Happy Birthday Charles: Fossils Reveal Truth About Darwin's Theory

[RandomGuy]

Then what do you call this?

[picture of a microchip]


and this?

[picture of a jet engine]


Are you saying this just evolved? Looks like someone with intelligence designed it to me.

Neither microchips, nor jet engines evolved in the biological sense.

Oddly enough, they did do an experiment with programmable microchips that showed evolution in action, though.

The experimental task was to use programmable microchips to distinguish between two tones.

A group of microchips was set up with all switches totally randomly set with a one-step program.

The chips then were made to distinguish between the two tones, and unsurprisingly, didn't do that very well at all.

The ones out of the group that did it best, were made into the templates for the next version of the program, and so on. The next generation used the best step from the first generation and added a second randomly determined step/value.

Each new generation added a new step to the program completely at random and the new programs were rated as to their ability to distinguish the two tones.

The researcher said he expected it to take about 400 steps to be able to do that, and some of his chips managed to do it in just 200 or so.

Oddly enough, the chips were very specific to their environment, because they would only work at certain temperatures and other minute variations would cause the chips program to fail.

[RandomGuy]

http://discovermagazine.com/1998/jun...ngaconscio1453

fascintating article.

Because evolution has found solutions to extremely difficult problems in the natural world (bats that use their hearing to navigate in the dark, for example), computer scientists have tried to enlist evolution to solve difficult computational problems, using genetic algorithms.

These algorithms start by encoding a potential solution to a given problem as a string of 0’s and 1’s, the computer equivalent of describing the potential solution as a series of yes or no answers to tens or hundreds or thousands of simple questions. This bit string becomes the artificial chromosome of the solution to be evolved. The genetic algorithm generates numerous slight variations of the bit string, and then these individuals are tested to see which perform best under some fitness scale.

The game is more like animal husbandry than evolution because the computer scientist running the genetic algorithm knows exactly what he or she wants to accomplish eventually. (For instance, if a genetic algorithm is used to solve a scheduling problem, the measure of fitness might be how quickly tasks are completed in each individual’s final version of the schedule.) The bit strings that score highest on the designated fitness test are mated in a way that is loosely inspired by how chromosomes combine in sexual reproduction, with parts of each bit string combining to produce the bit string of the offspring. Mutations are added for good luck in the next generation.

These new offspring are tested and the best are mated, and on it goes. The process might be repeated for thousands of generations, until the problem is solved. Genetic algorithms have been used successfully in designing communication networks, and better turbines, and even in solving some mathematical problems that seemed otherwise intractable.

oopsies. Evolutionary processes actually do build things.

[Horn Tooter]

This guy is smart^

[spurspf]

Are you saying man didn't create a computer chip or an airplane engine?

[RandomGuy]

Where did the ages of those creatures in the OP come from then?

Good question. Perhaps you can find out and explain the process to me.

[RandomGuy]

Laugh if you will, but nothing says "i'm really upset about mass murder" like an "Infowars" keychain, or "the government really is out to get us" like a "9-11 truth" coffee mug.

These people are making a tidy profit from this.

Wouldn't that be the ultimate scam for an evil conspiracy? Set up an emotionally charged 9-11 truth website and sell t-shirts, dvd's and crap to the suckers who believe in that and use the money to pay for the next false-flag operation?

[The Power Hour.]

Wouldn't that be the ultimate scam for an evil conspiracy? Set up an emotionally charged 9-11 truth website and sell t-shirts, dvd's and crap to the suckers who believe in that and use the money to pay for the next false-flag operation?

Bush took advantage of the American people for over 8 years nothing new.

[z0sa]

All from the OP proving they used the Geological Column to place the periods these animals lived in - without even citing the column as their source, thus proving Science uses the column so often it does not even need to be explained to the casual reader.

In 2001, scientists discovered the fossil of a "walking manatee," Pezosiren portelli, which had feet rather than flippers and walked on land during the Eocene epoch (54.8 million years ago to 33.7 million years ago) in what is now Jamaica.

Scientists know that mastodons, mammoths and elephants all share a common ancestor, but it gets hard to tell apart some of the earliest members of this group, called proboscideans, going back to fossils from the Oligocene epoch (33.7 million years ago to 23.8 million years ago).

The primitive members of this group can be traced back to what Prothero calls "the ultimate transitional fossil," Moeritherium, from the late Eocene [epoch/era] of Egypt.

A creature on the way to becoming a turtle, Odontochelys semistestacea, swam around in China's coastal waters 200 million years ago.

The last one is particularly bad for your case. They don't even mention an era on that, and for the whole article simply require the dimwitted to believe them at face value on everything.

RandomGuy stated the article had nothing to do with the Column, when in fact all the fossils' ages are based on that very thing. It's such common knowledge they fail to even mention the entire Column once as their source, though they use it as proof of ages.

BTW, using something there is no proof for (the Column) as the primary means of dating and classifying these fossils because an unproven theory says to do so, is what you call circular reasoning.

[RandomGuy]

All from the OP proving they used the Geological Column to place the periods these animals lived in - without even citing the column as their source, thus proving Science uses the column so often it does not even need to be explained to the casual reader.

The last one is particularly bad for your case. They don't even mention an era on that, and for the whole article simply require the dimwitted to believe them at face value on everything.

RandomGuy stated the article had nothing to do with the Column, when in fact all the fossils' ages are based on that very thing. It's such common knowledge they fail to even mention the entire Column once as their source, though they use it as proof of ages.

BTW, using something there is no proof for (the Column) as the primary means of dating and classifying these fossils because an unproven theory says to do so, is what you call circular reasoning.

Closer, but still not quite there, padawan.

Define what you are talking about when you say "column" because we need to be clear as to what exactly we are talking about.

[The Power Hour.]

The Geologic Column was invented by Charles Lyell in the early 1800's. He came up the this http://evolution-facts.org/images/ev-cr-...
This was made around 100 years before radiometric dating was invented and is still how scientists date fossils today. It is anyone’s guess in how he knew how old the layers of the earth were. This site describes how scientists really date fossils http://www.eadshome.com/Fossils.htm
they use circular reasoning to date fossils. Why the layers cannot be millions of years apart. One obvious reason is the layers are tightly compact and if they were millions of years apart don't you think you would see erosion. (Where is the dirt coming from?) Here is another website that proves the layers are not millions of years apart http://www.wasdarwinright.com/geological...

[The Power Hour.]

[z0sa]

Closer, but still not quite there, padawan.

Define what you are talking about when you say "column" because we need to be clear as to what exactly we are talking about.

The various layers of earth beneathe us. And I hate Star Wars, call me cadet if you're continuing down the disrespectful route.

[RandomGuy]

The various layers of earth beneathe us. And I hate Star Wars, call me cadet if you're continuing down the disrespectful route.

jackass   Show Spelled Pronunciation [jak-as] Show IPA Pronunciation

–noun
1. someone who hates Star Wars
2. a contemptibly foolish or stupid person; dolt; blockhead; ass.

j/k, mostly. Star Wars was THE movie for people my age.

Anyhoo

[RandomGuy]

[A geologic column is the] various layers of earth beneathe us.

So, we are talking Geology then.

I thought we were talking about evolution, the process by which organic life forms gradually change and adapt over time, that's actually biology.

or to be more precise:

ev·o·lu·tion (v-lshn, v-)
n.
3. Biology
a. Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.
b. The historical development of a related group of organisms; phylogeny.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/evolution

Which branch of science is "not science" again?

Geology?
Genetics?
Biology?
Paleontology?
Physics?

That seems to be an awful lot of scientists who don't know what circular logic is.

[RandomGuy]

All from the OP proving they used the Geological Column to place the periods these animals lived in - without even citing the column as their source, thus proving Science uses the column so often it does not even need to be explained to the casual reader.

The last one is particularly bad for your case. They don't even mention an era on that, and for the whole article simply require the dimwitted to believe them at face value on everything.

RandomGuy stated the article had nothing to do with the Column, when in fact all the fossils' ages are based on that very thing. It's such common knowledge they fail to even mention the entire Column once as their source, though they use it as proof of ages.

BTW, using something there is no proof for (the Column) as the primary means of dating and classifying these fossils because an unproven theory says to do so, is what you call circular reasoning.

Let me help you on this, because you keep using that phrase "circular reasoning" without actually understanding it.

One of Mouse's website does the legwork for you and provides the circular reasoning in the correct format:

" The fossil is dated by the rock layer it is in. The rock layer is dated by the fossil that is in it."

"Evolution was assumed when the column was built. Now the column supports evolution!"

Both of these are indeed circular logic.

The problem with the argument is that neither is really representative of how geology works.

In essence, this is yet another strawman argument put forth by creationists, eager to seize on something that they don't quite understand.

I can ask a few simple questions, and get to the bottom of this, I will start with my next post.

[RandomGuy]

True or false:

Generally, deeper rocks and objects are older than rocks and objects found above them.

[tlongII]

True or false:

Generally, deeper rocks and objects are older than rocks and objects found above them.

True!

This is fun...

[The Power Hour.]

True or false:

Generally, deeper rocks and objects are older than rocks and objects found above them.

It depends what section of your head were these rocks located?

[The Power Hour.]

Take a guess how old this fossil is.

[The Power Hour.]

Since this forum has a plethora of Paleontologist you guys can surly tell me how old this fossil is, I will even give you a 10 million year cushion.

[RandomGuy]

Generally, deeper rocks and objects are older than rocks and objects found above them.

True!

This is fun...

Correct, but I need z0sa to answer this one definitively, so we can have a mutually agreed on priniciple in order to proceed.

I make the assumption that z0sa is intellectually honest until proven otherwise, as opposed to mouse in all of his profiles, who is clearly not

[The Power Hour.]

.
I make the assumption that z0sa is intellectually honest until proven otherwise, as opposed to mouse in all of his profiles, who is clearly not

Translation: I rather pick on a young not so educated in these matters poster than to go head to head with a person who will prove me wrong, and may cause me some unwanted embarrassment.

I will accept your surrender and I will try to refrain from anymore questions that may be to complicated for you, and your ape related friend MiamiHeat.

[z0sa]

True or false:

Generally, deeper rocks and objects are older than rocks and objects found above them.

False. The Geological Column doesn't actually exist .. the entire premise of my argument with you. Essentially ALL fossils are out of place in the geological column, one of the original problems that Darwin brought up. He felt that further research would prove the theory. All it has proven is that you can't meaningfully date fossils or the strata they are in using the "deeper/older to less deep/younger" theory, as much sense as it seems to make.

In reality, though I'm no Biblical scholar, the Flood fits much better than the "deeper/older" logic according to the natural evidence. The strata are too displaced and one level or "age" of rock may be linked with rock around the world because surrounding strata do not fit evolutionary doctrine. Combined with the surprisingly few mineral deposits and lack of erosion considering earth's supposed 4.3 billion year age, the Flood has a much stronger argument than most give it credit.

Again, let me make it clear I'm not a creationist. I don't take the Biblical accounts as any sort of literal meaning generally, but the Flood is one that rests on plenty of natural scientific evidence.

[RandomGuy]

True or false:

Generally, deeper rocks and objects are older than rocks and objects found above them.

False.

So when we dig down beneath modern streets, and find, say, 18th centrury houses, dig further and find medieval castles, then dig down farther, to say, find Roman forts, we cannot assume that the Roman forts are older than the Medieval castles, or the 18th century houses.

If we cannot assume that deeper objects are older, then we should assume the opposite? The Roman fort is newer than the medieval castle, and the medieval castle is newer than the 18th century houses?

Is this correct?

or, are the layers randomly placed? The medieval castle was newer than the 18th century houses that was newer than the Roman fort.

I guess if we assume time isn't linear, we open up all sorts of possibilities, but that is another conversation entirely. I think we can both agree that time is linear for all but the most abstract purposes. Something happened first, then other events followed.

Let me know what the appropriate conclusion is, so we can find some starting ground. I am still trying to understand what it is you are saying.

[RandomGuy]

Translation: I rather pick on a young not so educated in these matters poster than to go head to head with a person who will prove me wrong, and may cause me some unwanted embarrassment.

I will accept your surrender and I will try to refrain from anymore questions that may be to complicated for you, and your ape related friend MiamiHeat.

Feel free to interject points you think are relevant, but it is obvious to anybody reading through this that you don't understand the science of the things you copy and paste. The fact that you have little grasp on either common sense or reality is reason enough for me to not bother responding to your points very seriously. If you want to inflate your ego and pretend you are "educated" in something other than paranoid conspiracies and pseudo-science, I gave up trying to puncture that anium dogma long ago.

I say this without any acrimony. I wish you personally well, and have some fondness for you as a person.