Evolution: the Facts.

[Dr Adequate]

An article on [swiki]Nearshore Sediments[/swiki].

Nearly done with sedimentology now ...

I should again express my gratitude to a geologist, this time J. W. Hagadorn, for supplying me with one of his photographs. Nice people, geologists.

 

[six7s]

Nice people, geologists.

Yeah... they ROCK!













I'll get me coat

 

[six7s]

In this article we shall discuss the sediments of the nearshore, their origin, characteritics In this article we shall discuss the sediments of the nearshore, their origin, characteristics

--------

Our advice to readers who wish to pursue their study of nearsshore sediments further
Our advice to readers who wish to pursue their study of nearshore sediments further

--------

and the term backshore to describe the are higher up the beach than the foreshore
and the term backshore to describe the area higher up the beach than the foreshore

--------

we would not expect to find all the structures listed below in one single nearshore envorenment.
we would not expect to find all the structures listed below in one single nearshore environment.

---------

You should recall that cross-bedding is produced by the action of a current
recall? where from???
Cross-bedding is produced by the action of a current

----------

You ROCK, too

 

[Dr Adequate]

Thanks.

"Recall" from earlier articles ... they are meant to be read in a particular order.

 

[six7s]

Thanks.

"Recall" from earlier articles ... they are meant to be read in a particular order.

Meant... hmmm... that ain't how teh interwebs work...

In the following sentence:

You should recall from prevous articles in this series that cross-bedding is produced by the action of a current
​

I suggest you turn the words cross-bedding into a link to the most relevant article

 

[Dr Adequate]

Meant... hmmm... that ain't how teh interwebs work...

When I'm done, each page will begin and end with a little box saying that it's part of a textbook, and a link to the contents page, and a link to the previous article and the next article. If people then want to read it out of order, at least they'll know that they're doing so.

I suggest you turn the words cross-bedding into a link to the most relevant article

I shall produce an interim Glossary and Index as soon as I've done with the sediments. (And what a barrel of laughs that'll be.)

 

[six7s]

When I'm done, each page will begin and end with a little box saying that it's part of a textbook, and a link to the contents page, and a link to the previous article and the next article. If people then want to read it out of order, at least they'll know that they're doing so.

I shall produce an interim Glossary and Index as soon as I've done with the sediments. (And what a barrel of laughs that'll be.)

So...

You ROCK!

And...

You'll ROLL?

 

[Dr Adequate]

[swiki]Marine Evaporites[/swiki].

That was tricky, but it still shouldn't have taken nearly a month.

OK, the only other sediment I really have to write about is calcareous ooze, 'cos understanding the carbonate compensation depth is important in relation to the evidence for plate tectonics.

Goodness, what a lot of kinds of dirt there are ... but it's nearly over.

 

[six7s]

The degree of evaporation required for the precipitation of mineral to mineral: so gypsum will begin to precipitate out when...

After a couple of readings, I have a hunch that there are some words missing... maybe something like

The degree of evaporation required for the precipitation of mineral to mineral <insert> depends on factors x, y and z</insert> : so gypsum will begin to precipitate out when...​

 

[Dr Adequate]

The degree of evaporation required for the precipitation of mineral to mineral: so gypsum will begin to precipitate out when...

After a couple of readings, I have a hunch that there are some words missing... maybe something like

The degree of evaporation required for the precipitation of mineral to mineral <insert> depends on factors x, y and z</insert> : so gypsum will begin to precipitate out when...​

Oops, my semantic unit crashed.

What it ought to say is: "The degree of evaporation required for the precipitation of minerals varies from mineral to mineral ..."

Bad sentence! Bad!

Thanks.

 

[six7s]

For example, in the Castile formation each varve

I reckon that 'Castile formation' merits being a link - as it is, it reads like its really well known whereas for me, at least, it ain't... I guessed it would be near Madrid... http://geoinfo.nmt.edu/staff/scholle/permstops/pmstop2_7.html says otherwise

 

[Dr Adequate]

Thanks. I did say where it was, but I did so the second time I mentioned it rather than the first. Now it's the other way round.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Here's an article on the [swiki]No Free Lunch Theorem[/swiki] and the silly things creationists say about it.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Here are some more [swiki]Vestigial Genes[/swiki].

Coyne's book is also good on this subject. I shall add these to my article, which needs more examples.

 

[Landrew]

Simpler is better

I believe a creationist can duck argument of science you can put in their way, because they don't believe in the scientific method. The scientific method is to examine the evidence before making a conclusion. The creationist method is to examine the evidence only if it supports their conclusion.

Therefore I offer this simple analogy: evolution is like a poker game. If you expect to draw a royal flush by random chance, it's about 649740 to 1 against. That's almost like saying "it could never happen." Now throw away the cards that don't work for a royal flush and draw again. Repeat until you get a royal flush. This will happen within 10 hands or less.

Evolution works like that. The initial draw may be random, but all the selection that happens afterwards is not. As in a game of cards, random chance is a very minor factor compared to selection. Imagine a few billion years of natural selection on top of a few random mutations and it's nearly impossible to imagine that genes could remain unchanged over all that time.

I welcome any creationist to refute this simple argument. I do not welcome anyone with a mission to protect preconceived conclusions based on bible certitudes. I'll simply ignore them. Only valid arguments please.

 

[kaleidome]

Hey everyone- my first post on here so howdy and all that jazz. I'm relatively to new to Skepticism, so was wondering if you guys could offer any help on the following letter I noticed in our University magazine:

"Can evolution really prove the existance of God. I think not, evolution is a THEORY as to how the world is the way it is. A theory that when coupled with the big Bang theory on how the universe came to be still cannot be answered, Why did the universe appear? Where did the information in DNA come from? Was it random chance or because it was caused into being by some other force/Being? Unless you believe in a meaningless unchanging universe that always has been and always will be. Both generally accepted secular theories and Creationism hold that The universe came into being out of nothing. Evolution is just one interpretation of the evidence from the sciences and as everyone has a bias in the interpretation of stuff some see evidence for Evolution and some see evidence for Creation. Evolution would can not actually disprove creation anyway as the arguments go beyond physical science into areas of philosophy and metaphysics. I think we need to be thinking critically about Evolution and encourage readers to look into the alternatives. "

So there you have it. A confusing, contradicting ramble by somebody who totally has misunderstood what evolution is all about. I have some ideas about what to say in response (definition of a theory, scientific evidence, proving the non-existence of God etc) but can't get the flow exactly right. It would be my first attempt at arguing for evolution so I figured I'd ask for help.

How would guys frame a response to this (Bearing in mind it would have to be either shorter/the same length as the original letter)

Cheers for the help

 

[pnerd]

How would guys frame a response to this (Bearing in mind it would have to be either shorter/the same length as the original letter)

You can start with this:

I think we need to be thinking critically about Evolution and encourage readers to look into the alternatives.

Reply to that by saying: "I think we need to be thinking critically about the Sex Theory and encourage readers to look into the alternatives, such as the Stork Theory, Gooseberry Bush Theory etc."

And this webpage will be of help in refuting creationist claims:
An Index to Creationist Claims

Also check out:
The Evidence for Macroevolution
The Evidence for Human Evolution
.

 

[pnerd]

...evolution is a THEORY as to how the world is the way it is.

I think by using uppercase letters in the word "theory", they are trying to say "evolution is just a theory, and not a fact". Check this out: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA201.html

A theory that when coupled with the big Bang theory on how the universe came to be still cannot be answered, Why did the universe appear? Where did the information in DNA come from? Was it random chance or because it was caused into being by some other force/Being?

Evolution doesn't explain how life started; it's not supposed to; it explains how life evolves once it started.

Evolution would can not actually disprove creation anyway as the arguments go beyond physical science into areas of philosophy and metaphysics.

Evolution doesn't need to disprove creationism. It's up to the creationists to prove their myth. The burden of proof is on those who make the claims of creationism.
.

 

[steenkh]

It is also worth noting that not all Christians believe in creationism in the sense that it is contrary to evolution. Many Christians think that God used evolution to implement his designs. In his omniscient knowledge he knew that if he started the spark of life (abiogenesis is not a part of evolution) precisely under those circumstances, humans in a wonderful natural world would be the result. He may even have nudged evolution by sending a cosmic ray here, causing a landslide there etc.

None of this is contrary to accepted scientific theories, but of course, this kind of god-in-the-gap is also not consistent with a literal understanding of the Bible. Nevertheless, many Catholics believe in a similar scenario. And it is worth pointing out because it is an alternative theory that in a religious way answers all the questions he poses without having to contradict everything we know about biology and the world.

You do not have to believe in it yourself, of course, you just need to point out that creationism is not the only religious solution to the problem he thinks there is.

 

[Paulhoff]

Hey everyone- my first post on here so howdy and all that jazz....................

First, and before we can go anywhere with your post, do you know what a Scientific Theory means? Do you know what The Theory of Evolutions means? By your first post it doesn't seem so. The Theory of Evolutions has nothing to do with the starting of life, the starting of universe or any else than the process of change of organisms thru Natural Selection. Please understand this first or we aren’t going to get anywhere fast.

Paul