Evolution/Creation Debate's topics - tribe.net

Science’s Breakthrough of the Year: Uncovering “Ardi”

2009-12-21T19:44:12Z

http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2009/1217breakthrough.shtml

"Science and its publisher, AAAS, the nonprofit science society, recognize the Ardipithecus ramidus fossils, including the partial skeleton named “Ardi,” as 2009’s Breakthrough of the Year. They also identify nine other important scientific accomplishments from this past year in a top ten list, appearing in a special news feature in the journal’s 18 December 2009 issue."

posted in Evolution/Creation Debate - 3 replies

RDF TV - Baloney Detection Kit - Michael Shermer

2009-12-18T21:57:51Z

Well worth watching.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUB4j0n2UDU

posted in Evolution/Creation Debate - 12 replies

Moderator?

2009-12-18T17:35:21Z

I think it is time to pick a new moderator.

While this is supposed to be a tribe for debate over the question of evolution vs creation far to many of the threads have been either started or commandeered to push the marginal personal and political agenda of one person. Yes Dan I mean you.

I appears that Dan has been booted from many other tribes for this very same thing so he now uses this tribe because he can not be booted until we have a moderator.

I do not propose that we actually boot Dan - after all he is on occasion at least amusing. A moderator would at least be able to delete posts and threads that stray from the central issue.

It is time we have one.

posted in Evolution/Creation Debate - 6 replies

Is Evolution counter Intuitive?

2009-12-18T17:33:47Z

“...we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated.”

Dr. Richard Lewontin - 1997

You can see by many of the comments to this series on Dr. Lewontin’s quote that evolution’s adherents claim science is counter-intuitive, and often against common sense. There is a plainly stated reason for this, “we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes”.

Evolutionists are “forced” by their “a priori adherence to material causes” to believe evolution is the only possible answer. Why? Because their pre-existing belief that there is no God, and there is nothing beyond the observed natural realm. Evolutionists purposely limit their views to fit their presupposition, and anything that disagrees with them they decry is “unscientific” or “religious”. The truth does not matter to the evolutionist; the only thing that matters is their absolute faith in material causes.

It does not matter to them that their explanations are counter-intuitive. They just claim “science” is counter-intuitive. But is science really counter-intuitive? When the apple fell on Newton, was it counter-intuitive to think there is some force causing the apple to fall down, instead of falling up? Is it counter-intuitive to observe that mammals drown if they breathe under water because they need oxygen in the form of gas? Is in counter-intuitive to understand that the heart is what pumps the blood through the body and not the liver? Science is NOT counterintuitive.

So what else are evolutionists left with? Creating “an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations...no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated.”

In the Merriam-Webster Unabridged Dictionary (online), “mystify” means “to intentionally perplex the mind of”, “impose upon the credulity of” and “make obscure or difficult to understand”, or “to embellish (as fact) or fancifully”.

Why in the world would evolutionists want their concepts to “intentionally perplex the mind of” people, or make them “obscure or difficult to understand”? It is so they will seem so intelligent and beyond question that people will follow lock step into their belief system because of their perceived brilliance without noticing that the Emperor of Evolution has no clothes.

Just who are these “uninitiated”? The “uninitiated” are all people, and particularly all people who do not readily buy into the hoax of evolution. The “uninitiated” are anybody without advanced degrees who dare to question the so-called science used by evolutionists. What about the people with advanced degrees who disagree with evolution? Just ask an evolutionist, who will describe the highly qualified and educated scientists who disagree with them as “stupid”, “insane”, “out of their minds”, and “not really scientists”.

When you think about it, evolution is more of a fanatical religion whose adherents absolutely despise anyone who would defile their system of beliefs, than honest science. Do not dare expose their way of thinking, or their faith; unless their wrath means little to you.

http://www.examiner.com/x-13237-Indianapolis-Christian-Issues-Examiner~y2009m9d11-Emporer-of-evolution-has-no-clothes

posted in Evolution/Creation Debate - 4 replies

170,000 copies of Origin given away by Christians!

2009-12-16T19:37:00Z

Christians hit top campuses with Darwin book
Thousands of copies of 'Origin' with creation intro distributed at 100 universities

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: November 18, 2009
12:19 pm Eastern

© 2009 WorldNetDaily

Ray Comfort

Actor Kirk Cameron and best-selling author Ray Comfort are joining more than 1,200 Christians today in a nationwide event marking the 150th anniversary of the publication of Charles Darwin's "Origin of the Species" by distributing 170,000 copies of a special edition of the book on the campuses of 100 of America's top universities.

The distribution, which is taking place one day earlier than announced, has been derided by many proponents of Darwin's theory, including prominent atheist Richard Dawkins, who told students to rip out Comfort's introduction, which critiques Darwin's theory and argues for a universe created by an intelligent designer.

Get the special edition of "Origin of Species" free with your purchase of Ray Comfort's "Nothing Created Everything" at WND's Superstore

Comfort – host of "The Way of the Master" television show with Cameron and head of Bellflower, Calif.-based Living Waters ministry – told WND he plans to be at a Southern California university today, where he hopes to give an open-air talk along with the distribution.

He says he thinks it's strange that Dawkins, an Oxford University biology professor, would say that the book's introduction didn't worry him and then tell university students to rip it out.

"If, I am, as he says, an 'ignorant fool,' then what I have written will be nothing but ignorance and foolishness. So why is he so concerned? I think the man protesteth too much," Comfort said.

Comfort, author of a new book on atheism and evolution, "Nothing Created Everything," told WND a team also is at Oxford today to give away 1,000 copies of "Origin." Dawkins will get a copy as well, he said.

"I sent him a gift basket with an 'Origin of Species' gift book and a banana," said Comfort, alluding to a TV spot by Comfort derided by atheists that uses the fruit to argue for intelligent design.

Comfort said he included an unsigned card, so Dawkins will have to come up with a "theory" about who sent it.

(Story continues below)

The Secular Student Alliance, an atheist youth movement, says it's mobilizing student groups to counter the free distribution.

The SSA national leadership encouraged its campus affiliates to schedule protests, host speakers, write letters to the editor, show films and distribute the original version of Darwin's seminal book.

Kirk Cameron in screen shot of video introducing his "Origin of Species" campaign

"We're asking students to respond proactively. We believe the best way to respond to misinformation is with a positive, educational campaign," said August Brunsman, the group's executive director.

"People engaged in such lunatic endeavors are legitimized by opponents who attempt to take them seriously. My organization intends no such legitimization," stated Michael Wright, president of the group's Yale chapter.

A number of bloggers have called for burning Comfort's "Origin" edition.

"We're low on firewood up at the cabin," wrote Greg Laden of Science blogs. "It's not that I like burning books. But this is not burning books."

Comfort told WND the resistance has surprised him.

"My whole thought is, 'What have they got to fear?' There's been 140 different editions of 'Origin of Species' that have come out since the book was published. Many of them had introductions, and there was no resistance to them," he said. "Why the resistance to this?"

Comfort said he suspects it's "because they're scared of what I'm saying."

"I say in the introduction that evolution is not scientific. It's just a theory, it hasn't been proven," he said. "The missing link is still missing. To call it science is bogus. There's no species-to-species transitional forms in the fossil record. Darwin was a racist, he disdained women. And I'm not making this up. This is all from his own words."

Comfort's introduction also presents prominent scientists, past and present, who believe God created the universe.

He said he hopes to get enough sponsors to distribute his "Origin" edition at every university in the U.S. and then go to Europe.

Atheists have discussed their strategy to combat Comfort's campaign on Dawkins' website. One post on a forum on the site said: "If this outrages you, then you're not alone. There's something we can do though. We can amass as many of these books as possible, remove the 50 page intro, and then donate perfectly good copies of Origin of Species to schools, libraries, and Goodwill. We can actually make this into something positive."

The atheists have been encouraging college students on campuses where the distributions are taking place to get as many copies of the book as they can.

"This is a shameful thing that Kirk Cameron and [Ray Comfort] are doing by altering another person's book in order to push their agenda," the Dawkins forum post says. "But we can help to restore the book to how it was intended and keep young minds from being brainwashed by misinformation."

Comfort argues the book has not been altered at all.

"The 304-page publication will be Charles Darwin's every word – not one jot nor tittle will be removed," he said.

Prominent creationism opponent Eugenie Scott, executive director of the National Center for Science Education, complained that Comfort's edition left out four chapters. But Comfort explained that she had a copy of a first printing, which was condensed for cost purposes and referred to a website where the four missing chapters could be read. The second printing, which is going out on campuses today, is the full version of the book, he said.

Comfort's introduction contains information from "Nothing Created Everything", which asserts "many scientists actually believe the scientific impossibility that nothing created everything."

He quotes a number of scientists making that assertion, including Dawkins.

"That is making them fume, because it shows that their theory is not at all intelligent," Comfort said.

Other atheist forums are calling for book burnings.

"I'm not into burning books, but this one deserves to be," wrote one contributor. "Anyone up for a large bonfire?"

Another warned "efforts at UC Berkeley will be met with unilateral resistance."

The comments sections at Comfort's Youtube.com pages, which have received hundreds of thousands of views, are filled with hatred, Comfort says.

One atheist wrote, "Seriously, I hate Ray Comfort now. I mean really hate him. He might try and sound polite, and sound like he's just trying to reason with you and that he really cares about you. In reality, he's just trying to make himself feel that he's right. He's also very disrespectful (in a respectful manner) … I hate Ray Comfort."

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=116413

posted in Evolution/Creation Debate - 11 replies

U-Th-Pb “Dating”: An Example of False “Isochrons”

2009-12-15T18:06:51Z

by Andrew A. Snelling, Ph.D.,

author-andrew-snellingdating-methodsgeologyradiometric-datingAbstract
As with other isochron methods, the U-Pb isochron method has been questioned in the open literature, because often an excellent line of best fit between ratios obtained from a set of good cogenetic samples gives a resultant “isochron” and yields a derived “age” that has no distinct geological meaning. At Koongarra, Australia, U-Th-Pb isotopic studies of uranium ore, host rocks, and soils have produced an array of false “isochrons” that yield “ages” that are geologically meaningless. Even a claimed near-concordant U-Pb ‘age’ of 862 Ma on one uraninite grain is identical to a false Pb-Pb isochron “age,” but neither can be connected to any geological event. Open system behavior of the U-Th-Pb system is clearly the norm, as is the resultant mixing of radiogenic Pb with common or background Pb, even in soils in the surrounding region. Because no geologically meaningful results can be interpreted from the U-Th-Pb data at Koongarra (three uraninite grains even yield a 232Th/208Pb “age” of 0 Ma), serious questions must be asked about the validity of the fundamental/foundational basis of the U-Th-Pb “dating” method. This makes the task of creationists building their model for the geological record much easier, since claims of U-Th-Pb radiometric “dating” having “proven” the claimed great antiquity of the earth, its strata and fossils can be safely side-stepped.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Keywords: geochronology, U-Th-Pb isotopes, isochrons, uranium ore, soils

This paper was originally published in the Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Creationism, pp. 497–504 (1994) and is reproduced here with the permission of the Creation Science Fellowship of Pittsburgh.

Introduction
Radiometric dating has now been used for almost 50 years to establish “beyond doubt” the earth’s multibillion year geological column. Although this column and its “age” was firmly settled well before the advent of radiometric dating, the latter has been successfully used to help quantify the “ages” of the strata and the fossils in the column, so that in many people’s minds today radiometric dating has “proved” the presumed antiquity of the earth. Of the various methods, uranium-thorium-lead (U-Th-Pb) was the first used and it is still widely employed today, particularly when zircons are present in the rocks to be dated. But the method does not always give the “expected” results, leading to fundamental questions about its validity.

In his conclusion in a recent paper exposing shortcomings and criticizing the validity of the popular rubidium-strontium (Rb-Sr) isochron method, Zheng wrote:

. . . some of the basic assumptions of the conventional Rb-Sr isochron method have to be modified and an observed isochron does not certainly define a valid age information for a geological system, even if a goodness of fit of the experimental data points is obtained in plotting 87Sr/86Sr vs. 87Rb/86Sr. This problem cannot be overlooked, especially in evaluating the numerical timescale. Similar questions can also arise in applying Sm-Nd and U-Pb isochron methods.1
Amongst the concerns voiced by Zheng were the problems being found with anomalous isochrons, that is, where there is an apparent linear relationship between 87Sr/86Sr and 87Rb/86Sr ratios, even an excellent line of best fit between ratios obtained from good cogenetic samples, and yet the resultant isochron and derived “age” have no distinct geological meaning. Zheng documented the copious reporting of this problem in the literature where various names had been given to these anomalous isochrons, such as apparent isochron, mantle isochron and pseudoisochron, secondary isochron, source isochron, erupted isochron, mixing line, and mixing isochron.

Similar anomalous or false isochrons are commonly obtained from U-Th-Pb data, which is hardly surprising given the common open system behavior of the U-Th-Pb system. Yet in the literature these problems are commonly glossed over or pushed aside, but their increasing occurrence from a variety of geological settings does seriously raise the question as to whether U-Th-Pb data ever yields any valid “age” information. One such geological setting that yields these false U-Th-Pb isochrons is the Koongarra uranium deposit and the surrounding area (Northern Territory, Australia).

The Koongarra Area
The Koongarra area is 250 km east of Darwin (Northern Territory, Australia) at latitude 12°52'S and longitude 132°50'E. The regional geology has been described in detail by Needham and Stuart-Smith2 and by Needham,3, 4 while Snelling5 describes the Koongarra uranium deposit and the area’s local geology.

The Koongarra uranium deposit occurs in a metamorphic terrain that has an Archean basement consisting of domes of granitoids and granitic gneisses (the Nanambu Complex), the nearest outcrop being 5 km to the north. Some of the lowermost overlying Lower Proterozoic metasediments were accreted to these domes during amphibolite grade regional metamorphism (estimated to represent conditions of 5–8 kb and 550–630°C) at 1800–1870 Ma. Multiple isoclinal recumbent folding accompanied metamorphism. The Lower Proterozoic Cahill Formation flanking the Nanambu Complex has been divided into two members. The lower member is dominated by a thick basal dolomite and passes transitionally upwards into the psammitic upper member, which is largely feldspathic schist and quartzite. The uranium mineralization at Koongarra is associated with graphitic horizons within chloritized quartz-mica (±feldspar ±garnet) schists overlying the basal dolomite in the lower member. A 150 Ma period of weathering and erosion followed metamorphism. A thick sequence of essentially flat-lying sandstones (the Middle Proterozoic Kombolgie Formation) was then deposited unconformably on the Archean- Lower Proterozoic basement and metasediments. At Koongarra subsequent reverse faulting has juxtaposed the lower Cahill Formation schists and Kombolgie Formation sandstone.

Owing to the isoclinal recumbent folding of metasedimentary units of the Cahill Formation, the typical rock sequence encountered at Koongarra is probably a tectono-stratigraphy (from youngest to oldest.)

■muscovite-biotite-quartz-feldspar schist (at least 180 m thick)
■garnet-muscovite-biotite-quartz schist (90–100 m thick)
■sulphide-rich graphite-mica-quartz schist (±garnet) (about 25 m thick)
■distinctive graphite-quartz-chlorite schist marker unit (5–8 m thick)
■quartz-chlorite schist (±illite, garnet, sillimanite, muscovite) (50 m thick)—the mineralized zone
■reverse fault breccia (5–7 m thick)
■sandstone of the Kombolgie Formation
Polyphase deformation accompanied metamorphism of the original sediments, that were probably dolomite, shales and siltstones. Johnston6 identified a D2 event as responsible for the dominant S2 foliation of the schist sequence, which at Koongarra dips at 55° to the south-east. The dominant structural feature, however, is the reverse fault system that dips at about 60° to the south-east, sub-parallel to the dominant S2 foliation and lithological boundaries, just below the mineralized zone.

The Uranium Deposit
There are two discrete uranium orebodies at Koongarra, separated by a 100 m wide barren zone. The main (No. 1) orebody has a strike length of 450 m and persists to 100 m depth. Secondary uranium mineralization is present in the weathered schists, from below the surficial sand cover to the base of weathering at depths varying between 25 and 30 m. This secondary mineralization has been derived from decomposition and leaching of the primary mineralized zone, and forms a tongue-like fan of ore-grade material dispersed down-slope for about 80 m to the south-east. The primary uranium mineralized zone in cross-section is a series of partially coalescing lenses, which together form an elongated wedge dipping at 55° to the south-east within the host quartz-chlorite schist unit, subparallel to the reverse fault. True widths average 30 m at the top of the primary mineralized zone but taper out at about 100 m below surface and along strike.

Superimposed on the primary prograde metamorphic mineral assemblages of the host schist units is a distinct and extensive primary alteration halo associated, and cogenetic, with the uranium mineralization. This alteration extends for up to 1.5 km from the ore in a direction perpendicular to the host quartz-chlorite schist unit, because the mineralization is essentially stratabound. The outer zone of the alteration halo is most extensively developed in the semi-pelitic schists, and is manifested by the pseudomorphous replacement of biotite by chlorite, rutile and quartz, and feldspar by sericite. Silicification has also occurred in fault planes and within the Kombolgie Formation sandstone beneath the mineralization, particularly adjacent to the reverse fault.

Association of this outer halo alteration with the mineralization is demonstrated by the apparent symmetrical distribution of this alteration about the orebody. In the inner alteration zone, less than 50 m from ore, the metamorphic rock fabric is disrupted, and quartz is replaced by pervasive chlorite and phengitic mica, and garnet by chlorite. Uranium mineralization is only present where this alteration has taken place.

The primary ore consists of uraninite veins and veinlets (1–10 mm thick) that cross-cut the S2 foliation of the brecciated and hydrothermally altered quartz-chlorite schist host. Groups of uraninite veinlets are intimately intergrown with chlorite, which forms the matrix to the host breccias. Small (10–100 µm) euhedral and subhedral uraninite grains are finely disseminated in the chloritic alteration adjacent to veins, but these grains may coalesce to form clusters, strings, and massive uraninite. Coarse colloform and botryoidal uraninite masses and uraninite spherules with internal lacework textures have also been noted, but the bulk of the ore appears to be of the disseminated type, with thin (<0.5 mm) discontinuous wisps and streaks of uraninite, and continuous strings both parallel and discordant to the foliation (S2), and parallel to phyllosilicate (001) cleavage planes.

Associated with the ore are minor volumes (up to 5%) of sulphides, which include galena and lesser chalcopyrite, bornite, and pyrite, with rare grains of native gold, clausthalite (PbSe), gersdorffite-cobaltite (NiAsS-CoAsS) and mackinawite (Fe, Ni), S. Galena is the most abundant, commonly occurring as cubes (5–10 µm wide) disseminated in uraninite or gangue, and as stringers and veinlets particularly filling thin fractures within uraninite. Galena may also overgrow clausthalite, and replace pyrite and chalcopyrite. Chlorite, predominantly magnesium chlorite, is the principal gangue, and its intimate association with the uraninite indicates that the two minerals formed together.

Oxidation and alteration of uraninite within the primary ore zone has produced a variety of secondary uranium minerals, principally uranyl silicates.7 Uraninite veins, even veins over 1 cm wide, have been completely altered in situ. Within the primary ore zone this in situ replacement of uraninite is most pronounced immediately above the reverse fault breccia, and this alteration and oxidation diminish upwards stratigraphically. It is accompanied by hematite staining of the schists, the more intense hematite alteration in and near the reverse fault breccia being due to hematite replacement of chlorite. The secondary mineralization of the dispersion fan in the weathered schist above the No. 1 orebody is characterized by uranyl phosphates found exclusively in the “tail” of the fan. Away from the tail uranium is dispersed in the weathered schists and adsorbed onto clays and iron oxides.

The age of the uranium mineralization is problematic. The mineralization, however, must post-date both the Kombolgie Formation sandstone and the Koongarra reverse fault, since it occupies the breccia zones generated by the post-Kombolgie reverse faulting. The pattern of alteration which is intimately associated with the ore also crosses the reverse fault into the Kombolgie sandstone beneath the ore zone, so this again implies that the ore was formed after the reverse fault and therefore is younger than both the Kombolgie sandstone and the reverse fault. Because of these geological constraints, Page, Compston, and Needham8 suggested the mineralization was younger than 1600–1688 Ma because of their determination of the timing of the Kombolgie Formation deposition to that period. Sm-Nd isotopic data obtained on Koongarra uraninites9, 10 appears to narrow down the timing of mineralization to 1550–1650 Ma. It is unclear as to when deep ground-water circulation began to cause oxidation and alteration of the primary uraninite ore at depth, but Airey, Golian, and Lever11 suggest that the weathering of the primary ore to produce the secondary dispersion fan in the weathered schists above the No. 1 orebody seems to have begun only in the last 1–3 Ma.

U-Th-Pb Data
“Dating” of the primary ore
Hills and Richards12 isotopically analyzed individual grains of uraninite and galena that had been handpicked from drill core. Only one of the five uraninite samples gave a near-concordant “age” of 862 Ma, that is, the sample plotted almost on the standard concordia curve, and Hills and Richards13 interpreted this as recording fresh formation of Pb-free uraninite at 870 Ma. The other four uraninite samples all lie well below concordia and do not conform to any regular linear array. Hills and Richards were left with two possible interpretations. On the one hand, preferential loss of the intermediate daughter products of 238U (that is, escape of radon, a gas) would cause vertical displacement of points below an episodic-loss line, but this would only produce a significant Pb isotopic effect if the loss had persisted for a very long proportion of the life of the uraninite (which is incidentally not only feasible but likely). Alternatively, they suggested that contamination by small amounts of an older (pre-900 Ma) Pb could cause such a pattern as on their concordia plot, to which they added mixing lines that they postulated arose from the restoration to each uraninite sample of the galena which separated from it.

This of course assumes that the Pb in the galenas was also derived predominantly from uranium decay. They plotted their Pb ratios in all their uraninite samples on a standard 207Pb/206Pb diagram, and contended that the pattern of data points did not conform to a simple age interpretation. Instead, they contended that the scatter of points could be contained between two lines radiating from the diagram’s origin, lines that essentially represented isochrons for uraninites and galenas from the Ranger and Nabarlek uranium deposits in the same geological region. From the positions of the Koongarra uraninites and galenas on these diagrams they claimed that the galenas contained left-over radiogenic Pb from earlier uraninites as old as 1700–1800 Ma (the “age” of the Ranger uranium mineralization), these earlier uraninites being obliterated by the uranium having remobilized at 870 Ma, the “age” of the lone Pb-free uraninite sample.

In a separate study Carr and Dean14 isotopically analyzed whole-rock samples from the Koongarra primary ore zone. These were samples of drill core that had been crushed. Their isotopic data on four samples were plotted on a U-Pb isochron diagram and indicated a non-systematic relationship between the 238U parent and the 206Pb daughter. In other words, the quantities of 206Pb could not simply be accounted for by radioactive decay of 238U, implying open system behavior. They also plotted their four results on a standard 207Pb/206Pb isochron diagram and found that these samples fell on a very poorly defined linear array whose apparent age they did not quantify.

“Dating” of weathered rocks and soils
Carr and Dean15 also isotopically analyzed a further nine whole-rock samples from the weathered schist zone at Koongarra. Some of these samples were again crushed drill core, but the majority were crushed percussion drill chips. When their isotopic data were plotted on a U-Pb isochron diagram six of the nine samples plotted close to the reference 1000 Ma isochron, while the other three were widely scattered. However, on the 207Pb/206Pb diagram all nine weathered rock samples plotted on a linear array which gave an apparent isochron “age” of 1270±50 Ma.

In an unrelated investigation, Dickson, Gulson, and Snelling16, 17 collected soil samples from above the mineralization at Koongarra and from surrounding areas, and these were analyzed for Pb isotopes to see if there was any Pb-isotopic dispersion halo around the mineralization sufficiently large enough to warrant the use of Pb-isotopic analyses of soils as an exploration technique to find new uranium orebodies. The technique did in fact work, Pb-isotopic traces of the deeply buried No. 2 orebody mineralization being found in the soils above. This mineralization, 40 m below the surface, is blind to other detection techniques.

Dickson, Gulson, and Snelling18 found that all 113 soil samples from their two studies were highly correlated (r = 0.99986) on a standard 207Pb/206Pb diagram, yielding an apparent (false) isochron representing an “age” of 1445±20 Ma for the samples. However, most of the soil samples consisted of detritus eroded from the Middle Proterozoic Kombolgie sandstone, so because the samples from near the mineralization gave a radiogenic Pb signature Dickson et al. interpreted the false “isochron” as being due to mixing of radiogenic Pb from the uranium mineralization with the common Pb from the sandstone.

Discussion
Snelling19 has already highlighted a telling omission by Hills and Richards.20 Having included all the Pb isotopic ratios they had obtained on their five uraninite samples, they tabulated also the derived “ages,” except for those obtainable from 208Pb. These Th-derived “dates” should normally be regarded as the most reliable, since Th is less mobile in geochemical environments and therefore open system behavior is less likely than for U. Significantly, three of the five uraninite samples therefore give, within their experimental error, a 0 Ma “age.”21 In any case, their “age” of 1700–1800 Ma for the first generation of uranium mineralization at Koongarra neither fits the geological criteria for an expected 1550–1600 Ma “age,” nor does their 870 Ma “date” correlate with any geological event capable of remobilizing U and Pb to produce the presumed second generation of uranium mineralization.

Using Ludwig,22 standard 207Pb/206Pb diagrams were prepared for the uraninite, galena, and whole-rock data sets, and combinations thereof, to check the regression statistics and possible derived “isochrons” using the standard York23 method. In each case the mean square of weighted deviates (MSWD), which tests the “goodness of fit” of data to a line, is large to extremely large, which reflects in the derived isochron “ages” of 841±140 Ma (uraninites), 1008±420 Ma (galenas), 668±330 Ma (whole-rocks), 818±150 Ma (uraninites plus galenas) and 863±130 Ma (all three data sets combined), all “ages” being within the 95% confidence limits. It is perhaps fortuitously significant that the combination of all three data sets yields an isochron “age” of 863±130 Ma, almost identical to Hills” and Richards” near-concordant “age” of 862 Ma, although this was using a line-fitting routine of Ludwig that assigns equal weights and zero error-correlations to each data point to avoid the mistake of weighting the points according to analytical errors when it is clear that some other cause of scatter is involved, which is clearly the case here. The normal York algorithm assumes that the only cause for scatter from a straight line are the assigned errors, and for the combined data set here the amount of scatter calculated thereby yields an astronomical MSWD of 669,000 and a bad line of fit that yields an isochron “age” of 1632±410 Ma. This “result” may make more geological sense, but the regression statistics are such that derivation of any “age” information from these data is totally unjustified, even though it can be rightfully argued that these samples form a cogenetic set (they are all samples of uranium ore or its components from the same primary ore zone at Koongarra).

It is not uncommon to find that “ages” derived from standard 207Pb/206Pb plots are erroneous, even though the data fit well-defined linear arrays (“isochrons”). Ludwig, Nash, and Naeser24 found that this was due to migration of both Pb and radioactive daughters of 238U yielding a 207Pb/206Pb “isochron” giving “superficially attractive results which would nonetheless be seriously misleading” because the derived “age” (in their example) was more than six times higher than the U-Pb isochron “age.” Similarly, Cunningham et al.25 obtained 207Pb/206Pb isochron “ages” up to 50 times higher than those derived from “more reliable” U-Pb isochrons for wholerock uranium ore samples, even though “the apparent slight degree of scatter is almost entirely a misleading artifact.” Ironically, at Koongarra the U-Pb isochron using Ludwig26 yields an “age” of 857±149 Ma (with an MSWD of 13,400, tolerably large compared to that obtained with the Pb-Pb isochron), almost identical to the “fortuitous” Pb-Pb isochron “age” obtained using Ludwig’s modified algorithm on the combined three data sets (863±130 Ma), as well as Hills’ and Richards’ single near-concordant 862 Ma “age.”

Snelling and Dickson27 demonstrated that there is significant radiometric disequilibrium in the primary ore and surrounding host rocks at Koongarra due to the redistribution of both U and its Ra decay product. That Ra mobility at depth in the primary ore zone is currently more significant than U migration was confirmed by Dickson and Snelling,28 which of course results ultimately in the redistribution of 206Pb, the end-member of the whole 238U decay chain. Dickson, Giblin, and Snelling29 and Dickson, Gulson, and Snelling30 demonstrated that Ra is transported through the unweathered rocks in this area in the ground waters, while Davey, Dudaitis, and O”Brien31 determined the emanation rate of radon gas from the Koongarra No. 1 orebody, an ever-present hazard in uranium ore mining operations. The radon gas is known to migrate along fractures and rise through the ground over considerable distances to form a halo in the air above, while radon is also transported in ground waters.

These observations alone demonstrate the open-system behavior of the U-Th-Pb system that renders meaningless any “age” information derived. However, both Hills32 and Snelling33 34 have recognized that U also has migrated on a considerable scale in the primary ore zone, since supergene uraninites, often with colloform banding, are found as fracture and cavity infillings, and between quartz and gangue grain boundaries. The unit cell dimensions of these uraninites, plus this textural evidence, supports the conclusion that these uraninites have precipitated after dissolution of earlier formed uraninite and transportation in low-temperature ground waters. With such wholesale migration of U also, all attempts at “dating” must be rendered useless, especially when whole-rock samples, in which different generations of uraninites are lumped together, are used.

In contrast to the poor-fitting linear arrays produced from the Pb-Pb data of minerals and whole-rocks from the primary ore zone, that all appear to give an apparent (false) isochron “age” grouped around 857–863 Ma, both Carr and Dean35 and Dickson, Gulson, and Snelling36 found that weathered whole-rock and soil samples produced good fitting linear arrays that would normally represent “isochrons” that yield “ages” of 1270 Ma and 1445 Ma respectively. The weathered whole-rock samples all of course come from Koongarra itself, and consist of secondary ore samples from the weathered schist zone, plus weathered schist samples that contain uranium dispersed down-slope by ground waters moving through the weathered rock. Because these whole-rock samples come from a volume of rock through which U is known to be migrating, leading to redistribution not only of U but of its decay products, it is therefore very surprising to find that these whole-rock samples define a good enough linear array to yield an “isochron.” Even the observed scatter calculated using Ludwig37 is much less than that associated with fitting an “isochron” to the 207Pb-206Pb data from the primary ore zone samples, which is again surprising given U migration in the weathered zone, the data from which one would expect to show considerable scatter and thus no “age” consensus. Furthermore, it is baffling as to why the “isochron”-derived “age” should be so much “older” than the “age” of the primary ore, which of course is ultimately the source through weathering and ground-water transport of the U, decay products and the stable Pb isotopes. Perhaps the only explanation is that the “isochron” represents the mixing of radiogenic Pb from the mineralization with the common or background Pb in the surrounding schists.

The idea of such an “isochron” being a mixing line was suggested by Dickson, Gulson, and Snelling.38 They were however, dealing with the Pb isotopic data obtained from soil samples collected from depths of only about 30–40 cm, the majority of which represented sandy soils consisting of detritus eroded from the Kombolgie sandstone. For this mixing explanation to be feasible there should be some other evidence of mobilization of Pb in the area. Dickson, Gulson, and Snelling found that not only were there high 206Pb/204Pb ratios in three of their soil samples from the near-surface (0–1 m) zone south of the No. 1 orebody, but there was a lack of any other Useries daughter products in the same samples. This near-surface zone is inundated for approximately six months of the year as a result of the high monsoonal rainfall in this tropical area. Towards the end of the ensuing six-month dry season, the water table has been known to drop in some cases more than ten meters from its wet season “high.” This means that the top of the weathered schist zone is regularly fluctuating between wet and dry conditions, so that any trace elements such as Pb leached from the weathered ore and transported by ground water in the weathered schist zone would also be dispersed vertically up into the thin surficial sand cover on top of the weathered schist—the sandy soils that were sampled by Dickson, Gulson, and Snelling.39, 40 Snelling41 found that Pb was a significant pathfinder element for uranium ore in the Koongarra environment, anomalous Pb being present in the surficial sand cover above the zone of weathered primary ore, and that there was even hydrodynamic dispersal of Pb at a depth of 0.5–1.5 m. Dickson, Gulson, and Snelling42 found a similarity between the isotopic ratios for Pb extracted from their soil samples by either a mild HCI-hydroxylamine (pH 1) or a strong 7M HCI-7M HNO3 leach, which indicates that Pb is loosely attached to sand grain surfaces in the samples rather than tightly bound in silicate or resistate mineral lattices. This in turn suggests Pb is adsorbed from ground waters, meaning that radiogenic Pb is being added to the common or background Pb in the sand by both vertical and lateral ground-water dispersion.

However, not all of Dickson, Gulson and Snelling’s soil samples came from the immediate area to the Koongarra orebodies, nor were they all the samples of Kombolgie sandstone detritus. That this mixing line explanation for the apparent “isochron” is clearly demonstrated for these samples from the immediate Koongarra area is not in question, although it is somewhat surprising that these soil samples should give an apparent isochron “age” somewhat higher than that obtained from the weathered schist samples beneath. Indeed, the common or background Pb in the respective samples should reflect an “older” apparent age in the schists compared to the sandstone, due to their relative ages based on geological relationships between them. However, the apparent ages are the other way around, the sandy soils yielding an “older” apparent age compared to that yielded by the weathered schists. Perhaps this difference is a reflection of the extent of mixing in each type of sample at their respective levels in the weathering profile. Nevertheless, what is astounding is that Dickson, Gulson, and Snelling43 found that even though several of their soil samples consisted of weathered schist or basement granite (containing accessory zircon) up to 17 km from the known uranium mineralization, they still plotted on the same apparent “isochron.” Indeed, the “fit” is comparatively good, as indicated by the MSWD of only 964 using Ludwig,44 yet much of this observed scattered can be attributed to two samples out of the 113, one of which was subsequently known to be probably contaminated by cuttings from an adjacent drill hole.45 If that sample is removed from the regression analysis the MSWD drops to 505, indicating that almost half of the observed scatter is due to that one data point alone. If the data point that is the next worst for fitting to the apparent “isochron” is removed, then the MSWD drops by a further 315 to a mere 190. Yet in both cases the apparent “isochron” or “mixing line” still has lying on or close to it the samples from up to 17 km away from the known uranium mineralization and the samples that are not Kombolgie sandstone detritus. The final “isochron” fitted to the remaining 111 samples still yields an “age” of 1420±18 Ma.

While Carr and Dean’s46 nine weathered whole-rock samples are not strictly cogenetic with Dickson, Gulson and Snelling’s 113 soil samples, the two sample sets are obviously related because the source of the radiogenic Pb in the majority of the soil samples from the immediate Koongarra area is the same as that in the weathered rocks. Not surprisingly, when the regression analysis was performed on Carr and Dean’s nine weathered wholerock samples using Ludwig,47 the MSWD for the observed scatter was 24,100, indicating a poor fit to an “isochron” which yielded an “age” of 1287±120 Ma. Yet when these nine samples were added to the 113 soil samples the MSWD dropped substantially to 1210, and not surprisingly the fitted “isochron” yielded an “age” of 1346±27 Ma, an “isochron age” intermediate between those of the two data sets being combined. However, when the two soil samples responsible for the majority of the scatter in that data set were removed the MSWD dropped to 430 and yielded an “isochron age” of 1336±17 Ma.

As with all the other apparent isochron “ages” this result has no apparent geological meaning, because there is no geological event to which these “ages” might correlate. Indeed, even in the evolutionary time frame the weathering of the Koongarra uranium mineralization is extremely recent, and in any case these “ages” derived from Pb-Pb “isochrons” from the weathered rock and soil samples are much “older” than the supposedly more reliable U-Pb “isochron age” of the Koongarra primary ore. But since that latter result has no apparent geological meaning, because it also cannot be correlated with any known geological event, nothing then is certain at all from any of these U-Th-Pb isotopic studies of the Koongarra ores, rocks, and surrounding soils. Indeed, it is just as certain that the primary ore is 0 years old, based on three 232Th/208Pb single sample ages, as is the claim that one near-concordant result means that there was formation of Pb-free uraninite at 870 Ma. After all, this postulated formation of Pb-free uraninite is supposed to have occurred in an environment where there was Pb left over from an earlier 1700–1800 Ma original uranium mineralization for which we no longer have any evidence, textural or otherwise, apart from a rather tenuous interpretation of Pb isotopic evidence that has otherwise shown itself to be devoid of any capability of providing any “age” information.

All these results raise serious fundamental questions about the claimed validity of the U-Th-Pb “dating” method. It may seem reasonable to regard an apparent “isochron” as a “mixing line” within the restricted area close to the known source of radiogenic Pb, which can be shown by independent evidence to be migrating into rocks and soils that contain common or background Pb in the immediate environs. However, it strains all credulity to suggest that a false “isochron” through a data set derived from samples representing a variety of rock types, of significantly different evolutionary “ages,” over an area of up to 17 km lateral extent from the known radiogenic Pb source, can still represent mixing! One can only conclude that all assumptions used to derive the estimates of common or background Pb, including models for the supposed evolution of the stable Pb isotopes through earth history, from their presumed commencement on the protoearth with its claimed original Pb isotope content some 4.6 billion or so years ago, cannot be valid. Equally, we cannot be sure what the U-Th-Pb system’s isotopic ratios really mean, because the basic assumptions that are foundational to the interpretation of these isotopic ratios are fatally flawed. Not only has open system behavior of these isotopes been demonstrated as the norm, but even where there is an apparent “isochron” with an excellent “goodness of fit” the derived “age” is invariably geologically meaningless. Thus creationists need not be hindered in their building of the creation-Flood young-earth model for the geological record by the many claims in the open geological literature that U-Th-Pb radiometric “dating” has “proved” the presumed great antiquity of the earth, and the strata and fossils of the so-called geological column.

Conclusion
The concerns raised by Zheng48 regarding U-Pb isochrons are warranted. At Koongarra a 207Pb/206Pb “isochron” produced from 11 hand-picked uraninite and galena grains, plus four whole-rock samples, yields an “age” of 863 Ma, the same as a near-concordant “age” from one of the uraninite grains. Nine weathered wholerock samples yield an “isochron age” of 1270 Ma, while 113 soil samples produce an excellent “isochron” with an “age” of 1445 Ma. All of these “ages” are geologically meaningless. While the apparent isochron produced by the soil samples may be identified as a mixing line, produced by the mixing of radiogenic Pb with common or background Pb in the surrounding rocks and soils, even this explanation strains credulity because the samples come from up to 17 km away from known uranium mineralization, and a few of the soil samples represent different rock types. Not only then has open system behavior of these isotopes been demonstrated, but apparent “isochrons” and their derived “ages” are invariably geologically meaningless. Thus none of the assumptions used to interpret the U-Th-Pb isotopic system to yield “ages” can be valid. If these assumptions were valid, then the 232Th/208Pb “age” of 0 Ma for three of the five uraninite samples should be taken seriously. Creationists should therefore not be intimidated by claims that U-Th-Pb radiometric “dating” has “proved” the presumed great antiquity of the earth, and the strata and fossils of the so-called geological column.

Help keep these daily articles coming. Support AiG.

Footnotes
1.Zheng, Y.-F., 1989. Influences of the nature of the initial Rb-Sr system on isochron validity. Chemical Geology 80:14. Back
2.Needham, R. S. and P. G. Stuart-Smith, 1980. Geology of the Alligator Rivers uranium field. In, Ferguson, J. and A. B. Goleby (eds.), Uranium in the Pine Creek Geosyncline, pp. 233–257. Vienna: International Atomic Energy Agency. Back
3.Needham, R. S., 1984. Alligator River, Northern Territory—1:250,000 Geological Series. Bureau of Mineral Resources, Geology and Geophysics Australia, Explanatory Notes, SD 53-1. Back
4.Needham, R. S., 1988. Geology of the Alligator Rivers uranium field, Northern Territory. Bureau of Mineral Resources, Geology and Geophysics Australia, Bulletin 224. Canberra, Australia. Back
5.Snelling, A. A., 1990. Koongarra uranium deposits. In Hughes, F. E. (ed.), Geology of the mineral deposits of Australia and Papua New Guinea, pp. 807–812. Melbourne, Australia: The Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy. Back
6.Johnston, J. D., 1984. Structural evolution of the Pine Creek inlier and mineralisation therein, Northern Territory, Australia. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia. Back
7.Snelling, A. A. (1980b). Uraninite and its alteration products, Koongarra uranium deposit. In, Ferguson, J. and A. B. Goleby (eds.), Uranium in the Pine Creek Geosyncline, pp. 487–498. Vienna: International Atomic Energy Agency. Back
8.Page, R. W., W. Compston, and R. S. Needham, 1980.Geochronology and evolution of the late-Archaean basement and Proterozoic rocks in the Alligator Rivers uranium field, Northern Territory, Australia. In, Ferguson, J. and A. B. Goleby (eds.), Uranium in the Pine Creek Geosyncline, pp. 13–68. Vienna: International Atomic Energy Agency. Back
9.Maas, R., 1987. The application of Sm-Nd and Rb-Sr isotope systematics to ore deposits. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, The Australian National University, Canberra, Australia. Back
10.Maas, R., 1989. Nd-Sr isotope constraints on the age and origin of unconformity-type uranium deposits in the Alligator Rivers uranium field, Northern Territory, Australia. Economic Geology 84:64–90. Back
11.Airey, P. L., C. Golian, and D. A. Lever, 1986. An approach to the mathematical modelling of the uranium series redistribution within ore bodies. Topical report AAEC/C49. Sydney: Australian Atomic Energy Commission. Back
12.Hills, J. H. and J. R. Richards, 1976. Pitchblende and galena ages in the Alligator Rivers region, Northern Territory, Australia. Mineralium Deposita 11:133–154. Back
13.Hills, J. H. and J. R. Richards, 1972. The age of uranium mineralization in northern Australia. Search 3:382–385. Back
14.Carr, G. R. and J. A. Dean, 1986. Report to AAEC on a Ph isotopic study of samples from Jabiluka and Koongarra, (unpublished). Sydney: Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Division of Mineral Physics and Mineralogy. Back
15.Carr and Dean, Ref. 14. Back
16.Dickson, B. L., B. L. Gulson, and A. A. Snelling, 1985. Evaluation of lead isotopic methods for uranium exploration, Koongarra area, Northern Territory, Australia. Journal of Geochemical Exploration 24:81–102. Back
17.Dickson, B. L., B. L. Gulson, and A. A. Snelling, 1987. Further assessment of stable lead isotope measurements for uranium exploration, Pine Creek Geosyncline, Northern Territory, Australia. Journal of Geochemical Exploration 27:63–75. Back
18.Dickson, Gulson, and Snelling, Ref. 17. Back
19.Snelling, A. A., 1981. The age of Australian uranium: A case study of the Koongarra uranium deposit. Ex Nihilo 4:44–57. Back
20.Hills and Richards, Ref. 12. Back
21.Snelling, Ref. 19. Back
22.Ludwig, K. R., 1993. ISOPLOT: A plotting and regression program for radiogenic-isotope data, Version 2.60. United States Geological Survey Open-File Report 91-445. Denver, Colorado. Back
23.York, D., 1969. Least-squares fitting of a straight line with correlated errors. Earth and Planetary Science Letters 5:320–324. Back
24.Ludwig, K. R., J. T. Nash, and C. W. Naeser, 1981. U-Pb isotope systematics and age of uranium mineralisation, Midnite Mine, Washington. Economic Geology 76:89–110. Back
25.Cunningham, C. G., K. R. Ludwig, C. W. Naeser, E. K. Weiland, H. H. Mehnert, T. A. Steven, and J. D. Rasmussen, 1982. Geochronology of hydrothermal uranium deposits and associated igneous rocks in the eastern source area of the Mount Belknap Volcanics, Marysvale, Utah. Economic Geology 77:453–463. Back
26.Ludwig, Ref. 22. Back
27.Snelling, A. A. and B. L. Dickson, 1979. Uranium/daughter equilibrium in the Koongarra uranium deposit, Australia. Mineralium Deposita 14:109–118. Back
28.Dickson, B. L. and A. A. Snelling, 1980. Movements of uranium and daughter isotopes in the Koongarra uranium deposit. In, Ferguson, J. and A. B. Goleby (eds.), Uranium in the Pine Creek Geosyncline, pp. 499–507. Vienna: International Atomic Energy Agency. Back
29.Dickson, B. L., A. M. Giblin, and A. A. Snelling, 1987. The source of radium in anomalous accumulations near Sandstone Escarpments, Australia. Applied Geochemistry 2:385–398. Back
30.Dickson, Gulson and Snelling, Ref. 17. Back
31.Davy, D. R., A. Dudaitis, A., and B. G. O’Brien, 1978. Radon survey at the Koongarra Uranium Deposit, Northern Territory. In Koongarra project: Draft environmental impact statement, Appendix 2. Topical report AAEC/E459. Melbourne: Noranda Australia Limited and Sydney: Australian Atomic Energy Commission. Back
32.Hills, J. H., 1973. Lead isotopes and the regional geochemistry of North Australian uranium deposits. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia. Back
33.Snelling, A. A., 1980a. A geochemical study of the Koongarra uranium deposit, Northern Territory, Australia. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia. Back
34.Snelling, A. A., 1984. A soil geochemistry orientation survey for uranium at Koongarra, Northern Territory. Journal of Geochemical Exploration 22:83–99. Back
35.Carr and Dean, Ref. 14. Back
36.Dickson, Gulson, and Snelling, Ref. 17. Back
37.Ludwig, Ref. 22. Back
38.Dickson, Gulson, and Snelling, Ref. 17. Back
39.Dickson, Gulson, and Snelling, Ref. 16. Back
40.Dickson, Gulson, and Snelling, Ref. 17. Back
41.Snelling, Ref. 34. Back
42.Dickson, Gulson, and Snelling, Ref. 16. Back
43.Dickson, Gulson, and Snelling, Ref. 17. Back
44.Ludwig, Ref. 22. Back
45.Dickson, Gulson, and Snelling, Ref. 16. Back
46.Carr and Dean, Ref. 14. Back
47.Ludwig, Ref. 22. Back
48.Zheng, Ref. 1, pp. 1–16. Back

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v4/n1/false-isochrons

posted in Evolution/Creation Debate - 6 replies

Global Warming debate and it's implications for the Evolution Creation debate.

2009-12-10T13:54:32Z

For years now we have seen the international political consensus grow for Global Warming (climate change). We are told by Al Gore, President Obama etc that there is no longer any doubt about anthropomorphic climate change. Conventions have been held, treaties have been ratified and legislation has been inacted due to the science of climate change. Kids in school are taught the fact of global warming and the ignorant flat earth reactionism of those who disagree. So how is this issue similar to the Creation Evolution controversy? Simple, in both cases a myth has been foisted upon a gullible public under the guise of science and opponents of they myth have been villified in an effort to silence them. Fortunately, in both cases, the truth has a way of leaking out to those who have ears to hear.

For those who have not been following along, recently it has been revealled that published peer reviewed research on tree ring data purporting to show global warming and responsible for the now famous hockey stick graph based upon fraudulent science. In short, the data were cooked to conform to the hypothesis and prestigious journals give it the slip. This shoe was just droppped recently.

http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/3021

Was the fraud revealled through the famous "peer review process"? No, was it revealled through the fair vetting of all science on the issue? No. The truth was actually revealled due to an illegal hacking of scientists computers. Now know that scientists were actually allowing their political bias to affect their science.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=116657

from the article:

One e-mail said: "I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd (sic) from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline."

Another expressed internal doubts: "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't. The CERES data published in the August (Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society) 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate."

Further, an e-mail exchange suggested the suppression of information: "Can you delete any e-mails you may have had with Keith re (Assessment Report 4)? Keith will do likewise. He's not in at the moment – minor family crisis."

"And, perhaps most reprehensibly," Delingpole writes, "a long series of communications discussing how best to squeeze dissenting scientists out of the peer review process. How, in other words, to create a scientific climate in which anyone who disagrees with (anthropogenic global warming) can be written off as a crank, whose views do not have a scrap of authority."

He cites an e-mail: "This was the danger of always criticizing the skeptics for not publishing in the 'peer-reviewed literature.' Obviously, they found a solution to that – take over a journal! So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering 'Climate Research' as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board …What do others think?"

Is it possible for objective science to actually control an issue of such magnitude as this which huge political implications by suppression, fraud and data manipulation and suppression? Frightfully, the answer is yes. And the scarey thing is that these revelations will in no way stop the anthropomorphic juggernaught which is sweeping this planet. The inconvenient truth is that for these leftist nutters the end justifies any means.

Have Evolutionists perpetrated fraud, suppressed science which disagrees with their premises, fired professors with dissenting opinion, promoted outright fraud? Sadly, the answer is a resounding Yes!

Here are a few examples:

The recapitulation fraud of Ernest Heckal picked up by countless textbooks and National geographic:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n3/graphic-fraud

The Piltdown Man fraud: http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2003/1124piltdown.asp

The peppered moth fraud

The nebraska man fraud

The peking man fraud

Archaeoraptor liaoningensis fraud

The denial of Guillermo Gonzalez for his intelligent design views

Richard Sternberg, evolutionist fired for publishing an article by intelligent design advocate Dr. Myers.

This is just a short list. Does all of this fraud, deceit and lies mean that science will now reverse the madness and begin to tell the public that they have been lying to them all along? Not on your life. They will contintue to promote the lie because there are greater issues at stake for them then he truth. The global warming agenda dovetails nicely with the evolution agenda and the global governance agenda and the world socialist agenda. And the evangelical christian and the honest scientist are the only ones standing in their way.

posted in Evolution/Creation Debate - 11 replies

Radiocarbon dating offers no support for Evolution

2009-12-09T22:30:03Z

Many evolution believers have no idea that there are many unproven and unprovable assumptions when it comes to dating methods. Furthermore, time and again I am told by supposedly intelligent people that radiocarbon dating proves the earth is billions of years old. Truth is, most are clueless. 14C has a half-life of 5,730 years and is used to date relatively young fossils. It can never be used to prove the "millions and millions" of years evolution believers must have to make their fairy tale even possible. The following study shows how devasting radiocarbon dating is to evolutionary assumptions:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v1/n1/radiocarbon-ages-for-ammonites-wood

A quote:

"Measurable 14C (radiocarbon) has been detected in fossils from the earliest days of radiocarbon dating. In many instances, according to their supposed uniformitarian ages those fossils should be completely 14C-dead, that is, all 14C originally in them should have decayed, so they should not have any 14C left in them.

When these data are put in perspective, their deadly significance to the uniformitarian timescale is readily apparent. 14C has a half-life of 5,730 years. If an organism when it was buried and fossilized contained the level of 14C currently in plants and animals, then after one million years, corresponding to 174.5 14C half-lives, the fraction of the original 14C remaining would be 3 × 10-53. However, a mass of 14C equal to the entire mass of the earth (6 × 1024 kg) contains only about 3 × 1050 14C atoms (Baumgardner 2005). Thus, not a single atom of 14C formed even 1 million years ago anywhere in or on the earth should conceivably still exist. Therefore, there should be absolutely no measurable 14C able to be detected in fossils claimed to be a million or more years old."

Rather than supporting evolution, carbon dating actually refutes uniformitarian assumptions. How to the evolutionists answer? The sample must be "contaminated". The above study takes this into consideration and finds this argument lacking any credibility whatsoever.

posted in Evolution/Creation Debate - 90 replies

Why Sexual promiscuity, drug use and political liberalism go hand in hand with Evolution and Atheism (Paganism)

2009-12-06T03:11:00Z

Aldous Huxley was a British novelist who wrote Brave New World (1932), and was a grandson of ‘Darwin’s Bulldog’, T.H. Huxley. He was also the brother of the leading atheistic evolutionist Sir Julian Huxley and died the same day as Christian apologist C.S. Lewis and the assassination of JFK (22 Nov. 1963). Aldous Huxley made this frank admission about his anti-theistic motivation:

‘I had motive for not wanting the world to have a meaning; consequently assumed that it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption. The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics, he is also concerned to prove that there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do, or why his friends should not seize political power and govern in the way that they find most advantageous to themselves. … For myself, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation, sexual and political.’

posted in Evolution/Creation Debate - 4 replies

Dawkins Stumped by Creationist

2009-12-04T15:30:47Z

In this video the viewer can see how famous atheist biologist and author of the book, The God Delusion, is stumped when asked a very simple question about evolutionary mechanisms. At one point, he stops the tape and starts over, this time descending into the usual fairy tale just-so story telling evilutionists are famous for. No wonder why adherants are decreasing, while skeptics of the hypothesis increase:

http://creation.com/was-dawkins-stumped-frog-to-a-prince-critics-refuted-again

posted in Evolution/Creation Debate - 73 replies

The Cowardice and Calumny of Creationism

2009-12-04T14:56:09Z

Over a century ago, during the first round of evolution-creation debates in England, Herbert Spencer observed: "Those who cavalierly reject the theory of evolution, as not adequately supported by facts, seem quite to forget that their own theory is supported by no facts at all."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-shermer/the-cowardice-and-calumny_b_379529.html

posted in Evolution/Creation Debate - 1 reply

Texas Knuckle-draggers Pushing Their Christ-o-Holic Agenda....Again

2009-11-30T17:25:11Z

To see this story with its related links on the guardian.co.uk site, go to http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2009/mar/26/evolution-science-texas-school-board

Creationism in the classroom
Evolution is a scientific fact ? except, perhaps, in Texas, where the school board is trying to cast doubt on it
Jerry Coyne
Thursday March 26 2009
guardian.co.uk

Imagine that your state legislature has decided to revamp the way that health and medicine are taught in public schools. To do this, they must tackle the "germ theory of disease", the idea that infectious disease is caused by microorganisms such as viruses and bacteria. The legislature, noting that this idea has many vocal opponents, declares that it is "only a theory". Many people, for instance, think that Aids has nothing to do with viruses, but is the byproduct of a dissipated life. Christian Scientists believe that disease results from sin and ignorance, spiritual healers implicate disturbed auras and shamans cite demonic possession.

In light of this "controversy", the legislature sets up a school board that includes not only doctors, but also shamans, faith healers and, for good measure a few "psychic surgeons" who pretend to extract veal cutlets from patients' intact bodies. Taking account of these diverse views, the board recommends that from now on all teaching of modern medicine must be accompanied by a discussion of its weaknesses, including the "evidence" that Aids results from drug use and malnutrition, as well as from impure thoughts and evil spirits. And our failure to understand the complexities of chronic fatigue syndrome might be seen as reflecting its causation by an inscrutable and supernatural designer.

You would rightly be furious if all this happened. After all, the "germ theory" of disease is more than just a theory ? it's a fact. Like all scientific theories, it might be wrong, but in this case that chance is roughly zero. That is because the germ theory works. Antibiotic and antiviral drugs really do cure diseases, while spiritual healing does not. Only an idiot, you'd say, would try to tamper with medical education in this way.

But this is precisely what is happening in Texas with respect to another well-established theory of biology: evolution.

Like the "germ theory" of disease, the "theory" of evolution is also a fact, as firmly established as the proposition that bacteria cause tuberculosis, or viruses cause Aids. And the fact of evolution is supported by mountains of evidence from many areas of biology. Every one of the thousands of sequences of DNA that have been studied support the theory of evolution.

What's more, evolution explains many puzzling observations about biology, like the existence of transitional fossils, vestigial organs and nonfunctional genes, that are incomprehensible under any creationist view. No serious biologist doubts the major tenets of the modern theory of evolution, which are these: life began around 3.5 billion years ago, all living species have common ancestors, descent involves evolution (genetic change over time), lineages divide, forming new species that lead to the branching tree of life, this change took immense spans of time, and that, in the vast majority of cases the diversification and change was due to natural selection and other well-understood evolutionary processes.

So what do creationism and its new incarnation of "intelligent design" explain? Nothing.

Despite all this, the Texas school board will vote this week on a bill that requires educators and textbooks to play up the "problems" with evolution, emphasising both its "strengths and weaknesses". The weaknesses supposedly involve "the insufficiency of common ancestry to explain the sudden appearance, stasis and sequential nature of groups in the fossil record." This is nonsense, of course. There is a mountain of evidence for common ancestry ? ancestry that clearly explains the "sequential nature of groups in the fossil record".

The bill also requires schools to teach "the insufficiency of natural selection to explain the complexity of cells." More nonsense, straight out of the playbook of intelligent design. Of course we don't understand everything about the evolution of cells ? if evolution had all the answers it would be a dead field ? but there is plenty of evidence that natural selection was involved in cell evolution, and not a shred of evidence that it wasn't.

The mention of "sudden appearance" of species leaves no doubt about the bill's motivation, which is to promote Biblically-based creationism in public schools. Tellingly, the Texas bill is not aimed at discussing the "strengths and weaknesses" of chemistry, physics or astronomy. It singles out evolution for one reason alone: it is the only branch of science that some Christians perceive as endangering their theology.

It's no surprise, then, that seven of the 15 members of the Texas state board of education have a socially conservative agenda, several of them explicitly endorsing creationism. And the head of the school board, one Don McElroy, is a creationist dentist whose pedagogical experience is limited to teaching Sunday school. McElroy also holds the Biblically-based view that the world is only 6,000-10,000 years old. How can it be that someone with such preposterous views is given any say in the education of our children?

What happens in Texas doesn't stay in Texas. That state is a sizeable consumer of public school textbooks, and it's likely that if it waters down its science standards, textbook publishers all over the country will follow suit. This makes every American school hostage to the caprices of a few benighted Texas legislators.

What's next? Since there are many who deny the Holocaust, can we expect legislation requiring history classes to discuss the "strengths and weaknesses" of the idea that Nazis persecuted Jews? Should we teach our children astrology in their psychology classes as an alternative theory of human behaviour? And, given the number of shamans in the world, shouldn't their views be represented in medical schools?

Our children will face enormous challenges when they grow up: global warming, depletion of fossil fuels, overpopulation, epidemic disease. There is no better way to prepare their generation than to teach them how to distinguish fact from mythology, and to encourage them to have good reasons for what they believe.

How sad that in the 21st century the Texas legislature proposes the exact opposite, indoctrinating our children with false ideas based squarely on religious dogma. Can't we just let our kids learn real science?

Jerry Coyne's latest book is Why Evolution is True (Viking), which summarises the many lines of evidence for evolution.

posted in Evolution/Creation Debate - 2 replies

Foremost Brain Surgeon and Creationist

2009-11-23T06:46:27Z

"Benjamin Carson: The Pediatric Neurosurgeon with Gifted Hands
by Jerry Bergman, Ph.D.*
Introduction

Benjamin S. Carson, M.D., one of the world's foremost pediatric neurosurgeons, is professor and chief of pediatric neurosurgery at Johns Hopkins University Medical School.1 Born on September 18, 1951, in Detroit to a single mother in a working class neighborhood, Ben showed promise from a young age.2 A graduate of Yale and the University of Michigan Medical School, he was rated by a Time issue titled "America's Best" as a "super surgeon."3 Dr. Carson was also selected by CNN and Time as one of the nation's top 20 physicians and scientists, and by the Library of Congress as one of 89 "living-legends."4

The rest of the article is a very interesting read, especially Dr. Carsons exchange with Dr. Donald Johanson, famous for the "lucy" discovery. It doesn't take a brain surgeon to see that evolution is a fairy tail for grown ups, but it is nice to see that one of the worlds best is willing to state the obvious to a hostile audience."

"[Johanson] is famous for his claims that the fossilized specimen he discovered in Africa named "Lucy" represented an extinct species from which the human race descended. In the course of our discussion, he made…a condescending remark when he asserted that "true scientists" base everything they do and decide upon facts, unlike those people who choose to depend on God. So when it was my turn to speak, I made the point that "true scientists" often overlook many, many gaps in what they purport to be fact…when in reality some of their own theories require a great deal of faith to accept.15
The paleoanthropologist responded by jumping out of his chair and rudely interrupting Dr. Carson, who calmly responded by noting that he was

"only making a general observation based on my experience. But if the shoe fits …." Laughter rolled through the audience before I went on to say that religion and science both require faith, that the two disciplines don't always have to be mutually exclusive, that people have to choose where to put their faith, and that choice doesn't make you superior to those who believe differently.15
Dr. Johanson's arrogance was apparent in view of the fact that we know "next to nothing about" how the living brain actually works, not to mention that of our putative evolutionary ancestors.8"

http://www.icr.org/article/4311/

posted in Evolution/Creation Debate - 35 replies

Breaking News: Rene Converts!!!

2009-10-30T12:16:14Z

I have it on good authority that petroleum geologist Rene has converted and is now employed by Answers in Genesis. I know what you are thinking, it just can't be true. But would evolutionist believer and fellow geologist burning man hippie freak "Rhino" lie? Surely not, Scouts honor! Here is the link and quote:

Rhino: Oh, most certainly. He's always trying to change Rene, another geologist with:
www.answersingenesis.com
Truth will prevail.
http://tribes.tribe.net/turkelfansunited/thread/adbeb6ea-3499-4632-9d10-be30c28b2273#511f81b2-7b91-468e-8dda-5c546c23c442
(if the link is broken just put in Turkel fan club in your search box and it will take you to the forum)

There you have it folks and don't forget, you hear it here! Congratuations Rene. I will come over later tonight for your first bible study "understanding genesis". Let the brain washing (cleansing) begin.:-)

posted in Evolution/Creation Debate - 4 replies

Oops

2009-10-21T19:36:03Z

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/6274502/God-is-not-the-Creator-claims-academic.html

posted in Evolution/Creation Debate - 7 replies

Church to make posthumous apology to Charles Darwin

2009-10-21T11:42:10Z

"The bold and unusual step by the Church comes on the 200th anniversary of the naturalist's birth.

On a website specially set up to honour Darwin and his hypothesis, the church will admit that its Victorian hierarchy showed too much "anti-evolutionary fervour" when he published the notion in his book, the Origin of Species, in 1858.

The apology has been written by the Rev Dr Malcolm Brown, the church's director of mission and public affairs.

However it has cut little ice with Darwin's descendants. Andrew Darwin, a great-great grandson of the scientist, said: "Why bother? When an apology is made after 200 years, it's not so much to right a wrong, but to make the person or organisation making the apology feel better."

Dr Brown says that the hounding of Darwin was akin to the Roman Catholic church's treatment of astronomer Galileo in the 17th Century. Galileo was prosecuted for his belief that the Earth orbited the sun and ended his life under house arrest from the Inquisition.

His statement will say: "People, and institutions, make mistakes and Christian people and Churches are no exception. When a big new idea emerges that changes the way people look at the world, it's easy to feel that every old idea, every certainty, is under attack and then to do battle against the new insights.

"The Church made that mistake with Galileo's astronomy and has since realised its error. Some Church people did it again in the 1860s with Charles Darwin's theory of natural selection.

"So it is important to think again about Darwin's impact on religious thinking, then and now."

The apology, 126 years after Darwin's death was yesterday branded "pointless" by the naturalist's own family."

Glad to see the church is finally moving on from this pointless debate. Sorry Dan looks like the rest of the world is starting to abandon American Christians.

Found this with that article along with this one.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/6309792/God-creation-science-religion-the-conflicts.html

posted in Evolution/Creation Debate - 3 replies

Evolution abandoned!

2009-10-11T18:30:08Z

A committed teacher of evolutionary anthropology at a major secular university (Wisconsin State) until 1975, Dr Neil Huber, of Washington State, USA, is now a whole-hearted creationist. A committed Christian by 1981, by 1990 he had come to accept the literal Genesis viewpoint. ‘I grew up in total ignorance of the Bible’, he says. ‘I knew about Christ from school plays, Christmas, and things of that kind, but my family was very much opposed to Christianity. As my father used to say, we were scientifically enlightened people, and we didn’t believe that stuff any more.’
Dr Neil Huber with his wife Herta.

‘I was enthusiastically teaching evolution at the university, when some of the students challenged me to read the Bible. I was confronted by the historical trustworthiness of the New Testament."

Dr Huber was by no means a creationist at this stage, but he had become concerned about evolutionary theory and the validity of the things he was teaching. ‘I became what you might call a little bit “agnostic” about evolution.’

story continues here: http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v24/i2/abandoned.asp

What I find interesting about this story is that once Dr Huber was converted to Christianity this "evolution expert" was finally able to admit to himself that evolution was baseless. He first became an "agnostic" toward evolution and then an "atheist". Evolution is nothing but a belief system bolstered not be evidence, but rather by blind faith. The antidote for this secular brainwashing? The bible!

"At some point studying the Bible made me start to consider that evolutionary theory abounds with real, recognized problems and there is nothing good about it. It only has deleterious results, and cannot be tested, unlike the theory of electricity or hydrodynamics or anything like that.’

Dr Huber was finally able to admit the obvious to himself, once the need for evolutionary faith to explain existance was abandoned. What about the mountains and mountains of scientific evidence favoring the theory? Surely he is aware of this isn't he?

"‘There are a lot of mistaken views in science. I have held in my own hands originals of some of the most famous of the fossils, like the celebrated Steinheim skull1 and other Mousterian2 fossils. A lot of those bones that have received great emphasis are from, I hate to say it, dubious surroundings. Many of them are in a terribly contorted position or shape and are really ruined and put together in arbitrary ways. Many of them are interpreted erroneously by people who have great authority"

So what is the bottom line according to Dr. Huber?

"‘The whole edifice of evolutionary theory rests on a collection of inferences by scientists, by fallible people, from good observations of phenomena perhaps, but at best circumstantial evidence and often erroneous inferences from the data.’ "

there you have it!

posted in Evolution/Creation Debate - 28 replies

New kind of humans?

2009-10-07T12:55:25Z

So evolution wise there must be a new kind of human either around already or being born son.
( I'm obvisouly not a scientist) But remember back, when there were two kinds of humans , homosapiens and whatever was before us, well did the whatever was before us recognize the homosapiens as a different kind of human. Would we recognixe the new kind that might be alive now? Could I be a new kind of human without knowing it? Would the new kind of human's biology be indistigusihable from ours? Or would it be obvious? Is there any way to know this stuff? Could these people be trapped in some lab somewhere being studied?

posted in Evolution/Creation Debate - 19 replies

Creation Museum

2009-10-06T10:30:43Z

This article describes a visit to the "Creation Museum" by PZ Myers:

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/08/the_creation_museum_1.php

Here are a few quotes from the article:

"This was not a museum: it is a haunted house. It is a carnival ride. It shows throughout in the layout — the rubes are supposed to be shuttled through efficiently, get their little thrills, and exit so the next group can make the trip. If they'd had a few million more, I imagine they would have invested in tracks and little cars and turned it into the Creation Ride."...

"I suppose it works well for the gullible attendees, but for those of us looking for some ideas with which to wrestle, the impression left is one of credulous vacuity. It's an empty "museum", with no real ideas, no evidence, just a collection of props to illustrate an unquestioned myth.

When they do make plain statements that contradict the science, they don't bother to provide a reason to accept their view over the scientific one — reason is the enemy, you may recall. It's enough to simply declare that this is GOD'S WORD, therefore it is true. Never mind that it is only one narrow interpretation of their god's awesomely vague words, that many of their fellow Christians can interpret it differently, or that the evidence of nature (which, presumably, is their god's creation) says something completely different. It is simply no problem to declare that human affinities to other animals are not real, we are unique and unchanging, and that divergence (of a very limited sort) only happens to animals. It is a simple-minded absolutism that relies on ignorance."

"At the Creation "Museum", one of the jobs of the guards is to suppress criticism. They hover about in rather conspicuous uniforms, armed with tasers, and some use police dogs to check out the visitors. They don't want dissent expressed in their building, and they admit it themselves."

posted in Evolution/Creation Debate - 5 replies

The Ultimate Proof for Creation

2009-10-06T10:17:27Z

Many have debated Creation Evolution on this page and countless others for years. It is a constant back and forth of attempts to prove that their position is the correct one. We have talked about the fossil record, genetics, abiogenesis, information science, geology etc.. Evolutionists are sure they are right because more scientists embrace evolution than do creation and they assume this is because the evidence for evolution is "overwhelmingly conclusive". Creationists are sure they are correct because Evolutionists do not have the proof demanded of such a natural "miracle" and because the evidence currently is in favor of special creation when examined fairly (no transitions, no information gaining mutations, sudden explosion of cambrian life of all phyla etc.)

But while some are converted to the other side from time to time, the issue is largely a stalemate. However there is an ultimate proof for creation which settles the matter once and for all. Of course, this doesn't mean everyone is going to embrace it, after all, this is an issue ultimately about completely world views, beliefs about the past. But any position which is not self consistant, or must borrow from the other side in order to advance their view, is necessarily invalid.

So the Ultimate Proof for Creation is this:

If Creation were not true, we could not know anything at all!

How is that you say? Simple, Biblical six day creationism is the world view which posits an orderly universe created by a sentient being, God. The universe makes sense because God is a thinking rational being. Universal laws of logic follow from this world view as do laws of science. If evolution were true, our minds would be the product of blind chance mutations and it would be impossible to know what reality is or whether we could even trust our senses at all. There would be no reason for Universal Laws of logic or any explanation as to why they would exists at all. So the evolutionist must borrow from the creation world view in order to advance the evolutionary world view. This is illogical and untenable. Evolution must be wrong! It's world view does not hold up logically.

posted in Evolution/Creation Debate - 50 replies

Darwin Was Wrong

2009-10-03T07:41:59Z

Yep. And like all good scientists, he would have been proud to be.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704471504574449012560741086.html

Kind of comforting.

posted in Evolution/Creation Debate - 0 replies

Acceptable lines of evidence in science

2009-08-26T19:25:59Z

Frequently, the debate over the validity of a subject distills down to the validity of the accepted evidence. There seem to be two lines of thought on this:

1) The only acceptable evidence is that which can be observed while occurring, and can be repeated.
2) When option 1 is limited or unavailable, or additional data is sought, we can provisionally accept less rigorous sources.

For example: We cannot directly observe the changes in star birth as the elemental mix of the universe has changed over time under the repeatable and controlled laboratory conditions described in option 1. We can, however, follow option 2, observing the past in a limited way, and drawing provisional theories from this evidence. We may refine these theories as more evidence is gathered, and as other fields of science mesh with our theory, perhaps developing a model utilizing physics predicting what we might additionally observe, and then finding the results to be true. We may even test parts of this theory under option 1 conditions to bolster our line of evidence.

We do not consider research into star birth invalid, simply because we cannot shoehorn the subject into the same category as simple chemistry. Like all theories, using either or both lines of evidence, our theory will be provisional, likely to be refined over time as new evidence arises.

As a theory ages, it becomes more robust when it more deeply meshes with other sciences. Though parts of the theory may be refuted, or refined, or not yet fully understood, the whole will stand until some competing theory explains the data with more precision and predictability. Proving that there are limits or shortcomings in a theory does not invalidate it, and certainly does not endow a different theory with automatic validation, as reality is not necessarily an either-or proposition.

In conclusion, both option 1 and option 2 are considered valid lines of evidence. Option 1 may carry more immediate weight than 2, but either may subsequently prove flawed or misunderstood, so either is still provisional, just as all scientific theories are. Even the theory of gravity, a force we do not fully comprehend, is provisional and subject to possible future amendment. The theory of evolution is no different in this respect, and both stand until better explanations arise.

posted in Evolution/Creation Debate - 2 replies

Interesting Article

2009-08-24T19:44:18Z

I found a lot of food for thought in this article:

http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org/controversies/Dace_evolution.htm

Anyone following the evolution/creation debate should find it interesting.

posted in Evolution/Creation Debate - 0 replies

Noah's Flood: Washing Away Millions of Years

2009-08-20T23:18:38Z

Evolutionists have taken a one year world wide flood event and extrapolated this into millions of years to create the evolution myth. The geologic column myth is now believed by almost everyone. Most Christians have no embraced the lie as well. This video explains why the biblical flood was universal and catastrophic. No other interpretation is possible without doing an injustice to the text:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/media/video/ondemand/washing-away-moy/washing-away-moy

posted in Evolution/Creation Debate - 34 replies

Creationist Argument #1: Evolution is a theory and only a theory. It is not a fact nor is it a scientific law.

2009-08-10T23:41:27Z

The introduction of Charles Darwin's theory of evolution through natural selection 150 years ago gave rise to a scientific, cultural and ecumenical debates the likes of which had not been seen before. With the amassing of irrefutable evidence by many branches of the scientific community the debate within it has gradually subsided and the fields fields of zoology, biology, ecology, geology, genetics and a host of other scientific disciplines have concluded beyond reasonable doubt the validity of the theory. The dust has all but cleared and the war won except perhaps, where it matters most -the public arena.

Sadly at the beginning of the twenty first century, creationists still exert persuasive political clout on politicians, businesses, the judiciary, schools, and the citizenry that evolution is a flawed, crippled idea fueled by a wicked, secular agenda. They lobby fiercely for creationism and its bastard child intelligent design to be taught as credible alternatives to evolution in classroom science curricula.

The wedge arguments that creationists use are typically specious and based on misunderstandings, re-interpretations of (or outright lies about) evolution,

Some of the most common "scientific" arguments raised against evolution are often (and predictably) repeated in public forums, news programs, interviews, religiously funded programs, and yes, even in the courts.

This thread represents an attempt to shine the light on some of the current arguments that adherents to creationism use to cloud the facts, avoid the issues and sidestep the conventional(and overwhelming) scientific canon that has been assemble on the subject over the last 150 years since Darwin's brilliant idea came to the fore.

Creationist Argument #1: Evolution is a theory and only a theory. It is not a fact nor is it a scientific law.

What *is* a theory? What *is* a scientific law? Are they mutually exclusive? What traits do they share? What separates the two?

Comments?

posted in Evolution/Creation Debate - 5 replies

Too Cool Not To Share

2009-08-10T19:06:32Z

I just had to pass this along. While some will take it the wrong way I just thought it was a fabulous example of the self correcting nature of science.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20090727/sc_livescience/oldestanimalfossilsfoundinlakesnotoceans

posted in Evolution/Creation Debate - 8 replies

Dinosaurs coexisted with Man - Here's the Proof!

2009-08-05T15:03:07Z

This article offers numerous evidences of dinosaur man coexistence refuting the evolutionist claim that Dinosaurs existed “millions and millions of years before man and higher mammals. My opponents will of course reject this evidence out of hand as “unscientific”, “myths”, “from a biased source” etc. . They are not interested in the truth, and probably unable to discern it if they see it. Yet an honest reader will be surprised that such overwhelming evidence exists and wonder why this information has been withheld from them by public education, media, textbooks, teachers and professors. The bible teaches that man and dinosaurs were created on day 6, along with all other land dwelling mammals. It also describes a great flood which swept over the world and the world that then was, perished. The fossils we now see in the rocks are largely deposits from this flood, not depositions over millions of years, but rather over a single year.
The full article with pictures can be found here: www.apologeticspress.org/articles/15
An article in the January 1993 National Geographic boldly proclaimed: “No human being has ever seen a live dinosaur” (“Age of the Dinosaurs,” 1993, 183[1]:142). The evidence, however, reveals an entirely different story. Consider the following:
The Doheny Expedition
In the late 1800s, Samuel Hubbard, honorary curator of archaeology at the Oakland, California, Museum of Natural History, was excavating ancient Indian dwellings in the Hava Supai Canyon in Arizona. On the walls of the canyon where the Indians’ ancestors once lived, Dr. Hubbard found elegant drawings of an elephant, an ibex, a dinosaur, and other animals. He stated concerning the dinosaur drawing: “Taken all in all, the proportions are good.” He further suggested that the huge reptile is “depicted in the attitude in which man would be most likely to see it—reared on its hind legs, balancing with the long tail, either feeding or in fighting position, possibly defending itself against a party of men” (as quoted in Verrill, 1954, pp. 155ff.). Dr. Hubbard also noted:
The fact that some prehistoric man made a pictograph of a dinosaur on the walls of this canyon upsets completely all of our theories regarding the antiquity of man.... The fact that the animal is upright and balanced on its tail would seem to indicate that the prehistoric artist must have seen it alive (1925, pp. 5,7, emp. in orig.).
Nearby, Dr. Hubbard and his team of archaeologists discovered dinosaur tracks preserved in strata identified as Triassic—alleged by evolutionists to be more than 165 million years old. Question: How could Indians have known how to draw such a perfect picture of an animal (the dinosaur) that they never had seen (or had described to them by someone who had seen it)?
According to the belief commonly held by evolutionists, no advanced mammals were present during the “age of the dinosaurs.” Artists’ reconstructions generally show the huge reptiles living in swamps, surrounded only by other species of dinosaurs. The late evolutionary paleontologist George Gaylord Simpson suggested that the only mammals that had evolved up to that point in time (even at the very end of the Cretaceous period) were supposedly “small, mostly about mouse-sized, and rare” (Simpson, et al., 1957, p. 797). In his book, Wonderful Life: The Burgess Shale and the Nature of History, Stephen J. Gould addressed the same issue when he wrote:
Mammals evolved at the end of the Triassic, at the same time as dinosaurs, or just a tad later. Mammals spent their first hundred million years—two-thirds of their total history—as small creatures living in the nooks and crannies of a dinosaur’s world. Their sixty million years of success following the demise of the dinosaurs has been something of an afterthought (1989, p. 318).
It thus is completely unthinkable, in evolutionary terms, that dinosaurs and advanced mammals (like elephants or giraffes) could have co-existed. Again, however, Dr. Hubbard’s discoveries have “thrown a monkey wrench” into the evolutionary timescale.
However, a discovery reported in the January 13, 2005, issue of Nature challenged everything evolutionists have ever maintained regarding dinosaurs and mammals. The Associated Press reported: “Villagers digging in China’s rich fossil beds have uncovered the preserved remains of a tiny dinosaur in the belly of a mammal, a startling discovery for scientists who have long believed early mammals couldn’t possibly attack and eat a dinosaur” (Verrengia, 2005). Not only do we now have additional proof of mammals coexisting with dinosaurs, but we also have scientific evidence of a large mammal eating a dinosaur! The authors discovered the fossil remains of two different mammals. One was 50% larger than previous mammal fossils that were considered to be living with the dinosaurs, and was named Repenomamus giganticus. The other, Repenomamus robustus was fully intact—and had a dinosaur in its stomach. Yaoming Hu and his colleagues noted:
During preparation of the specimen a patch of small bones was revealed within the ribcage, on the ventral sides of the posterior left thoracic ribs and vertebrae, where the stomach is positioned in extant mammals. Unduplicated dentition [teeth—BH], limb bones and phalanges [bones of the toes or “fingers”—] in the patch confirm that these bones belong to a juvenile individual of Psittacosaurus, an herbivorous dinosaur that is common in Jehol Biota. The serrated teeth in the patched skeleton are typical of juvenile Psittacosaurus. The skull and most of the skeleton of the juvenile Psittacosaurus are broken, disarticulated and displaced, in contrast to the preservation of the R. robustus skeleton, which is essentially in its original anatomical relation. Although fragmentary, the bones of the Psittacosaurus are packed in a restricted area. These conditions indicate that the juvenile skeleton of Psittacosaurus is the remaining stomach contents of the mammal (Hu, et al., 2005, 433:151).
To complicate matters, researchers reported in the April 18, 2002 issue of Nature, one of the premier science journals in the world, that they now have determined that the “last common ancestor of extant primates” existed (as dated by evolutionary dating methods) 85 million years ago (Tavaré, et al., 2002). Since dinosaurs are supposed to have died out 65 million years ago, that means the primate would have lived with the dinosaurs for at least 20 million years. One of the co-authors of the Nature paper, Christophe Soligo of London’s Natural History Museum, stated in regard to the find: “What we demonstrate is that modern orders of mammals appeared well before dinosaurs disappeared...” (see “Primate Ancestor Lived with Dinos,” 2002). So much for the belief that mammals evolved “just a tad later” than the dinosaurs.
Ica Burial Stones
Javier Cabrera Darquea came into possession of his first burial stone (from the Ica section of the country of Peru) when he was given one as a paperweight for his birthday. Ironically, he could recall his own father also possessing similar oddly carved stones that his family found in their fields in the 1930s. Dr. Darquea sought out the origin of his unique gift, in an effort to amass a collection of these unique stones, and eventually assembled over 11,000 of them. The rocks turned out to be ancient burial stones that the Inca Indians placed with their dead. Almost one-third of the stones depicted specific types of dinosaurs (such as Triceratops and Stegosaurus) and various pterosaurs. The type of art form represented by these stones, and their location, dated them to the time of the Inca Culture, c. A.D. 500-1500. How could these ancient Indians have known the anatomy of these creatures if they never had witnessed them firsthand?

Validation of these stones comes from a full understanding of their history. In the 1570s, the Indian historian and chronicler of the Incas, Juan de Santa Cruz Llamgui, wrote about the engraved stones. He noted that Conquistadors had taken some of the stones back to Spain, and wrote that at the time of the Inca Pachachuti, many carved stones had been found in the kingdom of Chinca, in Chinchayunga. On October 3, 1993, the OJO, Lima Domingo, a major newspaper based in Lima, Peru, reported a Spanish priest traveling in the area of Ica in 1525, inquiring about the unusual stones that had strange animals carved on them. These reports verify that the stones were in existence long before those discovered by Dr. Darquea. Since that time, other investigators have had the opportunity to observe stones in Nasca tombs, as well as to inspect the entire Darquea collection.
Interestingly, several Diplodocus-like dinosaurs on the stones have what appear to be dermal frills—something never previously reported by scientists. In 1992, however, dermal frills were found during an examination of fossilized remains of sauropods. In an article titled “New Look for Sauropod Dinosaurs,” paleontologist Stephen Czerkas noted:
Recent discovery of fossilized sauropod (diplodocid) skin impressions reveals a significantly different appearance for these dinosaurs. The fossilized skin demonstrates that a median row of [dermal] spines was present.... Some are quite narrow, and others are broader and more conical (1992, 20:1068).
Also, the skin of many of the carved dinosaurs resembled bumpy rosettes. For many years, scientists pointed to this as proof that these stones were not scientifically accurate. However, more recent discoveries of fossilized dinosaur skin and embryos have silenced the critics. In more than one report, these bumpy rosettes have been identified and discussed. In fact, one of the discoveries comes from the same continent as the Ica burial stones. Luis Chiappe and colleagues discussed sauropod dinosaur embryos, noting:
The general skin pattern consists of round, non-overlapping, tubercle-like scales.... A rosette pattern of scales is present in PVPH-130 [designation for one of the specimens—BH/BT] (Chiappe, et al., 1998, 396:259).
Again, we must ask: How could the Incas have drawn such accurate pictures of dinosaurs if they never had seen the animals (or had them described by someone who had seen them)? [For a discussion of Dr. Darquea’s research, see Swift, 1997].
Natural Bridges National Monument Petroglyph
Natural Bridges National Monument is located in a desolate area in southeastern Utah. Visitors to this site will see where the White River has carved meandering paths through the sandstone rock. Three natural bridges have formed where these wandering streams have undercut the above rock formations: Sipapu Bridge (the second largest natural bridge in the world); Kachina Bridge; and Owachomo Bridge. It is at Kachina Bridge where an Indian petroglyph depicting a dinosaur was discovered. In fact, visitors to the site can see three or four drawings that appear to be dinosaur-like creatures. Francis Barnes, an evolutionist and widely recognized authority on rock art of the American Southwest, had this to say about this find just outside of Blanding, Utah:
There is a petroglyph in Natural Bridges National Monument that bears a startling resemblance to a dinosaur, specifically a Brontosaurus, with long tail and neck, small head and all. In the San Rafael Swell, there is a pictograph that looks very much like a pterosaur, a Cretaceous flying reptile. The artists who created this “pterosaur,” and the “dinosaur,” could of course, have been trying to portray some other real or imagined creatures. But what about other animals seen on rock art panels, such as “impalas,” “ostriches,” “mammoths” and others that either are long extinct in the western hemisphere or were never here at all? Such anomalous rock art figures can be explained away, but they still tend to cast doubt upon the admittedly flimsy relative-time age-dating schemes used by archaeologists (Barnes and Pendleton, 1979, pp. 201-202).
If National Geographic is correct in stating that “no human being has ever seen a live dinosaur,” then whence came the models for these petroglyphs?
The Acambaro Figurines
On a bright and sunny morning in July 1944, Waldemar Julsrud, a German merchant in Acambaro, Mexico, found himself riding on horseback on the lower slope of El Toro (The Bull) Mountain. From his elevated vantage point, Mr. Julsrud spotted some partially exposed, hewn stones and a ceramic object half buried in the dirt. After climbing off his horse, he dug the stones (and a few ceramic pieces) out of the ground. Being somewhat archaeologically astute, Julsrud immediately realized that these artifacts were unlike anything that he had ever seen. The objects he held in his hand seemed distinctively different than those from other known Indian cultures. He eventually worked out a deal with a local farmer to excavate these precious pieces.
Eventually, over 33,500 figurines and artifacts of ceramic and stone (including some in jade) were uncovered. A key feature of this discovery was the fact that many of the artifacts were highly detailed dinosaur figurines. Charles Hapgood, a professor of history and anthropology at Keene State College (of the University of New Hampshire), became interested in the figurines and decided to investigate firsthand. Initially, Hapgood was a self-confessed (but open-minded) skeptic. However, after witnessing the excavations (even going so far as to dictate specific locations for the workers doing the digging), and after examining the figurines personally, he became a believer. He made his first visit to Acambaro in 1955, returned on numerous occasions, and eventually authored a book about his eighteen years of research into the figurines (see Hapgood, 2000). Consider the following measures, enacted to establish the authenticity of the Acambaro collection:
When Teledynes Isotopes laboratories performed dating tests on the carbon deposited during firing on ceramic samples submitted by Hapgood, dates of up to 4530 B.C. obtained. Arthur M. Young, the inventor of the Bell Helicopter, who had sponsored Hapgood’s investigation along with [Erle Stanley] Gardner [author of the Perry Mason mysteries—BH/BT], submitted Julsrud artifact samples [i.e., the Acambaro figurines—BH/BT] to the University of Pennsylvania for dating. Radiocarbon dating performed by Dr. Froelich Rainey in the laboratories of the University indicated that this culture may have been developed between 6,400 and 3,500 years ago. Additional tests using thermoluminescence method of dating pottery were performed. They produced dates of up to 4,500 B.P. (Before Present), or 2500 B.C., which upset the professional archaeologists and set off within the scientific and museum world a controversy over the accuracy of thermoluminescence dating. Retesting was done, and it was announced that because of anomalous factors in the clays it was impossible to determine an accurate date (Hapgood, p. 17).
According to David Childress, who penned the foreword to Hapgood’s book, the most recent thermoluminescence testing done on Acambaro pottery fragments (taken by Bill Cote and John H. Tierney during the filming of the video, Jurassic Art, in the early 1990s) obtained results of 3,975±55 B.P. (Hapgood, p. 18). Consider also the fact that teeth from an extinct ice-age horse, the skeleton of a woolly mammoth, and a number of human skulls also were found at the same site as the ceramic artifacts. Hapgood noted: “I later took these teeth to Dr. George Gaylord Simpson, America’s leading paleontologist, at the Museum of Natural History. He identified them as the teeth of Equus conversidans owen, an extinct horse of the ice age” (p. 82). Thus, the collection had evidence of extinct animals, human skulls, and dinosaur carvings from the same culture of people. But how could this be?
In 1999, Dennis Swift (who also was personally acquainted with Javier Darquea of Peru) made a trip to view the figurines. After receiving permission from the local authorities, he began to unwrap the ceramic figures. Dr. Swift noted:
There was an absolutely astonishing moment of breathless magnitude as one object was unwrapped and there before us was an Iguanodon dinosaur figurine. [For documentation on the Iguanodon discovery to which Swift alluded, see The Dinosaur Encyclopedia (Michael Benton, 1992, New York: Simon & Schuster, p. 80).]

Childress went on to note in an article titled “In Search of Sea Monsters”:
Adding to the mind-boggling aspects of this controversy is the fact that the Instituto Nacional de Antropologia e Historia through the late Director of Prehispanic Monuments, Dr. Eduardo Noguera, admitted “the apparent scientific legality with which these objects were found.” Despite evidence of their own eyes, however, officials declared that because of the objects’ “fantastic” nature, they had to have been a hoax! (no date).
This archaeological “hoax” presents insoluble problems for evolutionists. As Childress put it, “Most ‘respectable’ archaeologists will walk around the Acambaro mystery as if it were a land mine. The very existence of the figurines threatens the ivory tower of the current paradigm of history” (as quoted in Hapgood, 2000, p. 20).
Dinosaur Bones Only Thousands of Years Old?

In 1990, samples of various dinosaur bones were submitted for Carbon-14 dating to the University of Arizona’s department of geosciences’ laboratory of isotope geochemistry. Bones from an Allosaurus and an Acrocanthosaurus were among those sent to the university’s testing facilities to undergo a “blind” dating procedure (which means that the technicians performing the tests did not know that the bones had come from dinosaurs). Not realizing that the samples were from dinosaurs prevented “evolutionary bias,” and helped ensure that the results were as accurate as possible (within the recognized assumptions and limits of the C-14 dating method). We have in our possession—on the official stationery of the University of Arizona—a copy of the test results for the Allosaurus bones (see reproduction at right, sample B). Amazingly, the oldest C-14 date assigned to those bones was a mere 16,120 years (and only 23,760 years for the Acrocanthosaurus fossils; see Dahmer, et al., 1990). Both dates are a far cry from the millions of years that evolutionists suggest should be assigned to dinosaur fossils.
The Monster of Troy
The February 26, 2000 issue of Science News contained an article that diligently attempted to defuse a potential bomb within the evolutionary camp (Hesman, 2000). Sitting inside the Boston Museum of Fine Arts is an ancient Greek vase. This vase is covered by a series of somewhat unusual paintings, including one that is bewildering to both archaeologists and evolutionists. The vase portrays a monster that possesses the head of a dinosaur. And, to make matters worse, the images on the vase depict men and dinosaurs as coexisting.
Known as the Hesione vase, this elegant potteryware was created around 550 B.C., and depicts the Greek hero Heracles rescuing Hesione from the monster of Troy. The tale of the monster was first told by Homer in the eighth century B.C. In this legend, a terrifying monster suddenly appeared on the Trojan coast after a flood, and began preying on the farmers in the neighborhood of Sigeum. The king’s daughter, Hesione, was sent to be offered as a sacrifice to the monster, but according to the legend, Heracles arrived in time to kill it. The painting on the vase shows Hesione and Heracles battling the monster, with Hesione tossing rocks at it, and Heracles shooting arrows. You can understand the obvious plight of evolutionists when confronted with such imagery. Thus, in an effort to “explain” this artwork in light of evolutionary timescales, the editors of Science News concluded that the paintings on this unusual vase simply prove that ancient people dug fossils, too. They believe that this painting was the end result of fossils—possibly of an extinct giraffe—that were dug up thousands of years ago. What’s that old saying? If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it’s probably a—giraffe?
Human Footprints with Dinosaur Tracks?
Consider also that in 1983, researchers reported in the science and engineering news section of The Moscow News that they had discovered what appeared to be a human footprint in 150-million-year-old Jurassic rock, next to a giant, three-toed dinosaur footprint. The article stated:
This spring, an expedition from the Institute of Geology of the Turkmen SSR Academy of Sciences found over 1,500 tracks left by dinosaurs in the mountains in the southeast of the Republic [Turkmen Republic—BH/BT]. Impressions resembling in shape a human footprint were discovered next to the tracks of prehistoric animals (see “Tracking Dinosaurs,” 1983, 24:10).
Naturally, this report has received precious little attention, given the mindset of evolutionists.
Historical Records of Flying Reptiles
Additional evidence for the coexistence of humans and dinosaurs is derived from various ancient writings. For instance, the largest creature ever known to have soared in the skies above the Earth was a pterosaur identified as Quetzalcoatlus (KWET-zal-COAT-lus). The fossil bones of one of these flying reptiles were unearthed in 1972 at Big Bend National Park in Texas. This Quetzalcoatlus had a wingspan of 48 feet (which is longer than some small airplanes!). While these giant birds are not classified scientifically as dinosaurs (since they are not strictly land-dwelling creatures, as dinosaurs were, by definition), they often are lumped into a group of animals known as “dinosaur-like” creatures. Notice the following quotation taken from Herodotus, a Greek historian from the fifth century B.C., who wrote:
There is a place in Arabia...to which I went, on hearing of some winged serpents; and when I arrived there, I saw bones and spines of serpents, in such quantities as it would be impossible to describe. The form of the serpent is like that of a water-snake; but he has wings without feathers, and as like as possible to the wings of a bat (1850, pp. 75-76, emp. added).
Herodotus knew of flying reptiles, and recognized that these creatures were neither birds, mammals, nor insects—but reptiles with wings. Notice also what the Jewish historian Josephus wrote 2,000 years ago about Moses and his army having a difficult time passing through a particular region because of the presence of flying serpents.
When the ground was difficult to be passed over, because of the multitude of serpents (which it produces in vast numbers...some of which ascend out of the ground unseen, and also fly in the air, and do come upon men at unawares, and do them a mischief)....
[Moses] made baskets like unto arks, of sedge, and filled them with ibes [i.e., birds], and carried them along with them; which animal is the greatest enemy to serpents imaginable, for they fly from them when they come near them; and as they fly they are caught and devoured by them (n.d., 2:10:2, emp. added).
Although these two historians do not mention the extremely large flying reptiles, they do record that snake-like winged creatures, which could fly, did live in the distant past. These reports are consistent with findings that A.H. Verrill reported in 1954 in his book, Strange Prehistoric Animals and Their Stories.
Primitive man, finding a fossil pterodactyl, might assume that the skeleton was that of some strange winged monster which still existed. Being totally ignorant of fossils and geology, an Indian or any other savage or semi-savage human being would never suspect that the bones had been reserved in rock for millions of years. Neither would it be possible for such primitive men to reconstruct mentally the creature as they appeared in life.... It is of course, inconceivable that the Cocle potter had first-hand knowledge of a living pterodactyl, ancient as the pottery is; yet had he been as familiar with the flying monsters as he was with pelicans and jaguars, he could not have depicted them more strikingly and accurately. Not only do the drawings show beak-like jaws armed with sharp teeth, but in addition the wings with two curved claws are depicted. Included also are the short, pointed tail, the reptilian head crest or appendages, and the strong hind feet with five-clawed toes on each (1954, pp. 55,57-58).
Obviously, the scientific evidence for the coexistence of dinosaurs and man speaks loudly, and yet it continues to fall on deaf ears within the evolutionary community. That silence, however, does little to change the documented facts, as we now know them.
CONCLUSION
Contrary to popular opinion, dinosaurs do not present a problem for creationists. In fact, quite the opposite is true. It is evolutionists who have a problem. While they continue to maintain, as the late paleontologist Roland T. Bird of the American Museum of Natural History once put it, that “no man had ever existed in the age of the reptiles” (1939, 43[5]:257), the evidence documents exactly the opposite.
The Mosaic record of the Creation is inexhaustively sublime. In it, we learn of the creation of the heavens and the Earth by an Almighty God. By divine fiat, light was formed and atmosphere was wrapped around this planet. Great seas were gathered together, and separated from dry land. The world of botany miraculously bloomed, and lights burst forth in the heavens. The waters swarmed with living creatures, and birds soared through the pristine air. Varieties of domestic animals and beasts were created and finally, man, the zenith of God’s creation, stood proudly upon the Earth’s bosom.
The dinosaur—one of the most majestic of God’s creatures—stood with man. No doubt they pondered each other’s existence. Today, we still stand amazed at these awesome giants. And as we do, their presence in the past should remind us of the magnificence of the God Who was able to speak them into existence by “the word of His power” (Hebrews 1:3). Awesome creatures—from the hand of an awesome Creator.
REFERENCES
“Age of the Dinosaurs” (1993), National Geographic, 183[1]:142, January.
Bakker, Robert T. (1986), The Dinosaur Heresies (New York: William Morrow).
Barnes F.A., and Michaelene Pendleton (1979), Canyon Country Prehistoric Indians: Their Cultures, Ruins, Artifacts and Rock Art (Salt Lake City, NV: Wasatch Publishers).
Bird, Roland T. (1939), “Thunder in His Footsteps,” Natural History, 43[5]:254-261, May.
Chiappe, Luis M., Rodolfo Coria, et al. (1998), “Sauropod Dinosaur Embryos from the Late Cretaceous of Patagonia,” Nature, 396:258-261, November 19.
Childress, David H. (no date), “In Search of Sea Monsters,” World Explorer, vol. 1 no. 7, [On-line], URL: www.wexclub.com/BackIssues/WEX7.html.
Clayton, John N. (1968a), “The History of Man on Planet Earth,” Does God Exist? Correspondence Course, Lesson 8.
Clayton, John N. (1968b), Teacher’s Manual, Does God Exist? Correspondence Course.
Clayton, John N. (1977), “Dinosaurs and the Bible,” Evidences of God, Volume I (South Bend, IN: Privately published by the author), pp. 149-151.
Clayton, John N. (1982), “Where Are the Dinosaurs?,” Does God Exist?, 9[10]:2-6, October.
Czerkas, Stephen (1992), “New Look for Sauropod Dinosaurs,” Geology, 20:1068-1070.
Dahmer, Lionel, D. Kouznetsov, et al. (1990), “Report on Chemical Analysis and Further Dating of Dinosaur Bones and Dinosaur Petroglyphs,” Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Creationism, ed. Robert E. Walsh and Christopher L. Brooks (Pittsburgh, PA: Creation Science Fellowship), pp. 371-374.
Gould, Stephen Jay (1989), Wonderful Life: The Burgess Shale and the Nature of History (New York: W.W. Norton).
Hapgood, Charles (2000), Mystery in Acambaro (Kempton, IL: Adventures Unlimited Press).
Herodotus, (1850 reprint), Historiae, trans. Henry Clay (London: Henry G. Bohn).
Hesman, T. (2000), “Vase Shows that Ancients Dug Fossils, Too,” Science News, 157:133, February 26.
Hu, Yaoming, Jin Meng, Yuanqing Wang, and Chuankui Li (2005), “Large Mesozoic Mammals Fed on Young Dinosaurs,” Nature, 433:149-152, January 13.
Hubbard, Samuel (1925), Discoveries Relating to Prehistoric Man by the Doheny Scientific Expedition (Oakland, CA: Oakland Museum of Natural History).
Josephus, Flavius (no date), Antiquities of the Jews (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, reprint).
Morris, Henry M. (1984), The Biblical Basis for Modern Science (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).
“Primate Ancestor Lived with Dinos” (2002), [On-line], URL: news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english...935558.stm.
Simpson, George Gaylord, C.S. Pittendrigh, and L.H. Tiffany (1957), Life: An Introduction to Biology (New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company).
Swift, Dennis (1997), “Messages on Stone,” Creation Ex Nihilo, 19[2]:20-23, March-May.
Swift, Dennis (no date), “The Dinosaurs of Acambaro,” [On-line], URL: www.omniology.com/3-Ceramic-Dinos.html.
Tavaré, Simon, C.R. Marshall, et al. (2002), “Using the Fossil Record to Estimate the Age of the Last Common Ancestor of Extant Primates,” Nature, 416:726-729, April 18.
“Tracking Dinosaurs” (1983), Moscow News, 24:10.
Verrengia, Joseph B. (2005), “Fossils Show a Mammal Turned Tables, Devoured Dinosaur for Last Meal,” [On-line], URL: www.cp.org/english/onli...011204A.html.
Verrill, A.H. (1954), Strange Prehistoric Animals and Their History (Boston, MA: L.C. Page).
Wilson, Edward O. (1982), “Toward a Humanistic Biology,” The Humanist, September/October.

posted in Evolution/Creation Debate - 32 replies

For Badger

2009-08-01T06:34:02Z

This thread is for Badger. We need it so that he can cheer on his evolutionist heroes, Grim and Rene.
Go Grim
Go Rene
Horray, Horray

I will see about getting you a pretty dress and some pom poms you loser.

posted in Evolution/Creation Debate - 5 replies

Women are so hot!

2009-07-28T19:26:24Z

No doubt. Of course, studies like this are only anecdotal. In Australia, where quick and dirty genetics testing kits are available over the counter... "Here son, let me have a sample of you tongue on this depresser" and into the mail it goes for $25. Hahaha. I suggest everybody Google "Sneaky Fucker" and see what comes up.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article6727710.ece

Still, women are aesthetically more pleasing, none the less.

posted in Evolution/Creation Debate - 0 replies

Probability and information gain

2009-07-24T22:20:12Z

Both the theory of evolution, and the theory of abiogenesis concern themselves (in part, though not wholly) with the probability of information gain, though in different capacities.

Evolution presupposes a simple code sequence, capable of self replication and possible mutation. From this basic starting point, there are theories describing different replication "errors," an error being anything other than a perfect copy. Errors may take many forms:

1) There may be a single substitution, where one bit of code information is exchanged for another.
2) There may be deletions of one or more bits of information.
3) There may be duplications of any portion of the code, from a single bit to the entire sequence, spliced into, or attached to the end of, the previous sequence.
4) There may be inclusions of code from an outside source, from a single bit to an entire sequence, spliced into, or attached to the end of, the previous sequence. This presupposes compatible sequences of differing codes.
A) The results of one part of the code may effect the expression of other parts.

Examples of mechanisms by which errors occur on modern codes are known. Highly probable examples may be found as evidence of these mechanisms functioning in the past. (if I were to find a chapter of shakespeare in the middle of an orwell novel, even with a few misspellings here and there, I could assign a probability to the fact that this is an inclusion, and possibly even where it came from, and I could also assign a probability having found the doubling of a chapter within a book) Note that it is possible for information to be gained, lost, or changed by these errors happening in sequence. Note that both examples of high statistical probability, and observed examples are both accepted as evidence. Note also that, as the required sequence of events increases, the less likely it is to be directly observed, but that this does not detract from that sequence's probability. (as an example, if I suggest an exact random sequence for a shuffled deck of cards, the larger the number of cards that I specify, the less likely that I may observe it within a set amount of experimental observation, but this in no way limits the possibility of that sequence arising given more time than a human observer can or will spare)

Abiogenesis is a less robust theory, but it has advanced in leaps and bounds in recent years. Abiogenesis is the theory that a simple replicator has a statistical chance of randomly occurring given a set of materials and circumstances theorized to be available on the early Earth, within an amount of time bounded by the habitability of the environment of the newly formed Earth, and the earliest fossil evidence of simple life. (which is a surprisingly short span) Further, the theory of abiogenesis requires that this replicator must be capable of mutation, at which point the result is handed to the theory of evolution. This is truly the statistical leap that opponents often level at evolution, though such criticism should instead be leveled at the theory of abiogenesis.

One misunderstanding of abiogenesis is to suppose that a simple replicator must posses the complexity of a modern cell. This is simply not so. Laboratory research has demonstrated that replicators may be very simple bits of coded chemical chains such as RNA. Still improbable, but far less than the astronomical improbability of a full cell spontaneously generating.

In conclusion, the theory of abiogenesis addresses the formation of a replicating sequence, an encoded chain of chemicals capable of replication error, and the theory of evolution addresses the results of competition among differing code sequences.

An explanation of molecules to man requires both of these theories in sequence.

posted in Evolution/Creation Debate - 14 replies

Kind of Sad

2009-07-24T17:45:14Z

I find it hilarious when I hear Creationist wackjobs talking about how evolution makes no sense, and how nobody has ever witnessed it, so it can't be real. (Apparently "god" hangs out with Creationists every other Saturday to see a movie)

You can taste the hypocrisy in the air.

Even with some much evidence against them, they still refuse to believe in Evolution, because of faith in "god", even to the point where their arguments make no sense whatsoever. They just continue to delude themselves.

Normally, I don't care that much about it, but when some nutjob comes storming into my school because we are teaching evolution and screws around with OUR curriculum, thats where I draw the line.

posted in Evolution/Creation Debate - 31 replies

Dr. Jonathan Miller

2009-06-16T20:47:01Z

For some of the more enlightened reads here I wanted to pass on the name of someone well worth considering when discussing the myriad social issues surrounding the current 'debate' over evolution.

Miller, a neurosurgeon, world famous opera producer, Shakespearean scholar and comedian is also an an avowed atheist.who in 2004 generated quite a bit of a buzz with his BBC show entitled Atheism: A Rough History of Disbelief (available on YouTube). Lest I get off topic speaking of atheism in this Tribe I'll note that in the program Miller interviews evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins. Dawkins in talking about atheism (and religion) makes some exceptional observations and segues nicely the subject (atheism) with creationists and their inability to conceptually accept (or come to terms with) the science in spite of the overwhelming evidence of it.

For those interested I highly recommend this relatively short segment in order to get a taste of this man's titanic, razor-sharp intellect as he discusses the subject with Dawkins.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T1bo_rNpJAc

posted in Evolution/Creation Debate - 1 reply

Carl Sagan On Evolution

2009-06-04T23:06:07Z

He had such a wonderful way of explaining things. I do miss him.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Q55z6EsL8M

posted in Evolution/Creation Debate - 4 replies

MODERATOR

2009-04-08T16:32:25Z

is anyone interested ?

it is time to clean house.

posted in Evolution/Creation Debate - 13 replies

The Atheist Problem with Females

2009-02-27T13:05:48Z

All animals, all fish and reptiles have the ability to reproduce of their own kind
because they have females within the species. No male can reproduce and keep its
kind alive without a female of the same species. Dogs, cats, horses, cattle, elephants,
humans, giraffes, lions, tigers, birds, fish, and reptiles all came into being having both
male and female. If any species came into existence without a mature female present
(with complimentary female components), that one male would have remained alone
and in time died. The species could not have survived without a female. Why did
hundreds of thousands of animals, fish, reptiles and birds (over millions of years)
evolve a female partner (that coincidentally matured at just the right time) with each
species?
In contrast, the Bible maintains that God instantaneously created man (in His own
image) and woman, giving them the ability to reproduce after their kind. So the Bible
and the theory of Darwinian evolution are not only opposed to one another, they are
incompatible. The only commonality is that they are both miraculous, and they both
require faith to believe them.
Those who believe in the theory of evolution are passionate, and for a good reason. If
Darwin was right, man is simply an animal with no moral accountability, and his
desires therefore to procreate are merely natural survival instincts.
However, if the Bible is true, it throws a huge, cold, and heavy wet blanket over man's
desire to follow his sexual instincts. It not only says that he is accountable, but that
there will be severe retribution for his adultery, fornication, and even for lust (see
Matthew 5:27-28).

http://www.pulltheplugonatheism.com/art02.shtml

posted in Evolution/Creation Debate - 24 replies

Stealth Creationist Loses Suit Against WHOI

2009-02-15T15:49:03Z

http://www.capecodonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090213/NEWS/902130322

Nathaniel Abraham who was hired in 2004 to conduct research into evolutionary biology at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute has lost the latest appeal in his bias suit against them.

He was fired when he refused to apply evolutionary theory to the research based on his beliefs even tho the job posting and job description both clearly stated that this was the basis for the research.

Not that Abraham lost much he was almost immediately hired by Rev. Jerry Falwell's Liberty University in Virginia reportedly at a higher salary then WHOI was paying him.

It is unfortunate that the case was dismissed because of a late filing rather than the merits. I can't believe any decent lawyer would not have known that the proper deadlines had passed.

This is a good example of creationists using a SLAP suit to force their agenda on others.

"Bias suit against WHOI fails
By Aaron Gouveia
agouveia@capecodonline.com
February 13, 2009 6:00 AM

WOODS HOLE — A federal appeals court recently upheld a ruling from a lower court that dismissed a lawsuit from a former Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution researcher, who claimed he was unjustly fired for not believing in evolution.

Nathaniel Abraham, who was hired as a postdoctoral investigator in fall 2004 for his expertise in working with zebrafish, sued WHOI for discrimination in 2007. Abraham claimed he was fired after admitting he was a Christian who believes in creationism and the infallible word of God.

However, WHOI officials told the Times that Abraham's job description clearly stated he would have to apply evolutionary theory in reviewing the results of research.

A U.S. District Court judge dismissed the lawsuit in April 2008 because Abraham did not file his discrimination claim within three years of being fired.

On Jan. 22, the U.S. Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court's ruling.

Abraham's last known job was teaching biology at Liberty University in Virginia, a college founded by the late Rev. Jerry Falwell. He could not be reached for comment yesterday."

posted in Evolution/Creation Debate - 0 replies

The latest on "Peppered Moths"

2009-02-09T20:47:43Z

Here is a talk about a recent 7 year study on "Peppered Moths":

http://www.gen.cam.ac.uk/Research/Majerus/Swedentalk220807.pdf

Some good discussion of the "Peppered Moth" controversy and the recent research can be found here:

http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/08/peppered-moths.html#more

posted in Evolution/Creation Debate - 2 replies

About Those Transitional Forms Creationists Like To Deny

2009-02-06T17:24:11Z

Here is a great example of one of those pesky transitional forms that creationists like to say don't exist.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/scienceNewsMolt/idUKTRE5130CQ20090204

Funny how they keep cropping up.

posted in Evolution/Creation Debate - 3 replies

Evolutionary Position Gradually Losing Public Support

2009-02-06T04:53:38Z

There is evidence to suggest that the evolutionary position is gradually losing public support in the United States.[103] The prestigious science journal Science reported the following in 2006: "The percentage of people in the country who accept the idea of evolution has declined from 45 in 1985 to 40 in 2005. Meanwhile the fraction of Americans unsure about evolution has soared from 7 per cent in 1985 to 21 per cent last year.[103] In January 2006, the BBC reported the following in respect to Britain:

“ Just under half of Britons accept the theory of evolution as the best description for the development of life, according to an opinion poll.
Furthermore, more than 40% of those questioned believe that creationism or intelligent design (ID) should be taught in school science lessons.[104]

http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism#Evolutionary_Position_Gradually_Losing_Public_Support

posted in Evolution/Creation Debate - 15 replies

Why Darwin was wrong about the tree of life

2009-01-23T13:42:38Z

This is a very interesting article from "New Scientist" magazine:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126921.600-why-darwin-was-wrong-about-the-tree-of-life.html?full=true

It discusses the fact that mutation and natural selection are not the only processes driving evolutionary change. Horizontal gene transfer (HGT) is quite important for one-celled organisms which has been well known for a while now. The article discusses new evidence this also "has been a major driving force in animal evolution." They say, "The most likely agents of this genetic shuffling are viruses, which constantly cut and paste DNA from one genome into another, often across great taxonomic distances. In fact, by some reckonings, 40 to 50 per cent of the human genome consists of DNA imported horizontally by viruses, some of which has taken on vital biological functions (New Scientist, 27 August 2008, p 38)." It also discusses endosymbiosis and hybridisation.

posted in Evolution/Creation Debate - 3 replies

An Example Of Evolution In Action On Nantucket Island

2009-01-21T21:37:07Z

http://www.capecodonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090102/NEWS11/90102010

http://www.ack.net/Rats123108.html

"One of the main problems, particularly because the Health Department due to such high demand in almost all cases now allows property-owners or caretakers to apply the poison themselves, is that over time, island rodents have become resistant to the pesticides used against them. Those rodents that can withstand a certain dose will produce more pesticide-resistant offspring. Every time the dosage was increased or altered, a new breed of poison-resistant rats emerged – evolution in motion."

posted in Evolution/Creation Debate - 27 replies

The Evolution of Clocks

2009-01-21T16:21:34Z

One of the arguments often presented by those opposed to Darwin’s theory of evolution is the argument of apparent design in nature. They feel that certain aspects of biologic organisms are so intricate and complex that they could only occur via some process of intelligent design. There are many aspects of this argument that fail to make any sense, but here we are only going to discuss one of them; that objects and systems that we know to be “designed” by men tend to evolve through time, they change in response to environmental pressures, via “mutation” acted on by “natural selection” resulting in continuing improvement in these systems. Basically everything produced by the mind of man from machines, including the famous watch found on the beach, to cultural institutions evolve in a way analogous to the way organisms are known to evolve.

First, let us discuss what the term design might mean. Those invoking intelligent design of biologic organisms seem to be claiming that the “designer” would have a complete or nearly complete understanding of all physical processes and their interactions and then would design organic systems that would make optimal use of all these forces, creating a harmonious whole in which all the individual parts thrive and perfectly fulfill their role in the community of organisms. Of course, the biosphere is a far from optimal system, so if it were “designed”, it is quite clear the designer would be one with extremely limited understanding of all physical processes and their interactions, unable to produce a harmonious whole, or even fully optimal individual organic systems, as all known organic systems contain many non-optimal features that argue against the idea that they were “designed”.

What should we expect of an “intelligent” design? Let us consider a simple example. There is a square hole that needs to be filled. An intelligent designer would know the exact dimensions of the hole and the best materials to fill it to last the longest time. Knowing these things he might design a block to fill the hole seamlessly, cemented in place so strongly it might last forever. Let us suppose the block designer cannot measure the exact dimensions of the hole and does not know the best materials to fill it. He might make something to fill the hole and then through a process of trial and error, he could gradually create something that might eventually do the job. The trial and error process is essentially the same as mutation and natural selection. It is clear that the results of this process won’t look exactly the same as the results for the first design process; the original trials and errors will be evident in the finished product.

I propose that almost all or perhaps all man made objects that we consider “designed” are in fact engineered by some process of trial and error. They are in fact the result of processes of mutation and natural selection. We never have enough information to make perfect designs even of very simple tools or machines. We try something and see if it works, then try something else to see if it works better. Many of the permutations are not based on any guiding principle and those that are based on some guiding principle, usually still don’t get it right because unknown variables or unknown variable interactions that give unpredicted outcomes.

So what would really be the conclusion of some alien intelligent creature if he found a watch on a beach while exploring a future earth where perhaps no other signs of human kind remain? I don’t think it is possible to conclude “intelligent” design for the watch because even assuming the alien understood the purpose of the watch, it would be clear that it was not a optimal machine for this purpose. There would be a variety of aspects of this machine that would show it came about through a process of trial and error, of mutation and natural selection, producing something unique and strange, like the strange and unique things we see in the biosphere produced by the trial and error process of mutation and natural selection, that no good designer would ever put into any system.

What the alien might conclude, rather than “design” is that this object must be an artifact; something that could not be built by purely natural processes like wind and moving water, but being an artifact is not the same thing as being truly designed. A bird’s nest is an artifact, not unlike a clock. Both were constructed by living organisms, responding to their environment and using materials in unique ways via a process of trial and error to create useful objects. The simple fact is that the alien could look at a bird’s nest and at the watch on the beach and not know for sure if there were any real intelligence behind either one of them, as neither one actually demonstrates “intelligent” design.

posted in Evolution/Creation Debate - 5 replies

January Issue of "Scientific American"

2008-12-31T20:51:44Z

The January issue of "Scientific American" magazine is devoted to evolution. I recommend it to all. You can see some of the issue at this link:

http://www.sciam.com/sciammag/

Here are some quotes from some of the more interesting articles:

From: "Testing Natural Selection with Genetics";

"The Genetics of Natural Selection
Even when biologists turn to ordinary physical traits (“beaks, biceps and brains”) and are confident that natural selection drove evolutionary change, they are often in the dark about just how it happened. Until recently, for instance, little was known about the genetic changes that underlie adaptive evolution. But with the new developments in genetics, biologists have been able to attack this problem head-on, and they are now attempting to answer several fundamental questions about selection. When organisms adapt by natural selection to a new environment, do they do so because of changes in a few genes or many? Can those genes be identified? And are the same genes involved in independent cases of adaptation to the same environment?

Answering those questions is not easy. The main difficulty is that the increase in fitness arising from a beneficial mutation can be very small, making evolutionary change quite slow. One way evolutionary biologists have coped with this problem is to place populations of rapidly reproducing organisms in artificial environments where fitness differences are larger and evolution is, therefore, faster. It also helps if the populations of the organisms are large enough to provide a steady stream of mutations. In microbial experimental evolution, a population of genetically identical microorganisms is typically placed in a novel environment to which they must adapt. Since all the individuals begin by sharing the same DNA sequence, natural selection must operate only on new mutations that arise during the experiment. The experimenter can then plot how the fitness of the population changes with time by measuring the rate of reproduction in the new environment.

Some of the most intriguing research in experimental evolution has been performed with bacteriophages, viruses so small that they infect bacteria. Bacteriophages have commensurately tiny genomes, and so it is practical for biologists to sequence their entire genomes at the beginning and end of experiments as well as at any time in between. That makes it possible to track every genetic change that natural selection “grabs” and then perpetuates over time.

Biologists working with the most sophisticated genetic tools are demonstrating that natural selection plays a greater role in the evolution of genes than even most evolutionists had thought.

K. Kichler Holder and James J. Bull, both at the University of Texas at Austin, performed such an experiment with two closely related species of bacteriophages: ΦX174 and G4. Both viruses infect the common gut bacterium Escherichia coli. The experimenters subjected the bacteriophages to an unusually high temperature and allowed them to adapt to the new, warm environment. In both species, fitness in the new environment increased dramatically during the experiment. Moreover, in both cases the experimenters saw the same pattern: fitness improved rapidly near the start of the experiment and then leveled off with time. Remarkably, Holder and Bull were able to identify the exact DNA mutations underlying the increased fitness."

From: "Darwin's Living Legacy--Evolutionary Theory 150 Years Later";

"Darwin’s theory represents a foundational pillar of modern science that stands alongside relativity, quantum mechanics and other vital support structures. Just as Copernicus cast the earth out from the center of the universe, the Darwinian universe displaced humans as the epicenter of the natural world. Natural selection accounts for what evolutionary biologist Francisco J. Ayala of the University of California, Irvine, has called “design without a designer,” a term that parries the still vigorous efforts by some theologians to slight the theory of evolution. “Darwin completed the Copernican Revolution by drawing out for biology the notion of nature as a lawful system of matter in motion that human reason can explain without recourse to supernatural agencies,” Ayala wrote in 2007.

In this anniversary year, Darwin’s greatest bequest can be found in the enormous body of research and theorizing that extends directly from his writings. It also serves to underline how evolution itself has undergone radical alteration in the past 150 years, a merger of the original theory with the science of the gene, which Darwin had as little understanding of as the ancients did.

This special issue of Scientific American highlights major questions that are still being addressed: How common is natural selection? To what extent does natural selection actually occur at the molecular level of the gene? What is the origin of the genetic variation on which natural selection operates? Does it work by administering a fitness test to individual genes, whole organisms, or even entire groups of animals, plants or microbes? Does it apply to humans if they are able to exercise a rigid control over their environment and even their biology?"

posted in Evolution/Creation Debate - 0 replies

Evolution's new wrinkle: Proteins with cruise control provide new perspective

2008-12-10T16:47:10Z

I found this article interesting and it should be interesting and relevant to this tribe:

http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S22/60/95O56/index.xml?section=topstories

A couple of quotes:

"Our new theory extends Darwin's model, demonstrating how organisms can subtly direct aspects of their own evolution to create order out of randomness."

"The work also confirms an idea first floated in an 1858 essay by Alfred Wallace, who along with Charles Darwin co-discovered the theory of evolution. Wallace had suspected that certain systems undergoing natural selection can adjust their evolutionary course in a manner "exactly like that of the centrifugal governor of the steam engine, which checks and corrects any irregularities almost before they become evident." In Wallace's time, the steam engine operating with a centrifugal governor was one of the only examples of what is now referred to as feedback control. Examples abound, however, in modern technology, including cruise control in autos and thermostats in homes and offices."

"In this paper, we present what is ostensibly the first quantitative experimental evidence, since Wallace's original proposal, that nature employs evolutionary control strategies to maximize the fitness of biological networks," Chakrabarti said. "Control theory offers a direct explanation for an otherwise perplexing observation and indicates that evolution is operating according to principles that every engineer knows."

posted in Evolution/Creation Debate - 3 replies

A different kind of cross burning.

2008-12-08T17:54:08Z

Sounds like something somebody on this tribe might consider.

Posted: 10:43 PM ET

(CNN) — School administrators in Ohio voted Friday to begin the process of firing a middle school teacher accused of burning a cross into a student’s arm and refusing to keep his religious beliefs out of the classroom.

The Mount Vernon School Board passed a resolution to terminate the employment of John Freshwater, an eighth-grade science teacher for the past 21 years.

Freshwater, according to an independent report, used an electrostatic device to mark a cross on the arm of one of his students — causing pain to the student the night of the incident and leaving a mark that lasted for approximately 3 weeks.

According to the Ohio Department of Education, the student’s family has filed a lawsuit.

Freshwater was also reprimanded several times for refusing to move his Bible from his classroom desk and teaching creationism alongside evolution, according to the 15-page independent report. The report also cites evidence that Mr. Freshwater told his students that “science is wrong because the Bible states that homosexuality is a sin and so anyone who is gay chooses to be gay and is therefore a sinner.”

Hoping they sue the bastard into the poor house.

posted in Evolution/Creation Debate - 18 replies

Chickens teeth.

2008-08-07T22:44:34Z

How does one explain chickens teeth and dolphin legs without evolution?

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=mutant-chicken-grows-alli

http://limulus.wordpress.com/2006/11/06/dolphin-with-hind-limbs-caught-alive-in-japan/

posted in Evolution/Creation Debate - 2 replies

Hello

2008-06-06T18:42:37Z

Recently, I found myself debating evolution and creation with Dan on another tribe. He had offhandedly mentioned that he was debating similarly in another tribe, and I believe I have tracked that debate to this tribe. Rather than having him duplicate his efforts, he can then consolidate here.

The main problem I was having in the debate is a common problem with Intelligent Design Creationism. IDC proponents find an obscure or sparsely researched subject to put forth as evidence of a flaw in evolution, mixing in a good dose of misinterpreting certain terms.

What I found particularly frustrating, was the categorical repudiation of sources, based simply upon the fact that they were pro-evolution and anti-creation. (for example: Talk origins, and possibly wikipedia) The fact that these articles were referenced made no difference.

Hopefully, the debate will be more manageable here.

posted in Evolution/Creation Debate - 19 replies

Weigh in... your opinion, that is

2008-06-06T17:47:04Z

Discuss some interesting topics on CreateDebate like these:

http://www.createdebate.com/debate/show/Is_there_a_conflict_in_believing_in_both_evolution_and_a_personal_god
http://www.createdebate.com/debate/show/Has_evolution_been_scientifically_proved
http://www.createdebate.com/debate/show/Do_staunch_creationists_understand_evolution
http://www.createdebate.com/debate/show/Should_creationism_be_taught_in_science_classes_in_public_schools
http://www.createdebate.com/debate/show/What_came_first_The_chicken_or_the_egg
http://www.createdebate.com/debate/show/Faith_is_ignorance
http://www.createdebate.com/debate/show/Endangered_specied_deserve_extinction
http://www.createdebate.com/debate/show/What_are_the_best_arguments_against_creationism
http://www.createdebate.com/debate/show/Does_creation_science_have_a_place_in_science_classes
http://www.createdebate.com/debate/show/Are_you_getting_tired_about_homosexuality_related_debates

posted in Evolution/Creation Debate - 2 replies

Evidence that mutations can produce new information

2008-06-04T19:46:40Z

One common claim of creationists is that mutations cannot create "new information" but only destroy it. They make this claim despite abundant evidence to the contrary, not the least of which is the long fossil record. This article discusses some of the other evidence:

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/dn13673-evolution-myths-mutations-can-only-destroy-information.html

Some quotes:

"Most people lose the ability to digest milk by their teens. A few thousand years ago, however, after the domestication of cattle, several groups of people in Europe and Africa independently acquired mutations that allow them to continue digesting milk into adulthood. Genetic studies show there has been very strong selection for these mutations, so they were clearly very beneficial.

Most biologists would see this as a gain in information: a change in environment (the availability of cow's milk as food) is reflected by a genetic mutation that lets people exploit that change (gaining the ability to digest milk as an adult). Creationists, however, dismiss this as a malfunction, as the loss of the ability to switch off the production of the milk-digesting enzyme after childhood.

Rather than get bogged down trying to define what information is, let's just look at a few other discoveries made by biologists in recent years. For instance, it has been shown a simple change in gene activity in sea squirts can turn their one-chambered heart into a working two-chambered one. Surely this counts as increasing information?"

..."Can mutation really lead to the evolution of new species?

Yes. Several species of abalone shellfish have evolved due to mutations in the protein "key" on the surface of sperm that binds to a "lock" on the surface of eggs. This might appear impossible, but it turns out that some eggs are prepared to be penetrated by deviant sperm. The same thing can happen in fruit flies, and likely in many other groups too. In yeasts, the mutations that led to some new species forming have not only been identified, they have even been reversed.

The list of examples could go on and on, but consider this. Most mutations can be reversed by subsequent mutations – a DNA base can be turned from an A to a G and then back to an A again, for instance. In fact, reverse mutation or "reversion" is common. For any mutation that results in a loss of information, logically, the reverse mutation must result in its gain. So the claim that mutations destroy information but cannot create it not only defies the evidence, it also defies logic."

posted in Evolution/Creation Debate - 3 replies

grim: a repost from another tribe

2008-06-04T08:01:23Z

"Dan and I can't seem to come to an agreement on the nature of science, specifically regarding evidence.

If a tree falls in the woods, and no one is there, does it still make a sound?"

no it doesn't. At least not scientifically speaking

"If I find a fallen tree, I may infer, beyond a reasonable doubt, that it made a sound upon impact. To what degree is this unobserved evidence acceptable?"

again, you are confusing disciplines. Like most atheists you seem to feel science is the only way of knowing. It is not. Science must be observation based.

"Science (from the Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge") is the effort to understand, or to understand better, how the physical world works, with observable evidence as the basis of that understanding. It is done through observation of phenomena, and/or through experimentation that tries to simulate events under controlled conditions."

"Must I, instead, reject all such evidence as unscientific, and only consider trees I have watched fall?"

Your inference here seems sound, but you are referring to historical science and not operational science. There is a big difference. Evolution is not the only possible inference which can be drawn from the available evidence. Furthermore, to infer transmutation you need to find observations in the present which at least confirm the plausibility of your inference. All available evidence seems to deny the possibility of naturalism.

"In short, how does a scientific theory, such as evolution, deal with evidence like fossils, and genetic artifacts?"

fossils is a dead things buried in rock layers which were laid down by water. They don't prove a phylogenic relationship simply because they are there.

posted in Evolution/Creation Debate - 0 replies

Evolution Falsified!

2008-06-02T13:19:49Z

"Well, it's not really relevant unless a competing theory does a better job. IDC will not be that competing theory, unless it is equally scientifically rigorous. Evolution would be falsified by the aforementioned rabbit. What falsifying evidence is proposed for IDC?"

The above quote by Grim was in reference to the falsifiability of evolution. It was suggested that finding a rabbit fossil in the cambrian would disprove evolution, which is evidence of its falsifiability. I wonder what Grim will say about this find:

http://www.talkingsquid.net/archives/133

"The discovery of a fossilised rabbit in the Burgess Shale may demolish one of the pillars of modern science, the theory of evolution. The late J. B. S. Haldane famously said that all it would take to falsify evolution is a single Cambrian rabbit fossil, and that is exactly what has been uncovered by paleontologist Dr Wilfred Splenebyrst of the London School of Ergonomics."

What say you Grim?

posted in Evolution/Creation Debate - 4 replies

Why do people laugh at creationists? Ben Stein Edition

2008-05-21T16:37:00Z

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NiNGK3y5Ypg

posted in Evolution/Creation Debate - 5 replies

Another scientist Expelled for Questioning Darwinism

2008-05-17T13:40:44Z

With a Phd. in Physical Chemistry and 20 years of teaching science at the college level, this scientist, Dr Nancy Bryson was head of the division of science and mathematics at the University of Mississippi for Women. The message given was clear, do not challenge Darwinism if you wish to keep your job. The speech delivered to the "honors forum" was entitled "critical thinking on evolution". The following day she was removed as division head warned that she might not be on the campus at all the following year.

http://intelligentdesign.podOmatic.com/entry/2008-04-25T11_01_04-07_00

posted in Evolution/Creation Debate - 73 replies

'Academic Freedom' Legislation Advances in Four States

2008-05-13T04:38:46Z

It appears the Ben Steins Documentary is having an impact. Academic Freedom legislation is being proposed by legislators in 4 states.

http://www.christianpost.com/article/20080510/32317_'Academic_Freedom'_Legislation_Advances_in_Four_States.htm

posted in Evolution/Creation Debate - 3 replies

Somewhat Off Topic But On Point

2008-05-09T16:03:06Z

I try to avoid the Theist v. Atheist argument that so many of these threads degenerate into. I do not care to be drawn into a discussion of belief because belief and faith are by definition are beyond proof.

However I stumbled across this item and I felt I would post it as an example of the type of narrow minded knee jerk decisions that are being made by those who would turn us into a theocracy.

http://www.transworldnews.com/NewsStory.aspx?id=45811&cat=14

I think the article speaks for itself.

posted in Evolution/Creation Debate - 1 reply

Expelled Producers Accused Of Plagiarism

2008-05-07T23:06:08Z

I seems that not only does Ben Stein and his crew not do science very well they also don't appear to have little respect for others intellectual property.

http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/news/2008/US/301_expelled_producers_accused_of__4_9_2008.asp

Of course this is courtesy of the same Ben Stein who said that sub prime mortgages could not effect the economy and that there was no housing bubble so we should all buy as much real estate as we can afford because the price will just keep going up.

Seems Ben is not only a poor scientist but not a very good economist either.

posted in Evolution/Creation Debate - 7 replies

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

2008-05-01T15:11:04Z

I just returned from viewing the documentary Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. It is a documentary featuring Ben Stein. I highly recommend everyone see this film, regardless of your position on darwinism. The focus is on the ID movement, but it applies to freedom of speech in general and makes a compelling case that the scientific community is squelching academic freedom. Numerous examples are given and the persecution does not end with creationists and ID folks but includes anyone who dares speak or write fairly on the subject.

For those of you who are Dawkins fans who feel he is the epitome of logic and rational thought, you will be shocked at what an ass he makes of himself in this film. Stein (from memory): "So, you believe there is a ninety nine percent chance god doesn't exist, why not say 97%? Dawkins, well I don't know, I don't think it can be quantified.
Stein: ok then, how about 50%?
Dawkins: No, it is vastly more improbable than that?
Stein: 75%?
Dawkins (irritated): I have no way of knowing!
Stein: So you really cannot give it a number?
Dawkins: No, I have no idea
(paraphrase)

His discussion about abiogenesis ran about the same. Dawkins admitting that he has no idea whatsoever how life originated and even admits that there may be a strong argument for design by extra terrestrial life! (atheists always sound like they have no odd beliefs until you let them speak for a awhile:-)).

The most amazing admission by Dawkins was where he stated that an understanding of evolution (he pronounces it properly with his british accent as evil-ution) leads one inevitably to atheism. He further admits that atheists court the liberal christians in support of darwinism in order to divide Christians. "My book was a long awaited full frontal assault upon Christianity" he openly states.

The movie makes a strong connection between Nazism and Darwinism, explaining that while Nazism cannot be explained solely on the basis of Darwinism, it could not have existed without it! And graphic images and testimony of the eugenics movement in Germany and the U.S. are provided as evidence of the connection of science with murder!

Much more could be said about this film, but I suggest you see it for yourself, it is humorous and thougth provoking at the same time and will no doubt infuriate Dawkins, Eugenie Scott, Grim, Rene and the entire darwinist establishment. Dawkins has already responded to it on his web site: http://richarddawkins.net/article,2488,Open-Letter-to-a-victim-of-Ben-Steins-lying-propaganda,Richard-Dawkins.

Stein makes it clear that Dawkins was not quoted out of context and he was paid well for his interview! I hope so, I would hate to think he made an ass out of himself for nothing:-)

posted in Evolution/Creation Debate - 44 replies

New Scientist Article on Evolution

2008-04-18T19:02:07Z

This recent article in "New Scientist" should be of interest to this tribe:

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/dn13620-evolution-24-myths-and-misconceptions.html?DCMP=ILC-hmts&nsref=top1_head_Evolution:%2024%20myths%20and%20misconceptions

Some quotes:

"It will soon be 200 years since the birth of Charles Darwin and 150 years since the publication of On the Origin of Species, arguably the most important book ever written. In it, Darwin outlined an idea that many still find shocking – that all life on Earth, including human life, evolved through natural selection.

Darwin presented compelling evidence for evolution in On the Origin and, since his time, the case has become overwhelming. Countless fossil discoveries allow us to trace the evolution of today's organisms from earlier forms. DNA sequencing has confirmed beyond any doubt that all living creatures share a common origin. Innumerable examples of evolution in action can be seen all around us, from the pollution-matching pepper moth to fast-changing viruses such as HIV and H5N1 bird flu. Evolution is as firmly established a scientific fact as the roundness of the Earth.

And yet despite an ever-growing mountain of evidence, most people around the world are not taught the truth about evolution, if they are taught about it at all. Even in the UK, the birthplace of Darwin with an educated and increasingly secular population, one recent poll suggests less than half the population accepts evolution.

For those who have never had the opportunity to find out about biology or science, claims made by those who believe in supernatural alternatives to evolutionary theory can appear convincing. Meanwhile, even among those who accept evolution, misconceptions abound."

posted in Evolution/Creation Debate - 0 replies

Dawkins Apologizes for Lying about Expelled Producer

2008-04-17T14:54:06Z

http://voxday.blogspot.com/search?q=atheist

"I previously asserted that Richard Dawkins couldn't last 5 minutes in a debate of The God Delusion with me. After reading this account of his encounter with Mark Mathis, the producer of the movie EXPELLED, I think I may have been a bit too generous. Dawkins is the proverbial example of a man who is intellectually crippled by his short-sighted refusal to listen to substantive criticism:

Dawkins: Why were you dishonest about the film you were going to make?! We were lead to believe that you were going to present a fair account of evolution.

[Richard Dawkins is now bouncing up like a man on a string to launch his charges. He then fades into his seat when a proper, logical explanation is given.]

Mathis: Mr. Dawkins, that’s precisely what we have done. We’ve presented a fair account of the academic persecution that goes on across America and indeed the world when a scientist dares to disagree with the Darwinian view.
Dawkins: You were not forthcoming with me that you were making a film that involved people who claim they have been persecuted!

Mathis: Professor Dawkins, I contacted you by e-mail prior to our interview. You quizzed me on all of the questions in your backyard for a half hour before we sat down with the cameras. After the interview you signed our release and accepted a generous payment for your time (Laughter). I think we were very fair with you.

Mathis: By the way Mr. Dawkins, I want to tell you that what you said on Atheist Radio not long ago was completely untrue. You tried to take credit for setting up our second interview location at the British Museum of Natural History. I set up that location and it involved a tremendous amount of time and effort and a very large check. You also claimed on Atheist radio that you expected me to be doing the interview and not Mr. Stein, that you were duped again. I have a long e-mail record of my communication with you, explaining that following the success of The God Delusion Mr. Stein wanted to interview you himself. I sent you a list of Mr. Stein’s broad range of accomplishments. I can accept this situation as perhaps a lapse of memory, but what you said was not true.

Dawkins: Those are minor points.
Mathis: Not to me. You called me a liar on the radio (Laughter).

Dawkins: If that is the case then I offer you an apology.
Mathis: I accept."

posted in Evolution/Creation Debate - 0 replies

Cuban land crab

2008-04-14T07:45:40Z

I saw a documentary on pbs last night that talked about a crab in cuba. it is a land crab that lives in the forest. It can not swim, and dies if it falls in the ocean. every rainy season millions of crabs make there way out of the forest to the beach to mate and lay eggs, which immediately hatch and become baby crabs who crawl up onto the land to live their life. If this isnt evidenc of evolution i dont know what is. a creature that has obviously originated from the sea crab, and adapted to live on land. this and the fact that the young require the ocean to get started, in my mind proves that the crab evolved to live on land. this is a very strange adaptation in my opinion as crabs are not suited for land travel at all, yet millions of the crabs travel 8-10 miles out of the forest at once in hordes to meet there origin. anyway i just thought this was an interesting example of evolution what do you all think?

posted in Evolution/Creation Debate - 11 replies

Mazur: Altenberg! The Woodstock of Evolution?

2008-03-07T13:34:06Z

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0803/S00051.htm

"It's not Yasgur's Farm, but what happens at the Konrad Lorenz Institute in Altenberg, Austria this July promises to be far more transforming for the world than Woodstock. What it amounts to is a gathering of 16 biologists and philosophers of rock star stature – let's call them "the Altenberg 16" – who recognize that the theory of evolution which most practicing biologists accept and which is taught in classrooms today, is inadequate in explaining our existence. It's pre the discovery of DNA, lacks a theory for body form and does not accomodate "other" new phenomena. So the theory Charles Darwin gave us, which was dusted off and repackaged 70 years ago, seems about to be reborn as the "Extended Evolutionary Synthesis".

"But Salthe goes further. He told me the following:

"Oh sure natural selection's been demonstrated. . . the interesting point, however, is that it has rarely if ever been demonstrated to have anything to do with evolution in the sense of long-term changes in populations. . . . Summing up we can see that the import of the Darwinian theory of evolution is just unexplainable caprice from top to bottom. What evolves is just what happened to happen."

Darwinian evolution doesn't explain our existance and neither does natural selection. No surprise to me but is apparently a revolution in understanding to the evolutionist.

posted in Evolution/Creation Debate - 0 replies

Confessions of a former Heretic

2008-03-02T18:48:29Z

Ok, I want to apologize to one and all for my rejection of evolution theory. It was wrong of me to go against such "overwhelming evidence" from "all branches of science" for so long. I realize now I was wrong and have decided to come back to the fold of evolution believers. It has been a heart wrenching decision, but one I was forced to make. I have been playing the fool and have been ignoring sound reasoning, rational thinking and logic now for too long. Clearly, evolution is true, it is undeniable. It is fact and theory. I confess I was fighting an uphill battle, trying to maintain my Christian faith and my belief in science at the same time. What a struggle, but now, relief at last.

What brought about my relief? It was the discovery the evolution really only means "change through time". This cinched it. I mean what is to deny, clearly things change. And who can deny that this happens "over time"? In addition, I came to understand the most basic principle of science. I was resistant to learn this principle, but thankfully, my atheist evolution believing friends continued to patiently instruct me in spite of my open and hostile defiance. What is that principle you ask? It was the principle of naturalism. You see, science is based upon the assumption that everything can be explained naturally, so there is no need for "god(s)" any longer.

You cannot know how much freedom this revelation has given me. No more silly "god beliefs". I can live free now, think for myself, read the God delusion and letter to a Christian Nation in public places without feelings of guilt. I can also participate in wild sex orgies on weekends. I have thrown self control, Christian tradition and so-called human decency to the wind! This is so freeing!!! I am even going to vote for Hillary Clinton!

I now volunteer at the local Planned Parenthood abortion center because I finally understand that we have too many people in the world and I feel bad for fathering 10 children. I am doing penance by reading Margaret Sanger books which I find so inspiring. One question though, is it ok to have these racist feelings I am struggling with? After reading Darwin and Sanger these feelings began to take control of my thinking, but since they were supported by such fine folks as Darwin, Sanger and the great evolutionists who supported the U.S. Eugenics movement I thought it was ok. Of course as a Christian I was taught "red and yellow, black and white, they're all precious in his sight". But who believes this nonsense any longer?

I am also excited that I no longer must be honest and truthful. When I speak to bible bangers, i don't tell them that the evidence for amoeba to man change is lacking and there are no true transitional forms in the fossil record (just ancestors of assumed transitions). I don't explain that mutations do not provide new information necessary for evolutionary change to occur. I figure it is ok to deceive since there is no "god" and the "end justifies the means", "might makes right" and all that jazz. I just tell them they are stupid, unthinking and uneducated fools to believe in some Bronze Age book. And when they bring up all of the stuff in the bible which was thought false, and then confirmed by archaeology, I just change the subject and provide a link to evilbible.com showing all of the alleged bible contradictions. That usually ties them up for awhile:-) Question, I have trouble when they bring up all of those fulfilled bible prophecies about the Jews and how they would be scattered to the nations and then regathered to Israel in the last days. Any suggestions for dealing with this argument? It unnerves me but I just try change the subject or call them "flat earthers" for believing silly fairy tales.

Anyway, I just want to thank one and all for being so patient with me. I am on board now and ready to attack those nasty Christians. I want to completely destroy their faith and help to ussher in a utopian world of peace and rational thinking, by whatever means necessary.
By the way, what kind of dope are you guys smoking? I thought this would be a good time to get started with drugs also. Facing reality has become too difficult for me these days.

Your Comrade,
Dan

P.S. I called Ken Ham today and told him I am giving back my membership to the Creation Museum. I also told him how stupid it was to build his museum over Ordovician rocks. He got a kick out of that:-)

posted in Evolution/Creation Debate - 2 replies

The Facts Surrounding he Scopes "monkey" Trial

2008-02-27T22:32:54Z

This is a repost from another thread. I felt it merited a separate post.

Quoting Darrow stating the lefts hypocrisy crap is entirely appropriate. That he was a shill for the left is clear. Lefties will lie and do generally whatever it takes to accomplish their evil goals.

"In the end of course it was a dramatization."

It was a work of malicious and irresponsible fiction.

1)The Play: Great effort is made to solicit sympathy for John Scopes, the much persecuted school teacher cast into jail for teaching evolution, and who risks losing his job and his girlfriend. We are repeatedly reminded that ‘fine and imprisonment’ are possible consequences of his crime.

The Facts: Scopes was never jailed, nor was he in danger of imprisonment. The maximum penalty for violating the Butler Act, which forbade the teaching of evolution in Tennessee, was a $500 fine. Scopes didn’t have a college (university) degree in science (he had an undergraduate degree in law from the University of Kentucky). Scopes was not a biology teacher; he filled in as a substitute for two weeks near the end of the school year for the biology teacher, who was ill. Scopes’ involvement in the trial was a wilful decision on his part. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) was seeking a teacher willing to stand trial, with all expenses paid, to challenge the Butler Act. The ACLU placed a newspaper ad that read in part:

‘We are looking for Tennessee teacher who is willing to accept our services in testing this law in the courts.’

Scopes did not recollect that he had ever taught evolution as a substitute teacher. His students were encouraged to purjer themelves to say that he had. It was not evolution which was on trial, it was Christianity!

2: The Play: Throughout the play, William Jennings Bryan is portrayed as closed-minded, pompous, stupid, intolerant, hypocritical, insincere and gluttonous. The following dialogue between Darrow and Bryan appears on page 51:

DARROW: ‘I don’t suppose you’ve memorized many passages from the Origin of Species?’

BRYAN: ‘I am not the least interested in the pagan hypotheses of that book.’

DARROW: ‘Never read it?‘

BRYAN: ‘And I never will.’

The Facts: Bryan is reported by one of his biographers, Lawrence W. Levine, to have read Darwin’s On the Origin of Species 20 years before the Scopes trial! Bryan’s reservations about the theory of evolution were certainly influenced by his religious beliefs, but he had written many well–argued articles critical of the evidence used to defend the theory of evolution.

Author Sprague de Camp repudiated Byran’s conservative Christianity, and missed no opportunity to criticize his scientific views. Yet honesty compelled him to give Bryan credit for at least some undeniable virtues:

‘As a speaker, Bryan radiated good-humored sincerity. Few who heard him could help liking him. … In personality he was forceful, energetic, and opinionated but genial, kindly, generous, likeable and charming. … He showed a praise-worthy tolerance towards those who disagreed with him. … Bryan was the greatest American orator of his time and perhaps any time. The Great Monkey Trial, Sprague de Camp, p. 432.

3) The Play: The conservative Christians of Dayton, Tennessee, are portrayed as ignorant, closed–minded, and discourteous. Here are just a few examples: When H.L. Mencken arrives in town, Elijah (a Bible salesman who can neither read nor write) asks Mencken, ‘What are you? An evolutionist? An Infidel? A sinner?’ The mayor of the town offers to look for a town ordinance that would prevent Clarence Darrow from entering the town. When Darrow finally arrives in town, a young Christian girl screams, ‘The Devil!’, and then runs off in fear.

The Facts: The following is an excerpt from H.L. Mencken’s first dispatch sent to his newspaper: ‘Nor is there any evidence of that poisonous spirit which usually shows itself when Christian men gather to defend the great doctrine of their faith. … On the contrary, the Evolutionists and the Anti–Evolutionists seem to be on the best of terms, and it is hard in a group to distinguish one from the other.’4

The following is a quotation from Clarence Darrow on the seventh day of the eight–day trial:

DARROW:

‘I don’t know as I was ever in a community in my life where my religious ideas differed as widely from the great mass as I have found them since I have been in Tennesee. Yet I came here a perfect stranger and I can say what I have said before that I have not found upon any body’s part—any citizen here in this town or outside the slightest discourtesy. I have been treated better, kindlier and more hospitably than I fancied would have been the case in the north’ (trial transcript, pp. 225–226).

4) The Play: At the prayer meeting, we read the following account from page 39 of The Play:

REV. BROWN: ‘Do we believe the truth of the Word?’

ALL: ‘Yes!’

REV. BROWN: (Pointing a finger towards the jail.) ‘Do we curse the man who denies the Word?’

ALL: (Crescendo, each answer mightier than the one before) ‘Yes!’

REV. BROWN: ‘Do we cast this sinner out of our midst?’

ALL: ‘Yes!’ (Each crash of sound from the crowd seems to strike Rachel physically, and shake her. The prayer meeting has passed beyond the familiar bounds in an area of orgiastic anger.)

REV. BROWN: ‘Do we call down hell-fire on the man who has sinned against the Word?’

ALL: (Roaring.) ‘Yes!’

REV. BROWN: (Deliberately shattering the rhythm, to go into a frenzied prayer, hands clasped together and lifted heavenward) ‘… Let him feel the terror of Thy sword! For all eternity, let his soul write in anguish and damnation.’

RACHEL: ‘No!’ (she rushes to the platform.) ‘No Father. Don’t pray to destroy Bert! [Scopes] (As she falls on her knees in front of the platform.) No, no, no … !’

REV. BROWN: ‘Lord, we call down the same curse on those who ask grace for this sinner—though they be of my blood, and flesh of my flesh!’

The Facts: Reverend Brown, his daughter and the prayer meeting were all ficticious!

5) The Play: Scope’s fiancée ‘Rachel Brown’ is called as a witness and is badly mistreated by Bryan, who forces her to testify against her boyfriend by insisting she repeat deeply personal conversations between her and Scopes (which Bryan had pried out of her in ‘confidence’ before the trial). Bryan, always the fanatic, loses his self–control and becomes cruel and merciless in his questioning of the frightened young lady. Darrow, on the other hand, magnanimously agrees not to cross–examine Rachel lest she be further discomforted after Bryan’s abuse.

The Facts: No women participated in the trial. Scopes did not have a special girlfriend or fiancée at this time. Bryan was courteous at all times in his handling of witnesses, as the trial transcript reveals. Darrow, on the other hand, was at times condescending and contemptuous in his treatment of witnesses, jurists, opposing lawyers and even the judge. Darrow was, in fact, cited for contempt of court for repeatedly interrupting and insulting Judge Raulston.

6). The Play: Darrow questions Bryan on the topic of sex:

DARROW: ‘… You’re up here as an expert on the Bible. What’s the Biblical evaluation of sex?’

BRYAN: ‘It is considered Original Sin.’

The Facts: Nothing was discussed about sex in the trial. Nor does the Bible teach that the original sin was sexual in nature.

7).The Play: When the Judge excuses Bryan from the stand, Bryan slips into a frenzy:

BRYAN: ‘I believe in the truth of the Book of Genesis!‘ (With both clenched fists he pounds the air, rhythmic hammer blows of conviction as he fervently recites the books of the Old Testament.)

After court is adjourned, the spectators begin to leave while Bryan continues to beat the air with clenched fists.

The Facts: Bryan never went into a frenzy, nor did he recite the books of the Bible. This was just another attempt to depict Bryan as a raving religious lunatic.

8) The Play: The ‘prisoner’, John Scopes, is found guilty and Darrow is visibly shaken by this great injustice against his client. Bryan, on the other hand, is vindictive and complains about the paltry $100 fine levelled against John Scopes for a crime of such magnitude: ‘Your Honor, the prosecution takes exception! Where the issues are so titanic, the court must mete out more drastic punishment.’

The Facts: Violation of the Butler Act was punishable by a fine of no less that $100 and no greater than $500; imprisonment was not a provision of the law. Bryan was not the least concerned about the fine, nor was anyone else. Indeed, Bryan had offered to pay Scopes’ fine. All of Scopes’ expenses relating to the trial were covered by vested interests, as was the tuition for his graduate education after the trial.

9) The Play: The play builds to a noisy and chaotic climax as Bryan loses all sense of dignity and reason and goes into an incoherent tirade to read his concluding statement. The crowd is bored and walks out, while Bryan’s wife looks on in horror at what he become of her once sane and caring husband. Finally, overcome by religious zeal, Bryan mindlessly continues with his closing remarks, and collapses on the courtroom floor. As he is carried out, in a strange, unreal voice, he begins what appears to be an inaugural speech as the new President of the United States. Minutes later, his death is announced.

The Facts: Neither Bryan nor Darrow attempted to give the customary closing argument to the jury. Once Darrow accomplished his purpose of ridiculing Bryan’s beliefs in Biblical miracles, he asked the judge to instruct the jury to find Scopes guilty, and in so doing, eliminated the need for closing arguments. Bryan had put great effort into preparing his closing statement. This manoeuvre by Darrow prevented Bryan from giving his well-supported scientific and religious argument against the theory of evolution. Bryan was anxious that the text of his speech be made available to the public, and made provision for its publication only one hour before his death. The speech was cogently argued—hardly the ravings of a mad man unless, of course, all Bible-believing Christians are to be dismissed as ‘mad men’.

Finally, Bryan did not die in the courthouse in a raving frenzy. He died in his sleep at the age of 65 five days after the trial. His doctors had urged him, a diabetic, to cut his heavy workload. Insulin treatment was still in its early years.

Conclusion: Conclusion
There is considerable evidence that the play and film are not simply inaccurate, but rather are highly biased in their intent. The historical inaccuracies are systematic and of a kind that presents a consistent bias of slanderous proportions against people who believe the Biblical account of creation.

On the other hand, those critical of the miracles of the Bible are portrayed as eminently reasonable people who must suffer abuse, threats and ignorance from fundamentalist Christians.

The evidence suggests that the inaccuracies in the play and film Inherit The Wind are substantive, intentional and systematic. Christians, and particularly William Jennings Bryan, are consistently lampooned throughout the play, while sceptics and agnostics are portrayed as intelligent, kindly, and even heroic. I cannot escape the conclusion that the writers of Inherit The Wind never intended to write a historically accurate account of the Scopes trial, nor did they seriously attempt to portray the principal characters and their beliefs in a fair and accurate way.

References
John T. Scopes and James Presley, Center of the Storm: Memoirs of John T. Scopes, Holt, New York, 1967, p. 60. Return to Text.

The Great Monkey Trial, Sprague de Camp, p. 432.

Ref. 2, pp. 36–37.

Ref. 2, p. 147.

The above was edited from the following article: http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v19/i1/scopes.asp#f2

posted in Evolution/Creation Debate - 4 replies

Predictions of Evolution

2008-02-26T15:10:03Z

Some predictions of evolutionary theory that have been born out by the evidence (stolen from http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/evo_science.html):

* Darwin predicted that precursors to the trilobite would be found in pre-Silurian rocks. He was correct: they were subsequently found.

* Similarly, Darwin predicted that Precambrian fossils would be found. He wrote in 1859 that the total absence of fossils in Precambrian rock was "inexplicable" and that the lack might "be truly urged as a valid argument" against his theory. When such fossils were found, starting in 1953, it turned out that they had been abundant all along. They were just so small that it took a microscope to see them.

* There are two kinds of whales: those with teeth, and those that strain microscopic food out of seawater with baleen. It was predicted that a transitional whale must have once existed, which had both teeth and baleen. Such a fossil has since been found.

* Evolution predicts that we will find fossil series.

* Evolution predicts that the fossil record will show different populations of creatures at different times. For example, it predicts we will never find fossils of trilobites with fossils of dinosaurs, since their geological time-lines don't overlap. The "Cretaceous seaway" deposits in Colorado and Wyoming contain almost 90 different kinds of ammonites, but no one has ever found two different kinds of ammonite together in the same rockbed. This lack of mixing stongly implies that the rockbeds have different ages.

* Evolution predicts that animals on distant islands will appear closely related to animals on the closest mainland, and that the older and more distant the island, the more distant the relationship.

* The theory of Common Descent predicts that the species alive today can be organized into one single family tree, where each species is a descendant of a parent species. (And therefore, there should be a hierarchical arrangement of relatedness.)

For example, arthropods all have chitinous exoskeleton, hemocoel, and jointed legs. Insects have all these plus head-thorax-abdomen body plan and 6 legs. Flies have all that plus two wings and halteres. Calypterate flies have all that plus a certain style of antennae, wing veins, and sutures on the face and back. You will never find the distinguishing features of calypterate flies on a non-fly, much less on a non-insect or non-arthropod.

Dogs are another example. There should be species we would group with dogs, and there are - such as wolves and coyotes. So we are not surprised when dogs and foxes turn out to share some peculiar features of the middle ear. This group - the Family Canidae - can be grouped with the bears, raccoons and weasels, because their ears have some similarities to those of dogs. All of these have carnassial teeth, but so do cats, civets and seals - so we group the entire lot as being Order Carnivora. Carnivores all have 3 middle ear bones, mammary glands, placental development, hair, a diaphragm, a four-chambered heart, and a larynx. But they share those features with humans, bats, elephants and whales. So we group that entire lot as being Class Mammalia. But mammals have amniote eggs, and so do birds, lizards, snakes and turtles. And amniote animals share with frogs and salamanders the property of having four legs - they're tetrapods. Tetrapods and fish both have backbones - they're vertebrates. Vertebrates and starfish are both deuterostomes because they share the way their embryos develop a mouth. Deuterostomes are left-right symmetric, so we group them and insects and snails as bilateral. The bilaterals, the jellyfish and sponges are all animals. Animals, fungi, rose bushes and amoebas all have a nucleus inside each cell - they're eukaryotes. Eukaryotes and bacteria and archaea share the DNA mechanism, lipid-based cell membranes, and hundreds of other biochemical details.

(And that's the short version of the story! For all the fancy Latin names, see the Tree of Life.)

Notice that the dog-to-bacteria story has some apparent irregularities. For example, I said that elephants and whales are mammals, and that mammals have hair. It is not obvious, but elephants and whales do have a small amount of hair. Also, scientists group whales and snakes as tetrapods. So where are their four legs? From the theory of Common Descent, we see that they must be descended from four-legged creatures, and that they have lost their legs. (Loss is an easy mutation - as witness hairless dogs.) So, we predict that there should be fossils of whales with legs, and snakes with legs. These fossils have been found. Similarly, starfish outwardly have radial symmetry, but we classified them as bilateral. So Common Descent predicts that their group (echinoderms) had bilateral ancestors, and such a fossil has been found.

* Another prediction from Common Descent is that there will be species that are highly similar, so that they are fairly obviously a group. And, when we talk about groups of groups, we will see one notch less similarity. For example, we group the tree species that give oranges, mandarins, lemons, limes, tangelos, lemonades (a rounded fruit that's sweet like lemonade) and grapefruits. They're called citrus trees. We also group the stone fruit trees - those are the ones with peaches, apricots, plums, nectarines, peachcots (a cross between peaches and apricots) or peacherines. Gardeners can graft a branch from an orange tree onto a lemon tree, and get it to grow, so that they then have a tree that grows both oranges and lemons. Gardeners can mix any two citrus trees, and they can mix apple varieties, or pear varieties. But apples and peaches don't mix.

* Evolution predicts that simple, valuable features will evolve more than once. They will evolve in several species, quite independently of each other (because there has been time for that to happen). And, independent lines of evolution will most likely have differences not relevant to function. For example, the eyes of molluscs, arthropods, and vertebrates are extremely different, and ears can appear on any of at least ten different locations on different insects.

* In 1837, a Creationist reported that during a pig's fetal development, part of the incipient jawbone detaches and becomes the little bones of the middle ear. After Evolution was discovered, it was predicted that there would be a transitional fossil, of a reptile with a spare jaw joint right near its ear. A whole series of such fossils has since been found - the cynodont therapsids.

* It was predicted that humans must have an intermaxillary bone, since other mammals do. The adult human skull consists of bones that have fused together, so you can't tell one way or the other in an adult. An examination of human embryonic development showed that an intermaxillary bone is one of the things that fuses to become your upper jaw.

* From my junk DNA example I predict that three specific DNA patterns will be found at 9 specific places in the genome of white-tailed deer, but none of the three patterns will be found anywhere in the spider monkey genome.

* In 1861, the first Archaeopteryx fossil was found. It was clearly a primitive bird with reptilian features. But, the fossil's head was very badly preserved. In 1872 Ichthyornis and Hesperornis were found. Both were clearly seabirds, but to everyone's astonishment, both had teeth. It was predicted that if we found a better-preserved Archaeopteryx, it too would have teeth. In 1877, a second Archaeopteryx was found, and the prediction turned out to be correct.

* Almost all animals make Vitamin C inside their bodies. It was predicted that humans are descended from creatures that could do this, and that we had lost this ability. (There was a loss-of-function mutation, which didn't matter because our high-fruit diet was rich in Vitamin C.) When human DNA was studied, scientists found a gene which is just like the Vitamin C gene in dogs and cats. However, our copy has been turned off.

* In "The Origin Of Species" (1859), Darwin said:

"If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection."
Chapter VI, Difficulties Of The Theory

This challenge has not been met. In the ensuing 140 years, no such thing has been found. Plants give away nectar and fruit, but they get something in return. Taking care of other members of one's own species (kin selection) doesn't count, so ants and bees (and mammalian milk) don't count.

* Darwin pointed out that the Madagascar Star orchid has a spur 30 centimeters (about a foot) long, with a puddle of nectar at the bottom. Now, evolution says that nectar isn't free. Creatures that drink it pay for it, by carrying pollen away to another orchid. For that to happen, the creature must rub against the top of the spur. So, Darwin concluded that the spur had evolved its length as an arms race. Some creature had a way to reach deeply without shoving itself hard against the pollen-producing parts. Orchids with longer spurs would be more likely to spread their pollen, so Darwin's gradualistic scenario applied. The spur would evolve to be longer and longer. From the huge size, the creature must have evolved in return, reaching deeper and deeper. So, he predicted in 1862 that Madagascar has a species of hawkmoth with a tongue just slightly shorter than 30 cm.

The creature that pollinated that orchid was not learned until 1902, forty years later. It was indeed a moth, and it had a 25 cm tongue. And in 1988 it was proven that moth-pollinated short-spurred orchids did set less seed than long ones.

* A thousand years ago, just about every remote island on the planet had a species of flightless bird. Evolution explains this by saying that flying creatures are particularly able to establish themselves on remote islands. Some birds, living in a safe place where there is no need to make sudden escapes, will take the opportunity to give up on flying. Hence, Evolution predicts that each flightless bird species arose on the island that it was found on. So, Evolution predicts that no two islands would have the same species of flightless bird. Now that all the world's islands have been visited, we know that this was a correct prediction.

* The "same" protein in two related species is usually slightly different. A protein is made from a sequence of amino acids, and the two species have slightly different sequences. We can measure the sequences of many species, and cladistics has a mathematical procedure which tells us if these many sequences imply one common ancestral sequence. Evolution predicts that these species are all descended from a common ancestral species, and that the ancestral species used the ancestral sequence.

This has been done for pancreatic ribonuclease in ruminants. (Cows, sheep, goats, deer and giraffes are ruminants.) Measurements were made on various ruminants. An ancestral sequence was computed, and protein molecules with that sequence were manufactured. When sequences are chosen at random, we usually wind up with a useless goo. However, the manufactured molecules were biologically active substances. Furthermore, they did exactly what a pancreatic ribonuclease is supposed to do - namely, digest ribonucleic acids.

* An animal's bones contain oxygen atoms from the water it drank while growing. And, fresh water and salt water can be told apart by their slightly different mixture of oxygen isotopes. (This is because fresh water comes from water that evaporated out of the ocean. Lighter atoms evaporate more easily than heavy ones do, so fresh water has fewer of the heavy atoms.)

Therefore, it should be possible to analyze an aquatic creature's bones, and tell whether it grew up in fresh water or in the ocean. This has been done, and it worked. We can distinguish the bones of river dolphins from the bones of killer whales.

Now for the prediction. We have fossils of various early whales. Since whales are mammals, evolution predicts that they evolved from land animals. And, the very earliest of those whales would have lived in fresh water, while they were evolving their aquatic skills. (Skills such as the ability to do without fresh water.) Therefore, the oxygen isotope ratios in their fossils should be like the isotope ratios in modern river dolphins.

It's been measured, and the prediction was correct. The two oldest species in the fossil record - Pakicetus and Ambulocetus - lived in fresh water. Rodhocetus, Basilosaurus and the others all lived in salt water.

The point is not that these prove evolution right. The point is that these were predictions that could have turned out to be wrong predictions. So, the people who made the predictions were doing science. The Theory of Evolution was also useful, in the sense that it suggested what evidence to look for, and where. I would like to ask, what predictions can intelligent design make (or has made) that can be proven with evidence or provide clues of what to look for?

posted in Evolution/Creation Debate - 47 replies

Darwins Failed Predictions

2008-02-25T02:22:17Z

A Response to Selected Online Materials of PBS-NOVA's
"Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial" Documentary

The following slide show of the ID movement demonstrates the utter failure of darwinism to make predictions:

Some of Darwin’s failed predictions include:
The failure of evolutionary biology to provide detailed evolutionary explanations for the origin of complex biochemical features;
The failure of the fossil record to provide support for Darwinian evolution;
The failure of molecular biology to provide evidence for universal common descent;
The failure of genetics and chemistry to explain the origin of the genetic code;
The failure of developmental biology to explain why vertebrate embryos diverge from the beginning of development.

http://www.judgingpbs.com

posted in Evolution/Creation Debate - 123 replies

No Transitional Forms Exist

2008-02-20T20:45:28Z

Where is the real evidence for darwinian evolution? If it occured, the evidence would have to exist in the fossil record. But as you will read below, evolutionists themselves know it is circular reasoning to insist that the fossils support darwinism when darwinism is utilized to interpret the fossil record. Rene, Mitch, Joe and others do not understand these things. They have assumed that evolution is a Law Of Science for so long it will take a miracle to open their eyes to the truth. Here is one quote I would like to pull out of this article at the start:

“Few paleontologists have, I think, ever supposed that fossils, by themselves, provide grounds for the conclusion that evolution has occurred. The fossil record doesn’t even provide any evidence in support of Darwinian theory except in the weak sense that the fossil record is compatible with it, just as it is compatible with other evolutionary theories, and revolutionary theories, and special creationist theories, and even ahistorical theories.” [David B. Kitts (evolutionist), "Search for the Holy Transformation," Paleobiology, Vol. 5 (Summer 1979), pp. 353-354.]

If the fossil record can be used to support all of these theories, how can we claim it only supports evolution? Furthermore, if Rene is so knowledgeable about the facts of evolution, why is he so woefully unaware of what he own side has repeatedly stated in the literature? What he predictably does each time these facts are offered is to go to an evolution apologetic site and post another anonymous refutation of his own fellow believers. If it isn't anonymous, it is often a post by a non scientist! Give me a break, at least AIG and True Origins is staffed by Phd scientists!

http://www.trueorigin.org/

Isaak begins this section by offering us this definition: “A transitional fossil is one that looks like it’s from an organism intermediate between two lineages, meaning it has some characteristics of lineage A, some characteristics of lineage B, and probably some characteristics part way between the two. Transitional fossils can occur between groups of any taxonomic level, such as between species, between orders, etc. Ideally, the transitional fossil should be found stratigraphically between the first occurrence of the ancestral lineage and the first occurrence of the descendent lineage...”

Solid Ground or Shifting Sands?
It’s important that the reader understand up front that—in spite of such a clearly defined definition—there is much disagreement among the leaders in paleontology concerning which specimens qualify as “transitional” and which supposed “transitional forms” fit into which lineages, and where.
What one authority defines as a “transitional form” between lineage A and lineage B can be (and often is) just as authoritatively declared not so when it is said to better fit between lineage X and lineage Y, or when a specimen is found in a position stratigraphically “older” than the first occurrence of lineage A or “younger” than B—and all of these are common occurrences.

Other experts in morphology further complicate matters when they point out differences in physical characteristics so significant that evolutionists are forced to scrap one or another theory in phylogeny (developmental history) in spite of any existing similarities.

A very serious indictment of evolutionary “spokespersons” (such as Isaak) thus arises, as under the guise of a “united front” they declare the matter of transitional fossils to be no problem, while in reality the hands-on practitioners of science continue to disagree with one another on matters both great and small as they attempt to construct the very same phylogenies which the “spokespersons” describe as firmly established and beyond dispute.

As if that were not enough, while evolutionary literature may be replete with “just so” stories about how so many organisms evolved into their supposed descendants, there remains a conspicuous lack of credible accounting for empirically viable changes beyond that of bones and teeth.

Substantial differences exist between such systems as breathing, vision, circulation, locomotion, etc., both in general configuration and in the critical details. Faced with the absence of empirical evidence for transitions in these systems, few evolutionists bother to speculate on how these systems could have successfully “transitioned” from one to the other, or how an intermediate version could possibly provide the needed functionality for either the “original” or the “descendant” system during the alleged transition.

What do the Experts Say?
In the first place, objective paleontologists concede that one’s interpretation of the fossil record will invariably be influenced by one’s presuppositions (in the case of the evolutionists, the presumption that evolution has taken place), and that everything must therefore be forced to somehow fit into that framework. This has been precisely the observation of Ronald West:

“Contrary to what most scientists write, the fossil record does not support the Darwinian theory of evolution because it is this theory (there are several) which we use to interpret the fossil record. By doing so, we are guilty of circular reasoning if we then say the fossil record supports this theory.” [Ronald R. West (evolutionist), “Paleontology and Uniformitariansim.” Compass, Vol. 45 (May 1968), p. 216.]
Steven Stanley, highly-respected authority from Johns Hopkins, has this to say on the lack of a transitional fossil record—where it matters most, between genera and higher taxa (in other words, immediately above the [often arbitrarily and subjectively defined] species level and upwards):

“Established species are evolving so slowly that major transitions between genera and higher taxa must be occurring within small rapidly evolving populations that leave NO LEGIBLE FOSSIL RECORD.” [Steven M. Stanley, Macroevolution and the Fossil Record, Vol. 36, No. 3, 1986, p. 460. (emphasis added)]
If that weren’t enough to raise some doubts, Stanley, an affirmed evolutionist, is also objective enough to point out:

“The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphologic transition and hence offers no evidence that a gradualistic model can be valid.” [Steven M. Stanley, Macroevolution: Pattern and Process. San Francisco: W. M. Freeman & Co., 1979, p. 39.]
George Gaylord Simpson, another leading evolutionist, sees this characteristic in practically the whole range of taxonomic categories:

"...Every paleontologist knows that most new species, genera, and families, and that nearly all categories above the level of family appear in the record suddenly and are not led up to by known, gradual, completely continuous transitional sequences.” [George Gaylord Simpson (evolutionist), The Major Features of Evolution, New York, Columbia University Press, 1953 p. 360.]
David Kitts acknowledges the problem and reiterates the subjectivity with which the fossil record is viewed:

“Few paleontologists have, I think, ever supposed that fossils, by themselves, provide grounds for the conclusion that evolution has occurred. The fossil record doesn’t even provide any evidence in support of Darwinian theory except in the weak sense that the fossil record is compatible with it, just as it is compatible with other evolutionary theories, and revolutionary theories, and special creationist theories, and even ahistorical theories.” [David B. Kitts (evolutionist), "Search for the Holy Transformation," Paleobiology, Vol. 5 (Summer 1979), pp. 353-354.]
E. R. Leach offers no help, observing only that:

“Missing links in the sequence of fossil evidence were a worry to Darwin. He felt sure they would eventually turn up, but they are still missing and seem likely to remain so.” [E.R. Leach (evolutionist); Nature 293:19, 1981]
Among the most well-known proponents of evolution (and a fierce opponent of Creationism), even Steven Jay Gould admits:

“At the higher level of evolutionary transition between basic morphological designs, gradualism has always been in trouble, though it remains the “official” position of most Western evolutionists. Smooth intermediates between Baupläne are almost impossible to construct, even in thought experiments; there is certainly no evidence for them in the fossil record (curious mosaics like Archaeopteryx do not count).” [S.J. Gould & Niles Eldredge (evolutionists); Paleobiology 3:147, 1977]

“The extreme rarity of transitional forms is the trade secret of paleontology ... The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless. 2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and ‘fully formed.’” [S.J. Gould (evolutionist); Natural History 86:14 (1977)]
[It seems a bit ironic that Isaak also quotes Gould alluding in 1994 to “several” superb examples of intermediary forms and sequences—“more than enough” (according to Gould) to convince any fair-minded skeptic. Are we to understand that it was during the 17 years between 1977 and 1994 these “superb examples” were discovered (and if so, one wonders exactly which ones they were)? Or sometime during that period did Gould simply change his mind, deciding to dispute the findings of West, Stanley, Kitts, Leach and others (including himself!)? The only remaining explanation—not unheard of among evolutionists—would be a mild case of schizophrenic thinking.]

In spite of the agreement among many prominent evolutionist leaders that the fossil record does little to provide evidence of evolutionary transition, the likes of Mark Isaak somehow feel justified in declaring that, “Paleontology has progressed a bit since Origin of Species was published, uncovering thousands of transitional fossils ... there are still many instances where excellent sequences of transitional fossils exist.”

What a complete contradiction to both the above leading evolutionists’ own words, and the actual fossil record itself! If Isaak’s claims were true, why would the leading authorities of evolutionary thought so plainly disagree with this “spokesperson”?

Isaak even goes so far as to claim that, “notable examples are the transitions from reptile to mammal, from land animal to early whale, and from early ape to human.” Yet these same alleged “transitional sequences” remain no less equivocal and transitory (i.e., subject to continual dispute and re-evaluation among the “experts”) than any other. Isaak declares them “notable examples,” apparently based on his personal confidence more than on any tangible, empirical data.

One well-documented treatment of this subject (replacing evolutionary dogma with objective, critical evaluation) may be found in Dr. Duane Gish’s recently updated book:

- Gish, D. Evolution: The Fossils Still Say No. Institute for Creation Research, El Cajon, CA. 1995. ISBN 0-89051-112-8
Isaak, on the other hand, directs us to the transitional fossils FAQ in the talk.origins archive for “proof” of transitional fossils. A careful perusal of this source is well worthwhile, as it exemplifies the methods used by evolutionary “spokespersons” to defend their beliefs by blurring the line between dogma and science, touting so much theoretical speculation as if it were unequivocal, empirical data, so as to convince any willing disciple that they can’t possibly be wrong.

The “Transitional Fossil” FAQ
The above-mentioned FAQ, written by Kathleen Hunt, is in fact titled “Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ” (and does not even attempt to address the less conveniently “explained” absence of transitional specimens among invertebrates, or between invertebrates and vertebrates). It is comprised of hundreds of references to various species and genera, citing various organisms as related and/or ancestral, based on the work of several evolutionist paleontological authorities.
To the willing disciple of evolutionary doctrine, Hunt’s publication may seem overwhelmingly persuasive and encouraging. But an objective, critical look at the contents reveals that Hunt really does little more than perpetuate the myth of fossil transitions plainly denied by the evolutionist authorities quoted above. She seeks to accomplish this with a combination of many assertively-made statements and (wherever possible) references to specific physiological similarities between certain species or genera, as suggested over the years by various phylogenic theorists.

What is missing from Hunt’s document is any honest acknowledgment that among the phylogenies she describes, few—if any—are universally accepted among paleontological authorities, and many remain tentative and subject to change, if not hotly disputed among authorities with differing viewpoints.

The reader is encouraged to remember that, given the abundant variety of vertebrate organisms in both the present and the fossil worlds, coercing a selection of them into a passable phylogenic arrangement to suit evolutionary preconceptions is no difficult task. Given enough time and material, and a willingness to “overlook” any “unsuitable” facts, the desired scenario could easily be constructed, using similarities wherever they help, and ignoring them wherever they don’t.

Whale “Evolution”
One of many examples of the incomplete picture given in Hunt’s FAQ may be found in her treatment of whales. Besides presenting a phylogeny that (much like elsewhere in the FAQ) seems to rely largely on dental records at the expense (in the absence?) of the balance of physiological evidence, she makes mention of Pakicetus, which she describes as “the oldest fossil whale known ... nostrils still at front of head (no blowhole) ... found with terrestrial fossils and may have been amphibious...” What Hunt fails to include in her description of “the oldest fossil whale” is the fact that the fossil material from which Pakicetus was conjured up consisted of nothing more than:

the back of a mammal skull
two jaw fragments
some teeth
[Readers may see the image linked here for an illustration of just how much “whale evolution” is contrived from how little substance.]

As Hunt notes, these fossils were found amidst an array of land mammal fossils in 1983. There is no significant evidence to lead one to assume these remains belonged to an “old whale” any more than to an “old land mammal.” Yet the discoverers (P.D. Gingerich et al.) chose to “interpret” their findings as a whale, and evolutionary proponents (such as Hunt) have happily parroted their claim ever since.

[Let the reader be reminded at this point that one alleged evolutionary ancestor of man (Piltdown Man) was exposed as a deliberate hoax; that another (Nebraska Man) might as well have been a hoax, a whole hominid “species” having been contrived entirely from a single tooth, which turned out to belong to a pig; and that among other now seriously questioned human “ancestors” is Ramapithecus (since reclassified as Sivapithecus), based on a few teeth and jaw fragments that turned out to so closely resemble those of a modern day orangutan that Richard Leakey’s associate and co-author Alan Walker has cautiously alluded to the orangutan as a potential “living fossil”. The history of paleontology abounds with the rise and fall of various fabrications and complete reversals, demonstrating the need for extreme caution in accepting any claims based on what is often scant and equivocal evidence.]

Similarly, Hunt presents us with Ambulocetus natans (=“walking-whale swimming”), supposedly a “transitional” organism between land mammals and whales. Now, Pakicetus (the “oldest whale”) is said to be 52 million years old, and yet Ambulocetus natans (featuring powerful limbs, hooves, a long tail, and land mammal breathing & hearing configurations) was found in fossil beds nearly 400 feet higher in elevation than Pakicetus and has been declared to be about the same age. Curiously, Hunt doesn’t mention that this creature, weighing an estimated 650 lbs., in addition to possessing the above-mentioned land mammal physiology, also features teeth remarkably like mesonychid ungulates, considered to be large wolf-like carnivorous land mammals, adding further to its questionability as an ancestor of modern whales.

In any case, it is noteworthy (and conspicuously absent from Hunt’s document) that these Archeoceti (or presumed “primitive whales”) are not universally accepted as such. G. A. Mchedlidze, a Russian expert on whales has expressed serious doubts as to whether the likes of Pakicetus, Ambulocetus natans, and others—even if accepted as aquatic mammals—can properly be considered ancestors of modern whales. He sees them instead as a completely isolated group. [G. A. Mchedlidze, General Features of the Paleobiological Evolution of Cetacea, trans. from Russian (Rotterdam: A.A. Balkema, 1986, p. 91]

In 1988 R. L. Carroll, a leading paleontological authority among evolutionists, published the presumption that whales evolved from a land mammal like the mesonychids. Since then, it seems there has been a rush to attribute whale ancestry to anything resembling these wolf-like creatures, creating aquatic behavioral scenarios to help the imagination along—thus “filling” one of many troublesome gaps in the fossil record.

The so-called record of “transitional fossils” (as portrayed by Kathleen Hunt and elsewhere) is replete with just such unsubstantiated, equivocal “evidence” as exemplified in Hunt’s treatment of whale phylogeny. It is by no means a convincing body of “scientific data” in which an objective student could hope to find solid evidence of transitional evolution. More accurately, it is testimony to what is possible as a the result of forcing the data through an imaginative and speculative matching process, based mainly on hypothetical presuppositions.

The Old Archaeopteryx Trick
Having asserted that transitional fossils abound, Isaak proceeds to cite Archaeopteryx (a unique and hotly debated specimen) as an example, declaring that it “is clearly a mix of bird and reptile features (with more reptile than bird features, in fact).”
Yet concerning Archaeopteryx, at least a few leading authorities on the subject seem to disagree with Isaak:

“... Archaeopteryxwas, in a modern sense, a BIRD.”
[Allan Feduccia (evolutionist), Science 259:790-793 (1993) (emphasis added)]
Furthermore, the published work of Larry D. Martin et al., A. D. Walker, J. M. V. Rayner, S. L. Olson, K. N. Whetstone and others (all evolutionists) indicate precisely the opposite of Isaak’s assertion—that is, Archaeopteryx has far more bird-like characteristics than reptile-like characteristics.

It should also be mentioned here (especially since it was “overlooked” by both Isaak and Hunt) that full-fledged crow-sized bird fossils have been found in strata believed by evolutionists to be 75 million years older than Archaeopteryx (and as old as the oldest fossil dinosaur), making the “transitional” nature of Archaeopteryx (between dinosaurs and birds) less defensible than ever before. [Tim Beardsley (evolutionist), Nature 322:677 (1986); Richard Monastersky (evolutionist), Science News 140:104-105 (1991); Alan Anderson, Science 253:35 (1991)]

And let’s not forget that Gould himself, while remaining a staunch believer in evolution, said:

“Smooth intermediates between Baupläne are almost impossible to construct, even in thought experiments; there is certainly no evidence for them in the fossil record (curious mosaics like Archaeopteryx do not count).” [S.J. Gould & Niles Eldredge (evolutionists); Paleobiology 3:147, 1977]
The question is inescapable: If Isaak’s claim is correct (that transitional specimens abound), why would he refer us to the case of Archaeopteryx, in which he is obviously at odds not only with the conclusions of the evolutionist experts, but also with the latest paleontological data?

Surely if it existed, evolutionist spokespersons such as Isaak and Hunt would present more unequivocal proof from the fossil record. We are repeatedly told of overwhelming and conclusive evidence for evolution, yet the hands-on paleontologists and the data they have accumulated tell a very different—and more objective—story.

posted in Evolution/Creation Debate - 4 replies

9 Great Logical Arguments of the Atheist Evolutionist

2008-02-13T16:19:14Z

TRANSCENDENTAL ARGUMENT
God doesn’t exist.
If God doesn’t exist, then if reason exists, then God doesn’t exist.
Reason exists.
Therefore, God doesn’t exist.

COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT
If I say something doesn’t have a cause, it doesn’t have a cause.
I say the universe doesn’t have a cause.
Therefore, the universe doesn’t have a cause.
Therefore, God doesn’t exist.

ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT (I)
I define God to be X.
Since I cannot conceive of X, X must not exist.
Therefore, God doesn’t exist.

ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT (II)
I can’t conceive of a perfect God.
One of the qualities of perfection is existence.
Therefore, God doesn’t exist.

MODAL ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT
God doesn’t exist.
God, if existing, is either necessary or unnecessary.
God is not necessary, therefore God must be unnecessary.
Therefore, God doesn’t exist.

TELEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT
Check out the world/universe/giraffe. Isn't it complex?
Evolution (aka random chance) is a good enough explanation for me how they became so complex.
Therefore, God doesn’t exist.

ARGUMENT FROM BEAUTY (aka TELEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT II)
Isn't that baby/sunset/flower/tree beautiful?
Evolution (aka random chance) is a good enough explanation for me how they became so beautiful.
Therefore, God doesn’t exist.

ARGUMENT FROM LACK OF MIRACLES (I)
My aunt had cancer.
The doctors gave her all these horrible treatments.
My aunt prayed to God, but she died from her cancer anyway.
Therefore, God doesn’t exist.

MORAL ARGUMENT (I)
Person X, a well-known theist, was morally inferior to the rest of us.
Therefore, God doesn’t exist.

posted in Evolution/Creation Debate - 16 replies

Happy Darwin Day

2008-02-13T02:00:22Z

Americans Celebrate B'day of Evolution Champ

ALBANY, N.Y. – This Feb. 12 is the 199th anniversary of Charles Darwin's birth.

Hundreds of groups across the United States and the globe will celebrate the date as "Darwin Day" in honor of the discoveries and life of the man who famously described biological evolution via natural selection.

"Darwin Day promotes understanding of evolution and the scientific method," said Matt Cherry, executive director of the Institute for Humanist Studies. "This celebration expresses gratitude for the enormous benefit that scientific knowledge has contributed to the advancement of humanity."

The Darwin Day Celebration is a project of the Albany, N.Y.-based Institute for Humanist Studies, an international educational nonprofit that promotes reason and humanity.

Next year will mark both the 200th anniversary of Darwin's birth and the 150th anniversary of the 1859 publication of Darwin's "The Origin of Species", which presented the scientific theory that populations evolve over generations through natural selection.

The theory of evolution was controversial in Darwin's time and remains controversial in the United States today.

Recent Gallup polls show that 43 percent of Americans reject the theory of evolution and instead believe that "God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so." And at least four 2008 presidential candidates have said they do not believe the theory of evolution.

"There is a continuous threat to evolutionary biology and to science in general that has been posed by fundamentalists who reject entirely a Darwinian worldview because they feel it threatens their religious beliefs," said Massimo Pigliucci, Ph.D., a professor of evolutionary biology at the State University of New York-Stony Brook.

Pigliucci uses Darwin Day to teach the public about how science works "so people aren't just hearing about science from their local preacher." His online course "Evolution, Creationism and the Nature of Science" is available for free through the Institute for Humanist Studies.

The Darwin Day Celebration started with one event in 1995. Last year there were more than 850 Darwin Day events world-wide. Darwin Day festivities can include debates, lectures, essay contests, film festivals, museum exhibits, art shows and even an "Evolution Banquet" with "Primordial Soup" followed by a "Darwin Fish Fry."

This year, hundreds of church congregations will celebrate Darwin Day by hosting an "Evolution Weekend" to explore the compatibility of science and religion.

For information, visit: www.DarwinDay.org

posted in Evolution/Creation Debate - 2 replies

Was Hitler really an Atheist??

2008-02-12T15:51:30Z

A good collection of links. A friend is writing a book on common fallacies used by people who are religious to attack those who aren't. One of the most common, that Hitler was an atheist, is complete bullshit, and I get to help with the chapter on Nazism. I can't really say its 'fun', as I find the subject to be horribly mind numbingly wrenchingly depressing, but it is interesting. For the record, I am not arguing that Hitler was christian (he clearly wasn't), but neither was he a secular atheist as christians are so fond of asserting. We have started coining the phrase "reductum ad hitler" to refer to the logical fallacy of 'Hitler was X, so X is evil" or "If you do X, you are as bad as Hitler" that is so common among creationists/religious nutjobs/etc.

Nazi iconography with explicitly religious/christian messages:
http://www.nobeliefs.com/mementoes.htm

An examination of Hitlers non-materialistic beliefs:
http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/mischedj/ca_hitler.html

A link that explains the difficulties of this question, as well as some evidence that Hitler was neither and atheist, nor a christian (Warning, contains subtleties and complexities within its arguments. Not for those unable to discern the underlying premise of arguments that do not fit within the (Bible is Truth/Everything else is lies) mentality:
http://davnet.org/kevin/essays/hitler.html

An interesting side link, was Jesus a communist?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_communism

posted in Evolution/Creation Debate - 26 replies

Chose a new moderator

2008-02-08T22:50:00Z

I propose we choose Dan. He's perfect! He won't listen to anyone and can't understand reason or evidence. Is there any better qualification for a mod?

posted in Evolution/Creation Debate - 2 replies

The Creationist Buffoonery and Its Dangerous Implications

2008-02-08T19:49:56Z

I found this and thought I would share. Its a good examination of why idiot creationists are not just a danger to themselves and their families, they are a danger to us all.
M<
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Creationist Buffoonery and Its Dangerous Implications

by Lee Salisbury / January 29th, 2008

Creationism seems to be gaining credence far beyond its actual influence in the world of science. Even American presidential candidates, lest they offend the religious right, reject evolution in favor of creationism. Mike Huckabee, Fred Thompson and Mit Romney endorse creationism. President George Bush suggests students ought to hear all sides of the argument, as if creationism or its bastard offspring Intelligent Design is a science topic worthy of mention. In spite of the pro-evolution 2006 verdict in Dover, PA, creationists persist seeking to influence and intimidate uninformed school boards in Ohio, Florida, and Texas. This is clearly a culture war with creationist/biblical literalists leading the anti-science, pro-creationist charge.

Creationists usually have two basic assertions: 1) that they are the ones who know true science and 2) that it is they and they alone who are the guardians of true faith in the written and revealed word of their deity. Both are of concern as surely as they are false, but it is the first assertion that we must deal with here.

Creation “science” rejects every fundamental precept upon which actual science functions, from empiricism to falsification. Creationists reject empiricism, the very heart of science, and instead embrace fanciful biblical legends of a ‘talking snake’ and a 6,000-year-old solar system all in a vain attempt to justify their immutable doctrinal beliefs. They are no different than the Roman Catholic clergy of 500 years ago persecuting Galileo because he declared the sun did not revolve around the earth.

Creationist buffoons know their a priori conclusions in advance, independent of any scientific inquiry. They then massage their superficially scientific assertions to justfy their desired answers matching their religious doctrine. The circularity and philosophical bankruptcy of this perspective is obvious. They beg the question, presuming to be true the very thing they claim. In other words, they are going to believe what they are going to believe regardless of the facts, i.e. religious fanaticism.

The major creationist concern is they’re afraid evolution may prove they’re not created in the image of the Bible’s God. It seems these poor folks have never read their Bible objectively. The Bible’s God is a serial murderer, He endorses stealing and lying, institgates gang rape, and finally declares that all (virtually 99% of all humanity) who do not believe in his Son will be condemned to Hell to burn forever and ever. But, that’s okay cause He really loves you? Tell that to the 6,000,000 Jews who perished under Adolph Hitler.

Over the past 149 years since Charles Darwin’s 1859 book On the Origin of Species, scientists of relevant disciplines such as cosmology, astronomy, geology, biology, zoology, and paleontology repeatedly confirm evolution a valid theory having the same reliability as the theory of gravity. According to a 1991 Gallup Poll there were about 480,000 scientists working in the relevant fields of earth and life sciences. Of those, only about 700 consider creationism valid. This means 98% of relevant scientists accept evolution and less than 2% of relevant scientists consider creationism good science. In the world of science, creationism does not even qualify for fringe of the fringe.

Scientists arrive at their conclusions by the scientific method of extensive trial and error testing of hypotheses until results produce a verifiably testable theory, in this case the theory of evolution. In contrast to creationist/religious theory, scientific theory is always tentative and subject to change as new evidence dictates.

It is bad enough that creationist churches are freeloaders, taking advantage of the public’s good will by skirting their fair share of real estate taxes. But, worse yet, they use creationism as a rhetorical facade, as a lever through which to influence public policy. Creationists exploit the faith of well-meaning Christians (and those of other religions) to further their own purely self-serving goals at the expense of reality. Creationism is nothing more than an ancient regurgitated ideology bereft of merit, and loathsome in its intentions.

America ’s 29th ranking in science education can, in part, be laid at the feet of our creationist/biblical literalists parading about as those righteous souls who would never “bear false witness.” James Madison saw through the charade saying, “During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits?More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution.” A Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments, addressed to the Virginia General Assemby, 1785.

Make no mistake, creationism intends to redefine science, and replace it with a meaningless shell of supernatural speculation and deceit. And why, you might ask? The answer is not hard to fathom. Religion has ever been a sanctuary of those who seek to secure their eminence at the expense of others. History is unequivocal in teaching this lesson, and yet as blind as we are we seem to have failed to learn it. The creationist attack on the teaching of evolution devalues science, cheapens theology as well as condemning America’s students to an inferior education, ultimately hurting their professional opportunities, not to mention diminishing America’s leadership in science and technology.

Creationists aim to not only destroy science in an effort to protect their creationist fairy tales, their mission is to redefine the United States of America, eviscerate the Constitution, and effectively dismantle American democracy by instituting religious indoctrination in the schools and halls of public policy making. They mean to supplant all of these things with a form of oligarchy wrapped in the shrouds of a dumbed down science and legalistic religion. And if one doubts this, one need only consult the web sites and publications of such notable creationist organizations as the the Creation Museum, the Institute for Creation Research and the Discovery Institute. Creationists are quite explicit in their stated goals, and there is little room for doubt their true intentions. The true mission of creationism is theocracy. Thus exposed, the need to fight it on all fronts, scientific, philosophical, theological, administrative and judicial, is made even more clear. There is no higher imperative if we mean to preserve America’s intellectual freedom.

Lee Salisbury is a former evangelical preacher, founder of the Critical Thinking Club of Minnesota, and writes for Axis of Logic and Dissident Voice.

LINK:
http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2008/01/the-creationist-buffoonery-and-its-dangerous-implications/

posted in Evolution/Creation Debate - 9 replies

More evidence that the appendix is anything but vestigial (i.e. useless left over)

2008-02-06T22:01:07Z

http://www.newsobserver.com/print/saturday/front/story/727924.html

WASHINGTON - Some scientists think they have figured out the real job of the troublesome and seemingly useless appendix: It produces and protects good germs for your gut.

Looks like the only useless thing is the belief in vestigial organs, a prediction of evolution believers.

posted in Evolution/Creation Debate - 1 reply

If human and chimp DNA are so similar,

2008-02-06T14:59:11Z

why are there so many physical and mental differences between them?

When studying the human genome and its similarity to that of the chimp, scientists have recently concluded that 96% of our genome is similar. However, most people are unaware that this percent pertains to the regions of our DNA that result in proteins. It seems logical that if a protein performs a certain function in one organism, then that same protein should perform the same function in a variety of organisms. This is evidence for a common designer as much as for a common ancestor. But most of the DNA sequence performs an unknown function and has been largely dismissed as “junk DNA.” However, increasing evidence supports the view that “junk” DNA performs an important role. For example, a recent report unexpectedly found specific sequence patterns in “junk” DNA which scientists have termed “pyknons.”1 It has been suggested that these pyknons may be important in determining when and where proteins are made.

Within this “junk DNA” there may be large differences between man and chimp. The areas of greatest difference appear to involve regions which are structurally different (commonly called “rearrangements”) and areas of heterochromatin (tightly packed DNA).

Here are some other interesting differences between the human and chimp genomes which are often not reported:

The amount of chimp DNA is 12% larger than what it is in humans.
Several hundred million bases (individual components of the DNA) of the chimp genome are still unanalyzed.
In many areas of the DNA sequence, major “rearrangements” seem apparent. These account for perhaps 4–10% dissimilarity between chimps and humans.
Chimps have 23 chromosomes and humans have only 22 (excluding sex chromosomes for both species).
Thus, the physical and mental differences between humans and chimps are most likely due to the differences in purpose and function of the so-called junk DNA. This understanding should leave us more mindful of the awesome complexity of the Creator and His creation of DNA.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v1/n2/human-and-chimp-dna

posted in Evolution/Creation Debate - 5 replies

Creationists - Why People Laugh

2008-02-06T14:54:55Z

This is the first of 15 parts. It is worth watching them all.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BS5vid4GkEY

One of the reasons people laugh is that if the facts don't fit creationists will simply make up new facts.

posted in Evolution/Creation Debate - 1 reply

Evolution and the Fossil Record

2008-02-05T15:25:39Z

This website contains many good links demonstrating the evidence for evolution:

http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoEvidence.html

I recommend this link:

Evolution and the Fossil Record: by John Pojesta, Jr. and Dale A. Springer for anyone looking for a good short summary of the evidence from the fossil record.

posted in Evolution/Creation Debate - 0 replies

Facts that Weren't

2008-02-05T14:30:46Z

Evolution "facts" which were overturned became non facts. Is this just "science doing its thing" or a false front to a failed philosophy?

http://www.creationmoments.com/radio/listen.php?t=2028

posted in Evolution/Creation Debate - 6 replies

Importance Of Teaching Evolution Noted By National Academy Of Sciences And Institute Of Medicine

2008-01-09T02:17:59Z

SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1155ap_teaching_evolution.html

Last updated January 3, 2008 3:31 p.m. PT
Importance of teaching evolution noted

By NANCY ZUCKERBROD
AP EDUCATION WRITER

WASHINGTON -- Scientific advisers to the government emphasize in a report the importance of teaching evolution in public schools. The report by the National Academy of Sciences and its Institute of Medicine follows up on similar past publications, the last of which came out in 1999. The new document includes recently discovered evidence supporting evolution, including an important fossil find.

The report released Thursday also takes swipes at creationism and other anti-evolution theories.

"Despite the lack of scientific evidence for creationist positions, some advocates continue to demand that various forms of creationism be taught together with or in place of evolution in science classes," the report says.

Evolution is a continuing topic of debate in some states. Florida officials are considering revisions in state science standards that would add the word "evolution" to the standards. The state Board of Education plans to vote on the guidelines next month.

In Texas, the state's director of science curriculum, Chris Comer, maintains she was forced to resign recently due to evolution politics. Comer said she came under pressure after forwarding an e-mail that her superiors felt made the agency appear to be biased against the instruction of intelligent design, an alternative to evolution favored by some religious conservatives.

Intelligent design holds that the universe's order and complexity are so great that evolution cannot explain it.

The Texas State Board of Education is expected to begin a review of the state science curriculum soon.

Josh Rosenau, a spokesman for the California-based National Center for Science Education, which supports the teaching of evolution, said the new report is important because the debate over evolution in school is not going away.

Casey Luskin, program officer for the Discovery Institute, a Seattle-based think tank that supports teaching students about the criticism of evolution, was critical of the document.

"Students should learn about the evidence for and against evolution," he said.

The Institute of Medicine is part of the National Academy of Sciences, a private organization chartered by Congress to advise the government of scientific matters.

---

On the Net:

The National Academies: http://www.nationalacademies.org/

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1155ap_teaching_evolution.html

posted in Evolution/Creation Debate - 3 replies

Mounting Evidence for Intelligent Design Discovered in 2007

2008-01-06T02:42:41Z

http://www.christianpost.com/article/20080101/30697_Mounting_Evidence_for_Intelligent_Design_Discovered_in_2007.htm

From jellyfish fossil finds to the newly discovered function of the appendix, a science and technology watchdog group has released a list of some of the year's top news that reflect mounting evidence supporting intelligent design.

The Access Research Network – which reports on science, technology and society from an intelligent design perspective – recently released its "Top 10 Darwin and Design News Stories" list for 2007.

"Overall in 2007 I'd say we've observed a growing consternation running through many scientific disciplines over Darwinian explanations of the evidence that were once thought to be resolved long ago," said Kevin Wirth, ARN director of media relations.

Among the top stories the group considers a "growing burden" to Darwinists is the increasing level of complexity being discovered in small biological systems such as living cells and in early life history such as jellyfish. Newly uncovered jellyfish fossils in Utah were dated back 200 million years earlier than the oldest specimens of the modern jellyfish yet showed the same complexity as modern orders and families of jellyfish. These findings, according to ARN, challenge Darwin's molecule-to-man theory because they reveal that there was an insufficient amount of time for complex life to have developed only via the Darwinian principles of random mutations and natural selection.

Darwin's "Tree-of-Life" model was also hit hard in 2007 when a scientist at the National Center for Biotechnology Information published a paper claiming the tree pattern could not explain major transitions in biological evolution and instead proposed a "Biological Big Bang" model.

ARN executive director Dennis Wagner noted that science is still recovering from a whole generation of people who have been raised according to "Darwinian fairytales," such as the teaching that human and chimpanzee genetics only differ by 1 percent and that the appendix is a leftover evolutionary vestige.

"These are Darwinian 'arguments from ignorance' that continue to be discarded as scientists uncover the incredible design and purpose of biological systems," he said.

But the challenges to Darwinism have not been without opposition.

The group notes in its list that political and academic persecution against those who question the evolutionary theory has also been a hallmark for 2007.

"Our modern western culture is so ingrained in the naturalistic Darwinian creation story that those who challenge the story, even with scientific evidence in hand, are treated as outsiders and outcasts," observed Wagner.

He hopes that Ben Stein's documentary "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed," scheduled for release in early 2008, will serve as a "eye-opener" to Americans on the growing hostility toward individuals who have suggested alternative views to Darwinism.

The debate about origins is expected to heat up again significantly in 2008, Wirth said.
"I think we're beginning to see a growing trend overall that the sufficiency of Darwinian explanations to describe how life evolved is turning out to be substantially inadequate in a growing number of fields, particularly in the areas of genetics and molecular biology," he noted.
"I think it's becoming clear that Darwinism is on the verge of one of the greatest challenges it has faced in many decades."

posted in Evolution/Creation Debate - 0 replies

Information Science Debate

2008-01-05T02:33:39Z

On my "Evolution Train" thread I laid out an argument which evolutionists must overcome if their theory of transmutation of all species from a simple self replicating molecule is to be taken seriously. During the back and forth Rene quoted an article by Dr. Max on Talk Origins referencing a discussion he had with Israeli Scientist, Dr Spetner. I finished reading this informative debate last night and wish to offer it here for those who wish to dig in a little deeper. It gets technical at times, but I feel the reader will still gain a deeper insight as to the challenge evolution believers face when attempting to explain a mechanism for Neo Darwinian Theory (NDT). Clearly, the simplistic notion that observable changes in organisms can be extrapolated back in time to explain the origin of all species without a designer (God) is a brain wash that most students today in our "education" system have unwittingly embraced and this becomes abundantly clear even by reading Dr. Max's side of the argument.

Lee Spetner/Edward Max Dialogue
Dr. Lee Spetner
continuing an exchange with Dr. Edward E. Max

© 2001 L.M. Spetner. All Rights Reserved.

fter I posted my critique of Edward E. Max’s essay, Max posted our dialogue with additional comments to my responses. The order of topics in his posting does not correspond exactly to the order of my posting, but both postings are fairly accurate representations of our dialogue. The following is my latest response (23 May 2001) in a form that reproduces his posting into which I have inserted my comments. I have identified each of our statements as he has reproduced them by putting our names in boldface followed by a colon. My new comments are inserted into the text in small caps inside square brackets and identified by "LMS".

Introduction
Spetner: I am writing this essay in response to a request from Edward E. Max to comment on his posting The Evolution of Improved Fitness (updated July 12 1999). His essay is an attempt to defend evolutionary theory against attacks by creationists. Although Max scored some points against some alleged creationist arguments, he failed to defend Darwinian evolution against my attack on it in my book Not By Chance. He did not mention my book in his posting, but he referred to my book in his request for my comments. I shall also take this opportunity to clarify some issues in my book about which some readers have written me.

The principle message of evolution is that all life descended with modification from a putative single primitive source. I call this the grand sweep of evolution. The mechanism offered for the process of modification is basically the Darwinian one of a long series of steps of random variation, each followed by natural selection. The variation is generally understood today to be random mutations in the DNA.

That primitive source of life is assumed to be sufficiently simple that it could have arisen from nonliving material by chance. There is no theory today that can account for such an event, but I shall not address that issue here. That is for another place and another time. What is relevant to this discussion is that the requirement that life arose spontaneously sets, at the very least, a stringent upper limit on the complexity and information content of the putative first organism that could reproduce itself, and thus serve as a vehicle from which to launch Darwinian evolution. The issue I address here is the alleged development of all life by the Neo-Darwinian process of random mutation and natural selection, starting from a sufficiently simple beginning.

Despite the insistence of evolutionists that evolution is a fact, it is really no more than an improbable story. No one has ever shown that macroevolution can work. Most evolutionists assume that macroevolution is just a long sequence of microevolutionary events, but no one has ever shown it to be so. (Those few evolutionists who hold that macroevolution is really different from microevolution have changed their story several times since they first came out with it, and their mechanism is so fuzzy that I cannot tell what it is. John Maynard Smith seems to be of a similar opinion.)

For the grand process of evolution to work, long sequences of “beneficial” mutations must be possible, each building on the previous one and conferring a selective advantage on the organism. The process must be able to lead not only from one species to another, but to the entire advance of life from a simple beginning to the full complexity of life today. There must be a long series of possible mutations, each of which conferring a selective advantage on the organism so that natural selection can make it take over the population. Moreover, there must be not just one, but a great many such series.

The chain must be continuous in that at each stage a change of a single base pair somewhere in the genome can lead to a more adaptive organism in some environmental context. That is, it should be possible to continue to climb an “adaptive” hill, one base change after another, without getting hung up on a local adaptive maximum. No one has ever shown this to be possible.

Now one might say that if evolution were hung up on a local Maximum, a large genetic change like a recombination or a transposition could bring it to another higher peak. Large adaptive changes are, however, highly improbable. They are orders of magnitude less probable than getting an adaptive change with a single nucleotide substitution, which is itself improbable. No one has shown this to be possible either.

Moreover, as I have noted in my book, the large mutations such as recombinations and transpositions are mediated by special enzymes and are executed with precision - not the sort of doings one would expect of events that were supposed to be the products of chance. Evolutionists chose the mechanism of randomness, by the way, because we can’t think of any other way beneficial mutations might occur in the absence of a law that might govern them. Genetic rearrangements may not be really random at all. They do not seem to qualify as the random mutations Neo-Darwinists can invoke whenever needed to escape from a local adaptive Maximum.

Evolutionists can argue, and rightly so, that we have no way of observing long series of mutations, since our observation time is limited to a relatively short interval. Our genetic observations over the past 100 years are more like a snapshot of evolution rather than a representative interval in which we can search for the required long series of changes. But our inability to observe such series cannot be used as a justification for the assumption that the series Darwinian theory requires indeed exist.

Max: I agree that there are no definitive examples where a macroevolutionary change (such as the development of cetaceans from terrestrial mammals) has been shown to result from a specific chain of mutations. And I agree with your further comment that “we have no way of observing a long series of mutations.” But you go on to say that “our inability to observe such series cannot be used as a justification for the assumption that the series Darwinian theory requires indeed exist.” An equally reasonable conclusion, in my view, would be that our inability to observe such series cannot be used as a justification for the assumption that such a series of mutations did NOT occur.

Spetner: Now Ed, that’s ridiculous! Those two statements are not symmetrical. I don’t have to assume the series did not occur to make a case for the inadequacy of NDT. You, who are basing your theory of evolution on the occurrence of such a series, are required to show that it exists, or at least that it is likely to exist. You are obliged to show an existence. I am not obliged to prove a non-existence.
[LMS: IN MAX’S POSTING HE MOVED THIS REMARK OF MINE TO A LATER POINT IN THE DIALOGUE. I ORIGINALLY HAD IT HERE, AND HERE IS WHERE IT BELONGS.]

Max: In the absence of conclusive data defining such a series, if we want to distinguish between various hypotheses to explain the origin of species we must rely on other data, such as from various laboratory model systems that show adaptations in short enough timeframes that we can observe them. Then we must extrapolate as best we can the information learned from these model systems to the questions of species origins. This extrapolation from laboratory model systems to systems unobservable in the laboratory is the method of science common to medicine, astronomy, chemistry, meteorology, physics, etc.

I think there is some semantic confusion here about the word “justification” in Spetner’s sentence “But our inability to observe such series cannot be used as a justification for the assumption that the series Darwinian theory requires indeed exist.” He is correct that acceptance of the NDT implies the belief that a series of successive mutations (including duplications and translocations) occurred in the evolution of an ancient primitive genome into the complex genome of a modern species. Because we can access only genomes of modern (or very recent) species, we can never obtain the direct evidence—i.e., a complete list of those mutations—that some anti-evolutionists (e.g. Behe) seem to think would be necessary to support NDT.
[LMS: MAX’S STATEMENT HERE IS A DISTORTION OF MY ARGUMENT INTO AN EXTREME POSITION. I NEITHER SAID NOR IMPLIED THAT EVOLUTIONISTS MUST “OBTAIN...A COMPLETE LIST OF THOSE MUTATIONS” REQUIRED FOR NDT. I DO MAINTAIN, HOWEVER, THAT THEY SHOULD AT LEAST ACCEPT THE RESPONSIBILITY OF SHOWING THAT NDT IS REASONABLY SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE. THEY HAVE NOT DONE THAT. THE MECHANISM OF NDT CONSISTS OF TWO BASIC STEPS. AN ADAPTIVE MUTATION MUST BE ACHIEVED, AND THEN NATURAL SELECTION MUST OPERATE TO ENABLE IT TO TAKE OVER THE POPULATION. EVOLUTIONISTS ARE OBLIGATED TO SHOW THAT BOTH THESE STEPS ARE REASONABLY SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE IF THEY ARE TO MAKE A CASE FOR NDT. MOST OF THEIR EFFORTS ALONG THESE LINES HAVE BEEN LIMITED TO ARGUING FOR NATURAL SELECTION. THEY USUALLY DO NOT DEAL WITH THE PROBABILITY OF ACHIEVING AN ADAPTIVE MUTATION. THEY MERELY ASSUME ONE WILL BE AVAILABLE WHENEVER IT IS NEEDED.]

In the absence of such direct evidence, it seems pointless to argue which side is “obliged” to provide what indirect evidence; certainly neither side can hope for anything close to “proof.” Although Spetner denies that he is “obliged to prove a non-existence” of such a chain of mutations, his whole effort in the correspondence seems to be directed to just that aim. Evolutionists have the job of defending the reasonableness of such a series of mutations. I believe that Spetner would agree with this.
[LMS: RIGHT. EVOLUTIONISTS DO HAVE THAT JOB AS AN OBLIGATION, AND THEY HAVE FAILED TO FULFILL IT. I AM NOT OBLIGED TO PROVE A NON-EXISTENCE. BUT IN MY BOOK, I HAVE MADE A GOOD CASE FOR THE UNREASONABLENESS OF THE EVOLUTIONISTS’ TACIT ASSUMPTIONS OF THE UNIVERSAL AVAILABILITY OF ADAPTIVE MUTATIONS, AND I HAVE GIVEN SOME OF THOSE ARGUMENTS IN THIS DIALOGUE.]

Spetner: But the argument against Darwinian theory is considerably stronger than that. The theory requires there be a vast number of possible point mutations which, coupled with natural selection, can produce the evolutionary advances that could produce the grand sweep of evolution. Because there must be a large number of qualifying mutations, at least a few of them should have been observed in some of the many genetics laboratories around the world. All the mutations in these long series must not only confer selective advantage on the organism but they must, on the average, also contribute to the information, or complexity, increase that surely distinguishes present-day life from the putative primitive organism.

These mutations must have whatever characteristics are necessary for them to serve as elements of the grand sweep of evolution. Thus, for a mutation to qualify as a representative member of the required multitude of long series that are supposed to produce evolution, it must bring new information not just to the genome of the organism, but the information must be new to the entire biocosm. The horizontal transfer of a gene from one species to another is not information new to the biocosm. To show evolution in action, one must at least demonstrate examples of a mutation that can serve as a prototype of those required by the theory. Such a mutation must be one that could be a contributing member of a series of mutations that could lead to the vast increase in information required by the theory. Thus, for example, a mutation that disables a repressor gene causing a constitutive synthesis of an enzyme might be advantageous to an organism under special circumstances, but the disabling of a gene does not represent the mutations required by the theory.

Max devotes a good portion of his essay to refuting what he calls the “creationist” argument against evolution. Although some opponents of evolutionary theory may have advanced the arguments he attacks, those arguments are in large measure straw men that Max busies himself with refuting. If some creationists have claimed that all mutations are harmful, they would be wrong, but Max’s observation that there are mutations that are beneficial, while true, is hardly a telling argument for evolution.

The B-Cell Hypermutation Model
Max: The next major point of discussion in the correspondence has been about how well the model of immunoglobulin gene somatic hypermutation in B cells serves as an analog to genomic mutation in evolution. The following section contains the salient points of our exchange about this question, beginning with Spetner’s initial response to my essay on Talk.Origins.

Spetner: Max’s pièce de résistance was the somatic mutations in B lymphocytes (B cells) of the vertebrate immune system as examples of random mutations that add information. He implied that Evolution could follow this method to achieve baboons from bacteria. I agree with him that these mutations add information to the B-cell genome. I also agree that they are random, but they are random only in the base changes they make; they are not random in where in the genome they can occur. More important, I do not agree that the grand sweep of evolution could be achieved through such mutations.

Although the somatic mutations to which Max referred are point mutations that do indeed add information to the genome of the B cells, they cannot be applied to Darwinian evolution. These are not the kind of mutations that can operate as the random mutations required by NDT that can, through chance errors, build information one base change at a time.

For one thing, the rate of the somatic mutations in the immune system is extremely high - more than a million times normal mutation rates. For this reason they are called hypermutations. If an organism had a mutation rate that was even a small fraction of this rate it could not survive. For a second thing, the hypermutations in the B cells are restricted to a specific tiny portion of the genome, where they can do no harm but only good. The entire genome of the B cell could not mutate at this rate; the hypermutation must be restricted only to the portion that encodes selected portions of the variable part of the antibody.

The mutation rate of the hypermutating part of the B cell’s genome is about one per thousand base pairs per replication (Darnell et al., 1986, Molecular Cell Biology, Scientific American Books, p. 1116.), and it can be as high as one in 500 base pairs per replication (Shen, 1998 Science 280: 1750). These rates are incompatible with Darwinian evolution. If an organism’s genome were to mutate at this rate, there would be, on the average, about one mutation in every gene, with a high probability that many of them would be fatal for the organism. No, Darwinian evolution could not occur with such rates.

These high rates are essential for the working of the immune system. In each replication of a B cell, about 30 of the 300 or so gene regions encoding the CDR’s will have a mutation. A lower mutation rate would make for a less efficient immune system. The high mutation rates, so necessary for the immune system, if applied to an entire organism for evolutionary purposes, would be fatal many times over.

Note that these hypermutations are limited to a restricted portion of the genome. Moreover, the hypermutations are mediated by special enzymes. Thus, although the hypermutations are random in the changes they make in the bases of the genome, they are not random in the positions in which they occur. They occur only in the small region in which they are needed, and occur there through enzymes that apparently play only that role. Furthermore, they occur only when they are switched on by the controlling mechanism of B-cell maturation. Thus it is clear that the hypermutations in B cells cannot serve as a prototype for the random mutations required for NDT.

Max: You agreed with me that the model system of random somatic mutations and selection that occurs in immunoglobulin genes in B lymphocytes can “add information to the B-cell genome.” I am glad that you accept the idea that random mutation and selection can lead to an increase in information, since this idea directly refutes the notion of Dembski and others who believe that there is some theoretical bar that would prevent achieving what they call “complex specified information” through random mutation and selection. (Incidentally, I don’t think they would appreciate your characterization of them as “straw men.") However, you then go on to declare that the B cell example is a poor model for what happens in “Darwinian” evolution, and you cite two reasons: (1) the mutation rate in this model is much higher than what is seen in non-immunoglobulin genes and in non-B-cells; and (2) these “hypermutations” are mediated by “special enzymes.” With regard to your first point, I agree that the mutation rate is higher in the B cell example than in evolution, but I fail to see why that fact weakens the usefulness of the example as a model for evolution. If adaptive mutations that increase information in the genome of a B lymphocyte population can occur over one week given a high mutation rate, what theoretical argument would lead you to reject the idea that adaptive mutations that increase information in the genome of a germ cell population could occur over many millions of years given a much lower mutation rate?

Spetner: [LMS: IN HIS POSTING, MAX MOVED MY ANSWER FROM HERE TO A LATER POINT IN THE DIALOGUE, BUT THIS IS WHERE I ORIGINALLY PUT IT, AND THIS IS WHERE IT BELONGS.]
The theoretical argument is the following. Evolution requires a long series of steps each consisting of an adaptive mutation followed by natural selection. In this series, each mutation must have a higher selective value than the previous. Thus, the evolving population moves across the adaptive landscape always rising toward higher adaptivity. It is generally accepted that the adaptive landscape is not just one big smooth hill with a single Maximum, but it is many hills of many different heights. Most likely, the population is on a hill that is not the highest in the landscape. It will then get stuck on a local Maximum of adaptivity and will not be able to move from it. This is particularly likely because the steps it takes are very small - only one nucleotide change at a time. The problem is compounded by the lack of freedom of a single nucleotide substitution to cause a change in the encoded amino acid. A single nucleotide substitution does not have the potential to change an amino acid to any one of the other 19. In general, its potential for change is limited to only 5 or 6 others. To evolve off the “dead point” of adaptivity, a larger step, such as the simultaneous change of more than one nucleotide, is required. Moreover, the probability is close to 1 that a single mutation in a population, even though it is adaptive, will disappear without taking over the population (see my book, Chapter 3). Therefore, many adaptive mutations must occur at each step.

The hypermutation in the B cells does this. It achieves all possible single, double, and triple mutations for the immune system, which allows them to obtain the information necessary to match a new antigen. Ordinary mutations, at the normal low rate, cannot add this information - even over long times. I shall explain why. Consider a population of antigen-activated B cells of, say, a billion individuals. In two weeks, there will be about 30 generations. Let’s say the population size will remain stable, so in two weeks there will be a total of 30 billion replications. With a mutation rate of 1 per 1000 nucleotides per replication, there will be an average of 30 million changes in any particular nucleotide during a two-week period. The probability of getting two particular nucleotides to change is one per million replications. Thus in two weeks, there will be an average of 30 thousand changes in any two particular nucleotides. There will be an average of 30 changes in any three particular nucleotides.

How many generations, and how long, would it take to get a particular multiple nucleotide change in a germ cell to have an effect on Neo-Darwinian evolution? Here, the mutation rate is about one per billion nucleotides per replication. Let’s suppose we're doing this experiment with a population of a billion bacteria. Then, in one generation, there will be an average of one change in a particular base. A particular double base change has a probability of one per quintillion, or 10-18. To get one of these would take a billion generations, or about 100,000 years. To get a triple change would take 1014, or a hundred trillion, years. That is why a long waiting time cannot compensate for a low mutation rate. I've given numbers here for a laboratory experiment with bacteria. Many more mutations would be expected world-wide. But the same kind of thing has to happen under NDT with multicelled animals as well. With vertebrates, for example, the breeding populations seldom exceed a few thousand. Multicelled animals would have many fewer mutations than those cited above for bacteria.

Max: Your second objection to the somatic mutation model in B-cells, that “special enzymes” are involved, is unsupportable.
[LMS: ON THE CONTRARY, I HAVE SHOWN IT IS WELL SUPPORTED (SEE BELOW).]
As far as I can tell from my reading of the literature, the mechanism of somatic hypermutation in B-cells is not currently known.
[LMS: TO WHAT EXTENT THE MECHANISM IS KNOWN IS IRRELEVANT TO THIS DISCUSSION. THE POINT IS THAT THE CONSENSUS AMONG EXPERTS IS THAT SUCH A MECHANISM EXISTS FOR B-CELL MUTATION, AND DOES NOT EXIST FOR GERMLINE MUTATION.]
The mechanism could perhaps involve “special” enzymes that create mutations, but an alternative possibility is that the high rate of accumulation of mutations simply reflects selective inhibition of normal proof-reading mechanisms. But again, I fail to see why the source of the random mutations should influence the general validity of the conclusion that random mutations and selection can increase genomic information, or why you feel that these mutations cannot serve as a model for evolutionary adaptations.

Indeed, both the rate and predominant mechanism of mutation may be different in different species of organisms, depending on whether they have more or less exposure to cosmic rays and other environmental mutagens, and depending on the nature and robustness of their genomic error-correction mechanisms. Therefore, if we accept your argument against extrapolation from B cell adaptation to species adaptation, should we reject the extrapolation of any information learned from studying one organism to understand adaptations in a second organism, unless it is shown that both the rate and mechanism of mutation are the same in both organisms?
[LMS: HERE AGAIN, MAX DISTORTS MY ARGUMENT INTO AN EXTREME POSITION AND THEN RESPONDS TO THAT EXTREME POSITION.]
In my view this would be like refusing to use the gravitational constant determined in laboratories on earth to analyze stellar physics. Such a reluctance to extrapolate would certainly prevent the use of modern organisms as a basis for understanding evolutionary events that occurred millions of years ago (which may be precisely your intent). I sometimes hear arguments like yours from creationists who are demanding rigorous “proof” of evolution. These creationists do not seem to understand the distinction between mathematics, where a rigorous proof is expected, versus most experimental and observational science, where all we are seeking is the best theory that explains observed data. Of course it is possible to extrapolate unreasonably, but I do not see that you have shown how evolutionary theory (or my essay) does this.

Spetner: Extrapolations made in astrophysics and cosmology may not be entirely valid, but at least they are reasonable based on everything we know. The extrapolation you propose from B-cell hypermutation to Neo-Darwinian evolution is unreasonable based on present knowledge, and it is therefore unjustified.
[LMS: THIS ANSWER OF MINE SOMEHOW GOT MOVED AWAY FROM THIS PLACE WHERE IT BELONGS.]
Yes, Ed, the hypermutation in the B cells cannot be a prototype of the kind of mutation required by NDT for Evolution A for the two reasons I gave. You question both those reasons, so I shall elaborate to explain to you why they are valid reasons for rejecting your example of B-cell hypermutation as support for NDT.

One of my arguments to invalidate hypermutation as a model for NDT is that this kind of mutation requires “special enzymes", and is not the kind of mutations held to be responsible for the variation required in NDT. You rejected that argument as unsupportable, but that rejection is unjustified. These mutations, unlike ordinary errors in DNA replication in the germline, are turned on precisely when they are needed and turned off when they have done their job. They are accurately targeted to the very small regions of the genome where they can provide variability to the CDR’s, which form the antibody binding site. Although the mechanism of this precisely targeted phenomenon is not yet known in complete detail, enough is known to say that there has to be a “mechanism” - it doesn’t just happen by chance.

Max: {At this point Spetner quotes a number of speculative statements in the scientific literature, to the effect that B cell somatic hypermutation involves a “special mechanism.”
[LMS: MAX DID NOT REPRODUCE HERE THE REFERENCES I CITED. I WON’T REPEAT THEM HERE, BUT THEY CAN BE SEEN IN MY PREVIOUS POSTING. MAX CALLS MY CITED REFERENCES “SPECULATIVE", AND THAT MIGHT CREATE THE IMPRESSION THAT THEY ARE NOT REPRESENTATIVE OF RELIABLE SCIENTIFIC OPINION. THAT IMPRESSION IS FALSE. THE REFERENCES ARE FROM MAINSTREAM EXPERTS IN THE FIELD, ALL AGREEING THAT THERE IS A SPECIAL MECHANISM FOR HYPERMUTATIONS THAT IS NOT AVAILABLE TO GERMLINE MUTATIONS. THEY ARE “SPECULATIVE” ONLY IN THE SENSE THAT THESE PAPERS WERE SPECULATING ABOUT WHAT THE MECHANISM COULD BE. BUT THERE IS NO SPECULATION ABOUT THE EXISTENCE OF THE MECHANISM. ALL AGREED TO THAT, WHICH IS THE ONLY POINT I INTENDED, AND NEED, TO MAKE.]
The enzymes involved in somatic hypermutation in B cells remain unknown, so if Spetner is correct that “special enzymes” is supportable, he is correct only in the sense that the idea of “special enzymes” is supported by speculation in the literature. It is unsupported by any evidence, which is what I meant by “unsupportable.”
[LMS: MAX IS WRONG. THE EXISTENCE OF A MECHANISM IS SUPPORTED BY A LOT OF EVIDENCE, AS REFERRED TO IN THE PAPERS I CITED.]
To be fair I should note that an enzyme known as Activation Induced Deaminase (AID), reported after my initial comments to Spetner, has been shown necessary for somatic hypermutation to occur, but it is not clear whether this enzyme participates directly in the introduction of mutations. Indeed, since absence of AID also blocks isotype switch recombination, a phenomenon not obviously related to hypermutation, and also leads to enlarged germinal centers, it is possible that this enzyme is required for a step in B cell developmental maturation that triggers both hypermutation and switch recombination, and that the enzyme plays no direct role in mutating DNA. In any case, I never have questioned the idea that somatic hypermutation in B cells involves a “special mechanism"; the question of whether unique enzymes are directly involved in creating the mutations seems to me rather tangential to the present discussion, but it is accurate to say that this question has not been settled as of yet.}
[LMS: SINCE MAX HERE ACKNOWLEDGES THAT HYPERMUTATIONS MAKE USE OF A “SPECIAL MECHANISM” NOT AVAILABLE TO GERMLINE MUTATION, HE IS LOGICALLY OBLIGATED TO CONCEDE TO ME THAT HIS EXAMPLE OF HYPERMUTATIONS CREATING INFORMATION IN THE B-CELL GENOME BY RANDOM MUTATIONS AND SELECTION CANNOT BE USED TO DEMONSTRATE THE POSSIBILITY THAT RANDOM MUTATIONS IN THE GERMLINE CAN CREATE INFORMATION FOR EVOLUTION. THIS CONCESSION ON HIS PART SHOULD LOGICALLY END OUR DEBATE. THE PRECISE NATURE OF THE MECHANISM OF HYPERMUTATION IS NOT SETTLED, BUT THE EXISTENCE OF SUCH A MECHANISM IS A CONSENSUS AMONG THE EXPERTS. FURTHERMORE, THE EXISTENCE OF A SPECIAL MECHANISM WITH ITS SPECIAL ENZYMES THAT PERMITS THE HYPERMUTATIONS TO DO THEIR JOB IN THE IMMUNE SYSTEM IS NOT TANGENTIAL TO OUR DISCUSSION. THE MECHANISM, WHATEVER ITS NATURE, IS WHAT PERMITS HYPERMUTATIONS CREATE INFORMATION FOR THE IMMUNE SYSTEM. SUCH A MECHANISM IS NOT AVAILABLE FOR GERM LINE MUTATIONS TO MAKE EVOLUTION POSSIBLE, AND THEREFORE MAX’S EXAMPLE OF B-CELL HYPERMUTATION TO SHOW THAT INFORMATION CAN BE GENERATED IN EVOLUTION IS INVALID.]

Spetner: It thus seems quite clear to me that informed opinion in this field supports my contention and rejects your suggestion that “an alternative possibility is that the high rate of accumulation of mutations simply reflects selective inhibition of normal proof-reading mechanisms". Please let me know if you agree or disagree.

Max: {As indicated above, I disagree.}
[LMS: MAX IS, OF COURSE, WRONG IN DISAGREEING, AS EXPLAINED ABOVE]

Spetner: You ask, why does the existence of a special mechanism for the hypermutation in B cells preclude the example from being a model of mutations for NDT? The simple answer is that if you really want to suggest that mutations for NDT are capable of hypermutations as are the B cells, you have to show two things. First you have to show that such a highly complex system with its requisite enzymes actually exists in germ cells, where they can play a role in evolution. As far as I know, there is no such mechanism in germ cells. If you know of anything like this please let me know.

Max: {I have pointed out that the enzymatic mechanisms creating somatic mutations in B cells is not known. I have never claimed that it is the same mechanism as causes mutations in germ cells where they play a role in phylogenetic evolution, so I am not obligated to show what Spetner says I am.}
[LMS: THIS IS ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF DISTORTING THE ARGUMENT. IF MAX WANTS TO USE B-CELL HYPERMUTATIONS AS A DEMONSTRATION OF THE CAPABILITY OF GERMLINE MUTATIONS TO GENERATE THE INFORMATION REQUIRED FOR EVOLUTION (WHICH WAS THE MAIN PURPOSE OF HIS ESSAY) THEN HE IS OBLIGATED TO SHOW THAT GERMLINE MUTATION HAS THE SAME CAPABILITY AS B-CELL MUTATION. THAT IS NOT TO SAY THAT IT HAS THE SAME MECHANISM, BUT IT MUST HAVE A COMPARABLE MECHANISM. SINCE NO SUCH MECHANISM IS KNOWN FOR GERMLINE MUTATIONS, THE MAIN THESIS OF MAX’S ESSAY FALLS.]

Spetner: Furthermore, according to the evolutionary paradigm, you must account for the origin and development of such a mechanism in the germline, or at the very least, you must suggest how such a development could reasonably occur. You are obligated to do this because you hold that all characteristics of life have evolved through random variation and natural selection.

Max: {Here Spetner, like Behe, seems to demand that I provide an “origin and development” scenario that he knows he will be able to disparage as another “just-so story.”
[LMS: I HAVE ASKED HIM TO BRING AN ARGUMENT. I DIDN’T ASK FOR A “SCENARIO". HIS PROBLEM, BUT NOT MY PROBLEM, IS THAT A FICTIONAL SCENARIO IS THE ONLY KIND OF ARGUMENT HE HAS, AND IT’S NOT SCIENTIFIC.]
Furthermore, the question of how somatic hypermutation evolved is totally irrelevant to the question of whether it is a good model for the efficacy of random mutation and selection in promoting “increased fitness,” which is the subject of my Talk.Origins essay.}
[LMS: THIS IS AN OTHER DISTORTION OF MY STATEMENT ABOVE. I DID NOT ASK FOR A DESCRIPTION OF HOW HYPERMUTATION EVOLVED. I ASKED FOR ONE ABOUT HOW A COMPARABLE MECHANISM IN THE GERMLINE COULD EVOLVE. IT’S NOT IRRELEVANT BECAUSE IF ONE IS TRYING TO JUSTIFY NEO-DARWINIAN THEORY (NDT), THEN ONE WOULD BE ON SHAKY GROUND TO SUGGEST IT DEPENDS ON THE EXISTENCE OF A MECHANISM WHOSE OWN ORIGIN CANNOT BE ACCOUNTED FOR BY NDT]

Spetner: You are not entitled to postulate a mechanism that could not have evolved. Such a mechanism of germline mutation would have to produce accurately targeted mutations that could play a role in evolution. For such a system to develop by Neo-Darwinian evolution, a long series of evolutionary steps in ordinary evolution would have to play the role of a single step in the evolution of this mechanism, because selection here is based on successful evolution of the ordinary kind. Thus if a million generations are necessary for the evolution and perfection of a new phenotypic character, then a million times that, or a trillion generations, would be required for the evolution and perfection of this mechanism.

Max: {These are totally unsupported quantitative speculations.}
[LMS: MAX MUST THINK HE CAN DISPARAGE MY QUANTITATIVE ESTIMATES BY THIS STATEMENT. MY ARGUMENT ABOVE IS A TYPICAL KIND OF ARGUMENT USED IN ANY QUANTITATIVE SCIENCE TO ACHIEVE SOME ROUGH QUANTITATIVE ESTIMATES, USUALLY REFERRED TO AS “BACK-OF-THE-ENVELOPE” CALCULATIONS. IT PROVIDES AN ADEQUATE ESTIMATE FOR OUR DISCUSSION, EVEN THOUGH IT IS NOT PRECISE.]

Spetner: It seems to me that any selective pressure to raise the spontaneous mutation to benefit evolution would be overwhelmed by the selective pressure to keep the mutation rate low. Perhaps I’ll look into the mathematics of such a phenomenon and prepare a paper on it.

Max: I still fail to see how the particular enzymes involved have any bearing on the applicability of the model to Darwinian species evolution. Indeed, a variety of laboratory mechanisms for generating mutations in antibody genes (chemical mutagens, randomized oligonucleotides, etc.) all lead to pools of mutated antibody genes from which higher affinity proteins can be obtained, so the principle that random mutation and selection can lead to improved function appears to be independent of the mechanism of generating the mutations.

There is no logical reason why mutation and selection in species adaptation should be strictly dependent on the mechanism of mutation either; indeed, a variety of different mechanisms are known to contribute to varying extents under different conditions, including copying errors, radiation, chemical mutagens, slipped mispairing, deamination, etc.
[LMS: THE IMPORTANT FEATURE OF THE MECHANISM OF HYPERMUTATIONS IS ITS ABILITY (1) TO TURN THE MUTATIONS ON WHEN THEY ARE NEEDED, AND OFF AGAIN WHEN THEIR JOB IS DONE, AND (2) TO CONFINE THE MUTATIONS TO A RESTRICTED PORTION OF THE GENOME WHERE THEY CAN DO NO HARM, AND CAN ONLY DO GOOD. HYPERMUTATIONS HAVE A MECHANISM WITH THESE CHARACTERISTICS AND GERMLINE MUTATIONS DO NOT. SEE MY NEXT COMMENT. THE MECHANISMS MAX CITED HERE FOR GERMLINE MUTATIONS DO NOT ADDRESS THESE QUESTIONS AND IS THUS IRRELEVANT TO THE DISCUSSION.]

Spetner: You are missing my point. I am not focusing on the source of mutation as the distinguishing factor between the somatic mutations and germline mutations, but I am noting that the hypermutations do have a special mechanism that controls them whereas the germline mutations have no such mechanism available. The important features of the somatic mutations that are unavailable to germline mutations include some (unknown) trigger that turns them on at the right time and directs them to the right place on the genome. Without these controls, hypermutations would destroy the B cells.

Max: Clearly, the lower rate of mutation that occurs in the germline does not destroy genomes for the next generation. Is this rate high enough to generate enough mutations to account for adaptive phylogenetic evolution? This is a critical issue, and while I don’t have a quantitative answer, I don’t find Spetner’s negative answer to this question supported by convincing logic. He makes reference to his book as offering some arguments, but has not discussed this evidence in our correspondence.
[LMS: AGAIN, MAX DODGES THE POINT. MY POINT IS NOT ONE OF ABSOLUTE MUTATION RATES. HE SAYS WE DON’T KNOW IF THE NORMAL GERMLINE MUTATION RATE IS ENOUGH TO PRODUCE THE ADAPTIVE MUTATIONS. ALTHOUGH WE DON’T KNOW ANY HARD STATISTICS ON ADAPTIVE MUTATIONS, THERE IS GOOD EVIDENCE THAT THERE ARE NOT ENOUGH OF THEM OCCURRING AT RANDOM TO MAKE NDT WORK, AS I HAVE NOTED IN MY BOOK. BUT THAT IS NOT THE POINT IN THIS STAGE OF THE DIALOGUE. THE POINT HERE IS THAT MAX IS TRYING TO USE THE EXAMPLE OF THE GENOMIC INFORMATION GENERATED BY HYPERMUTATIONS IN THE IMMUNE SYSTEM TO DEMONSTRATE THAT GERMLINE MUTATIONS CAN LIKEWISE GENERATE THE INFORMATION NEEDED BY NDT. I HAVE SIMPLY POINTED OUT THAT HYPERMUTATIONS HAVE SOME ADVANTAGES THAT GERMLINE MUTATIONS DO NOT. AND THESE ADVANTAGES ARE PRECISELY WHAT MAKES HYPERMUTATIONS ADD INFORMATION TO THE GENOME. THAT POINT IS SUFFICIENT TO DISQUALIFY HIS EXAMPLE AND NULLIFY ITS FORCE.]

On the question of the frequency of mutation, in your last posting you included numerical models for B cell hypermutation and for species mutation, and arrived at conclusions by reasoning that I find illogical. You calculate the time required for one, two or three particular nucleotide changes to occur as though these calculations would be relevant to the times required for changes to occur in either B cell or species adaptations. Your reasoning seems to be predicated on the following logic. (1) By single nucleotide mutations, most triplet codons of amino acids can be mutated to code for only “5 or 6” different altered amino acids out of the 20 amino acid constituents of proteins. (2) This limitation would restrict the changes available by single nucleotide changes, such that certain adaptive changes would require two or three particular nucleotide mutations in order avoid getting “stuck on a low local Maximum of activity” in the “adaptive landscape.”
[LMS: MAX IS LEAVING OUT THE NEXT IMPORTANT STEPS IN THE LOGIC. THEY ARE: (3) THE RESTRICTION ON THE CHANGES THAT COULD BE MADE IN ONE MUTATION RESTRICT THE FIELD OF MUTATIONS HAVING SELECTIVE VALUE. (4) A TRIPLE MUTATION CAN REACH ANY ONE OF THE FULL FIELD OF 19 AMINO-ACID CHANGES. FOR THIS FIELD TO BE AVAILABLE TO A CHAIN OF THREE SINGLE MUTATIONS, EACH OF THEM WOULD HAVE TO HAVE POSITIVE SELECTIVE VALUE, A REQUIREMENT NOT NECESSARY FOR A TRIPLE MUTATION.]
Your reasoning seems flawed to me in part because you are considering the time to achieve a particular change rather than the time necessary to achieve an improvement in function. The illogic of this is similar to that of equating the odds of being dealt any hand that beats a “bust” hand with the odds of being dealt a particular poker hand that beats a “bust” hand.

Spetner: I am considering in my analysis what would be analogous to being dealt any hand that beats (i.e., that has a higher selective value than) a given hand.

Max: This seems to be contradicted by the following sentences Spetner wrote (quoted a few paragraphs back): “With a mutation rate of 1 per 1000 nucleotides per replication, there will be an average of 30 million changes in any particular nucleotide during a two-week period. The probability of getting two particular nucleotides to change is one per million replications. Thus in two weeks, there will be an average of 30 thousand changes in any two particular nucleotides. There will be an average of 30 changes in any three particular nucleotides.”
[LMS: I DO NOT SEE ANY CONTRADICTION.]
“Particular nucleotides” will be generated by mutation at a far lower frequency than adaptive mutations, as discussed below.}
[LMS: THE READER CAN SEE THAT MAX MUST HAVE MISUNDERSTOOD THE POINT I MADE. SEE MY COMMENTS ABOVE.]

The B-cell system selects for improvements in function and not for particular sequences. Furthermore, there is no reason to assume that the highest theoretical peaks on the adaptive landscape are ever achieved - either by the B cell system or Darwinian species evolution. Finally, there is no reason to assume that functional improvements cannot arise from the small subset of amino acid replacements accessible from single nucleotide changes.

Spetner: On the contrary, there is no justification in assuming that one can always obtain a selective advantage with one nucleotide substitution.

Max: I am not assuming a priori that one can ALWAYS obtain a selective advantage with one nucleotide substitution. But where this has been investigated by experimentally mutating immunoglobulin genes to introduce single mutations corresponding to changes observed in natural somatic hypermutation, it has been found that improvements in antibody affinity can be attributed to specific single nucleotide changes; so it is reasonable to assume that this potential is not so rare as to require the assumption that most increases in antibody affinity require multiple simultaneous mutations.

Indeed, if one looks at actual sequences of somatically mutated antibody genes (e.g. Cumano and Rajewsky EMBO J 5:2459, 1986, Figure 2), one finds plenty of single nucleotide mutations that change amino acids, and their presence at a frequency higher than would be predicted by random mutations suggests that most have been selected for on the basis of improved antigen binding. (In this study of nine somatically mutated antibodies, there were 23 amino acid changes caused by single mutations within a codon, and only 4 caused by double mutations; in addition there were only 6 silent single mutations, i.e., not causing amino acid changes.)

Spetner: This is all consistent with what I have written. I do not say that an adaptive mutation cannot be achieved by a single mutation. I only say that the target set of single mutations is smaller than that for single plus double mutations, which in turn is smaller than that for single plus double plus triple, etc. I do not claim that functional improvements cannot be achieved by single mutations, only that the choice is much wider for multiple mutations. For example, three single mutations are not the equivalent of a triple mutation. The first mutation will not remain in the population unless it has a selective advantage. I am sure you will agree that it is possible for a triple nucleotide substitution to have a selective advantage without any single one of them having an advantage. In fact, I would say that is the most likely case.

Max: If single nucleotide changes can lead to selection for improved function, then if one wants to calculate the time necessary to achieve the even greater improvement that might be achieved by three mutations, this time would be found not by a calculation like yours, based on the product of the odds for a single mutation, but rather by multiplying the time for a single adaptive nucleotide mutation by three. Suppose it would take one week for the first adaptive change. By the selection mechanism in the germinal center, the population of B cells would soon be overtaken by B cells with this first change, so that the time required for the second adaptive change would again be one week; and similarly the third change would require a third week to yield a protein of even greater affinity than could be achieved by one or two amino acid replacements.

Spetner: You are assuming that the single mutation will be selected. I say that is unlikely. The time to achieve a triple change would be equal to the sum of the times necessary to get a single one only if all those single changes had selective value, and that is too unlikely to bank on.

Max: What is the basis for your judgment that such selectable single nucleotide mutations are “too unlikely"?
[LMS: MAX IS THE ONE WHO IS TRYING TO SHOW THAT HIS EXAMPLE OF B-CELL HYPERMUTATIONS DEMONSTRATES THE ABILITY OF GERMLINE MUTATIONS TO ACHIEVE DARWINIAN EVOLUTION. HIS ARGUMENT IS BASED ON THE TACIT ASSUMPTION THAT GERMLINE MUTATIONS CAN DO ANYTHING THE SOMATIC HYPERMUTATIONS CAN DO. I HAVE NOTED THAT HYPERMUTATIONS HAVE ADVANTAGES THAT GERMLINE MUTATIONS DO NOT HAVE. WITHOUT THESE ADVANTAGES, B CELLS CANNOT GENERATE THE INFORMATION THE ANTIBODIES NEED. ONE OF THESE ADVANTAGES IS THE ABILITY TO GENERATE A LARGE NUMBER OF DOUBLE AND TRIPLE MUTATIONS. IS MAX HERE TRYING TO ARGUE THAT THREE SINGLE MUTATIONS AT THE LOW RATE OF THE GERMLINE MUTATIONS ARE AS LIKELY TO PRODUCE AN ADAPTIVE IMPROVEMENT AS A TRIPLE MUTATION AT THE HIGH RATE IN THE B CELL? HE CANNOT SHOW THAT. IF THAT IS HIS THRUST, HE IS WRONG. CLEARLY THE FORMER IS LESS LIKELY TO PRODUCE ADAPTIVITY IN ALL OF THREE SUCCESSIVE MUTATIONS THAN THE LATTER IS TO PRODUCE IN ONLY ONE MUTATION. DOES HIS ARGUMENT REST ON CHALLENGING ME TO SHOW JUST HOW “UNLIKELY” ARE THREE ADAPTIVE MUTATIONS IN A ROW? IF SO, IT IS A POOR ARGUMENT.]

A similar argument would apply to estimates for adaptive mutations in bacteria. Because of the flawed assumptions built into your approach it seems to me that your calculations grossly overstate the time required for evolving adaptive changes by random mutation and selection.

Spetner: My assumptions are not flawed. You just don’t understand them. Read again what I wrote above and see if you don’t agree with me.

Max: {I have reread what Spetner wrote. He agrees that single nucleotide changes can lead to selectable advantages (even if the available codons are restricted so the scope of amino acid changes is less than would be possible with multiple simultaneous mutations). Such selectable single mutations could spread throughout the population, to be followed by successive additional selectable point mutations. By this model, three selectable point mutations could occur in a time frame measured by three times the time for a single mutation, rather than taking the time necessary for three simultaneous mutations as Spetner has calculated. We both agree that simultaneous double and triple mutations have greater scope for amino acid replacement, but are very rare. I honestly do not understand the basis for our disagreement here, but perhaps Spetner will clarify why he considers evolution by successive single selectable point mutations “too unlikely” even though he agrees that single point mutations leading to selectable advantage can occur.}
[LMS: I AM DISAPPOINTED THAT MAX DOES NOT UNDERSTAND MY POINT. IT IS NOT THAT I NECESSARILY CLAIM HERE THAT SUCCESSIVE POINT MUTATIONS ARE “TOO UNLIKELY", ALTHOUGH THEY ARE AND THERE IS EVIDENCE FOR IT. BUT THE POINT HERE IS THE AVAILABILITY TO B CELLS OF A HIGHER RATE OF MULTIPLE MUTATIONS PROVIDES THEM WITH GREATER SCOPE FOR ACHIEVING ADAPTIVE IMPROVEMENTS THAN ARE AVAILABLE TO GERMLINE MUTATIONS. THE POINT THAT MAX SEEMS TO MISS HERE IS THAT A TRIPLE MUTATION CAN BE ADAPTIVE EVEN THOUGH EACH NUCLEOTIDE CHANGE INDIVIDUALLY IS NOT. THESE MUTATIONS ARE AVAILABLE TO HYPERMUTATION, BUT NOT TO GERMLINE MUTATION. UNLESS EACH INDIVIDUAL CHANGE IS ADAPTIVE, A TRIPLE CHANGE CAN BE ACHIEVED BY THREE SINGLE MUTATIONS ONLY IF THE THREE OCCUR BY CHANCE WITHOUT SELECTION. THIS IS WHY SUCH AN EVENT HAS A PROBABILITY OF THE CUBE OF THAT OF A SINGLE MUTATION, AND THAT IS WHY THE TIME TO ACHIEVE SUCH AN UNLIKELY EVENT IS SO ENORMOUS. I HOPE I HAVE NOW MADE IT SUFFICIENTLY CLEAR FOR MAX TO SEE MY POINT.]

The Role of Gene Duplication
Max: In his first response to my essay, Spetner was critical of the role he thought I claimed for gene duplication in evolution. When he understood that he had originally misread the essay, he had no quarrel with this aspect. Here is the short discussion of this point.

Spetner: Max cited gene duplication as an example of a mutation that increases information. A favorite scenario for molecular evolution is that a gene gets duplicated and then gradually mutates to become something useful that did not exist before. Such a proposed scenario does not constitute evidence for evolution, it proves nothing, and indeed such a scenario itself requires proof. I do not, of course, mean to say that one has to prove that genes can be duplicated. That is well known. But gene duplication alone does not constitute an increase of information in the biocosm or even in the genome of the organism itself. Two copies of today’s newspaper contain no more information than one copy. Gene duplication, in any case, cannot play the role of the mutations that could produce the grand sweep of evolution.

Gene duplication alone cannot add information to the genome. The purpose of the gene duplication in the above scenario is simply to provide raw material from which a new gene could evolve without having to give up any functions the organism already had. New information would then supposedly be built up by point mutations and natural selection. And this is precisely the process I discussed in my book and about which I said that all known examples of these mutations lose information rather than gain it. Note that I did not say that it is impossible in principle for random mutations to add information to the genome. But it just turns out that that is what has been found.

Max: You state: “Max cited gene duplication as an example of a mutation that increases information.” On the contrary, I believe that I was careful to avoid saying that gene duplication alone increases information. I do not believe such a statement is correct and agree fully with your statement that “Two copies of today’s newspaper contain no more information than one copy.". Please let me know exactly what words in my essay (or in my letter to you) suggested that I believed duplication by itself increases information, and I will try to change the phraseology so as to reduce the likelihood that other readers will misconstrue my meaning.

On the other hand - and this is the major point of all that follows - I do believe that gene duplication is a critical component of what I will call the evolutionary triad: namely gene duplication, random mutation and selection. To illustrate the role of gene duplication in this triad, let’s extend your own newspaper analogy. Suppose we have a copy of the early edition of today’s newspaper and a copy of the final edition. In the final edition several paragraphs of certain articles have been altered to include late breaking events. Each article has remained the same length in the two editions because certain less important information in each article was deleted to make room for the late breaking news. Now it is clear that having these two copies of today’s newspaper does give us more information than either copy alone, since the early edition lacks the late breaking events and the late edition lacks the information that was deleted to make room for the late breaking news.

You seem to allude to this possibility in evolution when you suggest that in the evolutionary model, after gene duplication “[n]ew information would then supposedly be built up by point mutations and natural selection."

Spetner: You deny suggesting that gene duplication alone adds information. I accept your denial and I apologize for incorrectly attributing that view to you. What led me to believe that you did suggest this is the statement in point 1 of your letter to me, saying. “Gene duplications occur, and there is no reason to postulate supernatural processes to account for them. ...Does the ID argument about impossibility of naturalistic information increase include an assumption that naturalistic gene duplications cannot occur?” This is what led me to think that you were suggesting gene duplications as a method of adding information.
[LMS: IN MY FIRST POSTING OF OUR DISCUSSION, I LEFT OUT THIS PART OF THE DISCUSSION, BECAUSE IT WAS MY MISUNDERSTANDING OF WHAT HE WROTE. MAX WAS UPSET ABOUT MY LEAVING THAT OUT. IF HE WANTS TO ENJOY A SMALL TRIUMPH IN NOTING THAT I MISUNDERSTOOD HIM, THEN I AM MORE THAN HAPPY TO LET HIM DO SO.]

Interpretations of the Word “Evolution”
Max: Spetner tried to clarify different interpretations of “evolution” that frequently cause people confusion if one meaning is intended but another is meant. (For the text of Spetner’s comments on this issue, I have taken his True.Origins posting, which begins with this discussion.) I countered that there were several more identifiable meanings of evolution, and that Spetner seemed to be avoiding the burden of having to defend his position by being intentionally vague about where he stood. My response to this point has not been answered.
[LMS: I FRANKLY DO NOT SEE WHAT MAX WANTS TO ARGUE ABOUT HERE. IT SEEMS TO ME THAT HE IS NIT PICKING. MY PURPOSE IN NOTING THE TWO EXTREME USES OF THE WORD “EVOLUTION” WAS SIMPLY TO CLARIFY A CONFUSION POPULAR WITH EVOLUTIONISTS, AS CAN BE SEEN FROM MY COMMENTS BELOW. THERE IS NO NEED FOR ME TO CONSIDER ALL OTHER USES OF THE WORD “EVOLUTION". THE TWO EXTREMES ARE SUFFICIENT FOR MY PURPOSE. I REALLY DON’T KNOW WHAT IS BOTHERING MAX HERE. I DON’T KNOW WHY HE THINKS I MUST WRITE A TREATISE ON ALL POSSIBLE USES OF THE TERM EVOLUTION.]

Spetner: At the outset, I shall establish an important and necessary guideline in this discussion of evolution. The word evolution is generally used in at least two different senses, and the distinction between them is important. On the one hand, the word evolution is used to denote the descent of all life from a putative single primitive source. It is the grand sweep of evolution that is supposed to have led from a simple beginning, something perhaps simpler than a bacterium, to all organisms living today, including humans. This descent is supposed to have occurred through purely natural means. Neo-Darwinian theory (NDT), which is the prevailing theory of evolution, teaches that this development occurred through random heritable variations in the organisms followed by natural selection. I shall denote the word evolution used in this sense as Evolution A. When evolution is discussed for popular consumption, it is most often Evolution A.

The second sense in which the word evolution is used is to denote any kind of change of a population. The change can sometimes occur in response to environmental pressure (artificial or natural selection), and sometimes it can just be random (genetic drift). I shall denote the word used in this second sense as Evolution B. Evolution B has been observed. Evolution A is an inference, but is not observable. The distinction between these two meanings of evolution parallels the distinction between macroevolution and microevolution, but the two pairs of terms are not identical. Evolution A is certainly what is called macroevolution, but what is called macroevolution is not identical with Evolution A. In any case, I prefer to use the A and B to avoid having to carry whatever baggage might go with the macro/micro distinction.

The distinction between these two meanings of evolution is often ignored by the defenders of Neo-Darwinian evolution. But the distinction is critical. The claim is made for Evolution A, but the proof offered is often limited to Evolution B. The implication is that the observation of Evolution B is a substantiation of Evolution A. But this is not so. Since Evolution A is not an observable, it can only be substantiated by circumstantial evidence. This circumstantial evidence is principally the fossil record, amino-acid-sequence comparisons, and comparative anatomy. Circumstantial evidence must be accompanied by a theory of how it relates to what is to be proved. NDT is generally accepted to be that theory. The strength of the circumstantial evidence for Evolution A can therefore be no better than the strength of NDT.

Max: I can’t tell exactly what you accept in your distinction between Evolution A and Evolution B. I actually think that there are finer distinctions between the various meanings of evolution than encompassed by your A vs B.
[LMS: YES, FINER DISTINCTIONS CAN BE MADE, BUT THEY ARE IRRELEVANT TO THE POINT I WAS TRYING TO MAKE.]
I would distinguish several more possible meanings:

Living forms are different now from what they were in the past. This seems to be well documented by fossil evidence. This slow change is sometimes referred to as evolution.

Random mutation and selection can lead to “microevolution,” i.e., small changes in gene frequencies that follow an environmental shift and leave a population on average more fit to cope with the new environment. I think you accept this, since I think it corresponds to what you mean by Evolution B. I certainly accept it.

Various different modern species share a common ancestry. Since the time of the common ancestor, the divergence into the various modern species has involved changes much greater than microevolution. This is the idea of “common descent.” I am really not sure whether you accept this notion. I think there is excellent evidence for common descent of some groups of species, as outlined in my essay. If you do not accept common descent, at least for the cases I cite in my essay, I would be interested in hearing what alternative interpretations you can offer for the observations I cite in that essay. [I do not have that essay handy to check what you say. If you want my critique of that essay, ask me, and if I find the time I shall write one. Meanwhile, let’s stick to my critique of your fitness essay.]

All of the nucleotide discrepancies between modern species, or between a modern species and its ancestral species, arose as a result of random mutation (including gene duplications, insertions and deletions caused by naturalistic processes) and natural selection, without the intervention of an “intelligent designer.” I do not believe that there is any evidence for the preceding statement, and indicate as much in my essay. Nor do I believe that an “intelligent designer” can be ruled out as an explanation for hurricanes, disease, or stock market fluctuations. However, I have never seen a convincing argument that an intelligent designer must be hypothesized in order to explain any of these kinds of events, or to explain species change through time.
[LMS: MAX IS THE ONE WHO IS BRINGING IN AN “INTELLIGENT DESIGNER.", NOT ME. I DID NOT BRING IN THE NOTION OF AN “INTELLIGENT DESIGNER,” IN MY CRITIQUE OF MAX’S ESSAY, AND I DON’T THINK IT BELONGS IN THIS DISCUSSION. MY POINT IS THAT MAX’S ESSAY DOES NOT LEND ANY SUPPORT TO NEO-DARWINIAN THEORY. THE GRATUITOUS INTRODUCTION OF AN INTELLIGENT-DESIGNER THEORY DOES NOT HELP HIS DEFENSE OF HIS ESSAY.]
The origin of life came about through exclusively naturalistic processes operating on prebiotic chemicals, which evolved into replicating life forms. We have almost no scientific evidence about the origin of life and so there is no scientific evidence to support a purely naturalistic origin of life. I feel the same way about this meaning of “evolution” as I do about #4.
In my judgment, there is good scientific evidence for #1, #2 and #3. From your dismissal of evidence for what you call Evolution A, I can’t tell what you believe about #3. On #4 and #5 I assume we are in agreement on the insufficiency of scientific evidence to support a purely naturalistic mechanism, but we obviously differ on whether arguments such as yours are sufficient to rule out a purely naturalistic mechanism. I think that it would be an improvement in the dialogue/ document to clarify both of our opinions on these finer distinctions. Incidentally, I am not clear exactly on the difference you see between Evolution A and macroevolution.
[LMS: WHAT I CALLED EVOLUTION A IS A SUBSET OF WHAT IS CALLED MACROEVOLUTION. NOT ALL MACROEVOLUTION QUALIFIES AS EVOLUTION A. BUT LET’S LEAVE THAT. I INTRODUCED THE TERM EVOLUTION A TO MAKE THINGS CLEARER. IF IT’S ONLY MAKING THEM MORE COMPLICATED, THEN LET’S DROP IT AND SUBSTITUTE FOR IT “THE GRAND SWEEP OF EVOLUTION FROM SOME PUTATIVE PRIMITIVE ORGANISM TO ALL THE LIFE OF TODAY.” SUBSTITUTE FOR EVOLUTION B “THE SMALL CHANGE IN POPULATIONS THAT ARE ACTUALLY OBSERVED.]
I don’t know what version of creation you accept, but it seems to me that even if the supernatural played a role in past events, those past events leave traces. By refusing to specify an alternative scenario that you consider more believable than evolution, you hide behind vagueness in order to avoid having to defend potential contradictions between your scenario and the traces from the past that point in a different direction.
[LMS: HERE MAX IS TRYING TO DRAW THE DISCUSSION OFF COURSE. THE POINT IS THAT HIS ESSAY OFFERS NO SUPPORT FOR NDT. I DID NOT INTRODUCE CREATION OR THEOLOGY INTO MY CRITIQUE OF HIS ESSAY BECAUSE THEY HAVE NO PLACE IN A SCIENTIFIC DISCUSSION. THEOLOGY IS NOT WITHIN HIS EXPERTISE, NOR DO I CLAIM IT TO BE WITHIN MINE. THIS STARTED OUT AS A SCIENTIFIC DISCUSSION AND I THINK IT SHOULD REMAIN SO.]

Information Content of Proteins
Max: The central theme of Spetner’s position, and the focus of his book, is that information theory can shed light on the likelihood of the evolutionary scenario envisioned by the NDT. In particular, he believes that observed mutations do not provide increases in information that would be required by the NDT to produce what he calls Evolution A. Spetner included several graphic Figures in his discussion of ribitol dehydrogenase (section 6.1 below) which I have not been able to reproduce in the text below. I feel that the essence of his arguments is comprehensible even without the Figures, but I will attempt to insert them in the future.
[LMS: I HAVE REPRODUCED THAT SECTION HERE WITH THE FIGURES AND EQUATIONS IN PLACE OF HIS]

Spetner: Mutations have indeed been observed that confer an adaptive advantage, but that alone does not qualify them to serve as components of a series of Neo-Darwinian steps. In my critique, I included for pedagogical purposes the following short explanation of information and its measurement:

I shall emphasize again: There is no theorem requiring mutations to lose information. I can easily imagine mutations that gain information. The simplest example is what is known as a back mutation. A back mutation undoes the effect of a previous mutation. If the change of a single base pair in the genome were to change to another and lose information, then a subsequent mutation back to the previous condition would regain the lost information. Since these mutations are known to occur, they form a counterexample to any conjecture that random mutations must lose information. An important point I make in my book, and which I emphasize here, is that no mutations observed so far qualify as examples of the kind of mutations required for Evolution A.

In discussing mutations in my book I noted in each case in which the molecular change was known, that it could not serve as a prototype for the mutations required by NDT. In all the cases I discussed, it was the loss of information that prevented the mutation from serving as a prototype of those required by NDT. The back mutation likewise cannot serve as a prototype of the NDT-required mutations. Here, the reason is not that it loses information - it actually gains information. But the information it gains is already in the biocosm and the mutation contributes nothing new. Evolution cannot be accounted for if the only information gain was by back mutations.

In my book, I did not quantify the information gain or loss in a mutation. I didn’t do it mainly because I was reluctant to introduce equations and scare off the average reader. And anyway, I thought it rather obvious that a mutation that destroys the functionality of a gene (such as a repressor gene) is a loss of information. I also thought it rather obvious that a mutation that reduces the specificity of an enzyme is also a loss of information. But I shall take this opportunity to quantify the information difference before and after mutation in an important special case, which I described in my book.

The information content of the genome is difficult to evaluate with any precision. Fortunately, for my purposes, I need only consider the change in the information in an enzyme caused by a mutation. The information content of an enzyme is the sum of many parts, among which are:

Level of catalytic activity
Specificity with respect to the substrate
Strength of binding to cell structure
Specificity of binding to cell structure
Specificity of the amino-acid sequence devoted to specifying the enzyme for degradation
These are all difficult to evaluate, but the easiest to get a handle on is the information in the substrate specificity.

To estimate the information in an enzyme I shall assume that the information content of the enzyme itself is at least the maximum information gained in transforming the substrate distribution into the product distribution. (I think this assumption is reasonable, but to be rigorous it should really be proved.) We can think of the substrate specificity of the enzyme as a kind of filter. The entropy of the ensemble of substances separated after filtration is less than the entropy of the original ensemble of the mixture. We can therefore say that the filtration process results in an information gain equal to the decrease in entropy. Let’s imagine a uniform distribution of substrates presented to many copies of an enzyme. I choose a uniform distribution of substrates because that will permit the enzyme to express its maximum information gain. The substrates considered here are restricted to a set of similar molecules on which the enzyme has the same metabolic effect. This restriction not only simplifies our exercise but it applies to the case I discussed in my book.

The products of a substrate on which the enzyme has a higher activity will be more numerous than those of a substrate on which the enzyme has a lower activity. Because of the filtering, the distribution of concentrations of products will have a lower entropy than that of substrates. Note that we are neglecting whatever entropy change stems from the chemical changes of the substrates into products, and we are focusing on the entropy change reflected in the distributions of the products of the substrates acted upon by the enzyme.

The entropy of an ensemble of n elements with fractional concentrations f1,…,fn is given by (1)
and if the base of the logarithm is 2, the units of entropy are bits.

As a first illustration of this formula let us take the extreme case where there are n possible substrates, and the enzyme has a nonzero activity on only one of them. This is perfect filtering. The input entropy for a uniform distribution of n elements is, from (1), given by (2)
since the fi's are each 1/n. The entropy of the output is zero, (3)
because all the concentrations except one are zero, and the concentration of that one is 1. Then the decrease in entropy brought about by the selectivity of the enzyme is then the difference between (2) and (3), or
Another example is the other extreme case in which the enzyme does not discriminate at all among the n substrates. In this case the input and output entropies are the same, namely (4)
Therefore, the information gain, which is the difference between HO and HI, in this case is zero, (5)

We normalize the activities of the enzyme on the various substrates and these normalized activities will then be the fractional concentrations of the products. This normalization will eliminate from our consideration the effect of the absolute activity level on the information content, leaving us with only the effect of the selectivity.

Although these simplifications prevent us from calculating the total entropy decrease achieved by action of the enzyme, we are able to calculate the entropy change due to enzyme specificity alone.

The Dangers of Conclusion Jumping
Spetner: As a final example let me take part of a series of experiments I discussed in my book, which demonstrate the dangers of conclusion jumping. This subject bears emphasis because evolutionists from Darwin on have been guilty of jumping to unwarranted conclusions from inadequate data. I shall here take only a portion of the discussion in my book, namely, what I took from a paper by Burleigh et al. (1974, Biochem. J. 143: 341) to illustrate my point.

Ribitol is a naturally occurring sugar that some soil bacteria can normally metabolize, and ribitol dehydrogenase is the enzyme that catalyzes the first step in its metabolism. Xylitol is a sugar very similar in structure to ribitol, but does not occur in nature. Bacteria cannot normally live on xylitol, but when a large population of them were cultured on only xylitol, mutants appeared that were able to metabolize it. The wild-type enzyme was found to have a small activity on xylitol, but not large enough for the bacteria to live on xylitol alone. The mutant enzyme had an activity large enough to permit the bacterium to live on xylitol alone.

Fig. 1 shows the activity of the wild-type enzyme and the mutant enzyme on both ribitol and xylitol. Note that the mutant enzyme has a lower activity on ribitol and a higher activity on xylitol than does the wild-type enzyme. An evolutionist would be tempted to see here the beginning of a trend. He might be inclined to jump to the conclusion that with a series of many mutations of this kind, one after another, evolution could produce an enzyme that would have a high activity on xylitol and a low, or zero, activity on ribitol. Now wouldn’t that be a useful thing for a bacterium that had only xylitol available and no ribitol? Such a series would produce the kind of evolutionary change NDT calls for. It would be an example of the kind of series that would support NDT. The series would have to consist of mutations that would, step by step, lower the activity of the enzyme on the first substrate while increasing it on the second.

But Fig. 1 is misleading in this regard because it provides only a restricted view of the story. Burleigh and his colleagues also measured the activities of the two enzymes on another similar sugar, L-arabitol, and the results of these measurements are shown in Fig. 2. With the additional data on L-arabitol, a different picture emerges. No longer do we see the mutation just swinging the activity away from ribitol and toward xylitol. We see instead a general lowering of the selectivity of the enzyme over the set of substrates. The activity profiles in Fig. 2 show that the wild-type enzyme is more selective than is the mutant enzyme.

In Fig. 1 alone, there appears to be a trend evolving an enzyme with a high activity on xylitol and a low activity on ribitol. But Fig. 2 shows that such an extrapolation is unwarranted. It shows instead a much different trend. An extrapolation of the trend that appears in Fig. 2 would indicate that a series of such mutations could result in an enzyme that had no selectivity at all, but exhibited the same low activity on a wide set of substrates.

The point to be made from this example is that conclusion jumping from the observation of an apparent trend is a risky business. From a little data, the mutation appears to add information to the enzyme. From a little more data, the mutation appears to be degrading the enzyme’s specificity and losing information. Just as we calculated information in the two special cases above, we can calculate the information in the enzyme acting on a uniform mixture of the three substrates for both the wild type and the mutant enzyme. Using the measured activity values reported by Burleigh et al. we find the information in the specificities of the two enzymes to be 0.74 and 0.38 bits respectively. The information in the wild-type enzyme then turns out to be about twice that of the mutant.

The evolutionist community, from Darwin to today, has based its major claims on unwarranted conclusion jumping. Darwin saw that pigeon breeders could achieve a wide variety of forms in their pigeons by selection, and he assumed that the reach of selection was unlimited. Evolutionists, who have seen crops and farm animals bred to have many commercially desirable features, have jumped to the conclusion that natural selection, in the course of millions of years, could achieve many-fold greater adaptive changes than artificial selection has achieved in only tens of years. I have shown in my book that such extrapolations are ill founded because breeding experiments, such as those giving wheat greater protein content or vegetables greater size, result from mutations that disable repressor genes. The conclusions jumped to were false because they were based on data that could not be extrapolated to long sequences. One cannot gain information from a long sequence of steps that all lose information. As I noted in my book, that would be like the merchant who lost a little money on each sale, but thought he could make it up on volume.

Antibiotic Resistance as an Example of Evolution
Spetner: Continuing his effort to show the evolutionary efficacy of beneficial mutations, Max presented in his essay the acquisition of antibiotic resistance by microorganisms as an example of evolution. He said one can “demonstrate a beneficial mutation … with laboratory organisms that multiply rapidly, and indeed such experiments have shown that rare beneficial mutations can occur. For instance, from a single bacterium one can grow a population in the presence of an antibiotic, and demonstrate that organisms surviving this culture have mutations in genes that confer antibiotic resistance.” Such an experiment shows that “de novo beneficial mutations” can arise.

My response to this is that I have shown in my book that mutations leading to antibiotic resistance fail the test of representing the mutations necessary for evolution. I summarize that argument here. All antibiotics are derived from microorganisms. Recall the story of the serendipitous discovery of penicillin by Alexander Fleming in 1928, when he noticed that his plate of Staphylococcus bacteria was clear in the vicinity of a bread-mold contaminant. The mold was found to produce something that could lyse and kill the bacteria. That something was a molecule later named penicillin. Afterwards, other antibiotics were found to be produced by other microorganisms, such as soil bacteria. Soil has long been recognized in folk medicine as a cure for infections.

The antibiotics produced by these microorganisms serve them as a defense against attack by other microorganisms. Some microorganisms are endowed with genes that grant resistance to these antibiotics. This resistance can take the form of degrading the antibiotic molecule or of ejecting it from the cell. Unfortunately for human health care, the organisms having these genes can transfer them to other bacteria making them resistant as well. Although the resistance mechanisms are specific to a particular antibiotic, most pathogenic bacteria have, to our misfortune, succeeded in accumulating several sets of genes granting them resistance to a variety of antibiotics.

The acquisition of antibiotic resistance in this manner qualifies as evolution only in the sense that it is an adaptive hereditary change. It is an example only of Evolution B. It is not the type of evolution that can make a baboon out of a bacterium. The genetic change is not the kind that can serve as a prototype for the mutations needed to account for Evolution A. The genetic changes that could illustrate the theory must not only add information to the bacterium’s genome, they must add new information to the biocosm. The horizontal transfer of genes only spreads around genes that are already in some species.

It turns out, however, that a microorganism can sometimes acquire resistance to an antibiotic through a random substitution of a single nucleotide, and this is the kind of example Max presented. Streptomycin, which was discovered by Selman Waksman and Albert Schatz and first reported in 1944, is an antibiotic against which bacteria can acquire resistance in this way. But although the mutation they undergo in the process is beneficial to the microorganism in the presence of streptomycin, it cannot serve as a prototype for the kind of mutations needed by NDT. The type of mutation that grants resistance to streptomycin is manifest in the ribosome and degrades its molecular match with the antibiotic molecule. This change in the surface of the microorganism’s ribosome prevents the streptomycin molecule from attaching and carrying out its antibiotic function. It turns out that this degradation is a loss of specificity and therefore a loss of information. The main point is that Evolution A cannot be achieved by mutations of this sort, no matter how many of them there are. Evolution cannot be built by accumulating mutations that only degrade specificity.

In the final paragraph of my original critique, I said the following:

The mutations needed for macroevolution have never been observed. No random mutations that could represent the mutations required by NDT that have been examined on the molecular level have added any information. The question I address is: Are the mutations that have been observed the kind the theory needs for support? The answer turns out to be NO! Many have lost information. To support NDT one would have to show many examples of random mutations that add information. Unless the aggregate results of the genetic experiments performed until now is a grossly biased sample, we can safely dismiss Neo-Darwinian theory as an explanation of how life developed from a single simple source.
Max: You cite the fact that some bacteria grown under selective pressure of this antibiotic become resistant through a mutation that “degrades the molecular match with the antibiotic molecule” representing “a loss of specificity and therefore a loss of information.” Some streptomycin resistance mutations do, as you point out, reflect mutations of the ribosomal protein S12 which cause loss of binding of this antibiotic, which you interpret as “loss of information.” However, you ignore other mutations of this protein that do not lead to loss of antibiotic binding (e.g. Timms et al., Mol Gen Genet 232:89, 1992). According to your formulation, these mutations would not represent a loss of information, yet they are represent natural mutations that are adaptive under conditions of exposure to streptomycin. Would you accept that this kind of mutation is a good model for an adaptive evolutionary change consistent with Neo-Darwinian Theory?

Spetner: You misunderstood the paper by Timms et al., which you cited. All of the adaptive mutations reported in that paper show reduced binding of the streptomycin molecule. The 12 adaptive mutations reported in the S12 protein fall into two categories. There was no example of what you claimed I ignored. Five of those mutants are designated as streptomycin resistant (Smr), and seven are designated as streptomycin dependent (Smd). All 12 of them, in the words of the authors “reduce the affinity of the ribosome for streptomycin.” Perhaps you would like to point out to me where in that paper they mention mutations in S12 do not lead to reduced binding, and which you claim I have ignored.

Max: My citation of this paper was based on its description of the streptomycin-dependent mutants, which require streptomycin for growth as a result of mutations in the S12 protein. Clearly such mutants have not lost streptomycin binding completely; however it is possible that they have reduced binding affinity, so that according to your criteria-which I do not accept as valid-they might have “lost information.” However, your whole argument about streptomycin seems to be based on the misconception that streptomycin works by binding to the S12 protein. In fact, as mentioned in the Timms paper, the binding is primarily to the 16S ribosomal RNA, not to S12, and the mutations in the S12 protein function to decrease streptomycin by stabilizing a specific conformation of the 16S rRNA that does not bind streptomycin well (Carter et al., Nature 407: 340, 2000; Moazed & Noller, Nature. 327:389, 1987; Gravel et al., Biochemistry. 26:6227, 1987; Montandon et al, EMBO J. 5:3705, 1986; Pinard et al, FASEB J. 7:173, 1993; Melancon et al., Nucleic Acids Res. 16:9631, 1988).
[LMS: I DON’T KNOW HOW MAX CAN CLAIM THAT MY “WHOLE ARGUMENT” IS “BASED ON A MISCONCEPTION.” HE IS THE ONE THAT INITIALLY WROTE OF STREPTOMYCIN BINDING TO THE S12 PROTEIN. HE SAID “MOST S12 SEQUENCES BIND STREPTOMYCIN.” (SEE BELOW.) IF THERE IS ANY MISCONCEPTION, IT IS HIS. I JUST WENT ALONG WITH HIM IN THAT BECAUSE I DON’T THINK THE ARGUMENT HINGES ON EXACTLY WHERE THE BINDING SITE IS. EXACTLY IN WHICH PROTEIN OF THE RIBOSOME THE BINDING TAKES PLACE IS IRRELEVANT TO THE ARGUMENT.]
A mutation that causes a specific conformational change in another molecule that in turn prevents efficient binding of a third molecule does not necessarily suggest a “loss of information” to me, even if your protein information metric were valid.
[LMS: IT IS NOT CORRECT TO SAY THAT A SPECIFIC CONFORMATIONAL CHANGE PREVENTS EFFICIENT BINDING. IT’S THE OTHER WAY AROUND. A SPECIFIC CONFORMATION IS REQUIRED FOR EFFICIENT BINDING. CHANGE THAT CONFORMATION AND THE EFFICIENCY OF BINDING IS LOST (OR THERE MAY BE NO BINDING AT ALL). THE LOSS OF SPECIFICITY IS A LOSS OF INFORMATION. THE ABOVE STATEMENTS OF MAX SHOW THAT HE DOES NOT UNDERSTAND THE RELATIONSHIP OF SPECIFICITY TO INFORMATION, AND THAT POINT IS PERHAPS THE SOURCE OF MUCH OF HIS DIFFICULTY.]

There are several other ways of considering how mutations affect information. In my view, even if all S12 mutations that caused streptomycin resistance abolished antibiotic binding, a reasonable argument could still be made that such mutations represent a gain of information rather than a loss. In the universe of all the possible S12 amino acid sequences that can function in the ribosome, essentially all S12 proteins found in “wild-type” bacteria (i.e., those grown in the absence of streptomycin) bind to this antibiotic. The S12 sequences that allow bacterial growth in the presence of streptomycin represent a small subset of the universe of functional S12 sequences. Therefore by growing bacteria in streptomycin we select for a specific and small subset of possible S12 sequences; thus it might be argued that we have forced a small increase the information content of the genome by narrowing the choice of S12 sequences.

Spetner: The set of S12 proteins that allow bacterial growth in streptomycin (i.e., that do not bind to the antibiotic) form a disparate subset of the universe of S12 proteins. My intuition tells me that the set that binds (the susceptible set) is smaller, and therefore has a smaller entropy, than the set that does not bind (the resistant set). Mutations that appear in the presence of the antibiotic convert one subset to the other. A mutation that transfers the enzyme from a low-entropy set to a higher-entropy set loses information; it does not gain it.

Max: There are many sequences of S12 proteins in a variety of “wild type” bacteria. Different species of Gram negative bacteria are commonly sensitive to streptomycin despite variations in S12 sequence; organisms with S12 mutations are very rarely found except under streptomycin selection. Therefore, MY intuition tells me that most S12 sequences bind streptomycin and that the set of S12 sequences conferring streptomycin resistance is smaller than the set conferring sensitivity. What supports your “intuition” that the susceptible set is smaller and therefore has smaller entropy?

[LMS: MAX’S INFERENCE THAT LEADS TO HIS INTUITION IS BASED ON A FLAWED ARGUMENT. ONE CANNOT CONCLUDE FROM THE RARITY OF BACTERIA WITH S12 MUTATIONS THAT MOST SEQUENCES LEAD TO BONDING. MOST BACTERIA HAVE THE SAME S12 SEQUENCE. HE IS CONFUSING THE NUMBER OF ORGANISMS WITH THE NUMBER OF POSSIBLE AMINO-ACID SEQUENCDES. MY INTUITION ON THIS POINT IS SO STRONGLY SUPPORTED BY THE NATURE OF MOLECULAR BONDING, THAT I AM AMAZED THAT MAX’S INTUITION TELLS HIM THE OPPOSITE. BEFORE I DESCRIBE THE RELEVANT FEATURES OF THE BONDING OF LARGE MOLECULES, LET ME SAY THAT THE BONDING HAS A SPECIFICITY MUCH LIKE THAT OF A KEY IN A LOCK. THE SET OF KEYS THAT WILL OPEN A PARTICULAR LOCK IS MUCH SMALLER THAN THE SET OF KEYS THAT WILL NOT OPEN IT, AND THEREFORE, THE FORMER SET HAS A LOWER ENTROPY THAN THE LATTER SET. THE KEY-LOCK ANALOGY IS SUPPORTED BY THE FOLLOWING WELL-UNDERSTOOD MECHANISM FOR BONDING BETWEEN LARGE MOLECULES.

NONCOVALENT BONDS, SUCH AS HYDROGEN BONDS, VAN DER WAALS ATTRACTIONS, AND IONIC BONDS ARE MUCH WEAKER THAN COVALENT BONDS, AND IT IS THEY THAT ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR BINDING BETWEEN LARGE MOLECULES SUCH A PROTEINS. IF THE CONFORMATIONAL SHAPES OF TWO MOLECULES DO NOT MATCH WELL, THEN NO MORE THAN A FEW SUCH BONDS CAN FORM BETWEEN THEM. SINCE THESE BONDS ARE WEAK, THE FEW BONDS THAT FORM ARE EASILY BROKEN BY THERMAL MOTION, AND WE SAY THE MOLECULES DO NOT BIND TO EACH OTHER. IF, HOWEVER, THE SHAPES OF TWO MOLECULES CONFORM TO EACH OTHER OVER A LARGE AREA, THEN MANY NONCOVALENT BONDS CAN FORM. THE SUM TOTAL OF THESE MANY BONDS IS STRONG ENOUGH TO RESIST THE DISRUPTING FORCES OF THERMAL MOTION, AND WE SAY THE MOLECULES BIND TO EACH OTHER. SINCE THE SHAPES OF LARGE MOLECULES ARE IRREGULAR, IT IS UNLIKELY THAT THE SHAPES OF TWO MOLECULES CHOSEN AT RANDOM WILL MATCH EACH OTHER OVER A WIDE AREA. THEREFORE, IT IS ELEMENTARY THAT THE NUMBER OF DIFFERENT MOLECULES THAT FORM A GOOD MATCH TO ANY GIVEN MOLECULE IS MUCH SMALLER THAN THE NUMBER THAT FORM A POOR MATCH.]

However, I want to make it clear that I don’t buy your interpretation of certain specific mutations as reflecting a “loss of information.” You state that the “information content of an enzyme is the sum of many parts, among which are: level of catalytic activity, specificity with respect to the substrate, strength [and specificity] of binding to cell structure, [and] specificity of the amino-acid sequence devoted to specifying the enzyme for degradation.” This formulation is vague, non-quantitative, not supported by clear logic, not accepted in the scientific literature (to the best of my knowledge; please educate me if I am wrong), and in my view not useful.

Spetner: Ed, the level of your argument here is quite low. You have seen this entire section (above), and you took from the introduction my list of what characteristics can contribute to the information content of an enzyme and criticized it for being non-quantitative (followed by other pejorative epithets). Is that supposed to be some sort of debating tactic? In any case, the tactic is out of place in this discussion. From the context of what I wrote, it should have been clear to you that this partial list of characteristics that can contribute to the information in an enzyme was an introduction to my quantitative estimate of one of the characteristics of specificity of an enzyme. After I showed how one might calculate the information related to a type of specificity, I showed how a mutation that appeared to enhance activity on a new substrate actually reduced the information by about 50%.

It is elementary that specificity translates into information and vice versa. Have you ever played 20 questions? With the YES/NO answers to 20 judicious questions, one can discover a previously-chosen number between 1 and a million. If the questions are well chosen, those YES/NO answers can be worth one bit of information each, and 20 bits can specify one object out of a million. Twenty bit of information translates to specificity of one part in a million. Ten bits - to one part in a thousand.

The Zip codes in the US also demonstrate that specificity and information are two sides of the same coin and go hand in hand. An address in the United States can be completely specified by the nine-digit zip code. One digit of information will narrow down the address from being anywhere in the United States to being in just a few states. Thus if the first digit is a 6, the address is located somewhere in Illinois, Missouri, Kansas, or Nebraska.

A second digit of information will add specificity by narrowing down the address further. A 3, 4, or 5 in the second digit puts the address in Missouri. A 3 in the second digit puts it in the eastern portion of the state. Two digits of information are more specific than one.

A third digit of information is still more specific, narrowing down the address even more, making it still more specific. If the third digit is a 1, the address is specific to St. Louis and its suburbs. The next two digits of information pin down the address to within a few blocks. The remaining 4 digits of information can locate a specific building. Thus, it is clear that the information contained in the digits of the zip code translate into specificity.

There is no question about it: SPECIFICITY = INFORMATION.

Not only have I made it clear above that my criterion for gain/loss of information is quantitative, and supported by logic and the conventional understanding of these notions in information theory, I included that section in my first critique of your posting. You chose not to relate to it at all, and instead you made up the above criticism out of thin air.

Max: In my previous comments about your calculation of the “information gain or loss in a mutation” I made some criticisms which you called “pejorative epithets” and which you suggested were “some sort of debating tactic” or “made out of thin air"; but you did not address any of the criticisms substantively, so I will repeat them with more detail in hopes that you will address them. 1. I suggested that your formulation is vague and non-quantitative and not supported by clear logic. You have stated:

Spetner: The information content of an enzyme is the sum of many parts, among which are:

Level of catalytic activity
Specificity with respect to the substrate
Strength of binding to cell structure
Specificity of binding to cell structure
Specificity of the amino-acid sequence devoted to specifying the enzyme for degradation

Max: First of all, I note that of these five components, you have suggested for only one-specificity with respect to the substrate-how you would quantitate its contribution to the information content of the protein. In discussing this component you state:

Spetner: To estimate the information in an enzyme I shall assume that the information content of the enzyme itself is at least the Maximum information gained in transforming the substrate distribution into the product distribution. (I think this assumption is reasonable, but to be rigorous it should really be proved.)

Max: You may think that this assumption is reasonable, but I think that it is totally unreasonable. This assumption forms the basis for almost your entire argument, yet even you admit that it has not been “proven,” which would be necessary for your analysis to be rigorous, as you state. You therefore agree with me that your analysis is not rigorous, but based an unproven assumption.
[LMS: MAX’S ARGUMENT HAS NOW BECOME LUDICROUS. HE HAS JUMPED UPON MY REMARK THAT WHAT SEEMS PERFECTLY REASONABLE, REALLY SHOULD BE PROVED, AND I THINK IT CAN BE. HE EVIDENTLY DOESN’T UNDERSTAND WHAT IT IS THAT I SAY HAS TO BE PROVED, BUT SINCE I SAID SOMETHING SHOULD BE PROVED, HE POUNCED ON IT AS IF HE FOUND SOMETHING HE CAN CRITICIZE. I WONDER IF HE CAN POINT TO JUST WHAT IS UNREASONABLE ABOUT MY ABOVE ASSUMPTION. WHAT MAKES HIS REMARK PARTICULARLY LUDICROUS IS THAT HE SUDDENLY WANTS ME TO BE RIGOROUS IN CRITICIZING HIS ESSAY, WHICH ITSELF MAKES NO PRETENSE OF BEING RIGOROUS. FURTHERMORE, HE WENT TO GREAT LENGTHS ABOVE IN COMPLAINING THAT SOME CREATIONISTS CRITICIZE EVOLUTIONARY THEORY BECAUSE IT ISN’T RIGOROUS. I THINK THE ASSUMPTION IS EMINENTLY REASONABLE, AND I THINK IT CAN BE PROVED RIGOROUSLY. I FIND IT AMUSING THAT HE DEMANDS OF MY CRITIQUE A LEVEL OF MATHEMATICAL RIGOR THAT IS LIGHT YEARS BEYOND THAT OF HIS ESSAY. OH WELL, I SUPPOSE HE MUST FEEL HE NEEDS SOMETHING TO CRITICIZE.]

Secondly, you omitted any description of how the other components you listed would be used to assess information. Yet, you have claimed that because the mutations in the ribitol dehydrogenase system suggest a decrease in the substrate specificity component of information, the mutation represents a loss of information. But how can you claim this when you have not evaluated quantitatively all the other components that you say contribute to information? To me, for you to make a judgment about the quantitative information change due to the mutation when you have left out an evaluation of four of the five components of your proposed information metric is a rather serious lapse, especially for one who accuses others of “conclusion jumping."
[LMS: I FIND MAX’S ARGUMENT HERE QUITE TIRESOME. I’VE SHOWN THAT FOR THE ONE COMPONENT OF INFORMATION MOST SUSCEPTIBLE TO QUANTIFICATION THE INFORMATION MEASURE IS DECREASED BY MUTATION. HE NOW WANTS ME TO MAKE A FULL ANALYSIS OF THE INFORMATIONAL CHANGE IN THE OTHER FACTORS I MENTIONED AS EXAMPLES OF CARRIERS OF INFORMATION CONTENT. HE IS NIT PICKING. IS IT NOT CLEAR THAT IF THE ONE COMPONENT OF INFORMATION THAT CAN BE QUANTIFIED IS SHOWN TO LOSE INFORMATION, THAT SHOULD BE SUFFICIENT TO MAKE THE POINT? UNLESS, OF COURSE, MAX SHOULD HAVE GOOD REASON TO CLAIM THAT ONE OR MORE OF THE OTHER COMPONENTS WILL INCREASE INFORMATION. I SERIOUSLY DOUBT THAT HE HAS ANY SUCH GOOD REASON.]

Thirdly, you have not specified whether all the five components in your list should be given equal weight. If you do not give them equal weight, please explain your weighting system and justify it.
[LMS: THE SAME TIRESOME ARGUMENT.]
Fourthly, you imply ("sum of many parts, among which are") that there are additional “parts” that might contribute to the information content; but you never specify what these are.
[LMS: MORE OF THE SAME.]

Fifthly, you have not justified why any of these parameters should be considered in a metric quantitating the information of a protein. One might argue that the information content of the wild type and mutated ribitol dehydrogenase proteins were the same because - regardless of the substrate specificities-the amount of information necessary to define their amino acid sequence has not changed.
[LMS: HE’S MADE THIS KIND OF INVALID ARGUMENT BEFORE, AND I’VE ANSWERED IT, BUT MAX DID NOT INCLUDE THAT IN HIS POSTING. I SHALL GIVE THAT ANSWER AGAIN HERE. THE FLAW IN HIS ARGUMENT CAN BE EXPOSED BY DRAWING AN ANALOGY WITH THE GAME OF POKER, IN WHICH GAME THE VALUE OF A HAND IS A MONOTONIC DECREASING FUNCTION OF ITS PROBABILITY OF OCCURRENCE. MAX’S ARGUMENT IS THEN LIKE THAT OF A PLAYER WITH A BUST HAND WHO CLAIMS THAT HIS HAND IS JUST AS IMPROBABLE AS THAT OF HIS OPPONENT WITH FOUR ACES, AND THEREFORE SHOULD BE OF EQUIVALENT VALUE. THERE ARE ONLY 48 HANDS THAT HOLD FOUR ACES, BUT THERE ARE ABOUT 1.3 MILLION BUST HANDS. THERE ARE MANY MORE MUTATED DEHYDROGENASE CONFIGURATIONS THAN THERE ARE NONMUTATED CONFIGURATIONS.]

Your analogies (the 20 questions game, or zip codes) that encourage you to proclaim that “Specificity = Information” don’t clarify anything about the “information of a protein” in that a 200 amino acid protein A that has high levels of all of the components of your information metric can be specified by exactly as much information as a 200 amino acid protein B that is low in all your components. Indeed, I believe most scientists who have considered the information represented by genes or enzymes would conclude that a large complex protein involves much more information than a short polypeptide. Certainly it requires more information to specify the sequence of a large protein. Yet in your list of five components of information you have completely omitted that one parameter that most scientists would consider most important in comparing information content.
[LMS: ANOTHER TIRESOME REMARK. THE SUBJECT AT THIS POINT OF OUR DISCUSSION WAS A SINGLE NUCLEOTIDE SUBSTITUTION, WHICH LEAVES THE NUMBER OF AMINO ACIDS INVARIANT, AND THEREFORE THE NUMBER OF AMINO ACIDS IN THE PROTEIN WAS NOT A FACTOR IN EVALUATING THE CHANGE OF INFORMATION CONTENT.]

In summary, you have only one of your five components of protein information quantitatively, and that analysis you admit is not rigorous,
[LMS: HERE HE GOES AGAIN.]
you have not yet defined how four of your five parameters would be quantified, you have not yet described how the parameters would be weighted in combining them into a measurement of information, you have not presented a justification of why each parameter should be included, you have not specified whether there are other parameters that need to be included, and you have not justified the exclusion of the parameter most scientists would include in an information estimate; these are the reasons I considered your formulation vague and non-quantitative and not supported by clear logic.
[LMS: THIS WHOLE SECTION OF MAX’S ARGUMENT IS NOTHING MORE THAN NIT PICKING, PERHAPS FOR LACK OF HIS HAVING ANY SUBSTANTIVE ARGUMENT THAT HE COULD USE. IF HE THINKS HE HAS A SUBSTANTIVE ARGUMENT HERE, THEN HE DOES NOT UNDERSTAND THE ISSUE OF WHAT CONSTITUTES INFORMATION.]

There are many sequences of S12 proteins in a variety of “wild type” bacteria. Different species of Gram negative bacteria are commonly sensitive to streptomycin despite variations in S12 sequence; organisms with S12 mutations are very rarely found except under streptomycin selection. Therefore, MY intuition tells me that most S12 sequences bind streptomycin and that the set of S12 sequences conferring streptomycin resistance is smaller than the set conferring sensitivity. What supports your “intuition” that the susceptible set is smaller and therefore has smaller entropy?
[LMS: HE ASKED THIS SAME QUESTION ABOVE AND I ANSWERED IT THERE.]

2. Your formulation is not accepted in the scientific literature.
[LMS: MY FORMULATION CERTAINLY IS ACCEPTED. THE CLOSE CONNECTION BETWEEN INFORMATION CONTENT AND SPECIFICITY IS A CONCEPT WELL ACCEPTED IN THE SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE. IT IS IN SHANNON’S ORIGINAL FORMULATION AND IT APPEARS EITHER EXPLICITLY OR IMPLICITLY IN ALL TEXTBOOKS DEVOTED TO INFORMATION THEORY. I HAVE TAUGHT COMMUNICATION THEORY AND INFORMATION THEORY FOR MANY YEARS, AND I EMPHASIZE THIS RELATIONSHIP EARLY IN THE COURSE. IF MAX DOES NOT SEE THE CLOSE CONNECTION BETWEEN SPECIFICITY AND INFORMATION CONTENT, IT IS DUE TO HIS LACK OF FAMILIARITY WITH INFORMATION THEORY.]

This is obvious to you and to me,
[LMS: SORRY, BUT AS I NOTED ABOVE, THE CLOSE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SPECIFICITY AND INFORMATION IS WELL ACCEPTED.]
...but I wanted to make it clear to other potential readers of this correspondence. Although components of your analysis may include elements of accepted information theory analysis, your inclusion of the 5 items above as the elements contributing to a quantifiable information metric is original with you and has never (to my knowledge) been published in the peer-reviewed scientific literature; please correct me if I am wrong. Some readers might conclude from your pejorative (and unnecessarily personal and condescending) comments (e.g. “I would recommend that you not refer to my criteria of information loss as “questionable” until you understand them” ) that I am a loose cannon who blasts accepted theories without clearly understanding them.
[I DIDN’T SAY THAT, BUT SINCE HE MENTIONED IT, I WOULD SAY THAT HE FITS THAT DESCRIPTION ON THIS ISSUE.]
These readers should be aware that your theories have not met the normal criterion for a scientific idea to be worthy of serious consideration, namely publication in the peer-reviewed professional scientific literature. Although a computer search of the literature showed me that you wrote exactly two papers on information and protein sequences that were published in peer-reviewed journals, both more than 30 years ago (J THEOR BIOL 7 : 412, 1964; and NATURE 226: 48, 1970), neither of these papers contains discussion of your estimate of information content of a protein as measured by the parameters listed above. As far as I have been able to determine (and please correct me if I am wrong) the latter ideas were published only in your book, a non-peer reviewed publication; and the ideas from the book have been mentioned in the peer-reviewed professional literature only once, in a recent paper (Schneider Nucl Ac Res 28:2794, 2000) that disputes the validity of your analysis. The fact that your information metric has not been published in the peer-reviewed professional literature does not in itself make the analysis wrong, any more than the absence of flat-earth papers in the professional planetary astronomy journals or the absence of Holocaust denial papers in the professional history literature makes those two theories wrong. Each theory stands or falls on its merits (or lack thereof). But readers should know that you have not undertaken a novel application of a generally accepted metric to draw novel conclusions that confound evolutionists; rather, you have applied an eccentric metric never accepted by the science community, and not surprisingly have drawn eccentric (and in my view invalid) conclusions.
[LMS: MAX IS WRONG AS I NOTED ABOVE. HERE, HE IS DEMONSTRATING HIS IGNORANCE OF THE CLOSE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SPECIFICITY AND INFORMATION. THERE IS NOTHING NEW IN THIS CLOSE RELATIONSHIP THAT REQUIRES “PUBLICATION IN PEER-REVIEWED JOURNALS.” IT IS ELEMENTARY.]

Gene Families as Examples of Duplication, Mutation and Selection
Max: A commonly cited observation consistent with the Neo-Darwinian model of evolution is that in the DNA of humans we find many genes with similar sequences that have similar function, yet play distinct physiological roles. The multiple globin genes are an example I cite in my essay. Frequently genes with similar sequences are found in more primitive organisms, but in these the family of related genes is much smaller. The evolutionary interpretation is that the last common ancestor of humans and the primitive modern species had a smaller genome than modern humans and that as the human lineage evolved, there were multiple gene duplications which generated extra copies that mutated independently and evolved to take on slightly different functions. Spetner, of course, does not accept this scenario. I begin this exchange with my description of such a gene system.
[LMS: SCENARIOS ARE NOT PART OF THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD. THEY ARE NOT USED IN ANY BRANCH OF SCIENCE, WITH THE SOLE EXCEPTION OF EVOLUTION.]
Let’s consider a gene locus that I have studied in my lab: the human immunoglobulin heavy chain (or IgH) locus. In the human locus one sees evidence of a large DNA duplication that created two copies that are highly similar in both coding and non-coding flanking regions. One duplicate includes constant region sequences known as gamma3, gamma1, pseudo-epsilon and alpha1, while the second copy contains gamma2, gamma4, epsilon and alpha2. More primitive primates like the New World monkeys appear to have a single copy of this locus and a single gamma gene. The four human gamma chain genes are thus thought to have derived from a single ancestral gamma chain gene in a primate ancestor by a series of duplications and mutations. The four kinds of antibody proteins encoded by the human genes serve very similar functions, but they are not identical. They differ from one another in their “effector functions” such as their ability to activate serum complement proteins or to bind the various Fc receptors on cells of the immune system. For example, antibodies with gamma2 protein work best for recognizing polysaccharide antigens found on certain bacteria, while gamma4 antibodies work best for fighting parasites. Presumably the single ancestral gamma gene was not specialized and had to serve as a “jack-of-all-trades.” If you were to consider the mutations of that gene that led to the specialized function
[LMS: MAX MEANS, OF COURSE, HYPOTHETICAL MUTATIONS THAT HE POSTULATES TO HAVE LED TO SUCH FUNCTIONS.]
of the polysaccharide-binding gamma2 protein you could probably argue for “loss of information” in that, by mutating from primordial gamma, the protein may have “lost specificity” for battling parasite infestation; and if you looked at the mutations that led to the “parasite specialist” gamma4 protein, you could argue for “loss of information” in that the protein may have “lost specificity” for binding to polysaccharides. If you put on blinders and looked at one gene at a time you could make your argument that both genes “lost information,” but if you look at the whole picture you see that there is a gain in information for the whole system. In the ancestral primate we had one non-specialized gene whereas in modern humans we have four specialized genes.
[LMS: MAX IS, OF COURSE, MAKING ALL THIS UP ABOUT ME OR ANYONE ELSE ARGUING FOR A LOSS OF INFORMATION IN THE CHANGE HE IS HYPOTHESIZING HERE. IF SOMETHING LIKE WHAT HE SUGGESTED WERE INDEED TO HAVE HAPPENED, INFORMATION WOULD HAVE BEEN GAINED, AND I WOULD NOT, AS HE WOULD LIKE ME TO DO, SUGGEST THAT INFORMATION WOULD HAVE BEEN LOST. HIS PROBLEM IS THAT HE IS UNABLE TO SHOW THAT SUCH A CHANGE OCCURRED; IT IS ONLY A CONJECTURE. MORE IMPORTANT, HE IS INCAPABLE OF SHOWING THAT SUCH CHANGES COULD HAVE OCCURRED IN STEPS OF SINGLE-NUCLEOTIDE SUBSTITUTIONS IN WHICH EACH MUTATION HAD A POSITIVE SELECTIVE VALUE.]
This is exactly the sort of genetic change that would be consistent with Neo-Darwinian evolution leading to an increase in complexity. In your newspaper example it corresponds to having both the early and the final edition of today’s paper. A merchant who makes a little money on each transaction can certainly make a bundle if he works long enough at it.

Spetner: Yes, information would have been increased if what you speculate had indeed happened. The proof would only lie in showing that it has indeed happened. Let us not lose sight of the requirement of Neo-Darwinian evolution for long series of single-nucleotide substitutions, where each mutation makes the phenotype sufficiently more adaptive than it was to permit the mutated phenotype to take over the population through natural selection with a high probability. It is far from clear that the individual mutations you suggest will each be adaptive and selected at each step. You cannot show this - you merely assume it. You are postulating an historical event that cannot possibly be verified. It seems that all of your arguments are based on postulating events that are inherently not observable. That should make one a little suspicious of the theory, shouldn’t it?

Max: I realize that the above model for the human IgH locus is hypothetical and assumes that the evolutionary triad of duplication, random mutation and selection is a reasonable naturalistic explanation for the four human gamma genes. We cannot verify this explanation since we can never know the properties of the primordial ancestral gamma immunoglobulin, or know the series of mutations that occurred in the various duplicate gamma genes during our evolution from that primordial ancestor. What I am asking is: is there anything so implausible in this model to justify your suggestion that we should “dismiss Neo-Darwinian theory” as an explanation for this example?

Spetner: Yes, it is implausible because you are postulating a series of events of a type for which there is evidence that they have not occurred. If they had occurred to produce Evolution A, there should have been a vast number of them, and there aren’t. Not one unequivocal mutation has been observed. Had there been the required large number of them, we should have seen some of them in all the genetic experiments performed in all the laboratories of the world. And we haven’t, to my knowledge, seen a single one.

Max: Or more to the point, exactly what alternative explanation for the origin of the four human gamma genes do you propose that is more plausible than the one I offered? This is important, because considering the weaknesses I have pointed out in your arguments, you are far from having definitively ruled out the Neo-Darwinian evolutionary triad as the correct explanation for what you call the “grand sweep of evolution.”
[LMS: I HAVE, AS THE READER MAY HAVE NOTICED, REFUTED THE “WEAKNESSES” HE HAS POINTED OUT. THE POINT IS NOT WHETHER I HAVE “RULED OUT” NEO-DARWINIAN THEORY, ALTHOUGH I HAVE. THE POINT IS THAT HE IN HIS ESSAY HAS FAILED TO “RULE IT IN", WHICH IS WHAT HE SET OUT TO DO, AND ON WHICH HE ASKED ME TO COMMENT. NOTICE THAT MAX IS NOW TRYING TO PUT ME INTO A CATCH 22 SITUATION, WHICH I SHALL REFUSE TO ENTER. THE THEME UNDERLYING OUR DEBATE HERE IS WHETHER NEO-DARWINIAN THEORY SUCCESSFULLY OFFERS A NATURALISTIC EXPLANATION OF HOW LIFE DEVELOPED. HE IS NOW SAYING THAT IT IS “MORE TO THE POINT” TO DEMAND THAT I ACCEPT NEO-DARWINIAN THEORY UNLESS I CAN OFFER AN ALTERNATIVE NATURALISTIC EXPLANATION OF THE ORIGIN OF THE HUMAN GAMMA GENES THAT IS BETTER THAN THE NEO-DARWINIAN ONE HE GAVE. BUT IN THIS DEBATE I AM CONTENDING THAT THERE MAY NOT BE AN ADEQUATE NATURALISTIC EXPLANATION AT ALL.]
A mathematical proof that a conjecture is false, or a proof that a proposed invention is impossible because it violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics, may checkmate further discussion; but the points that you make (at least the ones that are sound) simply highlight gaps in our knowledge and force one to evaluate the validity of extrapolations we make from observable data. These points are useful contributions, but they would seriously damage the credibility of evolution only if there were an alternative explanation that did not suffer from similar gaps and challengable extrapolations. Since you haven’t ruled out evolution, the best you can do to “unseat” this theory from its present acceptance by scientists is to show that it is inferior to some other theory of species origins, but you have not described any alternative theory, so it is not clear that evolution needs to be “unseated.”

Spetner: How does creation grab you? You probably don’t want to admit that possibility, but you can think of it as a default position. It cannot be demonstrated scientifically, not because of any philosophical defect in the proposition, but because of the limitations of Science. Because Science is incapable of dealing with it does not mean it hasn’t happened. There are, after all, some truths in the physical world that cannot be reached by Science, just as there are mathematical truths that cannot be reached by mathematical proof. If we don’t have a scientifically viable theory to account for the origin of the four human gamma genes, or for the origin of life itself, we needn’t despair. Not every mystery necessarily has a scientific solution. I do not mean to say that one should not look for a scientific solution. One should. But not having such a solution is not a license to make up stories and pass them off to a gullible public as Science. Because I don’t have a (scientifically) 'plausible' explanation of the origin of life, does not mean that your improbable stories are correct and should be foisted on the public under the guise of scientific truth.

Summaries by the Correspondents
Spetner’s Summary
Spetner: I have shown here, with references to my book, that the examples most often cited by evolutionists as evidence for evolution occurring now are not evidence at all for the grand sweep of evolution, which I have called here Evolution A. For an example of evolution happening now to have any relevance to Evolution A, it must be based on a mutation that could be typical of those alleged to be in the long series of steps that lead from a bacterium to a baboon. The mutation must at least be one that when repeated again and again will build up enough information to turn a bacterium into a baboon. The favorite example cited for evolution is antibiotic resistance. I have shown that the mutations leading to antibiotic resistance do not add any information to the biocosm. In some cases, they actually lose information. I have shown an example of a mutation that can easily be misconstrued to demonstrate the addition of information to the genome. Upon the gathering of further data, this example turned out to be a demonstration of information loss and not gain. Conclusion jumping is always risky, because we seldom have enough data. Yet, the evolutionist community has persisted in making the shakiest of extrapolations. Max has tried to argue that his triad of gene duplication, random mutation, and natural selection, can add information to the collective genome of the biocosm. I have exposed his argument as being nothing more that offering possible scenarios - it is argument by just-so-stories. But the argument against NDT does not stop with the failure of its supporters to show proper theoretical or empirical evidence for it. The telling blow against NDT is that examples of information addition have never been exhibited. The absence of such examples is more than just the absence of evidence for evolution. It is actually evidence against evolution because if NDT were correct, there should be millions of such examples and in all the genetic experiments performed until now we should have seen many. Finally, the example of mutations in the B cells of the immune system carries no weight as an example of a mutation that adds information. Although these mutations do add information to the B-cell genome, they cannot be applied to evolution for the reasons I laid out above. Dr. Edward Max made a valiant attempt to present a solid case for evolution in his posting on the URL cited above. That he failed is not because of any defect in the author. Dr. Max is an intelligent, competent, and articulate scientist. He has a PhD and an MD, and for many years has done research and published on the genetics of the immune system, and he has added to our knowledge in this field. If he could not make a good case for evolution, there must be something woefully wrong with evolution.

Max’s Summary
Max: Although Spetner claims that mutations observed in experimental models of evolution uniformly lose information, I have tried to show that his metric for evaluating the information content of proteins has not been rigorously validated, and that his whole argument is therefore based on an untenable foundation.
[LMS: AS I HAVE NOTED ABOVE, MAX HAS SHOWN NOTHING OF THE KIND. IF ANYTHING, HE HAS ONLY DEMONSTRATED HIS IGNORANCE OF A FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE OF INFORMATION THEORY, AND HIS REFUSAL TO ACCEPT IT WHEN I EXPLAIN IT TO HIM.]

He has also argued that immunoglobulin affinity maturation, which depends on mutation and selection of randomly mutated immunoglobulin genes, is not a useful model for phylogenetic evolution, but none of his objections convince me. The mechanism generating mutations may be different in the two cases, but since many experimental methods for generating mutations yield pools of mutants from which individuals with improved function can be selected, the specifics of the mechanism seem irrelevant to the idea that mutation and selection can lead to increased fitness. Spetner’s argument about the differences in the rates of mutation in B cells versus germline cells also seems irrelevant, since we both seem to agree on these essential points: that single mutations can provide selectable advantages that could spread through the population after multiple cycles of reproduction; and that phylogenetic evolution is much slower than the B cell example because the mutation rate in germ cells must be much lower than what is feasible in the immunoglobulin genes of B cells.
[LMS: I CANNOT UNDERSTAND WHY MAX DOES NOT SEE THAT THE GREAT DIFFERENCE IN RATE OF THE TWO TYPES OF MUTATION IS AN ESSENTIAL PART OF THE ARGUMENT THAT INVALIDATES HIS USE OF THE B-CELL HYPERMUTATION AS AN EXAMPLE THAT DEMONSTRATES THE EFFECTIVENESS OF RANDOM MUTATIONS TO GENERATE INFORMATION IN GERM-CELL MUTATION IN EVOLUTION I THOUGHT I MADE THIS POINT CLEAR, AND I’LL MAKE IT ONCE MORE. THE MANY-FOLD HIGHER RATE OF B-CELL MUTATION MAKES AVAILABLE ALL POSSIBLE AMINO-ACID CHANGES THROUGH DOUBLE AND TRIPLE MUTATIONS. THIS WIDER CHOICE OF MUTATIONS MAKES POSSIBLE ADAPTIVE CHANGES THAT ARE NOT POSSIBLE THROUGH ONLY SINGLE MUTATIONS. IT’S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A MUTATION THAT CAN LEAD ONLY TO ONE OF SIX NEW AMINO ACIDS VERSUS A MUTATION THAT CAN LEAD TO THE FULL COMPLEMENT OF 19 NEW AMINO ACIDS.]

Spetner has avoided specifying precisely what he means by his preferred model of “creation,” so he avoids having to defend his model against scrutiny similar to what he has applied to evolutionary theory. Even a supernatural “creation” should leave traces that might be different from those expected from evolutionary theory. If his “creation” alternative does not make specific predictions that might distinguish it from evolution, it is not a useful scientific model. This may not bother Spetner, who has said that science is not the only source of knowledge; but as discussed below, it suggests that Spetner’s views do not deserve consideration in science classrooms or textbooks.
[LMS: NOTICE THAT MAX IS AGAIN DIVERTING THE DISCUSSION. OUR SUBJECT IS WHETHER OR NOT RANDOM MUTATIONS CAN GENERATE THE INFORMATION NECESSARY FOR THE GRAND SWEEP OF EVOLUTION, AND IN PARTICULAR WHETHER OR NOT MAX’S USE OF B-CELL HYPERMUTATION IS SOME KIND OF CONVINCING DEMONSTRATION OF IT. THEOLOGY, OR CREATION MODELS, ARE NOT A LEGITIMATE PART OF OUR DISCUSSION.]

Spetner’s idea that evolution is being “foisted on the public under the guise of scientific truth” reveals a blurring of the distinction between scientific knowledge and religious dogma.
[LMS: THIS SENTENCE OF HIS IS IRRELEVANT AND NONSENSICAL. HE IS THE ONE THAT IS INJECTING RELIGION INTO THIS DISCUSSION AND NOT ME. I MAKE THE POINT THAT MAX’S EXAMPLE OF B-CELL MUTATION FAILS FROM A SCIENTIFIC POINT OF VIEW TO DEMONSTRATE WHAT HE WOULD LIKE IT TO DEMONSTRATE. WHAT I DON’T WANT FOISTED ON THE PUBLIC IS POOR SCIENCE MASQUERADING AS GOOD SCIENCE.]
Religious dogma based on an unchanging holy text may provide a “truth” that Spetner can accept without feeling any need to explain or justify it; such dogma, being immune from scrutiny, may be immune from revision and therefore represents an immutable “truth.” In contrast, no responsible scientist suggests that our current scientific theories are immune from revision based on future evidence. We simply claim that, even despite areas of controversy and perplexing gaps in our current knowledge, evolution is the scientific theory most compatible with existing scientific evidence.
[LMS: BUT IT IS NOT COMPATIBLE WITH THE EVIDENCE!]
When we discuss the origin of species in our science classes, there is no alternative theory in the scientific literature that we can teach. We therefore teach (“foist on the public”?) the only theory about this question found in that literature: the theory of evolution. (It is unfortunate that some science teachers go beyond the scientific evidence to claim that the theory of evolution rules out the existence of God; this is not a valid extrapolation, as I mentioned in section 4 above.) If Spetner feels he has evidence that the scientific literature on which classroom instruction is based is in error, he should argue his case in the professional scientific literature, not in an unrefereed book.
[LMS: MAX’S ARGUMENT HERE IS THE LAST REFUGE OF THE EVOLUTIONISTS. SINCE THEY CONTROL THE LITERATURE IN EVOLUTION, THEY REJECT PAPERS THAT SERIOUSLY CRITICIZE IT. MANY AUTHORS HAVE ATTEMPTED TO PUBLISH SUCH PAPERS AND THEY HAVE BEEN REJECTED, NOT BECAUSE THEY ARE FLAWED, BUT FOR TANGENTIAL REASONS. I HAVE SUBMITTED SUCH PAPERS; ONE WAS REJECTED FOR “NOT BEING OF SUFFICIENT INTEREST", AND ANOTHER WAS REJECTED FOR “NOT BEING SUFFICIENTLY FOCUSED.” SO THEY LOVE TO USE THE CATCH THAT OBJECTIONS SUCH AS MINE TO NDT “HAVE NOT BEEN PUBLISHED IN PEER REFEREED JOURNALS."]
Controversial views expressed in books but not in the professional literature cannot justifiably be foisted on students in science classrooms (at least not in public elementary/secondary classrooms) because there are no consistent standards of scholarship for book publication (as demonstrated by books on psychic powers, extrasensory perception, astrology and Holocaust denial).

Despite our opposing viewpoints, the correspondence has been interesting (to me at least) because Spetner is an intelligent and articulate scientist, who seems genuinely interested in a dialogue that tries to analyze where the differences in our positions lie. I hope that the correspondence will continue. If it does, I will update this summary. Readers who would like to make additional points relevant to this correspondence can Email me at Max@cber.fda.gov.

Spetner: I shall forego the opportunity to have the last word here; I have already made my latest comments in the body of this posting.

Dr. Lee M. Spetner
http://www.trueorigin.org/spetner2.asp

posted in Evolution/Creation Debate - 3 replies

The "Threat" of Creationism by Isaac Asimov

2007-12-31T16:08:39Z

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/azimov_creationism.html

The "Threat" of Creationism

The following essay was published in Science and Creationism (1984).
by Isaac Asimov

Scientists thought it was settled. The universe, they had decided, is about 20 billion years old, and Earth itself is 4.5 billion years old. Simple forms of life came into being more than three billion years ago, having formed spontaneously from nonliving matter. They grew more complex through slow evolutionary processes and the first hominid ancestors of humanity appeared more than four million years ago. Homo sapians itself—the present human species, people like you and me—has walked the earth for at least 50,000 years.

But apparently it isn't settled. There are Americans who believe that the earth is only about 6,000 years old; that human beings and all other species were brought into existence by a divine Creator as eternally separate variations of beings; and that there has been no evolutionary process.

They are creationists—they call themselves "scientific" creationists—and they are a growing power in the land, demanding that schools be forced to teach their views. State legislatures, mindful of the votes, are beginning to succumb to the pressure. In perhaps 15 states, bills have been introduced, putting forth the creationist point of view, and in others, strong movements are gaining momentum. In Arkansas, a law requiring that the teaching of creationism receive equal time was passed this spring and is scheduled to go into effect in September 1982, though the American Civil Liberties Union has filed suit on behalf of a group of clergymen, teachers, and parents to overturn it. And a California father named Kelly Segraves, the director of the Creation-Science Research Center, sued to have public-school science classes taught that there are other theories of creation besides evolution, and that one of them was the Biblical version. The suit came to trial in March, and the judge ruled that educators must distribute a policy statement to schools and textbook publishers explaining that the theory of evolution should not be seen as "the ultimate cause of origins." Even in New York, the Board of Education has delayed since January in making a final decision, expected this month [June 1981], on whether schools will be required to include the teaching of creationism in their curriculums.

The Rev. Jerry Fallwell, the head of the Moral Majority, who supports the creationist view from his television pulpit, claims that he has 17 million to 25 million viewers (though Arbitron places the figure at a much more modest 1.6 million). But there are 66 electronic ministries which have a total audience of about 20 million. And in parts of the country where the Fundamentalists predominate—the so called Bible Belt— creationists are in the majority.

They make up a fervid and dedicated group, convinced beyond argument of both their rightness and their righteousness. Faced with an apathetic and falsely secure majority, smaller groups have used intense pressure and forceful campaigning—as the creationists do—and have succeeded in disrupting and taking over whole societies.

Yet, though creationists seem to accept the literal truth of the Biblical story of creation, this does not mean that all religious people are creationists. There are millions of Catholics, Protestants, and Jews who think of the Bible as a source of spiritual truth and accept much of it as symbolically rather than literally true. They do not consider the Bible to be a textbook of science, even in intent, and have no problem teaching evolution in their secular institutions.

To those who are trained in science, creationism seems like a bad dream, a sudden reveling of a nightmare, a renewed march of an army of the night risen to challenge free thought and enlightenment.

The scientific evidence for the age of the earth and for the evolutionary development of life seems overwhelming to scientists. How can anyone question it? What are the arguments the creationists use? What is the "science" that makes their views "scientific"? Here are some of them:

• The argument from analogy.

A watch implies a watchmaker, say the creationists. If you were to find a beautifully intricate watch in the desert, far from habitation, you would be sure that it had been fashioned by human hands and somehow left it there. It would pass the bounds of credibility that it had simply formed, spontaneously, from the sands of the desert.

By analogy, then, if you consider humanity, life, Earth, and the universe, all infinitely more intricate than a watch, you can believe far less easily that it "just happened." It, too, like the watch, must have been fashioned, but by more-than-human hands—in short by a divine Creator.

This argument seems unanswerable, and it has been used (even though not often explicitly expressed) ever since the dawn of consciousness. To have explained to prescientific human beings that the wind and the rain and the sun follow the laws of nature and do so blindly and without a guiding would have been utterly unconvincing to them. In fact, it might have well gotten you stoned to death as a blasphemer.

There are many aspects of the universe that still cannot be explained satisfactorily by science; but ignorance only implies ignorance that may someday be conquered. To surrender to ignorance and call it God has always been premature, and it remains premature today.

In short, the complexity of the universe—and one's inability to explain it in full—is not in itself an argument for a Creator.

• The argument from general consent.

Some creationists point at that belief in a Creator is general among all peoples and all cultures. Surly this unanimous craving hints at a greater truth. There would be no unanimous belief in a lie.

General belief, however, is not really surprising. Nearly every people on earth that considers the existence of the world assumes it to have been created by a god or gods. And each group invents full details for the story. No two creation tales are alike. The Greeks, the Norsemen, the Japanese, the Hindus, the American Indians, and so on and so on all have their own creation myths, and all of these are recognized by Americans of Judeo-Christian heritage as "just myths."

The ancient Hebrews also had a creation tale—two of them, in fact. There is a primitive Adam-and-Eve-in-Paradise story, with man created first, then animals, then women. There is also a poetic tale of God fashioning the universe in six days, with animals preceding man, and man and woman created together.

These Hebrew myths are not inherently more credible than any of the others, but they are our myths. General consent, of course, proves nothing: There can be a unanimous belief in something that isn't so. The universal opinion over thousands of years that the earth was flat never flattened its spherical shape by one inch.

• The argument of belittlement.

Creationists frequently stress the fact that evolution is "only a theory," giving the impression that a theory is an idle guess. A scientist, one gathers, arising one morning with nothing particular to do, decided that perhaps the moon is made of Roquefort cheese and instantly advances the Roquefort-cheese theory.

A theory (as the word is used by scientists) is a detailed description of some facet of the universe's workings that is based on long observation and, where possible, experiment. It is the result of careful reasoning from these observations and experiments that has survived the critical study of scientists generally.

For example, we have the description of the cellular nature of living organisms (the "cell theory"); of objects attracting each other according to fixed rule (the "theory of gravitation"); of energy behaving in discrete bits (the "quantum theory"); of light traveling through a vacuum at a fixed measurable velocity (the "theory of relativity"), and so on.

All are theories; all are firmly founded; all are accepted as valid descriptions of this or that aspect of the universe. They are neither guesses nor speculations. And no theory is better founded, more closely examined, more critically argued and more thoroughly accepted, than the theory of evolution. If it is "only" a theory, that is all it has to be.

Creationism, on the other hand, is not a theory. There is no evidence, in the scientific sense, that supports it. Creationism, or at least the particular variety accepted by many Americans, is an expression of early Middle Eastern legend. It is fairly described as "only a myth."

• The argument of imperfection.

Creationists, in recent years, have stressed the "scientific" background of their beliefs. They point out that there are scientists who base their creationists beliefs on a careful study of geology, paleontology, and biology and produce "textbooks" that embody those beliefs.

Virtually the whole scientific corpus of creationism, however, consists of the pointing out of imperfections in the evolutionary view. The creationists insists, for example, that evolutionists cannot true transition states between species in the fossil evidence; that age determinations through radioactive breakdown are uncertain; that alternative interpretations of this or that piece of evidence are possible and so on.

Because the evolutionary view is not perfect and is not agreed upon by all scientists, creationists argue that evolution is false and that scientists, in supporting evolution, are basing their views on blind faith and dogmatism.

To an extent, the creationists are right here: The details of evolution are not perfectly known. Scientists have been adjusting and modifying Charles Darwin's suggestions since he advanced his theory of the origin of species through natural selection back in 1859. After all, much has been learned about the fossil record and physiology, microbiology, biochemistry, ethology, and various other branches of life science in the last 125 years, and it was to be expected that we can improve on Darwin. In fact, we have improved on him. Nor is the process finished. it can never be, as long as human beings continue to question and to strive for better answers.

The details of evolutionary theory are in dispute precisely because scientists are not devotees of blind faith and dogmatism. They do not accept even as great thinker as Darwin without question, nor do they accept any idea, new or old, without thorough argument. Even after accepting an idea, they stand ready to overrule it, if appropriate new evidence arrives. If, however, we grant that a theory is imperfect and details remain in dispute, does that disprove the theory as a whole?

Consider. I drive a car, and you drive a car. I do not know exactly how an engine works. Perhaps you do not either. And it may be that our hazy and approximate ideas of the workings of an automobile are in conflict. Must we then conclude from this disagreement that an automobile does not run, or that it does not exist? Or, if our senses force us to conclude that an automobile does exist and run, does that mean it is pulled by an invisible horses, since our engine theory is imperfect?

However much scientists argue their differing beliefs in details of evolutionary theory, or in the interpretation of the necessarily imperfect fossil record, they firmly accept the evolutionary process itself.

• The argument from distorted science.

Creationists have learned enough scientific terminology to use it in their attempts to disprove evolution. They do this in numerous ways, but the most common example, at least in the mail I receive is the repeated assertion that the second law of thermodynamics demonstrates the evolutionary process to be impossible.

In kindergarten terms, the second law of thermodynamics says that all spontaneous change is in the direction of increasing disorder—that is, in a "downhill" direction. There can be no spontaneous buildup of the complex from the simple, therefore, because that would be moving "uphill." According to the creationists argument, since, by the evolutionary process, complex forms of life evolve from simple forms, that process defies the second law, so creationism must be true.

Such an argument implies that this clearly visible fallacy is somehow invisible to scientists, who must therefore be flying in the face of the second law through sheer perversity. Scientists, however, do know about the second law and they are not blind. It's just that an argument based on kindergarten terms is suitable only for kindergartens.

To lift the argument a notch above the kindergarten level, the second law of thermodynamics applies to a "closed system"—that is, to a system that does not gain energy from without, or lose energy to the outside. The only truly closed system we know of is the universe as a whole.

Within a closed system, there are subsystems that can gain complexity spontaneously, provided there is a greater loss of complexity in another interlocking subsystem. The overall change then is a complexity loss in a line with the dictates of the second law.

Evolution can proceed and build up the complex from the simple, thus moving uphill, without violating the second law, as long as another interlocking part of the system — the sun, which delivers energy to the earth continually — moves downhill (as it does) at a much faster rate than evolution moves uphill. If the sun were to cease shining, evolution would stop and so, eventually, would life.

Unfortunately, the second law is a subtle concept which most people are not accustomed to dealing with, and it is not easy to see the fallacy in the creationists distortion.

There are many other "scientific" arguments used by creationists, some taking quite cleaver advantage of present areas of dispute in evolutionary theory, but every one of then is as disingenuous as the second-law argument.

The "scientific" arguments are organized into special creationist textbooks, which have all the surface appearance of the real thing, and which school systems are being heavily pressured to accept. They are written by people who have not made any mark as scientists, and, while they discuss geology, paleontology and biology with correct scientific terminology, they are devoted almost entirely to raising doubts over the legitimacy of the evidence and reasoning underlying evolutionary thinking on the assumption that this leaves creationism as the only possible alternative.

Evidence actually in favor of creationism is not presented, of course, because none exist other than the word of the Bible, which it is current creationist strategy not to use.

• The argument from irrelevance.

Some creationists putt all matters of scientific evidence to one side and consider all such things irrelevant. The Creator, they say, brought life and the earth and the entire universe into being 6,000 years ago or so, complete with all the evidence for eons-long evolutionary development. The fossil record, the decaying radio activity, the receding galaxies were all created as they are, and the evidence they present is an illusion.

Of course, this argument is itself irrelevant, for it can be neither proved nor disproved. it is not an argument, actually, but a statement. I can say that the entire universe was created two minutes age, complete with all its history books describing a nonexistent past in detail, and with every living person equipped with a full memory; you, for instance, in the process of reading this article in midstream with a memory of what you had read in the beginning—which you had not really read.

What kind of Creator would produce a universe containing so intricate an illusion? It would mean that the Creator formed a universe that contained human beings whom He had endowed with the faculty of curiosity and the ability to reason. He supplied those human beings with an enormous amount of subtle and cleverly consistent evidence designed to mislead them and cause them to be convinced that the universe was created 20 billion years ago and developed by evolutionary processes that include the creation and the development of life on Earth. Why?

Does the Creator take pleasure in fooling us? Does it amuse Him to watch us go wrong? Is it part of a test to see if human beings will deny their senses and their reason in order to cling to myth? Can it be that the Creator is a cruel and malicious prankster, with a vicious and adolescent sense of humor?

• The argument from authority.

The Bible says that God created the world in six days, and the Bible is the inspired word of God. To the average creationist this is all that counts. All other arguments are merely a tedious way of countering the propaganda of all those wicked humanists, agnostics, an atheists who are not satisfied with the clear word of the Lord.

The creationist leaders do not actually use that argument because that would make their argument a religious one, and they would not be able to use it in fighting a secular school system. They have to borrow the clothing of science, no matter how badly it fits, and call themselves "scientific" creationists. They also speak only of the "Creator," and never mentioned that this Creator is the God of the Bible.

We cannot, however, take this sheep's clothing seriously. However much the creationist leaders might hammer away at in their "scientific" and "philosophical" points, they would be helpless and a laughing-stock if that were all they had.

It is religion that recruits their squadrons. Tens of millions of Americans, who neither know nor understand the actual arguments for or even against evolution, march in the army of the night with their Bibles held high. And they are a strong and frightening force, impervious to, and immunized against, the feeble lance of mere reason.

Even if I am right and the evolutionists' case is very strong, have not creationists, whatever the emptiness of their case, a right to be heard? if their case is empty, isn't it perfectly safe to discuss it since the emptiness would then be apparent? Why, then are evolutionists so reluctant to have creationism taught in the public schools on an equal basis with evolutionary theory? can it be that the evolutionists are not as confident of their case as they pretend. Are they afraid to allow youngsters a clear choice?

First, the creationists are somewhat less than honest in their demand for equal time. It is not their views that are repressed: schools are by no means the only place in which the dispute between creationism and evolutionary theory is played out. There are churches, for instance, which are a much more serious influence on most Americans than the schools are. To be sure, many churches are quite liberal, have made their peace with science and find it easy to live with scientific advance — even with evolution. But many of the less modish and citified churches are bastions of creationism.

The influence of the church is naturally felt in the home, in the newspapers, and in all of surrounding society. It makes itself felt in the nation as a whole, even in religiously liberal areas, in thousands of subtle ways: in the nature of holiday observance, in expressions of patriotic fervor, even in total irrelevancies. In 1968, for example, a team of astronomers circling the moon were instructed to read the first few verses of Genesis as though NASA felt it had to placate the public lest they rage against the violation of the firmament. At the present time, even the current President of the United States has expressed his creationist sympathies.

It is only in school that American youngsters in general are ever likely to hear any reasoned exposition of the evolutionary viewpiont. They might find such a viewpoint in books, magazines, newspapers, or even, on occasion, on television. But church and family can easily censor printed matter or television. Only the school is beyond their control.

But only just barely beyond. Even though schools are now allowed to teach evolution, teachers are beginning to be apologetic about it, knowing full well their jobs are at the mercy of school boards upon which creationists are a stronger and stronger influence.

Then, too, in schools, students are not required to believe what they learn about evolution—merely to parrot it back on test. If they fail to do so, their punishment is nothing more than the loss of a few points on a test or two.

In the creationist churches, however, the congregation is required to believe. Impressionable youngsters, taught that they will go to hell if they listen to the evolutionary doctrine, are not likely to listen in comfort or to believe if they do. Therefore, creationists, who control the church and the society they live in and to face the public-school as the only place where evolution is even briefly mentioned in a possible favorable way, find they cannot stand even so minuscule a competition and demand "equal time."

Do you suppose their devotion to "fairness" is such that they will give equal time to evolution in their churches?

Second, the real danger is the manner in which creationists want threir "equal time." In the scientific world, there is free and open competition of ideas, and even a scientist whose suggestions are not accepted is nevertheless free to continue to argue his case. In this free and open competition of ideas, creationism has clearly lost. It has been losing, in fact, since the time of Copernicus four and a half centuries ago. But creationism, placing myth above reason, refused to accept the decision and are now calling on the government to force their views on the schools in lieu of the free expression of ideas. Teachers must be forced to present creationism as though it had equal intellectual respectability with evolutionary doctrine.

What a precedent this sets.

If the government can mobilize its policemen and its prisons to make certain that teachers give creationism equal time, they can next use force to make sure that teachers declare creationism the victor so that evolution will be evicted from the classroom altogether. We will have established ground work, in other words, for legally enforced ignorance and for totalitarian thought control. And what if the creationists win? They might, you know, for there are millions who, faced with a choice between science and their interpretation of the Bible, will choose the Bible and reject science, regardless of the evidence.

This is not entirely because of the traditional and unthinking reverence for the literal words of the Bible; there is also a pervasive uneasiness—even an actual fear—of science that will drive even those who care little for fundamentalism into the arms of the creationists. For one thing, science is uncertain. Theories are subject to revision; observations are open to a variety of interpretations, and scientists quarrel among themselves. This is disillusioning for those untrained in the scientific method, who thus turn to the rigid certainty of the Bible instead. There is something comfortable about a view that allows for no deviation and that spares you the painful necessity of having to think.

Second, science is complex and chilling. The mathematical language of science is understood by very few. The vistas it presents are scary—an enormous universe ruled by chance and impersonal rules, empty and uncaring, ungraspable and vertiginous. How comfortable to turn instead to a small world, only a few thousand years old, and under God's personal and immediate care; a world in which you are his particular concern and where He will not consign you to hell if you are careful to follow every word of the Bible as interpreted for you by your television preacher.

Third, science is dangerous. There is no question but that poison gas, genetic engineering, and nuclear weapons and power stations are terrifying. It may be that civilization is falling apart and the world we know is coming to an end. In that case, why not turn to religion and look forward to the Day of Judgment, in which you and your fellow believers will be lifted into eternal bliss and have the added joy of watching the scoffers and disbelievers writhe forever in torment.

So why might they not win?

There are numerous cases of societies in which the armies of the night have ridden triumphantly over minorities in order to establish a powerful orthodoxy which dictates official thought. Invariably, the triumphant ride is toward long-range disaster. Spain dominated Europe and the world in the 16th century, but in Spain orthodoxy came first, and all divergence of opinion was ruthlessly suppressed. The result was that Spain settled back into blankness and did not share in the scientific, technological and commercial ferment that bubbled up in other nations of Western Europe. Spain remained an intellectual backwater for centuries. In the late 17th century, France in the name of orthodoxy revoked the Edict of Nantes and drove out many thousands of Huguenots, who added their intellectual vigor to lands of refuge such as Great Britain, the Netherlands, and Prussia, while France was permanently weakened.

In more recent times, Germany hounded out the Jewish scientists of Europe. They arrived in the United States and contributed immeasurably to scientific advancement here, while Germany lost so heavily that there is no telling how long it will take it to regain its former scientific eminence. The Soviet Union, in its fascination with Lysenko, destroyed its geneticists, and set back its biological sciences for decades. China, during the Cultural Revolution, turned against Western science and is still laboring to overcome the devastation that resulted.

As we now, with all these examples before us, to ride backward into the past under the same tattered banner of orthodoxy? With creationism in the saddle, American science will wither. We will raise a generation of ignoramuses ill-equipped to run the industry of tomorrow, much less to generate the new advances of the days after tomorrow.

We will inevitably recede into the backwater of civilization, and those nations that retain opened scientific thought will take over the leadership of the world and the cutting edge of human advancement. I don't suppose that the creationists really plan the decline of the United States, but their loudly expressed patriotism is as simpleminded as their "science." If they succeed, they will, in their folly, achieve the opposite of what they say they wish.

( Isaac Asimov, "The 'Threat' of Creationism," New York Times Magazine, June 14, 1981; from Science and Creationism, Ashley Montagu, ed., New York: Oxford University Press, 1984, pp. 182-193. )

posted in Evolution/Creation Debate - 12 replies

One Cell Life Found On Mars!

2007-12-29T19:34:13Z

Just kidding, but I know of at least one atheist nut case who believes this. His name is Bill and he moderates a tribe called the "Lions Den". Here is the quote:

"In actual fact one celled life has been discovered on Mars, so it is very much possible that intelligent life evolved elsewhere."

http://tribes.tribe.net/enterthelionsden/thread/8fd48703-6a8a-4d1e-9be2-64e984a2abb5

Of course, one celled life has not been found on any planet except earth but this just goes to show how thoroughly brainwashed evolution believers are. Their presuppositions are so intertwined with reality they cannot separate the two. hmmm, isn't this a definition of delusional?

Bill and I have had a few exchanges in the past. One I recall on Christianity Unplugged where he asserted that it was illegal to spank your child in all 50 states. I quickly showed him it was in fact legal in all 50 states. He then began attacking me for being an abusive parent. Truth has no relevence to characters like Bill. The sad thing is they exist all over the place. Guys who believe science has "proved evolution and old ages" are a dime a dozen. Those who can prove their assertions are as common as a three dollar Bill. Ooopps, did I say Bill?

posted in Evolution/Creation Debate - 10 replies

Asimov on Creationists View on Theory

2007-12-28T02:07:07Z

Creationists make it sound as though a 'theory' is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night.

Isaac Asimov

posted in Evolution/Creation Debate - 1 reply

Iowa Citizens for Science Stealthily Promotes Misinformation about Guillermo Gonzalez and Discovery Institute

2007-12-27T16:31:32Z

If Darwinian naturalism is just a theory that the evidence points to, then why do these scientists feel so threatened by criticism that they must attempt to destroy the careers of those who criticise it? If science advances by criticisms to hypotheses, one would think all criticism would be welcome, regardless of the source. Yet clearly such is not the case, as darwiniacs lie and obfuscate in order to protect their favored ideology, as can be seen in the case of astronomy professor, Dr. Guillermo Gonzalez of ISU.

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/12/iowa_citizens_for_science_stea.html#more

On December 3, Discovery Institute helped organize a press conference at the Iowa State Capitol where we released evidence that Guillermo Gonzalez faced discrimination at ISU because he supports intelligent design as a science. Someone from the pro-Darwin activist group, Iowa Citizens for Science, attended that press conference and passed out a press release. Citizens were welcome to attend the press conference and we made no objections to this person attending and distributing his press release.

Within a couple days, a press release appeared on the Iowa Citizens for Science (ICFS) website, asserting that “[Guillermo] Gonzalez and the DI have announced plans to sue Iowa State University.” But that statement was both untrue and impossible: Discovery Institute is not Dr. Gonzalez’s legal representative and has no right to sue on his behalf, and that statement was directly contradicted at the press conference where Dr. Gonzalez’s attorneys made it clear that no decision has yet been made regarding whether to sue ISU. The correct position was public even before ICFS issued its press release at the Dec. 3rd press conference, having been repeated in the Des Moines Register. Soon after ICFS posted their press release, Dr. Gonzalez stated in the Iowa State Daily, "I haven't decided yet. I have not yet decided to pursue legal action."

The misinformation remained in ICFS’s website until last Sunday, when I e-mailed ICFS asking them to correct this statement. Thankfully, they did correct this point, responding quickly with a one-line e-mail stating the correction made to the press release. The e-mail I received in reply was sent by a generic ICFS e-mail address and was signed by … no one. We saw a similar pattern of behavior from ICFS at the Dec. 3 press conference: when the person who claimed to be a representative of ICFS at the press conference was asked what his name was, he answered with visible reluctance and only called himself “Greg.” Now, apparently a nameless operative is modifying their website and corresponding with the outside world on behalf of the organization. Whoever these stealthy “citizens” are at Iowa Citizens for Science, they continue to promote blatantly false information about Dr. Gonzalez:

In my e-mail to ICFS, also observed that “the Iowa Citizens for Science press release wrongly asserts that, ‘None of his graduate students had completed their programs.’” As I explained in my e-mail, the truth blatantly contradicts their false assertion:

Again, that statement is completely false. The truth is that in 2001, soon before Gonzalez left the University of Washington (UW) join the faculty at ISU, he served as the primary advisor to a UW doctoral student in astronomy, Chris Laws. Gonzalez served as Laws’ primary scientific advisor over the course of Laws’ entire doctoral thesis, and Laws successfully graduated from UW with a Ph.D. in astronomy in December, 2004. Gonzalez also served on the committee of another Ph.D. student at UW, Rory Barnes, and this student also successfully graduated in 2004. You may want to also correct this false information as well and issue a retraction immediately.
ICFS did not correct that statement. Subsequently, Dr. Gonzalez’s attorney, Timm Reid, asked ICFS to correct the false assertion in their press release that “[n]one of his graduate students had completed their programs.” ICFS has gone into deep stealth mode and has sent him no reply. At present, this false claim remains uncorrected on the ICFS press release.

As a final problem with the ICFS press release, it cites the Chronicle of Higher Education to assert that “Gonzalez’ rate of publication had dropped off dramatically since he joined the ISU faculty.” Yet as we’ve recounted elsewhere, Dr. Gonzalez has the highest per-capita publication count and highest per-capita citation count among ISU astronomers since 2001, the year he joined ISU. So if there was any “dro[p] off” in Dr. Gonzalez’s productivity, he still outperformed the very ISU astronomers who voted against his tenure.

Moreover, as Rob Crowther recently documented, Dr. Gonzalez’s annual publication rate has remained about the same at both the beginning and the end of his probationary period at ISU, so ultimately there seems to be no “dro[p] off”. Dr. Gonzalez does have a temporary drop in publications during 2004, but this is because during that year he expended much time co-authoring a peer-reviewed astronomy textbook for Cambridge University Press—a textbook that is now used for teaching in his department! But Dr. Gonzalez immediately bounced back in his publication rate after the textbook was published, and as Crowther shows, when Gonzalez was denied tenure by ISU’s president, he was tied for the highest per-capita publication count among ISU astronomers since January, 2006.

ICFS’s objective claim that “[n]one of his graduate students had completed their programs” is flat wrong, and ICFS’s subjective claim that “Gonzalez’ rate of publication had dropped off dramatically since he joined the ISU faculty” is highly questionable. But don’t expect ICFS to change any of this false information—they seem much more interested in secrecy and promoting false information, and blaming the victim for the anti-ID discrimination at ISU.

posted in Evolution/Creation Debate - 2 replies

More Evidence for Evolution; Endogenous Retroviruses

2007-12-26T20:24:58Z

One of the facinating things coming out of recent genetic research is the discovery that our geneome is riddled with the "fossil" remnants of ancient viral infections. These "endogenous retroviruses" (ERV's) provide some very firm evidence for common descent as described here:

"Darwin’s surprise almost certainly would be mixed with delight: when he suggested, in “The Descent of Man” (1871), that humans and apes shared a common ancestor, it was a revolutionary idea, and it remains one today. Yet nothing provides more convincing evidence for the “theory” of evolution than the viruses contained within our DNA. Until recently, the earliest available information about the history and the course of human diseases, like smallpox and typhus, came from mummies no more than four thousand years old. Evolution cannot be measured in a time span that short. Endogenous retroviruses provide a trail of molecular bread crumbs leading millions of years into the past.

Darwin’s theory makes sense, though, only if humans share most of those viral fragments with relatives like chimpanzees and monkeys. And we do, in thousands of places throughout our genome. If that were a coincidence, humans and chimpanzees would have had to endure an incalculable number of identical viral infections in the course of millions of years, and then, somehow, those infections would have had to end up in exactly the same place within each genome. The rungs of the ladder of human DNA consist of three billion pairs of nucleotides spread across forty-six chromosomes. The sequences of those nucleotides determine how each person differs from another, and from all other living things. The only way that humans, in thousands of seemingly random locations, could possess the exact retroviral DNA found in another species is by inheriting it from a common ancestor.

Molecular biology has made precise knowledge about the nature of that inheritance possible. With extensive databases of genetic sequences, reconstructing ancestral genomes has become common, and retroviruses have been found in the genome of every vertebrate species that has been studied. Anthropologists and biologists have used them to investigate not only the lineage of primates but the relationships among animals—dogs, jackals, wolves, and foxes, for example—and also to test whether similar organisms may in fact be unrelated."

From:

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/12/03/071203fa_fact_specter?currentPage=1

Another quote from the above article comments on the "resurrection" of one of these ERV's, showing that the buried code does indeed represent an ancient viral infection:

"When the sequence of the human genome was fully mapped, in 2003, researchers also discovered something they had not anticipated: our bodies are littered with the shards of such retroviruses, fragments of the chemical code from which all genetic material is made. It takes less than two per cent of our genome to create all the proteins necessary for us to live. Eight per cent, however, is composed of broken and disabled retroviruses, which, millions of years ago, managed to embed themselves in the DNA of our ancestors. They are called endogenous retroviruses, because once they infect the DNA of a species they become part of that species. One by one, though, after molecular battles that raged for thousands of generations, they have been defeated by evolution. Like dinosaur bones, these viral fragments are fossils. Instead of having been buried in sand, they reside within each of us, carrying a record that goes back millions of years. Because they no longer seem to serve a purpose or cause harm, these remnants have often been referred to as “junk DNA.” Many still manage to generate proteins, but scientists have never found one that functions properly in humans or that could make us sick.

Then, last year, Thierry Heidmann brought one back to life. Combining the tools of genomics, virology, and evolutionary biology, he and his colleagues took a virus that had been extinct for hundreds of thousands of years, figured out how the broken parts were originally aligned, and then pieced them together. After resurrecting the virus, the team placed it in human cells and found that their creation did indeed insert itself into the DNA of those cells. They also mixed the virus with cells taken from hamsters and cats. It quickly infected them all, offering the first evidence that the broken parts could once again be made infectious. "

posted in Evolution/Creation Debate - 3 replies

Summary of the AiG Statement of Faith

2007-12-26T04:09:42Z

This is posted on the AIG website:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/about/faith

I thought it would be valuable for anyone not familar with the beliefs held by this group to read this.

I will offer a few comments. First here we have something like 27 assertions, not one of which is justifiable. In other words there is no reason to hold any of these assertions, other than this is what they want to believe.

I think the last is the most damning of all:

>>"No apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record."<<

Let us examine this in more detail. They have an old book with a lot of interesting stories. For no particular or justifiable reason they assume this book was written by men inspired by "God". For no particular or justifiable reason they want to claim a couple of the stories can be used to explain all of earth's history that is written (by God?) in the rocks. The book, or one should say, their flawed interpretation supposedly but not actually based on the book should always take precedence over any evidence found in the rocks. It should be obvious to any sane person that this is a flawed methodology.

Let us put forth an alternative religious belief that makes slightly more sense. If there is a God and he wanted to communicate with us, would he use flawed men, using malleable, changeable, words which will always have multiple interpretations particularly after thousands of years and innumerable translations. Language morphs, changes, evolves on a daily basis. What is "cool" now was not "cool" 200 years ago because cool just meant chilly. Would not God seek to communicate with something less malleable, something unchangable; perhaps like the rocks that make up the earth on which we live. Well, I don't know if God did it, but I do know the history of the earth is written in the rocks for all to see. The language is not hard to read. We have all the keys. To deny what is plain for all to see, is first a philosophical and scientific error so enormous and stupid, as to force one to judge those doing as utter imbeciles, but one must also say that if there were a God, he would condemn these imbeciles to eternal damnation for ignoring what he had so plainly written in the rocks for all to see.

.

posted in Evolution/Creation Debate - 34 replies

The Dark Darwinian Eugenics Movement

2007-12-25T19:57:39Z

The following podcast reveals the evil outcomes of a failed philosphy called darwinism

http://intelligentdesign.podOmatic.com/entry/2007-12-14T17_05_58-08_00

posted in Evolution/Creation Debate - 0 replies

In the Beginning God

2007-12-25T14:51:39Z

Created the Heavens and the Earth. Genesis 1:1

No explanation for the origin of the universe and living things better fits the known scientific facts than this statement found in the Bible. And no other religious or holy book provides such a logical explanation. The laws of thermodynamics are considered the most universals laws of science. The first law tells us that matter/energy are neither created or destroyed. The second is the universal law of decay. Taken together these laws point to a beginning. Eternal matter and energy make no logical sense. The materialist must resort to metaphyical explanations to avoid the obvious.

Since the sun has not burned out, we know the universe is not infinitly old. It must have had a beginning. The bible posits a transendant God, not a god or gods derived from matter as many pagan beliefs suggest. Matter and Energy cannot create itself, but a conscious entity (God) from outside the universe can, in fact must have, created the heavens and the earth. The bible offers an elegant, logical, scientific explanation for the universe we live in which takes into account the laws of cause and effect.

A simple argument can be composed as follows.

Premise: Everything which has a beginning has a cause
Premise: The universe had a beginning
Conclusion: The universe had a cause (i.e. God)

This logical argument has never been refuted. Evolutionary materialists simply offer metaphysical explanations in an attempt to circumvent it. But all of their arguments fail. Escaping the God of the Bible is futile, logic points to Him and so does modern science.

posted in Evolution/Creation Debate - 0 replies

Meet the Materialists, part 1: Eugenie Scott, “Evolution Evangelist”

2007-12-24T20:23:35Z

Dr. Scott, Likes to argue that "Darwin’s theory is perfectly compatible with religion", but when quizzed about why she is an atheist she reveals it is due to "her deep understanding of science and of evolution in particular". So I wonder what motives are behind her cirriculum to promote evolution in churches? It appears that some of her own constituents are asking the same question.

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/10/meet_the_materialists_part_1_e.html#more

"Modern Darwinists like Richard Dawkins notwithstanding, there is nothing new in the effort to offer completely materialistic explanations of human beings and human culture. For more than two millennia various thinkers have been trying to reduce human beings to mere meat in motion. Many of these thinkers figure prominently in my new book Darwin Day in America, and over the next several weeks, I will be describing some of them here.

I start today with Eugenie Scott, executive director of the National Center for Science Education, and self-proclaimed “evolution evangelist.”

When talking to the mainstream media, Scott goes to great lengths to argue that Darwin’s theory is perfectly compatible with religion and to distance herself from the fervor of anti-religious zealots like Richard Dawkins. Indeed, Scott’s group has gone so far as to develop a curriculum to promote evolution in churches and has even helped design a tax-funded website that attempts to persuade teachers that Darwin’s theory is good theology!

Since most Americans believe in God, these efforts undoubtedly represent clever public relations on Scott’s part. Whether they represent more than that is questionable. Like most leading evolutionists, Scott herself is certainly not personally sympathetic to religion. A few days ago, for example, she was a featured speaker at the “Crystal Clear Atheism” conference sponsored by the Atheist Alliance International. There she shared the podium with such atheist attack-dogs as Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens.

Scott’s PR campaign to smooth over the tensions between faith and Darwinism has drawn the ire of some fellow evolutionists. Biologist Massimo Pigliucci, for example, has accused Scott of being “intellectually dishonest” on the religion issue because she seems to argue publicly that modern science has no problem with a belief in “a personal god [who] intervenes in every day events.” In Pigliucci’s view, this is precisely the sort of religious belief that Darwin’s theory does refute, and he suggests that Scott is being less than candid in her public comments by not saying so. According to Pigliucci, Scott herself indicates that she is a philosophical naturalist who does not believe in God, but she says she embraces that position for “personal” rather than scientific reasons. Relying in part on personal correspondence with Scott, Pigliucci found Scott’s explanation wanting because the “personal reasons” identified by Scott turned out to be “her deep understanding of science and of evolution in particular.”

But one doesn’t need to rely on private correspondence to ascertain Scott’s real views on religion and evolution. In 2003 she signed a public document called the Humanist Manifesto III, which celebrates “the inevitability and finality of death” and proclaims that “humans are... the result of unguided evolutionary change.” By specifically citing “unguided evolutionary change” as part of its case for “a progressive philosophy of life… without supernaturalism,” this manifesto clearly suggests that evolution properly understood contradicts belief in a personal God. Did Scott fail to understand this document when she signed it along with such anti-religious zealots as Richard Dawkins and Michael Shermer? Do I really need to answer that question?

None of this is to deny that there are theistic evolutionists who sincerely believe that evolution and faith are compatible. Perhaps the most prominent of these theistic evolutionists is Roman Catholic biologist Ken Miller at Brown University, author of the book Finding Darwin’s God. For an examination of whether Miller’s arguments for the compatibility of Darwinism and faith are any more convincing than Scott’s, you can read chapter 10 of Darwin Day in America."

posted in Evolution/Creation Debate - 0 replies

Old Age for Stars Undermined By Science

2007-12-23T02:43:36Z

Blue Stars are "young" have been shown to go to a yellow stars in 36 years! Evolution believers suggest this process takes billions of years....

http://www.creationmoments.net/radio/listen.php?t=2009

posted in Evolution/Creation Debate - 63 replies

Darwinists Spread Misinformation about Guillermo Gonzalez's Denial of Tenure

2007-12-22T15:22:54Z

Here is the most recent news on the Guillermo Gonzalez case from the ID perspective:

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/05/darwinists_spread_misinformati.html

All too predictably, during the past week various Darwinists have been trying to divert attention away from the Guillermo Gonzalez tenure case through a campaign of misinformation about both Dr. Gonzalez and intelligent design. Whether they do so knowingly—as a calculated attempt to defame Gonzalez and smear his professional record—or through ignorance isn't always clear. Either way, the truth about Dr. Gonzalez's work and achievements is readily available. (A great place to start is the Biosketch of Dr. Guillermo Gonzalez, Astronomer and Asst. Professor at Iowa State University.)

Let's take a look at some of the false facts being tossed around.

False Fact #1: Dr. Gonzalez's Work is about Intelligent Design in Biology.
One commenter on Ed Brayton's blog said, "I suspect that one reason that Gonzales was denied tenure was that he was hired to teach courses, perform research, and seek research grants in the field of astronomy. He was not hired by the biology department to do any of the above in biology (in which by the way he had no competence or training). Since he was apparently more interested in biology then in astronomy, denial of tenure seems perfectly reasonable."

In fact, none of Dr. Gonzalez's work on intelligent design deals with biology. Rather, Dr. Gonzalez’s research detects design in his own area of expertise: physics and cosmology, as the subtitle of his book The Privileged Planet reads, "How our place in the cosmos is designed for discovery." Dr. Gonzalez's work on ID deals almost singularly with cosmic design, not biological design.

False Fact #2: Dr. Gonzalez Doesn't Have Many Published Peer-Reviewed Papers.
Another commenter wrote, "I'm posting the 17 papers that ISI knowledge returns when I searched," and this comment was then linked from Pandas Thumb by someone who similarly wrote, "See here for a review of Gonzalez’ publication record." This led to later statements from misinformed commenters, like “This really is a straightforward case - Gonzalez doesn’t have a leg to stand on. It is dishonest of the DI to say that he outperformed by 350% ISU expectations." However, Dr. Gonzalez has many more than 17 publications—68 refereed papers to be exact. In fact, a fair comparison yields even more publications from Dr. Gonzalez: the 17 publications listed by this Darwinist included non-refereed papers. When both Dr. Gonzalez's refereed and non-refereed papers are counted, he has published over 95 publications, as is reflected in this listing of his publications.

False Fact #3: Dr. Gonzalez's Research Has Not Been Cited Often.
The same commenter who claimed Dr. Gonzalez had published a mere 17 papers also claimed that many of the papers had extremely low citation rates. As we explain in the Biosketch of Dr. Guillermo Gonzalez, Astronomer and Asst. Professor at Iowa State University, "His work has been cited in Science, Nature, and many other scientific journals. All told, there were nearly 1,500 citations to his articles and research in science journals by the end of 2005." This is an astoundingly high citation rate for a scientist so young in his career. It is worth noting that Dr. Robert J. Marks, Distinguished Professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering at Baylor University stated:

"My jaw dropped when I saw one of his papers has 153 citations and 139 on another. I have sat on oodles of tenure committees at both a large private university and a state research university, chaired the university tenure committee, and have seen more tenure cases than the Pope has Cardinals. This is a LOT of citations for an assistant professor up for tenure."

False Fact #4: The Only Publications that Matter are the Ones Published Since Joining ISU.
Some commenters seemed to operate under the assumption that the only publications that should be counted are the ones published by the tenure applicant since joining ISU. But this is not what tenure guidelines for the Department of Physics and Astronomy state: "For promotion to associate professor, excellence sufficient to lead to a national or international reputation is required and would ordinarily be shown by the publication of approximately fifteen papers of good quality in refereed journals." There is no indication that the publications must be since joining ISU, and the text seems to assume that all publications in the scientist's career are to be counted.

False Fact #5: Dr. Gonzalez Must Have Been Denied Tenure Due to a Lack of Research Grants.
Some commentators have implied that the denial of tenure to Gonzalez was related to a lack of research grants. Yet, as reported here, the tenure standards of Gonzalez's department do not even mention grants as a factor in tenure and promotion—so if this was an issue Dr. Gonzalez's department was disregarding its own standards for tenure. (It should be added that those who have made this claim are merely speculating, because the specifics of Gonzalez's tenure denial are confidential while the denial is on appeal.)

False Fact #6: ISU's Tenure Standards Are So High Even Many Good Researchers Cannot Get Tenure There.
ISU has tried to insist that it is really difficult to get tenure at ISU, but as we revealed earlier this week, the facts contradict this claim. Indeed, the tenure acceptance rate at ISU has risen from 85% in 2003 to 91% in 2007! This hardly shows that it is particularly difficult to get tenure at ISU.

posted in Evolution/Creation Debate - 0 replies

"Dinosaur Mummy" Found; Has Intact Skin, Tissue

2007-12-21T22:02:05Z

"Scientists today announced the discovery of an extraordinarily preserved "dinosaur mummy" with much of its tissues and bones still encased in an uncollapsed envelope of skin."

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/12/071203-dino-mummy.html

"First the dinosaur body had to escape predators, scavengers, and degradation by weather and water. Then a chemical process must have mineralized the tissue before bacteria ate it. And finally, the remains had to survive millions of years undamaged."

Amazing, wonder what could have preserved a 67 million year old dinosaur with no evidence of preditor damage or degradation?? This reminds me of the Dinosaur blood which was found awhile back. Does anyone really believe the blood and tissue can remain in a preserved state for 67 million years?:-) Apparently evolution believers do!

""If such finds show extraordinary preservation, they tempt us to wonder about the possibility of finding [unfossilized] biomolecules that might be remnants of the ancient organism."

Another possibility remains, perhaps dinosaurs are really not 65 million years old as evolution believers suggest. Perhaps nothing is 67 million years old. Actually, biomolecules have already been discovered.

On dinosaur blood cell remains find:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v19/i4/blood.asp

posted in Evolution/Creation Debate - 18 replies

Whale 'missing link' discovered

2007-12-20T15:26:41Z

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7150627.stm

Whale 'missing link' discovered
By Helen Briggs
Science reporter, BBC News

The whale is descended from a deer-like animal that lived 48 million years ago, according to fossil evidence.

Remains found in the Kashmir region of India suggest the fox-sized mammal is the long-sought land-based ancestor of whales, dolphins and porpoises.

Research in Nature suggests the animal lived mainly on land but dived into water to escape predators.

Whales are known to be descended from land-dwellers but the "missing link" has been a mystery until now.

Although Indonyus , as it is known, looks nothing like the whales of today, it shares certain anatomical features.

We've found the closest extinct relative to whales and it is closer than any living relative
Professor Hans Thewissen

The structures of its skull and ear are similar to those of early whales, and like other animals that spend a lot of time in water, it had thickened bones that provided ballast to keep its feet anchored in shallow water.

"We've found the closest extinct relative to whales and it is closer than any living relative," said study leader Professor Hans Thewissen of the Department of Anatomy at Northeastern Ohio Universities College of Medicine in Ohio, US.

Hippo link

Indonyus belongs to an ancient order of mammals that had two or four toes on each foot. Modern day representatives of the group include camels, pigs, and hippopotamuses.

DNA studies show that hippos are in fact closely related to modern whales. They do not appear in the fossil record, however, until about 15 million years ago, some 35 million years after the cetaceans originated in south Asia.

This led Professor Thewissen and his team to search for an older land-based ancestor that would fill in some of the gaps in our knowledge of the whale's dramatic evolutionary journey from land to sea.

After seeing loose teeth and fragments of jaw bones found by the late Indian geologist A Ranga Rao some 25 years ago, Professor Thewissen obtained rock samples from Rao's private collection. They harboured a treasure trove of complete Indohyus fossils, including skulls and leg bones.

Dietary clues

The stable-oxygen-isotope composition of its teeth suggest that the animal spent much of its time in water.

Some have assumed that the ancestor of whales first took to the water to feed on fish but the latest evidence suggests otherwise.

"The new model is that initially they were small deer-like animals that took to the water to avoid predators," Professor Thewissen told BBC News. "Then they started living in water, and then they switched their diet to become carnivores."

Although the behaviour and habits of Indohyus appear somewhat strange, there is a modern day parallel in the African mousedeer (chevrotain).

The mousedeer lives on land, but is known to leap into the water to avoid predators such as eagles.
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/science/nature/7150627.stm

Published: 2007/12/20 08:41:26 GMT

© BBC MMVII

posted in Evolution/Creation Debate - 1 reply

Advisory council recommends OK for creationism master's degree

2007-12-20T13:18:04Z

DALLAS (AP) - An advisory council has recommended Texas approve a master's degree program for science education offered by the Institute for Creation Research.

The council -- made up of university educators -- endorsed the proposal and submitted it to the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board.

http://www.ktre.com/Global/story.asp?S=7520645

posted in Evolution/Creation Debate - 0 replies

The Problem with Intelligent Design

2007-12-19T21:18:00Z

The intelligent design movement contributed important arguments to the evolution creation debate. Berkeley Law Professor Phillip Johnson after reading "the blind watchmaker" by Dawkins and "Evolution: A theory in Crises" by evolutionist Michael Denton wrote his own book, "Darwin on Trial". Johnson convincingly shows that evolution is nothing more than a materialist philosophy from start to finish. In short, he uses his brilliant legal mind to demonstrate convincingly that evolution is religious nonfalsifiable dogma. As for the "Blind Watchmaker", Phillips calls it a ‘brilliantly written polemic, and notable for the absence of supporting evidence.’

Roman Catholic Michael Behe, a biochemist, demonstrates convincingly that living cells are "irreducibly complex". This means that for a structure to word at all, all parts of it would have to be already in place. The slow changes required by evolutionary gradualism cannot explain the formation of complex living cells.

William Dembski wrote the "Design Inference". He is a brilliant mathematician and focuses on probability factors affecting naturalism.

"It is common belief that certain patterns identify an intelligent cause. Dembski points out that whole industries are based on this concept, such as: intellectual rights protection; forensic science; data falsification in science; cryptography, and insurance. If three houses owned by the same person should all burn down within a short period of time (low probability) and all be shown to be insured beyond their true value (specification), then fraud can be assigned." An example in living things is that all living things are composed of "left handed" amino acids, yet amino acids can exist in either left or right handed forms. In addition to this how did these left handed aminos avoid all other non peptide bonds to bond only to other aminos? Of course the chances of such a thing happening randomly are far to small to be considered realistic, given all the available time of the old agers. Demksi's arguments take the following form:

Premise 1: LIFE has occurred.
Premise 2: LIFE is specified.
Premise 3: If LIFE is due to chance, then LIFE has small probability.
Premise 4: Specified events of small probability do not occur by chance.
Premise 5: LIFE is not due to a regularity.
Premise 6: LIFE is due to regularity, chance, or design.
Conclusion: LIFE is due to design.

Dawkins for example, would accept all premises above except 3. Yet do do this he must suppose an innumerable amount of unobserved universes to somehow better the odds for life's formation.

Dr. Steve Meyer is an eloquent communicator and has demonstrated that an incredible evidence for design exists in the make up of the DNA.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i1/design.asp

The problem with the ID movement is they fall far short of the goal. First their main goal is to attack the stranglehold naturalistic philosophy has upon science. But they mistakenly think that this began with Darwin and it did not. Naturalistic philosophy has its roots centuries before Darwin and has become entrenched due to old age beliefs. Yet all ID'er accept old ages for the universe, the earth etc.. As such they accept much of the argumentation of the natural philosophers.

ID'ers do not accept the authority of the Scripture, particularly Genesis 1-11. Over 90% of americans already accept the notions of the ID'ers, so they are really "preaching to the choir". ID'ers do not answer the question of evil or imperfection in the world today. It was this imperfection which caused Bertrand Russel to abandon theism:

"When you come to look into this argument from design, it is a most astonishing thing that people believe that this world, with all the things that are in it, with all its defects, should be the best that omnipotence and omniscience have been able to produce in millions of years. I really cannot believe it." Bertrand Russell, ‘Why I Am Not A Christian,’ lecture to the National Secular Society, South London Branch, at Battersea Town Hall, 6 March 1927<www.users.drew.edu/~jlenz/whynot

The problem of evil and imperfection is not addressed by the ID movement. What they fail to do is to direct the person to the Creator of the Universe, Jesus Christ through his written word, the Bible.

posted in Evolution/Creation Debate - 0 replies

Rapid acceleration in human evolution described

2007-12-17T22:13:44Z

From Reuters: http://www.reuters.com/article/scienceNews/idUSN1043228620071210

Mon Dec 10, 2007 5:43pm EST

By Will Dunham

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Human evolution has been moving at breakneck speed in the past several thousand years, far from plodding along as some scientists had thought, researchers said on Monday.

In fact, people today are genetically more different from people living 5,000 years ago than those humans were different from the Neanderthals who vanished 30,000 years ago, according to anthropologist John Hawks of the University of Wisconsin.

The genetic changes have related to numerous different human characteristics, the researchers said.

Many of the recent genetic changes reflect differences in the human diet brought on by agriculture, as well as resistance to epidemic diseases that became mass killers following the growth of human civilizations, the researchers said.

For example, Africans have new genes providing resistance to malaria. In Europeans, there is a gene that makes them better able to digest milk as adults. In Asians, there is a gene that makes ear wax more dry.

The changes have been driven by the colossal growth in the human population -- from a few million to 6.5 billion in the past 10,000 years -- with people moving into new environments to which they needed to adapt, added Henry Harpending, a University of Utah anthropologist.

"The central finding is that human evolution is happening very fast -- faster than any of us thought," Harpending said in a telephone interview.

"Most of the acceleration is in the last 10,000 years, basically corresponding to population growth after agriculture is invented," Hawks said in a telephone interview.

The research appears in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

FAVORABLE GENE MUTATIONS

The researchers looked for the appearance of favorable gene mutations over the past 80,000 years of human history by analyzing voluminous DNA information on 270 people from different populations worldwide.

Data from this International HapMap Project, short for haplotype mapping, offered essentially a catalogue of genetic differences and similarities in people alive today.

Looking at such data, scientists can ascertain how recently a given genetic change appeared in the genome and then can plot the pace of such change into the distant past.

Beneficial genetic changes have appeared at a rate roughly 100 times higher in the past 5,000 years than at any previous period of human evolution, the researchers determined. They added that about 7 percent of human genes are undergoing rapid, relatively recent evolution.

Even with these changes, however, human DNA remains more than 99 percent identical, the researchers noted.

Harpending said the genetic evidence shows that people worldwide have been getting less similar rather than more similar due to the relatively recent genetic changes.

Genes have evolved relatively quickly in Africa, Asia and Europe but almost all of the changes have been unique to their corner of the world. This is the case, he said, because since humans dispersed from Africa to other parts of the world about 40,000 years ago, there has not been much flow of genes between the regions.

(Editing by Sandra Maler)

posted in Evolution/Creation Debate - 5 replies

Dawkins a Christian?

2007-12-17T21:48:09Z

Dawkins has dedicated his life to destroying Christianity and anyway with a lick of sense knows. Yet he now claims to be a "cultural christian". He says he enjoys singing Christmas Carols. Pass the eggnog and let's carol with Dawkins!

http://www.christiantoday.com/article/atheist.dawkins.calls.himself.a.cultural.christian/15475.htm

"Staunch atheist Richard Dawkins recently denied wanting to stop Christian traditions, instead labelling himself a “cultural Christian”.

"This is historically a Christian country. I'm a cultural Christian in the same way many of my friends call themselves cultural Jews or cultural Muslims,” Oxford biologist Dawkins said on BBC’s recent “Have Your Say” programme on Sunday.

Dawkins, who has expressed hopes of converting religious believers to atheism through his international bestseller The God Delusion, made the comments while fielding open questions on religion and debating with Conservative MP Mark Pritchard.

Pritchard called a parliamentary debate on "Christianophobia" last week at Westminster Hall and what he described as “the relentless assault, mostly by stealth, on this nation's much-loved Christian heritage and traditions".

“It is about how anti-Christian sentiment is increasing, not decreasing; why many Christians feel they are not getting a fair hearing when it comes to Christianity in the public square," said Pritchard."

posted in Evolution/Creation Debate - 4 replies

Secret ISU Faculty E-mails Express Vitriol Towards Intelligent Design,

2007-12-17T21:33:27Z

It has been suggested that the reason for denying tenure to Dr. Gonzalez was not due to his ID views. Dr. Rosenberg again downplayed ID, telling World Magazine that ID "was not an overriding factor in the decision that was made at the departmental level.” Around the same time he told Nature that "intelligent design was not a major or even a big factor in this decision."

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/12/secret_isu_faculty_emails_expr.html

Yet public documents obtained under Iowa's open records acts revealled the blatant dishonesty of Dr. Rosenbergs public statments:

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/12/secret_isu_faculty_emails_expr.html

Major points of the article summarized:

(1) Key ISU faculty that voted on Dr. Gonzalez’s tenure have an intense disdain for ID, and there is absolutely no question that ID was a major, if not an overriding factor in the denial of Dr. Gonzalez’s tenure.

(2) Gonzalez’s foes never complained in e-mails about his academic track record as an observational astronomer; they only lamented about his views on ID.

(3) Gonzalez’s foes hoped a department-wide condemnation of ID would make Gonzalez want to leave ISU.

(4) Many implicitly expected that if Gonzalez did apply for tenure, he would be denied, thus discussing, debating, and effectively prejudging his tenure case in secret e-mails a year before the actual tenure deliberations.

(5) These faculty sacrificed Dr. Gonzalez’s academic freedom to support ID to misplaced concerns about the department’s reputation and personal disdain for ID.

(6) Their concerns primarily centered around outward appearances of fairness for legal purposes and they showed little, if any, real care for the true protection of Dr. Gonzalez’s academic freedom to support ID, even though ISU's faculty handbook claims that "[a]cademic freedom is the foundation of the university." They even sought to hide their discriminatory plans and unethical activities surrounding their secret e-mail tenure deliberations on Dr. Gonzalez.

Clearly, Dr Rosenberg lied about the reasons for firing Dr. Gonzalez. I guess this tactic is part and parcel of the evolution believers new "morality".

posted in Evolution/Creation Debate - 17 replies

all the stars in the sky are all for my personal amusement.

2007-12-15T16:17:30Z

ok ive gotten a little lost in the mountains of posts so i thought id start over. . so if im hearing you right dan you believe that the entire universe was created 10,000 years ago right? so what your saying is that all the stars in the sky were created so wed have something to look at at night?? this seem silly. all the stars we can see are suns. we cant even see the billions of planets rotating around them so why would god create all those if there just for show? also the speed of light is 100,000 kph right ? ( this is something that can be measured. so by my calculations if you are right no star can be more then.... 8742x10^9 km away from us. One parsec is 30.857x10^12 which is almost four times further away then our 10k years number. the closest star to us is proxima centari which is 1.295 pc away from us. now even if science was wrong and there formula for measuring was wrong. ( it seams pretty right to me though its based of how fast the world turns which is known, and how fast light travels is know so a simple triangulation is something we learn in the 7th grade pretty easy stuff) so even asuming they were off acording to you every star in the galaxy would have to be less then 1/4 of a parsec away because it would take more then 10,000 years for the light to reach us.
do you really believe that god created the whole universe just for us? i mean there are sooo many stars and planets out there. i sincerly hope that this universe is teaming with life. with trillions and trillions of stars out there there just has to be millions of planets that are close enough to a sun to have liquid water and life life life. and ya know what. if thats the case i have no doubt in my mind that God is right there with them cheering them on; hoping that some day we will evolve enough to find each other in this amazingly vast universe.
furthermore im reminded of flat earthers they saw that the world was flat and assumed that you just fell off of an edge. this is a perfectly logical assumption. after all even i havnt seen the whole world. i have no real proff of its roundness. except i have seen many things that help me to draw the conclusion that the world is indeed round. ive seen the arcing of the sun for example or picture of the earth from space.
it just makes sence so technically the roundness of the earth is just a belief but its one that can be proven all id have to do is hop in a plane and fly around the thing which has been done and i will take magellins word for it.
now we cant just fly to the end of the universe but the same logical leaps can be undertaken. how rediculious would it be if all of existance just ended 8.7x10^12 km away. then what ? just an eternity of nothing? logically in order for the finite to exist the infinite must also exist. sure you might encounter thousands of parsecs of empty space but most likely you will encounter other universes. Like i said in an infinite universe the likelyhood that we are at the center of it and that God created all of infinity just for us is well exactly 1x 10 ^ -infinity.

posted in Evolution/Creation Debate - 1 reply

Testing Evolution

2007-12-13T21:17:53Z

Falsifiability is a feature of a scientific hypothesis. Yet evolution has demonstrated time and again that it is so plastic it can be fit to any data. Dr. Remine, a progressive creationist, amply demonstates in this review of his book "The Biotic Message" that evolution is not science.

"Various Darwinists have proposed tests which could refute evolution. For example, Darwin said that an example of truly altruistic behaviour would disprove the theory. However, dandelions produce nectar, which benefits insects, but have no need of the visits from the insects because dandelions reproduce asexually. But then the story-telling comes into play to rescue the theory: dandelions originally reproduced sexually so produced nectar for their own benefit but have since lost the need for it!

Another example: Michael Ruse argues that organisms could not evolve a second time, and if they did, it would refute Darwinism (p. 151). But some foraminifera have re-appeared in the fossil record after disappearing, and knowing this, Schafersman says that ‘evolution does not assume or require nonrepeatability’. Evolutionary theory is so plastic it can conform to any data.

Natural selection is highly efficient or inefficient as the case demands: it could not get rid of the wasteful production of nectar by dandelions, but it supposedly got rid of the keen sense of smell of apes as they evolved into humans (not to mention the ability to synthesise ascorbic acid).

Bacteria, fungi and protozoa have cellulase enzyme which allows them to digest cellulose, one of the most abundant compounds in nature. Multicellular organisms lack the ability to digest cellulose. If micro-organisms gave rise to multicellular organisms, why did they lose such a useful ability? Or, if ‘convergences’ are so easy for evolution to produce (for example, the thylacine, or marsupial wolf, and the placental wolf, marsupial mole and placental mole, flying phalanger and flying squirrel, etc.), why has not the ability to digest cellulose evolved in multicellular organisms? ReMine argues that this pattern is exactly what one would expect from a biotic message sender: it makes sense ecologically, because plants need to be protected from over-grazing by multicellular animals to preserve ecological balance in the system of life. But why should evolution stop multicellular organisms from developing a cellulase?

Convergences are consistent with ‘message theory’, says ReMine, because they unify life, they thwart phylogeny and they resist naturalistic explanation (p. 264)."

http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v11/i3/biotic.asp#story

posted in Evolution/Creation Debate - 33 replies

CREATION RESEARCH PROJECTS

2007-12-10T22:56:41Z

This article suggests some potential work for "creation scientists":

http://members.aol.com/darrwin/creationistprojects.htm

I like this one particularly, as it seems easily done:

"Find the Post-Flood Dispersal Trails

Since all the land animals, birds, insects, and myriads of other creepy-crawlies were aboard the Ark, and dispersed from there after the Flood, there is surely some fossil evidence. Find us a few distinctly South American or Australian species remains in southern Asia. Any zoologist could suggest a few bones that would be mighty hard to explain in Nepal, for instance, unless they were trekking home after the Flood. There are many possibilities, and the more you find, the more convincing the evidence will be. You might start off your list with koalas, platypuses, penguins, and sloths."

... of course it would be easily done, only if the evidence were there, otherwise it might occupy these pseudo-scientists for a lifetime which would be a good way to keep them busy and out of trouble.

posted in Evolution/Creation Debate - 6 replies