Changes

::Also, there are several instances of this happening outside of the above speculation. Take, for example, viruses. By the time flue season comes along, the flu vaccine that we used last year no longer works. This is because, in that year, the virus has mutated so many times (microorganisms reproduce much quicker than larger organisms) that it is essentially a different species of virus, and therefore it is immune to the innoculation that was designed for the old virus. After years of this, that virus would be even more different. HIV evolves resistance to drugs so quickly that they are practically useless.

::Also, there are several instances of this happening outside of the above speculation. Take, for example, viruses. By the time flue season comes along, the flu vaccine that we used last year no longer works. This is because, in that year, the virus has mutated so many times (microorganisms reproduce much quicker than larger organisms) that it is essentially a different species of virus, and therefore it is immune to the innoculation that was designed for the old virus. After years of this, that virus would be even more different. HIV evolves resistance to drugs so quickly that they are practically useless.

::FOOTNOTES:[http://www.college.ucla.edu/webproject/micro12/m12webnotes/viralevolution.htm Viruses, Vaccines, and evolution of Influenza]

::FOOTNOTES:[http://www.college.ucla.edu/webproject/micro12/m12webnotes/viralevolution.htm Viruses, Vaccines, and evolution of Influenza]

::[http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/1/l_011_20.html Evolution and AIDS]--[[User:JohnLee|JohnLee]] 22:07, 12 October 2010 (EDT)

::[https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/1/l_011_20.html Evolution and AIDS]--[[User:JohnLee|JohnLee]] 22:07, 12 October 2010 (EDT)

::as far as i can tell there isn't much difference between micro evolution (which there isn't really a argument against anymore) and baraminology (the kind that creations teach), besides the fact that micro evolution leads to macro evolution (which there is a debate over) eventually, which i think is what apocalypse is getting at-[[User:Greenmeanie|Greenmeanie]] 00:56, 16 May 2008 (EDT)

::as far as i can tell there isn't much difference between micro evolution (which there isn't really a argument against anymore) and baraminology (the kind that creations teach), besides the fact that micro evolution leads to macro evolution (which there is a debate over) eventually, which i think is what apocalypse is getting at-[[User:Greenmeanie|Greenmeanie]] 00:56, 16 May 2008 (EDT)

:Let me guess: you've never studied chemistry, right? This is not an assumption.--[[User:BudVar|BudVar]] 14:21, 25 July 2012 (EDT)

:Let me guess: you've never studied chemistry, right? This is not an assumption.--[[User:BudVar|BudVar]] 14:21, 25 July 2012 (EDT)

::Well, isotopes like Beryllium have seen changes in decay rates given external factors.[http://creation.com/radioactive-decay-rate-depends-on-chemical-environment][http://www.nature.com/news/2004/040913/full/news040913-24.html] The argument by Dalrymple isn't that such changes can't occur, but that they are "not only rare but exceedingly small." (pg. 89) In fact though, particles have just been discovered to decay faster than they should, which could spell trouble for the Standard Model.[http://www.livescience.com/21024-particle-decays-standard-model-babar.html] Isn't Electron Capture something of an evidence for such evolution of electron strength in an isotope? Why do they assume the electron shield preventing decay to the isotope nuclei from all but powerful nuclear forces could not itself have evolved? And furthermore, now that they know mass extinctions did occur from huge catastrophes ([[Catastrophism]]) why do they assume these catastrophes did not have such nuclear effects to alter the decay rates? Volcanism is known to alter radioactive decay, in fact, this is a key talking point for Creationists, how lava-affected material from the recent Mount St. Helens eruption has been dated at millions of years old.[http://www.creationism.org/articles/swenson1.htm][http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cm/v23/n3/radiodating] So has lava from the New Zealand lava flows.[http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cm/v22/n1/dating] The effects of volcanism especially could throw off radiometric decay, especially if involved in a mass catastrophe like a global Flood, and underwater volcanoes could even be indicated in Genesis 7:11 where it talks of fountains of the deep breaking up. --[[User:Jzyehoshua|Joshua Zambrano]] 22:23, 25 July 2012 (EDT)

::Well, isotopes like Beryllium have seen changes in decay rates given external factors.[https://creation.com/radioactive-decay-rate-depends-on-chemical-environment][http://www.nature.com/news/2004/040913/full/news040913-24.html] The argument by Dalrymple isn't that such changes can't occur, but that they are "not only rare but exceedingly small." (pg. 89) In fact though, particles have just been discovered to decay faster than they should, which could spell trouble for the Standard Model.[http://www.livescience.com/21024-particle-decays-standard-model-babar.html] Isn't Electron Capture something of an evidence for such evolution of electron strength in an isotope? Why do they assume the electron shield preventing decay to the isotope nuclei from all but powerful nuclear forces could not itself have evolved? And furthermore, now that they know mass extinctions did occur from huge catastrophes ([[Catastrophism]]) why do they assume these catastrophes did not have such nuclear effects to alter the decay rates? Volcanism is known to alter radioactive decay, in fact, this is a key talking point for Creationists, how lava-affected material from the recent Mount St. Helens eruption has been dated at millions of years old.[http://www.creationism.org/articles/swenson1.htm][http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cm/v23/n3/radiodating] So has lava from the New Zealand lava flows.[http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cm/v22/n1/dating] The effects of volcanism especially could throw off radiometric decay, especially if involved in a mass catastrophe like a global Flood, and underwater volcanoes could even be indicated in Genesis 7:11 where it talks of fountains of the deep breaking up. --[[User:Jzyehoshua|Joshua Zambrano]] 22:23, 25 July 2012 (EDT)

::In fact, that the assumption the systems were the same as today's could be wrong is to me indicated by the following discovery.[http://arstechnica.com/science/2011/12/precambrian-fossils-once-thought-to-be-embryos-reinterpreted-as-somethign-else/] These were originally heralded as evidence of early multi-cellular lifeforms. But now they're admitting they appear to be something else - and they don't know what they are. At any rate, this is one evidence that their assumptions about basic cell/atom structures remaining the same as today's, to assume isotopes were influenced then the same way they are now, is proving a potentially dangerous fallacy. --[[User:Jzyehoshua|Joshua Zambrano]] 22:56, 25 July 2012 (EDT)

::In fact, that the assumption the systems were the same as today's could be wrong is to me indicated by the following discovery.[http://arstechnica.com/science/2011/12/precambrian-fossils-once-thought-to-be-embryos-reinterpreted-as-somethign-else/] These were originally heralded as evidence of early multi-cellular lifeforms. But now they're admitting they appear to be something else - and they don't know what they are. At any rate, this is one evidence that their assumptions about basic cell/atom structures remaining the same as today's, to assume isotopes were influenced then the same way they are now, is proving a potentially dangerous fallacy. --[[User:Jzyehoshua|Joshua Zambrano]] 22:56, 25 July 2012 (EDT)