Richard Dawkins wrote an excellent article about Dr. Kurt Wise. If you don't know already, Dr. Wise is a creation geologist who studied under the late, great Stephen Jay Gould. If anyone can make the case for creation, it would have to be him. Unfortunately, he can't. His Answers in Genesis article about his "favorite evidence for creation" is just another lame talk about the complexity of the eye. Wise discusses the Trilobite eye, which he says "far exceed the needs of the trilobite" (How could we know that about an organism that has been extinct for millions of years?). Another Aig Article states,
"'Every scientist has a set of presuppositions and assumptions that he never questions.' For evolutionists, he says, one of these is the conventional evolutionary assumption that all living things are descended from a common ancestor."
We can't prove common ancestry? Wanna Bet?
Anyway, check out Dawkins' article, it is very revealing.
Thursday, February 21, 2008
Monday, February 18, 2008
Good Science Posts and News
This post is only going to consist of three links, two of them from Pharyngula, and a national geographic article I thought was neat.
PZ Meyers explains "Junk DNA" - A must read. I considered the Pseudogene argument as a kind of argument from ignorance ("I can't think of what it does, so it must be useless"), pardon the fact that experiment has shown some of it really is nonfunctional, but after reading this I now think of the pseudogenes we share with apes as being good evidence we share a common ancestor.
Deep Homology in the Pharyngeal Arches - "Fish have gills to regulate calcium, and we have parathyroid/thyroid glands to regulate calcium. Do they have anything else in common? One minor thing seems to be location: gills are in the fish's 'neck', and the parathyroid glands are located at roughly the same place, in your neck—and that's interestingly coincidental, since there's no particular need for these glands to be in that particular location."
Are Habitable Planets Common? - A really cool NatGeo article discussing a new study that suggests habitable planets are more common than we thought. Keep in mind that we still don't know how many of these planets may develop life (No one knows in full the odds of abiogenesis), and out of the planets that do develop life, only a few, or perhaps only us, have intelligent life.
PZ Meyers explains "Junk DNA" - A must read. I considered the Pseudogene argument as a kind of argument from ignorance ("I can't think of what it does, so it must be useless"), pardon the fact that experiment has shown some of it really is nonfunctional, but after reading this I now think of the pseudogenes we share with apes as being good evidence we share a common ancestor.
Deep Homology in the Pharyngeal Arches - "Fish have gills to regulate calcium, and we have parathyroid/thyroid glands to regulate calcium. Do they have anything else in common? One minor thing seems to be location: gills are in the fish's 'neck', and the parathyroid glands are located at roughly the same place, in your neck—and that's interestingly coincidental, since there's no particular need for these glands to be in that particular location."
Are Habitable Planets Common? - A really cool NatGeo article discussing a new study that suggests habitable planets are more common than we thought. Keep in mind that we still don't know how many of these planets may develop life (No one knows in full the odds of abiogenesis), and out of the planets that do develop life, only a few, or perhaps only us, have intelligent life.
Saturday, February 16, 2008
Rabbi, Rabbi
Atheist Christopher Hitchens and Rabbi Schmuley Boteach (You may know him from Shalom in the Home) recently had a debate on (what else?) the existence of God. To be perfectly clear, I like the Rabbi. The work he does in bringing families together and counselng those in need is very admirable. However, during the debate, Rabbi Boteach made some outrageous claims about the theory of evolution. He says he believes in evolution, only with guidance by God, but firmly rejects the notion that our existence can be explained naturally. One of the most outrageous claims made is that Stephen Jay Gould did not believe in Evolution (but rather, "punctuated equilibrium"). That is demonstratably FALSE. See Gould's essay, "Evolution as a Fact and Theory". This essay gives a brief summary of Punc. Equ.; as well as several examples of transitional forms which Rabbi Boteach demanded. I might also mention the two new transitional forms discovered recently, one of a bat and another of an alligator. Something else well worth mentioning is the brute fact that Puncutated Equilibrium is not needed to explain the gaps of the fossil record, as we have directly observed change above the fastest known fossil transitions (See Kenneth Miller's book Finding Darwin's God).
Yet another error the Rabbi made was in quoting Julian Huxley as stating that the evolution of a horse is so astronomically improbable that it would never happen. Richard Carrier has dealt with this claim before, and as it turns out, Julian calculated the odds of a horse evolving without Natural Selection. As it happens, this is an excellent way we could falsify evolution. If current rates of genetic change could not be used to account for the theoretical genetic change of the past, evolution would be in big trouble. As it turns out, the rates of change we observe today fit nicely with the rates of change needed in the past (in order for evolution to occur).
Finally, I'm going to conclude with an explanation of Punctuated Equilibrium:
Punctuated Equilibrium basically means that species originate in small, isolated populations. They may be disconnected from the main population by a river, mountain range, or anything else. Over the course of several hundred to several thousand generations, this isolated population evolves into a new species. They are guaranteed to be a distinct species because of genetic drift. When the barrier that separates the new species from the old is no more, the two species will meet again. When they meet, they will no longer interbreed, but compete. Sometimes the new species will drive the old one into extinction.Now, if you were to examine the fossils from the large population, it would look as though a new species had originated suddenly. The new species may not have left behind any fossils in its small area, and it would come in and replace the old species without leaving any intermediates. This explains the pattern seen in the fossil record. Keep in mind that this would not explain major transitions, like that of reptiles to birds, just small ones, like between two species of conodont (see page 124 of Gould's paper). Now, all this may seem theoretical, but everything that has just been described has been observed before (save the part about fossilization). See Gould's papers on Punctuated Equilibria, or Richard Dawkins' chapter about it in his book The Blind Watchmaker.
Punctuated Equilibrium does NOT call on anything unobserved. In fact, Many people argue it is merely a form of gradualism, since nothing truly sudden occurs.
Yet another error the Rabbi made was in quoting Julian Huxley as stating that the evolution of a horse is so astronomically improbable that it would never happen. Richard Carrier has dealt with this claim before, and as it turns out, Julian calculated the odds of a horse evolving without Natural Selection. As it happens, this is an excellent way we could falsify evolution. If current rates of genetic change could not be used to account for the theoretical genetic change of the past, evolution would be in big trouble. As it turns out, the rates of change we observe today fit nicely with the rates of change needed in the past (in order for evolution to occur).
Finally, I'm going to conclude with an explanation of Punctuated Equilibrium:
Punctuated Equilibrium basically means that species originate in small, isolated populations. They may be disconnected from the main population by a river, mountain range, or anything else. Over the course of several hundred to several thousand generations, this isolated population evolves into a new species. They are guaranteed to be a distinct species because of genetic drift. When the barrier that separates the new species from the old is no more, the two species will meet again. When they meet, they will no longer interbreed, but compete. Sometimes the new species will drive the old one into extinction.Now, if you were to examine the fossils from the large population, it would look as though a new species had originated suddenly. The new species may not have left behind any fossils in its small area, and it would come in and replace the old species without leaving any intermediates. This explains the pattern seen in the fossil record. Keep in mind that this would not explain major transitions, like that of reptiles to birds, just small ones, like between two species of conodont (see page 124 of Gould's paper). Now, all this may seem theoretical, but everything that has just been described has been observed before (save the part about fossilization). See Gould's papers on Punctuated Equilibria, or Richard Dawkins' chapter about it in his book The Blind Watchmaker.
Punctuated Equilibrium does NOT call on anything unobserved. In fact, Many people argue it is merely a form of gradualism, since nothing truly sudden occurs.
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Cool New Fossil
Have you ever heard a creationist bring up the "sudden appearance" of bats in the fossil record, and complain about how there are no "transitional" forms between bats and small mammals? Evolutionists usually have to chalk the lack of bat fossils up to the poor preservation of the fragile animals or the incompleteness of the fossil record as a whole. That's beginning to change. Recently a 52 million year old bat fossil was found which lacked the ability to echolocate. The article states that it was probably an "agile climber" due to its long hind limbs. That is another sign that this is a transitional fossil. I can picture a small, mouse-like mammal scurrying up trees, and later evolving skin flaps and long limbs to glide down from the them. We will have to wait and see if fossils like that are found.
For more, see:
How to Make a Bat
For more, see:
How to Make a Bat
Thursday, February 7, 2008
New Missing Link Found
Crocodilian 'Missing Link'
Paleontologist Felipe Mesquita de Vasconcellos presented the 80-million-year-old predator, dubbed Montealtosuchus arrudacamposi, during a news conference at the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro.
The 5.5-foot-long (1.6-meter-long) Montealtosuchus was a long-limbed and extremely agile animal that roamed arid terrain in what is now the Brazilian countryside, de Vasconcellos said.
"As a missing link to prehistoric crocodiles, it offers us an excellent opportunity to study the evolutionary transition of these animals," de Vasconcellos said.
"It has a mix of morphological traits common in prehistoric crocodiles and in the ones that exist today."
Click Here To View.
Paleontologist Felipe Mesquita de Vasconcellos presented the 80-million-year-old predator, dubbed Montealtosuchus arrudacamposi, during a news conference at the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro.
The 5.5-foot-long (1.6-meter-long) Montealtosuchus was a long-limbed and extremely agile animal that roamed arid terrain in what is now the Brazilian countryside, de Vasconcellos said.
"As a missing link to prehistoric crocodiles, it offers us an excellent opportunity to study the evolutionary transition of these animals," de Vasconcellos said.
"It has a mix of morphological traits common in prehistoric crocodiles and in the ones that exist today."
Click Here To View.
Monday, February 4, 2008
Did Life Begin in Ice?
Remember my post about an icy origin of life? Well, I just found the full article over at Discover Magazine's website. Be sure to check it out, and read the whole thing (it is four pages but worth it).
Some Quotes:
"Miller had filled the vial in 1972 with a mixture of ammonia and cyanide, chemicals that scientists believe existed on early Earth and may have contributed to the rise of life. He had then cooled the mix to the temperature of Jupiter’s icy moon Europa—too cold, most scientists had assumed, for much of anything to happen. Miller disagreed. Examining the vial in his laboratory at the University of California at San Diego, he was about to see who was right.
As Miller and his former student Jeffrey Bada brushed the frost from the vial that morning, they could see that something had happened. The mixture of ammonia and cyanide, normally colorless, had deepened to amber, highlighting a web of cracks in the ice. Miller nodded calmly, but Bada exclaimed in shock. It was a color that both men knew well—the color of complex polymers made up of organic molecules. Tests later confirmed Miller's and Bada’s hunch. Over a quarter-century, the frozen ammonia-cyanide blend had coalesced into the molecules of life: nucleobases, the building blocks of RNA and DNA, and amino acids, the building blocks of proteins. The vial’s contents would support a new account of how life began on Earth and would arouse both surprise and skepticism around the world."
"Biebricher sealed small amounts of RNA nucleobases—adenine, cytosine, guanine—with artificial seawater into thumb-size plastic tubes and froze them. After a year, he thawed the tubes and analyzed them for chains of RNA.
For decades researchers had tried to coax RNA chains to form under all sorts of conditions without using enzymes; the longest chain formed, which Orgel accomplished in 1982, consisted of about 40 nucleobases. So when Biebricher analyzed his own samples, he was amazed to see RNA molecules up to 400 bases long. In newer, unpublished experiments he says he has observed RNA molecules 700 bases long. Biebricher’s results are so fantastic that some colleagues have wondered whether accidental contamination played a role. Orgel defended the work. “It’s a remarkable result,” he said. “It’s so remarkable that everyone wants better evidence than they would for an unremarkable result. But I think it’s right.”"
Some Quotes:
"Miller had filled the vial in 1972 with a mixture of ammonia and cyanide, chemicals that scientists believe existed on early Earth and may have contributed to the rise of life. He had then cooled the mix to the temperature of Jupiter’s icy moon Europa—too cold, most scientists had assumed, for much of anything to happen. Miller disagreed. Examining the vial in his laboratory at the University of California at San Diego, he was about to see who was right.
As Miller and his former student Jeffrey Bada brushed the frost from the vial that morning, they could see that something had happened. The mixture of ammonia and cyanide, normally colorless, had deepened to amber, highlighting a web of cracks in the ice. Miller nodded calmly, but Bada exclaimed in shock. It was a color that both men knew well—the color of complex polymers made up of organic molecules. Tests later confirmed Miller's and Bada’s hunch. Over a quarter-century, the frozen ammonia-cyanide blend had coalesced into the molecules of life: nucleobases, the building blocks of RNA and DNA, and amino acids, the building blocks of proteins. The vial’s contents would support a new account of how life began on Earth and would arouse both surprise and skepticism around the world."
"Biebricher sealed small amounts of RNA nucleobases—adenine, cytosine, guanine—with artificial seawater into thumb-size plastic tubes and froze them. After a year, he thawed the tubes and analyzed them for chains of RNA.
For decades researchers had tried to coax RNA chains to form under all sorts of conditions without using enzymes; the longest chain formed, which Orgel accomplished in 1982, consisted of about 40 nucleobases. So when Biebricher analyzed his own samples, he was amazed to see RNA molecules up to 400 bases long. In newer, unpublished experiments he says he has observed RNA molecules 700 bases long. Biebricher’s results are so fantastic that some colleagues have wondered whether accidental contamination played a role. Orgel defended the work. “It’s a remarkable result,” he said. “It’s so remarkable that everyone wants better evidence than they would for an unremarkable result. But I think it’s right.”"
Sunday, February 3, 2008
Go, PZ, Go!
PZ Meyers displayed a lot of courage when he decided to go on a Christian radio program and debate an I.D. Proponent. He did a great job of pointing out the bait and switch tactics of the creationists, as well as showing how the opposition was not prepared to defend design. I highly recommend that anyone who supports creationism or I.D. listen to this debate and get an idea of what these issues are really about.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)