Evolution

[Pie]

Split from "Cantr Society/Economy? not there!"

i agree compleatly with that.people didn't even have govermental laws untill 3000-4000 BC when the mesopatapian people were there. so we are lightyears ahead of ourselfs, you could say. but currensy, i don't know when it was made. I think it would be about 2500B.C, but i don't really know about that.

but i mus dissargree with you on one point. all of that carbon based things have a flaw. water. water washes out all of the stuff that carbon detecting(or whatever it is) detects to find its age, and so, everything that it says is rong to about, say, 100 billion years, so the earth(at least i beleav) could only be 50,000 years old at the very most. the very very most. i really beleiv its around 15,000 years old.

[Antichrist_Online]

That is creationist drivil.Firstly, Carbon-14 used in radiocarbondating cannot be affected by the actions of water or the half life as most creationists claim. The evidence of carbondating was backed up with other insoluble radio isotopes, fossil records, plate-tectonics, erosion rates, iridium levels and the layering in sedimentary rocks. All these say the Earth is about 100billion years old, possibly older. Humans have been around for about 4million years.
According to your scale, we developed settlement BEFORE we exsited as there are dated primitive settlements older than 15000years.

Sorry but creationism and its failure to provide evidence and allow scrutiny of their said evidence causes them to be a psuedo-science not a true science which is constantly self analysing and updating to use new developments.

If the creationist mindset set in we'd be living in mud huts, grunting and thinking the world was flat. Sorry to say but you've been either stupid or brianwashed.

[cpkangaroo]

Flame on!

[Pie]

The carbon is first oxidised to CO2, either by acid hydrolysis (for carbonates), or combustion in an oxygen stream or combustion bomb (for organic materials). The combustion gases are passed over heated CuO to complete the oxidation of CO, NO, N2O and NO2 and also of tar substances. The CO2 may then be then purified using a chain of wet chemical reagents; for example, AgNO3 and Hg(NO3)2 to precipitate halogens, and the oxidising agents KI/I2 and K2Cr2O7 to remove nitrogen and sulfer compounds. Silica gel and dry ice traps (-80°C) remove any water remaining in the gas (see figure 1).

so, they put oxegin in it(in different ways) and then they are passed over hot CuO to oxedise it even more, and then they purifyit using reagents to remove Sulfer and Nitrogen.


The purified CO2 is then reacted with molten lithium in a stainless steel or inconel reaction vessel in vacuo:

2CO2 + 10Li => Li2C2 + 4Li2O

This reaction was first described by Barker (1953), who developed the reaction using lithium instead of barium, and later improved by Polach and Stipp (1967). The CO2 is bled slowly onto the molten Li where it is converted to Li2C2. The carbide is heated to ca. 800°C (furnace temperature) and placed under active vacuum for 30 minutes to remove any unreacted gases and complete the carbide synthesis (Gupta and Polach, 1985). The lithium carbide is cooled and then hydrolysed to acetylene gas (Li2C2):

And then it is "bled" onto molten Li(whatever that is) were it is canged to Li2C2. and then it is heted to 800 degrees C(2000F?) and is vacumed(you know what i mean) and then it is coold and then turned into a gas.

The acetylene is purified by passing through a phosphoric acid trap to remove ammonia compounds, and again, dry ice traps to remove water vapour. Finally the acetylene is trimerised to benzene using a suitable catalyst. There are a variety of vanadium or chromium activated catalysts available, including a silica-alumina vanadium activated catalyst developed by John Noakes (CAIS, Univ. of Georgia), a vanadium-alumina-silica catalyst produced at the Institute of Geography, Univ. of Petersburg by Dr Kh. A. Arslanov and another at the British Museum by Dr J. Ambers. The catalytic trimerisation for some catalysts may be more efficient at reduced temperatures (e.g. 5°C).

3C2H2 => C6H6

Benzene is then driven off the catalyst at ca. 100°C and collected under vacuum at ca. -65°C. The benzene is then stored in a vial under refrigeration to await counting.

and then Benxine gets of ov the catalyst at 100degresC and is colected in a vacume(you know what i mean) at 65C. and then you wait for it to count.

This sequence of reactions requires a high degree of operator skill because of the complexity of the equipment and the nature of the reactions. It is important that a standardised routine is followed carefully and consistently, so that yields remain high and there is little cross-contamination between samples

have i got anything rong? this is a very long proses, and hard. so, what is to say that they count it rong? or that they have a mistake in the proses?they may do it perfictly, but what is to say that one part of this is rong, or that the object has extra, or a less amount of what you count? Benxine.

and also, Evolving is compleatly immposible. compleatly and totaly imposible, so human cind was in earth at the start of the earth. elvolving is the changing of the genes when you are out of the womb, correct? well, thats INCORECT!

ile get the fact a little later, i cant find anything in my serch engine(google)

[west]

That is creationist drivil.Firstly, Carbon-14 used in radiocarbondating cannot be affected by the actions of water or the half life as most creationists claim. The evidence of carbondating was backed up with other insoluble radio isotopes, fossil records, plate-tectonics, erosion rates, iridium levels and the layering in sedimentary rocks. All these say the Earth is about 100billion years old, possibly older. Humans have been around for about 4million years.

I thought the accepted number was 4-5 billion years for the age of the earth?

And Pie, I almost hate to say it, but he's right. Alleging inaccuracies in C-14 dating doesn't change the fact that ALL scientific evidence points towards an earth that is billions of years old, and the only thing that creation "science" has on its side is, "Is not!"

It's possible to be both a creationist and someone who believes in scientific evidence, Pie.

As for genes changing, it's possible and it happens. It's called mutation. Microevolution is accepted by the vast majority of people, even creationists, and (contrary to most creationist arguments) there IS evidence for macroevolution as well.

I grew up in a creationist area/household, but as Boy On A Stick and Slither say:



That being said, I do think that the evolution of life as it actually turns out is more than a bit too fortuitous to be explained by random chance alone. However, God's interaction (or alien life-forms) with biological development is not something that can be directly observed, quantified, or inferred, so it's not admissible evidence scientifically.

Science deals with the How, not the Why.

[Pie]

am i not dealing with the How and not the Why? but that is funny.

but what i am saying is that Humans were there when the earth was created. so that is the "how" Evolution can be rong. humans probably staid up in the northe were there is alot of ice, and cold, and since the dinosours are cold bloded, they couldn't go up there. as conserning the elephants, Humans can adapt, so they made FIRE! and used it well. and made coats, and used ivory for somthing. probably.

it could happen. it could happen even more than evolution, though.

[Antichrist_Online]

I made a mistake, its a human thing. I mixed up one theoretical age of the universe with the age of the Earth. It happens.

On the otherhand. I'm Pagan, pagans predate Christianity, so If I said my religion says that the unverse was 13000years before the first people to write about a particular pagan figure, I'd have the same amount of evidence as you have for what you just said. Nada. On the other hand I can go out and test the rocks with a geiger-mullertube and date them myself, proving this figure for the Earth's surface to be too short yet alone the entire planet.

[Chris Johnson]

but what i am saying is that Humans were there when the earth was created.

That's quite a strong claim you make Pie, even most Creationists believe that the Earth was created on the first day and Man on the sixth day

EDIT: By "most Creationists" I am of course refering to Christian Creationist, The Beliefs of Muslim,Hindu, Aboriginie , Native American, Pagan or other Creationists may very well be different

[Lumin]

Actually, there suposedly has been some archeological evidence found of humans being around at the same time as at least some dinosaurs.

Heck, if you believe in the Loch Ness monster there still -are- dinosaurs around. (Or if you've ever seen an alligator...)

How'd we get on this topic anyway?

(And hey look, Pie can spell! Told you.)

[The Industriallist]

and also, Evolving is compleatly immposible. compleatly and totaly imposible, so human cind was in earth at the start of the earth. elvolving is the changing of the genes when you are out of the womb, correct? well, thats INCORECT!

What educational system spawned that? You 'prove' evolution is impossible with only a single step of deductive logic?

Yes. Mutations happen. Farly often really, if you consider how many have to occur on average to bring about cancer, for instance. If they happen in the germ line (reproductive cells, or cells that will produce them) there's a chance that the next generation will receive them. Thus not all creatures of the same species have the same genes, and thus evolution is possible on that front.

Evolution is not actually mutation, though...evolution is the consequence of repeated selection of genes by reproductive fitness. It seems pretty much mathematically impossible for evolution not to happen. (microevolution, as west said)

That doesn't necessarily mean that humans evolved, naturally or with some sort of assistance. I think that evolution on earth without tampering is the most plausible (and useful) explanation, but...for any hyper-radical anti-creationist I suggest Strata by Terry Pratchett. Neatly points out why you can't be absolutely sure.

but what i am saying is that Humans were there when the earth was created. so that is the "how" Evolution can be rong. humans probably staid up in the northe were there is alot of ice, and cold, and since the dinosours are cold bloded, they couldn't go up there. as conserning the elephants, Humans can adapt, so they made FIRE! and used it well. and made coats, and used ivory for somthing. probably.

I thought that the earth was 15000 years old? Would you care to estimate when the dinosaurs died out, then?

Also...I don't think anyone asked how evolution could be wrong...the universe could have been created fully formed 15 seconds ago for all I can be sure of, in which case evolution would assuredly not yet have occurred.

However, if you think the biggest problem with your idea is the question of how humans would have survived dinosaur and elephant attacks...I just can't think of anything to say.

Heck, if you believe in the Loch Ness monster there still -are- dinosaurs around. (Or if you've ever seen an alligator...)

Alligators may be as old, but as of latest (or much older, for that matter) reports they don't bear much resemblance to dinosaurs.

[The Sociologist]

Pie, sorry, I don't know what kind of educational system is in the process of producing you, but can't you somehow change your school? It clearly leaves a very great deal to be desired. And this spell-it-the-way-it-sounds-since-who-gives-a-damn approach is hopelessly discredited and outdated and is going to mess you up for life. Somehow you've missed picking up even the basic rules governing how to write English.

[the_antisocial_hermit]

Ehm... Can I point out that no one knows what one day would be to God? (if that is who you believe in) Seven days could've been 3 million years to him. I think there's been some evidence pointing that the amount of hours in a day has slowly been changing. Getting shorter, I think. Or longer. But don't quote me on that one, I don't remember exactly. Ah, the confusion of all the useless stuff locked away irretrievably in my mind... Anyhoo... And besides, many animals have evolved over time. What about the horse? All those ____-hippus's?

That's just a few scattered thoughts from my mind...

[Pie]

well, then Jona was stuck in a wail for 1.3million years. and the oldest person in the bible was 900 years old.

sicologist, that was mean, but i will ignore you.

the industrialist, cancer KILLS you. were talking about EVOLVING not KILLING yourself. and also, the reson that germs can servive mutations is that they are SINGLE CELLD ORGANISMS. or somthing of the sort.

and sorry, 6th day of when the earth was created.

[The Industriallist]

well, then Jona was stuck in a wail for 1.3million years. and the oldest person in the bible was 900 years old.

Did this relate to something someone said? I must have missed it...

sicologist, that was mean, but i will ignore you.

You really shouldn't...and didn't for that matter.

the industrialist, cancer KILLS you. were talking about EVOLVING not KILLING yourself. and also, the reson that germs can servive mutations is that they are SINGLE CELLD ORGANISMS. or somthing of the sort.

Well, for more biology lessons, which you could probably get just as well with a straightforward web search...

-Most mutations that have any effect are immediately lethal to the cell that recieves them. Bacterial or human.

-Mutations occur in single cells. You have quite a lot of those. So a mutation that doesn't kill a cell and doesn't cause it to start reproducing inappropriately (which is difficult to cause), will have no noticible effect on the person whose cell it is. However, if that cell is one that can contribute to the next generation, it can have a substantial (and again often immediately lethal) impact on the individual that recieves it. The lethal examples usually go unnoticed, since they tend to abort before anyone knows they exist.

-I point you again to what I wrote earlier about mutation and evolution not being the same thing.

In fact, evolution doesn't require mutation, though it certainly does to explain how humans, or any other advanced life form, could have evolved. Re-mixing and shifting the balances of existing genes are significant components as well.

[The Sociologist]

I made a mistake, its a human thing. I mixed up one theoretical age of the universe with the age of the Earth. It happens.

Even so you were a bit off. The Big Bang happened 13.7 billion years ago, with an error margin of 200 million years. This is newish stuff and I had to look it up again to remind myself. Nice to know they've reached such certain conclusions. Link:
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/m ... 30211.html

Within that, the age of the earth is 4.5 billion years, single celled life dates to at least 3.5 billion years (though catalytic RNA may go back earlier), multicellular life about 1 billion years (wormy things), and recognizable orders of multicellular life about 540 million years (Cambrian age).

Mammals date from somewhere in the region of 100 million years, the earliest bipedal apes in the human line about 4-5 million years, the genus Homo (Man) roughly 1 million years, the species Homo Sapiens about 200,000 years, and fully modern humans 45,000 years (ie full "cultural toolkit").

There it is. Anyone contradicting the overall picture is simply stupid, like carrying out experiments to prove that the earth is flat. The problem is the educational system. In the old days peasants knew their place and dug ditches. Now they spout garbage on the internet. But if someone doesn't want to be a peasant for life, they should get themselves a proper education. And if their IQ isn't up to it, tough. Luck of the draw.