What is the Evidence of Mutations and New Information

[The Barbarian]

25 minutes ago, SwordMaster said:

Again...when it comes to age dating, not one of those methods used by evolutionists are accurate to any degree..

Argon/argon dating, for example, precisely called the date of the eruption that buried Pompeii.  

https://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/97legacy/pompeii.html

You were badly misled about that. 

27 minutes ago, SwordMaster said:

Living mollusk shells have been dated at being millions of years old..

Not by any scientist who knows anything about the issue.   And it's impossible to get a date of millions of years on C-14, because the half-life of that isotope is so brief.  You see, carbon-14 dating only works on biologically fixed carbon.    And mollusks get a lot of their carbon from geological (and therefore very ancient) sources.  We see the same thing on organisms that eat such mollusks.   It's no mystery.   Even most creationist know better.

The source of the 2,300-year-old radiocarbon date (Keith and Anderson 1963, discussed by Strahler 1987, 156-157), has been abused and misused to discredit radiocarbon dating. The article discussed the potential errors that the presence of "dead carbon" would introduce into the dating of mollusks. For example, carbon dioxide in the water can partially come from Paleozoic limestone, which lacks carbon-14. As a result, the carbon dioxide in the water is deficient in carbon-14 relative to the atmosphere, and mollusks living in the water build shells that give apparent dates older than they really are. This is a type of "reservoir effect."

...

The springs, from which the snails came, were fed by carbonate aquifers. As this water percolated through the enclosing carbonates, it dissolved limestone and dolomite hundreds of millions of years old. The dissolution of limestone and dolomite introduced considerable quantities of "dead carbon" into the groundwater. As a result, the groundwater which fed the spring and in which the snails lived was significantly deficient in carbon-14 relative to what is found in the atmosphere. When the snails made their shells, they incorporated an excess amount of "dead carbon," relative to modern atmosphere, into their shells, which resulted in the excessively old apparent date.

http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD011_3.html

I'm surprised anyone still makes that error.   AIG and ICR have both removed that from their sites, last time I checked.

 

Contrary to the complaints of creationists, conventional scientists are well aware of this problem. They test for it and take it into account when interpreting radiocarbon data. In cases where corrections for presence of dead carbon cannot be made, such dates are readily recognized as erroneous and can be safely disregarded.

[The Barbarian]

On 8/23/2018 at 8:15 PM, Guest shiloh357 said:

The only real evidence that matters is the fossil record and Darwin admitted that he had nothing to support his notion of Evolution and thought it would be vindicated later.

And so it was...

Evidences for Darwin’s second expectation — of stratomorphic intermediate species —
include such species as Baragwanathia27 (between rhyniophytes and lycopods), Pikaia28 (between echinoderms and chordates), Purgatorius29 (between the tree shrews and
the primates), and Proconsul30 (between the non-hominoid primates and the hominoids). Darwin’s third expectation — of higher-taxon stratomorphic intermediates — has been
confirmed by such examples as the mammal-like reptile groups31 between the reptiles and the mammals, and the phenacodontids32 between the horses and their presumed
ancestors. Darwin’s fourth expectation — of stratomorphic series — has been confirmed by such examples as the early bird series,33 the tetrapod series,34,35 the whale series,36 the various mammal series of the Cenozoic37 (for example, the horse series, the camel series, the elephant series, the pig series, the titanothere series, etc.), the Cantius and Plesiadapus primate series,38 and the hominid series.39 Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact.

YE Creationist Dr. Kurt Wise, Toward a Creationist Understanding of Transitional Forms

All of this is very good evidence, but even more compelling is that we never find transitional forms where evolutionary theory predicted they would not be.   We don't see mammals with feathers, or arthropods with bones.    No whales with gills.

Darwin's confidence was well-placed.   And the fossil record shows this.

 

[SwordMaster]

 

Quote

 

 

Quote

 

On 8/10/2022 at 5:49 PM, SwordMaster said:

Again...when it comes to age dating, not one of those methods used by evolutionists are accurate to any degree..

 

 

Argon/argon dating, for example, precisely called the date of the eruption that buried Pompeii. 

 

Why, yes...because it happened within the last 10,000 years where argon dating methods do not require assumptions added to the mix in order to come to a "satisfactory" age.

Plus we have secondary means to accurately date the same event so that its date can be solidly verified. There is no such verification within TOE that does NOT require assumptions added to the mix in order to come to millions and billions of years of age.

 

 

 

 

[SwordMaster]

Quote

The source of the 2,300-year-old radiocarbon date (Keith and Anderson 1963, discussed by Strahler 1987, 156-157), has been abused and misused to discredit radiocarbon dating. 

Yeah, that might work if the faulty explanation of TOEists on their paper was what I was referring to. But what I refer to is the purposeful and deceptive practice of assuming things in the past as if they are the same as today.

Why don't you hit that one, because I am sure you know about it...

 

 

[SwordMaster]

Quote

 

The springs, from which the snails came, were fed by carbonate aquifers. As this water percolated through the enclosing carbonates, it dissolved limestone and dolomite hundreds of millions of years old. The dissolution of limestone and dolomite introduced considerable quantities of "dead carbon" into the groundwater. As a result, the groundwater which fed the spring and in which the snails lived was significantly deficient in carbon-14 relative to what is found in the atmosphere. When the snails made their shells, they incorporated an excess amount of "dead carbon," relative to modern atmosphere, into their shells, which resulted in the excessively old apparent date.

http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD011_3.html

I'm surprised anyone still makes that error.   AIG and ICR have both removed that from their sites, last time I checked.

 

I am surprised that anyone with a working knowledge of scientific facts would quote anything from talkorigins...as the entire web site has been put in the trash can so many times over the last 30 years that its really quite pathetic.

 

 

 

[SwordMaster]

Quote

 

All of this is very good evidence, but even more compelling is that we never find transitional forms where evolutionary theory predicted they would not be.   We don't see mammals with feathers, or arthropods with bones.    No whales with gills.

Darwin's confidence was well-placed.   And the fossil record shows this.

 

In actuality, none of it is evidence for anything but vivid imaginations. 

 

"Neither of the two fundamental axioms of Darwin's macroevolutionary theory - the concept of the continuity of nature, that is the idea of a functional continuum of all life forms linking all species together and ultimately leading back to a primeval cell, and the belief that all the adaptive design of life has resulted from a blind random process - have been validated by one single empirical discovery or scientific advance since 1859." Micheal Denton; Evolution: a Theory in Crisis

I don't say that because Denton said it, I say that because that is what the facts of nature demonstrate. When we remove ALL of the illegitimate assumptions from the story-telling, the facts demonstrate that there is no such thing as one organism changing over time into a completely different organism through its progeny.

There is no evidence whatsoever that a single celled organism gave way over billions of years to human beings, elephants, birds, reptiles, etc. Not one valid piece of evidence that can stand up against scrutiny. 

 

[The Barbarian]

On 8/15/2022 at 9:46 PM, SwordMaster said:

Why, yes...because it happened within the last 10,000 years where argon dating methods do not require assumptions added to the mix in order to come to a "satisfactory" age.

No, that excuse won't fly.    We would have gotten the same results if no one knew about Pompeii or the date it was buried.   

On 8/15/2022 at 9:46 PM, SwordMaster said:

Plus we have secondary means to accurately date the same event so that its date can be solidly verified.

Which further confirmed the date obtained by radioisotope dating.   We can do this kind of thing for much more ancient rocks.  Would you like to learn about that?

 

[The Barbarian]

On 8/15/2022 at 9:53 PM, SwordMaster said:

I am surprised that anyone with a working knowledge of scientific facts would quote anything from talkorigins

The people who write for talkorigins are real scientists.   For most of us, that makes them more credible.  Would you like to learn about some of them?

On 8/15/2022 at 9:53 PM, SwordMaster said:

as the entire web site has been put in the trash can so many times over the last 30 years that its really quite pathetic.

Sounds like a testable claim.  Show us some examples and we'll examine the evidence.   What do you have?

 

[The Barbarian]

Evidences for Darwin’s second expectation — of stratomorphic intermediate species —
include such species as Baragwanathia27 (between rhyniophytes and lycopods), Pikaia28 (between echinoderms and chordates), Purgatorius29 (between the tree shrews and
the primates), and Proconsul30 (between the non-hominoid primates and the hominoids). Darwin’s third expectation — of higher-taxon stratomorphic intermediates — has been
confirmed by such examples as the mammal-like reptile groups31 between the reptiles and the mammals, and the phenacodontids32 between the horses and their presumed
ancestors. Darwin’s fourth expectation — of stratomorphic series — has been confirmed by such examples as the early bird series,33 the tetrapod series,34,35 the whale series,36 the various mammal series of the Cenozoic37 (for example, the horse series, the camel series, the elephant series, the pig series, the titanothere series, etc.), the Cantius and Plesiadapus primate series,38 and the hominid series.39 Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact.

YE Creationist Dr. Kurt Wise, Toward a Creationist Understanding of Transitional Forms

All of this is very good evidence, but even more compelling is that we never find transitional forms where evolutionary theory predicted they would not be.   We don't see mammals with feathers, or arthropods with bones.    No whales with gills.

Darwin's confidence was well-placed.   And the fossil record shows this.

"Neither of the two fundamental axioms of Darwin's macroevolutionary theory - the concept of the continuity of nature, that is the idea of a functional continuum of all life forms linking all species together and ultimately leading back to a primeval cell, and the belief that all the adaptive design of life has resulted from a blind random process..."

Micheal Denton; Evolution: a Theory in Crisis    1985

Darwin's great discovery was that it isn't random.   Denton really got that one wrong.   Natural selection is the antithesis of randomness.

Let's take a look at what Denton writes about evolution and continuity of nature...

t is important to emphasize at the outset that the argument presented here is entirely consistent with the basic naturalistic assumption of modern science—that the cosmos is a seamless unity which can be comprehended in its entirety by human reason and in which all phenomena, including life and evolution and the origin of man, are ultimately explicable in terms of natural processes. This is an assumption which is entirely opposed to that of the so-called “special creationist school.” According to special creationism, living organisms are not natural forms, whose origin and design were built into the laws of nature from the beginning, but rather contingent forms analogous in essence to human artifacts, the result of a series of supernatural acts, involving God’s direct intervention in the course of nature, each of which involved the suspension of natural law. Contrary to the creationist position, the whole argument presented here is critically dependent on the presumption of the unbroken continuity of the organic world– that is, on the reality of organic evolution and on the presumption that all living organisms on earth are natural forms in the profoundest sense of the word, no less natural than salt crystals, atoms, waterfalls, or galaxies.

In large measure, therefore, the teleological argument presented here and the special creationist worldview are mutually exclusive accounts of the world. In the last analysis, evidence for one is evidence against the other. Put simply, the more convincing is the evidence for believing that the world is prefabricated to the end of life, that the design is built into the laws of nature, the less credible becomes the special creationist worldview.4

Micheal Denton Nature's Destiny  2002

It seems Denton has learned a little more about biology.

 

Edited August 17, 2022 by The Barbarian