About this blog
Index to this page
- Status of this page
- Master index of the blog
- About sources
- Revision history of this page
- Revision history of this blog
- Introduction
- How I arrived here
- Intended tone of this blog
- Status of this page - Final draft
Blog-wide status definitions
- Under construction
- Final draft
- Initial release - quoted sources have been notified
- Open - quoted sources have responded
Back to index.
- Master index of the blog
Below is an index of the topics to date. All are open to comments and update. Another way to find a topic would be through the "Search this blog" option.
Back to index.
- About sources
My initial quote in a topic will be extracted from an on-line source with a link provided. If the source wishes to provide additional information then I will edit the topic to include the additional information.
Back to index.
- Revision history of this page
- Date - Revision
- 10/28/06 - final draft
- 10/15/06 - updated About, added Finche's beaks
- 10/14/06 - Original
Back to index.
- Revision history of this blog
- 10/28/06 - final draft of microevolution
- 10/15/06 - Finches and beaks
- 10/14/06 - Is microevolution related to evolution
- 10/14/06 - About this blog
Back to index.
- Introduction
Thousands of topics have been generated during the many years of discussing evolution. Many of the topics seem to be ramblings but a few appear to have substance and, therefore, have survivability (as in survival of the fittest). The purpose of this blog is to present only the topics which have survivability. While I plan to make the determination of survivability myself, I will with protest, present any related topic demanded in a comment attached to this post.
Back to index.
- How I arrived at this point
I became involved in this discussion around 1970 and have found it fascinating. I have been involved in many discussions and read many books on both sides of the issue. I have followed the court cases at a high level.
One book, The Origin of Species by Charles Darwin, helped me focus on my role in the discussion. In the first paragraph of the section Modes of Transition in chapter 6 he states:
"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."
So, one of my objectives is to list the organs. I would add that I will list impossible transitions in general. At the same time though, I see weakness in some of the listed evidence for evolution and I point out those weaknesses.
Back to index.
- Intended tone
I intend to present both sides of these issues without emotion. Facts speak quietly and clearly to the honest. I would like to think that I am a scientist and I enjoy discussions with scientists.
Back to index.
Is microevolution related to evolution
- Status - Under construction: comments are welcome
- Index
- Master index of this blog
- Introduction to this blog
- Revision history
- Related definitions (D)
- Representative quotes (Q)
- Arguments (A)
- Revision history
- 02/04/13 - Spelling
- 10/28/06 - work on arguments
- 10/26/06 - work on definitions and arguments
- 10/25/06 - finished representative quote section
- 01/22/06 - indexing finished
- 10/17/06 - indexing started
- 10/15/06 - work on definitions
- 10/14/06 - Initial post
Back to index
- Related definitions (D)
I am open to adjustment on this, as always, but I think microevolution refers to those changes between built-in adaptations and a change in species. Underlying all three are the normal process of living.
About these four cases
- The normal process of living includes:
- shallow roots dieing without rain v.s. deep roots living with available deep water
- leaves dieing in the fall v.s. leaves sprouting in the spring
These are not cyclic. New roots can form or new leaves can grow but the dead roots or leaves can not be reused; the opposite of what will be seen in the other cases.
- Adaptation includes:
- breathing out when CO2 is high and breathing in when O2 is low
- dilation of the pupil when light is low and shrinking in diameter when light is high
- thick hair on a horse when temperatures will be cold and thin hair when temperatures will be high
The lungs, eyes, and hair follicles are completely reused after the related change.
- Microevolution includes:
- (I am not aware of any authentic examples of microevolution.)
Please see my summary statement below.
- Macroevolution includes:
- "universal common descent by gradual change"
- the shift from a reptile to a mammal
The idea of macroevolution is that the majority of the organs are reused.
In summary, as one can see from the above, the middle (microevolution) is a very thin band of change. In fact, some of those on the one side argue that microevolution is adaptation and some of those on the other side argue that microevolution is evolution. In other words, to an extent both sides agree that microevolution does not really exist. That would be fine except that the problem comes when this thin band of change is used to prove that the idea of macroevolution is valid. A related problem is that some on the one side say that those on the other side accept microevolution as fact which, of course, is true only to the extent that microevolution is considered adaption but not beyond that point. Because of these issues microevolution will, in my estimation, remain an active topic.
Back to index
- Representative quotes (Q)
- Zachary Moore said here:
- "There is no mechanistic difference between micro and macroevolution, just differences in scale."
- followed by
- "Beside the fact that there is a clearly observed mechanism for physiological change in the finches,
- morphological comparisons demonstrate that macroevolution has indeed occurred."
Mr. Moore's statement was chosen because it includes three elements that I want to discuss here. His presentations are typically well stated and concise.
Back to index
- Arguments
I see Mr. Moore's statement as debatable because of the following:
- what this class of change represents depends on what has happened
- it may be simply built-in adaptation.
- to the extent that macroevolution has occured the change is no longer microevolution
- that something could happen can not be used prove that it did happen
- microevolution may appear because of invalid conclusions about data
About these 5 arguments
- What this class of change represents depends on what has happened.
Microevolution is not proof of evolution as is being inferred by Q2. If evolution did not happen then microevolution does not happen. Therefore, the idea of microevolution is a corollary to evolution. Therefore, the idea of microevolution can not be used as proof of evolution. To insist that microevolution is proof of evolution is to use circular logic.
Back to arguments.
- This class of change may simply be adaptation.
Microevolution may be adaptation instead of being a subset of evolution as is stated in Q3+Q4.
Like almost every common word, adaptation has multiple meanings. Here, I am using it in the sense that the result is easily reversable as in items 5, 6, and 7.
horse (winter para 5 - 7).
eye (pupil para 3).
capture (sect 3).
I am not using it in the sense of permanent or semi-permanent change as in item 4 in the dictionary reference above.
- course material definition.
- bird, tree pictures definition.
An organ of a living thing has the built-in ability to adapt to a certain range of varying conditions. The defining attribute of such changes is that they are comparatively easy to reverse. Changes that are being called microevolution are really the result of built-in adaptation if they are comparatively easy to reverse.
Back to arguments.
- To the extent that "macroevolution has indeed occurred" (Q3) it is no longer microevolution.
One type of change can not be automatically associated with another. Both types of change may occur independently of each other. If microevolution and macroevolution both exist.
Back to arguments.
- That something could happen can not be used to prove that it did happen.
This seems so obvious to me yet it is used over and over in an attempt to prove that evolution did happen. Related to this is the argument that "because you can not provide a theory then my theory must be true." Any evidence for evolution can also be used in many other ways.
Back to arguments.
- My presentation on finches provides an alternate conclusion regarding the data.
Data is always subjet to interpertation. I do not have access to the actual study or data but I can imagine how it was carried out. If certain data was collected then my interpertation may explain it so I offer my conjecture.
Back to arguments.
Back to index
It depends
- Status - final draft
- Index
- Master index of this blog
- Introduction to this blog
- Revision history
- Introduction
- Body
- Conclusion
- Revision history
- Date - activity
- 10/30/06 - started
Back to index
- Introduction
Constructing a logical argument seems to be among the challenges of life. When we really want something to be true we can trick ourselves into thinking we have a proof when we do not. There are many types of bad logic but circular logic ranks near the top in frequency of use.
For example, suppose I find a apparently shuffled deck of 10,000 numbered cards and an invitation that asks me to explain the origin of the numbers on the cards. I sort the list and immediately see patterns in the sorted numbers and begin searching for a formula which will generate those patterns. If I am able to create such a formula then I will be pleased with my accomplishment. Unfortunately, I can never know for sure if I have the formula that the numbers were generated by (there could be many formulas that would yield the number set) or if the numbers were simply generated randomly. Keep in mind that using a computer to generate random numbers requires a formula.
Such is the case with the thousands of living things. As with finding the shuffled deck we have found the plant and animal kingdom. And the invitation is there to explain how such a complex set of things came to be.
Back to index
- Body
The subject of this page is patterns and specifically internal patterns and external patterns in living things.
Let me tell you a tale? My great-great-granddaughter Megan recently graduated from college with a PhD in biochemistry. In her day, computers are a million times faster than today. In her day, so much is known about DNA that reconstructing the complete DNA for any animal using computers modern to her day is simple. Her job assignment this week is to reconstruct three now (in her day) extinct animals: a whale, a dolphin, and a sea anemone. A person is required to be licensed to do this. With that license comes a license number. To track the many reconstructions that are being performed the persons license number is inserted into the so-called junk DNA. When she has completed her assignment, that species of whale, that species of dolphin, and that species of sea anemone will have some common junk DNA.
Now to external patterns or homology. Homology is everywhere. From our youngest age we sort things by common traits. Colors have in common that they are produced in the eye. Sounds have in common that they are produced in the ear. Babies love to look at colors and love to hear plesant sounds. As toddlers, we learn to slip the star shaped block into the star shaped hole in a box. As first graders we can learn about words that end the same thus enabling collections of common sentences into poetry. To say that orange evolved from red would be to use circular logic. To say that Dad's voice evolved from Mom's would be to use circular logic. To say that the star shaped block evolved from the box would be to use circular logic. To say that "how I wonder where you are" evolved from "Twinkle, twinkle little star" would be to use circular logic.
Back to index
- Conclusion
Just as the patterns in the numbers are a corollary to the sorting process, the commonality of internal and external features of the plants and animals is a corollary to the sorting process. To attempt to use a corollary to prove what the corollary is based on is to use circular logic. In the case of Megan above, common junk DNA proves that Megan reconstructed the animals. What common junk DNA or patterns in charactersitics of living things means depends on what happened. Further, if evolution did not happen then the visible patterns are only a product of the sorting process therefor the patterns can not be used to prove that evolution happened.
Plants and animals may have evolved but the patterns can not be used to prove anything.
Back to index
Finches and beaks
- Status - Final draft: comments are welcome
- Index
- Master index of this blog
- Introduction to this blog
- Revision history
- Given and assumed - climate
- Given and assumed - birds
- Given and assumed - seeds
- Given and assumed - birds and seeds
- Given and assumed - researchers
- Proposal
- Conclusion(s)
- Revision history
Date - activity
- 10/29/06 - assumptions
- 10/12/06 - initial page
- Given and assumed - climate
- drought is considered least severe when rain ample to support the wildlife occurs
- drought is considered the more severe the less rain occurs
- Given and assumed - birds
- a finch in captivity dies at about age 5 years
- Finche's primary food is small seeds
- old age, predators, and starvation are the primary causes of death in birds
- more birds are born than will survive
- starvation is the major cause of death during a drought
- birds with smaller beaks are more agile than birds with larger beaks
Back to index
- Given and assumed - seeds
- a limited number of seeds appear each year
- seed shells harden during a drought
- seeds become less abundant during a drought
- seeds must be cracked to be useful as food
Back to index
- Given and assumed - birds and seeds
- birds eat almost all the seeds
- stronger "jaws" are required to crack hardened seeds
- birds with greater agility will eat more seeds
- a bird which can not crack seeds will die in a few weeks
Back to index
- Given and assumed - researchers
- the researchers actually measured the birds beaks
- the researchers captured adult birds, made measurements, tagged, and freed the birds
Back to index
- I propose that
- a statistically stable number of birds are born with a predetermined mature beak size regardless of the climate
This is parallel to human height. Identifying the mature height of a specific human is impossible at the birth of that human but a statistic can be applied which will predict the number of various heights that the mature humans will achieve. That statistic is independent of climate.
- the percentage of small beaked birds born in a season is larger than the percentage of large beaked birds born
This is parallel to human height. More humans of average or less height are born than is the number of tall humans born.
Back to index
- Conclusion(s)
- during times of ample rain
- the larger the number of small beaked seed eating birds survive due to the greater abundance of soft shelled seeds and to the greater abundance of seeds in general
- the smaller the number of large beaked seed eating birds survive due to the greater agility of the small beaked birds compared to the agility of the large beaked birds
- during times of severe drought
- the lower the number of small beaked seed eating birds survive due to the harder shells and to the lower number of seeds in general
- the larger the number of large beaked seed eating birds survive due to the lower competition from small beaked birds
Therefore, that birds beaks grow larger during greater drought is an illusion - a much larger number of large beaked birds survive and a much larger number of small beaked birds die during drought. However, a constant ratio of large to small beaked birds is born each cycle so that the percetage of small beaked birds springs back during seasons of ample rain.
Back to index
How C14 works
- Status - under construction
- Index
- Master index of this blog
- Introduction to this blog
- Revision history
- Introduction
- Piggy-bank example
- Given/assumed
- Figuring the percent
- And there you have it
- Revsion history
- Date - activity
- 11/08/06 - introduction, piggy bank
- 11/07/06 - started page
Research or back to index
- Introduction
Because this will be a long presentation (a couple of pages) it seemed correct to isolate it. The process that 14C goes through happens over thousands of years. Trying to explain in detail a process that occurs on that time scale would be difficult for me so I will use a piggy-bank example to introduce the concept.
Research or back to index
- The piggy bank example
Suppose you own an empty piggy-bank. In this case, you want to save some money but you want to spend some too. So, you decide to put a dime a day into the initially empty bank and take out 10% of what is in there for spending money. Here is how the first several days would go:
- 10 cents in makes 10 cents in the bank; 10% of 10 cents in the bank is 1 cent for spending money leaving 9 cents
- 10 cents in makes 19 cents in the bank 10% of which is (rounded up) 2 cents to spend leaving 17 cents
- 10 cents in = 27 cents in the bank, 10% of that is 3 cents to spend leaving 24 cents
- add 10 = 34, 10% = 3, 31 left in the bank
- add 10 = 41, 10% = 4, 37 left in the bank
- add 10 = 47, 10% = 5, 42 left in the bank
- add 10 = 52, 10% = 5, 47 left in the bank
- add 10 = 57, 10% = 6, 51 left in the bank
- add 10 = 61, 10% = 6, 55 left in the bank
- add 10 = 65, 10% = 7, 58 left in the bank
- add 10 = 68, 10% = 7, 61 left in the bank
- add 10 = 71, 10% = 7, 64 left in the bank
- add 10 = 74, 10% = 7, 67 left in the bank
- add 10 = 77, 10% = 8, 69 left in the bank
As you can see, the pennies available at the end of each turn increases rapidly at first then begins to grow more and more slowly as the 10% coming out takes a larger amount. After several more turns, there would obviously be over 90 cents in the bank. When the amount in the bank became 95 cents then you would put a dime in and take a dime out (9.5 cents rounded up). The amount in the bank would remain 95 cents forever.
This is the process for 14C also.
One final note: visualizing taking 10% out was easy to understand but the calculation would work the same if we said we wanted to keep 90% in the bank.
Research or back to index
- Given/assumed
Now, we have an idea of the process. What do we know?
- the atmosphere and anything that breathes or absorbs air becomes the bank where the 14C is stored
- 22 formations occur per second (looking for verification) becomes the deposits
- any one 14C atom will probably stay in the atmosphere for 5715 years (half-life of 5715 years)
Research or back to index
- Figuring the percentage
The percent to be taken out (the spending money in the piggy-bank example) can be calculated. What percent of removal will result in one-half (50%) as much being in the atmosphere after 5715 years? Another way to say this is what percent would I need to keep each turn to have 50% remaining in 5715 years. The value of 0.99988 works. On a calculator which can process exponentiation (y^x) enter "0.99988 y^x 5715 =" and the result is about .503 or roughly 50% remaining after 5715 years.
Research or back to index
- And there you have it
Research or back to index
Carbon 14
- Status - under construction
- Index
- Master index of this blog
- Introduction to this blog
- Revision history
- Introduction
- What material can be dated
- Why not other material
- What plants and animals can be dated
- Why not other plants and animals
- What ages can be dated
- Why not other ages
- What happens outside those parameters
- How is the measuring done
- Revsion history
- Date - activity
- 11/03/06 - started layout
- 11/01/06 - started page
- Introduction
Radiocarbon dating (or radiometric dating) is a interesting subject, even for a novice. While there are many factors to take into account, the factors are understandable at a high level. Radiometric dating is used, as the name implies, to discover the age of a substance which contains carbon atoms. The age is expressed as, for example, 10,000 years BP (before the present).
The first set of issues are what material, what subset of the material, and what ages of the material can be dated by this method and what happens when material outside those parameters is dated.
The second set of issues is the handling, preparation, and measuring of the substance.
Do research or go back to index
- What material can be dated
Clearly, since the method is called carbon-14 dating (14C) this process is exclusivly related to matter containing carbon. Carbon-14 is created when a nitrogen atom (1xN) accepts a xxx. The modified carbon atom is unstable (it doesn't want the extra xxx) and will eventually give the xxx up.
The material must be from a plant or animal (a living thing) because the material must be part of something that breathed or absorbed 14C from the atmosphere or ate another living thing that did.
Back to index
- Why not other material
Obviously, material without any carbon in it can not have the carbon measured.
Back to index
- What plants and animals can be dated
Back to index
- Why not other plants and animals
Back to index
- What ages can be dated
An atom of 14C has a half life of approximately 5715 years. This means that if a sample once contained two atoms then 5715 years later the sample probably contains one. If a sample once contained four atoms of 14C then 11,430 years later it probably contains one.
Back to index
- Why not other ages
A sample of once living material containing carbon will have 14C from three sources. The first is the 14C from the atmosphere. The second is the 14C created while the sample was buried. The third is contamination which will be discussed a little later. In this section we assume that the sample is not contaminated.
After many (just over 45) half-lives have passed then there is so little 14C remaining that the "real" 14C can not be separated from the "background" 14C.
Back to index
- What happens outside those parmeters
If one is trying to discredit radiometric dating then it is tempting to prove that the method is broken by using it outside the parameters. This is similar to complaining that a body thermometer does not work because it will not correctly give the temperature of boiling water.
Back to index
- How is the measuring done
The measuring is accomplished using a mass-spectrometer. This instrument measures the ratio of 14C to 12C. Note that counting the number of decays is not the method used and this is due to the long period of time between decays.
Back to index
NosyNed says in message 3 that "Radio carbon dating is good for, at the extremes, up to about 50,000 years."
Bret reports in message 9 that "Saying C14 is produced within the earth is based on faith (belief) not facts by fringe scientists that have the need to believe C14 is being produced within the earth under normal conditions."
nemesis juggernaut gives a highly rebutted introduction to carbon dating in message 17 (especially in message 21 by crashfrog).
JonF reports in message 18 that
in message x that
Back to index
The things people say
- Status - under construction
- Index
- Master index of this blog
- Introduction to this blog
- Revision history
- a pack of creationists
- A pack of creationists
Mr. Neil asks in the comments at the end of the article:
"Here's a facetious question: Why do you suppose it's fairly easy for an evolutionist to hide in a pack of creationists, but it's nearly impossible for a creationist to hide in a pack evolutionists?"
I respond with the question "Why do you suppose it's fairly easy for a terrorist to hide in a pack of peaceful citizens, but it's nearly impossible for a peaceful citizen to hide in a pack of terrorists?"
Is the question revelant to the discussion? What does the answer prove?
Back to index
