Chimps Used Simple Tools 5 Million Years Ago 105
David_Bloom writes: "Evidence that chimps have been using simple tools over 500 million years ago has been unveiled by an archeological dig in West Africa. Tragically, it will probably be another 500 million years before my mom figures out how to use the simple Windows taskbar. [sigh]" Update: 05/23 22:45 GMT by T : Actually, as the linked article really says, that should be five million, rather than 500 million.
Umm, that 5 million years ago. (Score:1)
Re:Umm, that 5 million years ago. (Score:1)
IF A MODERATOR IS READING THIS: Could you please modify the story so it says 5 million, not 500 million? TYVM in advance.
500 = 5 (Score:3, Funny)
By any chance... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:By any chance... (Score:1)
Re:What are their dating methods anyways? (Score:1)
Millions of years of tool using, and they can barely feed themselves in a civilized manner. Products of bad breeding, I say.
From the article (Score:3, Interesting)
Too Bad (Score:3, Insightful)
Regardless, this is clearly fascinating. Although in my mind it raises the question of why that species has not advanced significantly more in all this time. I realize the article states that the researchers will look for differences in modern behavior, but my guess is that their methods are still basically the same.
Which I guess is good for us, as who wants super-monkeys taking away all of our jobs. Although if they could just comment their code, I might give them a shot.
Re: Too Bad (Score:2)
> And if evolution were to be true, why would one species (us) "evolve" into intelligence and one that had the nascent beginnings just stagnate for vast amounts of time?
Once a population splits the theory of evolution does not predict that they will evolve in parallel -- all the more if they move into distinct environments or adopt distinct lifestyles.
Also, don't underrate the intelligence of chimps. I suspect that an objective measure would put them a lot closer to the intelligence of humans than to the intelligence of, say, snails.
Re:Too Bad (Score:1)
Further, the seemingly natural origins of the universe do not create "tests of faith" - rather, they allow for Faith. What would happen to Faith if one could prove conclusively (hypothetical) that the Bible was correct in its telling of the story(to the point where no intelligent person could reject it)? Would this not destroy Faith?
Re:Too Bad (Score:1)
It is still happening. You can watch it happen in our hospitals right this very moment. Take a look at those people with drug resistant bacterial infections... some of these bacteria simply didn't exist 10 years ago. They are all descendants of older non resistant bacteria's.
Evolution never stopped, and cannot be stopped.
I place people who don't believe in evolution with people who think the world is flat in the the same group... stubbornly blind followers of dogma.
I can show you evidence of evolution... now can you show me evidence of creation, or a god?
Re:Too Bad (Score:1)
Okay. Like you said, let's define terms. Here is a good definition of evolution:
'"Evolution," in the context most biologists intend to use it, is correctly defined simply as "descent with modification."' (Robert Moss)
New lets look for some evidence. Hmm. Don't suppose you have ever heard of a study on the beaks of finches in the Galapagos? I an not talking about what Darwin saw, but what a more recent investigation led by Peter Grant found.
His work is a great example of natural selection, a major part of evolution.
Now you are saying... 'that is only natural selection... we have no more species than before, no information gain.'
So now we get to the second half of evolution, change/mutation of genes.
Much of an organism is defined by its genes. There is little argument about this, even from creationists.
Forgetting natural selection, let's think about the reproduction of simple lifeforms. 'Either there is variation (mutation) or the cells copy themselves perfectly, every single generation, with absolutely no mistakes. Given entropy, that's just not possible! Mistakes are inevitable.' (Robert Moss).
Mutations do occur. But as you said, in the case of resistant bacteria, these are not information gaining mutations. Mutations never gain information. That isn't how it works. Mutations are about changing information.
So how does a genome gain information?
Let's imagine a hypothetical organism with one gene in a resource rich world. It reproduces constantly. Those organisms that have fatally deleterious mutations never breed. Those with other mutations breed at different rates, but since this is a resource rich world, all survive, and share their mutations with their neighbors. There is no speciation occurring, just one species with a single gene that constantly changing. They are a pretty homogeneous group.
Let's suppose this group got split in two. We have two separate colonies quickly becoming different species. But still we have single gene organisms. This goes on for a while, the two different species become adept at two different ways for getting energy out of the resources available.
Suddenly the colonies join again. The organisms are not so different that they can't still exchange genetic information, but are different enough that their genes cannot merge into a single hybrid gene. There is now some organisms with two genes. Both these genes have different methods of turning available resources into energy.
All these bacteria have been growing exponentially for sometime now. We have different species because this is a big world and the resources vary, and some of those species now have multiple genes. Suddenly we find that they have taken up all available area, and now must compete. Natural really kicks in, and many of the weaker variations of the major species disappear.
This world now has many distinctly different species, and some of these species have more genetic information than others. All the processes that I have described continue to occur. Sometimes there is a major event that knocks out most of the life, allowing new species to come to dominance. There is constant variation in the environment of this world, creating niches for organisms to specialize in. At some period a species develops the ability to join with others and becomes multi-cellular. This species finds it survives especially well in some niches. Et cetera, et cetera, until today, where all this evolution has resulted in todays world.
Sorry, I forgot to include individual genes growing in size/complexity. I am tired.
We have established that change and natural selection both happen. I have also demonstrated a method to gain new genes.
Evolution doesn't make any claims about the origin of life, just how life became to be a diverse as it is today.
Re: Too Bad (Score:2)
> What I see is that AC agrees that there is natural selection and genetic mutations, but that these mutations never lead to an increase in genetic information.
And are we to suppose that AC has ever actually measured the information in a parent and offspring to see what the difference is?
Or even has a rigorous definition for 'information' in the context of inheritance?
Re: Too Bad (Score:1)
(A god appeared out of nothing, and created universe out of nothing more than a few words).
Evolutionist say that you can have a complex entity form from a less complex entity, or visa-versa
Now please define information, and please define an increase in information.
Re: Too Bad (Score:2)
> I have not personally measured the number of base pairs; very few have I'm sure.
If you're equating "the number of base pairs" with "information" then your argument is lost before you start, because we know that the number of base pairs can increase or decrease between parent and child.
> However evolutionists are the ones claiming that you can get something from nothing; it's up to you/them to come up with examples, it's not up to me to dance for you.
Actually, the theory of evolution is just the invocation of known facts to explain known facts. It is beyond argument that species have changed over time, and modern genetics gives us an explanation for how this happens. Creationists don't like this and so they incorrectly invoke the second law of thermodynamics or make up their own "fourth law of thermodynamics" to 'prove' that the biological explanation is wrong.
It is quite clear that children differ from their parents. Is this a change in 'information'? Who knows; creationists generally avoid defining their terms, because they always find themselves shown wrong when they do.
Do we "gest something from nothing" when a snowflake forms? Until you can answer that quantitatively then you should recognize that you're talking out your ass. (Or rather, echoing what came out of some creationist leader's ass.)
Re: Too Bad (Score:2)
I still stand by that statement. The only point worth mentioning regarding it is that you don't even invoke a law of nature to support your claim that you can't get "something from nothing", as if that were a self-evident truth that you can legitimately apply to arbitrary definitions of "something" and "nothing". If there is a problem with the theory of evolution, you have signally failed to point it out.> Of course it's beyond argument that species have changed over time; erecting straw men is a popular way for evolutionists to argue, but it's not dealing with the facts.
Was the second half of that sentence supposed to have anything to do with the first half? I.e., are you claiming that I introduced a strawman into the argument? FYI, the change in populations over time is the basic fact that the theory of evolution was designed to explain.
You leave the impression that you don't know what the term "strawman" means. But it's a well-known fact that creationists will mindlessly echo back the criticisms of their own position, e.g. calling evolution a religion, a tautology, or almost anything else that is ever used to legimately refute the creationist position.
> Genetics also is not a point of argument, yet another straw man.
No, genetics is the detailed mechanism discovered for the big-picture hypothesis proposed by Darwin about a century before we understood the details of molecular genetics.
> I never mentioned thermo; you did.
Speaking of strawmen, I didn't say that you did. I said this, which you conveniently neglected to quote:
> And children varying from parents is also blatantly clear; I think reading your post is going to get me an allergy to straw.
Sorry, but that's the essence of the theory of evolution. If you think it's a strawman, perhaps you need to read up on the topic a bit before you spend so much effort denouncing it.
> A snowflake has information, but only in the form of a repeated order; it does not have specificity. It's like a crystal; highly ordered, but not containing any information. That's pretty trivial, and something that is quite obvious to observation.
I notice a complete lack of any attempt to support your earlier claim that evolution violates some (ill-defined) restriction against the increase of some (ill-defined) "information".
We have observations; we have a theory that explains them; we have more recent observations that conform to the predictions of that theory. If you don't want people to accept the theory you need to do something other than wave your hands and say that the burden of proof is on those who won't accept handwaving as a substitute for a real argument.
Re: Too Bad (Score:1)
-- --
I think for this line of argument to have any merit you need to define and quantify "information." I won't hold my breath, as I've yet to see any creationist (even Behe and Dembski) define and quantify "information" in any usable manner relavant to this debate.
You say a snowflake has less information than a genome. Where's the calculation?
Re: Too Bad (Score:1)
Re: Too Bad (Score:1)
Re: Too Bad (Score:1)
Re: Too Bad (Score:1)
Re: Too Bad (Score:1)
If not, show, using Yockey's definition, how a flavobacterium which can digest nylon has: more, less, or the same, information as it's cousin without the mutation (a single point mutation in this case). Show your math!
Re: Too Bad (Score:1)
"Negoro et al, 1994. "The nylon oligomer biodegradation system of Flavobacterium and Pseudomonas." Biodegradation 5:185-194
Re:Too Bad (Score:1)
Nonsense. Gentry's halos have been debunked time and time again. See http://www.ebonmusings.org/evolution/gentry.htm for example.
If you note the original post, ashtonb initiated it by stating that anyone who didn't believe in evolution was someone he put in the same class as someone who believes in the flat earth. Actually many scientists in past centuries believed in a flat earth, that heavy objects fall faster than light, etc. And did you know that such giants of our past as Newton, Maxwell, Pasteur, Pascal, and Babbage were creationists?
Is this the best argument you can muster? You're even more pathetic than I first thought. Hint: Sometime go and look up the birth dates of most of them and then look up the date of publication of the Origin of Species.
Re: Too Bad (Score:2)
> Gentry's halos have been attacked time and time again
I presume it's a waste of time arguing with you, but any lurkers who don't want to be led astry might want to read this explanation. [talkorigins.org]
Re: Too Bad (Score:2)
It just goes to show that for creationists, any evidence is 'evidence' for creation.True to form for a creationist, you offer your readers one creationist's I can't imagine any other explanation! argument about a single phenomenon and ask those readers to accept it as 'proof' that the world is a recent creation, neglecting to mention to those readers that in order to accept that conclusion from that one dubious argument they have to give up the piles of independent but mutually supporting evidence that very clearly show that the world is old, old, old.
But of course that's the norm for creationist arguments; the goal isn't to get a better understanding of the universe, but rather to give the True Believers something to hang their hats on. So one man's weak argument outweighs all the other arguments produced by thousands of scientists over hundreds of years.
And that one argument is dubious:
People interested in the age of the earth and the facts supporting it may want to look at this [talkorigins.org], or especially this [talkorigins.org]. A history of educated views on the subject can be found here [talkorigins.org], including this little fact:
What's knee-slappingly funny about the whole thing is that if Gentry were right and the world wasn't old enough for the structures to form, the only sensible conclusion would be that the world was older than generally thought, rather than younger, as Gentry claims. But creationism doesn't depend on logical conclusions; it depends on excuses for concluding what you 'knew' before you ever heard of the evidence to begin with.
Re: Too Bad (Score:2)
> It's really pretty sad that you're recycling Brawley's old argument...
It's really pretty sad that you're completely ignoring the major point of my post. But completely unsurprising, since that's how creationists like to give the appearance that they 'win' debates.
> Evolutionists start from the assumption that everything happened without intervention, creationists assumed otherwise.
No, scientists start with the assumption that the evidence is a reflection of reality, and follow through with whatever theory the evidence demands.
> Citing talkorigin's history is using a highly biased source
I notice that you don't cite any alternative history of the scientific understanding of the world's age.
This point and your previous one, above, are good examples of the creationist tactic I mentioned earlier: trying to poison the well. Rather than presenting a substantive argument you are merely trying to convince your readers that science is a completely arbitrary system like your religion. Sorry, but it ain's so, and your rhetoric is visible to the critical reader.
Now, do you actually have any evidence for your religious beliefs?
Re: Too Bad (Score:2)
Re Patterson:So unfortunately you're down to two quotes in the century and a half of intense discussion of the subject matter.I see that you neglected to comment on Gentry's apparent ignorance of the strict co-occurence of uranium with his purported polonium halos.
> No published paper in a peer-reviewed journal has ever disputed Gentry's experiments showing that there were no cracks in the granite.
Has anyone ever published a paper supporting Gentry's claims and conclusions in any peer-reviewed journal?
> So please, please cease attacking Gentry using such arguments - it only reflects badly upon you
Indeed... it "really" reflects badly on me that I'm skeptical about the claims of a guy who purportedly demonstrated that the standard age given for the earth is too young for such halos to appear and thus concluded that the earth was younger than the standard age rather than older. It's small wonder that people laugh at creationists. As the saying goes, any observation is compatible with creationism, because the "theory" of creationism is a blank check.
> I will cite directly some evolutionist writings to contradict you
You are the expert creationist, aren't you! Of all the thousands of scientists who have studied evolution you can find four -- count 'em! -- four whole quotes that you want to overturn the whole basis of scientific enquiry with.
Or are you merely engaging in quote mining? (If any lurkers are still following this increasingly tedious thread, make sure you read up on quote mining [talkorigins.org], because knowledge of that standard creationist practice will probably be the most revealing thing you learn from this thread.)
In fact, two of your four quotes have been thoroughly repudiated, though creationists still carry them on their Web sites and in their printed literature. (Incompetence or mendacity? Let the readers decide!)
Re Watson, and beyond the fact that our Anonymous Creationist had to dig back to 1929 for the quote:
Assuming that those aren't also misrepresentations of the speakers' intentions. Unfortunately I can't find any resources on them right now. I live in a university town and checked out their on-line catalog, but out of several score entries for Darwin's book there aren't any dated for the centennial year. For the other quote you don't give any hints about the source at all; indeed, I can't find any references to George Wall at all, other than on creationist quote-miner resource sites -- not even on the roll-call at the Nobel e-Museum [nobel.se].
p.s. - Tell your quote-miner's sources that what Pasteur disproved [accessexcellence.org] is not the same thing as the modern theory of abiogenesis, and that there's no such thing as a Nobel prize in biology [nobel.se].
Any lurkers still following this thread? It seems a monumental waste of time otherwise.
Re: Too Bad (Score:1)
There is a George Wald, Nobel Prize winner in Medicine. He is a very misquoted person.
Sir Arthur Keith died in 1955. The centennial edition was released 1963. It is a reprinted version of the sixth edition. It was the last version that Heritage Press released. Library of Congress Call Number: QH365
Sir Arthur Keith did not write the introduction for the centennial edition of "On The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life".
Re:Too Bad (Score:1)
Why would an animal be born with traces of legs when it currently has no use for legs?
That the vestigial stumps have no functional purpose in modern whales is obvious.
How, then, are we to explain the case of the whale's vestigial structures in a logical manner?
Re:Too Bad (Score:1)
----
A mutation can be a point mutation (change of information at one point within the genome), a deletion (loss of a nucleotide) or insertion (increase of information by one nucleotide). Any of these changes will change the nature of the sequence of the expressed protein, and may lead to loss of function, change of function or increase in efficiency of function. Mutations provide the de novo alteration of the genome. But not necessarily an increase in information, unlike the example I will discuss below
A well documented phenomenon in biology is that of "unequal crossing over' during meiosis. During meosis (the process whereby germ cells such as eggs and sperm as formed), the chromosomes are duplicated and four haploid cells emerge (each with a half genome). When these recombine with another haploid (ie sperm + egg) we get a fertilized egg. During meosis, the chromosomes undergo a shuffling, which is called recombination. During this recombination, the genome is shuffled with (ideally) each chromosome getting a new combination of old alleles. However, in some cases there is unequal recombination, and one chromosome ends up with both copies of a particular gene, and the other chromosome with no copies. When these gametes go their separate ways one of them (missing a vital gene) may eventually die, whereas the other has N+1 copies of the allele. This extra allele may then be subject to less constraint during subsequent mitotic/meotic duplication. If errors occur because of point, insertion or deletion mutation and it is not a burden on the cell, that extra new information is carried in the genome. Further selection may change the sequence of the gene slightly if the new sequence confers a slightly altered novel function for the expressed protein. We see evidence of this in what are called gene families. It is called "Duplication and Divergence". For example many of the genes in the globin family (protein that carries O2 and CO2 in blood) are obviously altered copies of each other, similarly, in rodents there are multi-gene families of serine proteinase inhibitors (proteins that regulate proteolysis). In humans there are not gene families of serpins, but all serpins (such as antithrombin, antichymotrypsin, plasminogen activator inhibitor I, II and III) are related to the archetype (alpha 1-proteinase inhibitor). Further some genes for human serpins are located close to pseudogenes. Pseudogenes are duplicated genes which did not get selected for on the basis of a change of function, are non-functional ie not expressed, but are not enough of a burden on the genome to disappear. Chimps and Hominids share some pseudogenes, suggesting that the unequal crossing over event took place before chimps and hominods split from their ancestor. Thus unequal crossing over provides an increase in genetic information in a subset of cells that go on to survive and reproduce.
Further, it has long been known that some plants are polyploid ie they contain entire genome duplications, mots common food crops are polyploid. The phenomenon is documented also for some frogs. Recent evidence is showing that major changes in evolution occur as a result of entire genome duplication (the theory was put forward in the 60's by a Japanese Scientist whose name escapes me, but a search at "Science' should bring up a recent article on the subject). Genome sequencing efforts of a variety of species have revealed the tell-tale trail of genome duplication.
Now obviously, duplicating a gene or a genome results in a net increase in genetic information.
No-one can argue with that, can they?
----
Thanx Steen
Re:Too Bad (Score:1)
Even if you only consider animals, Insects make up more biomass than all other animals put together!
Re:Too Bad (Score:1)
-- --
Of course they can argue, but it is obvious they are wrong.
How hard is it--for even an average American with our paltry math/science knowlege--to not see that n+1 > n?
Re:Too Bad (Score:1)
-- --
Hmmm. I don't recall newspapers being able to SELF-replicate, nor do INDIVIDUALS evolve, so the analogy is flawed from the start.
At any given time a breeding population has n number of alleles in the gene pool. If one of those alleles in one individual becomes mutated, then there are now n+1 alleles in the breeding population. How tough is that?
Thermo strawman alert!
Quote:
-- --
I can't make much sense of this, but you are clearly confusing thermo entropy with Shannon/Weaver entropy. Probably deliberately in order to equivocate.
Nonetheless, it is trivial mathematically to show that no thermo laws are broken by evolution. Let's take a dog genome, dg, and nucleotides AGCT, nu, and energy (ultimately from the sun), e:
dg + x(nu) + e -> 2(dg) + x(H_2O)
Now, let's add a cat genome (roughly the same size),cg, to each side of the equation:
cg + dg + x(nu) +e -> cg + 2(dg) + x(H_2O)
Now subtract a dog genome from each side:
cg + x(nu) + e -> dg + x(H_2O)
Now we see that thermodynamically, it is entirely possible for a dog to become a cat with no violation of thermo laws. Of course it is statistically so improbable as to be impossible, but it is clear that the thermo arguments are a strawman.
If you want to argue Shannon/Weaver entropy, then let's go. Where is any law violated?
Re:Too Bad (Score:1)
No one but creationists think that the laws of nature work by random chance. Even your hero Yockey claims that most of say a hemoglobin protein is just bulk and its amino acid sequence is superfulous http://www.asa3.org/archive/evolution/199602/0123
Anyway, you are arguing against abiogenesis. Please stop moving the goalposts. The math above shows that there is no thermodynamic reason why a dog genome cannot become a cat genome in a single step. I acknowleged the fact that it is statistically nearly impossible. Fortunately for science, none of this is necessary for evolution to work. Since abiogenesis research is not likely to ever give the exact answer on how the first self-replicator on this planet formed, I have no beef with theistic evolutionists who claim god made the first self-replicator and let evolution work from there. I take it that this is NOT your position however, right?
Re:Too Bad (Score:1)
I find that most views attributed to the Bible ("The Bible says this or that") are actually someone's mindless regurgitations of some other ostensibly learned theologician's obviously flawed interpretation of the scriptures, usually made to fit his particular church's teaching. Quite difficult to get involved in a flame war where you agree with neither side :-)
Re:Too Bad (Score:1)
Evolution doesn't just happen. Life doesn't move inexorably toward "higher" forms. Life forms only evolve when there is environmental pressure to do so. If there weren't any huge challenges to the chimps' survival in that time that would have required intellectual adaptation, there's no reason that they would evolve. We, however, presumably had certain survival pressures that favored complex social interaction and abstract communication...like LAN gaming parties and slashdot comments.
Re:Too Bad (Score:1)
Re: Too Bad (Score:2)
> t's too bad most of the Slashdot crowd is so progressive. This is one of those perfect articles to get into flame wars about whether or not evolution really happened.
I'm curious why you use the word "progressive" in this regard. The issue isn't progressive ideas vs. others, but rather whether you are going to let your views on the history of the world be guided by the evidence. This hardly strikes me as a "progressive" viewpoint, since the basic issue was resolved by all but the religion-dominated somewhere around 200-300 years ago.
Also, re -
>
That evolution happened is beyond doubt, since the fossil record very clearly shows that the collection of species inhabiting the earth varies greatly over time, at least on geological timescales. The only thing open to rational discussion is what the mechanism for the changes was, not whether the the changes happened.
It happens that we have a theory that appears to explain that mechanism very well, to the point of making predictions about what you'll see if you go down to the lab and do some gene sequencing tomorrow. Some people object to that theory because it contradicts their religious beliefs, and it is commonly believed that others object to it due to a peculiar political ideology (namely that religion-as-opiate-of-masses is a good thing), but neither party has actually done any science that calls the current theory into question. So they resort to bogus pseudo-scientific claims, handwave arguments, misrepresentation of facts, mendacity (e.g., carven human footprints at Paluxy), attempts to poison the well by undercutting the public's trust of science in general, attempts to misportray their ancient mythology as science, attempts to bring science down into the gutter with their own beliefs by labelling it as a mere philosophy or even a religion, and sometimes to arguments that are so truly loopy that it is often commented that creationism is impossible to parody.
But something is needed to explain the changes to the species over time, and right now the only available explanations are the theory of evolution and magic. And the only theory constrained by the facts is the theory of evolution.
Re:Too Bad (Score:1)
Re:Too Bad (Score:1)
Since I don't have (nor intend to purchase) Woodromappe's book, how does he explain how coral could have survived a global flood? Coral is very sensitive to even the slitest climatic changes. Adding even a few meters of water--not to mention water contaminated by silt from ground runoff--is sufficient to destroy coral due to blocked sunlight(1). Coral is also very sensitive to temperature, salinity, and nutrient load changes(1).
For now, we'll ignore the fact that coral, like trees and their rings, show anual layering that can be counted and like tree rings show climatic changes(2). Nowhere in the coral record of several reefs is there any evidence of a global flood.
1. Biology and geology of eastern Pacific coral Reefs Cortes, J CORAL REEFS 16: S39-S46, Suppl. S JUN 1997
2. Photosynthesis and calcification at cellular, organismal and community levels in coral reefs: A review on interactions and control by carbonate chemistry, Gattuso, JP;Allemand, D;Frankignoulle, M AMERICAN ZOOLOGIST 39: (1) 160-183 FEB 1999
Re:Too Bad (Score:1)
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/295/55
Climate and atmospheric history of the past 420,000 years from the Vostok ice core, Antarctica Petit, JR;Jouzel, J;Raynaud, D;Barkov, NI;Barnola, JM;Basile, I;Bender, M;Chappellaz, J;Davis, M;Delaygue, G;Delmotte, M;Kotlyakov, VM;Legrand, M;Lipenkov, VY;Lorius, C;Pepin, L;Ritz, C;Saltzman, E;Stievenard, M NATURE 399: (6735) 429-436 JUN 3 1999
Here we see a painstaking description of the methodology used in dating the Vostok Antarctica ice core samples. Contrast this to your second-hand anecdotal reference to some airplane affectionado's wild-ass guess. Another lie from the anonymous coward. See:
Geology 29, 483 (2001).
From the abstract:
Coral reefs are important as marine ecosystems, and their growth has been linked to the carbon dioxide content in Earth's atmosphere. However, the timing of major reef growth has been uncertain for many reefs, including Earth's largest, the Great Barrier Reef of Australia. Analysis by an international consortium of two recent drill cores taken from the Great Barrier Reef indicates that it began to form about 600,000 years ago. This age is based on magnetic stratigraphy through the drill core (and the absence of the marked geomagnetic reversal 790,000 years ago) and on the Sr isotope composition of the corals. This age implies that the Great Barrier Reef has grown by about 10 to 28 centimeters per year, which is similar to the growth rate of other reefs worldwide. Why reef growth started at that time is unknown, but it might reflect a period of increased sea surface temperatures, a connection with atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, or both.
Re:Too Bad (Score:1)
Where's there any studies on the problems with radiometric dating? There are entire journals devoted to radiometric dating with all their data out there in the open for anyone to examine and critique. You'd think with all the so-called problems creationts claim there is with radiometric dating, at least one of them would submit a scientific critique to those journals. Maybe scientists doing real science actually come up with methods that work.
Do you think it is just a bizzare coincidence that ice-core layer counting, ice-core CO2 radiocarbon dating, ice-core 36Cl radiometric dating, cave stagmite layer counting, cave stalagmite 36Cl radiometric dating, stalagmite U-Th radiometric dating, overlapping oak tree-ring counting, oak tree-ring 14C dating, coral layer counting, coral 90Sr radiometric dating, and the SINT200 stacked geomagnetic record all just happen to give very similar overlapping calibration curves? The odds would be astronomical (something about a tornado in a junkyard comes to mind). All these dating projects were done independantly and at different times over the last few decades and remarkably, they all tell a similar story as to the age of the earth. Sure, creationists can spout off anecdotes about how such-and-such rock gave a date 5 million years off or somesuch, but they never seem to produce any real data to back up these claims. Its all hearsay, or outright fabrication. Even if they did have a genuine datapoint or two that didn't seem to fit, that pales in comparison to the mountain of data that do fit.
I kown you'll just brush this off too. Fine with me; live in your fantasy world. It's obvious you don't care about evidence or real science. You just cheerfully handwave it away. That's your right, but don't try and cram your religous propaganda into our public schools and at least have the decency to admit that creationism is a religion and has nothing to do with science.
Have a nice day.
Re:Too Bad (Score:1)
How does one know that a rock is a tool? (Score:2)
Re:How does one know that a rock is a tool? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:How does one know that a rock is a tool? (Score:2)
Well, they found pits in the rocks that indicate they've been used repeatedly (perhaps for generations) for the same purpose. Using another object for a specific task repeatedly is a tool, no? Okay, so that's not the exact definition of a tool, but it sure fits the criteria for a tool if you ask me. The stones also took a degree of skill to use, and could take 7 years to master. Hit it too hard, and you smash the inside of the nut, hit it too soft, and you still get nothing. So it's not a matter of just smashing things with a rock. The younger chimps apparently practice too as well, using smaller rocks. One thing they haven't done though, is create tools of different shapes and sizes.
Yeah, they could be eating and pooping them out, but the rocks weighed 15 kilograms.
Re:How does one know that a rock is a tool? (Score:2)
oog use tools (Score:1, Funny)
Re:oog use tools (Score:1)
LR
hominids (Score:1)
maybe hominids had a higher capacity for creativity and were able to do more with the 'simple tools' once they 'saw the light?'
this is all such a intrigueing, yet wasteful thing to discuss, until we have time travel. i guess i need to fall through a worm hole and find out
tool use ibn the animal kingdom (Score:1)
sorry about the above comment (Score:1)