If you find a robber fly in Tenerife, you will be face to face with an insect that is found nowhere else – and whose evolution may be a direct consequence of the great wealth of species on the Canary Islands, according to new research.
Posted on 04/20/2005 5:17:33 PM PDT by PatrickHenry
A unique fly from the Canary Islands has helped shed light on one driving force behind the birth of new species, Nature magazine reports this week.
The robber fly is found nowhere else, and scientists speculate that the rich biodiversity on the islands may actually have led to its emergence.
The researchers think sharing an island with a myriad of other lifeforms may push one species to evolve into another.
This new theory adds fresh insight into how biodiversity arises.
"Why some areas contain greater species diversity than others has been a fundamental question in evolutionary ecology and conservation biology," said co-author Brent Emerson, of the University of East Anglia, UK.
Genetic drift
It is thought "speciation" -- the evolution of a new species -- can occur when two populations of the same species become isolated, allowing them to "grow apart" genetically over the course of many generations.
Eventually, the two populations become so different that if they were to meet again they would no longer be able to breed, meaning they had become separate species.
One species can also evolve into another if strong selective forces are placed upon it (where certain genes or genetic traits are favoured by natural selection), or if its population is small enough to allow for "genetic drift", which happens when certain traits are lost -- or become proportionately more common -- simply because the gene pool has shrunk.
But exactly what drives speciation is still not fully understood by scientists, and it is an area of intense research.
By carefully studying animals and plants in the Canary and Hawaiian Islands, Dr Emerson and his colleague Niclas Kolm were able to show an apparent link between biodiversity and the evolution of new species.
If you find a robber fly in Tenerife, you will be face to face with an insect that is found nowhere else – and whose evolution may be a direct consequence of the great wealth of species on the Canary Islands, according to new research.
They found that endemic species, such as the predatory robber fly (Promachus vexator), are more common in places that are bustling with many different species. Therefore, they speculate, new species are more likely to evolve if they are surrounded by an already rich biodiversity.
Species competition
"Imagine you have an island colonised 100 species and a similar island colonised by 10 species," explained Dr Emerson. "If you leave that for a period of evolutionary time, the percentage of entirely new forms will be higher on the island with 100 species on it."
The researchers can think of three reasons why this might be the case. First, species that are forced to share a space with a lot of other species usually have smaller population sizes. That means they are more susceptible to genetic drift, which can speed up speciation.
Secondly, islands with a rich biodiversity have more habitat complexity. In other words, instead of just one habitat -- say, grass -- there is, for example, grass, shrubs and trees. That means species are more likely to evolve new adaptations and, eventually, become different species.
Thirdly and, the researchers believe, most importantly, competition between species can encourage speciation.
"We think the islands with more species have an increased interaction effect - and that is the most significant thing," said Dr Emerson. "So the more species you have, the more, as an individual species, competitors and predators you are facing.
"And that puts pressure on you that can lead to your extinction or you can adapt to that pressure and survive and that would result in a new species forming."
Tropical diversity
This new research could help explain why islands in warm areas (which tend to start off with a richer biodiversity than colder areas), like Hawaii and the Canary Islands, tend to have a high proportion of totally unique species.
Professor Axel Meyer, of Konstanz University in Germany, who is eminent in the field of speciation, says the research is very interesting -- if it stands further scrutiny.
"It is very thought provoking," he told the BBC News website. "I'm sure it will have people rushing to their computers to see whether this pattern holds up and it will be interesting to see if it does hold up in other systems."
He also stressed that a rich biodiversity could not entirely explain a rich biodiversity because, of course, you had to start somewhere.
"They are saying that if you have biodiversity it will create more biodiversity - I can buy that. But it still doesn't explain the initial step: how do you get more biodiversity in the first place?"
I find it intriguing that you can read something and interpret from it the exact opposite of what it says. Neat trick!
Did you not bother to actually read my post before you spit out your response, or did you just completely fail to understand it?
I said nothing at all about what a "lack of burrows" might or might not signify. My discussion concerned the exact opposite issue, in fact.
If you can't keep up with the discussion, don't waste my time with a response.
A bit more compassion, please. Let us always remember, when dealing with adult creationists: they are that residue of the population who cannot, or will not, connect the dots.
Get a clue, and an education.
Also don't believe everything you read on TalkOrigins,
I don't, but that warning is pretty hilarious coming from the guy who seems to swallow *everything* he reads on any creationist site, no matter how transparently false or logically flawed.
some of it's not credible, especially when they post attacks on Creation scientists by people without adequate credentials who have no support for their claims.
Wow, you really swallowed *that* one hook, line, and sinker, didn't you? The creationists play that "pay no attention to the critics, they're wrong, trust us, we wouldn't lie to you..." card nearly every time, and you desperately gulp at it like a starving trout, happy to have an excuse not to have to go *read* the critics and maybe *learn* something or make the effort of seeing for *yourself* if it actually holds water or not...
Let's have a look at your links "proving" that the talk.origins critics "have no support for their claims", shall we?
You whine about "attacks...by people without adequate credentials", but this smear isn't even *signed*. How much weight shall we put on a diatribe that the author isn't even willing to put his name on, eh? But given the goofy contents, I'm not surprised.
It starts out with the silly:
Understandably, Dr Austin’s devastating research into radioisotopic dating has been criticized by those who believe in millions of years. One common tactic is to claim that Dr Austin is ‘not an expert in the field’. This is quite wrong. Dr Austin carefully designed the research to counter all possible objections."Devastating" research? Countering "all possible objections"? Wow, those creationists are real legends in their own minds, aren't they? Unfortunately for their sense of hubris, their "methods" are flawed and dishonest, their conclusions ludicrous.
As for it being a "common tactic" to describe Austin as "not an expert in the field" of radiometric dating, that's not a "tactic", it's a simple statement of fact. He dabbles in radiometric dating as a tyro, not as someone who has made a career out of it -- like those he dishonestly attempts to criticize. And his "lack of expertise", shall we say, is clear on its face, since he SCREWED UP his prior attempt at "debunking" radiometric dating. Here's the talk.origins passage being sneered at in the above paragraph (emphasis mine):
Third, some of Austin's previous forays into the radiometric dating of rocks demonstrate that he is not an expert in this field. Austin is the head of the ICR's "Grand Canyon Dating Project". As such, he is committed to casting doubt on the radiometric ages of the lavas in the Grand Canyon. In a 1992 publication, ICR Impact #224: "Excessively Old 'Ages' for Grand Canyon Lava Flows", Austin asserted that he found Cenozoic (relatively recent) lavas that gave Rb/Sr ages of 1.34 billion years. These assertions are completely debunked in Chris Stassen's "Criticism of the ICR's Grand Canyon Dating Project" at the Talk.Origins Archive. Stassen points out that Austin's Grand Canyon lavas came from different flows, and the "ages" of the flows may actually represent a minimum age for the mantle that served as source material for the flows. Donald Wise notes that other geologists have determined consistent radiometric dates for these same rocks (Wise 1998:165). Despite the obvious problems with Austin's methods, Impact #224 is alive, well, and available at the ICR museum.Austin is the only one who has "produced" so-called "anomalous" dates for those flows. *Career* geologists, on the other hand, managed to get consistent radiometric dates. Conclusion: Austin screwed up his samples (and Stassen even *identifies* the manner in which Austin screwed them up, see below) -- whether Austin did this on purpose or by incompetence is left for the reader to decide.
The anonymous AiG whiner goes on to say:
One critic said that Dr Austin should not have sent young samples to the dating laboratory because it potentially puts ‘large error-bars on the data’. By this reasoning, the method could not be used on any rocks, since, if we did not see the rocks form, how would we know whether they are young?How would we know? We would know because the lab results would indicate an age less than 2 million years, their PUBLICLY STATED LOWER LIMIT, you FREAKING MORON...
Anyway, the analytical error is reported by the laboratory (see ± values on Table 1), and in every case the error is much less than the supposed age of the sample.Yes, again, because the results are BELOW THE LAB'S STATED LOWER THRESHHOLD, below which they warn that their readings MAY NOT BE ACCURATE. This no-name creationist sort of "forgets" to mention that, doesn't he? Not very honest of him, is it?
Again, from the talk.origins critique that this author is attempting (and miserably failing) to discredit):
First, Austin sent young, low-potassium (and therefore very low in radiogenic argon) rocks to Geochron Laboratories, which specifically states in its advertisements: "We are not in a position to analyze samples expected to be younger than 2 M.Y." (Geotimes 1995-7). He [Austin] did it anyway and specifically states in his paper that "No information was given to the lab concerning where the dacite came from or that the rock has a historically known age (Austin 1997)". This puts potentially large error-bars on the data and also opens his research to ethical questions. In response to the original post, Andrew MacRae replied "...all Austin has proven is that if you do something silly, and misapply K/Ar dating to rocks erupted yesterday, you get nonsensical age results" (MacRae 1998). Henry Barwood notes that "Bad measurements, like bad science, reflect only on the measurer (Austin), not on the measurement (the procedure) (Barwood 1998)."Did the hiding-his-name author at the creationist site not UNDERSTAND this? Or did he just "pretend" to "forget" about it when responding? We know this isn't just an oversight -- we know he READ this paragraph because he QUOTES FROM IT when he snarks about the "large error-bars" sentence.
Creationists "forgetting" to mention the most critical part of a paragraph, and just quote-mining it for something to make a straw-man point about? Who'da thunk it??
And DannyTN, what's *your* excuse for swallowing this pap without noticing how dishonestly it treats the actual critique and *fails* to actually address the *most* significant parts of the points it raises, eh? Be honest now, you didn't even bother to *read* the original talk.origins essays, did you? "A closed mind gathers no thought", and all that...
This one is just... Weird. Its first claim about Stassen is:
Stassen's argument is just special pleading.Nooo.... It quite clearly lays out a case for Austin/ICR's incompetence and/or dishonest, and provides evidence for it. This hand-waving attempt to dismiss it is itself "special pleading", and a particularly lame example of it.
Notice that Stassen simply makes assertions without any backing. For example he uses the term ‘false isochron’ without saying why it is false.ROFL!!!! Sarfati, you *IDIOT*, Stassen calls it a "false isochron" because THAT'S WHAT AUSTIN HIMSELF CALLED IT IN HIS 1988 PAPER WHICH STASSEN WAS DISCUSSING. I see that DannyTN is not the only creationist who has problems with reading comprehension or an inability to remember context...
Here's Stassen's comment:
In his 1988 paper, Austin noted that this sort of "false isochron" is well known, and explained in the mainstream literature. He cited a discussion of it in Faure (1986, pp. 145-147), a popular textbook/handbook on isotope dating methods.Here's the line from Austin's 1988 paper:
According to Faure, the incomplete mixing of two magmas having different strontium isotope ratios produces a mixing diagram where all mixtures lie on a straight line [...] Another geologic cause for these straight line plots is offered by Brooks, James, and Hart. They document twenty-two examples of false rubidium-strontium isochrons and propose that such characteristics are inherited from the molten material's source at great depth in the earth.Here again is Sarfati being a complete idiot:
Notice that Stassen simply makes assertions without any backing. For example he uses the term ‘false isochron’ without saying why it is false.And here is DannyTN compound the foolishness:
Response to Chris Stassen taking him to task for making unsupportable and vague claims.Sigh... How many more days of my life must I waste explaining the obvious to hopelessly confused creationists?
Sarfati goes on and continues to be an idiot:
He [Stassen] mentions the issue as being ‘fairly well understood’ and ‘easy to avoid’ without explaining what the understanding is and how specifically it could be avoided.Um, gosh, Stassen doesn't explain it? Then what in the hell is *this* from the same page:
...and that link goes on to do *more* explaining on this particular issue and explains how to avoid it...It is possible for the data points to fall on an isochron line if this requirement is violated. The result will still have the same meaning: the time since all of the samples were isotopically homogenized with respect to each other. However, that result does not have to be the time since each sample formed. Often it will be the isotopic age of the common source of the samples. That result could also be the age of the samples themselves, but only in the case where their common source was isotopically homogeneous -- i.e., zero-age -- when the samples formed from it. [example snipped] This is a well-known and expected behavior of isochrons. No competent geologist would be fooled by this sort of "inherited" isochron age, because it is quite obvious, as the samples are collected, whether the date must reflect the individual samples' time of formation. This is discussed in more detail in the "Violation of cogenetic requirement" section of the Isochron Dating FAQ.
So just how stupid does Sarfati has to be to say:
He [Stassen] mentions the issue as being ‘fairly well understood’ and ‘easy to avoid’ without explaining what the understanding is and how specifically it could be avoided...? And just how careless does DannyTN have to be to not notice how stupid Sarfati's being here?
But wait, there's more... Sarfati continues to put his foot in his mouth up to the knee joint:
He [Stassen] talks about ‘proper sample selection’ without explaining what was wrong with Austin’s sampling method and why.Gee, really? Here's Stassen again:
Gee willikers, Mr. Wizard, that sure sounds like "explaining what was wrong with Austin’s sampling method and why" to *me*. But then hey, I'm not a creationist, so I guess my opinion doesn't count...Before the Grand Canyon Dating Project began, in his 1988 Impact article, Austin admitted in print that the selected lava flows fell into two different stratigraphic stages. That is, the very information which he used to select the flows, also clearly indicates that they did not all occur at the same time. In his subsequent book (1994, p. 125), Austin indicated that his five data points came from four different lava flows plus an extracted "phenocryst" (large mineral which likely formed in the magma chamber and was not molten in the lava flow). We had known from the Impact articles that Austin's samples were not all cogenetic; years later we found out by his own admission that no two of them are so.
In fact, as discussed above, the selection of non-cogenetic samples is sometimes used intentionally by isotope geologists. It is known to be a way to have an isochron dating method "look back" beyond a recent event to an earlier event -- the age of the common source of the samples. Thus, it is misleading for Austin to pretend that his resulting isochron plot should be expected to represent the age of the flows themselves.
Now for the real knee-slapper from creationist Sarfati:
His entire claim is in this vein—without logic, without reason and without substance.The mind just boggles... Well, I suppose it *could* look "without reason" if you're a creationist who seems unable to master basic reading comprehension... And finally:
But Stassen cannot not set out any specifics of why Austin’s methods or results are wrong, because they are not wrong. Stassen is bluffing.Oooookay... You just keep telling yourself that, Sarfati. Never bother your pretty little head with that bit about how non-cogenetic samples -- like the ones Austin used -- produce ages of the *common source* material, and *not* the age of either sample...
DannyTN, just *why* do you keep following these boobs? And how can you read such absolutely senile ramblings like Sarfati's and manage to mistake it for, in your own words:
Response to Chris Stassen taking him to task for making unsupportable and vague claimsDo even *you* believe that bluster anymore?
Feel free to point out even a *single* "unsupportable and vague claim" that Stassen made -- or retract your false accusation.
Two down, one to go... Your last goofy link is:
Um, no. Morton makes his case well, and Mortenson does nothing to rebut Morton's points, much less demonstrate them to be "sloppy work". If you're going to retitle a link, please do not mischaracterize it.
Morton was specifically addressing Mortenson's claim that John Murray (a 19th-century creationist) had "demonstrated an up-to-date knowledge of the writings of leading British and European geologists." Morton effectively refutes this by listing several "up-to-date" (the date being 1840, the year Murray published his book) items in geology which Murray failed to take into account in his book.
Mortenson does nothing to refute this, other than whine about several irrelevant points:
1. Mortenson erects a straw man by saying, "Morton discusses five points that he says show Murray’s failure to use known facts of his day in his thinking about geology, Noah’s Flood and the age of the Earth, thereby proving Murray’s geological incompetence." Nonsense -- Morton made no claims about Murray's "incompetence", nor was that the point of Morton's essay.
2. Mortenson further whines: "Murray’s ‘failure’ to deal with topics, which Morton thinks are important, in the less than 20 pages that Murray devotes to geology in his 380-page book does not reveal geological ignorance on Murray’s part, but rather unreasonable demands by Morton 161 years later." If there were "unreasonable" demands or expectations "161 years later", they were Mortenson's, since he's the one who made grandiose claims about Murray's alleged knowledge and abilities based on those "less than 20 pages". If Mortenson can declare Murray to be a brilliant "Scriptural Geologist" based on those 20 pages, then it's fair game for Morton to point out the actual shortcomings of the contents of those pages.
3. More whining: "Morton’s points 1, 2, 4 and 5 had nothing to do with the development of old-Earth geological theories." Nice try, but the topic wasn't restricted to that, it was Murray's geologic "up-to-dateness" in general that was the topic of discussion.
4. Whining more: "Murray did not develop a ‘Flood theory,’ as Morton keeps suggesting. He simply expressed his Biblical and geological reasons for rejecting the old-Earth theories and believing the Biblical account of a recent creation and global Noachian Flood." Wow, what pointless hairsplitting... Want some cheese with that whine? And for the record, Murray *did* put forth a scenario for the origins of the Flood waters, which Morton duly quoted.
5. "Agassiz’s glacial theory was much in debate in 1840 (the year Murray’s book was published) and was not widely accepted until after 1844, so Murray cannot be faulted for not telling his readers about it." Sure he can. When discussing possible explanations for an observation, Murray most certainly *can* be faulted for failing to even consider the most prominent hypothesis of the day, even if it had not yet been "widely accepted". It's inexcusable to only tell the readers about the one that "just happens" to look like it might support the Bible. Unless you're a dishonest creationist, that is, then it's *expected*.
6. "Murray believed the Word of God was the only infallible source of truth, so did not feel compelled to accept Smith’s and any other old-Earth geologist’s interpretation of the geological evidence, since those interpretations were based on anti-biblical philosophical assumptions." Well, yeah, that's pretty much Morton's *POINT*... Contrary to Mortenson's assertion that Murray was one of "the geologically most competent Scriptural geologists", he was in fact merely another example of a creationist who let his faith override what the evidence was actually indicating.
I'm sorry, DannyTN, you claimed to have a link that showed "sloppy sloppy work" on the part of Glenn Morton, but your material fell flat, and instead makes your creationist pal look like he doesn't have a clue (as is the case for the other two links you provided as well).
Have you learned anything from this demonstration?
Yes! I've learned that you are way too charitable.. :)
[Thunderous applause!]
You mean the worms and fruitflys that are cited on theTalk Origins website? That's pretty thin evidence, especially since the examples seem to be drawn mostly (all?) from laboratory experimentation.
Moreover, the theory of evolution by gradual change flatly contradicts the fossil record. Any theory that purports to explain observable phenomenon should not dismiss contradictory evidence with hand-waving.
To shift metaphors, belief in evolution is not much different than football. During the first three downs, the evolutionist slaps the ball down anywhere, but on the fourth down, he wants to bring out scientific measurement to prove a point. Unfortunately, those first downs are assumptions that are unfounded. BUT THEY ARE WONDERFULLY COMFORTING. Based on those assumptions, the last down matters little - except to confirm what is already believed.
While I have no thought of shifting your belief system, the topic is worthy of discussion. I wish you the best.
And your evidence for this assertion is...?
I believe from this statement that most evolution supporters have no argument with you. You seem to believe in creationism solely as a matter of faith, and are not trying to lie, mislead and ignore scientific evidence in order to push your beliefs. I personally have no argument who understands that creationism is not science, should not be taught as such and relies solely on faith for its support.
Evolution: 2003-2004 Patriots
Creationism: 1976-1977 Buccaneers
Only that you will continue to miss the point and slander Creationists at every turn.
Austin is not the only scientist to demonstrate flawed radiometric dating of lava flows. The labs have returned old ages for rock known to be young at 16 different volcanic sites. It's insufficient to say that rocks known to be young should not be submitted. The tests don't always return a date less than 2 million on young rock and if they can err on young rock, then how do we know they are accurate on old rock. We don't.
There are other radiometric test that we can go to and it sounds like the scientific community has moved away from K-ar dating. But how many false assumptions have already been built upon in the literature? Who knows. My guess is it's HUGH.
Who are the others?
Or, more importantly, what did they demonstrate?
"EXCESS ARGON": THE "ACHILLES' HEEL" OF POTASSIUM-ARGON AND ARGON-ARGON "DATING" OF VOLCANIC ROCKS
For more than three decades potassium-argon (K-Ar) and argon-argon (Ar-Ar) dating of rocks has been crucial in underpinning the billions of years for Earth history claimed by evolutionists. Critical to these dating methods is the assumption that there was no radiogenic argon (40Ar*) in the rocks (e.g., basalt) when they formed, which is usually stated as self-evident. Dalrymple argues strongly:
The K-Ar method is the only decay scheme that can be used with little or no concern for the initial presence of the daughter isotope. This is because 40Ar is an inert gas that does not combine chemically with any other element and so escapes easily from rocks when they are heated. Thus, while a rock is molten, the 40Ar formed by the decay of 40K escapes from the liquid.1 However, this dogmatic statement is inconsistent with even Dalrymple's own work 25 years earlier on 26 historic, subaerial lava flows, 20% of which he found had non-zero concentrations of 40Ar* (or excess argon) in violation of this key assumption of the K-Ar dating method.2 The historically dated flows and their "ages" were:
Hualalai basalt, Hawaii (AD 1800-1801) 1.6±0.16 Ma; 1.41±0.08 Ma
Mt. Etna basalt, Sicily (122 BC) 0.25±0.08 Ma
Mt. Etna basalt, Sicily (AD 1972) 0.35±0.14 Ma
Mt. Lassen plagioclase, California (AD 1915) 0.11±0.03 Ma
Sunset Crater basalt, Arizona (AD 1064-1065) 0.27±0.09 Ma; 0.25±0.15 Ma
Far from being rare, there are numerous reported examples of excess 40Ar* in recent or young volcanic rocks producing excessively old K-Ar "ages":3
Akka Water Fall flow, Hawaii (Pleistocene) 32.3±7.2 Ma
Kilauea Iki basalt, Hawaii (AD 1959) 8.5±6.8 Ma
Mt. Stromboli, Italy, volcanic bomb (September 23, 1963) 2.4±2 Ma
Mt. Etna basalt, Sicily (May 1964) 0.7±0.01 Ma
Medicine Lake Highlands obsidian, Glass Mountains, California (<500 years old) 12.6±4.5 Ma
Hualalai basalt, Hawaii (AD 1800-1801) 22.8±16.5 Ma
Rangitoto basalt, Auckland, NZ (<800 years old) 0.15±0.47 Ma
Alkali basalt plug, Benue, Nigeria (<30 Ma) 95 Ma
Olivine basalt, Nathan Hills, Victoria Land,
Antarctica (<0.3 Ma) 18.0±0.7 Ma
Anorthoclase in volcanic bomb, Mt Erebus, Antarctica (1984) 0.64±0.03 Ma
Kilauea basalt, Hawaii (<200 years old) 21±8 Ma
Kilauea basalt, Hawaii (<1,000 years old) 42.9±4.2 Ma; 30.3±3.3 Ma
East Pacific Rise basalt (<1 Ma) 690±7 Ma
Seamount basalt, near East Pacific Rise (<2.5 Ma) 580±10 Ma; 700±150 Ma
East Pacific Rise basalt (<0.6 Ma) 24.2±1.0 Ma
Other studies have also reported measurements of excess 40Ar* in lavas.4 The June 30, 1954 andesite flow from Mt. Ngauruhoe, New Zealand, has yielded "ages" up to 3.5±0.2 Ma due to excess 40Ar*.5 Austin investigated the 1986 dacite lava flow from the post-October 26, 1980, lava dome within the Mount St. Helens crater, which yielded a 0.35±0.05 Ma whole-rock K-Ar model "age" due to excess 40Ar*.6 Concentrates of constituent minerals yielded "ages" up to 2.8±0.6 Ma (pyroxene ultra-concentrate).
See the list of citations at the bottom of the first link for the various Geologists who found bad dates and excess argon.
... and your prediction for 2005?! :-)
Slander-free Placemarker
Only that you will continue to miss the point and slander Creationists at every turn.
Then, unsurprisingly, you learned nothing. Did you even bother to read it?
Support your slur that I have "slandered" any cerationist in my post, if you think you can. Note: Slander is *false* attacks. Identify where any of my bashing of the creationists you yourself provided was false or unsupportable. You, son, are slandering *me*. Support your slur or retract it, like an honorable person would do.
Your complete failure to address the *many* points I made in my post -- and then respond with this childish ad hominem outburst without a shred of support -- is, in a word, lame. It is however typical. The only thing I can't understand is why you have no shame.
Let's get specific, shall we?
1. Exactly how is it "slander" for me to point out (and why did you fail to even attempt to address) the fact that your creationist link foolishly pooh-pooh'ed the statement that "Austin is not an expert in this field" based on the inarguable observation that Austin incorrectly gathered his Hawaii samples?
2. Exactly how is it "slander" for me to point out (and why did you fail to even attempt to address) the fact that your creationist link dishonestly and/or incompetently failed to inform its readers that the lab specifically stated that its procedures could not accurately date samples as young as Austin's?
3. Exactly how is it "slander" for me to point out (and why did you fail to even attempt to address) the fact that creationist Sarfati was being dishonest and/or incompetent when he wrote "Notice that Stassen simply makes assertions without any backing. For example he uses the term ‘false isochron’ without saying why it is false.", since the term "false isochron" was in reference to what CREATIONIST AUSTIN HIMSELF HAD WRITTEN.
4. Exactly how is it "slander" for me to point out (and why did you fail to even attempt to address) the fact that creationist Sarfati was being dishonest and/or incompetent when he wrote "He [Stassen] mentions the issue as being ‘fairly well understood’ and ‘easy to avoid’ without explaining what the understanding is and how specifically it could be avoided.", since Stassen MOST CERTAINLY *DID* explain those points in detail (and I quoted where he had done so).
5. Exactly how is it "slander" for me to point out (and why did you fail to even attempt to address) the fact that creationist Sarfati was being dishonest and/or incompetent when he wrote "He [Stassen] mentions the issue as being ‘fairly well understood’ and ‘easy to avoid’ without explaining what the understanding is and how specifically it could be avoided.", since Stassen MOST CERTAINLY *DID* explain those points in detail (and I quoted where he had done so).
6. Exactly how is it "slander" for me to point out (and why did you fail to even attempt to address) the fact that creationist Sarfati was being dishonest and/or incompetent when he wrote "He [Stassen] talks about ‘proper sample selection’ without explaining what was wrong with Austin’s sampling method and why.", since since Stassen MOST CERTAINLY *DID* explain those points in detail (and I quoted where he had done so).
7. Exactly how is it "slander" for me to point out (and why did you fail to even attempt to address) the fact that Austin was incompetent and/or dishonest in his Hawaii paper, because as he himself makes clear, he used samples from more than one source for his Hawaii paper, WHEN THIS IS KNOWN TO PRODUCE NOT THE AGE OF EITHER SAMPLE, BUT THE AGE OF THEIR (OLDER) COMMON SOURCE, and yet Austin dishonestly/incompetently used the "old" age that resulted (and would be *expected* to result) in order to *falsely* try to malign radiometric dating (by incomptently/dishonestly implying that his samples should have produced the younger ages of his samples).
8. Exactly how is it "slander" for me to point out (and why did you fail to even attempt to address) the fact that creationist Sarfati was being dishonest and/or incompetent when he wrote "But Stassen cannot not set out any specifics of why Austin’s methods or results are wrong, because they are not wrong.", since Stassen *did* "set out specifics" -- a very many of them, in fact -- as to why Austin's claims about his results ARE DEAD WRONG.
9. Why did you fail to even attempt to address my challenge to you to behave honorably (for a change): "Feel free to point out even a *single* 'unsupportable and vague claim' that Stassen made -- or retract your false accusation."
10. Exactly how is it "slander" for me to point out (and why did you fail to even attempt to address) the fact that creationist Mortenson made a number of weak swipes at Morton's essay about Murray, which don't stand up to scrutiny, and which you falsely characterized as "AIG takes Glenn Morton another frequent Talk Origins writer to task for sloppy sloppy work", since even if Morenson's whines *had* held water, the most it would indicate is that Mortenson and Morton hold differing opinions about the strength of Murray's work, *not* that Morton had done any "sloppy sloppy work" as you falsely charge.
Try actually engaging someone's points for once instead of just childishly namecalling.
Support your slander against me, or retract it. Or are you as dishonorable as the creationist authors you worship?
[Thunderous applause!]
So, speciation, if it takes place in a lab (as opposed to the wild) doesn't count?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.