h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

nosretep:

Have you grown up in a vacuum? Science has been working on it's methods and observation practices for millenia. We can observe radioactive carbon decay, enough to determine that carbon 14's half life is ~5200 years, plus or minus about 50 years. Maybe this isn't accurate to the day, but it gives us a good estimate. For longer dating, we can use the carbon 14 decay rate and compare it to the decay rate of different isotopes of different atoms. This might not be direct enough for you, but if I know that over 10 years that similar (and diverse) samples of c-14 decay at the same rate, and over 20 years that this rate remains the same, I will accept that rate.

Carbon 14 is useless (by itself) for dealing with the dates involved in pre-cellular evolution. For that, we use Uranium 238. Since it has such a long half life, the margin of error is far greater that c-14's plus or minus 50 years; it's more like +/- 5,000,000.

Fossils are found in rock formed underwater because that is where sedimentary rock is formed, and that is the rock which can encapsulate the bones. Fossils are found in tar pits, insect fossils are found in bits of amber (hardened tree sap) and desicated corpses of numerous creatures are found in sandy deserts. Fossils are not just found in rock formed underwater.

>>What about the intermediate steps? If the changes in the intermediate organisms made then superior, shouldn't the ancestors have died? If not, why would the intermediate steps not exist today?<<

Neanderthal man was superior in many ways to Homo erectus. He had a larger brain, more resistance to cold, and as social, if not more so, than his contemporary humans. However, he was not as violent, and did not have the numbers or technology to combat his anihilation.

There is a parable that says for every 1000 steps forward, there are 999 steps backwards. This applies very much to evolution. Not all mutations of genetic material (DNA, RNA, complex and simple protiens) will be beneficial to the organism using these materials to store the processes involved in life. Many creatures die. In some cases, entire species, if a particular mutation was prevalent and suddenly became a disadvantage. Dodo's were large birds with few (if any) predators. They are extinct because of the introduction of an advanced predator into their small ecosystem.

We don't need 'testable methods'. The test is happening all around us. We're observing, using the senses we have, and interpreting, using the reasoning ability we have.

-jb

nosretep:

Did I say anything about any species lasting for a million years?
I just wanted to say that in my very personal opinion there are better examples for genetic deteoration than Down Syndrom.
btw. I fully agree to your inbreeding argument...

And what about inbreeding in the bible? (Adam's children and Noah's children, for generations!)

Penn State University prooved that amongst Amish people in the State College area far more disabled children are born than in the rest of the state. This is due to the inbreeding as they are only allowed to marry amongst themselves.
Well, now the men are going down to the Lancaster area for one weekend to choose a wife...

(Am I leading you off the track of evolution and creation? Sorry )

No, you are right on track. This is one weak point in creationism.

Stop.

Why the hell I am searching for weak points in this absolutely nonsense thing they even gave a name to, creation? Graaahh. I do not talk about the cyberspace religion any more. Get out of my head, cyberspace! I don't want to be a computer you run on any more (Bangs head against the wall and gets drunk)


(Please wake me when the talk gets to something interesting like Sex)

jbliqemp:

>>We can observe radioactive carbon decay, enough to determine that carbon 14's half life is ~5200 years, plus or minus about 50 years.<<

I agree that that is carbon 14's halflife now. But, how do we know how much carbon 14 was in the atmosphere several thousand years ago? That is where a faulty assumption comes in.

>>Carbon 14 is useless (by itself) for dealing with the dates involved in pre-cellular evolution. For that, we use Uranium 238. Since it has such a long half life, the margin of error is far greater that c-14's plus or minus 50 years; it's more like +/- 5,000,000.<<

How can science know how much Uranium 238 existed millions or billions of years ago?

>>Fossils are found in rock formed underwater because that is where sedimentary rock is formed, and that is the rock which can
encapsulate the bones. Fossils are found in tar pits, insect fossils are found in bits of amber (hardened tree sap) and desicated
corpses of numerous creatures are found in sandy deserts. Fossils are not just found in rock formed underwater.<<

The vast majority are in sedimentary rock, and I have only seen otherwise in movies. Do you have evidence for your claim?

>>Neanderthal man was superior in many ways to Homo erectus. He had a larger brain, more resistance to cold, and as social, if
not more so, than his contemporary humans. However, he was not as violent, and did not have the numbers or technology to
combat his anihilation.<<

How do you know that Neanderthal man was not a man (homo sapien)? I think they were men who inbred for many generations and developed arthritis and walked around stooped over as a result and eventually died off.

>>There is a parable that says for every 1000 steps forward, there are 999 steps backwards. This applies very much to evolution.
Not all mutations of genetic material (DNA, RNA, complex and simple protiens) will be beneficial to the organism using these
materials to store the processes involved in life.<<

This just adds to the improbability of evolution.

>>We don't need 'testable methods'. The test is happening all around us. We're observing, using the senses we have, and interpreting, using the reasoning ability we have.<<

We need to know that the methods work. Observation is the only means that I know of that we can determine if a method works. Because we cannot measure the amount of U-238 millions of years ago, I say that it is not a testable method.

Feffi:

>>And what about inbreeding in the bible? (Adam's children and Noah's children, for generations!)<<

I have had time to consider that point in recent days. If you look at old fossils and the biblical account, you see men that are 10 feet tall and live a long time. I believe that God created Adam and Eve with a great deal of genetic diversity. God then told Adam and Eve as well as Noah and the other 7 people later to go and multiply. God could have created Adam and Eve with enough genetic diversity to foster 10^2700 or so children that are genetically different (obviously this is not physically possible). It was in the days of Moses that inbreeding became dangerous as the genetic mistakes began to add up. Thus, for our own protection, God said that inbreeding is a sin. Indeed, now if inbreeding lasts for several generations, the family begins to die.

> "I agree that that is carbon 14's halflife now"

Are you saying that the halflife of carbon has changed in the last few thousand years? I hope not, or you'll be having dificulty explaining how the flawed science of nuclear physics managed to produce fission reactors and the fusion bomb.

Carbon-14 is created in the upper atmosphere by the suns rays. The radiance of the sun has been approximately constant in the last 10,000 years, as has the composition of the atmosphere.

> "How can science know how much Uranium 238 existed millions or billions of years ago?"

U-238 is created in stars. It is not produced by natural processes. Therefore, knowing the halflife of U-238, and knowing the amount of U-238 now, we can deduce the amount of U-238 that should exist at differing times in the past.

[yawn]

> "How do you know that Neanderthal man was not a man (homo sapien)? I think they were men who inbred for many generations and developed arthritis and walked around stooped over as a result and eventually died off."

What a wonderful theory. How does your theory cope with the way that neathanderthals are consistently found in older strata of rock than modern man? Oh right - you think that our dating techniques are fundamentally flawed, don't you...

Here's a dating technique that hasn't been mentioned. It is known that different layers of rock have quite different compositions. It is further known that whereever we find a layer of type A and type B in the same place, type A is always above type B. From this scientists conclude that the type B layer is older than that of type A.

From this reasoning, we have concluded that fossils of neathanderthals are older than those of modern man - quite aside from the agreement reached with other dating techniques. Is this valid reasoning?

Lucinda:

>>Carbon-14 is created in the upper atmosphere by the suns rays. The radiance of the sun has been approximately constant in the last 10,000 years, as has the composition of the atmosphere.<<

How do you justify that last part without evolution? A creationist will point to the flood and say that the atmosphere was very different before it.

>>U-238 is created in stars.<<

Then how do we have any here now? This still points to evolution (or perhaps the formation of the solar system. You need direct observation or in this case proof with a proven theory. Perhaps this is correct, but only assuming the earth is as old as scientists guess. This is circular reasoning (actually a group of interlooping circles).

>>It is not produced by natural processes.<<

Then how is it created in stars?

>>What a wonderful theory. How does your theory cope with the way that neathanderthals are consistently found in older strata
of rock than modern man?<<

What is modern man? This group of neanderthal men went into an area and died (and were probably buried) and another group came into the area. They then died atop of them (probably were buried). Let me ask you this, science say that burial is over 2 million years old. Where are the bodies?

>>From this reasoning, we have concluded that fossils of neathanderthals are older than those of modern man - quite aside
from the agreement reached with other dating techniques. Is this valid reasoning?<<

I will repeat myself a bit here. Realize that the neanderthals were under water or buried to be in rock. Let us say that there are fossils of neanderthals under fossils of "modern man" (I have never seen this, but I'm sure it exists). After the flood, a group of neanderthals move to an area. They die off and some are buried and turn into fossils. Now, through erosion or other means, several feet of dirt are on top of the burial grounds. "Modern man" comes in and farms, etc. and buries some people on top. This seems logical to me. Neanderthal man is older by a few thousand years.

Let's look at your dating method. Did you know that in the Grand Canyon the upper layers of rock are older than the lower layers according to radiometric dating? Well, that's just an exception...

The specific requirement for C-14 to be formed is that there must be carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide in the air is a result of such things as animals, as well as certain natural processes such as forest fires. Your bible's timeline places the creation of animals well before the flood, so I doubt any sane creationist would say that there was no carbon dioxide in the air before the flood.

However, what creationists say, I have to point out, is a matter of supreme irrelevance to scientists. I'm merely defending evolution as a scientifically valid point of view - I gave up arguing against creation when you said that you would not allow logic or reason to negatively affect your faith.

The presence of carbon dioxide in the air is also necessary for the existance of plants. We know that plants have existed for a long time. The presence of carbon dioxide in the air is also responsible for the formation of certain types of rock, and the existance of carbonic acid in water - which shows itself in a number of rock formations.

The earth is made of stardust. Stars eventually die, go supernova, and spray out matter, including U-238. We know this because we have seen it happen by doing spectral analysis of supernova we have seen in space.

Is spectral analysis flawed?

> natural processes

U-238 is not produced by natural processes *on earth*. My apologies - I thought my meaning would be clear from context. Better?

> "Neanderthal man is older by a few thousand years."

But you just said earlier than Neathanderthals formed as a result of inbreeding amongst homo sapiens - which would mean that the first neathanderthal fossils should be more recent than the first of homo sapiens.

May I ask for clarification?

> grand canyon

I don't know much about the grand canyon, I'm afraid. But I will say that if you are right and radiometric dating is scientifically flawed, then one would expect to find a lot more examples than simply one. Half the world in fact.

A geologist will be able to tell you about plate tectonics and the resultant 'folding' that can, in combination with erosion, lead to small areas where the geological layers are inverted. In general, a good, or even competent, geologist can tell from a quick examination of the surface of an area what the underlying geological structure of it is.

Don't tell me. Geology is another example of bad science? Tell that to the oil companies which use it to decide where to drill for oil.

Lucinda:

>>The specific requirement for C-14 to be formed is that there must be carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.<<

Is that the only pualification? If that is the case, how do we know that levels of carbon dioxide are constant?

>>so I doubt any sane creationist would say that there was no carbon
dioxide in the air before the flood.<<

It is a matter of degree. I also thought there were other factors.

>>However, what creationists say, I have to point out, is a matter of supreme irrelevance to scientists.<<

I agree if what creationists say is theological. However, if their are flaws in the scientific experiments that a creationist points out, they should care.

>>I gave up arguing against creation when you said that you would not allow logic or reason to negatively affect your faith.<<

I was extremely furstrated at the theological questions being brought forth, and I made some dumb statements, my apologies. If you merely defend what science then you will likely became as frustrated as I did simply defending my faith and not attacking theirs.

>>The earth is made of stardust. Stars eventually die, go supernova, and spray out matter, including U-238. We know this because we have seen it happen by doing spectral analysis of supernova we have seen in space.<<

How do you validate the first statement? If stars spray out matter, then shouldn't U-238 levels be increasing on earth?

>>But you just said earlier than Neathanderthals formed as a result of inbreeding amongst homo sapiens - which would mean that the first neathanderthal fossils should be more recent than the first of homo sapiens.<<

They died off due to inbreeding. Maybe Adam was a Neanderthal, I don't know. I do know that groups of people went into areas and natural selection siphaned their genes.

>>I don't know much about the grand canyon, I'm afraid. But I will say that if you are right and radiometric dating is scientifically flawed, then one would expect to find a lot more examples than simply one. Half the world in fact.<<

A evolutionist would not want the information to get out. The cases of error are seen as exceptions.

>>A geologist will be able to tell you about plate tectonics and the resultant 'folding' that can, in combination with erosion,
lead to small areas where the geological layers are inverted. In general, a good, or even competent, geologist can tell from
a quick examination of the surface of an area what the underlying geological structure of it is.<<

Did you know that the Matterhorn is made of rock not found within 10 miles of it?

> "how do we know that levels of carbon dioxide are constant?"

I think I already answered that one... actually it's not that carbon dioxide has to be constant, to be picky - it's that the carbon is distributed in the same manner around the carbon cycle - wit amounts to the similar thing in the end, though.

> "If you merely defend what science then you will likely became as frustrated as I did simply defending my faith and not attacking theirs."

Well, we shall see, shall we not? Generally my problem with these discussions is boredom, rather than frustration.

>> "The earth is made of stardust"

There are many jigsaw pieces to put forawrd for that... the simplest is, of course, "what else is there?" - interstellar material is mostly hydrogen - the only place that heavy elements are formed are in stars. The existance of heavy elements on earth, and other planets in the solar system, means that the solar system must be formed of stardust.

Or, of course, a 'gaseous invertebrate' as TG puts it. But, there being no scientific evidence for gaseous invertebrates, and it being an untestable hypothesis, science has to reject it - no value judgement, just the way science works.

There is other evidence, of course.

> "If stars spray out matter, then shouldn't U-238 levels be increasing on earth?"

Well spotted, but no. One type of matter comes in the big, heavy variety, known as comets. So far, those that have hit us have been fairly small - if a large one hit us we'd be worrying about more than U-238 levels. These are made of heavy elements, and are indeed made of stardust.

The other type of matter is interstellar dust - the earth sweeps up a fair amount of this year on year. But most of this is hydrogen and occasional helium. The amount of U-238 we pick up is negligible compared to the rate of decay of U-238 - so it's really, really, really small!

> "A evolutionist would not want the information to get out"

You don't believe this, I think - you have displayed many attributes, but paranoia and conspiracy theories have as yet not been one of them.

More importantly, the people who discover this sort of thing are geologists, not evolutionists - and finding exceptions to the rules will make your career. The guy who discovered that the perihelion of mercury was advancing, just as an example, so paving the way for relativity.

> "Maybe Adam was a Neanderthal, I don't know"

But if Adam was a neathanderthal, and subsequent generations evolved into homo sapiens, then you have there an example of evolution creating new species...

> "Did you know that the Matterhorn is made of rock not found within 10 miles of it?"

Nope. I'm not a geologist, nor do I have a terribly large interest in the subject - perhaps you would care to feed me some URLs?

Incidentally, backtracking a little... bulldogs *can't* mate with poodles. They squash them during sex.

On an entirely seperate note - would you care to help write an entry giving the evolution versus creation debate? The way I see it structured is as two entries:

Title: The theory of evolution
-- what is it?

Sets out what it is in fairly simple terms, along with evidence as it is relevant.

-- Problems
subheader for each objection raised (both ones that you personally agree with and disagree with), and the 'response' from science. For example, there might be a subheader "gaps in the fossil record", which reads something like:

'Some people point to gaps in the fossil record as evidence against evolution. These are ... (blah) ... To explain these gaps, modern evolutionary theory has introduced the 'punctured equilibrium' theory of evolution, which says ... (blah) ... This has had some backup from computer simulations and ... (blah)'

Title: Christian Creationism
-- what is it?
Again - a general outline of creationism, where it can be summed up as "genesis is literal truth". (is this accurate?). So we include stuff about the flood, for instance. Again, evidence where it exists - yes, the bible counts, yes, faith counts here, but I think you should avoid over-relying on either.

-- problems
Stuff like:

'some people point to the vast quantities of water that would have been required for the flood (some XXX tons), and question it's source and destination. Creationists argue/say ... (blah - I dunno!)'

--
And note that both of these would be impartial balanced entries - If some creationists believe X, where X=some dumb thing, put down that "some people believe that X". Similarly, I'll mention the weirder theories about life coming from other planets by hitchhiking on comets.

Anyway, we could each write the initial explanatory bit on our own - then, when ready, invite comments from the 'floor' - each other - probably the FFFF and h2g2 xtians - and maybe get Abi to post a link on the 'talk' page. Then go through, adding in the problem and their solutions (if any). If there are no solutions, then it's acceptable to say either "we don't know" or "it was a miracle" respectively - but I'm anticipating that most problems will have *some* solution.

Whadya think? Worthwhile? We'd each have control of our own entries, so editorial clashes would hopefully not be a problem. If somebody wants to add to this and make an entry on the Greek god explanation, then that's fine too...

All radioactive isotopes decay into a stable substance. U-238 decays down to an isotope of lead fairly quickly (the intermediate substances have very short half-lives). I don't think the lead isotope is common, either, accept in U-238 decay. Therefor, if we find a chunk of rock that is half U-238 and half lead isotope, we know that the U-238 has reached it's half life. Roughly 1.4 billion years, if I remember correctly. C-14, I think, decays to boron.

-jb

Also, as for fossils found not in sedimentary rock: The La-Brea tarpits (preserved remains of various creatures), several preserved human corpses in glaciers, and, of course, the already mentioned desicated desert corpses.

-jb

> "C-14, I think, decays to boron"

It took me a long time to be convinced that boron was a real element and not something invented in Dilbert to explain engineers...

Am I right that you *make* C-14 from C-12? It's been too long since GCSE Physics...

Lucinda:

>>I think I already answered that one... actually it's not that carbon dioxide has to be constant, to be picky - it's that the carbon
is distributed in the same manner around the carbon cycle - wit amounts to the similar thing in the end, though.<<

Isn't the carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere increasing now compared to the rest of the world?

>>There are many jigsaw pieces to put forawrd for that... the simplest is, of course, "what else is there?" - interstellar material is
mostly hydrogen - the only place that heavy elements are formed are in stars.<<

What about say coronal mass ejections? By the way, why would U-238 not decay in rock and thus allow us to date it? I am rather confused as to how decay rates could vary, and if they do I think that the method must decay as well.

>>You don't believe this, I think<<

No I don't. I do fell however that science has committed itself to our current model. Hypothetically, what do you think would happen if science came back and said that dinosaurs and man co-existed?

>>But if Adam was a neathanderthal, and subsequent generations evolved into homo sapiens, then you have there an example of evolution creating new species...<<

Not if neanderthals are the same species as homo sapiens. Without a living "specimen" science can't say for sure, and I think that most scientists say they are the same species just like aboriginies (correct me if I am wrong).

>>Nope. I'm not a geologist, nor do I have a terribly large interest in the subject - perhaps you would care to feed me some URLs?<<

It was difficult to find on a non-creationist website, but this may explain it a bit

http://ln.infoplease.com/ce6/world/A0856565.html

"Geologically, the Alps were formed during the Oligocene and Miocene epochs as a result of the pressure exerted on the Tethyan geosyncline as its Mesozoic and Cenozoic strata were squeezed against the stable Eurasian landmass by the northward-moving African landmass. The squeezing action formed great recumbent folds (nappes) that rose out of the sea and pushed northward, often breaking and sliding one over the other to form gigantic thrust faults. Crystalline rocks, which are exposed in the higher central regions, are the rocks forming Mont Blanc, the Matterhorn, and high peaks in the Pennine Alps and Hohe Tauern; limestone and other sedimentary rocks are predominant (but not continuously present) in the generally lower ranges to the north and south. Mont Blanc (15,771 ft/4,807 m) is the highest peak."

You may not understand what this means (I don't really), but when it says rose out of the sea and pushed northward, basically it says that the mountain moved. Talk about faith moving mountains! Anyways, the point is that you cannot always date something based on what is below it.

>>On an entirely seperate note - would you care to help write an entry giving the evolution versus creation debate?<<

Yes, but you may need to tell me how. I am rather new to this site.

Whadya think? Worthwhile? We'd each have control of our own entries, so editorial clashes would hopefully not be a
problem. If somebody wants to add to this and make an entry on the Greek god explanation, then that's fine too...

jbliqemp:

>>All radioactive isotopes decay into a stable substance. U-238 decays down to an isotope of lead fairly quickly (the intermediate substances have very short half-lives). I don't think the lead isotope is common, either, accept in U-238 decay. Therefor, if we find a chunk of rock that is half U-238 and half lead isotope, we know that the U-238 has reached it's half life. Roughly 1.4 billion years, if I remember correctly. C-14, I think, decays to boron.<<

Does that mean that U-238 and the lead isotope could not have co-existed in stardust? What is the lead isotope by the way?

>>Also, as for fossils found not in sedimentary rock: The La-Brea tarpits (preserved remains of various creatures), several
preserved human corpses in glaciers, and, of course, the already mentioned desicated desert corpses.<<

Are these fossils or actual tissues? If it is tissue, then it could not have lasted millions of years.

Lucinda:

>>Am I right that you *make* C-14 from C-12? It's been too long since GCSE Physics...<<

That is my understanding. I believe it has to do with the interaction of solar rays with C-12 in the atmosphere.

I spoke with someone today that tried to explain to me how C-14 decays. He learned that information over 30 years or so ago, so correct me if he told me wrong. C-12 and C-13 are stable isotopes and C-14 is radioactive. They decay by emmiting neutrons. Therefore, if you measure the proportion of C-13 to C-14 you can determine the age since death. This assumes that all C-13 came from C-14. If there was some C-13 at death, that would through off the numbers. He said that one way you can get C-13 in you is to inhale coal fumes. There are probably other ways to get C-13, but that is a good example. Therefore, in the most trusted of dating methods, we see a faulty assumption.

So what your saying is that all the dinosaurs lived near coal mines, and this threw off the numbers by several million years?

I believe it has already been stated that carbon dating is not 100% down to the second accuracy - you work out how much these factors could throw off your count, and factor them in to your +/- figures. And you check that you aren't dating something which is growing near burning coal, or nuclear reactors.

This isn't a faulty assumption, any more than because the human eye is not perfect means that measuring distances with rulers has a faulty assumption.

>>Does that mean that U-238 and the lead isotope could not have co-existed in stardust? What is the lead isotope by the way?<<

Of course they can. However, the weights of the two are very different. They do not remain together. Have you ever tried to mix oil and water? Have you ever seen the fractal distilation of crude oil?

The lead isotope is Pb-206.

http://www.ceie.sunysb.edu/ProjectJava/Radiation/home.html

The link will show the sequence. The accepted half life is 4.5 billion years.

Also, for C-14:

http://www.c14dating.com/int.html

C-13 would not decay further. C-14 does not decay to boron, it decays back to nitrogen (N-14) by release of beta particles from the neutrons. Also, the method was tested on objects that could be independently dated.

>>Are these fossils or actual tissues? If it is tissue, then it could not have lasted millions of years<<

I think that the preservative effects of the tar pits, the frozen nature of glaciers, and the extreme lack of water in the desert would do far more to preserve flesh and bone than you could possibly know. Tar prevents oxidation by sealing water, oxygen, and other contaminants outside the body. Ice does much the same, and also freezes any biological contaminants. In the desert, there isn't enough water in the dried flesh for bacteria to live off of.

Corpses have also been found in peat bogs and encased in salt. When the removal of water and/or oxygen is rapid, flesh can be preserved for very long periods of time.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mammoths.html

The above link describes the frozen desication of a wooly mamoth in artic tundra. Also, down a little ways, is the C-14 dating data.

http://www.tarpit.org/

Click FAQ in the sidebar.

-jb