Evolution a hoax?

[Wowbagger]

The diplomatic approach doesn't work with them,I gave it up years ago.

I've had some success with being diplomatic.

Actually, much of my success in debating creationists probably has more to do with my pragmatic approach (citing the science in ways it is useful, instead of merely citing the evidence). However, that approach would never work nearly as well if I acted (as Phil Plait would put it) "like a dick".

I think being as diplomatic as possible is still an essential ingredient no matter what approach you take with your arguments.

 

[Wowbagger]

Their what?

You see, this is part of the problem. You guys are sooo quick to insult creationists you fail to acknowledge that most of them are, in fact, fairly intelligent.

Appeal to some aspect of their intelligence that does not normally get proded by their beliefs, and you have a better shot of them seeing your side of things; than if you assumed they had no intelligence what-so-ever.

Maybe we should start a separate thread on this: A Debate About How to Debate. Maybe.

 

[tsig]

You see, this is part of the problem. You guys are sooo quick to insult creationists you fail to acknowledge that most of them are, in fact, fairly intelligent. Appeal to some aspect of their intelligence that does not normally get proded by their beliefs, and you have a better shot of them seeing your side of things; than if you assumed they had no intelligence what-so-ever.

Maybe we should start a separate thread on this: A Debate About How to Debate. Maybe.

Could you name them?

 

[Wowbagger]

Could you name them?

Well, maybe not all of them.

 

[randman]

I guess the fossil ecord and genetic comparisons are hoaxes also.

Maybe you should take another look at the data?

In three previous articles (here, here, and here), I discussed bones that are supposed to be millions of years old and yet have soft tissue and large organic molecules in them. This is quite hard to understand if the fossils truly are that old, since soft tissue and large organic molecules are expected to decay fairly rapidly, even under ideal conditions. For example, an interdisciplinary approach to understanding how large organic molecules such as protein and DNA could be preserved over time suggested that even if a fossil were kept at the freezing point of water, collagen (a protein found in bone) should decay away so that it becomes undetectable in just under three million years.1 Nevertheless, collagen has been found in fossils that are supposed to be more than twenty times that old!
Of course, if you are desperate to believe in an ancient earth and are therefore forced to think such fossils are really that old, you could hope that either very special conditions existed for the fossils in which the soft tissue and proteins were found, or you could hope that the soft tissue and proteins were the result of some kind of contamination. A recent paper in PLoS ONE has, in my opinion, laid both of those hopes to rest.

The paper examines samples from a mosasaur fossil that is 70 million years old, according to scientifically-irresponsible dating techniques. A microscopic analysis of this fossil showed all sorts of amazing things. For example, when the bone was etched with acid and then examined with a microscope, several structures that look like mature bone cells (called osteocytes) were found. In addition, all sorts of fibrous tissue was found, and amazingly enough, that fibrous tissue absorbed dye just like connective tissue from a modern bone!2

But what was the fibrous tissue made of? The authors show beyond all reasonable doubt that it contained collagen, which is a complex protein found in all bones. In my mind, their detailed analysis is part of what makes this paper so important.

http://blog.drwile.com/?cat=3

I've always been more of an old earther/Ider, but you gotta hand it to the YECers on this stuff. Soft tissue, bio-organic molecules, red blood cells just keep being found in dino bones, even in one case on the outside of the bone. Basic biochemistry tells you these bones are not millions of years old. Maybe not 6000 years either, but still, the old paradigm has fallen apart for anyone willing to look at the data.

 

[Travis]

So someone says a Mosasaur fossil can't be more than three million years old? Has this been evaluated by anyone else?

 

[randman]

So someone says a Mosasaur fossil can't be more than three million years old? Has this been evaluated by anyone else?

Look it up. The data is abundantly clear.

 

[Wowbagger]

...Of course not all of them are intelligent.

 

[randman]

...Of course not all of them are intelligent.

You have a problem with data?

I guess trying to say soft tissue was not from the original bones and bacteria hasn't worked out too well for you guys. Now, it's attack the messenger.

 

[Andrew Wiggin]

Don't worry, creationists will find a way to misinterpret this. They'll probably just conclude that tumbleweeds are irreducibly complex.

Well, tumbleweeds DO have a bit of fractal nature to them. Irreducibly complex? Naaah.

 

[Acleron]

For example, when the bone was etched with acid and then examined with a microscope, several structures that look like mature bone cells (called osteocytes) were found.

Maybe you should take another look at the data?

Etch fresh bones with acid and no cells will remain. The reason you treat such items with acid is to get rid of any organic contaminants.

And as Wile does not give a reference to his sources, why don't YOU look at the data?

 

[stokes234]

Maybe you should take another look at the data?


http://blog.drwile.com/?cat=3

I've always been more of an old earther/Ider, but you gotta hand it to the YECers on this stuff. Soft tissue, bio-organic molecules, red blood cells just keep being found in dino bones, even in one case on the outside of the bone. Basic biochemistry tells you these bones are not millions of years old. Maybe not 6000 years either, but still, the old paradigm has fallen apart for anyone willing to look at the data.

A scientist able to prove that dozens of dating techniques were incorrect would up-end a hundred years of science and become a multi, multi millionaire, and would earn so many nobel prizes he could melt them down and have them forged into a car*. Strange how nobody has been interested enough to follow this up.


*The car would be called the Nobelmobile, by the way.

 

[Belz...]

I've always been more of an old earther/Ider, but you gotta hand it to the YECers on this stuff. Soft tissue, bio-organic molecules, red blood cells just keep being found in dino bones, even in one case on the outside of the bone.

You don't have to "hand it to them". Their claim is false.

 

[Cayvmann]

Hey, if we have such fresh sources of organic materials, then we should get to cloning them there dinosaurs, and then we can ride them, like Jesus did.

 

[Dancing David]

Maybe you should take another look at the data?


http://blog.drwile.com/?cat=3

I've always been more of an old earther/Ider, but you gotta hand it to the YECers on this stuff. Soft tissue, bio-organic molecules, red blood cells just keep being found in dino bones, even in one case on the outside of the bone. Basic biochemistry tells you these bones are not millions of years old. Maybe not 6000 years either, but still, the old paradigm has fallen apart for anyone willing to look at the data.

Ah yes, a true arguemnt from incredulity,
okay

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Higby_Schweitzer

Recovered collagen from dinosaur fossil tissue.

Now here is your argument randman:

1. Collagen recovered from fossil tissue

2. It is impossible therefore that these bones could be old, OMG everyone knows that fossiles could not have collagen extracted from them.

So what do you want to say about teh proecss of mineralization of tissue in fossil's randman, is there any thing you can say other

OMG they must be younger than stated.

What exactly is the process of mineralization and then what process is used to remove the minerals and obtain the collagen.

Have you read anything about how some researchers feel that is is the actual collagen and others feel it is not, it is an artifact.

So what evidence other than incredulity do you have the collagen could not be preserved 70 million yeras.

http://www.nature.com/news/2009/090430/full/news.2009.422.html
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Dinosaur-Soft-Tissue-Could-be-Biofilm-Remnants-91079.shtml
http://www.americanscientist.org/science/pub/might-collagen-coils-preserve-dinosaur-proteins

 

[Wowbagger]

You have a problem with data?

1. The data and conclusions you are citing seem to be inadequate. See Dancing David's post.

2. Even if this find was an example of a hoax (which it isn't, but for the sake of argument): You are not finding anything fundamentally wrong with dating techniques that would bring down the whole evolutionary industry.

Sometimes, specific hoaxes do float around, for a while.

Sometimes the importance of legitimate finds are overhyped. But, that would not necessarily count as a hoax.

Proof of Santa Clause does not automatically equal Proof of the Easter Bunny, too. The Easter Bunny will need its own set of evidence.

I guess trying to say soft tissue was not from the original bones and bacteria hasn't worked out too well for you guys.

It has worked out well enough. There are, of course, ways of verifying the age of the fossils in question, that are independent of the data you are citing.... that the article you are citing is ignoring.

Dr. Jay L. Wile (whom you cited) does'nt even seem interested in making empirical discoveries about fossils. Why should we worry about what he is writing up?

Now, it's attack the messenger.

I wasn't referring to you. (Though, you did remind me to add such a disclaimer.)

 

[Lamuella]

oh god, is this one of these boring things were someone takes a single data point they don't understand and think it disproves a huge field of science they haven't experienced or understood?

 

[PGH]

oh god, is this one of these boring things were someone takes a single data point they don't understand and think it disproves a huge field of science they haven't experienced or understood?

Yep. Remember when one person doesn't understand something, no matter how poorly educated that person may be, and no matter how extremely technical the subject matter may be, if someone doesn't understand how it works at first glance it's not possible.

So yes the scientific community may have warehouses full of fossils. But if your aunt Millie in Nebraska says, "I never seen no monkey give birth to no man" evolution is proven to be false.

These are the insane days of our lives.

 

[Dancing David]

Let us look at the [url="http://blog.drwile.com/?p=9]scientifically-irresponsible dating techniques.[/url]
As referenced by randman:

In order to use radioactivity to come to the conclusion that the earth is billions of years old, we must assume that FOR BILLIONS OF YEARS, radioactive processes have behaved exactly the way we have observed them for the past 100 years. This is a ridiculous extrapolation! In the end, the extrapolation covers more than 10,000,000 times the range over which the data have been measured!

Thus, to assume that radioactive processes have behaved over BILLIONS of years the way we have observed them for the past 100 is just not reasonable at this time. As a result, I am very skeptical of the claim that the earth is billions of years old.

Except this 'Dr.' doesn't know some every imporatant things, the laws of nature are invariant across space and therefore time. A simple change to the fine structure constant lambda would be apaprent because all the spectra would change as we look farther out into space and back in time.

The ratios of isotopes would vary widely on the earth in the radioactive decay isotopes and there would be greater variation.

 

[blutoski]

Let us look at the [url="http://blog.drwile.com/?p=9]scientifically-irresponsible dating techniques.[/url]
As referenced by randman:


Except this 'Dr.' doesn't know some every imporatant things, the laws of nature are invariant across space and therefore time. A simple change to the fine structure constant lambda would be apaprent because all the spectra would change as we look farther out into space and back in time.

The ratios of isotopes would vary widely on the earth in the radioactive decay isotopes and there would be greater variation.

This scientific premise even has a name: uniformitarianism^WP