Fast Running Blog

http://www.unews.utah.edu/p/?r=022706-8

Interesting article about humans and running.

Very interesting article... Thanks for sharing!

"Here are anatomical characteristics that are unique to humans and that play a role in helping people run..."

Hmmm, so unique that evolution is not a possibility?!

Not sure what you're implying, Bob. Can you elaborate somewhat?

Idea that ties with this discussion somewhat:
With Darwin's 200 b-day yesterday I read an article that said that only 27% of Americans believe in evolution.  I can't believe it is that low - but I imagine that the reason is because so many misunderstand evolution.  Evolution is a FACT - species evolve to live - survival of the fittest.  But then people get stuck on the monkey to man stuff and say evolution isn't true.  Monkey-to-man?... not my job to say (I have my own beliefs), but evolution itself is proven true in all other species; humans?

I just thought the article was strange in that it implies evolution, but then goes on to list unique human characteristics that sets us apart.  That's all, you decide.

Evolution is a FACT - species evolve to live - survival of the fittest.  But then people get stuck on the monkey to man stuff and say evolution isn't true.  Monkey-to-man?... not my job to say (I have my own beliefs), but evolution itself is proven true in all other species; humans?
[/quote]

I bet I share pretty much the same beliefs as Dave, but evolution is about so much more than tracing humans back to a fish that jumped out onto land and became one thing that lead to another and so on...

The only reason evolution has not affected humans as much as other species is because we are superior in thought. We have a mind to "evolve" our surroundings. Many other species evolve to adapt to their suroundings. If I don't like the heat of St. George, I move to Logan (I know what you're thinking, who would be crazy enough to do that?) and vice versa.

I grin when I read an article that says something is X million years old, and Y million years ago this and this happened. When I investigate a computer security breech more often than not I cannot tell what exactly happened, even though it happened 2 days ago, and it happened on a system that is simple enough that I understand it a whole lot better than the entire scientific community understands the science behind life on earth. When I investigate a software bug, if it were not for the computer proving my theories wrong every 5 minutes, I would end up not only never finding the bug, but also living with a false belief as to its cause. To make things even worth, I would often be able to convince the client to believe in that falsehood.

Any scientific proof is proof indeed only to the degree of rigor you require of it. Even assuming reasonably honest science (not motivated by biases of the people involved, big assumption), the theory that wins is the one that withstands the greatest amount of questioning rigor. Unfortunately they do not tell you that if Maxwell's laws of electromagnetism are like a 2:10 marathon in that department, then all of the proofs of evolution are more like  3:50 at their best. Yet the general public considers both to be scientific truths of equal value. The 2:10 science proves itself by its fruit - without our understanding of Maxwell's laws I would not be typing this message. So it gets the public support, funding, media coverage, etc, on its own merits. The 3:50 science uses a harness to get a ride from the 2:10. Part of the problem that it is often the same scientist that works on both, so he is the one who does the harnessing, and if anybody questions him he will say without the 3:50 riding along, 2:10 marathon is impossible. The public does not know enough to be able to demonstrate otherwise, so the 3:50 guy now has the elite status. The new generation of scientists is being taught to accept the 3:50 as essentially the absolute truth, and now you really cannot dislodge the free loader.

I got lost in that last paragraph Sasha :0   but I think I understood the gist of it.

Put another way, carbon dating or any other age-determining process relies on some grand assumptions. Like atmospheric conditions being exactly the same millions of years ago as they are today. I've always been interested in seeing a confidence interval for carbon dating, but nobody ever provides one. And I don't know how to derive one (and would be too lazy if I could ;)).  I imagine that if you could derive one, it would be v e r y wide.

But thanks for the article Jon! Interesting read.

Wide, like a percent or two.

As a (former) geologist, I find that statement, nay assumption, borderline offensive.  :P (Tyler, bear with me, I'm not really upset, but do feel the call to be an advocate for modern geological methods).

Even if carbon dating is wrong (and it certainly has limitations), there is also thermoluminescence (TL), optical stimulated luminescence (OSL), cosmogenic dating (Be-10, Al-26, etc.), ice cores, tree rings, electron-spin resonance (ESR), not to mention the more well-known radiometric dating methods (Potassium-Argon, Uranium-Lead, etc.). Consistency between non-related methods is marvelous. 

The assumptions are not so grand, and the math is simple. Typical error bounds of most dating methods are within a few percent, and have improved drastically since the advent of mass spectrometry.

In specific regards to C14 dating, dates are best for things less than 11,800 years old (+/- 50 years or so), due to tree-ring calibration. C14 can be used for other objects up to about 60,000 years old, but are "raw" (not calibrated) and have higher uncertainty. Atmospheric conditions certainly play into this, but will not create order-of-magnitude error. Error bounds are more like +/- a few hundred years. Like anything else, the accuracy is dependent on the quality of the sample, and will give bad results if misused on inappropriate materials or age ranges.

The most impressive thing is that a given radiometric dating method is incredibly consistent with other forms of radiometric dating and forms of non-radiometric dating. For example, Meteor Crater is Arizona calculates out to be roughly 49,000 years old, based on C14, TL, and cosmogenic methods (off the top of my head). These are all non-related methods, but all output the same result. It's pretty cool, actually.

If you are truly interested in the topic, check out:

Thompson, Tim, 2003. A radiometric dating resource list. http://www.tim-thompson.com/radiometric.html

Wiens, Roger C., 1994, 2002. Radiometric dating: A Christian perspective. http://www.asa3.org/ASA/RESOURCES/WIENS.html

Dalrymple, G. Brent, 2000. Radiometric dating does work! Some examples and a critique of a failed creationist strategy. Reports of the National Center for Science Education 20(3): 14-17. http://ncseweb.org/book/export/html/2748

Harland, W. B., R. L. Armstrong, A. V. Cox, L. E. Craig, A. G. Smith, and D. G. Smith, 1990. A Geologic Time Scale 1989. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hilgen, F. J., W. Krijgsman, C. G. Langereis and L. J. Lourens, 1997. Breakthrough made in dating of the geological record. EOS 78(28): 285,288-289. http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/eos96336.html

Lindsay, Don, 1999. Are radioactive dating methods consistent with each other? http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/crater_chain.html

Lindsay, Don, 2000. Are radioactive dating methods consistent with the deeper-is-older rule? http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/confirm.html

Meert, Joe, 2000. Consistent radiometric dates. http://gondwanaresearch.com/radiomet.htm

Rubin, Ken, 2001. The formation of the Hawaiian Islands. http://www.soest.hawaii.edu/GG/HCV/haw_formation.html

Thompson, Tim, n.d. Luminescence and radiometric dating. http://www.tim-thompson.com/luminescence.html

Thorne, A. et al., 1999. Australia's oldest human remains: Age of the Lake Mungo 3 skeleton. Journal of Human Evolution 36(6): 591-612.


Other than the geology lesson, I have nothing to add! But someone must defend the rocks...

Wow! Don't mess with Paul.  J/K  It is good when you can back up your views with some references.  Good article Jon.

Science 4 teh win!  Somebody just got:

(http://www.funny-games.biz/images/pictures/389-oukick.jpg)

Wow, thanks Paul. My post is based on my limited scientific background, and I've always been curious about this. Awesome information.

I hope my post wasn't offensive, just publicly airing my ignorance, as usual  ;)

No not offensive at all! No more than my post anyway. I just like to talk about rocks is all. I took an entire semester class on radiometric dating once, so it's nice to actually apply it once in a while.

About 6000 years ago the earth experienced some interesting changes, if we are to believe the Bible. Man became mortal, animals started eating each other, and the ground started producing weeds unless cultivated. I imagine in order for those changes to occur radioactive decay among many other processes would have had to be changed as well. In light of that, any extrapolation of the laws of nature observed today past that time will produce possibly consistent but still incorrect results. Think looking at a wall with a reflection while being convinced there is no wall and you are looking at the real thing.

Sasha, please read this link and tell me what you think of it. I thought it was interesting.

http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/science.shtml#age

I'm not Sasha, but I read it and found it very interesting.  Another interesting read is Evolution and Mormonisim, a Quest for Understanding, by Trent D. Stephens and D. Jeffrey Meldrum.  It attempts to reconcile Mormon doctrine with evolution and does quite a good job, as did this article.

As the article states, the Church takes on position when it comes to the fine details of how exactly the Earth was created.

As far as my opinion is concerned - God is not a lamer. If the Earth was created like what the science of today says, that makes him quite a lamer. I do not see His fingerprint in the way modern theories describe the process. There has to be more creative beauty and power. What I see in the theories of today is a mere reflection of man's ineptitude. Not a surprise - in order to produce a "scientific" explanation of the Creation you have to reject the Creator, or you are not scientific otherwise. Now that you've cut the branch you were sitting on your rear end is headed straight for the ground.

I have never seen God's light in full brightness, but I have seen a measure of brightness, enough that when that brightness is reduced or absent I notice it, I feel empty. Those experiences lead me to believe that
Creation happened in a way that is so magnificent and so beyond the ability of a spiritually unprepared man to grasp that when he tries to reason about it he cannot help but make a fool of himself.

Anybody who wants to reason scientifically about  the Creation needs to be prepared to deal with some very hard questions. One of them is what were the laws of nature before the Fall. Was time the same as it is now? Was the atom built the same way? Did the processes we observe today happen the same way they did back then? The answer to those questions most likely is no, and if that is the case further research becomes impossible.   We would have to wait for God to reveal to us those laws. But we would have to be humble to receive it. If we keep throwing supposedly 5 million year old rocks in His face bragging that we do not need Him anymore because we are too smart, we will get nothing except our own foolishness that we think is wisdom.

I disagree completely that an ancient earth implies that God is a "lamer". Quite the opposite. Personally, I think 4.6 billion years magnifies God's glory, infinity, design, and plan, and His fingerprints are all over every iota of the 4.6 billion years the earth has been around. It's an exciting time to be on Planet Earth.

So I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, as I have never convinced you of anything...ever. That would truly be a miracle.  :D

Sasha--I probably shouldn't get involved in this, but you are willing to reject some very established scientific facts because you think it makes God a "lamer?"  A quote from the book I cited earlier:  "In April 1910, in their official columns in the church magazine, the First Presidency (Joseph F. Smith was the prophet at the time). . . identified three possible options for the origin of the human body, listing evolution by natural processes. . . through the direction and power of God as one acceptable view."  If they could see evolution as an acceptable view, and which seems to be supported by a lot of evidence, why can't we?

The history of the separation of church and science is one of those stories based in arrogance, misunderstanding, and control ... sadly, primarily on the part of the church. It is also based on failed understandings of biblical intent. The imposition that the biblical account of creation become not only an explanation, but an alternative to the incorrect scientific explanation is simply a botched attempt at understanding the bible both within as well as outside of its historical context. This imposition is a direct result of the dabacle that science and the church entered into. The biblical account is not, and was not intended to be, a scientific, detailed explanation of creation and such an understanding of that account is a direct result of the ancient disagreement the church had over a group of thinkers who imposed a threat to their control. The scientific explanations and biblical accounts are not mutually exclusive .... it is not a case of you are either for us or against us. The two accounts can work together if each side is understood to be what it is. To say that the biblical intent is to give a scientific and detailed analysis of the unfolding of the creative act is much akin to saying that Jack Daniel's Marathon Training book was written to explain the exact manner in which a marathon must be run without exception and that his book covered all angles .... I know, I know ... one will argue that the analogy falls short when trying to compare a marathoning book to a sacred text ... but if you step back and look at the analogy within the context of the discussion, I think one will find that the analogy not only does not fall short, but is further helpful in understanding the age old debate at its core. Of course, to understand this requires that the assumption that the bible explains all aspects of the creative process be called into question. Simply put, one can look at scientific analysis as a detailed explanation that can fit within the broader and less complex parameters of the biblical account.

Paul:

I think it is lame to watch the earth for 4 billion years and wait for the creation to happen at snail's pace when you can do it much quicker. However, the discussion is rather pointless since prior to the Fall the idea of time was most likely quite different. Meaning time did not go like it does today. Even lamer - create the Earth exactly like the scientists with more ambition than knowledge, and not a whole lot of faith would imagine you did by analyzing a few artifacts left over. Why is that really lame?  One of the methods they use to estimate a chess player's rating is to see how well he can predict moves in a grandmaster game. Guess what - a mediocre chess player almost inevitably will predict all of the moves wrong, while another grandmaster will get all of them right. The grandmaster will see that out of many moves in a certain position that would appear acceptable to your average player only one, likely excluded by most lower level players, only that one move was a reasonable response, anything else would have lost the game. My assertion is that the scientists of today are not able to predict God's moves in the area of creation for some very fundamental reasons similar to why your average player has a hard time predicting grandmaster moves.

Cheryl:

There are not that many truly well established scientific facts. Not as many as people think. E.g. if you have three points in space, then you would hope that if the distances between them along a straight line are a, b, and c, and the angle between a and b is theta, then c^2 = a^2 + b^2 - 2*a*b*cos(theta). In geometry this works perfect in R^3 space, and in practice this is also true for everything we have been able to measure directly, or in other words, small distances. This is one of the best known scientific facts, as certain as if you dropped something it would fall down, that level of confidence.  But when moving to larger distances, who knows, there might be a surprise. We already get a surprise when particles start moving at near speed of light. We get a lot of surprises when we try to observe very small particles. Life is full of surprises.

Very often scientific laws discovered in one range become completely useless when the range is significantly increased or decreased. Unfortunately we are often not able to understand the limitations of the laws we discover until we run into an actual glaring experimental error. It is a human nature to over-extrapolate. We want to feel like we know and understand more than we actually do.

My rule - if you do not understand the science behind it, do not call it a well-established scientific fact.

Sasha, you are just too impatient. Sometimes things are better when done slower. Join the slow food movement. Accept the antiquity of Earth. I command you.

Paul got a new avatar!  And I found that link of yours very interesting.

I have to laugh at you guys arguing/discussing this.  Do we know for sure?  I don't think so.  Does it really matter?  I don't think so.  I'm sure everyone has some truth in their views.  But all that really matters is how you live and how fast you run  ;)
 

Sasha--very interesting points, but I don't feel you answered my question.  If the church's official position is that it is possible that life was created by evolutionary methods, why do you totally discount it?  Bruce McConkie said in the Mortal Messiah that he thought the earth was perhaps 2.5 billion years old.  Does he see God as lame?

By the way, do you accept as scientific fact that the earth is not the center of the universe?  If so, I find it lame that God would put his great creation off in some corner of the universe.  Why didn't He make His glorious creation the center of His universe and have everything revolve around it?


All I'm saying is it's possible the scientists are right, and if so, to label God lame for creating it that way, I think is limiting and discounting God's power.

Sasha I like your analogy with the Chess players. It is true that we can only discover so much about the universe with our limited intellect. I am an atheist, but I cannot there are certain things that simply escape my comprehension: Why are there 3 dimensions? If God created the Universe, who created God, himself? If God didn't create the Universe and it all came from a singlarity 15 billion years ago, then how did that singularity get there? What happened before that? How can something be said to happen before the creation of time? Where is the seat of human consciousness? You know...unanswerable questions....

You can tear everything down and say that almost all scientific "facts" only have a 99.9999% probability of being true and even then can't be extended beyond the specific experiments that were used to prove them. With that kind of attitude, its difficult to get very far. Even your
example with the Pythagorean theorem isn't true universally (although you can define exact mathematical conditions when it is true). My view is that everything we know and I mean EVERYTHING is just a model of a true reality that we could never understand. Is the model true? Not in every case. What makes a good model is its ability to make accurate and useful
predictions in a well defined area of experience. Quantum physics is an excellent model of subatomic interactions. That's an obvious model. Any system of ethics or morals is also a model. Each rule can't be applied in every circumstance perfectly, but it gives a good approximation of what the correct course of action is.  Modern scientific views on the creation of the world THOUGH THEY MAY BE TOTALLY WRONG still provide useful models that help us understand how the world around us works today, with undeniably successful results.

There is another aspect, too. We are curious people. We all want to understand how the universe works. I personally view it as a cop out to simply stop and say "God did it". I guess I agree with those who say that delving into physical nature of the universe gives one a much greater appreciation for its majesty.

I beileive in God but I beleive that God follows the same scientific methods that we "discover" (plus a few more that we have yet to discover). God is the ultimate scientist so I don't simply say "God did it" and leave it at that. I gain greater appreciation for the majesty of the earth and God's creations by realizing just how much detail he was willing to put into it and learning all I can to get even a small glimpse of how that was accomplished.

I amazed at our bodies and even the simplest thing like breaking down food and and creating energy to live and keep our hearts pumping. It makes me feel very good to know that we didn't just evolve here by chance but that someone actually created me for a purpose.

James - as you said a model of reality is any good if and only if it correctly predicts what is going to happen. Even then it might not be that good. Niels Bohr, I believe, at one point said that out of a continuum of idiotic theories there will always be one that will correctly predict experimental results. Anybody who was ever involved in anything computational where you had to figure out a law from the numbers can appreciate the depth  of the above.

One example - suppose the true pattern is y = sin(x). You guess y = x-x^3/6+x^5/120-x^7/5040. Your range is limited enough that for everything you can measure your guess is right on. It will take another 1000 years before mankind has the opportunity to measure far enough out of the range to be prove you wrong. Now your obviously idiotic  theory has become a scientific fact for the next 1000 years.

Cheryl - the Church does not require its members to believe in evolution. So I do not. I have never seen enough scientific rigor behind the arguments for it. Science aside, I do not believe it does man much good to reason about Creation while being prohibited for fear of being mocked as "unscientific" to mention the Creator.

I agree with Jon to a point. Who can say he really knows? And, to a certain extent, who cares? If we recognize the hand of the Creator and are humble before Him, that is all that matters. I think that is why the Church takes position of neutrality.

I can agree with that.

I can agree with that also.  Maybe Henry Eyring, a prominent Mormon scientist, and if I'm not mistaken, the father of the current apostle, said it best:

"Questions involving pre-Adamic man, organic evolution. . . are interesting and important questions.  They will all receive adequate answers in accord with the truth in due course.  Whatever the ultimate answers are, the gospel will remain . . . the truth of the gospel does not hinge on such questions, interesting as they are." 

He also stated:

"Organic evolution is the honest result of capable people trying to explain the evidence to the best of their ability . . . The physical evidence supporting the theory is considerable . . .  It would be a very sad mistake if a parent or teacher were to belittle scientists as being wicked charlatans or else fools having been duped by half-baked ideas . . .  That isn't an accurate assessment of the situation, and our children . . . will be able to see that when they begin their scientific studies."


As quoted in Evolution and Mormonism

Going back to the article that started this discussion. The authors of this study must have never tried to race a police car. If they had, the article would have been called "Born to Drive".  The thought had often crossed my mind when running next to a trooper that if I had sped up to the world record pace he would not even notice. That puts things into perspective in a very humbling way.