Evolution and Coral
- Thread starter thecichlidpleco
- Start date
MCsaxmaster
New member
Ha, ok. It seems to me that you're trying to have it both ways, to an extent. If you believe that God created the universe/Earth/species, then either the evidence from that creation has to be real or it has to be fake. That means that such a God is either being honest with us or is not.
The evidence cannot simutaneously be real AND fake
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=12515391#post12515391 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by MCsaxmaster
Ha, ok. It seems to me that you're trying to have it both ways, to an extent. If you believe that God created the universe/Earth/species, then either the evidence from that creation has to be real or it has to be fake. That means that such a God is either being honest with us or is not.
The evidence cannot simutaneously be real AND fake
Or we do not completely and or accurately under stand the evidence. In some areas that effect the beliefs.
I have a hard time with thinking, We know how it all came down Millions of your ago. When we did not have the equipment to see the goings on in a "simple cell" for more than what 100yrs. How do we know everything changes at the same rates over 100 of thousands of years. When we do not have a solid reference given from back then.
cutegecko3
Member
Ken Miller tried to use the arguement that god wouldnt try to fool us.But if he read the bible or at least didnt ignore it,it clearly says in the book of isaih"Those who pretend to walk in my ways,confusion shall be their lot".So God isnt an evil charlattan,according to him they deserve it.
MCsaxmaster
New member
1) Ha, no one suggests that we "know how it all came down"--that's the reason for doing science in the first place, to figure out things that we didn't know before.
To say that we don't know everything (absolutely true) in no way implies that we don't know anything.
2) We can be fairly certain of dating methods, which I think is what you're referring to, because we have so many different methods, all of which are completely independent and all of which converge on the same timescales when used for dating. There is also no known means by which the rate of radioactive decay can be altered significantly, nor any reason to think that it has ever been altered for any element. But again, if it had, the numerous radiometric dating methods wouldn't consistently return the same results.
For dating the universe we have things like cosmic background radiation, the rate of universal expansion, etc.
MCsaxmaster
New member
I'm not saying it's impossible for a god to exist or for that god to fake an entire universe worth of evidence.
What I'm saying is that, if we assume a god that created the universe exists, then either the evidence that god created is real, or it is fake. If the evidence is fake, that god is purposefully deceiving us. That god is a liar, by any reasonable definition.
I'm not sure why anyone would choose to worship a god that has created an entire universe full of lies and deception.
cutegecko3
Member
Radiometric dating methods are known to give inconsistant results.For example;The lava dam on the grand canyon using potassium argon gives a date of 1.2 million years.But the same sample using rb-sr gives a date of 1.3 billion.Which is correct or are they both wrong?On the other hand the oldest basement rocks using helium diffusion gives a date of ~6,000 years.A signifigant amount of c-12 is found in diamonds,fossils,and coal.If they were millions of years old there couldnt possibily be any c-12 in them.I believe there is a signifigant amount of evidence to believe in a young earth and universe.I dont think God is lying about anything,I think people find evidence and ignore it.Those results are under attack,but those numbers arent going anywhere.
MCsaxmaster
New member
You must be joking. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Where did you get any of that from? That is completely untrue. Numerous dating methods all give the same results for the various strata in the Grand Canyon. I’m not sure who told you these things, but either they lied to you or they unknowingly passed along some lies to you.
What? I think you may be significantly confused here. Carbon-12 is a stable isotope.
If by “young†you mean ~4.5 billion years and ~14 billion years, respectively, then I completely agree
Ha, well, I doubt that the biblical god, if he exists, would be lying either. Indeed, reality probably is as the evidence suggests it is, and the universe probably isn't an elaborate ploy to confuse us all
What evidence have people found that they are ignoring? We scientists are interested in describing and understanding reality, whatever that reality happens to be. The charge that we are ignoring evidence (what evidence?) wholesale is, frankly, nonsense.
Chris
greenbean36191
Premium Member
When you violate the assumptions of a method you get erroneous results. Misapplication of a technique is not proof that it doesn't work. Comparing methods of dating requires that the sources be homogeneous, which Austin's canyon samples weren't. Similarly, trying to C-14 (C-12 is the stable isotope) date diamonds, fossils, or coal violates several assumptions of the method. All of them are much older than the method can ever be used to date, carbonate fossils and coal are subject to C contamination, and only coal has biogenic C, which is what C-14 dating is used for.
cutegecko3
Member
For the methods to be validated,they must give correct dates of samples of known ages.For example;lava from mount st. helens dated 2.1 million years old and it was only 20 years old.Others from lava we know is only 200 years old gives dates from tens to hundreds of millions of years old.Austin dated a bottom layer and a top layer form the grand canyon and the bottom layer was younger than the top.Either the people at the lab are completely incompetent or some of the assumptions are completely wrong.You can look up those dates for yourself before you start calling people liars.
MCsaxmaster
New member
You’re absolutely correct.
…which is why you can’t use samples that are contaminated and expect an accurate result. There is a huge body of literature on proper and improper sampling techniques. Any methodology, when completely misused, will give poor results.
Also, you realize that such potential pitfalls of these methods have been fleshed out and published by working geologists that fully accept the ~4.5 billion year old age of the Earth, do you not?
No, he didn’t. He purposefully misrepresented his data several times in non-peer reviewed publications. He has flat out lied numerous times and in numerous ways. For example, he used almost entirely non-cogenetic samples, later claimed that they were all cogenetic, and asserted that he was therefore able to date the samples using a lead isochron. No, what he was able to do was demonstrate a minimum age for which all the samples were homogenous and part of the mantle. The Cardenas Basalt, therefore, is not younger than the overtopping Cenozoic lava flows, as Austin erroneously claims. Rather, the material that made the Cardenas Basalt and the Cenozoic flows in the Grand Canyon have simply been separated for a longer period of time than the period of time after which the Cardenas Basalt cooled.
Austin has lied through his teeth over and over. He’s been caught and exposed over and over as well. When a real scientist purposefully misuses data to make erroneous claims, their career is over. When folks like Austin do it, his fans don’t seem to notice. What’s the term for thatâ€"lying for Jesus?
The people in the lab aren’t incompetent, Austin is simply a bold-faced liar. He has completely misrepresented the data to pull the wool over the eyes of folks that aren’t familiar with geology.
Cutegecko, may I offer one friendly piece of advice? May I just suggest that you be careful about the quality of the sources you read and trust and that you be a bit more cautious with your interpretations. I hate to be so blunt, but thus far almost every claim you’ve made regarding biology and now geology has been baseless. As a friend, I would ask you to consider carefully who you listen to and how you listen. It would seem you have been seriously deceived about a great deal of science.
Best,
Chris
I have volunteered to actively moderate this thread because I found the discussion fascinating. This is a scientific discussion, and if you feel the need to interject any religious dogma, your post will be removed and your posting privileges will be suspended.
I trust that is sufficient warning.
Opened.
I trust that is sufficient warning.
Opened.
Poorcollegereef
Future Doc
I would STILL like an epistemological analysis of evolution.
(epistemology = theory of knowledge... with theory in the philosophical definition)
If you need some background reading on epistemology, try this site form a George Washingtin Univ. prof. http://www.iep.utm.edu/e/epistemo.htm
(epistemology = theory of knowledge... with theory in the philosophical definition)
If you need some background reading on epistemology, try this site form a George Washingtin Univ. prof. http://www.iep.utm.edu/e/epistemo.htm
MCsaxmaster
New member
What would you like? An "epistemological analysis of evolution" is a rather broad heading, no?
MCsaxmaster
New member
Lemme just throw something out to get the ball rolling a bit.
We tend to think of coral skeletons as a taxonomically diagnostic structure. While a lot can certainly be gained at the species, genus, and family level from examination of the skeleton, there is strong evidence that the presense/absense of a skeleton itself is not diagnostic, meaning that the order scleractinia is not a true clade.
Instead of a single origin of skeletons in stony corals there seem to be several periods in geologic history when skeletons have emerged and disappeared within these sorts of animals. Thus, skeleton-producing corals (we're excluding hydrozoans, octocorals, etc. here as all of those groups clearly evolved separately and skeletogenesis arose separately) are not necessarily the descendents of a single group that began to calcify many millions of years ago. Rather, in the group or groups that led up to scleractinians the production of a skeleton varied over geologic time depending on seawater chemistry. During some periods the chemistry was appropriate to allow calcification and during other periods it was not. Over millions of years clades of anthozoans developed then lost then redeveloped then lost, etc. skeletons. It's clear that the capacity to do so remained intact (hence, redevelopment), but the actual production varied. The most plausible explanation would be that the genes involved in calcification were simply upregulated or downregulated over time, but probably not lost (or irreparably damaged).
This is particularly interesting today. Within the subclass zoantharea (6-way symmetry) we have 15 orders, 6 of which are still alive today. Zoanthidea (zoanthids), actinaria (sea anemones), ceriantharia (cerianthids, tube anemones), antipatharia (antipatharians, black corals), and ptychodactiaria (common name???) are all clearly physiologically different from scleractinians (stony corals) or corallimorpharians (mushroom polyps).
The interesting thing is, however, that physiologically corallimorphs fall right in with scleractinians, except that they don't calcify. They look, effectively, like "naked" coral polyps. Indeed, the "naked coral hypothesis" was proposed some decades ago to explain the apparent rise and fall of calcification over geologic history. The idea is as proposed above: that over time the critters either did or did not produce skeletons depending on whether or not doing so was feasible with the reigning seawater chemistry. Thus, it was hypothesized that many corals simply "went naked" by losing their skeletons when seawater chemistry made calcification unfavorable, and reverted to non-calcifying (or weakly calcifying) little anemone-like critters.
What would the general form of a non-calcifying coral polyp look like? Well, it would look like a corallimorph. Monica Medina's lab et al., took a genetic approach to this question a few years ago, and sure enough they found that modern corallimorphs are more closely related to one clade of scleractinians (including acroporids, pocilloporids, poritids, etc.) than they are to another clade of scleractinians (including Montastraea, Colpophyllia, Mussa, etc.).
So, it appears that the order scleractinia is truly polyphyetic. It includes two calcifying groups, but excludes a non-calcifying group that probably should be part of the clade. In order to fix that one would either need to split the stony corals into two orders, or corallimorphs would need to become part of the scleractinia.
There's no evidence that corallimorphs can calcify anymore, so they probably really have lost that ability at this point. It seems very, very likely that they are, indeed, naked corals.
We tend to think of coral skeletons as a taxonomically diagnostic structure. While a lot can certainly be gained at the species, genus, and family level from examination of the skeleton, there is strong evidence that the presense/absense of a skeleton itself is not diagnostic, meaning that the order scleractinia is not a true clade.
Instead of a single origin of skeletons in stony corals there seem to be several periods in geologic history when skeletons have emerged and disappeared within these sorts of animals. Thus, skeleton-producing corals (we're excluding hydrozoans, octocorals, etc. here as all of those groups clearly evolved separately and skeletogenesis arose separately) are not necessarily the descendents of a single group that began to calcify many millions of years ago. Rather, in the group or groups that led up to scleractinians the production of a skeleton varied over geologic time depending on seawater chemistry. During some periods the chemistry was appropriate to allow calcification and during other periods it was not. Over millions of years clades of anthozoans developed then lost then redeveloped then lost, etc. skeletons. It's clear that the capacity to do so remained intact (hence, redevelopment), but the actual production varied. The most plausible explanation would be that the genes involved in calcification were simply upregulated or downregulated over time, but probably not lost (or irreparably damaged).
This is particularly interesting today. Within the subclass zoantharea (6-way symmetry) we have 15 orders, 6 of which are still alive today. Zoanthidea (zoanthids), actinaria (sea anemones), ceriantharia (cerianthids, tube anemones), antipatharia (antipatharians, black corals), and ptychodactiaria (common name???) are all clearly physiologically different from scleractinians (stony corals) or corallimorpharians (mushroom polyps).
The interesting thing is, however, that physiologically corallimorphs fall right in with scleractinians, except that they don't calcify. They look, effectively, like "naked" coral polyps. Indeed, the "naked coral hypothesis" was proposed some decades ago to explain the apparent rise and fall of calcification over geologic history. The idea is as proposed above: that over time the critters either did or did not produce skeletons depending on whether or not doing so was feasible with the reigning seawater chemistry. Thus, it was hypothesized that many corals simply "went naked" by losing their skeletons when seawater chemistry made calcification unfavorable, and reverted to non-calcifying (or weakly calcifying) little anemone-like critters.
What would the general form of a non-calcifying coral polyp look like? Well, it would look like a corallimorph. Monica Medina's lab et al., took a genetic approach to this question a few years ago, and sure enough they found that modern corallimorphs are more closely related to one clade of scleractinians (including acroporids, pocilloporids, poritids, etc.) than they are to another clade of scleractinians (including Montastraea, Colpophyllia, Mussa, etc.).
So, it appears that the order scleractinia is truly polyphyetic. It includes two calcifying groups, but excludes a non-calcifying group that probably should be part of the clade. In order to fix that one would either need to split the stony corals into two orders, or corallimorphs would need to become part of the scleractinia.
There's no evidence that corallimorphs can calcify anymore, so they probably really have lost that ability at this point. It seems very, very likely that they are, indeed, naked corals.
Poorcollegereef
Future Doc
BrianD: agreed, the orginal purpose of this thread was more or less lost many pages ago and while the other discussions were borderline taboo on the thread, I did think there were some valid questions and answers to the exact nature within how evolution plays into marine biology... and the hobby. I was just playing devil's advocate in reguards to evolution without bringing in any dogma.
Chris: agreed, epistemology is broad and intentionally so... caught me I agree with your post here about the nature of how the order of scleractinia is classified. I have heard of this example within one of my classes about genetic classification. For the most part the naked coral idea makes for sense and I think there are other examples within mollusca phylum (atleast on a broader scale)
Unfortunately I am less aware about larval stages, but do you know the larval or developmental stages differ or do not differ between coarllimorphs, scleractinians, and other other cnidarians. Just a though... forgive me if I have errored
Chris: agreed, epistemology is broad and intentionally so... caught me
I agree with your post here about the nature of how the order of scleractinia is classified. I have heard of this example within one of my classes about genetic classification. For the most part the naked coral idea makes for sense and I think there are other examples within mollusca phylum (atleast on a broader scale)Unfortunately I am less aware about larval stages, but do you know the larval or developmental stages differ or do not differ between coarllimorphs, scleractinians, and other other cnidarians. Just a though... forgive me if I have errored
