An Alternative to Darwinian Evolution

[Majeston]

.



Secrecy has always been essential to the successful practice of fraud and superstition.

Only facts and truth court the full light of comprehension

and rejoice in the illumination and enlightenment of scientific research.






http://mercy.urantia.org/papers/paper90.html

[19Merlin69]

Majeston....... there APPEARS as if there are definitely signs of life prior to 2 billion years before present.

We understand the process of alpha & beta decay pretty well Majeston.  When we find "life" at layers laid down in between other layers that all date to 3.0 by +, it is safe to say that we are accurate +/- 1 million years.  There was most definitely life prior to 550 mya, and there has been "signs" of life as far back as 3.96 bya.

Uranium-thorium dating, Potassium-argon dating, Fission track dating, Cosmogenic isotope dating, Rubidium-strontium dating, Samarium-neodymium dating, Rhenium-osmium dating, Lutetium-hafnium dating, Paleomagnetic dating, Thermo-luminescence dating, and Uranium-lead dating are all in agreement; the dates are official.  There may be anomolies for one reason or another, but the vast majority of the testing is conclusive and consistent.

[Boreas]

Majeston,

Nucleid chemistry and micro-elctronics enables us to find, examine and re-examine the nucleid nature of all exisitng matter om this planet - tecnically. I do think we need to relate o the technical results agreed to by a small, but global network of experts. Otherwise we run the risk of argueing with a technical scope or scale. Though, I think I can understand your point of view. These days I tend to do exactly the same thing everytime I enter that stupid scale they pushed into my sauna-chamber...!   

Rocky,

You just keep'em slipping 'eh - right out of your left sleeve?!

Ever considered putting aside some time to make your rare insigth on the nature of stones - and their potential capasity of healing - to become public material?

I guess this thread is quite exquisite - since it IS, already, revealing a lot of new facts that actually do explain the nature of rocks as fundamental to the earliest forms of life. That gave me, for one, a grip on the possibility that your entire concept actually have a genuinly scientific fundament. Science just hadn't gotten there yet, until now...   


Merl,

Great to follow the progress of your work o.c. - with a free ticket to the front row. Tx!







   

[Majeston]

Merlin & Boreas,

Mucho Gracias for the detailed information from both of you.

Now,  you guys have made it impossible for me to simply

continue with my 550 my idea until I can investigate some more info.

I perfectly well undersatnd where you are coming from and I have absolutely

no problem with truth if it is really truth.

In my last post and investigation of the eukaryotes and prokaryotes  I uncovered

the simple fact that was given beforehand with the 550my date and the explanation

of sandstone and limestone problems in dating due to the unreliability of the dating method

derived from using and assuming the surrounding layers of exudation material  were of

a particular date.

Upon investigation of the alleged 2-3 by old eukaryotes and prokaryotes i discovered

that that was exactly the composition of the material used in dating the suspect organisms

which the Urantia papers laid out quite clearly as the problem many years before science

even discovered the suspect organisms.  WTF

Also it appears that except for this one little anomoly there is nothing between these dates

until an explosion of life 543 my ago which just so happens to be the exact date Urantia

said the Life Carriers planted life and that was over 70 years ago.     WTF 

For some reason I don't think it's me that is either gullible or crazy.   Once,  I thought

I was wrong,  but I found out I was wrong. 
 

Now you have thrown into the mix several methods of dating which I was unaware of and

now I really have to work to discover where the error lies either with my material or

with dating methods.  My gut feeling is that the dating methods are still in error and there

was no life before 550 my,  but I can let that go and the problems it will present for me

if I actually find the dating methods to be accurate.

I don't simply believe something because it sounds right or someone flashes a badge

or numerous credentials at me stating how expert they are or world famous they happen

to be.

In making my own assessments of reality through wisdom and experience I can certainly

attest to the fact that my source is on solid ground or I would not have been making an

apparent public ass of myself for over 30 years.

I am of course faced with the the statements within the material itself that states that some

statements regarding the physical sciences may need to be revised as new information

or techniques are discovered,  but,  something in my gut is telling me that this is not one

of those cases.  To find that the date of 550 my is not accurate would mean the entire story

laid out would fall to pieces.

This leaves either 1 of 4 possibilities. 

1.       The dating method is not accurate
2.       Life as I have understood it is not accurate.
3.       eukaryotes and prokaryotes are not real
4.       The entire story is bulls**t.

number 4,   I know is not correct.  That leaves either 1 or 2 or 3


The following excerpt which I present below to elucidate the problem modern geologists have in

estimating ages of rock is only one example of something which I believe no geologist alive today

could possibly know or figure out.  The study of earth geology is a fairly new field and just a few years ago

the whole idea of plate tectonics was laughed at.  Something that is well detailed in the Urantia narration,  even if a

 much less accurate and less detailed version was conceived by Wergener at about the same time.


4. THE END OF THE CHALK PERIOD


The great Cretaceous period was drawing to a close, and its termination marks the end of the great sea invasions of the continents. Particularly is this true of North America, where there had been just twenty-four great inundations. And though there were subsequent minor submergences, none of these can be compared with the extensive and lengthy marine invasions of this and previous ages. These alternate periods of land and sea dominance have occurred in million-year cycles. There has been an agelong rhythm associated with this rise and fall of ocean floor and continental land levels. And these same rhythmical crustal movements will continue from this time on throughout the earth's history but with diminishing frequency and extent.

This period also witnesses the end of the continental drift and the building of the modern mountains of Urantia. But the pressure of the continental masses and the thwarted momentum of their agelong drift are not the exclusive influences in mountain building. The chief and underlying factor in determining the location of a mountain range is the pre-existent lowland, or trough, which has become filled up with the comparatively lighter deposits of the land erosion
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 692
------------------------------------------------------------------------
and marine drifts of the preceding ages. These lighter areas of land are sometimes 15,000 to 20,000 feet thick; therefore, when the crust is subjected to pressure from any cause, these lighter areas are the first to crumple up, fold, and rise upward to afford compensatory adjustment for the contending and conflicting forces and pressures at work in the earth's crust or underneath the crust. Sometimes these upthrusts of land occur without folding. But in connection with the rise of the Rocky Mountains, great folding and tilting occurred, coupled with enormous overthrusts of the various layers, both underground and at the surface.



The oldest mountains of the world are located in Asia, Greenland, and northern Europe among those of the older east-west systems. The mid-age mountains are in the circumpacific group and in the second European east-west system, which was born at about the same time. This gigantic uprising is almost ten thousand miles long, extending from Europe over into the West Indies land elevations. The youngest mountains are in the Rocky Mountain system, where, for ages, land elevations had occurred only to be successively covered by the sea, though some of the higher lands remained as islands. Subsequent to the formation of the mid-age mountains, a real mountain highland was elevated which was destined, subsequently, to be carved into the present Rocky Mountains by the combined artistry of nature's elements.

The present North American Rocky Mountain region is not the original elevation of land; that elevation had been long since leveled by erosion and then re-elevated. The present front range of mountains is what is left of the remains of the original range which was re-elevated. Pikes Peak and Longs Peak are outstanding examples of this mountain activity, extending over two or more generations of mountain lives. These two peaks held their heads above water during several of the preceding inundations.

Biologically as well as geologically this was an eventful and active age on land and under water. Sea urchins increased while corals and crinoids decreased. The ammonites, of preponderant influence during a previous age, also rapidly declined. On land the fern forests were largely replaced by pine and other modern trees, including the gigantic redwoods. By the end of this period, while the placental mammal has not yet evolved, the biologic stage is fully set for the appearance, in a subsequent age, of the early ancestors of the future mammalian types.

And thus ends a long era of world evolution, extending from the early appearance of land life down to the more recent times of the immediate ancestors of the human species and its collateral branches. This, the Cretaceous age, covers fifty million years and brings to a close the premammalian era of land life, which extends over a period of one hundred million years and is known as the Mesozoic.



/////////

Alright,  I'm off to do some research on Alpha and Beta decay and all the measuments and equipment and technology today in this field.
Actually,  I have been under the impression that inorganic matter actuallly could not be dated.  Nevertheless.....

[rockessence]

Thanks Boreas,

I will definately get to that Rock-Medicine thread one of these days!

[19Merlin69]

Darwin did not claim that evolutionary change is slow and continuous -- only that it does not proceed by "jumps" in a single generation (what Mayr calls "saltational" change). That is, despite the distortions of some anti-evolutionists, Darwin explictly did not think that evolution proceeds by the production of "hopeful monsters" -- Darwin himself never proposed that a fully-dinosaur parent gave birth to fully-bird progeny. Rather, the change took place in a series of intermediate, perhaps nearly insensible, steps in successive generations. Note that change over a thousand generations of any species appears as "sudden" or "abrupt" change in the fossil record, because a thousand generations is such an infinitesimally small fraction of Earth's history.

Unfortunately, you chose to reference TalkOrigins for this reply instead of Urantia or your own understanding of the science.  I find that Talk Origins is as biased and [often] incorrect as Wikipedia.  They are so worried about refuting Creationism, and not necessarily promoting Evolution in its own right, that they often speak as if there is far more evidence than there is.  They also make these incredibly disjointed leaps in logic that are unsupported by science.  In this particular case, what they say is wholly incorrect.  Darwin did, in fact, claim that evolution was both slow and plodding.  Furthermore, in his own words, "...the process is a series of continuous, methodical and successive steps toward something more beneficial than it first began.."  He was not the originator of the idea relating to "leaps"; in fact, he railed against the notion.

and from Urantia I guess this is the "twist you speak of except that it denies Darwin's basic premise of graduated small changes.......

Yes, that a good example of where I gathered my information.

OK,  Next case,

You seem to making some large jumps in reasoning and theory which is not born out from the quotations you provided.
For example you state that the "Life Carriers"  adjust (manipulate) the environment  and "Poof!" change occurred spontaneously. They attribute this event to the reason why "transition species" are absent from the geological record..

Check your information.  It was you who claimed that this process that "they" undertook is the reason for no transitional species.

I find where it says that, in a way, (the adjust/manipulate part)  but not in the excerpt you cited.
But,  the way you phrase it is troublesome.   Essentially your equation reads  MANIPULATE ENVIRONMENT=MUTATION
That does not seem to be what is stated or implied.  Any adjustment or manipulation seems to be more of a supervisory, protective,  fatherly type of involvement.  Apparently,  once the particular life pattern is decided and formulated,  no further interference of a mechanical nature is allowed.  Maybe I am reading it incorrectly.

I would say that you have made an interpretation error somewhere.  Again, it was you who claimed that the manipulation occurred (thereby creating evolution) due to "them" adjusting the environment.  That was not my suggestion, it was yours.
 

Ok,  Next case, 

The salinity changes you speak of.  My understanding of this from the context of the quote is that the ocean
became saltier and this caused a mutation in which the organisms developed the ability to regulate their own salinity
content. Also included in the passage you cite is the opposite effect for fresh water creatures.  What would cause this salinity change in the ocean which you state is not in the geological record?  One possibility I see is an ice age.  I'm sure there may be more. Let's see. (btw,  i do note that in another post today I referenced the fact that originally the oceans were virtually "fresh water",  before life was implanted. 

This whole section is literally ripe with low hanging fruit...  I will limit my reply, however, to only the pertinent facts.  Keep in mind that it is not my contention that salinity had anything to do with evolution - that was all yours (and Urantia's).  The notion that "they" would rely on an ice age to 'craft' the process of evolution leads me to believe that "they" did very little other than watch.  As for the original oceans being "virtually fresh water", well, I wouldn't bet on it.  In order to keep things completely correct, you should know that "fresh water" salt levels are less than 1 part per thousand, while oceanic salt levels are around 35 parts per thousand. But when life first appeared around 3.5 billion years ago, the ocean was much saltier than it is today. Estimates of the early ocean's salinity range between 1.2 to 2 times present-day salinity.

The demonstration that the carbon and strontium isotopic composition of seawater varied systematically through the Neoproterozoic Era [1000-543 million years ago (Ma); refs. 2, 3] [/b] provides a stratigraphic framework with the potential to resolve fundamental questions of tillite correlation. 

Alright, I'll grant you that - however, we weren't discussing the carbon or strontium isotopic composition.  We were discussing the salinity of it, and neither of those have anything to do with that.  You claim that Urantia claims that oceans were less salty in the begining and that the level of salintiy was adjusted to cause the next evolution to occur.  I said that the geologic and paleoceanographic record disagrees...  You countered with this?

{snip} ... Questions for future consideration include: what does the removal of this much salinity from the oceans, in these concentrated time intervals, imply for marine geochemistry; and can there be significant biological implications?

Again, I'm not sure why you posted this section either.  It claims the exact opposite of what you were insisting upon...  Re-read it.  It demonstrates that the salinity was decreasing through time and that the deposits of Sodium related minerals were increasing on land, causing the salinity in the water to decrease.  This is easily explained in that the planet was taking a beating in the form of varying freeze and fire periods...  This is, in fact, proof of my point - not yours.

So,  Merl,  in the above quotes and I won't even pretend that I understand all of what they are saying,  I would guess that they have verified my premise that the salinity content during the time periods in question actually is in the geological record.

Uh...  No buddy, I'm afraid it did just the opposite.  The salinity decreases lagged severely behind the mass world-wide systematic depressions.  They also demonstrated that mass amounts of ocean was receding, leaving tremendous amounts of "stalled" seawater on land.  Dessication removed the hydrogen and oxygen - but the rest remained behind.  This shows that the salinity decreases built up slowly, thousands of years after the preceding events.  On a separate (but related) note.  The deposits of minerals are always on top of the biological  effect - meaning the oceanic events came post evolutionary actions.

Well,      I think I touched on this in another post.  It would seem like your total premise and conclusion is incorrect.  For one thing,  you use the term "prior to each spontaneous eruption".  Apparently there were hundreds,  if not thousands or millions of mutations and only 3 original life implantations affected by any number of events,  but no so-called new spontaneous eruptions such as mutations or wholly new life caused by these external events  even though there may be similarities coincident with catastrophe...  One major change was vegetable to animal,   there were many mutations before that.  One major mutation was the backbone in fish which led to frogs and eventually man.  ANother major mutation was from reptile to bird.  Then we have a change from small dinosaur to placental mammals.
we have mammals returning to the ocean and evolving into whales and seals.  We also have the mutation of the chlorophyll-making ability of plants.  mutation of the spore into the seed.  the development of the ability of the iron in the circulating blood cells to perform in the double role of oxygen carrier and carbon dioxide remover.  development/mutation of "will".  We have the development/mutation of mind we have the development/mutation of spirit development/mutation of the "soul".

I don't even know where to begin...  From everything you have posted thus far, I find it improbable that, in your words, "It would seem like [my] total premise and conclusion is incorrect."  Considering there are very well documented mass extinctions on the planet, of which Urantia does not cover, and subsequent eruptions of "new life", I would say that my "premise" is well proven.  Considering each of the mass extinctions were preceded by severe, mass depressions in the environment (through one mechanism or another), my "conclusion" is quite sound.

It doesn't appear Merl that the process of catastrophe is as important as you think,  for example we have this insight early on between stage 1 and 2 .....  "The vast oceanic nursery of life on Urantia has served its purpose. During the long ages when the land was unsuited to support life, before the atmosphere contained sufficient oxygen to sustain the higher land animals, the sea mothered and nurtured the early life of the realm. Now the biologic importance of the sea progressively diminishes as the second stage of evolution begins to unfold on the land."

Quoting from Urantia to refute science - particularly when supporters of Urantia admit that its "science' is incorrect doesn't really make any sense to me.  In fact, after the previous posting, I'm not sure why you are even trying to debate the "science" of Urantia any longer.  You need to face it at some point - it's incorrect.

I hope this reply isn't too disjointed for you to understand my points and I trust that I have interpreted your reply and concerns correctly and have submitted valid proofs and references or at the least other valid considerations for your theory.

I consider everything, "valid" and not.  I'm ready to continue from where we left off prior to this discussion.

[19Merlin69]

Merlin & Boreas,

Mucho Gracias for the detailed information from both of you.  Now,  you guys have made it impossible for me to simply continue with my 550 my idea until I can investigate some more info.  I perfectly well undersatnd where you are coming from and I have absolutely no problem with truth if it is really truth. 

{snip}

Alright,  I'm off to do some research on Alpha and Beta decay and all the measuments and equipment and technology today in this field.
Actually,  I have been under the impression that inorganic matter actuallly could not be dated.  Nevertheless.....

Take all of the time you need; I'll be around for many years to come - and let me know if you need any assistance with deciphering the details of the new dating methods.  My knowledge is at your disposal.

[Boreas]

I am not sure which end of evolution these Scots are these days, but here is a price-awarded contribution:

http://atlantisonline.smfforfree2.com/index.php/topic,196.msg6394.html#msg6394

[19Merlin69]

Somehow, I think my wife would disagree with the "Parental Selection" theory.  With 4 kids of our own, I think she'd be hardpressed to select one over the other three.  In fact, I'm certain of it.  Calculate into it the fact that the father may have had a say in it as well, and it cuts your odds by another standard order of magnitude.  I'm not a subscriber to that theory.

[Boreas]

Not to mention the fact that such mothers would be more reptile than mammal...

[19Merlin69]

Not to mention the fact that such mothers would be more reptile than mammal...

   
My wife agrees with you.

[Majeston]

Merlin & Boreas

Please review the paper resolving the problems with Radiometric dating

and the resolution of the incorrect dates of Prokaryotes and Eukaryotes

at the following url

http://urantiabook.org/archive/readers/halvorson_histlife.pdf

I think this is a perfect example of an above average mind combined with

an above average understanding of the Urantia material and the subsequent leaps

that such a mind can decipher between truly revelatory material and the apparent

known world.

A truly great scientific mind might make even more extraordinary quantum leaps

in the areas of gravity;  space;  energy understanding,  theoretical physics;  etc. 

in relation to the ever changing theories and new discoveries of science when armed

with the powerful tools of real revelation.


Thanks,

awaiting your reply

[19Merlin69]

There are many discrepancies to deal with here, but let's start with the most obvious comment in your refutation article:

In addition, geologists date the beginning of the transition to an oxygen atmosphere at 2.2 billion years ago, which is precisely an actual date of 550 000 000 years ago.

No, that is not correct.  As I have specifically referenced at the geology forum, the oxygen atmosphere began very quickly after the formation of the planet.  It [oxygen] is a natural byproduct of the cooling process, which began very early.  In fact, it is the cooling process that actually "locks" the age of the planet in, making the "age" of the planet more or less the beginning of colidification.  Prior to molten material becoming solid, there was no "age" per se.  The 2.2 BY age this author is talking about is an old number.  The real number is 4.0-4.2 BY.  The research summary can be seen here :  http://www.colorado.edu/news/releases/2005/438.html .  The reference information for the full reseach is:  Mojzsis, S.J., Harrison, T.M., Pidgeon, R.T., C.D. (2001) Oxygen Isotope evidence from ancient zircons for liquid water at Earth’s surface 4,300 Myr ago: Nature 409 : 178-181  You should be able to find the data for yourself with that information.

Anyway, that would mean that the "ratio" (as Halvorson calls it) would be off the scale provided.  At the very least, it would make it 875,000,000 years, which still conflicts with the UB.  In fact, this is another case (in my opinion) when Urantia's authors were too detailed.  They described everything in lock-step, occurring in a particular order, and that order appears to be incorrect.

The second most obvious flaw in Halvorson's logic is the ratio itself.  Actually, this should be the most damning argument, but there is no actual proof or specificity to deal with, so I am having to refute a contrivation with supposition.  I think anyone who is neutral on the subject can see that the ratio was developed by taking the UB's dates for events and dividing them by the radiocarbon dates for specific items; hence why the ratio goes up, then down, then up, then way up.  The non-linearity is also remarkable, particularly before and after "The Master Physical Controllers, specifically, the energy transformers (29:4.15–18), have regulated radioactivity (42:4.10) over the span of geologic time, according to the evolution plan of the Life Carriers."  I don't care what the book says, there is no means in this universe for adjusting the decay rate of specific isotopes without adding energy to the planet for the last 4+ billion years at a steady and stable rate.  Of course, doing so would have manipulated the rates and ratios of every other active element on the planet as well, and it would have required the power of a star to do it.  No...  I'm not buying that theory at all.

Having said all of that, I can tell you of a means to have simulated some of that 'pseudo science' Halverson was hoping for.  Allow me the podium for a moment to make your case for you buddy.  First, get rid of Halverson - he's not very helpful.  Now, let's assume that the planet began condensing as it cooled (as it should have), and it was actually larger (not smaller) in diameter in the beginning.  Kepler tells us that the planet would accelerate during this process.  Let's also assume that the details of UB are askew and that they just forgot to tell us that the sun "ignited" in the 4.4-4.6 BY time frame.  This ignition is what blew off the toxic atmosphere, caused the planet's speed to normalize and perturbed the forming planet sharing our plane to go careening into the Earth - becoming the moon.  We know it had to happen while we were [both] still molten if that theory is correct.   Anyway, as our speed began to normalize due to the kinetic energy exerted on it by the tug of the moon and the energetic bath streaming from the new sun, solidification hastened.  Layers began to form until the surface was essentially isolated from the core.  This would be the prime aspect of how our eletrically charged magnetic field would appear.  The magnetosphere would further reduce the heating from the sun and the cooling process turned into a condensation system.  Mass continued to increase gradually due to shrinkage, but not due to incomming debris from space.  The sun's ignition forced most of the nebular debris that wasn't in the form of a planet into an orbit beyond Mars, but not beyond Jupiter's grasp.  It gobbled up a lot of rogue bodies.

Anyway, radioactive decay didn't begin until cooling began (in substantial  quantity), and it wouldn't have even registered a change until the atmosphere and magnetosphere developed.  Prior to that, radiation poured onto the surface - confusing any radiometric dating challenges.  So, at this point, it shouldn't be surprising that we can't find anything on this planet older than the atmosphere & magnetosphere.  4.2 +/- 300 MY should be the range.  Moving right along...

The atmosphere is growing, the planet is slowing, the magnetosphere is normalizing.  Eventually a tipping point is reached were 99% of the sun's influence on the effective radioactivity of the planet is nullified.  Let's go with 4.0 BY for ships & giggles.  At 4.0 BY, the only way to naturally affect the radiation levels of the planet is to :

1)  Increase gravity (a lot)
2)  Shower the planet with gamma radiation (a lot)
3)  Bombard the planet with massive nuclear explosions
4)  Increase the neutrino density to phenomenal levels
5)  Torture the planet with cosmic rays

Guess what?  There's evidence that the latter three happened with periodic (but consistent) events.  There is also the potential that the second item occurred on a number of occaisions, and the first one occurred gradually (slightly). 

The sun, in it's early phase probably took a billion years to settle down before the planet was habitable by any but the most hearty life forms.  Most life was very short lived due to the sterilizing nature of the early solar system.  Also, keep in mind that the sun's ignition blew all of the lightweight material out of the solar system - not the big stuff.  The big material came back often and did so with a vengence.  Bombardaments of asteroid material could have easily "reset the clocks" due to the thermonuclear effects.  Slight but gradually increasing gravity also affected the decay ratio, increasing it, making decay ever faster.  Unfortunately, this would only mask an aging issue - not create one.

Anyway, the answer above would have been a much better (and more accurate) answer from the Halvorson rebuttal - but it still doesn't explain why the "ratio" is all over the place and non-linear.  I cannot think of a way to explain that problem.

Have to run for now - I was hurrying - forgive the typos please.

[Majeston]

Merl,

you're definitely hurting my mind.



.

[19Merlin69]

It may not sound like it but I'm trying to be helpful.  If I were writing the UB, I would have done things differently.