- Joined
- Aug 7, 2001
- Messages
- 54,631
"It was the absence of transitional fossils that first made me question Darwin's idea of gradual change. I realised, too, that the procedures used to date rocks were circular. Rocks are used to date fossils: fossils are used to date rocks."
Oh, we're on to evolution and geology now, are we?
As usual, you seem to have skimmed the literature and only picked up those things that seem to support your bizarre world view. Since you won't take the time to look at stuff that contradicts that view, I won't waste much of my time refuting your comments, because I know you'll ignore or dismiss my arguments as usual.
But I will reply briefly, for the benefit of those others who may have wondered the same things, but who are prepared to look at the evidence.
"absence of transitional fossils": natural selection acts mostly to maintain the status quo by weeding out harmful mutations. But in a time of environmental change, some of these mutations may aid species survival, and lead to new species. But the 'status quo' periods are generally much longer than the 'environmental change' periods, which is why we find fewer 'transitional' fossils.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium
"Rocks are used to date fossils: fossils are used to date rocks": No, there are many other ways to date rocks.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermoluminescence_dating
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_dating (with several different methods)
For shorter time periods there is the well-known radio-carbon dating, and dendrochronology.
These different methods can be used to cross-check the age of rocks and fossils, and sort out any anomalies. So the procedures are not circular.
Oh, we're on to evolution and geology now, are we?
As usual, you seem to have skimmed the literature and only picked up those things that seem to support your bizarre world view. Since you won't take the time to look at stuff that contradicts that view, I won't waste much of my time refuting your comments, because I know you'll ignore or dismiss my arguments as usual.
But I will reply briefly, for the benefit of those others who may have wondered the same things, but who are prepared to look at the evidence.
"absence of transitional fossils": natural selection acts mostly to maintain the status quo by weeding out harmful mutations. But in a time of environmental change, some of these mutations may aid species survival, and lead to new species. But the 'status quo' periods are generally much longer than the 'environmental change' periods, which is why we find fewer 'transitional' fossils.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium
"Rocks are used to date fossils: fossils are used to date rocks": No, there are many other ways to date rocks.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermoluminescence_dating
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_dating (with several different methods)
For shorter time periods there is the well-known radio-carbon dating, and dendrochronology.
These different methods can be used to cross-check the age of rocks and fossils, and sort out any anomalies. So the procedures are not circular.