Evolutionary scientist admits theory's major flaws
The theory of evolution is flawed, but scientists won't admit it. Evolution is .. To date, evolution is the only well-supported explanation for life's diversity. To learn . Scientist Realizes Important Flaw in Radioactive Dating .. much easier to see the flaws in evolutionary theory than those in the old age model. But in one study of speed-dating behavior, the evolutionary reason this flawed paper was published was that it challenged an evolutionary.
Since a neutron has no charge, it must become positively charged after emitting an electron. In fact, it becomes a proton. This changes the chemical identity of the atom. It is no longer Rb; it is strontium Sr Sr is not radioactive, so the change is permanent. We know how long it takes Rb to turn into Sr, so in principle, if we analyze the amount of Rb and Sr in a rock, we should be able to tell how long the decay has been occurring.
Of course, there are all sorts of uncertainties involved. How much Sr was in the rock when it first formed? Was Rb or Sr added to the rock by some unknown process? Was one of them removed from the rock by some unknown process? The isochron is supposed to take care of such issues. Essentially, rather than looking at the amounts of Rb and Sr, we look at their ratios compared to Sr The ratio of Sr to Sr is graphed versus the ratio of Rb to Sr for several different parts of the rock.
How does that help? Thus, it provides an independent analysis of the rock that does not depend on the radioactive decay that is being studied. The amount of Sr that was already in the rock when it formed, for example, should be proportional to the amount of Sr that is currently there.
Since the data are divided by the amount of Sr, the initial amount of Sr is cancelled out in the analysis. He says that there is one process that has been overlooked in all these isochron analyses: Atoms and molecules naturally move around, and they do so in such as way as to even out their concentrations. A helium balloon, for example, will deflate over time, because the helium atoms diffuse through the balloon and into the surrounding air.
Well, diffusion depends on the mass of the thing that is diffusing. Sr diffuses more quickly than Sr, and that has never been taken into account when isochrons are analyzed. Hayes has brought it up, we can take it into account, right?
- Flawed analysis casts doubt on years of evolutionary research
- The Problem With Evolution: Where Have We Gone Wrong?
- Objections to evolution
If the effects of diffusion can be taken into account, it will require an elaborate model that will most certainly require elaborate assumptions. Hayes suggests a couple of other approaches that might work, but its not clear how well.
So what does this mean? If you believe the earth is very old, then most likely, all of the radioactive dates based on isochrons are probably overestimates. Where Have We Gone Wrong? To paraphrase Theodosius Dobzhansky, nearly everything we study in biology makes sense only in the context of one central unifying concept: Yet evolution is still quite "controversial," as a recent article and letter in this publication demonstrated R.
Lewis, The Scientist, May 12,page 13; M. Behe, The Scientist, June 9,page Many people are still convinced it never happened. How is it that so many scientists can claim something is so certain, and so many people Oct 13, Robert Moss To paraphrase Theodosius Dobzhansky, nearly everything we study in biology makes sense only in the context of one central unifying concept: Lewis, The Scientist, May 12,page 13 ; M.
How is it that so many scientists can claim something is so certain, and so many people can be so sure it's wrong? Why can't scientists "show" the public the "truth"? We're often tempted to blame it on "them"-these "zealots" who reject evolution, who have been so blinded, their minds so closed to the truth, that nothing we can do will sway them. But, in truth, we can't lay the blame so easily. As scientists and teachers, we've dropped the ball.
Evolutionary scientist admits theory's major flaws
Many of us don't even try to teach evolution, or we just put it out there without trying to engage the students, for fear we'll open a Pandora's box that we won't be able to close or that we'll be out in territory we don't think we can adequately defend. In arguing with the students on this point, we might risk looking like we don't know it all. Indeed, many of us have holes in our understanding of evolution, and even doubts, because we too have been taught by people who were afraid of the topic.
I myself am guilty. I've often taught evolution of genes, avoiding the actual topic of evolution of species or humans, because teaching at a religiously linked Southern college, I knew I'd have a tough time with it. I'd like to share a few of the tools I use to attempt to clarify the controversy to my students.
One of the major problems with our understanding of evolution is how we define it. There is no consensus of the term's meaning even among biologists and authors of biology texts see Y. In his letter to The Scientist, Michael Behe points out there are three aspects to the term "evolution. The solution suggested by Linhart and others is to use the term evolution as broadly as possible; I believe we must limit its use to one.
Scientist Realizes Important Flaw in Radioactive Dating
Darwin argued that species were created from other species through a process of change over time, by natural selection. It's important to note that Darwin did not comment on the origin of life, and we need to stop linking the concept of the biochemical origin of life with the term "evolution. The fact is, we have very little real, tangible evidence that supports the prevailing hypothesis of how life originated.
And even if we could prove it possible, we can't go back and see how life actually originated. But we have much solid evidence demonstrating that all the life forms we've studied on this planet arose from a single common ancestor, changing and diversifying over billions of years.
Contrary to Behe's claim, the genetic evidence for common ancestry, up to and including humans, is overwhelming. Many critics point to the lack of evidence for the "evolutionary theory" of the origin of life and say, "See! The theory of evolution is an unsubstantiated theory! The evidence for evolution is often complex and difficult to understand, and we often don't take the time or trouble to try to make it understandable.
The genetic evidence for evolution is perhaps the best example. I think the genetic similarities and differences between DNA sequences of different species is the best evidence we have, but it's difficult to explain to college students who have never sequenced DNA.
Ten Major Flaws of Evolution - Revised - Resources - Eternal Perspective Ministries
I'd like to take a shot at simplifying it by presenting an analogy. Imagine I gave an assignment to my class of 10 students to write a 10,word essay on a certain topic. On the due date, I get back 10 identical essays. What could I conclude? The chances that each of the 10 students would come up with the identical essay independently are.
It's just not possible. So I know they weren't done independently, but I don't know how they were done. I don't know who wrote the original paper, and who copied from whom. But imagine instead that I get back 10 papers that are almost identical.Flaws with Carbon 14 Dating of Evolution
I get one superb paper from John. James's paper is identical with one exception: Word number is different, and the sentence it's in now makes no sense at all. It seems quite likely that James copied from John or from someone who copied from John but made a mistake in word No. Jan's paper is identical to John's, except it has two nonsensical mistakes-the very same mistake at word No. And Susan's paper shares the very same mistakes at words No.
How would you interpret this?