Feedback for August 1998

The large-scale trends in evolutionary development of terrestrial life have happened over long time scale, on the order of hundreds of thousands to millions of years. However, some small-scale evolutionary changes are swift enough to be directly witnessed in a period of years. Antibiotic resistance is one example; others include the color changes of the peppered moth Biston betularia and the adaptations of Darwin's finches described in The Beak of the Finch by Jonathan Weiner are others.

Evolutionary changes are gradual in the sense that they involve small modifications from generation to generation; however, those changes can pile up rather swiftly.

I hope that answers your question.

Actually, Fred Brown does not pose "just a simple question". First, there is an assertion concerning the status of evolutionary mechanism theories. Second, there is a question that is anything but simple in its construction. Third, there is a request that is impossible to fulfill, for the simple reason that Fred Brown did not leave a valid email address. Finally, there is an assertion that is sadly unsupported. I will take these items in order.

While some evolutionary mechanism theories have been falsified and abandoned (pangenesis, orthogenesis, bathmism, aristogenesis, etc.), there are many evolutionary mechanism theories which have been well-tested and have much supporting evidence. These include natural selection and genetic drift. Other theories do have attendant controversy and discussion, but also have supporting evidence, such as punctuated equilibria and the theory of allopatric speciation of peripheral isolates. It is widely considered important that students in biology have education in the concepts of evolutionary phenomena and theories. An important resource on this topic is the National Center for Science Education. The National Academy of Sciences has a sourcebook for educators concerning evolutionary biology. link page for educators is also online there. Statements from a number of scientific, religious, educational, and civil liberties organizations supporting the teaching of evolutionary biology can be found in the NCSE publication Voices For Evolution. A white paper on evolutionary biology and its importance to society lists many ways in which evolutionary biology improves modern technology, including advances in medicine.

Fred Brown asks why there are no scientific evidences that prove evolution. The question ignores information concerning what evolution is defined as by biologists. According to that definition, scientists have collected much evidence concerning the observation of evolutionary phenomena in the present, and evidence from which we can reasonably infer evolutionary phenoemena in the past. Currently observed evolution includes speciation as well as much work showing evolutionary change within species. A small sampling of published evolutionary phenomena can be found in Evidence for Evolution An Eclectic Survey. The difference between phenomena and theories is discussed in the Evolution is a Fact and a Theory essay by Laurence Moran.

Fred Brown requests email, but fails to provide a valid email address. I would suggest that Fred pose his question on the talk.origins newsgroup, publishing his valid email address there.

Fred claims not to have been able to find any scientific evidence to prove evolution on this website. While no amount of evidence can be considered sufficient in terms of corroborating a theory, there is plenty of evidence referenced here that establishes the existence of evolutionary phenomena and which supports various evolutionary mechanism theories. Even SciCre proponents embrace certain aspects of evolutionary change, arguing for rapid divergence within "kinds" since The Flood. While Fred's final statement has some merit in terms of making an assertion via rhetoric, it should be clear that a reasonable survey of the archive will convince reasonable people that there is scientific evidence which 1) demonstrates that evolutionary change happens (the phenomena of evolution) and 2) that various evolutionary mechanism theories are supported by that evidence.

Fred Brown is invited to make specific any charges that false information is contained in the various resources in this archive. General nay-saying does not move the discussion along.

One issue that is still under debate is the mode of evolution. The question is whether speciation (the event of the splitting of one species into two or more) occurs mostly in a geographical distribution of separation first, new species later (allopatry) or new species first, geographical separation later if at all (sympatry).

If speciation is mostly allopatric, then the differences that accrue through sampling error of genes and mutations that occur in one but not another population need not be adaptive, and so selection will not be the major cause of new species, though it will be of new adaptations.

If speciation is mainly sympatric, then the differences between species will be due to separating selection in favour of adaptive features (for example, a new food preference for oranges instead of apples might force incipient species to mate at different times of the year).

The weight of favour is on the allopatric mode. Usually this is referred to as the "Founder-flush" theory of Ernst Mayr - a small founder population is isolated from the main populations of a species, and adapts after that to novel environments (with its own mutations if they occur). Then it reinvades the ancestral range but makes its living in different ways to the ancestor species.

Some cases of sympatry have been seen, for example in fruit flies in California, but some argue that the move from one food source to another counts as allopatry, since the variants are literally living on different territories.

The archive contains a list of must-read files, which is unfortunately a bit long. I would suggest you read at least the list of frequently asked questions which is filled with links to other files depending on your interests.

Two other especially good files are the welcome to talk.origins, which introduces you to the newsgroup where you can ask questions and engage in debate, and the introduction to evolutionary biology which outlines the basics of evolution so that you will understand where we are coming from.

On your specific areas of interest, there is a faq on the evolution of color vision. There is also an excellent discussion on the evolution of the eye which is on another site.

The big bang is not a part of evolution; but it certainly relates to the origin of the universe. The talk.origins archive does not address this in detail, so I recommend you look at Ned Wright's cosmology tutorial for a basic introduction.

I don't think your final question is addressed here, but it strikes me as a very odd question. Surely you are not saying we can know nothing at all about the past; and I assure you we are not saying you can find out absolutely everything about the past. We cannot even determine everything that happened this century; but that does not put World War 2 in doubt. If you have concerns about particular conclusions we have been able to discover, you would need to indicate what they are, and why you do not accept them. The newsgroup is the proper place to discuss such matters.

Finally, don't limit yourself to what is on the web. It would be well worth reading a few books as well, and the archive has a list of recommendations which covers a range of perspectives. Good luck!

Newsgroups: talk.origins

The talk.origins moderator probably requires that line for submissions-via-Email because it's a good way to filter out spam. The first line of your E-mail is not the same as the header. You will have to check out the advanced features of your mail tool and find out how to add user-specified header lines.

But, since you brought it up... Does God create evil, do evil, or have any evil in Him?

Exodus 32:14 "And the Lord repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people."

Genesis 6:6,7 "And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth . . . And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth . . . for it repenteth me that I have made him." (So, did God create a PERFECT WORLD?) Jonah 3:10 ". . . and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not."

Exodus 20:5 "For I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation." (Repeated in Deuteronomy 5:9)

Isaiah 45:7 "I make peace and create evil. I the Lord do all these things."

Lamentations 3:38 "Out of the mouth of the most High proceedeth not evil and good?"

Jeremiah 18:11 "Thus saith the Lord; Behold, I frame evil against you, and devise a device against you."

Ezekiel 20:25,26 "I gave them also statutes that were not good, and judgments whereby they should not live. And I polluted them in their own gifts, in that they caused to pass through the fire all that openeth the womb, that I might make them desolate, to the end that they might know that I am the Lord."

"Therefore fathers shall eat their sons in the midst of you and sons shall eat their fathers...I will send famine and wild beasts against you and they shall rob you of your children; pestilence and blood shall pass through you; and I will bring a sword upon you. I, the Lord, have spoken." Ezekiel 5:10, 5:17

"And I will fill your mountains with the slain; on your hills and in your valleys and in all your ravines those slain with the sword shall fall...Then you shall know that I am the Lord." Ezekiel 35:8

"The Lord raised up for them a deliverer, Ehud...And Ehud said, 'I have a message from God for you.' And he rose from his seat. And Ehud reached with his left hand, took the sword from his right thigh, and thrust it into his (Eglon, king of Moab's) belly." Judges 3:15-21

"And he (Elisha) went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head. And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the Lord. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them." 2 Kings 2:23

"...I create woe; I am the Lord, who do all these things." Isaiah 45:7

A quick check of our search facility also reveals critiques of the work of both Johnson and Behe, including links to other offsite material. Moreover, both authors are frequently discussed on the newsgroup talk.origins. The reader is welcome to join the debate there if he feels the material on this archive to be insufficient.

The coloration of the peppered moth Biston betularia is determined primarily by a single gene. The dominent allele of that gene D codes for a dark moth; the recessive allele d codes for a light moth. Moths which have the alleles DD, Dd, or dD will be dark; only the ones with two copies of the light allele dd will be light. The reader's assertion that any light peppered moth can produce dark offspring is not true; populations of light moths do not have any D alleles with which to form dark offspring. The only way that a dark moth can arise from a population of light moths is through mutation. As it happens, there is a mutation which occurs with a certain frequency that can change a light allele d into a dark allele D.

The reader confuses evolution with speciation. Breeds of cats, horses, and dogs are examples of evolution--changes in allele frequencies in the gene pool--though they have not yet speciated. Speciation has been observed, however, in both the lab and the wild. See the Observed Instances of Speciation FAQ and the Some More Observed Instances of Speciation FAQ. It should also be noted that although selection, both artificial and natural, can only act on the genetic information present in the gene pool, mutations change the information present for selection to act upon.

It seems to me quite presumptuous of the reader to imply that those who accept evolution as the explanation for the diversity of life on Earth to be putting their faith in a "false God." Many devoutly religious people that I know view investigating the universe through science, including through evolution, as a way to strengthen their faith by learning more about God's creation, thereby coming closer to an understanding of Him and His power. Or is it the reader's assertion that only those who agree with him are "true Christians"?

It also seems to me that anyone reading the first chapter of Genesis, paying attention to detail, would realize that the creation of Man "of the dust of the ground" takes place in the second chapter of Genesis, not the first. Moreover, it says nothing about "direct" creation, or about the process by which God created Man. It does say instead, "And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." Gen. 2:7 (KJV).

Finally, it seems to me that those who focus too closely upon the details of Genesis do so at the peril of missing the central message of the Bible; namely, its message of the sinful nature of humanity that requires redemption through the power of God.

Generally, the notion of a theory means a formal model of some phenomenon, cashed out in mathematical terms and with some strong experimental outcomes. However, this turns out not to be the case in actual science. Ian Hacking (Representing and Intervening, Cambridge University Press, 1983) has an accessible account of how the "theory view" of science is wrong and generally limited. Similar considerations apply to the notion of hypothesis and conjecture. The view of Karl Popper that science throws up conjectures that then get tested is also not accurate. Often the conjectures are based upon a full and close understanding of the topic, and experimental results often precede the conjecture they are supposed to test. Science is far more complex than the educational and social myths suggest.

It follows, then, that we might also expect "fact" to be just as messy, and as the quotation from Gould in the FAQ you mention shows, it is. Facts are what everybody who works in a field cannot reasonably deny. Evolution cannot be reasonably denied by any biologists, though they can argue about the mechanisms for it. The basic sense of "fact" is science is "observed", and all the steps required for large scale evolution have been observed, and even induced, many times. How the observations link together is open to debate, but nobody now thinks that it is even possible for evolution as such to be discredited. It is a fact, pure and simple, if anything in science is a fact.

Q: Don't you have to be an atheist to accept evolution?
A: No. Many people of Christian and other faiths accept evolution as the scientific explanation for biodiversity. See the God and Evolution FAQ and the Interpretations of Genesis FAQ.

The rest of the FAQ is devoted to questions that are often raised about evolution, geology, cosmology, and science in general by creationists and others. Although the reader may not agree with the beliefs behind those questions, the truth is that some Christians do hold those beliefs. It is not the Archive's intention to "portray" Christianity or any religion in any particular way, but to respond to frequent misconceptions about science. If the reader does not share those beliefs or hold those misconceptions, perhaps his time might be best spent critiquing some other portion of the Archive.

Whether scientists believe in a personal God or not is not very relevant to their acceptance of evolution. This is not a question of atheism v. religion; it is a question of evolution v. pseudoscience. Large numbers of people manage to combine a devout faith in God with acceptance of evolution. See the God and Evolution FAQ and the Interpretations of Genesis FAQ for more details.

As for creation organizations, the reader is directed to our list of other links, which contains a long list of creationist Web sites. The institution that the reader is referring to is the Institute for Creation Research, to which Denton does not belong (as far as I know), but which is home to Gary Parker, John Morris, and his father, Henry Morris. (Philip Morris being the tobacco company, of course.) There are a few biologists that do not accept evolution, but they are the overwhelming minority.

I'm not sure why the reader feels Christianity "falls apart" without a literalist reading of the Bible. Does the reader feel that "divinely inspired" means deific dictation? Are the details of the creation what's important, or is it the saving power and redemption of God?

Cannot a long story be true even if it is not completely accurate in every detail? If I tell someone the story of how I felt when my house burned down, is it important if I get the color of the fire engines wrong, or the names of the firemen, or even the address of the house?

In other words, the identification of some Homo erectus fossils as being contemporaneous with some australopithecine fossils does not rule out the possibility (actually, probability) that some australopithecines were ancestral to Homo.

That said, certainly some paleontologists may be sloppy about some assertions. Fortunately, science is a self-correcting enterprise.

However, this particular example of the argument is doubly incorrect, because the australopithecines found by the Leakeys near Homo in East Africa are robust australopithecines. They are not ancestral to Homo, so they would not be a problem even if ancestors and descendants couldn't overlap in time.

The existence of hypothetical entities is always at issue, but even the most speculative is based upon evidence of an empirical and logical kind.

The Talk.Origins Archive published 39 of the 57 feedback letters received in June 1998, including all but one of the letters for which a response was written. Of the 18 not published:

• six were general kudos or thanks;
• four asked specific questions that were answered in email or handled in some other fashion;
• two were duplicates of other feedback responses;
• one was a correction to another response by the same author (which was published with the corrections);
• one confused the Talk.Origins Archive with the International Flat Earth Society;
• one was general prostelyzation not related to origins;
• one was a question about horse lineages that was evidently omitted by mistake (the one which received a response);
• two were so garbled or confused that no response could be provided.

As one can see from this list, the letters least likely to be published are those which say "Great job!" or the like. Although they are read and highly appreciated, they don't provide new information for feedback readers or anything to which much of a response can be written besides "Thank you."

Virtually all of the letters espousing a creationist viewpoint are responded to and published. Moreover, the respondents often, though not always, clean up the spelling and grammar of the feedback, as in fact I did with this feedback. What our readers see is pretty much what we get; if anything, the Archive slants towards presenting the best creationist responses we receive, for they provide the best opportunity for a cogent and detailed response.

As for the other points raised: There is no evidence other than the accounts in the Bible to suggest that people once lived as long as 900 years. Certainly, no other historical records from the period in Egypt, China, or elsewhere indicate that people had multiple century lifespans. I have seen a suggestion (though I don't know enough to evaluate it) that the terms for "year" and "month" might have become garbled or confused. Then, 900 years would actually be 900 months, which translates into a 75-year lifetime--still an exceptionally long lifetime by the standards of the period.

Leaving aside the difficulties with UV "screening" by a vapor canopy, the problem is that mutation rates do not allow the current diversity of genetic information from a genetic bottleneck of only a few thousand years ago. To allow for this would be to propose rates of evolution faster than anything ever seen or documented, now or in history, and rates far faster than even the most ardent supporter of evolution would accept.

Despite the ability of some animals to survive on varied diets, many animals require specific diets or they perish. Furthermore, Genesis 7:2 (KJV) states: "Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female." (Ditto the "fowls also of the air" in verse 3.) Seven pairs of animals are not enough to form a complete food chain or thriving ecology, and cannot provide support for large predators for a full year. Talk to anyone who works at a zoo; their food deliveries over a year are measured in tons, and they are not supporting nearly the number of species that an Ark would. A far more reasonable interpretation of Genesis 6-8 is that there was a large local flood which Noah and his family survived by moving themselves, their livestock, and some local species onto a large boat. See the Flood FAQs for more details.

That said, it should be emphasized that humans are more than just a product of our genes. We are not robotic "gene machines," but are also a product of the developmental expression of those genes as well as the socialization we receive while growing up. It is my opinion that abuse of the disabled and elderly has less to do with biology than the failure of society to identify, educate, and if necessary punish those who engage in such behavior.

Geocentrism's relevance lies in how it serves as an example of revealed dogma inhibiting empirical study. This is a historical issue that some anti-evolutionists actively seek to make apologetics upon. If anti-anti-evolutionists bring up historical geocentrism, an easy response would be, "That was then, this is now," where the anti-evolutionists would explicitly distance themselves from the stigma of the past. Unfortunately, what we see anti-evolutionists doing is either a response that states that geocentrism is "not incorrect" or a pro-active defense of geocentrism. While it might be possible to formulate something today that could be called "geocentrism" which might fit the weak title of "not obviously incorrect", that isn't the geocentrism at issue. The geocentrism that is discussed by science advocates is the historical geocentrism which was advocated as part of official church dogma some time ago.

The historical geocentrism had many separate bits of dogma that were part of the package. That each was held to be inviolable is a matter of historical record. One part of geocentrism dogma that is conveniently forgotten by the various apologists, including the folks at the ICR, is the exclusionary principle that no celestial bodies orbited celestial bodies other than the earth. The observation of the moons of Jupiter put paid to that notion. Another bit of dogma concerned the immobility of the earth, but Foucault pendulums demonstrated that to be wrong as well. These things are indicators of more than just "incompleteness". Historical geocentrism was, plainly and simply, wrong.

When selecting an inertial frame for a problem, the choice of reference does make a practical difference, even if one invokes mathematical equivalence as a metric. The geocentric frame of reference could be employed for models of celestial mechanics, but anybody using a heliocentric inertial frame for our solar system will achieve correct results much, much faster. The same theoretical equivalence holds for basing a model of celestial mechanics on my left eardrum; I just don't believe that such a model holds any special significance, and it is clearly unjustified due to the practical complications it adds to finding mathematical solutions. That same impracticality attends a choice of a geocentric frame of reference for any solar-system scale problem.

The geocentrism issue is largely a self-inflicted wound on the part of anti-evolutionists. Apologists keep bringing it up, and others keep pointing out the obvious flaws. Responses that seek to justify the historical geocentrism are rightly seen as being fair game for commentary. It really was not that long ago that someone arguing these issues might stand in jeopardy of penalties for heresy. (My grandparents' grandparents' grandparents might have had to worry about such things.) Just a few centuries ago, disputing such "small details" could result in much more than a slap with a herring, red or otherwise.

My purpose in responding to SciCre arguments is based on wanting to see science taught in science classrooms, and non-science kept out of those classrooms. The anti-science basis of geocentricism apologetics (the outright exclusion of relevant data, the re-writing of history, the substitution of special pleading for analysis, etc.) means that I, for one, am unwilling to let this "small detail" pass without comment.

The maintainers of this archive fully understand that there is a broad spectrum of belief regarding origins. Indeed, we often end up making that point ourselves. (See the God and Evolution FAQ and the Various Interpretations of Genesis FAQ, for example.) In general, this archive is biased towards presenting the view of mainstream science, as is clearly stated on our home page and our welcome message. But we do include some direct links to creationist FAQs (see the Must-Read Files), as well as a long list of links to creationist Web sites. Moreover, many of the articles on this archive provide links to creationist materials that answer, rebut, or supplement them.

In short, I think the reader may be inferring too much from a single sentence.

Note also that some months I get no nominations, and so it's down to me and my own tastes. Hey, nobody said this was a democracy. However, when I post the requests for nominations, I tend to do this to evolutionists and antievolutionists alike. What they do is up to them.

Like it or not, our common sense idea that "things don't appear from thin air" just doesn't apply to the quantum world. At immensely small scales and at immensely high energies, things do in fact appear out of thin air, and disappear as well. That's why common sense is bad for doing science; common sense is based on our everyday experiences with low energies, medium-sized objects, and moderate lengths of time. Much of what science studies does not take place in that realm, and does not follow the same rules as what we are familiar with. The universe just isn't that simple. And as for bias, please read the archive's welcome message.

I am not sure in what way Chris Colby's article did not "get to the heart of the matter," though it is intended only as an introductory overview of concepts in evolutionary biology and not as a complete treatment of the subject. May I suggest that the reader browse through the other FAQs in this archive? They may provide greater insight as to why "creation science" just isn't science.

I applaud the reader's decision to homeschool. Few of us have the time, money, patience, and commitment to educate our children at home, and that level of contact and commitment can do wonders for a child's intellectual upbringing. I would strenuously caution the reader, however, not to introduce "scientific creationism" into the lesson plans. By heeding the words of deceivers such as Duane Gish, the child will be ill-prepared to make the decisions required of an informed citizen. Moreover, if the child receives any substantive exposure to biology in college, the child will quickly come to see the falsehoods of the scientific creationists" That child may then reject all of the religious training she has received, even that which is unrelated to evolutionary biology. Instead of strengthening that child's faith, the well-meaning homeschooler will have destroyed it. Far better, then, for both parent and child to have a subtler and richer understanding of both the Bible and the world around us. To that end, then, I suggest that the reader obtain and study thoroughly a good evolutionary biology (such as Douglas Futuyma's Evolutionary Biology) in order to learn what biologists actually say, rather than what the scientific creationists say they say.

Sibs share 50% of alleles, or alternate forms of gene sequences in the population. Each parent will have some differing alleles to the other parent, and the chances of their progeny getting one or the other alleles is therefore 50%. The vast bulk of genes are shared between conspecifics, although that value is not fixed.

Humans and paniscus share, according to DNA hybridisation studies, anywhere between 95% and 99.8% of their total genetic sequences. This value is in terms of actual DNA sequences, and does not take into account repeated sequences or chromosomal arrangements. Its significance is that the degree of similarity shows molecular relatedness, and helps resolve the phylogenetic "distance" between the two lineages.

   dS = q / T

dS is the change in entropy of the system, q is the heat absorbed by the system, and T is the absolute temperature of the system.

That's it. There's nothing there about open or closed systems, about "energy conversion mechanisms," or "controlled energy." This mathematical relation applies to all thermodynamic systems, open or closed. The Second Law is not "overcome" by intelligent design; it applies even when humans construct something.

A consequence of the Second Law is that when it is applied to closed thermodynamic systems, the overall entropy of the total system does not decrease. This means that heat exchanges between parts of the closed system will serve to increase the overall entropy of the system. Again, no "conversion mechanism" is required; indeed, the power of this mathematical relation is precisely that one need not know anything about the way these changes take place in order to make the entropy calculations.

If the reader is to make a convincing point concerning the Second Law and evolution, then the reader must select a well-defined system and perform the numerical entropy calculations to show that the change in entropy of the whole system is not equal to the heat absorbed over the absolute temperature. That's the only way to violate the Second Law.

The requirements that the reader lays out simply aren't thermodynamics as science uses it. Physics recognizes no distinction between "raw uncontrolled energy" and "controlled energy"; there is only energy. Furthermore, plenty of spontaneous things take place without a "control system." Perhaps the reader should learn something of how complex structures can arise spontaneously from systems with simple rules.

Finally, even under the reader's invented thermodynamics, evolution isn't precluded from happening. The "outside supply of energy" is the Sun, the "energy conversion mechanisms" are mutations, the "control system" is natural selection. But this is just invented thermodynamics. The real point to be made is that none of the processes involved in evolution--birth, development, genetic mutation, reproduction, and death--violate the Second Law; in fact, we see them happening spontaneously every day.

See the Thermodynamics FAQs for more a more detailed analysis.

The following statement, made by Henry Morris, as president of the Institute for Creation Research, illustrates my point: "There is no observational fact imaginable which cannot, one way or another, be made to fit the creation model."

Another example is by Creationist J. Maxwell Miller: "If one is willing to make adjustments in the historical claims of the Bible, they can be correlated with the archaeological evidence, if one is willing to take some liberties with the archaeological evidence."

With these statements in mind, how can creationism be considered science? Should this be allowed into public science classrooms?

Unreasonably biased? The reader may disagree with the views of this archive, but considering the large quantity of information on this site, and the widespread acceptance of these views in the scientific community and elsewhere, I don't think "unreasonable" is a fair label.

Not answered? Evidently the reader has not consulted the main talk.origins FAQ, the Introduction to Evolutionary Biology FAQ, or the What is Evolution? FAQ, or he would know that the subject of evolution deals with the development and diversity of living things, not the development of living organisms from chemical precursors. Furthermore, if he had read the Interim Abiogenesis FAQ, he would know that although the topic of abiogenesis is currently under much research and debate, some scenarios have been outlined.

Natural selection does not imply that there are superior and inferior species. This is a fallacy. It implies that certain species are more well adapted to a certain environment than other species. If the conditions change, the more well adapted species can suddenly become the less well adapted species. It is like a game of rock, paper scissors (which one is best? It depends!) The reason why certain species are extinct is that they were unable to successfully make a living in the environment in which they lived... they are not simply replaced by another species- like they are playing pieces lifted off the board and replaced by some unseen hand. It sounds like you have a profound misunderstanding of evolution.

"Chaotic, scrambled sediments" are in no way inconsistent with a gradual process. You merely made an assertion. Using YOUR OWN sediment density argument, please explain how heavier, denser strata can come to rest on TOP of lighter sediment... granite on top of limestone, for example? A flood cannot produce this, can it? If the flood hypothesis were true, would you not expect to have only heavy sedimentary layers on the lowest strata, and lighter sedimentary layers only on top? But that is not what is observed. The layers are randomized. Please explain how a flood can allow sediments of different densities to settle without regard to their density.

While you are at it, explain how you can have a layer of vocanic ash in sedimetary strata. Once you have done that, explain how such volcanic ash can have footprints embedded in it, if the world was caught in the midst of a violent, titanic flood. Rather unlikely.

I find the asteroid theory of dinosaur extinction totally inconsistent with a biblical, global flood. There is also no scriptural support for your assertion, nor any scientific support. It is not suggested that all the dinosaurs died in a flood... how you arrive at that conclusion is quite an impressive feat.

Also, no one claims that an asteroid impact is gradualism (that is a straw man argument).

You can be convinced of any religious belief that you like. But that does not make creationism science.