Born to run

[Jon Allen]

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

Interesting article about humans and running.

[Nathan Bundy]

Very interesting article... Thanks for sharing!

[Bob]

"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?!

[Jeff Linger]

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

[Dave Holt]

"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?!

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?

[Bob]

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.

[Nathan Bundy]

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.

[Sasha Pachev]

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.

[Tyler]

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.

[Paul Petersen]

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.

Wide, like a percent or two.

As a (former) geologist, I find that statement, nay assumption, borderline offensive.  (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...

[Greg Harris]

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

[Neil Price]

Science 4 teh win!  Somebody just got:

[Tyler]

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 

[Paul Petersen]

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.

[Sasha Pachev]

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.