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

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. 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. Why are crystals important? Because the close off contamination. They are isolated little decay systems. And if they remained intact throughout the earth's creation then we are dating those crystals and not the earth.Joe_{April 9, 2015
April
04
Apr
9
09
2015
07:38 AM
7
07
38
AM
PDT}

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.
In certain configurations, duh. Not just a bunch of chemical in a jar.
You are deranged. I never said anything about a bunch of chemicals in a jar. You must be a big baby.
If you could actually find some scientific error in some research or paper then someone might start taking you seriously.
If you could find a research paper that supports your trope I will take a look at it.Joe_{April 9, 2015
April
04
Apr
9
09
2015
07:35 AM
7
07
35
AM
PDT}

Joe #151, 152 OK, Jerad, you can’t make a case. Got it. Show me something that is wrong in the article I linked to rather than just dismissing it offhandedly. Also materialism makes the claim that living organisms are reducible to physics and chemistry, ie matter, energy and what emerges from their interactions. In certain configurations, duh. Not just a bunch of chemical in a jar. As I said you obviously have no idea. If you could actually find some scientific error in some research or paper then someone might start taking you seriously. Exactly what I would expect if I was right. Go figure. So, you do agree with the consensus? I'm confused. Or show me where they make the incorrect assumption you're talking about. Look, find a mistake somewhere and show you've got a serious criticism. You dance and dodge and say things are wrong but you can't get specific. If you know how science works then you should be able to point to specific statements or finding or procedure that are incorrect and tells us why exactly.Jerad_{April 9, 2015
April
04
Apr
9
09
2015
07:30 AM
7
07
30
AM
PDT}

From wikipedia:
The age of the Earth is 4.54 ± 0.05 billion years (4.54 × 109 years ± 1%).[1][2][3] This age is based on evidence from radiometric age dating of meteorite material and is consistent with the radiometric ages of the oldest-known terrestrial and lunar samples.
Exactly what I would expect if I was right. Go figure.Joe_{April 9, 2015
April
04
Apr
9
09
2015
07:22 AM
7
07
22
AM
PDT}

OK, Jerad, you can't make a case. Got it. Also materialism makes the claim that living organisms are reducible to physics and chemistry, ie matter, energy and what emerges from their interactions. As I said you obviously have no idea.Joe_{April 9, 2015
April
04
Apr
9
09
2015
07:20 AM
7
07
20
AM
PDT}

Joe #149
What about it?
Even the Wikipedia article on the age of the earth mentions it.
I am sure that you think so. Care to try to make a case?
This is a good a place to start as any I suppose: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dalrymple/scientific_age_earth.html
Totally clueless. I didn’t say that is how life got started. However if life is reducible to chemistry and physics what I said should work just like a cell.
Good thing no one is making that claim then eh? Your simplistic critiques belie your lack of understanding of the current theories. Perhaps you'd like to actually point out a mistake in a real research paper rather than just knocking over strawman arguments.Jerad_{April 9, 2015
April
04
Apr
9
09
2015
07:10 AM
7
07
10
AM
PDT}

Jerad:
And what about the data from meteorites?
What about it?
I think you’ll find your concern has been addressed actually.
I am sure that you think so. Care to try to make a case?
Good thing no one is saying that’s how life got started then eh?
Totally clueless. I didn't say that is how life got started. However if life is reducible to chemistry and physics what I said should work just like a cell. Obviously you have no idea.Joe_{April 9, 2015
April
04
Apr
9
09
2015
06:10 AM
6
06
10
AM
PDT}

Joe #147
AGAIN- The faulty assumption is that the earth was so hot that no crystals survived- the crystals that were part of the debris that made the earth. The reasoning depends on that and that is untestable. If the crystals survived then the age measured is that of the crystals and not of the earth.
And what about the data from meteorites? I think you'll find your concern has been addressed actually. If you look at all the data and reasoning.
When we put all of the chemicals of a living organism in a test tube nothing happens- same chemicals but nothing happens.
Good thing no one is saying that's how life got started then eh?Jerad_{April 9, 2015
April
04
Apr
9
09
2015
06:07 AM
6
06
07
AM
PDT}

Jerad:
Pick an article explaining how the age of the earth was determined (the one in Wikipedia is a good start but I prefer the discussion in The Greatest Show on Earth) and point out a mistake in the reasoning please.
How many times do I have to do this, Jerad? I have been over this with you more than once. Obviously you just have issues. AGAIN- The faulty assumption is that the earth was so hot that no crystals survived- the crystals that were part of the debris that made the earth. The reasoning depends on that and that is untestable. If the crystals survived then the age measured is that of the crystals and not of the earth.
No one is saying ‘it just happens’ except in your strawman argument.
What do they say, then, Jerad? Even Antony Flew saw this evidence as evidence for intelligent design. When we put all of the chemicals of a living organism in a test tube nothing happens- same chemicals but nothing happens.Joe_{April 9, 2015
April
04
Apr
9
09
2015
05:54 AM
5
05
54
AM
PDT}

You know Joe. Why let the facts get in the way of your opinion.lack of Focus_{April 8, 2015
April
04
Apr
8
08
2015
11:25 PM
11
11
25
PM
PDT}

I see Joe has lost interest in this thread. Before he pointed out a mistake in the reasoning used to determine the age of the earth. Shall we take that as an indication that he can't find a fault?Jerad_{April 8, 2015
April
04
Apr
8
08
2015
11:21 PM
11
11
21
PM
PDT}

Joe #142
Knowledge of the faulty assumptions. Also in order to determine the age of the earth you have to know how it was formed. We don’t.
Pick an article explaining how the age of the earth was determined (the one in Wikipedia is a good start but I prefer the discussion in The Greatest Show on Earth) and point out a mistake in the reasoning please.
DNA is basically inert. It doesn’t do anything by itself. It definitely doesn’t code. It didn’t make the code. Again you have no idea what you are talking about. As I said programming is the only thing that can explain what we see going on inside of the cell. The “alternative” is “it just happens, dude”. That ain’t science, Jerad.
DNA is inert. Okay. You have yet to find this programming. You have yet to specify where and how it is stored and encoded. You have yet to explain how it affects development. No one is saying 'it just happens' except in your strawman argument.Jerad_{April 7, 2015
April
04
Apr
7
07
2015
10:31 PM
10
10
31
PM
PDT}

Joe, Science is the magic of explaining magic.Mung_{April 7, 2015
April
04
Apr
7
07
2015
09:40 PM
9
09
40
PM
PDT}

Jerad:
What knowledge leads you to think that that dating techniques used to determine the age of the earth might be incorrect? Not what assumption or guess, what knowledge.
Knowledge of the faulty assumptions. Also in order to determine the age of the earth you have to know how it was formed. We don't.
The extra (above and beyond DNA) coding you claim must exist in cells.
DNA is basically inert. It doesn't do anything by itself. It definitely doesn't code. It didn't make the code. Again you have no idea what you are talking about. As I said programming is the only thing that can explain what we see going on inside of the cell. The "alternative" is "it just happens, dude". That ain't science, Jerad.Joe_{April 7, 2015
April
04
Apr
7
07
2015
02:49 PM
2
02
49
PM
PDT}

Joe #140
Knowledge does that, Jerad. Especially knowledge of faulty assumptions.
What knowledge leads you to think that that dating techniques used to determine the age of the earth might be incorrect? Not what assumption or guess, what knowledge.
What extra programming? There isn’t any extra programming. There is just the correct amount. And that is the only thing that can explain what we observe inside of a cell. Again, it’s a knowledge thing.
The extra (above and beyond DNA) coding you claim must exist in cells. Why are you so shy now? You've said on your own blog such programming has to exist. I'm just asking if you've found it yet. Have you determined how it is encoded and stored? Have you figured out how it affects development? Do you know how that programming is altered from species to species?Jerad_{April 7, 2015
April
04
Apr
7
07
2015
01:46 PM
1
01
46
PM
PDT}

I don’t see how you can do any kind of historical science if you dispute dating techniques.
Knowledge does that, Jerad. Especially knowledge of faulty assumptions. What extra programming? There isn't any extra programming. There is just the correct amount. And that is the only thing that can explain what we observe inside of a cell. Again, it's a knowledge thing.Joe_{April 7, 2015
April
04
Apr
7
07
2015
09:58 AM
9
09
58
AM
PDT}

Joe #138
Consensus? BWAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHA Science is not done via consensus and the “evidence” for a 4.5x billion year old earth relies on untestable assumptions.
So you do dispute it. I don't see how you can do any kind of historical science if you dispute dating techniques. PS Found your extra programming in the cell yet?Jerad_{April 7, 2015
April
04
Apr
7
07
2015
09:51 AM
9
09
51
AM
PDT}

Does that mean you dispute the consensus view of 4.54 billion years, give or take some 50 million years?
Consensus? BWAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHA Science is not done via consensus and the "evidence" for a 4.5x billion year old earth relies on untestable assumptions.Joe_{April 7, 2015
April
04
Apr
7
07
2015
09:44 AM
9
09
44
AM
PDT}

Joe #136
I don’t know and anyone who says they do is lying.
Does that mean you dispute the consensus view of 4.54 billion years, give or take some 50 million years?Jerad_{April 7, 2015
April
04
Apr
7
07
2015
08:59 AM
8
08
59
AM
PDT}

Clarice- My claims are supported by science and your questions prove that you are clueless.
Joe, what is the speed of the Earth’s rotation in Boston? How about in Phoenix, and at the North Pole? How many hours, minutes, and seconds were there in an Earth day (one rotation of the Earth) a billion years ago, 500 million years ago, and 1 million years ago?How many days were there in a year (one Earth orbit of the Sun) 500 million years ago?
What does any of that have to do with what I have posted? I will tell you- absolutely NOTHING. Frankly, I'm not surprised.
And to repeat: Walk us all through how nature was and is designed, in detail.
Only a scientifically illiterate moron would ask for such a thing. Enter sock puppet "Clarice".
Please also tell us how old you think this planet and the universe are.
I don't know and anyone who says they do is lying.Joe_{April 7, 2015
April
04
Apr
7
07
2015
08:14 AM
8
08
14
AM
PDT}

Joe, I see that you can't support your claims and can't answer questions that are relevant to your claims, and that you are determined to continue to live down to your miserable reputation. Frankly, I'm not surprised.Clarice_{April 6, 2015
April
04
Apr
6
06
2015
11:27 PM
11
11
27
PM
PDT}

Clarice, obviously you are just a scientifically illiterate troll. Good luck with that. If you ever find some evidence for an alternative to ID please present it. Until then please hold your breath.Joe_{April 6, 2015
April
04
Apr
6
06
2015
02:58 AM
2
02
58
AM
PDT}

Joe, in addition to the other questions I've asked you that you have avoided, I have more questions. When I said, "Joe and ppolish, as Piotr pointed out, the rotation speed of the Earth has changed greatly since its formation. The distance between Earth’s moon and the Earth has also changed greatly. Yet there has been life on Earth for over 3 billion years.", you responded, "Yes, that is the propaganda, anyway." Since you call what I said "propaganda", do you believe that the Earth's rotation speed has remained fixed since its formation, and that the distance between Earth’s moon and the Earth has also remained fixed, and that life has not been on Earth for over 3 billion years? If so, please explain and provide your evidence that supports your beliefs. And to repeat: Walk us all through how nature was and is designed, in detail. Please also tell us how old you think this planet and the universe are.Clarice_{April 5, 2015
April
04
Apr
5
05
2015
08:24 PM
8
08
24
PM
PDT}

Joe, you have no idea what my "position" is, whatever that means. You obviously assume that anyone who doesn't agree with everything you say is uneducated, and deserving of nothing but your angry attacks. I'm not surprised that most people ignore you, including other IDC advocates. Since you obviously feel that you are a top expert on every scientific subject, maybe you would be willing to enlighten the readers here about your education and accomplishments in various scientific fields?Clarice_{April 5, 2015
April
04
Apr
5
05
2015
07:58 PM
7
07
58
PM
PDT}

Folks, it's time to end this debate. The speed of the earth surface due to rotation is given in meters per hour or something similar. It's relative to the center of the earth. Rotational speed is really angular speed and is given either in degrees per hour or radians per hour. Surface speed is proportional to angular speed and distance from the center.Mapou_{April 5, 2015
April
04
Apr
5
05
2015
10:10 AM
10
10
10
AM
PDT}

#126 Dr JDD, It can be calculated from analyses and simulations of the Earth/Moon system (the tidal locking mechanism), and has been confirmed by independent evidence. Some organisms (especially corals, but also bivalves, bryozoans, brachiopods, and stromatolite-forming microorganisms) deposit diurnal growth rings as well as producing annual growth patterns. For example, studies of Palaeozoic rugose corals show that one year was about 400 days long in the Middle Devonian (ca. 385 Mya) and 387 days in the Late Carboniferous (Pennsylvanian, ca. 300 Mya). Neoproterozoic stromatolites show some 435 days per year, etc.Piotr_{April 5, 2015
April
04
Apr
5
05
2015
09:01 AM
9
09
01
AM
PDT}

Dr JDD: How do we know the earth’s rotation was 4x faster than it is now? Newton's laws determine the effects. We can directly observe the Moon's tidal forces. The rate is not constant due to continental drift, but the extrapolation is reasonable. Independent confirmation and calibration is available by studying sediments that are dependent on daily tidal motions, such as sandstone or siltstone.Zachriel_{April 5, 2015
April
04
Apr
5
05
2015
08:51 AM
8
08
51
AM
PDT}

Dr JDD- Theirs relies on just-so cosmic collisions to produce the earth's rotation. They cannot explain its current speed let alone 4x faster. ;)Joe_{April 5, 2015
April
04
Apr
5
05
2015
08:29 AM
8
08
29
AM
PDT}

Piotr:
Once again: the linear speed of a point on the equator is an arbitrarily chosen, pretty meaningless parameter.
Cuz you say so? Spare us your pompous declarations.
What matters for the strength of a planet’s magnetic field is the size of the molten part of the core, the presence of an internal source of heat to drive convection currents, and the angular speed of the planet’s rotation. Surface equatorial speed isn’t informative in this respect.
The strength of the magnetic field is directly correlated to the planet's rotation. I am sure surface equatorial speed has some influence on the core's convection currents.
Life developed where it could develop.
Life develops where it was intelligently designed to develop.
The Earth’s rotation has slowed down to 25% of the original value, and there’s still life on it.
Non-sequitur. And you still haven't addressed the mixing of the gases issue.
Mercury, which is smaller than Mars and rotates extremely slowly (its day is longer than its year) has a magnetic field
Most likely magnetized due to its proximity to the Sun. Have you ever put metal into a magnetic field for a period of time?
“The same narrow circumstances that allow us to exist also provide us with the best over all conditions for making scientific discoveries.” “The one place that has observers is the one place that also has perfect solar eclipses.” “There is a final, even more bizarre twist. Because of Moon-induced tides, the Moon is gradually receding from Earth at 3.82 centimeters per year. In ten million years will seem noticeably smaller. At the same time, the Sun’s apparent girth has been swelling by six centimeters per year for ages, as is normal in stellar evolution. These two processes, working together, should end total solar eclipses in about 250 million years, a mere 5 percent of the age of the Earth. This relatively small window of opportunity also happens to coincide with the existence of intelligent life. Put another way, the most habitable place in the Solar System yields the best view of solar eclipses just when observers can best appreciate them.”
The above quotes are from "The Privileged Planet"Joe_{April 5, 2015
April
04
Apr
5
05
2015
08:27 AM
8
08
27
AM
PDT}

How do we know the earth's rotation was 4x faster than it is now?Dr JDD_{April 5, 2015
April
04
Apr
5
05
2015
07:56 AM
7
07
56
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 … 8 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply