Freethought & Rationalism Archive

RufusAtticus · 04-07-2003, 11:42 AM

From the news wire: Dr Dino knows best

Enjoy.

Shpongle · 04-07-2003, 11:53 AM

Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

*chortle*

*snicker*

*ahem*

...

tgamble · 04-07-2003, 11:59 AM

Quote:

Finally, in my Biblical archaeology textbook by Walter Rast there was a human skull that was dated to be 120,000 years old. But it is impossible to date a skull to that incredible age with carbon-14. Any knowledgeable scientist would tell you that C-14 can only date back to 50,000 years, and that is really stretching it. The other radioactive dating methods do not work with living materials.

Would one of the biologists here please confirm for me that a skull is not a living thing?

Thank you.

"There might be a debate, but probably not. I mean, who would want to defend the idea that we came from a rock?"

Who would want to defend the idea that evolution says we did. Only the most moronic, stupid, ignorant, braindead, uneducated, stupid asshole on the planet.

He'll be at the Polymer Science building room 101 April 3 from 6 to 9

Albion · 04-07-2003, 12:24 PM

This is a university student? That's pretty sad.

RufusAtticus · 04-07-2003, 12:29 PM

Someone on II is a grad student at USM, although I can't remember who right now. Maybe this is their April Fools prank.

Misso · 04-07-2003, 12:38 PM

Hahahaha, a creationist accusing someone of circle reasoning. Like they don't have a monopoly on that

Just because three aspects that are sometimes sees as evidence of evolution aren't believed by him doesn't mean evolution doesn't exist. And it's not like C-14 and dirtlayers are the only methods of dating. But I guess some people never learn...

Leigh · 04-07-2003, 01:00 PM

Skulls (and all sorts of fossils) can be dated by dating the geological layers above and beneath which it is found - IIRC, a skull buried between two layers of igneous or metamorphic rock is best, since there are problems with dating sedimentary rock. You don't have to date the actual skull itself to get a good estimate of the upper and lower limits of its age.

Jesus Tap-Dancin' Christ · 04-07-2003, 02:34 PM

Quote:

While at USM I've taken Anthropology 101, and was so surprised by some of the evolution nonsense that I kept the textbook. This book, the standard text for USM students, teaches on page 78 that sickle cell anemia is evidence for evolution, but it is not. It does protect against malaria, but a person who has it will not live to a ripe old age. It knocks about half of their life off. Is that evolution? You lose everything till you have it all? This is like saying if you kill yourself at a young age you won�t get wrinkles.

Mean life expectancy before 1700: 35.

Mean life expectancy in Africa today: 40?

They ain't losing much in Africa, where Malaria is prevalent and medicine is scarce.

caravelair · 04-07-2003, 02:36 PM

and natural selection works when there is a greater chance for procreation. how many people procreate after 40? it wouldn't make a big difference. surviving malaria seems more important in terms of passing on one's genes.

Entropic_Gnosis · 04-07-2003, 03:34 PM

In regards to the sickle cell thing, the trait wich defends against malaria is not the full disease but rather the heterozygous condition. In someone who possesses both a "noramal" blood gene and a "sickle" gene the microbe that causes malaria cannot live and the blood appears as normal and will only sickle in conditions of prolonged oxygen deprivation, something not likely to happen unless there is a sudden change in elevation or lots of anerobic activity (ie weight lifting) Those who are heterozygous are more likely to live in areas where malaria is present and thus have more children, so the trait stays as it allows for an increase in the number of people who will survive, yes it has a detrimental effect in the homozygote but this is offset by the increased fitness of the heterozygote.

04-07-2003, 11:42 AM	#1
RufusAtticus Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: NCSU Posts: 5,853	Evolution: Put up or Shut up! From the news wire: Dr Dino knows best Enjoy.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-07-2003, 11:53 AM	#2
Shpongle Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Frozen North Posts: 9,920	Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha! chortle snicker ahem ...

04-07-2003, 12:24 PM	#4
Albion Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: US east coast. And www.theroyalforums.com Posts: 2,829	This is a university student? That's pretty sad.

04-07-2003, 12:29 PM	#5
RufusAtticus Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: NCSU Posts: 5,853	Someone on II is a grad student at USM, although I can't remember who right now. Maybe this is their April Fools prank.

04-07-2003, 12:38 PM	#6
Misso Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Netherlands Posts: 570	Hahahaha, a creationist accusing someone of circle reasoning. Like they don't have a monopoly on that Just because three aspects that are sometimes sees as evidence of evolution aren't believed by him doesn't mean evolution doesn't exist. And it's not like C-14 and dirtlayers are the only methods of dating. But I guess some people never learn...

04-07-2003, 01:00 PM	#7
Leigh Junior Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: England Posts: 27	Skulls (and all sorts of fossils) can be dated by dating the geological layers above and beneath which it is found - IIRC, a skull buried between two layers of igneous or metamorphic rock is best, since there are problems with dating sedimentary rock. You don't have to date the actual skull itself to get a good estimate of the upper and lower limits of its age.

04-07-2003, 02:36 PM	#9
caravelair Regular Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: toronto Posts: 420	and natural selection works when there is a greater chance for procreation. how many people procreate after 40? it wouldn't make a big difference. surviving malaria seems more important in terms of passing on one's genes.

04-07-2003, 03:34 PM	#10
Entropic_Gnosis Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: The Library Posts: 372	In regards to the sickle cell thing, the trait wich defends against malaria is not the full disease but rather the heterozygous condition. In someone who possesses both a "noramal" blood gene and a "sickle" gene the microbe that causes malaria cannot live and the blood appears as normal and will only sickle in conditions of prolonged oxygen deprivation, something not likely to happen unless there is a sudden change in elevation or lots of anerobic activity (ie weight lifting) Those who are heterozygous are more likely to live in areas where malaria is present and thus have more children, so the trait stays as it allows for an increase in the number of people who will survive, yes it has a detrimental effect in the homozygote but this is offset by the increased fitness of the heterozygote.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.