What is the Evidence of Mutations and New Information

[one.opinion]

2 minutes ago, ARGOSY said:

What is a more comon observation, and proveable in modern conditions is that when an environment undergoes change, the common species hide in suitable niches, and niche species can become predominant if conditions suit.

Yes, this is certainly true.

3 minutes ago, ARGOSY said:

What one sees in the fossil record is predominance of certain classes of vertebrae according to conditions. The assumption that they therefore evolved, one to another, fish, amphibian, reptile , mammal is mere assumption.

Yes, it is an assumption, but it is an evidence-based assumption. When scientists find fossils like the Pakicetus, Ambulocetus, Kutchicetus, Rodhocetus, Dorudon, and modern cetaceans, that vary not only in physical characteristics, but also in time frame, it is a reasonable conclusion that the evidence supports the evolution assumption.

[one.opinion]

8 minutes ago, ARGOSY said:

Firstly I believe radiometric dating is exponentially flawed.

I should probably also press for evidence showing the flaws in radiometric dating for the isotopic series typically used for dating - and flawed in such a synchronized way that they "appear" to be valid.

[ARGOSY]

7 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

Yes, this is certainly true.

Yes, it is an assumption, but it is an evidence-based assumption. When scientists find fossils like the Pakicetus, Ambulocetus, Kutchicetus, Rodhocetus, Dorudon, and modern cetaceans, that vary not only in physical characteristics, but also in time frame, it is a reasonable conclusion that the evidence supports the evolution assumption.

It is possible that the oceans were more volcanic/anoxic before the landmasses appeared. Then the oceans changed and landmasses formed.  History shows ice caps forming and the world before the PT boundary having a flatter landscape. So when the ice caps formed, the landmass would have grown into a vast shallow swamp. The natural order of fossils then, not due to evolution but due to predominant conditions would be anoxic marine, then aerobic marine, then swamps (think mudfish), then terrestrial. It is more likely that these already existed than suddenly evolved, especially when nearly every phyla just suddenly appears without fossil precursor in the Ediacaran and early Cambrian. 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian_explosion

The seemingly rapid appearance of fossils in the "Primordial Strata" was noted by William Buckland in the 1840s,^[13] and in his 1859 book On the Origin of Species, Charles Darwin discussed the then inexplicable lack of earlier fossils as one of the main difficulties for his theory of descent with slow modification through natural selection.^[14] The long-running puzzlement about the appearance of the Cambrian fauna, seemingly abruptly, without precursor, centers on three key points: whether there really was a mass diversification of complex organisms over a relatively short period of time during the early Cambrian; what might have caused such rapid change; and what it would imply about the origin of animal life. Interpretation is difficult due to a limited supply of evidence, based mainly on an incomplete fossil record and chemical signatures remaining in Cambrian rocks.

Multiple species just appear without fossil precursor. We have fossils of all types of hard bodied and soft bodied species since the Ediacaran yet NOTHING before then. Where are ANY fossil trails of millions of species from one so-called universal common ancestor.  One has to have deep faith in a lack of evidence to believe evolution.

 

[ARGOSY]

31 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

I should probably also press for evidence showing the flaws in radiometric dating for the isotopic series typically used for dating - and flawed in such a synchronized way that they "appear" to be valid.

Haha I was waiting for the interest.  Baiting you

You see, they realised that solar flares were causing fluctuations in decay rates, but if you analyse the evidence further and apply a bit of thinking to it, one can see that there is a general relationship between background radiation and radiometric decay rates.  Muons being the main source of background radiation.

They have noticed the relationship with solar flares and time of day, and seasonal fluctuations, which also cause fluctuations in background radiation. But there are two major flaws in their studies, firstly they have not yet concentrated on long life isotopes, and secondly they have not established exponential relationships between cosmic penetration and isotope decay. This should include the reality that in history atmospheric pressure and the magnetic field were so strong as to virtually eliminate all muon penetration. 

A)  What we observe is that a slight increase in background radiation slows decay in short-life isotopes by a small percentage.

B) What we need to know is what a massive DECREASE in background radiation will do to increase the decay in LONG-LIFE isotopes to understand conditions when the world had higher air pressures combined with a stronger magnetic field.

Until they study (B) all radiometric dates are suspect.

Edited October 18, 2018 by ARGOSY

[ARGOSY]

52 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

When scientists find fossils like the Pakicetus, Ambulocetus, Kutchicetus, Rodhocetus, Dorudon, and modern cetaceans, that vary not only in physical characteristics, but also in time frame, it is a reasonable conclusion that the evidence supports the evolution assumption.

Oh really. If one applies your intelligence to that theory of evolutionary progression over time, it becomes, how should I say this diplomatically....... amusing

Think about it, right now we have a range of mammals, from terrestrial to amphibuous to marine. Assuming evolutionary timeframes are correct:

100000 years ago we had a range of mammals , from terrestrial to amphibuous to marine. 

1 million years ago we had a range of mammals , from terrestrial to amphibuous to marine

10 million years ago we had a range of mammals , from terrestrial to amphibuous to marine

100 million years ago we had a range of mammals , from terrestrial to amphibuous to marine

You can cherry pick from that range as you please, and create so-called evolutionary timelines based on some other feature (long snout?) (big tail?).  Yet all you are showing is that there are and were many mammal species in existence. This is made all the easier because there have been extinctions, and so the range to pick and chose from was greater. In the end you have a very impressive list of say 5 cherry picked mammals through time, but this proves nothing in the creation/evolution debate whereby creationists readily acknowledge the early variety that you have to cherry pick from.

 

[one.opinion]

25 minutes ago, ARGOSY said:

Haha I was waiting for the interest.  Baiting you

You see, they realised that solar flares were causing fluctuations in decay rates, but if you analyse the evidence further and apply a bit of thinking to it, one can see that there is a general relationship between background radiation and radiometric decay rates.  Muons being the main source of background radiation.

They have noticed the relationship with solar flares and time of day, and seasonal fluctuations, which also cause fluctuations in background radiation. But there are two major flaws in their studies, firstly they have not yet concentrated on long life isotopes, and secondly they have not established exponential relationships between cosmic penetration and isotope decay. This should include the reality that in history atmospheric pressure and the magnetic field were so strong as to virtually eliminate all muon penetration. 

A)  What we observe is that a slight increase in background radiation slows decay in short-life isotopes by a small percentage.

B) What we need to know is what a massive DECREASE in background radiation will do to increase the decay in LONG-LIFE isotopes to understand conditions when the world had higher air pressures combined with a stronger magnetic field.

Until they study (B) all radiometric dates are suspect.

Do you have citations to support these assertions?

27 minutes ago, ARGOSY said:

B) What we need to know is what a massive DECREASE in background radiation will do to increase the decay in LONG-LIFE isotopes to understand conditions when the world had higher air pressures combined with a stronger magnetic field. 

Since the long-life isotopes have different decay rates, background radiation would have to selectively alter the decay rates of each isotope very specifically in order to allow them to produce similar radiometric dating. Essentially, God would have had to tweak the decay rate for each long-life isotope in such a manner that the independent dating methods for each isotope would simply appear to give very similar results. Again, He could have done this, but I see no reason why He would have intentionally made radiometric dating look accurate without it actually being accurate.

[ARGOSY]

13 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

Do you have citations to support these assertions?

Since the long-life isotopes have different decay rates, background radiation would have to selectively alter the decay rates of each isotope very specifically in order to allow them to produce similar radiometric dating. Essentially, God would have had to tweak the decay rate for each long-life isotope in such a manner that the independent dating methods for each isotope would simply appear to give very similar results. Again, He could have done this, but I see no reason why He would have intentionally made radiometric dating look accurate without it actually being accurate.

I am not sure I understand, if two isotopes have the exact same half-life the effect would most likely be the same.  I'm not following your assumption that there would require supernatural intervention. There are multiple isotopes used for radiometric dating , granted. But there are not multiple methods of decay, just alpha and beta decay.

 

 

[ARGOSY]

26 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

Do you have citations to support these assertions?

https://www.purdue.edu/newsroom/research/2010/100830FischbachJenkinsDec.html

I have more detail on my other laptop, but there have been further studies done by Purdue University and the Israel Geological Survey. Other than solar flares they have also detected a seasonal fluctuations in decay, and daily fluctuations in decay.

I have noticed that the fluctuations have an inverse relationship with background radiation, whatever increases background radiation ,  will decrease decay rates, and vice versa. 

[one.opinion]

1 hour ago, ARGOSY said:

I'm not following your assumption that there would require supernatural intervention. There are multiple isotopes used for radiometric dating

I would assume that interference in radioactive decay would be uniform and unrelated to the half-lives of the particular isotopes. In order for radioisotopic dating using different systems to independently support rock formation dates, then the affects on each isotope would have had to have been specifically adjusted for each isotope.

[ARGOSY]

3 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

I would assume that interference in radioactive decay would be uniform and unrelated to the half-lives of the particular isotopes. In order for radioisotopic dating using different systems to independently support rock formation dates, then the affects on each isotope would have had to have been specifically adjusted for each isotope.

I don't see different systems, the basis being alpha decay and beta decay. The Purdue effect affects both Alpha and Beta decay.  The various half lives are a reflection of how active the isotope is, an unstable isotope that is not very active will take a long time to decay. A highly active unstable isotope will decay rapidly. 

Imagine a whole lot of batteries of the same energy all discharging at steady rates. Some are discharging slowly, some rapidly.  They all therefore have a predictable lifespan. If you then simultaneously charge them all slowly, this will bring the slow discharge batteries to near equilibrium, extending their lifespan hugely because the discharge and charge rates are nearly the same. Yet the batteries with the rapid discharge are hardly affected by the small charge. This is logically  what is happening, background radiation is recharging less active unstable isotopes to near equilibrium, extending their lifespans indefinitely, but hardly affecting the highly active short life isotopes. 

Remove the background radiation and suddenly even the less active isotopes decay quickly because the equilibrium effect is gone.