Hi Everyone!
You guys need to check out this thread over at the Internet Infidels Debate Forum. A challenge was issued to any and all creationists:
Present a single example of an AIG article that makes a claim contrary to mainstream science and which contains no errors of fact or logic.
The thread has been going on for 11 pages, and so far no one has done it. Maybe I should stop refuting Answers in Genesis, and simply let the creationists show me one article which contains no errors.
C'mon Creationists, let's see whatcha got!
Friday, November 30, 2007
Thursday, November 29, 2007
Peppered Moths
Does anyone remember the creationist attacks on the great Peppered Moth Experiment? Jonathan Wells, author of Icons of Evolution, wrote an article on the Peppered Moth Schenanigan and how it was deeply flawed, and could not be used as evidence of evolution. To be sure, the original experiments were flawed. The mistakes of the original experiment were recognized and criticized by Evolutionists themselves. Creationists were not the original critics of this experiment. Recently, On a BBC radio show, this incident was discussed by two top biologists, Mike Majerus and Jerry Coyne. They talked about how the criticisms of this experiment were greatly blown out of proportion, and how this is NOT the only example of Natural Selection in action, just one of the easiest to understand. It gets even better: Mike Majerus has been doing his own Peppered Moth Experiments, and carefully avoiding the mistakes of the original. Of course, the predictions of Natural Selection unfolded exactly as expected. The example of Peppered Moths can still be used as a real example of evolution in action.
John Baumgardner Makes a Fool of Himself
You may not be familiar with John Baumgardner, so to give you his backround, he is a young earth creationist who invented a catastrophic model of plate tectonics. He joined Theology Web's Forum, and has been responding to one of critics on the site. Fortunately for us, Glenn Morton comes along to put John in his place:
"Ok, John, I have stayed out of it up until now. Such a statement is simply nonsense. there is no evidence of a global flood in the rocks. A 36,500 foot pile of sediment (which is not exceptional) means that 100 feet per day of sediment must have been deposited ON AVERAGE during a one year flood. That means 4 feet per hour. Most burrowers can't burrow that quickly and would quickly be burried.
Ophiomorpha, a burrower in marine sediments lines its burrows with its fecal pellets. Why do we see fecal pellets lining a burrow in Jurassic sediments of the North Sea (see picture below). Why can I regularly find burrows throughout an entire well bore? Burrows in these wellbores occupy thousands of feet of sediment.
see http://home.entouch.net/dmd/burrows.htm
But here are a couple of pictures for you. The jurassic ophiomorpha burrow with fecal pellets lining the burrow and one of the core photos with thousands of feet of burrowed sediment. Please explain how this happens in a global flood.
John, there is NO evidence of a global flood in the rocks."
Eventually, John gets tired of debating and resorts to ranting and raving against those who do not accept a literal interpretation of the bible:
"One thing that strikes me in this interaction is how little respect for God and His Word exists in this place. Most seem oblivious that they face a judgment before a terrible Judge who will not look upon their mockings and blasphemies lightly. One of those this Judge carefully mentored wrote "that in the last days, mockers will come with their mocking, following after their own lusts and saying, 'Where is the promise of His [that is, the Judge's] coming?'" This spokesman for the Judge predicted the sort of mocking I have observed on this site. But observe the excuse for their mocking the idea of the Judge's return: "For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all continues just as it was from the beginning of creation." They appeal to a uniformitarian understanding of the earth and its past in which there has been no divine intervensions in the realm of the physical. The spokesman then points out that to make such an appeal these mockers are being willfully ignorant of God's destruction of the world by water in the Flood. This passage in 2 Peter 3:3-6predicts a future time when mockers, by willful ignorance of God's horrendous judgment of the world recorded in Genesis 6-8,instead adopt a materialist interpretation of physical world that excludes divine action past or future. I therefore with trembling appeal to you to turn from this Satanic snare and be saved from the certain loss into which it leads.
The Bible does not equivocate concerning the reality that the Flood was physical judgment of the entire planet. The words mean what they say, regardless of the protests the scoffers may throw up. Christians are also playing with fire when they willfully 'sit in the seat of scoffers' and advocate a hermeneutic that in effect makes God a liar.
So despite all the scoffing and ridicule, based on the confidence I have in who the Judge is and also on my awareness of the Bible's integrity and reliablity, I stand on my conclusion that the Flood was a world-destroying cataclysm responsible for all but the topmost portion of the Phanerozoic rock record. There will be a day when the truth of this matter evident to all. Pascal frequently spoke to his friends in terms of his famous wager. This is a different wager, but you all now know where I have placed my entire lot of chips."
(Emphasis mine)
Well, you heard the man. It doesn't matter what evidence comes to light, he is sticking with his faith and interpretation of the bible. This kind of blind, violently dedicated faith should scare us. Just what kind of person will not change their minds even when their beliefs are bankrupt and all of the evidence is against them? This type of nonsense reaches millions of children, teenagers, and young adults via AiG and ICR's magazines and websites. One thing is for certain: This is not good.
"Ok, John, I have stayed out of it up until now. Such a statement is simply nonsense. there is no evidence of a global flood in the rocks. A 36,500 foot pile of sediment (which is not exceptional) means that 100 feet per day of sediment must have been deposited ON AVERAGE during a one year flood. That means 4 feet per hour. Most burrowers can't burrow that quickly and would quickly be burried.
Ophiomorpha, a burrower in marine sediments lines its burrows with its fecal pellets. Why do we see fecal pellets lining a burrow in Jurassic sediments of the North Sea (see picture below). Why can I regularly find burrows throughout an entire well bore? Burrows in these wellbores occupy thousands of feet of sediment.
see http://home.entouch.net/dmd/burrows.htm
But here are a couple of pictures for you. The jurassic ophiomorpha burrow with fecal pellets lining the burrow and one of the core photos with thousands of feet of burrowed sediment. Please explain how this happens in a global flood.
John, there is NO evidence of a global flood in the rocks."
Eventually, John gets tired of debating and resorts to ranting and raving against those who do not accept a literal interpretation of the bible:
"One thing that strikes me in this interaction is how little respect for God and His Word exists in this place. Most seem oblivious that they face a judgment before a terrible Judge who will not look upon their mockings and blasphemies lightly. One of those this Judge carefully mentored wrote "that in the last days, mockers will come with their mocking, following after their own lusts and saying, 'Where is the promise of His [that is, the Judge's] coming?'" This spokesman for the Judge predicted the sort of mocking I have observed on this site. But observe the excuse for their mocking the idea of the Judge's return: "For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all continues just as it was from the beginning of creation." They appeal to a uniformitarian understanding of the earth and its past in which there has been no divine intervensions in the realm of the physical. The spokesman then points out that to make such an appeal these mockers are being willfully ignorant of God's destruction of the world by water in the Flood. This passage in 2 Peter 3:3-6predicts a future time when mockers, by willful ignorance of God's horrendous judgment of the world recorded in Genesis 6-8,instead adopt a materialist interpretation of physical world that excludes divine action past or future. I therefore with trembling appeal to you to turn from this Satanic snare and be saved from the certain loss into which it leads.
The Bible does not equivocate concerning the reality that the Flood was physical judgment of the entire planet. The words mean what they say, regardless of the protests the scoffers may throw up. Christians are also playing with fire when they willfully 'sit in the seat of scoffers' and advocate a hermeneutic that in effect makes God a liar.
So despite all the scoffing and ridicule, based on the confidence I have in who the Judge is and also on my awareness of the Bible's integrity and reliablity, I stand on my conclusion that the Flood was a world-destroying cataclysm responsible for all but the topmost portion of the Phanerozoic rock record. There will be a day when the truth of this matter evident to all. Pascal frequently spoke to his friends in terms of his famous wager. This is a different wager, but you all now know where I have placed my entire lot of chips."
(Emphasis mine)
Well, you heard the man. It doesn't matter what evidence comes to light, he is sticking with his faith and interpretation of the bible. This kind of blind, violently dedicated faith should scare us. Just what kind of person will not change their minds even when their beliefs are bankrupt and all of the evidence is against them? This type of nonsense reaches millions of children, teenagers, and young adults via AiG and ICR's magazines and websites. One thing is for certain: This is not good.
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
I had to make this post...
I was planning on waiting at least two more days before making a new post, but this really needed to be done. "The Age of the Earth Made Easy" was just posted on youtube, and you guys have got to watch it. It is excellent!
By the way, if you still aren't done reading the Evolution for Creationists series, look over to your right underneath "The Files AiG Doesn't Want You to Read" and there are links to each part.
Cheers!
By the way, if you still aren't done reading the Evolution for Creationists series, look over to your right underneath "The Files AiG Doesn't Want You to Read" and there are links to each part.
Cheers!
Evolution for Creationists Part Four
This is the fourth part in my "Evolution for Creationists" series, and I will now answer some common and important questions about evolution.
1. Isn't Evolution Just a Theory?
According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses." No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature. So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution--or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter--they are not expressing reservations about its truth. In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the fact of evolution. The NAS defines a fact as "an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as 'true.'"
This answer is from 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
2. Can Evolution Increase the Information in the Genome?
Let's back up and define 'information' first. Merriam-Webster defines 'information' as
"a signal or character (as in a communication system or computer) representing data". So to get an increase in information, we would have to add in a signal (DNA) that was useful (data).
Manyuan Long authored a peer reviewed paper entitled,
"THE ORIGIN OF NEW GENES: GLIMPSES FROM THE YOUNG AND OLD". In it, he discusses De Novo (meaning "anew") Gene Origination:
"Although the true de novo origination of new genes from previously non-coding sequences
is rare, there are genes with a portion of coding-region sequence that has originated de novo. For example, in the Drosophila sperm-specific dynein intermediate chain gene Sdic, a previously intronic sequence has been converted into a coding exon22."
Insertion Mutations- This is when one or more nucleotides gets added to the genome of an organism. When an insertion mutation creates a useful new function, it can be considered an increase in information. Here are some examples:
* E. Coli bacteria require 2 mutations in order to utilize salicin. In a lab, these two mutations were observed to occur and produce a strain of E. Coli that utilized Salicin.
* A bacteria gained the ability to digest nylon via an insertion mutation. Answers in Genesis has challenged this, and NMSR has responded.
* Bacteria evolved novel molecular machinery in order to utilize thioredoxin.
* Gene Duplications. While creationists will complain that a duplication is not "new information", they are ignoring the fact that duplicated genes can be used for brand new functions. Examples include the
Evolution of an antifreeze protein in antarctic fish,
A pancreatic enzyme gene was duplicated in the Colobine monkey and helped it cope with a leaf-only diet,
Yeast adapting to glucose via gene duplications,
The Genetic Evidence that this process produced much of our genome,
and vision originating via gene duplication, according to recent research.
3. Has Evolution Ever Been Observed?
Yes. Besides the examples given above, evolution has been observed to the point of new species emerging. Butterflies have evolved resistance to a parasite. New species of cichlid fish have evolved(another article on the cichlids is here). A scientist bred E. Coli in a lab for 40,000 generations. The bacteria are now twice as big and reproduce 70% faster. Cane Toads were brought to Australia, and have since evolved smaller body size. The native fauna has evolved in response: the mouths of some snake species are getting smaller, for instance, because so many of the snakes with big mouths were eating the poisonous cane toads and dying off.
Speciation in Sea Birds:
"Using DNA samples retrieved from birds breeding in the Azores, Madeira, Cape Verde and the Galapagos, the researchers determined that petrels breeding in different seasons but from the same burrows did indeed differ genetically. They also learned that the seasonal species had not bred with each other for periods ranging from around 1,000 to 180,000 years, providing a series of “time shots” of divergence, Dr. Friesen explains."
For More, see the Talk Origins' Observed Instances of Speciation. Also, see University of Texas' page on Speciation, as well as the PBS page on Allopatric Speciation and the Berkeley page on speciation.
Other Examples:
Arizona Fruit Fly Speciation
London Mosquito Speciation
Salamanders and Songbirds
4. Do Evolutionists assume stagnant conditions in order to calculate ages (Uniformitarianism)?
No. Geologists are aware that catastrophes happen, and they look for evidence of them. A recent study found that Britain became an island because of a megaflood 200,000 years ago. You would not find something like that if you assumed only slow, steady processes for shaping geological and geographical features. There is another paper that discusses the evidence of megafloods during the Holocene Epoch. (Click here for the definition and information on the Holocene Epoch).
"Geologists have been quite comfortable with the explanations that some events have been the accumulation of small changes, and others as the result of, at least, local catastrophes."
-Stephen Jay Gould, the Arkansas Creation Trial
Also see Talk.Origins' explanation
5. How did life begin?
No one knows for sure. It is thought that life begin with something that could replicate itself (Dawkins, The Selfish Gene, chapter 2) which then, over many generations, evolved into life. Non-living things that can reproduce include molecules, peptides, clay crystals, and even dust particles!
This video explains one idea about the origin of life very simply and elegantly.
A new hypothesis about the origin of life was recently put forth.
6. Is the Scientific Community Biased Against Creationism?
I am not a scientist, and I do not have the first hand experience to say for sure. However, a creationist by the name of John Baumgardner has published in peer reviewed journals before, although as far as I know his mainstream papers do not discuss creationism, and his ideas about plate tectonics have not gained wide acceptance. Remember, most scientists even through Darwin's time were creationists. Darwin wrote letters, perfected his ideas, and a lot of people worked to get them accepted. I think creationism should go the same route if it is to be accepted science.
7. What falsifiable predictions does evolution make?
* Paleontologists successfully predicted that they would find a "missing link" between fish and tetrapods in upper Devonian Strata (They named it Tiktaalik Roseae) (See this clip from "Judgement Day: Intelligent Design on Trial")
* Evolutionary Theory predicted that Humans would have a fused set of chromosomes, which was later confirmed.
* Evolutionary Theory Predicted that Jawless Fish would be the only vertebrates to lack the alpha/beta divide in hemoglobin.
See Richard Dawkins, "The Information Challenge"
* Evolutionary Theory is frequently used in fighting contagious disease. See Berkeley Evolution
* Biologist P.Z. Meyers discussed numerous verified predictions of evolutionary theory concerning vertebrate eyes.
* Predictions of Evolutionary Theory are discussed in "The Seven Daughters of Eve" and "Evolution for Everyone" though the predictions are too complex to sum up here.
8. How did Irreducibly Complex Structures Evolve?
The notion of "irreducible complexity" is based on two false assumptions:
1) That organisms cannot grow more dependent on parts after they evolve.
2) That parts cannot evolve new functions.
For instance, the bacterial flagellum's motor is highly similar to the type three secretory system. It is theorized that the TTSS evolved into the flagellum.
Michael Behe claimed that the human blood clotting system was irreducibly complex, yet simpler systems have been shown to exist, the lobster's clotting system, as well as the dolphin's, the pufferfish's, and the zebrafish's. This is what we would expect if, like I said, organisms can grow more dependent on these structures once they are in place.
9. What about all the Flood Stories/Dragon Myths?
Flood Stories:
I have a different opinion than most people on this subject, as I believe that flood stories do share a common origin, but the origin of them is not the Bible. (See the end of this post). If you're going to believe that the whole world was covered in water at some point, then you do so on the basis of zero testable evidence, and in spite of a large list of absurdities.
Dragon Tales:
Many people write these stories off as coincidence, but I do not. I think it is possible that a small group of dinosaurs survived the meteor impact, and this may be where we get our dragon stories*. It could also be that ancient people discovered fossils and invented stories about them. This did happen, by the way. Then again, the whole thing could be a coincidence. Out of all the mythological creatures invented by people, maybe it is statistically inevitable that some resemble dinosaurs. There's an an Egyptian carving that looks like a helicopter, but most of us would think that it was a coincidence.
Also see: The First Fossil Hunters
* It would not contradict Evolution for humans and dinosaurs to live side by side, but it would contradict Evolution if a Human skeleton was found that dated to over 40 million years old (around the time the dinosaurs were prominent).
10. Has Macro-Evolution ever been observed?
If we define Macro-Evolution as evolution at or above the species level, then yes, it has been observed. If you define it as something else, like say, "the evolution of a new 'kind' of animal" then No. Here is my philosophy: Any part of the genome can change by mutation. What is to stop it from changing over and over again until it becomes something totally new? (The reason we cannot observe this, by the way, is it would take WAY too long to change the genetic code of an organism into a new 'kind'). Creationists have no evidence that there is any kind of barrier to stop change after a certain point, but Evolutionists do have evidence that 'kinds' change into other 'kinds' via fossils and genetics.
However, over the course of history some dramatic changes have been witnessed from the Artificial Selection of Plants. Artificial Selection is when human beings choose only the best of their crop to reproduce. After generations and generations, this can produce something very different from the wild product. Just take a look at how much our modern day corn differs from its wild ancestor.
This blog article is excellent for reviewing the evolution of corn.
11. I have another question/objection.
I suggest you go here and search for some key words related to question. If you cannot find anything, feel free to leave a comment anywhere on this blog and I will try and get back to you.
1. Isn't Evolution Just a Theory?
According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses." No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature. So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution--or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter--they are not expressing reservations about its truth. In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the fact of evolution. The NAS defines a fact as "an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as 'true.'"
This answer is from 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
2. Can Evolution Increase the Information in the Genome?
Let's back up and define 'information' first. Merriam-Webster defines 'information' as
"a signal or character (as in a communication system or computer) representing data". So to get an increase in information, we would have to add in a signal (DNA) that was useful (data).
Manyuan Long authored a peer reviewed paper entitled,
"THE ORIGIN OF NEW GENES: GLIMPSES FROM THE YOUNG AND OLD". In it, he discusses De Novo (meaning "anew") Gene Origination:
"Although the true de novo origination of new genes from previously non-coding sequences
is rare, there are genes with a portion of coding-region sequence that has originated de novo. For example, in the Drosophila sperm-specific dynein intermediate chain gene Sdic, a previously intronic sequence has been converted into a coding exon22."
Insertion Mutations- This is when one or more nucleotides gets added to the genome of an organism. When an insertion mutation creates a useful new function, it can be considered an increase in information. Here are some examples:
* E. Coli bacteria require 2 mutations in order to utilize salicin. In a lab, these two mutations were observed to occur and produce a strain of E. Coli that utilized Salicin.
* A bacteria gained the ability to digest nylon via an insertion mutation. Answers in Genesis has challenged this, and NMSR has responded.
* Bacteria evolved novel molecular machinery in order to utilize thioredoxin.
* Gene Duplications. While creationists will complain that a duplication is not "new information", they are ignoring the fact that duplicated genes can be used for brand new functions. Examples include the
Evolution of an antifreeze protein in antarctic fish,
A pancreatic enzyme gene was duplicated in the Colobine monkey and helped it cope with a leaf-only diet,
Yeast adapting to glucose via gene duplications,
The Genetic Evidence that this process produced much of our genome,
and vision originating via gene duplication, according to recent research.
3. Has Evolution Ever Been Observed?
Yes. Besides the examples given above, evolution has been observed to the point of new species emerging. Butterflies have evolved resistance to a parasite. New species of cichlid fish have evolved(another article on the cichlids is here). A scientist bred E. Coli in a lab for 40,000 generations. The bacteria are now twice as big and reproduce 70% faster. Cane Toads were brought to Australia, and have since evolved smaller body size. The native fauna has evolved in response: the mouths of some snake species are getting smaller, for instance, because so many of the snakes with big mouths were eating the poisonous cane toads and dying off.
Speciation in Sea Birds:
"Using DNA samples retrieved from birds breeding in the Azores, Madeira, Cape Verde and the Galapagos, the researchers determined that petrels breeding in different seasons but from the same burrows did indeed differ genetically. They also learned that the seasonal species had not bred with each other for periods ranging from around 1,000 to 180,000 years, providing a series of “time shots” of divergence, Dr. Friesen explains."
For More, see the Talk Origins' Observed Instances of Speciation. Also, see University of Texas' page on Speciation, as well as the PBS page on Allopatric Speciation and the Berkeley page on speciation.
Other Examples:
Arizona Fruit Fly Speciation
London Mosquito Speciation
Salamanders and Songbirds
4. Do Evolutionists assume stagnant conditions in order to calculate ages (Uniformitarianism)?
No. Geologists are aware that catastrophes happen, and they look for evidence of them. A recent study found that Britain became an island because of a megaflood 200,000 years ago. You would not find something like that if you assumed only slow, steady processes for shaping geological and geographical features. There is another paper that discusses the evidence of megafloods during the Holocene Epoch. (Click here for the definition and information on the Holocene Epoch).
"Geologists have been quite comfortable with the explanations that some events have been the accumulation of small changes, and others as the result of, at least, local catastrophes."
-Stephen Jay Gould, the Arkansas Creation Trial
Also see Talk.Origins' explanation
5. How did life begin?
No one knows for sure. It is thought that life begin with something that could replicate itself (Dawkins, The Selfish Gene, chapter 2) which then, over many generations, evolved into life. Non-living things that can reproduce include molecules, peptides, clay crystals, and even dust particles!
This video explains one idea about the origin of life very simply and elegantly.
A new hypothesis about the origin of life was recently put forth.
6. Is the Scientific Community Biased Against Creationism?
I am not a scientist, and I do not have the first hand experience to say for sure. However, a creationist by the name of John Baumgardner has published in peer reviewed journals before, although as far as I know his mainstream papers do not discuss creationism, and his ideas about plate tectonics have not gained wide acceptance. Remember, most scientists even through Darwin's time were creationists. Darwin wrote letters, perfected his ideas, and a lot of people worked to get them accepted. I think creationism should go the same route if it is to be accepted science.
7. What falsifiable predictions does evolution make?
* Paleontologists successfully predicted that they would find a "missing link" between fish and tetrapods in upper Devonian Strata (They named it Tiktaalik Roseae) (See this clip from "Judgement Day: Intelligent Design on Trial")
* Evolutionary Theory predicted that Humans would have a fused set of chromosomes, which was later confirmed.
* Evolutionary Theory Predicted that Jawless Fish would be the only vertebrates to lack the alpha/beta divide in hemoglobin.
See Richard Dawkins, "The Information Challenge"
* Evolutionary Theory is frequently used in fighting contagious disease. See Berkeley Evolution
* Biologist P.Z. Meyers discussed numerous verified predictions of evolutionary theory concerning vertebrate eyes.
* Predictions of Evolutionary Theory are discussed in "The Seven Daughters of Eve" and "Evolution for Everyone" though the predictions are too complex to sum up here.
8. How did Irreducibly Complex Structures Evolve?
The notion of "irreducible complexity" is based on two false assumptions:
1) That organisms cannot grow more dependent on parts after they evolve.
2) That parts cannot evolve new functions.
For instance, the bacterial flagellum's motor is highly similar to the type three secretory system. It is theorized that the TTSS evolved into the flagellum.
Michael Behe claimed that the human blood clotting system was irreducibly complex, yet simpler systems have been shown to exist, the lobster's clotting system, as well as the dolphin's, the pufferfish's, and the zebrafish's. This is what we would expect if, like I said, organisms can grow more dependent on these structures once they are in place.
9. What about all the Flood Stories/Dragon Myths?
Flood Stories:
I have a different opinion than most people on this subject, as I believe that flood stories do share a common origin, but the origin of them is not the Bible. (See the end of this post). If you're going to believe that the whole world was covered in water at some point, then you do so on the basis of zero testable evidence, and in spite of a large list of absurdities.
Dragon Tales:
Many people write these stories off as coincidence, but I do not. I think it is possible that a small group of dinosaurs survived the meteor impact, and this may be where we get our dragon stories*. It could also be that ancient people discovered fossils and invented stories about them. This did happen, by the way. Then again, the whole thing could be a coincidence. Out of all the mythological creatures invented by people, maybe it is statistically inevitable that some resemble dinosaurs. There's an an Egyptian carving that looks like a helicopter, but most of us would think that it was a coincidence.
Also see: The First Fossil Hunters
* It would not contradict Evolution for humans and dinosaurs to live side by side, but it would contradict Evolution if a Human skeleton was found that dated to over 40 million years old (around the time the dinosaurs were prominent).
10. Has Macro-Evolution ever been observed?
If we define Macro-Evolution as evolution at or above the species level, then yes, it has been observed. If you define it as something else, like say, "the evolution of a new 'kind' of animal" then No. Here is my philosophy: Any part of the genome can change by mutation. What is to stop it from changing over and over again until it becomes something totally new? (The reason we cannot observe this, by the way, is it would take WAY too long to change the genetic code of an organism into a new 'kind'). Creationists have no evidence that there is any kind of barrier to stop change after a certain point, but Evolutionists do have evidence that 'kinds' change into other 'kinds' via fossils and genetics.
However, over the course of history some dramatic changes have been witnessed from the Artificial Selection of Plants. Artificial Selection is when human beings choose only the best of their crop to reproduce. After generations and generations, this can produce something very different from the wild product. Just take a look at how much our modern day corn differs from its wild ancestor.
This blog article is excellent for reviewing the evolution of corn.
11. I have another question/objection.
I suggest you go here and search for some key words related to question. If you cannot find anything, feel free to leave a comment anywhere on this blog and I will try and get back to you.
Tuesday, November 27, 2007
Evolution for Creationists Part Three
This is the third installment in my series "Evolution for Creationists". I appreciate any and all comments and criticisms that you may have about this.
Evidence #5
Endogenous Retroviruses
I will begin this essay by quoting the intelligent design blog Uncommon Descent:
"Endogenous retroviruses are molecular remnants of a past parasitic viral infection. Occasionally, copies of a retrovirus genome are found in its host’s genome, and these retroviral gene copies are called endogenous retroviral sequences. Retroviruses (like the AIDS virus or HTLV1, which causes a form of leukemia) make a DNA copy of their own viral genome and insert it into their host’s genome. If this happens to a germ
line cell (i.e. the sperm or egg cells) the retroviral DNA will be inherited by descendants of the host. Again, this process is rare and fairly random, so
finding retrogenes in identical chromosomal positions of two different species indicates common ancestry."
So let's review: On a rare occasion a virus will insert itself into it's host's genome at random, and the host's descendants will inherit this and have the
virus in their genome. Our genome is 3 billion base pairs, so it is extremely unlikely that any creature would share the exact same virus in the exact same
place in the genome. But yet humans and primates do have the same viruses in the same places in their genome. This is because they were inherited from a common ancestor.
The above article was written by Douglas Theobald, the assistant professor of biochemistry at Brandis University.
In order to prove this truly is evidence of evolution, let me consider the following questions:
1. Is the viral insertion really random?
Yes. Here are two papers creationists use in support
of the nonrandom viral insertion hypothesis:
http://biology.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pbio.0020234&ct=1
http://www.genetics.org/cgi/content/full/158/2/769
The first paper simply states that some retroviruses like to insert in genes, some like to insert near promoters of genes, and some like to insert in the middle of no where. The specific insertion sites, what base pairs on on the left, which ones are on the right, is random. Thats exactly what they looked for in that papers methods.
In the second paper the researchers found two independent Viral insertions in deer mice. They could tell the insertions apart because the virus had infected two different places, because this event happened twice.
So Retroviral insertion is indeed random.
2. Do the Viruses serve any good purpose?
No. When ERV's do become functional, they cause
disease:
http://www.arthritis.arizona.edu/HERV.htm
http://www.mylonglife.com/articles/Retroviruses_Aids_Cancer_And_Autoimmune_Diseases.htm
In closing, you can google "endogenous retrovirus" and pull up plenty of medical, scientific, and educational websites. If you email the website, they will tell you
the exact same thing I am. You could also visit a university and contact a geneticist who will provide you with the same information.
Some of this material was referred by Abbie Smith in her series "Common Creationist Claims About ERV's"
Evidence #6
Atavisms
What is an atavism? It's an evolutionary throwback. It's when an ancestral gene that has been "switched off" gets "switched on" again. It's the most bizarre evidence for evolution you've ever seen. One of the tamer examples would be the horses who are born with three toes, just like their ancestors. Even more bizarre are the humans born with true tails. Stranger still is the whale found with legs, feet, and toes. Here is the story of human tails, and how we know that these are atavisms:
"Less than one third of the well-documented cases are what are medically known as "pseudo-tails" (Dao and Netsky 1984; Dubrow et al. 1988). Pseudo-tails are not true tails; they are simply lesions of various types coincidentally found in the caudal region of newborns, often associated with the spinal column, coccyx, and various malformations.
In contrast, the true atavistic tail of humans results from incomplete regression of the most distal end of the normal embryonic tail found in the developing human fetus The true human tail is characterized by a complex arrangement of adipose and connective tissue, central bundles of longitudinally arranged striated muscle in the core, blood vessels, nerve fibres, nerve ganglion cells, and specialized pressure sensing nerve organs. It is covered by normal skin, replete with hair follicles, sweat glands, and sebaceous glands. True human tails range in length from about one inch to over 5 inches long (on a newborn baby), and they can move via voluntary striped muscle contractions in response to various emotional states."
Source:
Talk Origins
The whale with legs
Whales and Dolphins with Legs
Live Science reports that,
"There are many cases where whales have been found with rudimentary hind limbs in the wild, and have been found in baleen whales, humpback whales, and in many specimens of sperm whales. Most of these examples are of whales that had only leg bones, but there were some that included feet with complete digits."
This fits in perfectly with the fossil evidence that whales descended from walking land mammals.
Recently a dolphin was captured which appeared to have hind limbs.
The Bird With Teeth
"Working late in the developmental biology lab one night, Matthew Harris of the University of Wisconsin noticed that the beak of a mutant chicken embryo he was examining had fallen off. Upon closer examination of the snubbed beak, he found tiny bumps and protuberances along its edge that looked like teeth--alligator teeth to be specific. The accidental discovery revealed that chickens retain the ability to grow teeth, even though birds lost this feature long ago."
From a Scientific American Article.
This of course compliments the fossil evidence that birds are descended from reptiles: Archaeopteryx had teeth as well.
In the next part of this series, I intend to answer common and important questions about evolution. I hope you have enjoyed reading this, and if you want more, check out Talk Origins' 29+ Evidences for MacroEvolution.
Evidence #5
Endogenous Retroviruses
I will begin this essay by quoting the intelligent design blog Uncommon Descent:
"Endogenous retroviruses are molecular remnants of a past parasitic viral infection. Occasionally, copies of a retrovirus genome are found in its host’s genome, and these retroviral gene copies are called endogenous retroviral sequences. Retroviruses (like the AIDS virus or HTLV1, which causes a form of leukemia) make a DNA copy of their own viral genome and insert it into their host’s genome. If this happens to a germ
line cell (i.e. the sperm or egg cells) the retroviral DNA will be inherited by descendants of the host. Again, this process is rare and fairly random, so
finding retrogenes in identical chromosomal positions of two different species indicates common ancestry."
So let's review: On a rare occasion a virus will insert itself into it's host's genome at random, and the host's descendants will inherit this and have the
virus in their genome. Our genome is 3 billion base pairs, so it is extremely unlikely that any creature would share the exact same virus in the exact same
place in the genome. But yet humans and primates do have the same viruses in the same places in their genome. This is because they were inherited from a common ancestor.
The above article was written by Douglas Theobald, the assistant professor of biochemistry at Brandis University.
In order to prove this truly is evidence of evolution, let me consider the following questions:
1. Is the viral insertion really random?
Yes. Here are two papers creationists use in support
of the nonrandom viral insertion hypothesis:
http://biology.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pbio.0020234&ct=1
http://www.genetics.org/cgi/content/full/158/2/769
The first paper simply states that some retroviruses like to insert in genes, some like to insert near promoters of genes, and some like to insert in the middle of no where. The specific insertion sites, what base pairs on on the left, which ones are on the right, is random. Thats exactly what they looked for in that papers methods.
In the second paper the researchers found two independent Viral insertions in deer mice. They could tell the insertions apart because the virus had infected two different places, because this event happened twice.
So Retroviral insertion is indeed random.
2. Do the Viruses serve any good purpose?
No. When ERV's do become functional, they cause
disease:
http://www.arthritis.arizona.edu/HERV.htm
http://www.mylonglife.com/articles/Retroviruses_Aids_Cancer_And_Autoimmune_Diseases.htm
In closing, you can google "endogenous retrovirus" and pull up plenty of medical, scientific, and educational websites. If you email the website, they will tell you
the exact same thing I am. You could also visit a university and contact a geneticist who will provide you with the same information.
Some of this material was referred by Abbie Smith in her series "Common Creationist Claims About ERV's"
Evidence #6
Atavisms
What is an atavism? It's an evolutionary throwback. It's when an ancestral gene that has been "switched off" gets "switched on" again. It's the most bizarre evidence for evolution you've ever seen. One of the tamer examples would be the horses who are born with three toes, just like their ancestors. Even more bizarre are the humans born with true tails. Stranger still is the whale found with legs, feet, and toes. Here is the story of human tails, and how we know that these are atavisms:
"Less than one third of the well-documented cases are what are medically known as "pseudo-tails" (Dao and Netsky 1984; Dubrow et al. 1988). Pseudo-tails are not true tails; they are simply lesions of various types coincidentally found in the caudal region of newborns, often associated with the spinal column, coccyx, and various malformations.
In contrast, the true atavistic tail of humans results from incomplete regression of the most distal end of the normal embryonic tail found in the developing human fetus The true human tail is characterized by a complex arrangement of adipose and connective tissue, central bundles of longitudinally arranged striated muscle in the core, blood vessels, nerve fibres, nerve ganglion cells, and specialized pressure sensing nerve organs. It is covered by normal skin, replete with hair follicles, sweat glands, and sebaceous glands. True human tails range in length from about one inch to over 5 inches long (on a newborn baby), and they can move via voluntary striped muscle contractions in response to various emotional states."
Source:
Talk Origins
The whale with legs
Whales and Dolphins with Legs
Live Science reports that,
"There are many cases where whales have been found with rudimentary hind limbs in the wild, and have been found in baleen whales, humpback whales, and in many specimens of sperm whales. Most of these examples are of whales that had only leg bones, but there were some that included feet with complete digits."
This fits in perfectly with the fossil evidence that whales descended from walking land mammals.
Recently a dolphin was captured which appeared to have hind limbs.
The Bird With Teeth
"Working late in the developmental biology lab one night, Matthew Harris of the University of Wisconsin noticed that the beak of a mutant chicken embryo he was examining had fallen off. Upon closer examination of the snubbed beak, he found tiny bumps and protuberances along its edge that looked like teeth--alligator teeth to be specific. The accidental discovery revealed that chickens retain the ability to grow teeth, even though birds lost this feature long ago."
From a Scientific American Article.
This of course compliments the fossil evidence that birds are descended from reptiles: Archaeopteryx had teeth as well.
In the next part of this series, I intend to answer common and important questions about evolution. I hope you have enjoyed reading this, and if you want more, check out Talk Origins' 29+ Evidences for MacroEvolution.
Monday, November 26, 2007
Evolution for Creationists Part Two
Continuing my series "Evolution for Creationists" I take a look at the nested hierarchy pattern of life and geographic distribution.
Evidence #3
The Nested Hierarchy Pattern of Life
Taxonomy, the classification of living things, supports evolution. This is probably one of the reasons that creationists are trying to construct a new system based on "kinds". EvoWiki explains it thus,
"'Nested hierarchy' refers to the way taxonomic groups fit neatly and completely inside other taxonomic groups. For instance, all bats (order Chiroptera) are mammals. All mammals are vertebrates. Likewise, all whales (order Cetacea) are also mammals, and thus also vertebrates.
Now, I have heard creationists scoff at this as evidence of evolution. Isn't it ridiculous to demand a Pegasus or Mermaid to falsify evolution? Well, no, because we would not necessarily need something like that to falsify it. Ken Ham has implied that the Platypus falsifies evolution, because it shares characteristics of birds and mammals, and couldn't have evolved from both. But does it really? No it does not, because a close examination reveals that the similarities are superficial,
"The bill of a duck is a hard keratin structure, while that of the platypus is a soft flexible organ packed with electrical and touch sensors."
The bill of the platypus can be explained by convergent evolution: A similar looking structure evolved, but since genetic and biochemical similarities are not present, we should not assume that it was inherited from a common ancestor with birds.
So to recap: The more similar creatures are, the more recently they shared a common ancestor (we can verify this through fossils). All things can be grouped by similarity to greater and lesser degrees, and we never find any animal that cannot be grouped in this 'nested hierarchy' system, despite creationist claims. This is a falsifiable prediction of common descent.
If you are still having trouble understanding, try looking at this graph.
Evidence #4
Geographic Distribution
"Neither the similarity nor the dissimilarity of the inhabitants of various regions can be accounted for by their climatal and other physical conditions."
-Sir Charles Darwin
What, then, can account for the similarities/dissimilarities of creatures living in different regions? Why are marsupials found only in Australia? If plants and animals were created perfect, then why are they so different in conditions that are basicly the same?
Not suprisingly, we have more in common genetically with African Primates than with South American Primates. Evolution can explain this by telling us that our common ancestor with the South American primates lived longer ago than our common ancestor with African primates. How does creationism explain this?
The Kaibab squirrel became geographically isolated from the common ancestor with its closest relative, the Abert squirrel in the North Rim of the Grand Canyon about 10,000 years ago. Since then, several distinguishing features, such as the black belly and forelimbs have gradually evolved. Click here to see Photos of the Two Species
Frank Zindler, in "The Kiwi Question" explains,
"Despite the fact that most marsupial species seem to be out-gunned when they are forced to compete with placental mammals (hence the extinction of so many marsupial species after the introduction of European mammals), we are to suppose that wombats and wallabies, bandicoots and koalas, kept ahead of lions-'n-tigers-'n-bears all the way to Indonesia, and then - although the superior placental predators couldn't manage it - continued on to Australia. As if this were not mind-boggling enough, after all this implausible world travel, and after all the dust had settled, it turns out that the types of marsupials that made it to Australia just happened to form an ensemble able to fill all the ecological niches available!
Thus, there were marsupial moles, anteaters, mice, grazers, carnivores, frugivores, etc. - not one of which can be found anywhere else in the world. If this highly diversified marsupial population has descended with modification (evolved) from one or a few primitive, generalized marsupials which reached Australia by "sweepstakes dispersal" millions of years ago, this peculiar situation is understandable. But if all these creature had to journey from Turkey to Australia as an ensemble, it is incredible beyond computation."
Evidence #3
The Nested Hierarchy Pattern of Life
Taxonomy, the classification of living things, supports evolution. This is probably one of the reasons that creationists are trying to construct a new system based on "kinds". EvoWiki explains it thus,
"'Nested hierarchy' refers to the way taxonomic groups fit neatly and completely inside other taxonomic groups. For instance, all bats (order Chiroptera) are mammals. All mammals are vertebrates. Likewise, all whales (order Cetacea) are also mammals, and thus also vertebrates.
While it might seem that this arrangement is obvious and unavoidable, it is not. Taxonomic groups are defined by traits and it should be possible to mix traits from multiple defined groups. An example from classical mythology is the Pegasus, a creature with features defined as both mammal (produces milk like a horse) and bird (has feathers). Mammals and birds are both orders, so, if Pegasus existed, it would be a violation of the nested hierarchy, a creature that belonged to two separate groups."
Now, I have heard creationists scoff at this as evidence of evolution. Isn't it ridiculous to demand a Pegasus or Mermaid to falsify evolution? Well, no, because we would not necessarily need something like that to falsify it. Ken Ham has implied that the Platypus falsifies evolution, because it shares characteristics of birds and mammals, and couldn't have evolved from both. But does it really? No it does not, because a close examination reveals that the similarities are superficial,
"The bill of a duck is a hard keratin structure, while that of the platypus is a soft flexible organ packed with electrical and touch sensors."
The bill of the platypus can be explained by convergent evolution: A similar looking structure evolved, but since genetic and biochemical similarities are not present, we should not assume that it was inherited from a common ancestor with birds.
So to recap: The more similar creatures are, the more recently they shared a common ancestor (we can verify this through fossils). All things can be grouped by similarity to greater and lesser degrees, and we never find any animal that cannot be grouped in this 'nested hierarchy' system, despite creationist claims. This is a falsifiable prediction of common descent.
If you are still having trouble understanding, try looking at this graph.
Evidence #4
Geographic Distribution
"Neither the similarity nor the dissimilarity of the inhabitants of various regions can be accounted for by their climatal and other physical conditions."
-Sir Charles Darwin
What, then, can account for the similarities/dissimilarities of creatures living in different regions? Why are marsupials found only in Australia? If plants and animals were created perfect, then why are they so different in conditions that are basicly the same?
Not suprisingly, we have more in common genetically with African Primates than with South American Primates. Evolution can explain this by telling us that our common ancestor with the South American primates lived longer ago than our common ancestor with African primates. How does creationism explain this?
The Kaibab squirrel became geographically isolated from the common ancestor with its closest relative, the Abert squirrel in the North Rim of the Grand Canyon about 10,000 years ago. Since then, several distinguishing features, such as the black belly and forelimbs have gradually evolved. Click here to see Photos of the Two Species
Frank Zindler, in "The Kiwi Question" explains,
"Despite the fact that most marsupial species seem to be out-gunned when they are forced to compete with placental mammals (hence the extinction of so many marsupial species after the introduction of European mammals), we are to suppose that wombats and wallabies, bandicoots and koalas, kept ahead of lions-'n-tigers-'n-bears all the way to Indonesia, and then - although the superior placental predators couldn't manage it - continued on to Australia. As if this were not mind-boggling enough, after all this implausible world travel, and after all the dust had settled, it turns out that the types of marsupials that made it to Australia just happened to form an ensemble able to fill all the ecological niches available!
Thus, there were marsupial moles, anteaters, mice, grazers, carnivores, frugivores, etc. - not one of which can be found anywhere else in the world. If this highly diversified marsupial population has descended with modification (evolved) from one or a few primitive, generalized marsupials which reached Australia by "sweepstakes dispersal" millions of years ago, this peculiar situation is understandable. But if all these creature had to journey from Turkey to Australia as an ensemble, it is incredible beyond computation."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)