We are told: Some species are evolving far more quickly than Darwin ever imagined.

_{Denyse O'Leary

March 31, 2015

Evolution, Intelligent Design, News}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

For example, Discover:

Mosquitoes that colonized the London Underground in 1863 are now so different they can no longer mate with their above-ground relatives. Chinook salmon from Alaska to California needed just a human generation to become smaller and shorter-lived after an increase in commercial fishing in the 1920s. Adaptation is happening right under our noses, in our lifetimes.

But all of this can be accounted for within the genome of the species without any new information.

Put another way, if it is true that 1863 Tube mosquitos can no longer bred with above-ground mosquitoes, does that not signal a loss rather than a gain in information? Or are we not supposed to ask any more?

Comments

Joe #184 Untestable assumptions. Only if you deny that radioactive decay is constant. You have to know how the earth was formed in order to determine its age. But clearly the researchers have found a way to work around that. Read a more lengthy discussion of the reasoning.Jerad_{April 10, 2015
April
04
Apr
10
10
2015
11:43 AM
11
11
43
AM
PDT}

Jerad:
Yes they did get a good approximation to the age of the earth.
Untestable assumptions.
But, the researchers showed how that data can be cross-correlated to come up with an age for the earth.
You have to know how the earth was formed in order to determine its age.Joe_{April 10, 2015
April
04
Apr
10
10
2015
11:35 AM
11
11
35
AM
PDT}

Joe #181, 182 No, Jerad, they didn’t get the age of the earth. They still have untestable assumptions. Yes they did get a good approximation to the age of the earth. You have been unable to point out where they fell prey to untestable assumptions. All we have is the age of some of the materials that make up the earth. That is all we will ever have. But, the researchers showed how that data can be cross-correlated to come up with an age for the earth. These dating techniques, which are firmly grounded in physics and are known collectively as radiometric dating, are used to measure the last time that the rock being dated was either melted or disturbed sufficiently to rehomogenize its radioactive elements. That is EXACTLY as I said. Yes but you said the were depending on untestable assumptions when they clearly state how they considered and dealt with those assumptions.Jerad_{April 10, 2015
April
04
Apr
10
10
2015
11:22 AM
11
11
22
AM
PDT}

These dating techniques, which are firmly grounded in physics and are known collectively as radiometric dating, are used to measure the last time that the rock being dated was either melted or disturbed sufficiently to rehomogenize its radioactive elements. That is EXACTLY as I said.Joe_{April 10, 2015
April
04
Apr
10
10
2015
07:29 AM
7
07
29
AM
PDT}

No, Jerad, they didn't get the age of the earth. They still have untestable assumptions. All we have is the age of some of the materials that make up the earth. That is all we will ever have.Joe_{April 10, 2015
April
04
Apr
10
10
2015
07:28 AM
7
07
28
AM
PDT}

Joe #179 And they did NOT get the age of the earth, did they? Within a certain tolerance they did, yes. So you didn’t get the assumptions they used for that. Got it. They talked about the assumption you stated and showed why it was important to avoid the problem.Jerad_{April 10, 2015
April
04
Apr
10
10
2015
07:22 AM
7
07
22
AM
PDT}

Jerad:
The article you linked to shows that researchers have considered the issue you brought up and so were not making that faulty assumption.
And they did NOT get the age of the earth, did they?
Additionally they clearly talk about materials not initially found on earth which can be used to triangulate the age of the solar system, thus the age of the earth.
So you didn't get the assumptions they used for that. Got it.
If you’d like to change topics that’s fine with me.
That is what we were discussing. Obviously you have other issues.Joe_{April 10, 2015
April
04
Apr
10
10
2015
06:36 AM
6
06
36
AM
PDT}

KF, I am certainly not arguing that UD should never ban commenters for trolling and/or abusive behaviour. Unfortunately that is a necessity in maintaining a productive discussion. But when the disciplinary actions are clearly one sided, when there are plenty of trolling and abusive behaviour s on both sides of the debate, the claim that UD welcomes comments from opposing views simply becomes a farce. Maybe I am incorrect in my observation. Being an ID opponent, my perceptions may be biased, and am honest enough to admit this, as I am sure that you are. But given that I have never seen an incident of an ID proponent being banned for unacceptable behaviour, when there are plenty of examples of such behaviour, I think that my observations are valid. But I don't want to be accused of dragging this discussion off topic so I will leave it at that.lack of Focus_{April 10, 2015
April
04
Apr
10
10
2015
05:53 AM
5
05
53
AM
PDT}

LOF, to be specific, Mung called you a liar, and above I "merely" pointed out -- starting with your handle -- on a relevant definition, troubling issues regarding your behaviour that drew a comment you made above to my notice. Where, on years of experience I know the overwhelming pattern of trollish misbehaviour around UD and the oh you censors talking point when disciplinary action is taken. I am not arguing for UD batting 100%, but I am pretty sure of the overall pattern. And, in recent months BA opened back up all accounts of the banned so it is unsurprising that after being on good behaviour for a little while, such would revert to true form, leading tot he choice, allow disruption and destruction of reasonable discussion or act to keep things reasonable. Instead of pretending to wounded innocence and how dare you, were I you, I would address the underlying facts on the table and the patterns they reveal. Remember, there are a lot of trolls and fellow traveller enablers that try to cause disruptions and distractions at UD, so learn from "if it walks and quacks like a duck . . . " G'day. KFkairosfocus_{April 10, 2015
April
04
Apr
10
10
2015
05:21 AM
5
05
21
AM
PDT}

KF, both you and Mung have called me a liar. Could you please tell me what I lied about? If I am incorrect in my statement I will certainly apologize. I essentially made two claims: 1) that ID opponents are banned simply for disagreeing, even when they do it in a polite fashion. Their only sin has been being persistent. I can provide examples if you would like. 2) that ID supporters get away with abusive language. Again, I can provide plenty of examples. Since I can provide evidence for these two statements, I am obviously not lying. An apology would be gladly accepted for falsely accusing me of lying.lack of Focus_{April 10, 2015
April
04
Apr
10
10
2015
04:42 AM
4
04
42
AM
PDT}

KF #170 What I see, is that apparently many objectors seem to imagine they have a right to be abusive, falsely accusatory, disregarding of truth and basic fairness, or generally obnoxious on someone else’s dime. I have seen many ID supporters do the same at UD. I've been called many names in my time here as you will remember since I've pointed it out before.Jerad_{April 10, 2015
April
04
Apr
10
10
2015
04:32 AM
4
04
32
AM
PDT}

LOF: "To lie is to speak with disregard to truth, in hopes that what is said or suggested will be taken as true." This is an unfortunately apt description of what you have done above, which I called you out on, and which Mung far more directly also did. Indeed, it rather seems to me that even your handle you have chosen patently fits that description. I suggest to you, it is time to think again and do better. A lot better. G'day. KFkairosfocus_{April 10, 2015
April
04
Apr
10
10
2015
03:55 AM
3
03
55
AM
PDT}

Joe #168 I have defended my claim, Jerad. All we can do is measure the decay of the material that makes up the earth. The article you linked to shows that researchers have considered the issue you brought up and so were not making that faulty assumption. Additionally they clearly talk about materials not initially found on earth which can be used to triangulate the age of the solar system, thus the age of the earth. I'll take the matter as settled then. And all you have is 150 years of equivocations and bluffing. You can’t even explain basic asexual reproduction- that is out of the reach of unguided evolution. That is why you have to start with everything you really need to explain in the first place. If you'd like to change topics that's fine with me.Jerad_{April 9, 2015
April
04
Apr
9
09
2015
10:26 PM
10
10
26
PM
PDT}

KF, case in point, please refer to Mung at 171 above. I point out an observation and I am called a liar. This is not the behaviour of a mature adult. Personally, I don't care if UD condones this type of behaviour from ID proponents. I merely point out that it loses all credibility when it does so. Btw, my handle simply refers to the fact that I am legally blind. If you think that it is intended as an insult, I apologize.lack of Focus_{April 9, 2015
April
04
Apr
9
09
2015
10:09 PM
10
10
09
PM
PDT}

liar of Focus:
UD routinely bans people for simply disagreeing with the powers that be, even though the comments are polite and civil.
That's a lie.Mung_{April 9, 2015
April
04
Apr
9
09
2015
08:29 PM
8
08
29
PM
PDT}

LOF: FYI, not in my general experience. What I see, is that apparently many objectors seem to imagine they have a right to be abusive, falsely accusatory, disregarding of truth and basic fairness, or generally obnoxious on someone else's dime. And BTW, what you just asserted and implied is a case in point, and even your handle may be snidely loaded. Some, may be so habitually boorish that they may not realise how uncivil their behaviour is. UD is not perfect by a long shot, but it has to deal with some really aggressive and ruthless behaviour. KFkairosfocus_{April 9, 2015
April
04
Apr
9
09
2015
05:25 PM
5
05
25
PM
PDT}

UD routinely bans people for simply disagreeing with the powers that be, even though the comments are polite and civil. Yet they continue to allow Joe and some others, including a couple with posting privileges, to be abusive and resort to name calling. This action speaks volumes. Please do better.lack of Focus_{April 9, 2015
April
04
Apr
9
09
2015
03:59 PM
3
03
59
PM
PDT}

I have defended my claim, Jerad. All we can do is measure the decay of the material that makes up the earth. And all you have is 150 years of equivocations and bluffing. You can't even explain basic asexual reproduction- that is out of the reach of unguided evolution. That is why you have to start with everything you really need to explain in the first place.Joe_{April 9, 2015
April
04
Apr
9
09
2015
03:52 PM
3
03
52
PM
PDT}

Joe #164 It’s a given, Jerad. Write to them and ask. Or remain ignorant. You've made a claim, you need to defend it. Your example made it clear that the issue was considered and addressed by the researchers. They have to. Are you really too stupid to understand the reasoning presented? And, if they have considered the issue and dealt with it . . . Clearly you are a bluffing loser. I'm not the one making a claim. You haven’t offered anything. You haven’t offered one paper tat demonstrates unguided evolution can produce any molecular machinery. Heck you can’t even account for basic asexual reproduction. I have spent a lot of time in the past trying to give you links and references which you have uniformly denied are valid WITHOUT being able to point to a mistake in any of them. I cannot find a mistake in research that does not exist. What part of taht are you too dense to grasp? So I haven't been able to provide you with research that doesn't exist? What a naughty boy I am. When you want to seriously discuss the 150 years of research and work already done then please start by stating clearly where a mistake in methodology or technique or ideology or analysis has been made. You say it's all rubbish and wrong so . . . show us.Jerad_{April 9, 2015
April
04
Apr
9
09
2015
03:15 PM
3
03
15
PM
PDT}

Joe #165
These dating techniques, which are firmly grounded in physics and are known collectively as radiometric dating, are used to measure the last time that the rock being dated was either melted or disturbed sufficiently to rehomogenize its radioactive elements
But it's pretty clear the writers are aware of the possibility of the error you claim they've made. And if you read further . . .
An interesting feature of these ancient rocks is that they are not from any sort of "primordial crust" but are lava flows and sediments deposited in shallow water, an indication that Earth history began well before these rocks were deposited. In Western Australia, single zircon crystals found in younger sedimentary rocks have radiometric ages of as much as 4.3 billion years, making these tiny crystals the oldest materials to be found on Earth so far. The source rocks for these zircon crystals have not yet been found. The ages measured for Earth's oldest rocks and oldest crystals show that the Earth is at least 4.3 billion years in age but do not reveal the exact age of Earth's formation. The best age for the Earth (4.54 Ga) is based on old, presumed single-stage leads coupled with the Pb ratios in troilite from iron meteorites, specifically the Canyon Diablo meteorite. In addition, mineral grains (zircon) with U-Pb ages of 4.4 Ga have recently been reported from sedimentary rocks in west-central Australia. The Moon is a more primitive planet than Earth because it has not been disturbed by plate tectonics; thus, some of its more ancient rocks are more plentiful. Only a small number of rocks were returned to Earth by the six Apollo and three Luna missions. These rocks vary greatly in age, a reflection of their different ages of formation and their subsequent histories. The oldest dated moon rocks, however, have ages between 4.4 and 4.5 billion years and provide a minimum age for the formation of our nearest planetary neighbor. Thousands of meteorites, which are fragments of asteroids that fall to Earth, have been recovered. These primitive objects provide the best ages for the time of formation of the Solar System. There are more than 70 meteorites, of different types, whose ages have been measured using radiometric dating techniques. The results show that the meteorites, and therefore the Solar System, formed between 4.53 and 4.58 billion years ago. The best age for the Earth comes not from dating individual rocks but by considering the Earth and meteorites as part of the same evolving system in which the isotopic composition of lead, specifically the ratio of lead-207 to lead-206 changes over time owing to the decay of radioactive uranium-235 and uranium-238, respectively. Scientists have used this approach to determine the time required for the isotopes in the Earth's oldest lead ores, of which there are only a few, to evolve from its primordial composition, as measured in uranium-free phases of iron meteorites, to its compositions at the time these lead ores separated from their mantle reservoirs. These calculations result in an age for the Earth and meteorites, and hence the Solar System, of 4.54 billion years with an uncertainty of less than 1 percent. To be precise, this age represents the last time that lead isotopes were homogeneous througout the inner Solar System and the time that lead and uranium was incorporated into the solid bodies of the Solar System. The age of 4.54 billion years found for the Solar System and Earth is consistent with current calculations of 11 to 13 billion years for the age of the Milky Way Galaxy (based on the stage of evolution of globular cluster stars) and the age of 10 to 15 billion years for the age of the Universe (based on the recession of distant galaxies).
So, they are not caught out by the assumption you claim they are making. They have addressed the issue.Jerad_{April 9, 2015
April
04
Apr
9
09
2015
03:07 PM
3
03
07
PM
PDT}

age of the earth
These dating techniques, which are firmly grounded in physics and are known collectively as radiometric dating, are used to measure the last time that the rock being dated was either melted or disturbed sufficiently to rehomogenize its radioactive elements. (bold added)
Joe_{April 9, 2015
April
04
Apr
9
09
2015
02:24 PM
2
02
24
PM
PDT}

Jerad:
Show me where they make that assumption. It’s a simple query.
It's a given, Jerad. Write to them and ask. Or remain ignorant.
Show me where a modern, age of the earth researcher depends on that assumption.
They have to. Are you really too stupid to understand the reasoning presented?
Clearly you do not understand the science.
Clearly you are a bluffing loser.
I get tired of you denying everything I offer.
You haven't offered anything. You haven't offered one paper tat demonstrates unguided evolution can produce any molecular machinery. Heck you can't even account for basic asexual reproduction. I cannot find a mistake in research that does not exist. What part of taht are you too dense to grasp?Joe_{April 9, 2015
April
04
Apr
9
09
2015
01:53 PM
1
01
53
PM
PDT}

Joe #162 Jeard, you are dense. If they do not make that assumption then they are getting the age of the crystal, not the earth. Show me where they make that assumption. It's a simple query. Are you really that dim that you cannot grasp that? Oleg T (Johns Hopkins) and I went over this on my blog. Show me where a modern, age of the earth researcher depends on that assumption. Why not? What else is there? Clearly you do not understand the science. We understand that you think so. However we also can see that you cannot produce anything. I get tired of you denying everything I offer. Especially when you cannot point to a mistake in any published research that you disagree with. If you can't find a mistake then . . . Just find a mistake. Just do it. Simple, easy.Jerad_{April 9, 2015
April
04
Apr
9
09
2015
01:05 PM
1
01
05
PM
PDT}

Jeard, you are dense. If they do not make that assumption then they are getting the age of the crystal, not the earth. Are you really that dim that you cannot grasp that? Oleg T (Johns Hopkins) and I went over this on my blog.
No one thinks that a test tube full of the chemical constituents of life will spontaneously act like life.
Why not? What else is there?
Many, many, many, many people have made the case already.
We understand that you think so. However we also can see that you cannot produce anything.Joe_{April 9, 2015
April
04
Apr
9
09
2015
09:15 AM
9
09
15
AM
PDT}

Joe #159, 160 The mistake is the assumption I told you about. What is your problem? Show us where that assumption is made then. Materialism makes it. Why do you ignore my responses? Because you got hung up on jar vs test tube and such. No one thinks that a test tube full of the chemical constituents of life will spontaneously act like life. It's a strawman argument. And you think otherwise so make your case or shut up. Many, many, many, many people have made the case already. Books and papers and research and data. Show me where there is a mistake. STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE. Show us where. Read Kevin Henke or Dalrymple- then buy a vowel Where in one of their books or publications?Jerad_{April 9, 2015
April
04
Apr
9
09
2015
09:10 AM
9
09
10
AM
PDT}

Read Kevin Henke or Dalrymple- then buy a vowelJoe_{April 9, 2015
April
04
Apr
9
09
2015
08:57 AM
8
08
57
AM
PDT}

Jerad:
I’d like you to show me a mistake in a research paper or academic publications.
The mistake is the assumption I told you about. What is your problem?
No one is making the strawman claim you knocked down.
Materialism makes it. Why do you ignore my responses?
You don’t think any research does support unguided evolution so your asking that question is disingenuous.
And you think otherwise so make your case or shut up.
Then it should be easy to show us where that assumption has been made.
STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE.Joe_{April 9, 2015
April
04
Apr
9
09
2015
08:54 AM
8
08
54
AM
PDT}

Joe #157 Jeard, Thank you for admitting that you are totally ignorant of how rad dating works. Now tell us what your ignorance means to my argument? I'd like you to show me a mistake in a research paper or academic publications. I do understand how radiometric dating works, I understand the differential equations that govern them. I've taught them. But I'm trying to get you to show me where some researcher has made the mistake you claim is being made. Big baby. I didn’t say “a bunch of chemicals” you loser. I made a SPECIFIC claim. No one is making the strawman claim you knocked down. That's the important part. If you could find a research paper that supports your trope I will take a look at it. You don't think any research does support unguided evolution so your asking that question is disingenuous. YOU pick a paper and show us a mistake. It should be easy if you're right. Are you really that ignorant? Really? If they don’t make that assumption then they cannot determine the age of the earth, duh. Then it should be easy to show us where that assumption has been made.Jerad_{April 9, 2015
April
04
Apr
9
09
2015
08:49 AM
8
08
49
AM
PDT}

Jeard, Thank you for admitting that you are totally ignorant of how rad dating works. Now tell us what your ignorance means to my argument?
You said test tube, that doesn’t change things
Big baby. I didn't say "a bunch of chemicals" you loser. I made a SPECIFIC claim. If you could find a research paper that supports your trope I will take a look at it. Still waiting.
Show us where someone made that assumption.
Are you really that ignorant? Really? If they don't make that assumption then they cannot determine the age of the earth, duh.Joe_{April 9, 2015
April
04
Apr
9
09
2015
08:12 AM
8
08
12
AM
PDT}

Joe #154, 155 Jerad, I told you already. Grow up. It’s all about the crystals. And if you can’t understand that then perhaps you should shut up about it. Then show me where someone makes that mistake please. You are deranged. I never said anything about a bunch of chemicals in a jar. You must be a big baby. You said test tube, that doesn't change things. If you could find a research paper that supports your trope I will take a look at it. Just pick one you think is wrong and find a mistake. Pick one, any one that is pertinent to the discussion. AGAIN- the radioactive decay date for the age of the earth depends on the assumption that all debris melted, mixed and then solidified- ALL OF IT, INCLUDING ALL CRYSTALS. Show us where someone made that assumption. If the crystals did not melt then we cannot use that methodology to determine the age of the earth because those crystals would be older than the earth. Find someplace where someone made the mistake you're claiming they made. Easy peasy.Jerad_{April 9, 2015
April
04
Apr
9
09
2015
07:51 AM
7
07
51
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 … 8 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply