Where is this mountain of evidence for evolution?

For radiocarbon dating to be reliable scientists need to make a number of vital assumptions. Firstly, Dr Libby assumed that C14 decays at a constant rate. However, experimental evidence indicates that C14 decay is slowing down and that millennia ago it decayed much faster than is observed today.

What experimental evidence, where? Please provide a bibliography of scientific research papers that confirm this claim.

Secondly, the theory behind C14 dating demands that there is the same rate of cosmic production of radioactive isotopes throughout time. The industrial revolution has belched hundreds of thousands of tons of carbon gases into the atmosphere increasing the C12 ratio and atomic weapons testing have increased neutron levels.

Again, do you have a bibliography of research papers confirming this claim?

C14 is found in coal and oil is in trace amounts, and those concentrations are formed by the current decay of uranium-thorium in the coal, and by modern microorganism in the coal and surrounding rocks. But again, they are trace amounts and not found in all coal an oil deposits.

Thirdly, the environment in which the artefact lies heavily impacts on the rate of decay. For example, C14 leaches at an accelerated rate from organic material saturated in water, especially saline water.

How would that affect the concentration of either C12 or C14 in such an artifact?

Fourthly, for C14 to test accurately the artefact must have been protected from contamination. Organic matter, being porous, can easily be contaminated by organic carbon in groundwater. This increases the C12 content and interferes with the carbon ratio.
Radio Carbon Dating

That would make the artifact appear to be younger, not older.
 
  • Thanks
Reactions: cnm
And the hits just keep on coming. Still waiting to hear if orogenicman will opt for defending his adolescent friends or save his credibility. He can't do both.
He doesn't have to do either. His credibility doesn't depend on what other people write but on what he writes; just as yours depends on what you ignore and what you whine about.
It's interesting that the whiner is whining about having an "adult discussion" when he has been central among the whiners who consistently and ignorantly denied evidence has been presented for biological evolution in spite of the vast amount of evidence presented.
No evidence of evolution has been presented. Evidence of creatures similar to man has been presented but no evidence that any of them evolved into man. That is where facts end and speculation begins.
A vast array of evidence for evolution has been presented. Ignorance and denial of the facts presented being a result of your YEC'ist beliefs is not a viable excuse for your whining.
You've proven nothing and never will. Your theory is faith based. Fossils only show a previous existence, not a transformation. You have no way of proving otherwise, all you can do is speculate and make claims you cannot back up with facts, that's why it's called a "theory".
 
Is this a test? What is the alternative? The magic hand of GOD? Well, could be. The THEORY of evolution in no way removes a divine hand, it's just a tool to understand how things work now under scientific thinking. If YOU have a better theory, let's read it, go for it. if it works and it makes sense, you might get a Nobel prize. But I have a feeling this isn't about truth or facts.
 
Is this a test? What is the alternative? The magic hand of GOD? Well, could be. The THEORY of evolution in no way removes a divine hand, it's just a tool to understand how things work now under scientific thinking. If YOU have a better theory, let's read it, go for it. if it works and it makes sense, you might get a Nobel prize. But I have a feeling this isn't about truth or facts.

No one is saying that the theory of evolution is proof that there is no god. It only disproves the book of genesis, which is widely regarded as fiction anyway. By the way, the Nobel has already been given to scientists who work on the theory.
 
Is this a test? What is the alternative? The magic hand of GOD? Well, could be. The THEORY of evolution in no way removes a divine hand, it's just a tool to understand how things work now under scientific thinking. If YOU have a better theory, let's read it, go for it. if it works and it makes sense, you might get a Nobel prize. But I have a feeling this isn't about truth or facts.
The absence of an alternative theory does not validate another.
 
And the hits just keep on coming. Still waiting to hear if orogenicman will opt for defending his adolescent friends or save his credibility. He can't do both.
He doesn't have to do either. His credibility doesn't depend on what other people write but on what he writes; just as yours depends on what you ignore and what you whine about.
It's interesting that the whiner is whining about having an "adult discussion" when he has been central among the whiners who consistently and ignorantly denied evidence has been presented for biological evolution in spite of the vast amount of evidence presented.
No evidence of evolution has been presented. Evidence of creatures similar to man has been presented but no evidence that any of them evolved into man. That is where facts end and speculation begins.
A vast array of evidence for evolution has been presented. Ignorance and denial of the facts presented being a result of your YEC'ist beliefs is not a viable excuse for your whining.
You've proven nothing and never will. Your theory is faith based. Fossils only show a previous existence, not a transformation. You have no way of proving otherwise, all you can do is speculate and make claims you cannot back up with facts, that's why it's called a "theory".
Your retreat into denial of the facts is pretty typical for religious extremists. The fact of biological evolution is most strongly denied among fundamentalist Christians for obvious reasons: their dogma is directly challenged by the fact of an ancient earth and human ancestry with a lineage of more than a mere 6,000 years.

It's a shame that facts contradict your fairy tale view of existence but as usual, you offer nothing but whining to counter the facts.
 
More evidence:

New study hints at spontaneous appearance of primordial DNA -- ScienceDaily

New study hints at spontaneous appearance of primordial DNA
Date:
April 7, 2015

Source:
University of Colorado at Boulder

Summary:
The self-organization properties of DNA-like molecular fragments four billion years ago may have guided their own growth into repeating chemical chains long enough to act as a basis for primitive life, says a new study.

More at the link.
 
Is this a test? What is the alternative? The magic hand of GOD? Well, could be. The THEORY of evolution in no way removes a divine hand, it's just a tool to understand how things work now under scientific thinking. If YOU have a better theory, let's read it, go for it. if it works and it makes sense, you might get a Nobel prize. But I have a feeling this isn't about truth or facts.
You're correct in that truth or facts are meaningless to the fundie zealots.
 
EOTS SAID:

“Isnt God awesome...”

There is no 'god' as perceived by theists; religion and 'god' are creations of man.

And as one of man's more dubious creations, god is far from 'awesome.'
 
How Good are those Young-Earth Arguments Radiocarbon Dating

Creationist authors claim that there is scientific evidence for a very young Earth, but their reasoning is invariably flawed by false initial assumptions and a total disregard for the scientific evidence concerning the history of the Earth, its geology, its physics, and its chemistry. Their calculations are meaningless and cannot be taken seriously.
 
He doesn't have to do either. His credibility doesn't depend on what other people write but on what he writes; just as yours depends on what you ignore and what you whine about.
It's interesting that the whiner is whining about having an "adult discussion" when he has been central among the whiners who consistently and ignorantly denied evidence has been presented for biological evolution in spite of the vast amount of evidence presented.
No evidence of evolution has been presented. Evidence of creatures similar to man has been presented but no evidence that any of them evolved into man. That is where facts end and speculation begins.
A vast array of evidence for evolution has been presented. Ignorance and denial of the facts presented being a result of your YEC'ist beliefs is not a viable excuse for your whining.
You've proven nothing and never will. Your theory is faith based. Fossils only show a previous existence, not a transformation. You have no way of proving otherwise, all you can do is speculate and make claims you cannot back up with facts, that's why it's called a "theory".
Your retreat into denial of the facts is pretty typical for religious extremists. The fact of biological evolution is most strongly denied among fundamentalist Christians for obvious reasons: their dogma is directly challenged by the fact of an ancient earth and human ancestry with a lineage of more than a mere 6,000 years.

It's a shame that facts contradict your fairy tale view of existence but as usual, you offer nothing but whining to counter the facts.
Feel free to post a comment where I have even mentioned the age of the earth. The only argument you seem to have is to call everyone who doesn't buy your theory a "fundie". So please post something I've said to back that up. Go ahead, I'll wait.
 
How Good are those Young-Earth Arguments Radiocarbon Dating

Creationist authors claim that there is scientific evidence for a very young Earth, but their reasoning is invariably flawed by false initial assumptions and a total disregard for the scientific evidence concerning the history of the Earth, its geology, its physics, and its chemistry. Their calculations are meaningless and cannot be taken seriously.
Just as creationism is meaningless and cannot be taken seriously.
 
It's interesting that the whiner is whining about having an "adult discussion" when he has been central among the whiners who consistently and ignorantly denied evidence has been presented for biological evolution in spite of the vast amount of evidence presented.
No evidence of evolution has been presented. Evidence of creatures similar to man has been presented but no evidence that any of them evolved into man. That is where facts end and speculation begins.
A vast array of evidence for evolution has been presented. Ignorance and denial of the facts presented being a result of your YEC'ist beliefs is not a viable excuse for your whining.
You've proven nothing and never will. Your theory is faith based. Fossils only show a previous existence, not a transformation. You have no way of proving otherwise, all you can do is speculate and make claims you cannot back up with facts, that's why it's called a "theory".
Your retreat into denial of the facts is pretty typical for religious extremists. The fact of biological evolution is most strongly denied among fundamentalist Christians for obvious reasons: their dogma is directly challenged by the fact of an ancient earth and human ancestry with a lineage of more than a mere 6,000 years.

It's a shame that facts contradict your fairy tale view of existence but as usual, you offer nothing but whining to counter the facts.
Feel free to post a comment where I have even mentioned the age of the earth. The only argument you seem to have is to call everyone who doesn't buy your theory a "fundie". So please post something I've said to back that up. Go ahead, I'll wait.
It's you fundie zealots who are the deniers of the fact of evolution. So please post some relevant data concerning the Genesis fable that will refute an ancient earth and negate the scientific data for biological evolution. Go ahead, I'll wait.
 
More evidence:

Predation Linked To Evolution Study Suggests -- ScienceDaily

Predation Linked To Evolution, Study Suggests

Date:
September 14, 2007

Source:
Virginia Tech

Summary:
The fossil record seems to indicate that the diversity of marine creatures increased and decreased over hundreds of millions of years in step with predator-prey encounters. For decades, there has been a debate between paleontologists, biologists, and ecologists on the role of ecological interactions, such as predation, in the long term patterns of animal evolution.

The fossil record seems to indicate that the diversity of marine creatures increased and decreased over hundreds of millions of years in step with predator-prey encounters, Virginia Tech geoscientists report in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science.

For decades, there has been a debate between paleontologists, biologists, and ecologists on the role of ecological interactions, such as predation, in the long term patterns of animal evolution.

John Warren Huntley, a postdoctoral scientist in the Department of Geosciences at Virginia Tech, and Geosciences Professor Micha³ Kowalewski decided to look at the importance of ecology by surveying the literature for incidents of predation in marine invertebrates, such as clams and their relatives.

"Today, certain predators leave easy to identify marks on the shells of their prey, such as clean, round holes," said Huntley. "Such holes drilled by predators can also be found in fossil shells."

The researchers also looked for repair scars on the shells of creatures that survived an attack.

The study was conducted by looking at studies which reported the frequency of drill holes and repair scars in fossil species from the last 550 million years.

First Huntley and Kowalewski found that predation increased notably about 480 million years ago, some 50 million years earlier than previous studies have found. "The earlier studies were based on changes in morphology -- predators with stronger claws and jaws and prey with more ornamented shells. We looked at the frequency of attacks, which increased about 50 million years before the changes in armor," said Huntley.

But the most notable discovery is the observation that the incidence of drill holes and repair scars are strikingly parallel to Sepkoski's diversity curve for marine invertebrates. This diversity curve, compiled by the late Jack Sepkoski of the University of Chicago, records the origination and extinction of marine animal genera through the last 540 million years (Phanerozoic). "There is a strong correlation between predation intensity and global marine biodiversity in the Phanerozoic," Huntley said.

In their article, "Strong Coupling of Predation Intensity and Diversity in the Phanerozoic Fossil Record," the researchers offer three rival hypotheses to explain the correlation. "It's the classic problem with interpreting a correlation," said Huntley "you have to be careful when ascribing a cause. Let's say factors X and Y are correlated. A change in X could cause a change in Y, a change in Y could cause a change in X, or X and Y could both be controlled by another factor."

The first hypothesis is that predation intensity could be driving diversity. "In this case, ecological interactions would matter in evolution," said Huntley. "Organisms evolve over the long term in response to their enemies, and with increased predation intensity more species evolve."

The second hypothesis is that as biodiversity increased, by chance predators with more complex feeding strategies evolved. "Predatory techniques like drilling and peeling shells are more evolutionarily-derived than more primitive forms of predation like whole ingestion. In this scenario you would expect to evolve sophisticated forms of predation only when diversity is high," said Huntley.

And the third hypothesis is that something else is driving both predation and biodiversity. "Some periods have more sedimentary rocks, and therefore more fossils, preserved than others," said Huntley. "There is less diversity to be observed when there are fewer fossils to study. Perhaps this sampling bias affects our ability to find samples with high predation intensities as well."

"Now we will try to pick this apart," said Huntley. "We can test these hypotheses by examining relevant linkages between predation intensity and diversity in modern oceanic environments. Also, understanding the true nature of Sepkoski's curve will help us interpret our findings. Is it biological? Is it the product of uneven sampling?"




Story Source:

The above story is based on materials provided by Virginia Tech. Note: Materials may be edited for content and length.

Cite This Page:

Virginia Tech. "Predation Linked To Evolution, Study Suggests." ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 14 September 2007. <www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/09/070910172717.htm>.
 
No evidence of evolution has been presented. Evidence of creatures similar to man has been presented but no evidence that any of them evolved into man. That is where facts end and speculation begins.
A vast array of evidence for evolution has been presented. Ignorance and denial of the facts presented being a result of your YEC'ist beliefs is not a viable excuse for your whining.
You've proven nothing and never will. Your theory is faith based. Fossils only show a previous existence, not a transformation. You have no way of proving otherwise, all you can do is speculate and make claims you cannot back up with facts, that's why it's called a "theory".
Your retreat into denial of the facts is pretty typical for religious extremists. The fact of biological evolution is most strongly denied among fundamentalist Christians for obvious reasons: their dogma is directly challenged by the fact of an ancient earth and human ancestry with a lineage of more than a mere 6,000 years.

It's a shame that facts contradict your fairy tale view of existence but as usual, you offer nothing but whining to counter the facts.
Feel free to post a comment where I have even mentioned the age of the earth. The only argument you seem to have is to call everyone who doesn't buy your theory a "fundie". So please post something I've said to back that up. Go ahead, I'll wait.
It's you fundie zealots who are the deniers of the fact of evolution. So please post some relevant data concerning the Genesis fable that will refute an ancient earth and negate the scientific data for biological evolution. Go ahead, I'll wait.
A predictable answer. You can't provide proof of a claim, so you go straight to the "prove me wrong" argument. You're a joke.
 
More evidence:

Predation Linked To Evolution Study Suggests -- ScienceDaily

Predation Linked To Evolution, Study Suggests

Date:
September 14, 2007

Source:
Virginia Tech

Summary:
The fossil record seems to indicate that the diversity of marine creatures increased and decreased over hundreds of millions of years in step with predator-prey encounters. For decades, there has been a debate between paleontologists, biologists, and ecologists on the role of ecological interactions, such as predation, in the long term patterns of animal evolution.

The fossil record seems to indicate that the diversity of marine creatures increased and decreased over hundreds of millions of years in step with predator-prey encounters, Virginia Tech geoscientists report in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science.

For decades, there has been a debate between paleontologists, biologists, and ecologists on the role of ecological interactions, such as predation, in the long term patterns of animal evolution.

John Warren Huntley, a postdoctoral scientist in the Department of Geosciences at Virginia Tech, and Geosciences Professor Micha³ Kowalewski decided to look at the importance of ecology by surveying the literature for incidents of predation in marine invertebrates, such as clams and their relatives.

"Today, certain predators leave easy to identify marks on the shells of their prey, such as clean, round holes," said Huntley. "Such holes drilled by predators can also be found in fossil shells."

The researchers also looked for repair scars on the shells of creatures that survived an attack.

The study was conducted by looking at studies which reported the frequency of drill holes and repair scars in fossil species from the last 550 million years.

First Huntley and Kowalewski found that predation increased notably about 480 million years ago, some 50 million years earlier than previous studies have found. "The earlier studies were based on changes in morphology -- predators with stronger claws and jaws and prey with more ornamented shells. We looked at the frequency of attacks, which increased about 50 million years before the changes in armor," said Huntley.

But the most notable discovery is the observation that the incidence of drill holes and repair scars are strikingly parallel to Sepkoski's diversity curve for marine invertebrates. This diversity curve, compiled by the late Jack Sepkoski of the University of Chicago, records the origination and extinction of marine animal genera through the last 540 million years (Phanerozoic). "There is a strong correlation between predation intensity and global marine biodiversity in the Phanerozoic," Huntley said.

In their article, "Strong Coupling of Predation Intensity and Diversity in the Phanerozoic Fossil Record," the researchers offer three rival hypotheses to explain the correlation. "It's the classic problem with interpreting a correlation," said Huntley "you have to be careful when ascribing a cause. Let's say factors X and Y are correlated. A change in X could cause a change in Y, a change in Y could cause a change in X, or X and Y could both be controlled by another factor."

The first hypothesis is that predation intensity could be driving diversity. "In this case, ecological interactions would matter in evolution," said Huntley. "Organisms evolve over the long term in response to their enemies, and with increased predation intensity more species evolve."

The second hypothesis is that as biodiversity increased, by chance predators with more complex feeding strategies evolved. "Predatory techniques like drilling and peeling shells are more evolutionarily-derived than more primitive forms of predation like whole ingestion. In this scenario you would expect to evolve sophisticated forms of predation only when diversity is high," said Huntley.

And the third hypothesis is that something else is driving both predation and biodiversity. "Some periods have more sedimentary rocks, and therefore more fossils, preserved than others," said Huntley. "There is less diversity to be observed when there are fewer fossils to study. Perhaps this sampling bias affects our ability to find samples with high predation intensities as well."

"Now we will try to pick this apart," said Huntley. "We can test these hypotheses by examining relevant linkages between predation intensity and diversity in modern oceanic environments. Also, understanding the true nature of Sepkoski's curve will help us interpret our findings. Is it biological? Is it the product of uneven sampling?"




Story Source:

The above story is based on materials provided by Virginia Tech. Note: Materials may be edited for content and length.

Cite This Page:

Virginia Tech. "Predation Linked To Evolution, Study Suggests." ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 14 September 2007. <www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/09/070910172717.htm>.
The key phrase is "Study Suggests" The key word - "Suggests". That means more "speculation". Thank you.
 
A vast array of evidence for evolution has been presented. Ignorance and denial of the facts presented being a result of your YEC'ist beliefs is not a viable excuse for your whining.
You've proven nothing and never will. Your theory is faith based. Fossils only show a previous existence, not a transformation. You have no way of proving otherwise, all you can do is speculate and make claims you cannot back up with facts, that's why it's called a "theory".
Your retreat into denial of the facts is pretty typical for religious extremists. The fact of biological evolution is most strongly denied among fundamentalist Christians for obvious reasons: their dogma is directly challenged by the fact of an ancient earth and human ancestry with a lineage of more than a mere 6,000 years.

It's a shame that facts contradict your fairy tale view of existence but as usual, you offer nothing but whining to counter the facts.
Feel free to post a comment where I have even mentioned the age of the earth. The only argument you seem to have is to call everyone who doesn't buy your theory a "fundie". So please post something I've said to back that up. Go ahead, I'll wait.
It's you fundie zealots who are the deniers of the fact of evolution. So please post some relevant data concerning the Genesis fable that will refute an ancient earth and negate the scientific data for biological evolution. Go ahead, I'll wait.
A predictable answer. You can't provide proof of a claim, so you go straight to the "prove me wrong" argument. You're a joke.
Of course, you're in denial. That was predictable as you have done nothing but spam the thread with your pointless stuttering and mumbling as the facts of evolution have been presented to you. It's understandable that you science loathing fundie Christians recoil at the facts of the many sciences that contribute to our understanding of earth history and our biological ancestry. That knowledge leaves less and less room for the fear and superstition you call religious faith.
 
More evidence:

Predation Linked To Evolution Study Suggests -- ScienceDaily

Predation Linked To Evolution, Study Suggests

Date:
September 14, 2007

Source:
Virginia Tech

Summary:
The fossil record seems to indicate that the diversity of marine creatures increased and decreased over hundreds of millions of years in step with predator-prey encounters. For decades, there has been a debate between paleontologists, biologists, and ecologists on the role of ecological interactions, such as predation, in the long term patterns of animal evolution.

The fossil record seems to indicate that the diversity of marine creatures increased and decreased over hundreds of millions of years in step with predator-prey encounters, Virginia Tech geoscientists report in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science.

For decades, there has been a debate between paleontologists, biologists, and ecologists on the role of ecological interactions, such as predation, in the long term patterns of animal evolution.

John Warren Huntley, a postdoctoral scientist in the Department of Geosciences at Virginia Tech, and Geosciences Professor Micha³ Kowalewski decided to look at the importance of ecology by surveying the literature for incidents of predation in marine invertebrates, such as clams and their relatives.

"Today, certain predators leave easy to identify marks on the shells of their prey, such as clean, round holes," said Huntley. "Such holes drilled by predators can also be found in fossil shells."

The researchers also looked for repair scars on the shells of creatures that survived an attack.

The study was conducted by looking at studies which reported the frequency of drill holes and repair scars in fossil species from the last 550 million years.

First Huntley and Kowalewski found that predation increased notably about 480 million years ago, some 50 million years earlier than previous studies have found. "The earlier studies were based on changes in morphology -- predators with stronger claws and jaws and prey with more ornamented shells. We looked at the frequency of attacks, which increased about 50 million years before the changes in armor," said Huntley.

But the most notable discovery is the observation that the incidence of drill holes and repair scars are strikingly parallel to Sepkoski's diversity curve for marine invertebrates. This diversity curve, compiled by the late Jack Sepkoski of the University of Chicago, records the origination and extinction of marine animal genera through the last 540 million years (Phanerozoic). "There is a strong correlation between predation intensity and global marine biodiversity in the Phanerozoic," Huntley said.

In their article, "Strong Coupling of Predation Intensity and Diversity in the Phanerozoic Fossil Record," the researchers offer three rival hypotheses to explain the correlation. "It's the classic problem with interpreting a correlation," said Huntley "you have to be careful when ascribing a cause. Let's say factors X and Y are correlated. A change in X could cause a change in Y, a change in Y could cause a change in X, or X and Y could both be controlled by another factor."

The first hypothesis is that predation intensity could be driving diversity. "In this case, ecological interactions would matter in evolution," said Huntley. "Organisms evolve over the long term in response to their enemies, and with increased predation intensity more species evolve."

The second hypothesis is that as biodiversity increased, by chance predators with more complex feeding strategies evolved. "Predatory techniques like drilling and peeling shells are more evolutionarily-derived than more primitive forms of predation like whole ingestion. In this scenario you would expect to evolve sophisticated forms of predation only when diversity is high," said Huntley.

And the third hypothesis is that something else is driving both predation and biodiversity. "Some periods have more sedimentary rocks, and therefore more fossils, preserved than others," said Huntley. "There is less diversity to be observed when there are fewer fossils to study. Perhaps this sampling bias affects our ability to find samples with high predation intensities as well."

"Now we will try to pick this apart," said Huntley. "We can test these hypotheses by examining relevant linkages between predation intensity and diversity in modern oceanic environments. Also, understanding the true nature of Sepkoski's curve will help us interpret our findings. Is it biological? Is it the product of uneven sampling?"




Story Source:

The above story is based on materials provided by Virginia Tech. Note: Materials may be edited for content and length.

Cite This Page:

Virginia Tech. "Predation Linked To Evolution, Study Suggests." ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 14 September 2007. <www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/09/070910172717.htm>.
The key phrase is "Study Suggests" The key word - "Suggests". That means more "speculation". Thank you.
As opposed to "the gawds did it". Yet, you fundie zealots have many gawds.
 
Back
Top Bottom