant (as far as I can understand):
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Lo ... =ADA523527

And here is another very interesting discussion, although it might be suspected of bias, it seems to be only based on scientific litterature. The comment section is interesting:
http://dealingwithcreationisminastronom ... earth.html

So it appears, that there might not be much in fact here.



Hey thanks for the links here , very good info but i dont think we can draw too many conclusions here, especial about the long term variances, either way its very intersting and i will be keeping my eyes out for sure!
Zenithar66
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 20
Joined: Mon Apr 04, 2011 6:29 pm

Postby canalon » Fri Apr 08, 2011 3:38 am

Well from the second link it appears that a simpler explanation than neutrino affecting decay rate, it is the air temperature that affects the detctor.
If you google the subject you will find that other things can affect the decay rate of certain atoms (notably Beta emitters), notably the atomic structure of the molecules they are part of. However the decay is identical for all atoms in the same structure. But even if the Jenkins/Fischer effect and the results presented by Dr Sturrock were wrong (and I now tend to think they are, the atomic clocks in orbit do not present any variations of decay rate, while being exposed to the same neutrino flux), at least I learned a few things from that.
Patrick

Science has proof without any certainty. Creationists have certainty without
any proof. (Ashley Montague)
User avatar
canalon
Inland Taipan
Inland Taipan
 
Posts: 3909
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2005 2:46 pm
Location: Canada


Postby Dov Henis » Fri Apr 08, 2011 3:22 pm

This will help unravel some present nature's complexities:

UNRAVEL COMPLEXITIES OF GENETICS.
Extend Evolution/Natural Selection Backward To Genes/Genomes, BOTH ARE ORGANISMS.


Again, Correct Some Figments Of Science Imagination
http://pulse.yahoo.com/_2SF3CJJM5OU6T27 ... index&bb=0

[Mod Edit: no need to paste a copy of your blog's rambling in this thread. The link is enough. If you want to add something that would be on topic and comment you are welcome, otherwise, abstain]
Dov Henis
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 30
Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2006 4:21 pm

Postby JorgeLobo » Sun Apr 10, 2011 11:28 am

Evolution is a theory - there are no proofs for evolution or any other biological theory. The term "theory" as used here is not just a guess, it has special substance in the concept of science.

See: www.ohiosci.org/Whatisscience.PDF
JorgeLobo
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 424
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2008 12:12 am

Re:

Postby JackBean » Sun Apr 10, 2011 4:04 pm

JorgeLobo wrote:Evolution is a theory - there are no proofs for evolution...


You have obviously no idea about evolution at all.
http://www.biolib.cz/en/main/

Cis or trans? That's what matters.
User avatar
JackBean
Inland Taipan
Inland Taipan
 
Posts: 5667
Joined: Mon Sep 14, 2009 7:12 pm

Postby JackBean » Sun Apr 10, 2011 4:04 pm

or rather the research regarding evolution
http://www.biolib.cz/en/main/

Cis or trans? That's what matters.
User avatar
JackBean
Inland Taipan
Inland Taipan
 
Posts: 5667
Joined: Mon Sep 14, 2009 7:12 pm

Re: 5 best proofs of evolution

Postby arthuriandaily » Fri Sep 30, 2011 2:26 am

Zenithar66 wrote:I thought i 'd jump in here an just add something intersting to the debate.

Now, I personally dont know how old the earth is, but , if i had to make a decision I would say alot longer then 6,000 years..
but what I find intersting is that, and I havent heard this debated yet, the apparently constant decay rate of isotopes is actaully not constant at all, that was an assumption that has now been seemingly proven wrong..
It seems the rate of decay is affected and changes cyclicly with the suns rotation and with the seasons...

check out these links and tell me what you think, does this put a question mark over all dates we have ascertained?

http://news.discovery.com/space/is-the- ... ticle.html

http://news.stanford.edu/news/2010/augu ... 82310.html

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 093253.htm

Intersting eh?

I personally feel that those who believe in a literal creation are completely missing the allegory, science, and philosophy within our most ancient texts. I think they should do some real resaerch into the origins of there religion.
Not that i am convinced by evolutions mechanisms either...

but what do you guys think of this, cause for concern?


I have a problem with the whole dating schematic. There are experts who claim to know the dates of rocks based on specialized equipment designed to discern the rocks based on how they have aged.

1.) Who designed the machines?
2.) Who tests?
3.) Who verifies the tests?
4.) How are the tests verified?
5.) How is the accuracy of the testing known?
6.) Is it possible to accurately test dates in this - or any - manner?

I'm not saying that the earth is young, or that the dating is inaccurate, but it seems to be a system with a built in predilection towards anomalous findings.
arthuriandaily
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 7
Joined: Thu Sep 29, 2011 8:35 pm

Re: 5 best proofs of evolution

Postby arthuriandaily » Sat Oct 01, 2011 2:39 am

alextemplet wrote:
gfrabizi wrote:
Magnus1 wrote:What i never understood about creationists and atheists is why can't both camps be true? Its very simple: God created the "rules" by which evolution follows. So, Darwin could be correct and there is still a god. 8)

well, doesnt Darwin make the statement that God does not exist?


No, Darwin said nothing of the like in any of his books. But in my opinion the issue is pointless. It's not even about science anymore, just religious fanaticism, which I think is totally uncool. And I'm not just talking about the creationists; certain atheists are just as guilty of religious fanaticism and intolerance as anyone else.


Religious fanaticism is the fabric of anti-religion.
arthuriandaily
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 7
Joined: Thu Sep 29, 2011 8:35 pm

Re:

Postby arthuriandaily » Sat Oct 01, 2011 3:03 am

alextemplet wrote:Fundamentalist anything is usually a bad thing, but some are worse than others. I think deliberately killing innocents is one of the worst forms of fundamentalism, with all others being lesser evils. To be fair, Christianity does have its share of terrorist groups (northern Ireland, for example), as do atheists and every other religion, but most such organizations identify themselves as Islamic.


There are no Christian Terrorist Groups, only groups terrorizing Christianity.
arthuriandaily
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 7
Joined: Thu Sep 29, 2011 8:35 pm

Re: 5 best proofs of evolution

Postby gidagau » Fri May 11, 2012 1:30 pm

Ive been watching a lot of debates recently between Dawkins and Christians or theists. Dawkins is supremely confident and even arrogant as long as he is talking about evolution of the species but as soon as a question comes up about initial origins he starts looking for the exit. The reason is that evolutionary theory assumes the existence of an enormously complicated self-replicating system vastly more complex than a computer. Science has zero to say about how such a system came into existence to begin with. Dawkins usually says something like, "we are working on that one." The problems of such a system emerging on earth are so vast that it has people who are slaves to naturalism, like Dawkins, making such bold statements as it must have been seeded on earth by some alien space creatures. Of course that just begs the question of where they came from. A monkey sitting at a computer could accidentally type out Lincolns Gettysburg Address at random one night, but if you found him holding it the next morning you'd probably look for a more intelligent theory than it was generated by his random pecking.
gidagau
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 1
Joined: Fri May 11, 2012 1:13 pm

Postby JackBean » Fri May 11, 2012 2:21 pm

What if there were thousands or millions of such monkeys?
http://www.biolib.cz/en/main/

Cis or trans? That's what matters.
User avatar
JackBean
Inland Taipan
Inland Taipan
 
Posts: 5667
Joined: Mon Sep 14, 2009 7:12 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Evolution

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron