Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

Darwin watch

Announcements
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by goldfish)
    Is there any evidence for Darwinism or is it just another religion?
    First of all you have the fossil fidnings. There are substancial material with fossils showing transitional forms between different species. Carbon dating as well as layer dating can confirm that these forms did not exist at the same time but in chronoligac series. ( deeper layers of certain types of rocks are older than those closer to the surface. A bit like seasonal rings on a tree )

    Second you have evidence in form of teh DNA. The evolutionary tree predicted by Darwins theory agrees to a very large extent with the genetic material of the organisms. As an example Chimps and Humans share about 98% of genetic material.

    Thirdly evolution has been directly observed in its process. Bacteria develops resistance to antibiotics in perfect accordance to evolutionary theory, weeds develop resistance to pesticides.

    There is more evidence, but I dont have the time tyo write all of it here. In short the evidence for evolution is so strong that it makes the theory one of the strongest theories in science.

    Close to all scientists today agree that evolution has occured, disputes regarding it deals with HOW it occured not whether it occured or not.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Speciez99)
    so what do you think is a better alternative to evolution?
    Personally I see just as much evidence for Biblical creationsim as for Neo-Darwinism. However, I dont think that alternatives matter. The question in hand is thus - is Darwinism sound? I think it is not.

    (Original post by weejimmie)
    My apologies: I thought you were honestly curious, rather than trying to make a rhetorical point. Or did you manage to read several books on the evolution of complex organs in a couple of hours, perhaps?
    I've read Johnson. He- like you- emphasises and cites Darwin, which is like quoting Galen to criticise modern medicine. He also distorts and misquotes, which is what one might expect of a lawyer, Purely for entertainment, you might enjoy Matthew Chapman's Trials of the Monkey
    I'll have a shuftie at the Chapman book if I can find it.

    My point in citing Darwin is to show the ludicrous nature of Neo-Darwinism. Darwin was debunked, but instead of saying 'oh - thats crap then, lets leave it' people have tweaked with the theory to try to make it 'fit'. This is not good scientific method - as Johnson points out. Its worth remembering that his book is more about the dynamic of the argument than the information argued over. I think the most important point he brings up the bias in the secular camp - such as the piltdown man farce.

    I strongly recomend 'Bones Of Contention' and 'Darwins Black Box' though, to anyone wishing to get up to their eyes in it. They have - and continue to - cause massive rifts in the scientific community over the subject.

    http://answersingenesis.org presents a very powerfull anti-evolution argument with plenty of street cred in the scientific circles (tehy are partly responsable for creationism being taught allongside darwin is some states of america). Its worth looking at, even if you dont care for the Christian faith. (Cool! This thing hperlinks automaticaly!)

    Well folks....Im off on holiday now. Have a good till next time.

    Shalom - doogs
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Uncledougsie)
    Personally I see just as much evidence for Biblical creationsim as for Neo-Darwinism. However, I dont think that alternatives matter. The question in hand is thus - is Darwinism sound? I think it is not.
    Oh my, what evidence would that be? :rolleyes: (I realise that with you going on holiday you might not be able to answer)
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jonatan)
    First of all you have the fossil fidnings. There are substancial material with fossils showing transitional forms between different species. Carbon dating as well as layer dating can confirm that these forms did not exist at the same time but in chronoligac series. ( deeper layers of certain types of rocks are older than those closer to the surface. A bit like seasonal rings on a tree )
    How do you measure the carbon present when we where not there there? Carbon Dating is largley guesswork after a while. Look here - http://answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dating.asp

    (Original post by jonatan)
    Second you have evidence in form of teh DNA. The evolutionary tree predicted by Darwins theory agrees to a very large extent with the genetic material of the organisms. As an example Chimps and Humans share about 98% of genetic material.
    Sorry - this is no longer a valid argument - look here - http://answersingenesis.org/docs2002/1125dna.asp
    and here -
    http://answersingenesis.org/docs/2453.asp

    (Original post by jonatan)
    Thirdly evolution has been directly observed in its process. Bacteria develops resistance to antibiotics in perfect accordance to evolutionary theory, weeds develop resistance to pesticides.
    This is only evidence of evolution within a species. Species transmutation still requires a leap of the imagination.

    (Original post by jonatan)
    There is more evidence, but I dont have the time tyo write all of it here. In short the evidence for evolution is so strong that it makes the theory one of the strongest theories in science.

    Close to all scientists today agree that evolution has occured, disputes regarding it deals with HOW it occured not whether it occured or not.
    I think you will find they dont. Only 18 months ago the scotsman newspaper letters section became the venue for a furious debate over evolution. Much of which was, by the way, perpetrated by non christian/muslims. Many scientists simply cannot accept it as a valid theory. It reamains a point of controversy.


    I really am going on holiday now - c 'yal
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Speciez99)
    Oh my, what evidence would that be? :rolleyes: (I realise that with you going on holiday you might not be able to answer)
    I'll get to this blinking holiday sometime

    look here - its a reputable site and has info to suit every level of expertise, from child to PhD student.

    Third times the trick, eh? God bless all - doogs.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Uncledougsie)
    Im ready to be enlightened...............

    You have 2 hours before I go on holiday.
    The evolution of the eye is one of the few things i can actually recall from my brief university sojourn. This site seems to cover the area fairly well.

    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/li.../l_011_01.html
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Uncledougsie)
    I'll get to this blinking holiday sometime

    look here - its a reputable site and has info to suit every level of expertise, from child to PhD student.

    Third times the trick, eh? God bless all - doogs.
    So is this site:
    http://www.museumstuff.com/articles/...042751109.html
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Since you keep referring to external links:

    On Carbon dating:
    http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...ar/cardat.html

    "Cosmic ray protons blast nuclei in the upper atmosphere, producing neutrons which in turn bombard nitrogen, the major constituent of the atmosphere . This neutron bombardment produces the radioactive isotope carbon-14. The radioactive carbon-14 combines with oxygen to form carbon dioxide and is incorporated into the cycle of living things.

    The carbon-14 forms at a rate which appears to be constant, so that by measuring the radioactive emissions from once-living matter and comparing its activity with the equilibrium level of living things, a measurement of the time elapsed can be made. "

    On radioactive dating:

    http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...raddat.html#c1
    "Because the radioactive half-life of a given radioisotope is not affected by temperature, physical or chemical state, or any other influence of the environment outside the nucleus save direct particle interactions with the nucleus, then radioactive samples continue to decay at a predictable rate. If determinations or reasonable estimates of the original composition of a radioactive sample can be made, then the amounts of the radioisotopes present can provide a measurement of the time elapsed."

    Living organisms cannot distinguish between radioactive and non-radioactive Carbon, thus they absorb both of them with equal preference. Because Nitrogen is present in such large concentrations the limiting factor in the formation of Carbon 14 is sun radiation. Although the radiation from teh sun does fluctuate it does so at so short intervalls that the average over the lifetime of a prehistoric organism remains constant.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Uncledougsie)
    How do you measure the carbon present when we where not there there? Carbon Dating is largley guesswork after a while. Look here - http://answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dating.asp
    Did I ever claim that they used it for millions of years time periods? No! However, there are similar techniques which can be used for fossils older than 50 000 years. Uranium 235 , as an example, has a halflife of 700 000 000 years, and because the earth does not receive significant ammounts of uranium from space it is not subject to fluctuations in solar activity.

    The only objection your site provided to these dating techniques were that it was presumed that:

    The starting conditions are known (for example, that there was no daughter isotope present at the start, or that we know how much was there).

    Decay rates have always been constant.

    Systems were closed or isolated so that no parent or daughter isotopes were lost or added.


    Contradictionary to what this site tells you, these are good assumptions as there is no evidence whatsoever sugesting otherwise.
 
 
 
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: July 2, 2004
Poll
Do you agree with the proposed ban on plastic straws and cotton buds?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.