Feedback for February 2004

I suggest you read one or more of the following books, written by leading evolutionary biologists:

Eldredge, Niles. 1995. Dominion. New York: H. Holt.

---. 1998. Life in the balance : humanity and the biodiversity crisis. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.

---. 2002. Life on earth : an encyclopedia of biodiversity, ecology, and evolution. Santa Barbara, Calif.: ABC-CLIO.

Reaka-Kudla, Marjorie L., Don E. Wilson, and Edward O. Wilson. 1997. Biodiversity II : understanding and protecting our biological resources. Washington, D.C.: Joseph Henry Press.

Wilson, Edward O. 1999. The diversity of life. New ed, Questions of science. New York: W. W. Norton.

---. 2002. The future of life. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.

Wilson, Edward O., Frances M. Peter, National Academy of Sciences (U.S.), and Smithsonian Institution. 1988. Biodiversity. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.

Have you thought of reading books? Terry Pratchett is enjoyed by many.

Evolutionary biology does not require scapegoats, as it has evidence.

Wesley

Likewise, some vampire bats have molar teeth. Now, not all vampires live exclusively on blood. Of the 3 species, 2 eat varying numbers of insects, and the third lives exclusively on blood- to the point of starvation in the presence of insects. The first two species have moderately developed molar teeth, while the third has distinctly vestigial molars. Of what use is a tooth suitable for grinding solid food to a bat that lives on milk as an infant, and blood as an adult? Not surprisingly, the molars are most degraded in the most sanguivorous of the 3 species.

Just so we are clear, a vestigial organ is a remnant of a structure. It is a strawman argument to say no vestigial organs have functions. In fact, vestigial organs speed up evolutionary processes by providing structures that can be co-opted for other purposes. We see this in the human appendix. Once a structure specialized for digesting cellulose, it now has a accessory function (and one that is certainly non-vital) in the human immune system.

Perhaps it was too subtle.

Wesley

• the "Index of Creationist Claims"
• "The Quote Mine"
• "29+ Evidences for Macroevolution"
• "Answers to Creationist List of 20 Questions"
• "The PRATTs list (Points Refuted A Thousand Times)"

Please remember that evolution makes no comment about the beginning of the Universe, the beginning of life, or the beginning of pretty much anything. Evolution is concerned with the behavior of living populations, once they appear.

The source of this specific argument is an Impact article by Duane Gish, the ICR's paleontology "expert". He makes the same argument in a couple of his books on the fossil record (Gish 1985 & 1995). Whether or not Dewar inspired Gish on this subject I cannot say.

As an aside, creationist Erich von Fange published a paper in the Creation Research Society Quarterly (von Fange 1988) in which he seems to imply some sort of evolutionist conspiracy regarding Litopterns. He basically argues that evolutionists reasons for classifying certain Litopterns (particularly the genus Thoatherium) in an Order of mammals separate from horses (Perissodactyla) were arbitrary and really done because the existence of such a very horse-like animal, before modern horses evolved, would somehow be problematic for evolutionary theory (von Fange includes a brief version of the same argument Gish uses above).

To answer your questions:

1. No, paleontologists do not consider the three genera Gish lists as being an evolutionary series like that of the horse family.
2. Yes, the dates given by Gish for the genera he lists are accurate, but irrelevant (I'll explain why in a moment).
3. Figuring out which fossil species is the parent and which is daughter (and you are correct in that they may coexist) that can be a more complex question. First it is not really possible to establish with absolute certainty that any particular fossil species is the direct ancestor of another. There is no way to do, for example, a DNA comparison to know for sure.

Descent relationships between fossil species are inferences based upon what evidence is available (mostly the comparative anatomy of the hard parts like shells and skeletons) however even with lots of good fossil material it is always possible that instead of a parent/daughter relationship one can be looking at, to extend the family metaphor, an aunt/niece or older-sister/younger-sister relationship. So, while we can tell they are closely related we cannot be absolutely sure of the exact form of the relationship.

As for discerning which direction a transition is going, one has to look at the overall pattern of the fossils involved, and understand generally how evolution works by modification of existing parts. Cladistic methodologies are helpful for sorting these things out. In the particular case that Gish talks about it would be pretty unlikely that a species that had gone even further that modern horses in reducing its number of toes would give rise to another species that had three strong toes (and a host of other differences). But no one is claiming that they did.

Here are a couple links that might be helpful in understanding the interactions of systematics and paleontology.

• Evolution And Systematics
• Taxonomy, Transitional Forms, and the Fossil Record

Gish names three genera (Diadiaphorus, Thoatherium, and Macrauchenia) belonging to what he correctly identifies as the Order Litopterna, and he places them in the correct chronological order that they are found in the fossil record. The problem is that he does not inform his readers that the three genera he names belong to two different Families within the Order.

Diadiaphorus and Thoatherium, both early Miocene, belong to the Family Proterotheriidae and both are indeed horse-like in appearance. However the genus Macrauchenia, from the Pliocene/Pleistocene, belongs to the Family Macracheniidae and is not horse-like at all. Instead this Family of Litopterns is quite camel-like in appearance, another detail Gish fails to mention. He also doesn't mention (perhaps out of ignorance) that representatives of this Family can be found in the early Miocene as well, three toes and all.

To put this relationship between horse-like Litopterns and the camel-like Litopterns in terms of more familiar animals, it is roughly the same as that between horses and rhinoceroses, each belonging to different Families (Equidae and Rhinocerotidae respectively) of the Order Perissodactyla.

Thus we can see that Gish's argument comes down to basically this: if one Family of an Order shows a trend towards a reduction of toes (from three to one), then all Families of that Order must do likewise, or there is some problem with evolutionary theory. This is exactly like arguing that since horses reduced their toes from three to one, then rhinoceroses must do the same.

This is nonsense.

Nothing in evolutionary theory requires Families of the same Order to follow the same evolutionary trends in the way Gish implies, much less Families of a different Order.

References:

Dewar, Douglas (1938) More Difficulties of the Evolution Theory, pp.146-147

von Fange, Erich A. (1989) "The Litopterna - A Lesson in Taxonomy: The Strange Story of the South America 'False' Horses", Creation Research Society Quarterly, 25:184-190

Gish, Duane T. (1985) Evolution: The Challenge of the Fossil Record, pp.83-85

Gish, Duane T. (1995) Evolution: the fossils STILL say NO!, pp.191-193

However, within the strata exposed in the Grand Canyon, there are paleosols at major unconformities that haven't been removed by subsequent marine transgressions and there are numerous paleosols found within the nonmarine strata. These paleosols (fossil soils), not to mention the presence of well-documented eolian sandstones within Grand Canyon strata, are sufficient to refute the claim that these sediments represent a continuous period of underwater deposition over less than geologic periods of time.

Unfortunately, very little research has been conducted specifically on the paleosols found in strata exposed within the Grand Canyon. While on a raft trip down the Grand Canyon lead by a geologist friend, I was shown paleosols within sedimentary rocks of the Temple Butte Limestone, which are preserved within an incised valley. Examples of these incised valleys are discussed and illustrated in the article by Ward (1998, 2001) as listed below. The paleosols within the Temple Butte Limestone indicate that similar paleosols were present along the contact between the Redwall and Muav limestones but were remove by erosion during the marine transgression.

Reference Cited:

Abbott, Ward, 1998, Canyon offers grand seismic view. AAPG Explorer. vol. 19, no. 8, pp. 36-37. (August 1998) [AAPG = American Association of Petroleum Geologists]

It can be found online as:

Abbot, Ward, 2001, Revisiting the Grand Canyon - Through the Eyes of Seismic Sequence Stratigraphy. Search and Discovery Article # 40018.

A few papers specifically describing paleosols found within strata exposed in the Grand Canyon have been published. They are:

1. Paleosols associated with upper contact of the Redwall Limestone:

Kenny, R., 1989. Variation in carbon and oxygen geochemistry and petrography of the Mississippian Redwall Formation, north-central Arizona: implications for extricating the diagenetic history of paleokarst carbonates and evidence for the earliest Microcodium microfossils. Cave Research Foundation Annual Report 1989, pp. 16-18. Cave Books, St. Louis, Missouri

Kenny, Ray, 1992, Silicified Mississippian Paleosol microstructures; evidence for ancient microbial-soil associations. Scanning Microscopy. vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 359-366 (June 1992)

Kenny, Ray, 1998, Paleoclimate during the Redwall karst event, Grand Canyon National Park. Park Science. vol. 18, no. 1, pp.21-23. (July 1998)

PDF file for Ray (1998)

Kenny, Ray and Knauth, L. Paul, 1992, Continental paleoclimates from delta and delta (super 18) O of secondary silica in paleokarst chert lags. Geology Boulder. vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 219-222 (March 1992)

2. Paleosols within the Supi Group:

Enos, Paul, Alissa, A. R., Buijs, G., Joyce, W., Fogarty, A. J., and Chaikin, D. H., 1998, Paleosols provide detailed local correlations within the upper Supai Group, Grand Canyon. Annual Meeting Expanded Abstracts - American Association of Petroleum Geologists, 1998, vol. 1998, American Association of Petroleum Geologists and Society of Economic Paleontologists and Mineralogists : Tulsa, Oklahoma

Also, as noted by Glenn Morton in " Re: Morris, the Geologic Column, and Compromise," there occur other major unconformities, which contradict Young Earth creationist arguments, within the Grand Canyon strata in addition to the top of the Redwall Limestone, in which both paleosols and well developed karst has been documented. For example, the top of the Esplanade Sandstone of the Supi Group is a regional unconformity deeply cut by incised valleys that are as much as 90 m (300 ft) wide and 21 m (70 ft) deep. The top of the Esplanade Sandstone between the incised valleys itself is deeply eroded into buried hills with as much as 9 to 15 m (15 to 30 m) of relief on them as discussed in Abbott (2001), Beus and Morales (1990), and McKee (1982).

References Cited

Abbot, Ward, 2001, Revisiting the Grand Canyon - Through the Eyes of Seismic Sequence Stratigraphy. Search and Discovery Article # 40018.

Beus, S. S., and Morales, M., 1990, Grand Canyon Geology. Oxford University Press, New York,

McKee, E. D., 1982, Erosion surfaces, Chapter H, In E. D. McKee, pp. 155-176, The Supai Group of Grand Canyon. Professional Paper no. 1173. U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virgina.

Some web pages that discuss the significance of paleosols found elsewhere in the world are:

• Radiometric Dating, Paleosols and the Geologic Column
• A Paleosol Bibliography
• Palaeosols By Jonathan Clarke
• Weathering mantles and the Age of the Earth

Other web pages about the Grand Canyon, which should be of interest, are:

• Grand Canyon Geology
• Grand Canyon Rock Layers
• Young-Earth Creationism and the Geology of the Grand Canyon with Text and Photographs by Jon Woolf
• Rock Strata of the Colorado Plateau
• Trace Fossils and Sedimentary Structures: The Permian Coconino Sandstone
• A young Grand Canyon? by T. H. Heaton
• Creationist Grand Canyon Arguments
• Carving the Grand Canyon
• A Criticism of the ICR's Grand Canyon Dating Project

I'll take a stab at various of the issues raised.

I'm a Christian, a member of the United Methodist Church. Somehow I seem to have missed the "bigotry, hatred, and discrimination towards christians" that is asserted to be endemic to those supporting evolution. Other Christians seem to have experiences more in line with mine, as perusal of the National Center for Science Education's "Voices for Evolution" publication will attest.

Why aren't evolutionists "hacking" on other religions? When will you please stop beating your wife? Proponents of good science education oppose the introduction of non-science into secondary school science classrooms. Because the most numerous and vociferous advocates of putting non-science into science classrooms in the USA are Christians (by self-report, though sometimes there seems to be little evidence for and much against the assertion), it seems to me that they interpret this opposition as "persecution" due to their religious commitment, rather than simple opposition to the proximal cause (their anti-science activities).

Evolutionary processes happen. That is a fact. Evolutionary considerations have real-world consequences in agriculture, in epidemiology, in ecology, and in medicine.

There certainly are departures from civility in discussions of evolution and creation. This isn't a one-sided thing. See this thread on invidious comparisons deployed by "intelligent design" advocates for examples. While name calling should be deprecated (on both sides), I would demur from labeling the pointing out of ignorance as "name calling". Ignorant people making pronouncements don't advance the argument and certainly don't show themselves to advantage. For example, Kent Hovind opined that scientists couldn't tell the difference between redwood trees and kidney beans because each has 22 chromosomes. I've pointed out the depths of ignorance of genetics that this implies, and I don't think that I've stepped out of line at all.

I think the assertion that I must be an atheist is pretty risible. I'm a long way from being a "TRUE atheist", since, as I mentioned earlier, I'm a United Methodist.

I would be interested in knowing which page we have here has a problem with referencing Jefferson, and getting the documentation to show that it is wrong would also be useful. A specific URL will help things along. We do correct errors in the materials here as they are shown to be erroneous.

Since it's my name on the domain registration, I surmise that the speculations the reader lists are supposed to fit me. While my politics were likely to the left of the majority of my fellow students at UTA (or, for that matter, TAMU), that still leaves a wide margin between my stances and those of the far left. I'm a centrist in my politics. As for whether I'm a scientist or not, I'll point out my curriculum vitae. Perhaps the consensus of 53 students isn't the final word on the matter, and the evidence might have some bearing.

Wesley

Most important, our arguments are not against Christianity or any other religion; they are against the bad arguments used by others, regardless of their religion. If you want anti-Christian diatribes, read the creationist literature, for example the last 20% of Morris's Scientific Creationism. The biggest enemy of creationists are Christians who don't agree with their Biblical interpretation. Creationism is probably the greatest anti-Christian force in the United States today.

Segraves v. California - lost.

Epperson v. Arkansas - won.

Smith v. Mississippi - won.

Hendren v. Campbell - won.

Willoughby v. National Science Foundation - won.

Crowley v. Smithsonian Institution - won.

Steele v. Tennessee - won.

Daniel v. Tennessee - won.

McLean v. Arkansas - won.

Edwards v. Aguillard - won.

I'll invoke the Aggie rule - the one with the most points wins.

Wesley

But thank you for your prayers.

Chris Thompson

Then, describe what you mean by a "structural change". Do you mean a change in the anatomy of an organism? What about a change in physiology? Wouldn't that count just as well? Would a change in the structure of a protein be sufficient to answer your question?

I am not trying to be flippant here, but I am trying to show readers that the questions you ask here either do not apply, or require impossible limits on the answer.

With regards to Cambrian fossils, I doubt anyone knows exactly how many have been discovered. You could catalog them: I am sure it would be quite interesting.

Chris

PS: For a beneficial mutation in humans, you might look up Hemoglobin C.

The answer to the spirit of your question, though, is simply that the evolutionary path monkeys (and other apes) took millions of years ago is different from the one taken by humans. They are evolving in a different way than we are.

You mistake lies in the assumption that humans are some sort of pinnacle of evolutionary progress. That is not an assumption held by biologists (or other scientists). So the "goal" is not to become human. In fact, evolution is not a goal-oriented process at all. It simply happens.

Chris

I am not impressed that the destruction of Tyre is predictive. The Bible places it in the context of an attack by Nebuchadnezzar, which was retrodictive. (Tyre was under siege 585-573 BC.) Throwing debris into the sea and spreading nets are only to be expected of any coastal city; they can be said also of San Francisco. According to Encylopaedia Britannica, "most of the remains of the Phoenician period still lie beneath the present town." And although I have not been there, I expect the barrenness of the rock is subjective.

Of coures, if one wants to, one can choose to accept your interpretation. However, there is not sufficient evidence to compel it.

The first misconception is that individual stratigraphic units, i.e. the Morrison Formation, were deposited simultaneously. If a person reads through what has been published in the scientific literature, they find that the assumption made by Mr. Jim that the Morrison Formation was simultaneously deposited over all of it's outcrop is readily refuted by the presence of numerous regional and unconformities and innumerable fossil soils that have been found within the Morrison Formation. These fossils soils, called "paleosols", provide proof that stratigraphic units, like the Morrison Formation, consists of innumerable layers of sediments, each created by a separate period of sediment accumulation, separated by even longer periods of nondeposition of sediment while the contact associated with the fossil soil was part of the land surface. Regional unconformities found within the Morrison Formation provide conclusive evidence of major and lengthy periods of time during which nondeposition and erosion occurred between the deposition of the sediments that now comprise the Morrison Formation. The scientific literature published on the sedimentology and stratigraphy of Morrison Formation soundly refutes any claim about the Morrison Formation having been deposited simultaneously as Jim and other people falsely claim.

Some web pages:

1. "15E. The Morrison Formation (Jurassic)" in Jurassic - Cenozoic Strata of the Colorado Plateau
2. Sedimentology of the Brushy Basin Member, Morrison Formation, (Late Jurassic), western Colorado by Kenneth, Galli, GSA Annual Meeting, November 5-8, 2001, Paper No. 149-0.
3. Evaluating the "Noah's Flood Hypothesis"

A few of many published papers that present evidence refuting the "simultaneous deposition" claims are:

Demko, T. M., Currie, B. S., and Nicoll, K. A., 1996, Paleosols at sequence boundaries in the Upper Jurassic Morrison Formation, Colorado Plateau and Rocky Mountain regions, USA. Geological Society of America Abstract with Programs. vol. 28, no. 7, p. 185.

Demko, T. M., Currie, B. S., and Nicoll, K. A., in press, Regional paleoclimatic and stratigraphic implications of paleosols and fluvial-overbank architecture in the Morrison Formation (Upper Jurassic), Western Interior, U.S.A.: Sedimentary Geology.

Houck, Karen J., 2001, Dinosaur Ridge; celebrating a decade of discovery. Mountain Geologist. vol. 38, no. 3, pp. 97-110.

Peterson, F., and Turner, C. E., 1998, Stratigraphy of the Ralston Creek and Morrison Formations (Upper Jurassic) near Denver, Colorado: Modern Geology, vol. 22, no. 1-4, p. 3-38.

The answer to the question, "So did local flooding cause all these dinosaur remains to be deposited simultaneously all over the west?" is in part "yes" in the form of floodbasin and crevasse deposits. However, the Morison Formation also contains thick lake deposits, minor eolian deposits, and fluvial deposits related to the back and forth meandering of river channels. However, there aren't any Noachian Flood deposits.

The modern coastal plain of Texas and Louisiana is composed of alluvial and deltaic sediments deposited locally by the Rio Grande, Nueces, San Antonio, Guadalupe, Colorado, Brazos, Trinity, Neches, Sabine, Calcasieu, Red, Mississippi, Amite, Tickfaw, and many other rivers. The "local" accumulations of sediments adjacent to these rivers have merged together to create a broad apron of sediments and the coastal plain they underlie that extends hundred of kilometers along the northwest coast of the Gulf of Mexico. The Morrison Formation differs in that it contains a substantial proportion of fresh-water lake deposits and accumulated downstream of an active mountain range within a basin much like the vast amount of sediments, which still are accumulating, filling the Central Andean Foreland Basin within South America.

In Paleogeography of the Southwestern US, go look at:

1. Late Jurassic Paleogeography, Southwestern US (150 Ma) and Figure.
2. Latest Jurassic Paleogeography, Southwestern US (145 Ma) and Figure.

The second misconception expressed by Jim is that fossils aren't being formed today. In fact, geologists and paleontologists have taken Jim's advice and studied modern rivers and lakes to see if fossils are being formed in them. The fact of the matter is that the observations and data that they have collected in the field and published in the scientific literature refute Jim's arguments. This published research clearly demonstrate that a very small, but significant, percentage of modern bones and shells of animal and remains of plants are being buried in ways that they are preserved and, eventually many of them will become fossils. In fact, these studies demonstrate that in certain circumstances, hard parts, like bones and shells don't have to be buried as rapidly as Jim incorrectly claimed.

Modern examples of observed fossilization, which refute the arguments about the lack of modern fossilization and the need for rapid burial being made by Jim be found at:

1. Non Catastrophic and Modern Fossilization
2. "Fish Fossils Post of the Month for September 2002".
3. fossilization
4. Re: fossilization

A few of many publications that falsify Jim's arguments on fossilization are:

Allison, P. and Briggs, D. E. G., eds., Taphonomy: Releasing the Data Locked in the Fossil Record. New York, Plenum.

Behrensmeyer, A. K., 1991, Vertebrate Paleoecology in a Recent East African Ecosystem. In J. Gray, A. J. Boucot, and W. B. N. Berry, eds., pp. 591-615. Communities of the Past, Stroudsburg, Hutchinson Ross Publishing Company.

Behrensmeyer, A. K., 1988, Vertebrate Preservation in Fluvial Channels. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology. vol. 63, no. 1-3, pp. 183-199.

Dunn, K. A., McLean, R. J. C., Upchurch, G. R., Jr., and Folk, R. L., 1997, Enhancement of Leaf Fossilization Potential by Bacterial Biofilms. Geology. vol. 25, no. 12, pp. 119-1222.

Wilby, P. R., Briggs, D. E. G., Bernier, P., and Gaillard, C., 1996, role of Microbial Mats in the Fossilization of Soft Tissues. Geology. vol. 24, no.9, pp. 787-790.

A person can also look at " Basic Concepts on Dinosaur Taphonomy," a PDF file, which is a sample chapter from "Introduction to the Study of Dinosaurs" by Anthony J. Martin and Published by Blackwell Publishing Company.

In the last paragraph, Jim repeats a number of common falsehoods about fossil bone. Such misinformation includes claims that bone has a "shelf-life," whatever it might mean as fossil bones are not normally sold as food, of about 10,000 years and the presence of dinosaur bones in Wyoming composed of 100 percent unaltered bone. Because the rate, at which bones will either recrystallize or are replaced by other minerals, varies so much according to specific environmental conditions, it is impossible to conclude how long bone can remain unaltered. There is no scientific justification for the 10,000-year limit. Thus, neither degree nor apparent lack of fossilization can be used to argue for "short time emplacement" of these fossils.

Scientific studies of alleged unaltered dinosaur bone, like the alleged Wyoming bone, have shown that even the most pristine-looking dinosaur bone has suffered significant diagenetic alteration. For example, studies of dinosaur bones, like the "100%" Wyoming dinosaur bones, that appeared to be unaltered, have shown such appearances to be quite decieving. When such "100%" pristine-looking bones were examined in detail, they were found to have been significantly altered. Some documented examples are:

1. Hubert, J. F., Panish, P. T., Chure, D. J., and Prostak, K. S., 1996, Chemistry, microstructure, petrology, and diagenetic model of Jurassic dinosaur bones, Dinosaur National Monument, Utah. Journal of Sedimentary Research, Section A., vol. 66, no. 3, pp.531-547.
2. Goodwin, M. B., 2001, evidence for enrichment in Late Cretaceous dinosaur bone using microbeam PIXE. PaleoBios vol. 21, supplement to number 2, p. 57.

For example, Goodwin (2001) refuted the alleged unlatered ("fresh") nature of dinosaur bones found along the Colville River in Alaska. The abstract for this paper can be found in "Re: Colville River, North Slope Alaska, Dinosaur Fossils Questions." Thus, the claims about "100%" dinsoaur bones and the 10,000-year "shelf-life of bone demonstrating a "short time since emplacement" for these fossils is nothing more than junk science.

Finally, the reason that the dinosaur bones at Dinosaur National Park need "stablization" is because the remaining "original" bone has been severely degraded and altered, i. e. Hubert et al. (1996) given above, to the point that it no longer retains its original structural integrity and strength.

Chris

No, scientists (and rational people in general) consider evolution to be the best explanation of the diversity of life on the planet.

Second, there are many christians who disagree with you. Most christians, in fact, have no problem accepting evolution as a valid scientific theory. It's a small, loud, and mistaken subset of christians who think you must accept a literal reading of Genesis before you can be a good christian.

Finally, as a christian, what do you believe in? A global flood? A world in which dinosaurs coexisted with humans? Seven-day creation?

If you answered "yes" to all three questions, you perforce also believe in a god that would destroy or obscure evidence to mislead people on earth, and fabricate evidence to do the same. Because there would be no other way to explain the lack of evidence for a flood, and the mountains of evidence (like fossils) that support evolution.

Please do share with us any place where we have been less than accurate. We do value accuracy here. Specific URLs and references would help tremendously.

Wesley

1. No, punctuated equilibria is not an excuse for a lack of transitional forms. It still involves animals diversifying into a range of forms over long periods of time, and it remains consistent with the known existence of the many transitionals that show the process of diversification from ancient ancestral forms. For more details, see the FAQ Punctuated Equilibria. See also the essay by one of the originators of this idea, S.J. Gould, Evolution as Fact and Theory. It is well worth reading the whole thing; but one well known extract may be noted here:

   We proposed the theory of punctuated equilibrium largely to provide a different explanation for pervasive trends in the fossil record. Trends, we argued, cannot be attributed to gradual transformation within lineages, but must arise from the different success of certain kinds of species. A trend, we argued, is more like climbing a flight of stairs (punctuated and stasis) than rolling up an inclined plane.

   Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists—whether through design or stupidity, I do not know—as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups. ]...

   It should be noted that creationist concerns with transitionals are invariably at the level of larger groups, and not the level of species. This is just the level at which transitional are common. We have a number of FAQS that document and describe many transitional forms.

2. If there were any hoaxes which are still being taught as true, you may ask about them, but check the archive first to see if your questions are not already answered. The real problem is that you are misinformed. The only significant transitional form hoax of which I am aware is the famous Piltdown Man hoax, for which we have a detailed FAQ, and which is not being taught as true. There are cases of scientific error, such as Nebrasksa Man and others; but these are not fraud, and I am not aware of any known erroneous transitionals being taught in schools as if true. Such errors are usually picked up long before they could get into a school curriculum.

3. Children under 13 are not allowed to use this feedback system, because of governmental guidelines, which we support wholeheartedly, for appropriate and safe use of the Internet by children. For more detail, see Kids Privacy; requirements for website operators, supplied by the Federal Trade Commission in the USA.

Another common sense of "information" in theoretical mathematics is that the information content of a message is the smallest compression of that message without loss - in the case of a computer file, if you can decompress it to the exact binary form it had before compression.

Meaning , on the other hand is contextual. As you clearly noted, the meaning of "dfhdsf" depends entirely on the agreed conventions of the language speakers (the users of those words). Other words can depend for their meaning on the language used - Gift in English means a present. In German it means poison. Make sure, if you give a gift to your beloved, that you are speaking English!

To say that DNA has a "meaning" is to use an analogy with language that doesn't quite work. The function of a DNA product - an enzyme or other protein - depends on the other aspects of the organism - its cells, cell structures, other genes that turn it on or off, or turn on or off other parts of the organism, and, crucially, the environment. Here is a favorite example of mine: spina bifida. The genes that cause the vertebral column to close over the spinal column properly depend critically on the presence of folic acid in the maternal diet. In some families, there are genetic tendencies to be more sensitive to lacks of that diet. Are these "genes for spina bifida" in those environments? Clearly not. But if genes have meanings, that is the meaning of those genes in that environment.

The natural laws that govern the ways genes cause organisms to develop are just the laws of physics and chemistry, to which we can add the sorting effect of natural selection. Things that capture energy, food material and so on, enabling organisms to live long enough to reproduce are the things that have "meaning" in that respect. It's some that we can only identify in retrospect.

Once that has happened, solar tides would continue to slow the rotation of Earth, and it would then spin more slowly than the moon. When that happens, the moon would reverse its drift away from Earth, and come back towards Earth at an increasing rate. Eventually, the moon would be destroyed by Earth's gravity, once it comes inside Earth's Roche limit. This process is now at work for Phobos, the innermost moon of Mars (but Mars & Phobos are both much smaller than Earth & the moon, so it would probably take even more than 50 billion years for Phobos to meet its doom).

However, our sun will begin its red giant phase in only about 5 or 6 billion years. It will swallow up Mercury & Venus, and maybe Earth as well. It is distinctly possible that this major change in the sun will destroy the Earth-moon system long before it gets a chance to play out its tidal adventure.

The moon-dust argument is so flawed, Answers in Genesis has repudiated it. Look at: Moon-dust argument no longer useful (Please disregard the self-serving notions they present there: the argument was settled long, long before they got around to admitting it).

To which dating method are you referring, when you mention a useful span of 10,000 years? Carbon-14 is useful to about 40000 years, but potassium-argon systems are useful for hundreds of millions of years. There is no guesswork here; the figures have been repeated hundred of times.