SkipCaptcha, Automoderated users, edit
1,134
edits
Changes
Debate:Is the evidence in favor of evolution convincing? (view source)
Revision as of 03:36, July 26, 2012
, 03:36, July 26, 2012→No, It's Not
::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)
::The ''Nature'' article I cited earlier is really good in illustrating what's going on:
::{{cquote|"Atoms of beryllium-7 decay by grabbing electrons from their surroundings. The electron is absorbed into the nucleus, where it combines with a proton to make a neutron, transforming the atom into a different element, lithium-7. The rate of this kind of decay depends on the chance of an electron straying into the nucleus and getting absorbed. So increasing the density of electrons surrounding the atomic nucleus can speed up the decay. The reverse is true for the types of decay that involve expelling a neutron: increasing the electron density around that type of atom slows the process down. At least, that is the idea. But the changes seen previously have been tiny. Now Tsutomu Ohtsuki of Tohoku University in Sendai, Japan, and colleagues have boosted the effect by trapping beryllium-7 atoms in molecular cages. They report their results in Physical Review Letters1. The researchers induced a nuclear reaction to produce beryllium-7 atoms with a lot of energy, which were able to bash their way through the walls of cage-like carbon molecules called buckminsterfullerenes. Once the beryllium atoms are trapped, the carbon cage surrounds them with a dense cloud of electrons. This makes it more likely for an electron to get into the trapped atom's nucleus and induce decay. The researchers found that beryllium-7 encased in buckminsterfullerene has a half-life of about 52.5 days, compared with 53 days for pure beryllium-7. The half-life is the time it takes for half of the initial amount of material to decay."[http://www.nature.com/news/2004/040913/full/news040913-24.html]}}
::However, if volcanoes did indeed play a major role in mass extinctions, as new research has been indicating[http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/05/090528142827.htm], then that would be likely to throw off your decay rates. Volcanoes essentially carbonize material, burning it and crisping it with effects similar to nuclear eruptions. And if the lava is mixed with water (which is likely per the previous link showing scientists now believe a huge underwater eruption occurred in Earth's past) then it might be affecting results across an even wider scale. You're talking about similar effects to the decay rate from such volcanism. Plus, lava results in multiple elements mixed together from deep within the Earth's surface, and could end up changing the amounts of isotopes.[http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/dating2.html] It would of course throw off Carbon-14 dating because volcanism pretty much by definition is a carbonizing process. Other dating methods would also be affected. I don't see why you Evolutionists are so insistent the decay rates and initial daughter isotope levels remained unaltered over these vast time frames when you're now acknowledging the volcanic forces which are known to throw these rates off, did in fact occur. --[[User:Jzyehoshua|Joshua Zambrano]] 23:36, 25 July 2012 (EDT)