SeaYoda
Contributor
Are you feeling guilty for not joining the dive yesterday?photohikedive:
Creation vs. Evolution
- Thread starter Lost_At_Sea
- Start date
Please register or login
Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.
Benefits of registering include
- Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
- A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
- You can make this box go away
- Status
SeaYoda
Contributor
Back to the original idea of creation vs evolution, I still see a similar "faith" in each. If evolution is completely as we teach it now and if we figure out what was before the big bang and fully understand prematter, black holes, other dimensions and what ever else is out there, will that answer the question? I think it brings us to the conclusion that "stuff" (matter, prematter, or whatever) is eternal. Evolution and cause and effect believe in "stuff" the way I believe in God. Both have no origin and are eternal. It almost makes no sense in either faith to think about where we came from. In a twisted way, by believing in God I take one step further back in time than a scientist - I know where "stuff" came from .
.
photohikedive
Guest
SeaYoda:Are you feeling guilty for not joining the dive yesterday?
guilt is for Catholics, I am a devout aquatic.
Charlie99
Contributor
- Messages
- 7,966
- Reaction score
- 169
- # of dives
- 500 - 999
biscuit7:
(A slight hijack, but after 400 posts this thread is ready for some hijacking)Cancun Mark:
Carbon 14 dating works because x-rays constantly replenish the Carbon 14 in the atmosphere and living things turn over their carbon fast enough to mimic the atmospheric Carbon 14/carbon 12 ratios. Only once dead do the carbon 14 levels start to decay. That's why carbon dating doesn't work for rocks and fossils.
Sedimentary rocks don't lend themselves to dating using radioisotopes either, because they aren't "new". As I understand it, isotope dating using ratios of radioactive parents and stable daughters (see USGS artcle on radiometric dating) only works for the "new" rocks such as igneous and volcanic ash where the pre-existing parent and daughter products have been separated.
To date fossils you need to do both radiometric dating of layers such as volcanic ash, and then infer relative dates of fossils by their place in the strata relative to those that one can date.
While there is a lot of ambiguity involved, anyone that approaches it with an open mind will agree that there are lots of things around that are a lot older than 6,000 years.
--------
Science and engineering are useful tools. If everyone had blindly rejected science because of apparent conflicts with what is in the bible, then our civilization would be much different than it is today.
- Messages
- 22,171
- Reaction score
- 2,798
- # of dives
- 5000 - ∞
With all due respect, you have a belief that explains to your satisfaction, where "stuff" came from. But beyond that, all you have is what appears to me to be at least three generations of mistranslations of ancient fables to explain how we got from that "stuff" to today. Science has a rather well worked out, rational and reasonable explanation of how we got from that "stuff" to today. To see the "hand of god" in the definition of the rules of the system is one thing, but to deny the existence of dinosaurs based on Bishop Usher's time line seems a bit irrational.SeaYoda:
SeaYoda
Contributor
Truth is not relative. What things appear to be to you and me is insignificant. Science interprets facts based on the belief that God could not be and could not do what the Bible claims. I interpret scientific fact in the context that God could have done it the way He said He did. It's a choice and always will be. With my context, the myth is that things are as old as they "date" using the circular logic of how old a rock must be by what fossils are in it and the age of fossils are determined by how old rocks are. I didn't rule out dinosaurs existence, just where in the process they fit. I wasn't there and neither were any scientists but the theory of apparent age is plausible and fits the context that I have chosen to believe. There are the options within the apparent age theory and I don't have scripture or scientific fact to decide which is most plausible. Apparent age will never fit into an evolutionist belief system because it assumes the age of the earth is short - that doesn't allow for macro-evolution and constrains the idea that the world was created. It all goes back to what I've said before, it is a matter of faith and context. None of us will find a rock that has made by God on it to settle the question. You and I have the choice to believe or not. To anyone that does not believe, what I believe is myth and nonsense and always will be.Thalassamania:
Ok, so let's assume the "apparent age" hypothesis is true. The universe is about 7000 years old and was created with things buried in it that made it appear to modern day scientists and much, much older than it actually is. Adam, Eve, Garden of Eden begat, begat, begat.... now we're in the modern day. Now, at the time of creation, did God know that Adam and Eve would eventually create a population of people that had the technology to date and test the earth to come up with these false dates?
Also, if you believe in micro-evolution, but discount macro-evolution due to insufficient time scale, do you believe that macro-evolution is a theoretical possibility given enough time to notice the effect?
R
Also, if you believe in micro-evolution, but discount macro-evolution due to insufficient time scale, do you believe that macro-evolution is a theoretical possibility given enough time to notice the effect?
R
- Messages
- 22,171
- Reaction score
- 2,798
- # of dives
- 5000 - ∞
RE: time scale for evolution:
Mussels evolve quickly to defend against invasive crabs
DURHAM, N.H. Scientists at the University of New Hampshire (UNH) have found that invasive crab species may precipitate evolutionary change in blue mussels in as little as 15 years. The study, by UNH graduate student Aaren Freeman with associate professor of zoology James Byers and published in the Aug. 11 issue of the journal Science, indicates that such a response can evolve in an evolutionary nanosecond compared to the thousands of years previously assumed. The paper is called "Divergent induced responses to an invasive predator in marine mussel populations."
"It's the blending of ecological and evolutionary time," says Freeman, a Ph.D. candidate in the department of zoology. "It's an important development in the arms race between these crabs and these mollusks." Crabs prey on blue mussels by crushing their shells.
Freeman looked at the inducible defense shell thickening of blue mussels (Mytlius edulis) in the presence of two invasive crab species in New England, the Asian shore crab Hemigrapsus sanguineus and the green crab Carcinus maenas. While Carcinus was introduced to New England from Europe between 150 and 200 years ago, Hemigrapsus is a relative newcomer, arriving from Asia to New Jersey in 1988. While previous research had established that mussels recognize Carcinus, it had not be determined if they recognize Hemigrapsus. And, crucial to the design of Freeman's study, Hemigrapsus is not present north of mid-coast Maine.
"This set up a chance to look at populations that had been exposed to the predators for varying lengths of time," says Freeman. "We wanted to know, how is it that these mollusks can recognize a crab that is historically not present in North America?"
Freeman exposed mussels native to the northern above mid-coast Maine and southern New England to both Carcinus and the Hemigrapsus. Both populations thickened their shells when exposed to waterborne cues of Carcinus, but only the southern mussels Freeman describes them as "more worldly" expressed inducible shell thickening in the presence of Hemigrapsus.
"The mussel's inducible response to H. sanguineus reflects natural selection favoring the recognition of this novel predator through rapid evolution of cue specifity or thresholds," Freeman and Byers write.
Findings were consistent in two experiments over two years, one in a laboratory setting in Nahant, Mass., and one in the field at Woods Hole, Mass. "The consistency over two years and two sites really suggests an underlying robust mechanism," says Byers, who is Freeman's dissertation advisor.
While this sort of rapid evolutionary response to predators has been exhibited in some other species, all have been vertebrates. The blue mussel, which Freeman describes as the lab rat of marine biologists, is an invertebrate "that people assume is not very bright," he says. Yet his findings indicate that within the brief span of 15 years, it has evolved an inducible response to a new predator.
How do mussels evolve so quickly? In southern New England, the scientists say, mussels are prey to many crabs as well as other marine species. "When Hemigrapsus came along the mussels' wheels were well-greased to respond," says Byers. "That's our best guess."
Byers helps put the impact of the research in context. Because extensive data does not exist on invasive ecology, "there's a tendency to extrapolate any data you get on an invasive species. But here we show that the response from the prey differs over just a couple hundred kilometers."
And while its "real world" impact is not immediately obvious, Byers suggests that perhaps northern Maine and Canadian shellfishers might consider "beefing up the worldliness of their naïve mussel populations before the Hemigrapsus arrives," he says, suggesting that this could be done by mixing some of the responsive southern mussels into the naïve northern stocks. "Although 15 years is fast to evolve better defenses to your predator, it can be painfully long if you're a shellfisherman," Byers adds.
This paper is one chapter of Freeman's doctoral dissertation, which also explores how mussels respond to sea stars and to multiple predators. He anticipates completing his doctoral work by October 2006, when he will begin a post-doctoral position with UNH research associate professor Fred Short.
Freeman notes that there's one predator mussels will not need to defend themselves against: him. "I used to like them, before I started working with them for my dissertation," he says. "Not anymore."
Contact: Beth Potier
beth.potier@unh.edu
603-862-1566
University of New Hampshire
Mussels evolve quickly to defend against invasive crabs
DURHAM, N.H. Scientists at the University of New Hampshire (UNH) have found that invasive crab species may precipitate evolutionary change in blue mussels in as little as 15 years. The study, by UNH graduate student Aaren Freeman with associate professor of zoology James Byers and published in the Aug. 11 issue of the journal Science, indicates that such a response can evolve in an evolutionary nanosecond compared to the thousands of years previously assumed. The paper is called "Divergent induced responses to an invasive predator in marine mussel populations."
"It's the blending of ecological and evolutionary time," says Freeman, a Ph.D. candidate in the department of zoology. "It's an important development in the arms race between these crabs and these mollusks." Crabs prey on blue mussels by crushing their shells.
Freeman looked at the inducible defense shell thickening of blue mussels (Mytlius edulis) in the presence of two invasive crab species in New England, the Asian shore crab Hemigrapsus sanguineus and the green crab Carcinus maenas. While Carcinus was introduced to New England from Europe between 150 and 200 years ago, Hemigrapsus is a relative newcomer, arriving from Asia to New Jersey in 1988. While previous research had established that mussels recognize Carcinus, it had not be determined if they recognize Hemigrapsus. And, crucial to the design of Freeman's study, Hemigrapsus is not present north of mid-coast Maine.
"This set up a chance to look at populations that had been exposed to the predators for varying lengths of time," says Freeman. "We wanted to know, how is it that these mollusks can recognize a crab that is historically not present in North America?"
Freeman exposed mussels native to the northern above mid-coast Maine and southern New England to both Carcinus and the Hemigrapsus. Both populations thickened their shells when exposed to waterborne cues of Carcinus, but only the southern mussels Freeman describes them as "more worldly" expressed inducible shell thickening in the presence of Hemigrapsus.
"The mussel's inducible response to H. sanguineus reflects natural selection favoring the recognition of this novel predator through rapid evolution of cue specifity or thresholds," Freeman and Byers write.
Findings were consistent in two experiments over two years, one in a laboratory setting in Nahant, Mass., and one in the field at Woods Hole, Mass. "The consistency over two years and two sites really suggests an underlying robust mechanism," says Byers, who is Freeman's dissertation advisor.
While this sort of rapid evolutionary response to predators has been exhibited in some other species, all have been vertebrates. The blue mussel, which Freeman describes as the lab rat of marine biologists, is an invertebrate "that people assume is not very bright," he says. Yet his findings indicate that within the brief span of 15 years, it has evolved an inducible response to a new predator.
How do mussels evolve so quickly? In southern New England, the scientists say, mussels are prey to many crabs as well as other marine species. "When Hemigrapsus came along the mussels' wheels were well-greased to respond," says Byers. "That's our best guess."
Byers helps put the impact of the research in context. Because extensive data does not exist on invasive ecology, "there's a tendency to extrapolate any data you get on an invasive species. But here we show that the response from the prey differs over just a couple hundred kilometers."
And while its "real world" impact is not immediately obvious, Byers suggests that perhaps northern Maine and Canadian shellfishers might consider "beefing up the worldliness of their naïve mussel populations before the Hemigrapsus arrives," he says, suggesting that this could be done by mixing some of the responsive southern mussels into the naïve northern stocks. "Although 15 years is fast to evolve better defenses to your predator, it can be painfully long if you're a shellfisherman," Byers adds.
This paper is one chapter of Freeman's doctoral dissertation, which also explores how mussels respond to sea stars and to multiple predators. He anticipates completing his doctoral work by October 2006, when he will begin a post-doctoral position with UNH research associate professor Fred Short.
Freeman notes that there's one predator mussels will not need to defend themselves against: him. "I used to like them, before I started working with them for my dissertation," he says. "Not anymore."
Contact: Beth Potier
beth.potier@unh.edu
603-862-1566
University of New Hampshire
Thal, I'm on the same side of the overall debate as you, but this is adaptive strategy not true evolution. It's a learned response to a familiar threat not a new trait that makes the mussels possessing it better suited to the environment thus more likely to succeed.
R
R
- Messages
- 22,171
- Reaction score
- 2,798
- # of dives
- 5000 - ∞
Happy I am that you are.
I don't think that its learned: "The mussel's inducible response to H. sanguineus reflects natural selection favoring the recognition of this novel predator through rapid evolution of cue specifity or thresholds ..."
I don't think that its learned: "The mussel's inducible response to H. sanguineus reflects natural selection favoring the recognition of this novel predator through rapid evolution of cue specifity or thresholds ..."
- Status
Similar threads
