Don't tell me there's no proof for evolution

Too bad the Derby is past - for this year.

One doesn't need to gamble to enjoy the Derby.

If humans descended from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?

If evolution is true, why don't we see cats turning into dogs?

You weren't there, so how can you know for sure that it happened?

If the lab must be told the expected age of the sample before testing it, then why test it?

So if the thermometer gave a reading of 72 degrees Fahrenheit for the liquid nitrogen, would that mean that I was deceptive for not telling the researcher that we were dealing with liquid nitrogen?

Disingenuous Questions About Evolution (partial list)

Quote:

If humans descended from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?

Quote:

If evolution is true, why don't we see cats turning into dogs?

Quote:

You weren't there, so how can you know for sure that it happened?

Quote:

If the lab must be told the expected age of the sample before testing it, then why test it?

Quote:

So if the thermometer gave a reading of 72 degrees Fahrenheit for the liquid nitrogen, would that mean that I was deceptive for not telling the researcher that we were dealing with liquid nitrogen?

All of these questions have been seen on various A2K evolution threads.

real life wrote:

I Stereo wrote:

real life wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:

real life wrote:

A 'dating method' which cannot distinguish between a million year old sample and a sample a decade old is not much of a tool.

Unless the method was never intended to test for such a young range.

If you have a thermometer which goes from zero to a hundred in farenheit, and you dip it in liquid nitrogen it isn't going to give you accurate results. That doesn't mean that the thermometer is wrong, it just wasn't designed to respond to the conditions it was exposed to. It's the same with the dating method above.

So if the thermometer gave a reading of 72 degrees Fahrenheit for the liquid nitrogen, would that mean that I was deceptive for not telling the researcher that we were dealing with liquid nitrogen?

Or would you say the thermometer was most likely defective?

The method in question gives indistinguishable results for samples millions of years old and for samples a decade old.

Is that the fault of the researcher, or a fatal flaw in the method? (Not a tough question.)

I'm no scientist, but I remember Highschool chemestry enough to know that nitrogen would not be a LIQUID at 72F. That doesn't take a themometer, just a elementary education.

That's kinda the point.

Liquid nitrogen would not be 72 degrees Fahrenheit. It's obvious that the thermometer is faulty.

Get it?

It prove that the universe is broke, not the thermometer. Further, if you put the wrong substance in a thermometer like helium or something, then you could make the thermometer display a wrong result. You can't say method is flawed if your test is broken.

I Stereo wrote:

real life wrote:

I Stereo wrote:

real life wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:

real life wrote:

A 'dating method' which cannot distinguish between a million year old sample and a sample a decade old is not much of a tool.

Unless the method was never intended to test for such a young range.

If you have a thermometer which goes from zero to a hundred in farenheit, and you dip it in liquid nitrogen it isn't going to give you accurate results. That doesn't mean that the thermometer is wrong, it just wasn't designed to respond to the conditions it was exposed to. It's the same with the dating method above.

So if the thermometer gave a reading of 72 degrees Fahrenheit for the liquid nitrogen, would that mean that I was deceptive for not telling the researcher that we were dealing with liquid nitrogen?

Or would you say the thermometer was most likely defective?

The method in question gives indistinguishable results for samples millions of years old and for samples a decade old.

Is that the fault of the researcher, or a fatal flaw in the method? (Not a tough question.)

I'm no scientist, but I remember Highschool chemestry enough to know that nitrogen would not be a LIQUID at 72F. That doesn't take a themometer, just a elementary education.

That's kinda the point.

Liquid nitrogen would not be 72 degrees Fahrenheit. It's obvious that the thermometer is faulty.

Get it?

It prove that the universe is broke, not the thermometer. Further, if you put the wrong substance in a thermometer like helium or something, then you could make the thermometer display a wrong result. You can't say method is flawed if your test is broken.

Now THAT'S funny.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

OMG Recursive error!

Dinosaurs Charge Upstream
By Erik Stokstad
ScienceNOW Daily News
24 May 2007

As a northeasterly wind whips against the shore, a meters-long dinosaur plunges into the shallow lake. Working hard, the predator takes strong strides with its hind limbs through the shoulder-deep water. The current is so strong that the beast must constantly fight to stay on course, but it succeeds, heading straight across the water. That's the story told by a remarkable set of fossilized footprints, described in the June issue of Geology, that provide the first hard evidence of predatory dinosaurs traveling in water.

The 125-million year-old trackway was discovered in 2004 during excavations at a famous fossil site in Northern Spain, called the La Virgen del Campo track site. The site had yielded many tracks of dinosaurs walking on land, so a team led by paleontologists Rubén Ezquerra of the Fundación Patrimonio Paleontológico de La Rioja, Spain, and Loïc Costeur of the Université de Nantes came looking for more in an untapped layer of rock. To their surprise, they found a set of footprints unlike any they had seen before.

With three telltale toemarks on each print, the tracks clearly belonged to a major group of bipedal, carnivorous dinosaurs called theropods. But the tracks themselves were different. When theropods walk on land, they typically leave claw marks and an imprint of the foot itself. The lack of the footprint suggested that this animal was not supporting its weight. A sedimentologist on the team confirmed that ripple marks in the stone had been created by currents in water 3.2 meters deep.

Another unusual feature of the new tracks was that the feet were placed 44 centimeters apart. Moreover, the dinosaur seems to have spread its legs, so that the feet were somewhat pigeon-toed. The orientation of the footprints with respect to the ripples shows the animal was efficiently battling its way against the current. "That suggests that it was a very good swimmer," Costeur says.

The dinosaur wasn't swimming, paleontologist David Fastovsky of the University of Rhode Island points out, since its toes were touching the ground, but Fastovsky thinks that it would have been fine in deeper water, too. "We suspected that some theropods could wade into the water and navigate around," he says, "but finding an example has been difficult."

Don Henderson, curator of dinosaurs at the Royal Tyrell Museum of Paleontology in Drumheller, Alberta, says the track marks will be useful for understanding dinosaur biomechanics. "Trackways are fossilized behavior. They show what they're capable of and open up questions," he says. These footprints are consistent with a computer model Henderson has made of the general theropod body plan, which shows that the animals would float in water. With its toes just touching bottom, the animal probably had its head and neck exposed as well as its rigid tail. Because theropod tails were stiffened with ligaments, the animals could not have used them for propulsion, as crocodiles do. "This thing was doing a sort of dog paddle only using its hind limbs," Henderson concludes.

It's not clear which particular theropod made the tracks, but it was clearly big. The toe marks are typically 15 centimeters wide and 50 centimeters long, and the underwater stride was about 2.5 meters long. One candidate is Neovenator, which was 7-8 meters long and is known from the United Kingdom.

Blackbirds Evolving Uptown
By Virginia Morell
ScienceNOW Daily News
18 May 2007

More than a century ago, some European Blackbirds gave up the commuting life. The traditional routine was to nest in northern forests but head for southern Europe or northern Africa at the first sign of winter. Then some populations discovered that winter in the city isn't half-bad: The microclimate is warm with plenty of tasty leftovers. So strong is the appeal of city life, according to a research team in Germany, that it is has not only changed the blackbirds' behavior, but their genetics, too.

"It's a very cool study, with a simple message: Urbanization is an important evolutionary force," says Roarke Donnelly, an ornithologist at Oglethorpe University in Atlanta, Georgia. "We've been thinking about this stuff for a long time, but it isn't easy to test. And they've done it with a simple but elegant experiment."

Jesko Partecke, an ornithologist at the Max Planck Institute for Ornithology in Erling, Germany, knew that European blackbirds (Turdus merula) in Munich stayed put in winter while ones living nearby forests still migrated. To see if the urbanized birds had evolved, Partecke and Eberhard Gwinner (now deceased) collected chicks from the two settings in the spring of 1998. They raised them in their lab in individual cages with light and temperatures mimicking Munich's. As summer gave way to fall, and winter to spring, they recorded the birds' nocturnal activity; this "migratory restlessness" is inherited and correlates with the distance a bird travels on its migrations.

The urban males were the least active of all the birds, preferring to sit quietly in their cages while other birds hopped about. In contrast, the urban females were just as active at night as their forest counterparts, indicating that the Munich females continue to migrate. "We were completely surprised by the females," says Partecke. "We naturally assumed that both males and females had changed." The difference may be bullying; males, which are larger, are known to drive the females away from food and warmth, says Partecke. As a result, he speculates, city-females who try to stay in town through winter may end up dying.

Another benefit of city life for males is that they reach sexual maturity earlier there than in the forest. Because blackbirds have multiple broods, this means they may have more offspring. "The shift to being sedentary seems to be adaptive in urban habitats," the authors say.

The findings are described in this month's Ecology. "It's good to see a study that's looking at the evolutionary pressures caused by these pseudotropical bubbles, our cities," says Eyal Shochat, an urban ecologist at Arizona State University in Tempe.

real life wrote:

I Stereo wrote:

real life wrote:

I Stereo wrote:

real life wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:

real life wrote:

A 'dating method' which cannot distinguish between a million year old sample and a sample a decade old is not much of a tool.

Unless the method was never intended to test for such a young range.

If you have a thermometer which goes from zero to a hundred in farenheit, and you dip it in liquid nitrogen it isn't going to give you accurate results. That doesn't mean that the thermometer is wrong, it just wasn't designed to respond to the conditions it was exposed to. It's the same with the dating method above.

So if the thermometer gave a reading of 72 degrees Fahrenheit for the liquid nitrogen, would that mean that I was deceptive for not telling the researcher that we were dealing with liquid nitrogen?

Or would you say the thermometer was most likely defective?

The method in question gives indistinguishable results for samples millions of years old and for samples a decade old.

Is that the fault of the researcher, or a fatal flaw in the method? (Not a tough question.)

I'm no scientist, but I remember Highschool chemestry enough to know that nitrogen would not be a LIQUID at 72F. That doesn't take a themometer, just a elementary education.

That's kinda the point.

Liquid nitrogen would not be 72 degrees Fahrenheit. It's obvious that the thermometer is faulty.

Get it?

It prove that the universe is broke, not the thermometer. Further, if you put the wrong substance in a thermometer like helium or something, then you could make the thermometer display a wrong result. You can't say method is flawed if your test is broken.

Now THAT'S funny.

It's true. We would assume that a glass tube with alcohol or mercury in a vacume with small markings and numbers on it would give a correct reading. However, like the isotope method if you calibrate the test incorrectly, you can create a false result.

Returning to our thermometer, we could put helium in it (a change in claibration) or even just rewrite the numbers on the side of it (also a calibration) to achieve a false result.

There's nothing funny about your false science, only that the weak minded can so easily be duped.

An objective test would not require a 'prompt' , i.e. an assumed date.

Leaving aside the witlessness of "real life's" assertions, and the implications of his ignorance, one must assume that "real life" considers that the people in testing labs are willingly dishonest.

Leaving aside the witlessness of "real life's" assertions, and the implications of his ignorance, one must assume that "real life" considers that the people in testing labs are willingly dishonest.

Real Life: I don't understand why this is so hard for you. You want to undermine science on the basis of a false test.

Quote:

An objective test would not require a 'prompt' , i.e. an assumed date.

You don't seek objective tests. Only tests that reflect your beliefs, being that there are NO tests that suppot your beliefs, you have no alternative but to try and attack the credibility of the tests that support alternte theories.

You have your own assumed date. Don't pretend.