Feedback for September 2000

The essay you refer to is not found on the Talk Origins Archive, but on my personal evolution webstite: switch.to/evolution.

I must point out that I did not mention that the flood lasted for three weeks, but I referred to a "three week downpour", which is actually a typo, as I meant roughly six weeks. In any case, I was referring to the rainfall, not the period of the flood.

I am fully aware of the time periods involved. Genesis 7:11 says "In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month" the flood began. The "waters were dried up from off the earth" in the "six hundredth and first year, in the first month, the first day of the month" (Gen 8:13). If you subtract the first date from the second, you get a figure of 413 days. If you then subtract from that figure the 40 days of actual flooding (Gen 7:17) and the 150 days that the "waters prevailed upon the earth" (Gen 7:24), that leaves 240 days in which the water receded (the bible never says where the water receded to). 240 days is 8 months, not 10 as Gen 8:5 incorrectly states, plus a further 2 months as described in Gen. 8: 6-11. Big problem for biblical literalists: the dates don't add up.

"Hydrologic" sorting is summed up by James Merrit in the General Anti-creation FAQ:

Let's look at the usual creationist Flood theory, i.e. that the ordering of fossils is determined by hydraulic sorting (some shapes will settle faster than others), differential mobility (some life forms could flee the Flood longer than others), and differential habitat (some animals live at higher elevations than others). Let's pick a nice case that looks at one of these mechanisms and controls for the other two. There are certain plants that often grow at sea level, near the shore. There are many mollusks that only grow in shallow water near the shore, and attach themselves to rocks. No differential mobility, no sorting since both types of organism stay put. Unfortunately, the particular class of plants involved (I'll have to check my notebook at home for the exact reference -- I think it's the angiosperms) doesn't show up in the fossil record until mammals appear and is never found in lower layers with mollusks that should have lived nearby.

As far as your claim that any of my points support creationism, you need to read them again. For example, point two:

We would expect to see no sorting in regard to sediment type and size. The maelstrom of a flood would only permit "dumping" of transported sediment in accord with Stokes Law. Furthermore, HOW could floodwaters have deposited layers of HEAVIER sediments on top of layers of LIGHTER sediments? In other words, if there had been an ultramassive Flood, we would not expect to see limestone strata overlaid by granite. No creationist has ever explained how the Flood could have deposited layers of heavy sediment on top of layers of lighter sediment.

This doesn't help out the creationist camp, as it is in stark contradiction to your assertions.

Also, point 4 is diametrically opposed to your assertions:

There would be no segregation of fossils. If all organisms lived at the same time, we would expect to see trilobites, brachiopods, ammonites, dinosaurs, and mammals (including humans) all randomly mixed together in the worldwide blanket of randomized sediment described in point #1. This is not what is observed. The fossil record exhibits an order consistent with the theory of evolution (but inconsistent with creationism), from simple forms to more complex forms, and from creatures very unlike modern species to those more closely resembling modern species. In addition, there would be no extinction events found in the fossil record. There are at least five major extinction events in the fossil record.

You missed again. And all of the many items in point 10, such as fossilized dinosaur nests, termite nests, bird nests, fragile wasp nests, complex rodent burrows, animal dung left in its original position of deposition as it hardened on dry, solid ground, trackways of land animals, raindrop imprints, fossilized mudcracks... these items cannot be resolved with a flood.

Sorry Jane. You did not succeed in scoring a point here.

Hydraulic sorting does not solve any of problems of the Flood hypothesis. It fails to explain the fossil record as observed. In addition, the "hydraulic sorting" hypothesis lacks experimental or evidential support.

The information content of a nucleotide sequence is defined as the sum of the probabilities of each base in a functional (that is, binding) codon. If that doesn't mean much to you, then this primer might help.

But this is the information content of the relationship between a gene sequence and the amino acid product of that sequence. It doesn't address the relation between genes and, say, the length of a leg or the number of limbs. That is a much more complicated relation and one that cannot be measured objectively as yet.

There are so many biological senses of the word "information" that I cannot begin to even list them all here. They include the sense given above, the complexity of the organism, its functional pathways, signals between cells, the environmental and ecological links between and organism and its surrounds, energy pathways, and phylogenetic history. Some even argue that an organism has a "representation" of its environment internally, and that this is a form of information.

A nice debate over this topic was carried out in the June 2000 edition of Philosophy of Science including John Maynard Smith, Kim Sterelny, Peter Godfrey Smith, and Sahotra Sarkar. The classic work on molecular information is

Gatlin, Lila L. 1972. Information theory and the living system. New York: Columbia University Press.

The recent development of a field known as "bioinformatics" also has developed a range of statistical methods for extracting useful information from genetic sequences. Note, however, that the "information" in this case resides in data about the genes rather than in the genes themselves.

A good overview article on the information in the human genome can be found at The Human Genome: Information Content and Structure.

Evolution is wrong because there is a glitch in the website script, therefore we're going to hell. It's novel, I'll admit that.

• Russia annexes Manchuria.
• The Boxer Rebellion breaks out in China.
• King Humbert I of Italy assassinated.
• President McKinley enacts the gold standard.

• Eastman Kodak introduces the Box Brownie camera. Now everyone can be a photographer!
• Sigmund Freud publishes The Interpretation of Dreams.
• Max Planck postulates that energy is quantized into discrete packets.
• The Paris Metro opens. France also demonstrates the first photocopiers.
• 1.5 million people are using telephones - why aren't you?

Mendel rediscovered!

What you must remember about your musings is that such notions require some sort of physical support. Without evidence, there is no reason to take an idea seriously.

Your examples show one thing very clearly-- that you do not know how the processes of evolution work. An animal does not evolve. Species evolve. No animal has ever "chosen" to evolve. Evolution is imposed on a species by environmental pressures acting on the raw material of genetic diversity.

You are right on one point (probably by accident), in that if an animal is perfectly suited to its environment then the evolutionary process is suspended (not broken), until such time when the species environment changes or the food supply changes. Then the species must adapt or become extinct.

The fact is that the truth IS complicated. Trying to simplify it too much leads to incorrect versions of the truth that appear too distorted to accept. When that happens, one is just as likely to accept a totally false idea as the truth, passing over the actual truth because it has become so distorted through misrepresentation and oversimplification that it has become unbelievable.

I think this has happened in a big way in our society.

You are also correct in saying that the Bible ought not to be taken literally.

Unfortunately, many people do insist that it must be taken that way; perhaps your complaints ought to be directed at them, rather than people who have contributed to this site who, I suspect, would agree with what you just wrote?

Because it may be difficult for you to imagine how the concept of right and wrong could have arisen within human culture without divine intervention should not be an obstacle in trying to understand the physical sciences.

If you want to get nonreligious opinions on the nature of morality, I would suggest that you check out the Internet Infidels, or the The Council for Secular Humanism. They have categories and search capabilities.

Secondly, if one chooses to be religious, then there are many paths to take. I have friends of all faiths, including Buddhist, Hindu and Native American. As this country is based upon individual rights and freedoms, it would be nice to see more people express a little tolerance. It seems a short jump from a statement like yours above to more aggressive coercion.

The same goes for woodpeckers. Many birds pick at trees for insects; the woodpecker's rat-a-tat-tat is only different in degree. No individual bird would peck hard enough to injure itself. Instead, very small improvements in neck musculature and beak shape and strength would, over time, add up to the ability to peck deep holes in bark. Those small improvements would be selected for because they would provide a small margin of increased survivability and reproductive success to the population of birds that had them.

I recommend to you Richard Dawkins' 1996 book Climbing Mount Improbable, which contains an extended treatment of how small variations can add up to large changes.

On the other hand, we have a group of people insisting that the attempt to appreciate the works of God by direct examination is pointless, and in fact the world is only a couple of thousand years old, regardless of what it looks like, and that it is not nearly as big as scientists claim, and everything we really need to know is nicely set out about three thousand years ago in an unchanging inerrant book. Going beyond that is not allowed.

Just another way of looking at it....

We aren't scared to admit anything. We really do think that honest examination of the world itself is the best way to learn about it, and the implications of that study unambiguously demonstrate some details of how the world works which are apparently in conflict with some of your beliefs on the matter. You aren't obliged to agree; but you are simply wrong to think we are driven by fear.

The chromosome difference is insignificant. The second human chromosome is split (or two of the chimp chromosomes are fused). If you look at the banding patterns of the chromosomes in a karyotype, you can see that they are nearly identical. Your debate opponent was being wrong and misleading by calling this a 'vast difference'.

There are some differences in the arrangements of the genes on the chromosomes. In particular, there are a number of inversions, in addition to that fusion. The important thing is that the chromosomes are remarkably similar, and cytologically the differences can be pinned on a few discrete changes.

Gene folding is irrelevant. The differences between the genomes are so minute that the protein products would no doubt work equally well in either organism. I think this was another attempt to bamboozle you with pseudoscience.

The Origin of Species is a good read. Of course it does not represent the "state of the art", even though most creationists keep whipping ol' Charles Darwin as if he were the modern standard-bearer of the science. It is easier to attack a man, I suppose.

Speciation is speciation, whether it is plants, insects or primates-- they are all written in the same language: DNA. Scientists in laboratories use insects and microbes because of their short lifespans. Experiments can be conducted on species that have life expectancies of days or weeks. Doing the same experiments on large mammals, whose reproductive cycle can be many years, is not possible. Do you have fifty thousand years to wait for the results?

The evidence of speciation in large mammals comes from modern genetic research, taxonomy, and the uncontrovertable fossil record, which speaks to us unambiguously about the "descent with modification" of life on earth, including humans.

What is pathetic is just how little people know about something that they reject so vehemently.

On the web, you should try Ask Dr. Universe

The assumption that creationism is non-scientific is a strong one, well-supported by experience. Evolution does not state that the bible is a pack of lies. It simply states that physical reality leads us to the conclusion that the earth is of an ancient age, and that there is no evidence for a global flood, and that life on this planet has descended with modification. If this requires you to intrepret your bible in more of a spiritual context than a literal context, then the choice is before you.

As for having studied evolution carefully through your home-schooled christian point of view, I would simply ask that you try to describe the processes by which species evolve into other species. If you can do this to the satisfaction of an evolutionist, then you can truly say that you have studied evolution.

I have not read the book by Jobe Martin. I have read the book by Josh McDowell. I have to say that I was less than impressed. Here are a couple of things on Josh McDowell:

The Jury is In.
Gordon Stein on Josh McDowell

The link you supplied appears to be an excellent one. At some point maybe it can be linked directly to the FAQ.

[Since Ken's response was posted the article cited was moved into this Archive.]

Evolution is universally accepted and endorsed by every single major scientific organization.

From the National Academy of Sciences, to the Genetics Society of America, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, The National Research Council, The National Association of Biology Teachers, and National Association of Science Teachers, American Anthropological Association, American Association of Physical Anthropologists, American Association of Physics Teachers, American Chemical Society, American Geological Institute, American Geophysical Union, American Institute of Biological Sciences, American Society of Biological Chemists, Geological Society of America, and that's only the beginning.

The number of scientific institutions that support or endorse creationism: zero.

Have a look.

There is also a long list of religious denominations which officially support evolution. Not to mention the majority of Americans. Maybe you should open your eyes.

It is undeniable is that sin exists in this world. The power of the story of Adam and Eve is not in whether there was an actual Adam and an actual Eve. The power is in what the story says about human nature: that we are sinners, that we make choices, that some of those choices are wrong, and that we need redemption. We would need a redeemer regardless of whether Adam existed. To focus on the literal existence of Adam and Eve is to miss the true message of the story.

This, by the way, highlights one of my personal objections to "scientific creationism"; it is not just poor science, it is also poor theology.

Here's a picture: Mantis Shrimp

Mantis shrimp are rather dangerous to handle. They can pop those claws out with a great deal of force -- they're nicknamed "thumbsplitters".

On the "7 days" issue... we deal with that claim because most of the major creationist organizations are "Young Earth", asserting that the seven days of creation were literal 24 hour periods. When they stop making those assertions, then we will be able to drop it. Wouldn't that be nice? We could get onto more sane topics.

As far as the inerrancy of the bible, you probably should look into some research to the contrary. There are many websites that deal with the subject. Here is a good start.

The debate over evolution was settled 140 years ago. Evolution won.

All that exists today are theologians who use inaccurate data (the moon dust argument, and the ocean salt argument), claims that are unsupported by evidence or experiment (the Vapor Canopy and Hydrosorting), outright fabrication (Lucy's knee and Supernova Remnants), and out of context quotations (Darwin on the evolution of the eye). And these are only a few examples.

We know all about Henry Morris here. We have heard what he has to say. He should listen to us for a change.

How about coming up with a specific criticism, rather than a general and vague putdown?

Does a professorship at Grace Bible College put one above making specific arguments?

Wesley

These are outlined in the How to be Anti-Darwinian FAQ and the Darwin's Precursors and Influences FAQ.

Have we, here at Talk.Origins, taken to disproving the battles at Pearl Harbor and Midway?

This is new to me. Where are we going with this, guys? I think we have gotten off track.

Cancel my subscription!

:)

Very well said. Could it have been any other way?

I see that you had last visited the article entitled "Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution." This article was intended to provide only a minimal overview of common misconceptions about evolution. If you want more depth, please examine some of the other articles on this site or, better yet, read a good textbook on the topic.

If you have started to pray today because of this site, then so be it. It is only your misconception if you think that acceptance of evolution requires a renunciation of any particular faith.

Actually, the definition of science encompasses more than simple observations. It also incorporates the construction of theories, or models, of the world and the testing of those theories against the observations. Under this definition, too, evolution is science.

The bible is a book, which includes some creation accounts. Throughout history, Jews, Christians and Muslims have understood these accounts with different concepts of creation.

Science is in conflict with the notion that the creation accounts are plain historically founded descriptions of past events. For instance, evolution refers (amongst other things) to the fact that diverse living organisms are related by shared ancestry.

Some people have a concept of creation which regards the biblical stories as historically founded accounts of a one time supernatural creative event in the past in which living species are separately created, after which they reproduce and populate the Earth naturally. This is in conflict with what we know of the past by scientific investigation.

Other people have a more dynamic concept of creation, which sees the creative activity of God in natural processes, rather than distinct supernatural interventions into natural order. Such folks may see the biblical accounts as expressing doctrines of monotheism (first account in Genesis 1) and of the divinely ordained role of humanity (second account in Genesis 2), through the vehicles of creation stories.

This need not be in any conflict with science.

Both kinds of folks often describe their concepts as biblical concepts, and both may refer to the bible as their source and foundation.