creationist credentials

[gluadys]

Men like Wise are likely the exception rather than the rule.

The only thing that makes him an exception is that he took his education seriously. Any creationist could do the same.

What about Carl Baugh

You have got to be kidding.


http://paleo.cc/paluxy/degrees.htm

 

[sfs]

Tell me what some of the inconsistencies in Creationist theory are. And don’t simply say that there are inconsistencies because you are trying to explain multiple Creationist models all at once.

Your second sentence is unclear: I don't know what it is that I'm not supposed to say, so I'll say what I think. Within creationism broadly defined, there are wildly different beliefs about the age of the earth -- progressive creationists, gap theorists, young earth creationists -- and no agreement about whether the Flood was worldwide or not.

Among young earth creationists, there is no agreement about what geological strata precede the Flood, which were laid down by the Flood, and which came after. There is no coherent explanation for the patterns seen in the fossil record; hydrological sorting, geographical distribution, and ability to flee all get mentioned, but no attempt is made to predict from these effects the specific patterns that should be seen, or to correlate specific observations with specific processes; there is also no attempt made to connect hypotheses about Flood effects on strata with creationist arguments about radioactive dating. (E.g., if most sedimentary rock was laid down by the Flood, and the fossil pattern is the result of hydrological sorting, and radio-dates are the result of speeded-up decay processes, why do the dates get consistently older the deeper they are. Are the layers chronologically sorted or not?)

There is universal aghreement that "kinds" were specially created, but no agreement on what the kinds were (except for the absolute requirement that humans have to be in their own kind). As far as I can tell, there is no explanation offered at all for the source of modern genetic diversity within species (among YECs, that is -- Hugh Ross has given it a try, but he's an old-earther), nor for any of the detailed patterns seen in genetic differences between species -- no quantitative estimates of mutation rates, or of population sizes, or recombination rates, nor any attempt to show that there are any values that could give the observed data under young earth models.

You can't have a consistent theory until you have a theory, and in the areas I've looked at, there's no theory there.

BTW: Can you give me a list of the Creationist books that you have read?

I read Morris and Whitccomb ages ago (at least I think I did -- that would be 30 or more years ago now). I skimmed a couple of Hugh Ross's books, and have read a couple of intelligent design books (Johnson and Denton). I've skimmed other books in libraries and bookstores, but I've mercifully forgetten which ones. I've also read lots of articles supplied by Answers in Genesis, the ICR and Reasons to Believe -- basically everything I could find related to genetics. I also wrote to all of the big creationist organizations I could find an email address for, asking for their model for observed genetic data; only Hugh Ross's group responded with anything (mostly pointing me towards his next book).

Do you know of any young earth creationist work that explains any genetic data set, using any model?

 

[Dannager]

What right does a professor have to indoctrinate their students?

You were no more "indoctrinated" into evolutionary theory than you were "indoctrinated" into accepting that 2+2=4. Except that you don't like evolutionary theory.

The fact that the professor said that she could not objectively grade the paper of someone, whose worldview is diametrically opposed to hers, shows an utter lack of respect on her part.

On the contrary, it shows an incredible amount of respect. Someone without respect for your worldview (which includes most educated people, myself included) would simply grade the paper and fail you. The fact that you were given special treatment for your particular viewpoint demonstrates more respect than you should have received.

And how do you explain the fact that I was mislead about the grade the paper would receive?

I can't. How did your professor explain it in front of the review committee I'm sure you brought the issue to the attention of? Or did you fail to complain about being given a 'D' grade? Most students would be hopping mad over unfairly getting a 'D'.

 

[Dannager]

The professor did not give anything in the way of guidelines for the paper’s topic other than it had to be about evolution. My thesis was that evolution is not a proven fact, only a theory that is based on inconsistent evidence that is often manipulated into a forced fit within the theory. I have met some science teachers (since college) that do concede this point, but this particular professor was adamant that evolution was fact and not a theory.

Evolution is both fact and theory. It is a fact that evolution (defined as change in the frequency of alleles over successive generations within a population) occurs. We have observed it. Evolution also refers to a body of theory which explains how evolution takes place. Furthermore, nothing in science is ever considered literally proved. Theories are tested and tested until they are disproved. If a theory goes for a significant length of time being tested constantly and is still standing, that theory is very strong (for example, evolutionary theory).

I'm quite certain, by the way, that your professor didn't have a problem with evolution as a theory. All science professionals accept that evolution is a theory.

I'm not sure who told you that evolution is somehow unsubstantiated, but I'm afraid you were lied to. You are the victim of a hijacked science education for the sake of short-sighted religious belief.

 

[notto]

We had to submit our topic to the professor for her pre-approval. Never before or after in College did a professor demand this much control over a paper topic. This shows that this professor did not want her worldview challenged.

No. It doesn't. You seem to be exaggerating. Submitting a topic for a paper is not uncommon.

Your ideas are falsified and unscientific. Until you realize this, whatever it is you are talking about, it isn't science.

Your continued talk of 'worldview' only demonstrates this point.

Your are arrogant to think that you can overthrow 150 years of biology with your one paper and you are shocked when you are given a poor grade for it is funny.

Here is a hint - if you used the word worldview in your biology paper, it deserved to get a poor grade.

 

[flaja]

Or, you know, so that the professor could read up on your topics ahead of time so that s/he has extra background in the relevant topic to give you a more accurate assessment.

This class had something like 50 students. Do you really believe that a professor is going to do any reading up when she has this many students to prepare for? And what makes you think an undergraduate student is going to do enough original research for him to have a topic that a professor isn’t familiar with? Get real.

Were the "science teachers" who conceded this point actually scientists?

College professors whom I have talked to since leaving college. When I point out that Darwinists accept certain hypotheses as true even though they cannot be tested by experimentation, some Darwinists are adamant that science cannot prove anything- even something like gravity.

Also, in the Foreword in the 1971 edition of Origin of Species, published by J. M. Dent & Sons, Ltd. 1971, Professor L. Harrison Mathews, F.R.S., declared “Belief in evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in special creation.”

And Paul Ehrlich, darling of the environmental left, has essentially conceded that evolution is not science: “Our theory of evolution has become… one which cannot be refuted by any possible observations. It is thus ‘outside of empirical science,’ but not necessarily false. No one can think of ways in which to test it…” Paul Ehrlich, L. C. Birch “Evolutionary History and Population Biology”, Nature, Vol. 214 (1967), p 352.

Also, give some examples of the "inconsistent evidence that is often manipulated into a forced fit within the theory". In particular, what leads you to consider their fit "forced"?

When the evidence is incomplete (as is always the case with fragmentary fossil evidence).

When the evidence is mutually contradictory (as often happens with so-called scientific dating methods).

When the evidence is intentionally fraudulent (Piltdown Man, Java Man et cetera).


When Darwinists themselves cannot agree on what the evidence available actually means (the Leakeys and Johanson).

(Essentially, I want to see what your paper actually contained, because I don't want to judge whether or not the assessment was fair without actually knowing the content assessed.)

Do you have a science background? What would qualify you as a judge?

 

[Melethiel]

Most of us that hang out around here have some science background - from undergrads with a ton of science credit (like me) to professors.

 

[flaja]

Your second sentence is unclear: I don't know what it is that I'm not supposed to say, so I'll say what I think. Within creationism broadly defined, there are wildly different beliefs about the age of the earth -- progressive creationists, gap theorists, young earth creationists -- and no agreement about whether the Flood was worldwide or not.

If you understand that Creationists do not all believe the exact same thing, then I don’t see how you could not understand my request. I am asking about inconsistencies within the same Creationist model.

Among young earth creationists, there is no agreement about what geological strata precede the Flood, which were laid down by the Flood, and which came after.

Why should there be total agreement?

There is no coherent explanation for the patterns seen in the fossil record;

How so? Is the explanation offered by the Darwinists any more coherent? Why is it that the Leakeys and Johanson don’t agree about Lucy? And what abut the Australopithecines in general? Were they man-like apes, ape-like men, or just plain apes?

Anatomy professor at the University of Southern California Charles Oxnard, writing in American Biology Teacher (May 1979), suggested that the gracile Australopithecines have anatomical features that may have prevented upright walking. Oxnard urged caution, lest the errors with Piltdown Man and Nebraska Man be repeated, but Australopithecine pelvic bones suggest upright posture only when viewed from a certain angle. Yet another angle suggests a possible descent from African apes with modern humans serving as intermediates.

Using computer analysis Oxnard concluded that if Australopithecus did walk upright, it was not in the way modern humans do. Australopithecine posture most likely resembled that of an orangutan.

Oxnard, in 1979, discussed the Kanapoi hominid, a human arm bone found in Africa in a strata that was lower than the level at which Australopithecus fossils had been found, meaning (according to Darwinian geology) that humans were already human before Australopithecus was around. But, yet Australopithecus has made it into textbooks as an ancestor to humans.

There is universal aghreement that "kinds" were specially created, but no agreement on what the kinds were (except for the absolute requirement that humans have to be in their own kind).

Why should there be universal agreement in the face of incomplete research? Is there universal agreement among Darwinists regarding the origin of birds? No. Is there universal agreement among Darwinists regarding mitochondrial Eve? No. Is there universal agreement among Darwinists regarding the role Neanderthals played in human evolution? No. What is known today can easily be rejected tomorrow as new research is conducted. And when people like Johanson stake their professional reputation on their own research, they aren’t likely to agree with any research that tells them they are wrong.

As far as I can tell, there is no explanation offered at all for the source of modern genetic diversity within species

What do you define as genetic diversity? If genetic diversity is measured in terms of the number of species available, then there is less diversity now than in the past because of extinction. This is what would be expected if we live on a created, catastrophe-prone earth.

Ultimately the only source for new genetic material is genetic mutation. Things like recombination and sexual reproduction only rearrange genetic material that already exists. In this regard, the amount of genetic diversity you have depends on how much you had to start with.

Since God told the organisms that He created to reproduce after their kind, I would venture that God intended for genetic diversity (as defined by a kind’s gene pool) to be preserved. It was only after the fall of man that mutations and gene loss were possible. But, populations still strive to preserve their gene pools. On the one hand natural selection tends to eliminate aberrant phenotypes and preserve the norm for a species’ genetic composition (Bumpus’ sparrows), but at the same time natural selection wants to preserve as much genetic material as possible even in the face of severe selection pressures just in case genetic material that is detrimental under one set of circumstances may be beneficial under future circumstances (peppered moth).

Ultimately genetic loss and genetic variation are counter to God’s purpose.

I read Morris and Whitccomb ages ago (at least I think I did -- that would be 30 or more years ago now). I skimmed a couple of Hugh Ross's books, and have read a couple of intelligent design books (Johnson and

Denton). I've skimmed other books in libraries and bookstores, but I've mercifully forgetten which ones.

All of this skimming makes you an expert on Creationism?

I've also read lots of articles supplied by Answers in Genesis, the ICR and Reasons to Believe -- basically everything I could find related to genetics.

I wouldn’t rely on the internet as a major source of information. Anyone with a computer and an ISP can post anything they wish to on the net.

I also wrote to all of the big creationist organizations I could find an email address for, asking for their model for observed genetic data; only Hugh Ross's group responded with anything (mostly pointing me towards his next book).

I pretty much got the same thing out of Ross (actually his underlings) when I contacted his organization after reading one of his books. However, I have exchanged personal letters with Dr. Duane Gish at ICR. While preparing my paper for the evolutionary biology class I sent a letter to Gish asking for bibliographic information for some things he had said. My letter to him was mislayed and he couldn’t respond until the next summer, but he did take the time to send me a personal letter apologizing for the mishap and suggesting some books for further research.

Do you know of any young earth creationist work that explains any genetic data set, using any model?

The amount of genetic diversity that can arise in a given amount of time is dependent on the mutation rate of the genes involved. But these rates are not definite. Even if the rates are constant over time (which I doubt), we may not always have the technical ability to measure them.

http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/humanity.html

F. Collins, M. Guyer and A. Chakravarti: "Variations on a Theme: Human DNA Sequence Variation," Science 278:1580-1581, 28 November 1997 concluded that the human race can only be 1,000 to 10,000 generations old.

Thomas J. Parson, et al measured mDNA mutation rates (A high observed substitution rate in the human mitochondrial DNA control region, Nature Genetics vol. 15, April 1997, pp. 363-367) and found the rates to be one mutation in ever 33 generations. This is about 20 times faster than previously believed. For the region of mDNA studied, humans typically differ one from another by about 18 mutations. This many mutations could accumulate in about 300 generations. Assuming 20 years from generation to generation makes the human race about 6,000 years old.

V. Morell, “The Origin of Dogs: Running With the Wolves” Science 1997 June 13; 276 (5319):1647: Wolves and coyotes have about a 7.5% difference in the mDNA for the same region that Parson studied in humans. Assuming that mutation rates are similar from species to species because mDNA is closely similar from species to species, you need only 750-1000 generations for this much diversity to accumulate. Meaning the diversity developed in as little as 1,500 years. The difference among wolves is about 2% or about 1,000 years (C. Vila, P. Savolainen, J. E. Maldonado, I. R. Amorim, J. E. Rice, R. L. Honeycutt, K. A. Crandall, J. Lundeberg and R. K. Wayne, "Multiple and Ancient Origins of the Domestic Dog," Science, June 13, 1997, vol. 276, no. 5319, pp. 1687-1689).

Similar data was found for 7 different species of duck, placing their point of origin anywhere from 1,700 to 2,500 generations ago (roughly 3,400 to 5,000 years ago).

Based on available data for nuclear DNA mutation rates for E. Coli and a generation time of 20 minutes you could have about 100 million generations in just 6,000 years. This would allow for roughly a 10% change in non-functional DNA. But the actualy data from observations is only 5% change.


I haven’t read the book, but supposedly John Woodmorappe’s Noah’s Ark: A Feasibility Study addresses the issue of post-Flood genetic diversity by relying on accelerated mutation rates. His book came out in 1996, so he may not have been able to incorporate the data from the 1997 sources I gave above, but these sources may very well support Woodmorappe’s conclusions.

 

[Assyrian]

Since God told the organisms that He created to reproduce after their kind...

Where?

 

[flaja]

Where?

Genesis 1:11-12 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

There isn't a similar command for animals or humans, but Genesis seems to go out of its way to emphasize the concept of “kind” with each phase of creation so the implication is that animals and man were to reproduce with the objective of preserving their respective kinds as well.

 

[shernren]

This class had something like 50 students. Do you really believe that a professor is going to do any reading up when she has this many students to prepare for? And what makes you think an undergraduate student is going to do enough original research for him to have a topic that a professor isn’t familiar with? Get real.

Why not? Even academics don't always know everything and they're certainly happy to learn. My lecturer had little to no knowledge of maritime physics and seawater composition before my team took on our project to measure the physical properties of seawater - right now we probably know more than her about the given topic. In any case, you didn't answer to the other reasons, and you have no reason to suspect that topic pre-selection has anything to do with a professor's paranoia, since this routinely happens in all manner of courses that don't involve evolution or indeed anything controversial. Can I take it that you agree with me on that?

College professors whom I have talked to since leaving college. When I point out that Darwinists accept certain hypotheses as true even though they cannot be tested by experimentation, some Darwinists are adamant that science cannot prove anything- even something like gravity.

Also, in the Foreword in the 1971 edition of Origin of Species, published by J. M. Dent & Sons, Ltd. 1971, Professor L. Harrison Mathews, F.R.S., declared “Belief in evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in special creation.”

And Paul Ehrlich, darling of the environmental left, has essentially conceded that evolution is not science: “Our theory of evolution has become… one which cannot be refuted by any possible observations. It is thus ‘outside of empirical science,’ but not necessarily false. No one can think of ways in which to test it…” Paul Ehrlich, L. C. Birch “Evolutionary History and Population Biology”, Nature, Vol. 214 (1967), p 352.

Tsk tsk, quotemines. You should google for the source and context of these quotes, for they almost never support creationist assertions when read properly:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part4.html#quote4.7 (Matthews' quote)

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part4-2.html#quote4.20 (Ehrlich and Birch's quote)

When the evidence is incomplete (as is always the case with fragmentary fossil evidence).

In what way is the fossil record, fragmentary as it may be, impossible to explain by evolution? What particular fossils, locations of fossils, or sequences of fossils are so unamenable to evolutionary explanation that one must resort to a flood burial for them? I could certainly conjure up a few in my imagination which have never been found.

When the evidence is mutually contradictory (as often happens with so-called scientific dating methods).

Again, please provide evidence that there is dating data inconsistent within long-age frameworks. (Note that the field of radiometric dating is completely different from the field of biological evolution!)

When the evidence is intentionally fraudulent (Piltdown Man, Java Man et cetera).

How was the evidence for Java Man intentionally fradulent? And why can't you quote a hoax any later than the 1920s for me? And why are you making such a noise about it when it was evolutionary scientists, not creationists, who discovered the hoax? One might as well say that no US president should ever be trusted - because Nixon was a dirty scoundrel as exposed in Watergate.

When Darwinists themselves cannot agree on what the evidence available actually means (the Leakeys and Johanson).

And why should that be a problem? Even now theoretical physicists everywhere can't agree on the technical details of what produces gravity - which doesn't make gravity any less real. How much of evolution do the Leakeys disagree with Johanson about? More importantly, how much do they agree about? A fight at the dinner table doesn't always mean a divorce is in the works!

Also, I note that nowhere have you mentioned any of the genetic evidence for evolution. (This seems indicative of the mindset of general populace unfamiliar with what evolution really is - most people connect it with fossils and fossil analysis, more properly the domain of paleontology, and forget the burgeoning field of comparative genetics.) Did you talk about the twin nested hierarchy? The distribution of ERV insertions within the primate clade? Fusion of chimpanzee chromosomes accounting for human chromosome #2? If you tried to discuss evolution without talking about these, you do deserve a fail! (And if your professor didn't bring them up, he doesn't know his stuff, either!)

Do you have a science background? What would qualify you as a judge?

I'm currently an undergraduate at ANU studying mathematics and physics. I've been interested and involved in creation/evolution discussion here at foru.ms for two years now, and have read through a lot of literature on evolution, including many professional papers, notably the Human Genome Project report and their comparison of human to chimpanzee genomes. But really, what qualifies me is simply that I know where to look for sources and I know how to assimilate them into a congruent whole. You, on the other hand, haven't so much as bothered to google your evolutionist quotes ...

Genesis 1:11-12 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

There isn't a similar command for animals or humans, but Genesis seems to go out of its way to emphasize the concept of “kind” with each phase of creation so the implication is that animals and man were to reproduce with the objective of preserving their respective kinds as well.

1. This is quite explicable as a result of phenomenological language. The Israelites never saw speciation occur within their lifespans, nor would they have been able to assimilate it into their theoretical framework of life. To them, a cow always gave birth to a cow always gave birth to a cow, etc. What better way to describe it than by "kinds"? Note also the Old Testament's emphasis on ritual purity and created order that would have made such a focus logical for Genesis. But seriously, if you expected the author of Genesis to understand that species adapt and evolve over time ... you might as well expect Joshua to know that the Earth goes around the Sun!

2. Note that later in the chapter a command is given to man and animals to eat plants. Can I draw a similar "parallel by silence" and say that man and animals were allowed to eat man and animals as well, it just wasn't spelled out?

 

[shernren]

Oxnard, in 1979, discussed the Kanapoi hominid, a human arm bone found in Africa in a strata that was lower than the level at which Australopithecus fossils had been found, meaning (according to Darwinian geology) that humans were already human before Australopithecus was around. But, yet Australopithecus has made it into textbooks as an ancestor to humans.

Please provide your source for the characteristics of the Kanapoi hominid (Australopithecus anamensis).

 

[flaja]

Why not? Even academics don't always know everything and they're certainly happy to learn. My lecturer had little to no knowledge of maritime physics and seawater composition before my team took on our project to measure the physical properties of seawater - right now we probably know more than her about the given topic.

You know more than your professor? Boy are you getting ripped off when you pay your tuition.

 

[flaja]

Please provide your source for the characteristics of the Kanapoi hominid (Australopithecus anamensis).

Why? I doubt that you will believe it.

What is Creation Science?
Henry M. Morris, Gary E. Parker
Creation Life Publishers, Inc.
San Diego, Ca.
1982

Also:

http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a37d00a8465b5.htm

Oxnard (Fossils, Teeth, and Sex: New Perspectives on human evolution; Seattle U. of Wash Press) also claims that Australopithecine fossils are unique- they are different from both humans and modern apes.

American Biology Teacher, Volume 41, May 1979, page 274: Oxnard "...earlier finds, for instance, at Kanapoi, existed at the same time as, and probably even earlier than, the original gracile Australopithecines... almost indistinguishable in shape from that of modern Humans at four and a half million years...".


http://www.mcremo.com/chapter.html

In his 1975 book, Uniqueness and Diversity in Human Evolution, Oxnard claimed "Pending further evidence we are left with the vision of intermediately sized animals, at home in the trees, capable of climbing, performing degrees of acrobatics, and perhaps of arm suspension." And in a 1975 article in Nature, Oxnard claimed, “it is rather unlikely that any of the Australopithecines . . . can have any direct phylogenetic link with the genus Homo."

Oxnard isn’t the first to question Australopithecus’ status as a human ancestor. It’s human status was questioned early on, but as Oxnard complained in his 1984 book, The Order of Man. “In the uproar, at the time, as to whether or not these creatures were near ape or human, the opinion that they were human won the day. This may well have resulted not only in the defeat of the contrary opinion but also the burying of that part of the evidence upon which the contrary opinion was based. If this is so, it should be possible to unearth this other part of the evidence."

 

[sfs]

If you understand that Creationists do not all believe the exact same thing, then I don’t see how you could not understand my request. I am asking about inconsistencies within the same Creationist model.

Then your request makes no sense in context. Scientific fields have large bodies of shared knowledge, including both data and theory. If creationist theories differ in the most fundamental aspects, like disagreeing on the age of the universe by six orders of magnitude, then creationism isn't science. The only positions different creationist theories seem to have in common is that Genesis is literally true and that evolution is wrong somehow. That isn't a description of a science; that's an ideology.

Why should there be total agreement?

No need for total agreement. You asked for things that are inconsistent, and I told you some of them. This isn't a minor point of disagreement, however. A Flood-based geology should be able to provide some explanations for the most basic geological data, shouldn't they? And if Flood-based theories disagree about the basics, what kind of confidence can anyone have in them about anything?

How so?

I already gave examples in the rest of that sentence, the part you deleted. If you want to advance hydrological sorting as an explanation for the distribution of fossils, you categorize organisms by their physical properties, run some fluid dynamics simulations, and start making predictions. What kind of distribution should you see? How do you make this explanation consistent with radiodating? Are there layers within the supposed Flood strata that couldn't be formed underwater? How do you incorporate them into the model if they exist (hint: they do)?

In other words, start with a model, make predictions from the model, and then test the predictions, which is just another way of saying "do science".

Is the explanation offered by the Darwinists any more coherent?

Yes, vastly more coherent. Different strata represent material laid down at different periods of time. Unless there is evidence that the geological column has be disturbed (as there sometimes is), lower layers are earlier than later layers. Fossils found in a layer are there because that's when they lived. Fossil plants should be be, and are, found in the same layers as their pollen, even though they have very different physical properties. Radiodating ages should correlate with depth because they represent real ages. Similarly dated strata from around the world from the same kind of environment should contain similar fossil assemblages, as they do. The changes in fossils seen from deeper to shallower layers represent real change in time caused by evolution; these changes fall into the pattern we would expect based on similar morphology, which in turn matches the pattern we see from genetics. It all fits.

What is the equivalent creationist capsule explanation for the basic facts of the fossil record? Why are fossils in the order that they are? Note what you're doing here. I claimed that there was no coherent creationist model, and the only response you've made is to attack evolution. Where is the consistent creationist model?

Shernren has already responded to some of your particular attacks on evolution. I'll add a few more; if you investigate any of them in depth, you'll find that the attack is misinformed, dishonest, or concerns peripheral details.

Why is it that the Leakeys and Johanson don’t agree about Lucy?

What exactly is the nature of their disagreement? Do they disagree at all about the broad pattern of evolution, about the basic timeline, about the relatedness of humans and chimpanzees, and about Lucy's status as a branch between those two species?

And what abut the Australopithecines in general? Were they man-like apes, ape-like men, or just plain apes?

That's a question to be addressed to creationists, since they are absolutely conviced that apes and humans are different kinds, but are unable consistently to place fossils like Lucy and erectus into one kind or the other. To a biologist, the question makes no sense. Humans are, biologically speaking, apes. Australopithicenes are (very likely) on the human branch of the human/chimpanzee species split; whether they (or some of them) are directly ancestral to humans is likely impossible to determine, and is not the sort of thing that biologists try to do these days.

Using computer analysis Oxnardconcluded that if Australopithecus did walk upright, it was not in the way modern humans do. Australopithecine posture most likely resembled that of an orangutan.

There is little doubt that Australopithicene locomotion was not identical to modern humans. So? Oxnard was unusual in suggesting the similarity to orangutans, but again, so what? The exact details of Australopithicene locamotion are interesting, but they're the kind of thing scientists will squabble about endlessly. They're the reason people keep doing science, to answer questions. None of this is anything like the lack of a basic model that creationism exhibits.

Oxnard, in 1979, discussed the Kanapoi hominid, a human arm bone found in Africa in a strata that was lower than the level at which Australopithecus fossils had been found, meaning (according to Darwinian geology) that humans were already human before Australopithecus was around. But, yet Australopithecus has made it into textbooks as an ancestor to humans.

You should try reading something other than creationist sources. From a later study (that used computers too!) of the fossil in question:
"The specimen is therefore reasonably attributable to A. anamensis (Leakey et al. 1995), although the results of this study indicate that the Kanapoi specimen is not much more "human-like" than any of the other australopithecine fossils, despite prior conclusions to the contrary" (Lague and Jungers 1996) [taken from the talk.origins website]

Why should there be universal agreement in the face of incomplete research?

There shouldn't be. There should be agreement about something, however. What do creationists agree about, besides what's written in Genesis?

Is there universal agreement among Darwinists regarding the origin of birds?

Very nearly, these days. The last few holdouts are rapidly achieving the status of crackpots. And even they place the origin of birds in a different, related line of reptiles.

Is there universal agreement among Darwinists regarding mitochondrial Eve? No.

Huh? There is universal agreement that there was a mitochondrial Eve (as there must have been), and that she lived in Africa. There is considerable uncertainty about her date, and lots of arguments about how to do the dating and how precisely it can be done, but why is this supposed to cast doubt on evolution?

Is there universal agreement among Darwinists regarding the role Neanderthals played in human evolution? No.

Yes, there is pretty much a consensus. Now that we have some genetic data about Neandertals, it is clear that they are either not our ancestors at all, or contributed only modestly to modern DNA; it's not possible at present to distinguish these two possibilities. It probably will be soon, since much more Neandertal DNA is being sequenced and compared to human DNA.

What creationist questions will soon be settled by the arrival of more data? And what is the creationist position on Neandertals?

What do you define as genetic diversity? If genetic diversity is measured in terms of the number of species available, then there is less diversity now than in the past because of extinction. This is what would be expected if we live on a created, catastrophe-prone earth.

Genetic diversity is the amount of genetic variation within a species.

All of this skimming makes you an expert on Creationism?

No, but a random sampling of creationist material permits me to estimate the overall quality. It's roughly at the level of a mediocre high school student. Certainly nothing I saw (except in some of Hugh Ross's stuff) suggests any attempt at doing science.

So what books have you read on creationism? Which ones contain the creation model you want taught?

I wouldn’t rely on the internet as a major source of information. Anyone with a computer and an ISP can post anything they wish to on the net.

Since, as I wrote clearly, I was consulting articles written by the major creationist organizations, I fail to see the point of your comment.

The amount of genetic diversity that can arise in a given amount of time is dependent on the mutation rate of the genes involved. But these rates are not definite. Even if the rates are constant over time (which I doubt), we may not always have the technical ability to measure them.

Except that we can measure them, and have measured them. Evolution incorporates those measurements (for several different kinds of mutation) into their models of human history and human divergence from other primates. How have creationists incorporated those measurements? What predictions have they made based on them?

F. Collins, M. Guyer and A. Chakravarti: "Variations on a Theme: Human DNA Sequence Variation," Science 278:1580-1581, 28 November 1997 concluded that the human race can only be 1,000 to 10,000 generations old

No, they did not conclude that. They assumed (not concluded) based on other data that the human population is 1000 to 10,000 generations old. What that means is that the average time until two randomly chosen chromosomes had a common ancestor in the human population is 1000 to 10,000 generations.Their estimate is a little low, based on more recent data (it should be something like 20,000), but it is still in the right ballpark.


(I know two of the authors, by the way. Francis would find this interpretation of their paper sad, and Aravinda would find it ludicrous. If this is an example of creationist science, it really is sad.)

Thomas J. Parson, et al measured mDNA mutation rates (A high observed substitution rate in the human mitochondrial DNA control region, Nature Genetics vol. 15, April 1997, pp. 363-367) and found the rates to be one mutation in ever 33 generations. This is about 20 times faster than previously believed. For the region of mDNA studied, humans typically differ one from another by about 18 mutations. This many mutations could accumulate in about 300 generations. Assuming 20 years from generation to generation makes the human race about 6,000 years old.

If you do an real research on mtDNA, you will discover that mutation there is quite tricky, and simple extrapolations often fail. The main (but not only) problem is that the mutation rate varies enormously by site. If you measure the rate over short time periods, you will get a very high value. You can't extrapolate that rate over long time periods, however, because after a while the highly mutable sites will all have mutated, so subsequent mutations will not contribute to the overall rate of change. Other sites mutate much slower, and are responsible for most of the long-term diversity. This is one of the reasons why dating Mitochondrial Eve is so tricky.

This is precisely the sort of detailed work that scientists do to understand the implications and shortcomings of their models. What have creationists ever done with mtDNA? What predictions have they made?

[Other mtDNA arguments snipped, since these have the same problem.]

Based on available data for nuclear DNA mutation rates for E. Coli and a generation time of 20 minutes you could have about 100 million generations in just 6,000 years. This would allow for roughly a 10% change in non-functional DNA. But the actualy data from observations is only 5% change.

A complete misreading of the paper, and an pointless calculation. The paper isn't looking at nonfunctional DNA, but rather functional DNA (bacteria have very little nonfunctional DNA); in fact, the puzzle the paper addresses is why there is so much diversity in E. coli, not so little. There is no reason to expect E. coli to preserve genetic diversity indefinitely: they exchange DNA, and they compete and constantly extinguish diversity even as new diversity enters through mutation. This is, I must say, pretty typical of the best creationist attempts to deal with genetics.

I haven’t read the book, but supposedly John Woodmorappe’s Noah’s Ark: A Feasibility Study addresses the issue of post-Flood genetic diversity by relying on accelerated mutation rates. His book came out in 1996, so he may not have been able to incorporate the data from the 1997 sources I gave above, but these sources may very well support Woodmorappe’s conclusions.

Different kinds of mutations occur through different mechanisms. Simply claiming "elevated mutation rates" is hardly scientific, since there is no reasons for all of the rates to increase in the same way, and in fact no known way for some of the rates to increase. In any case, increased mutation rates won't do the trick, since you would also need increased recombination rates (to explain the patterns of association between mutations), and you still won't have a spectrum of allele frequencies that looks anything like the observed one.

Once again, the scientific procedure would be to postulate increased mutation rates and then do some modeling of a rapidly expanding population, and compare the results with observations. Perfectly straightforward, but that's just not the kind of thing creationists do.

 

[shernren]

Why? I doubt that you will believe it.

What is Creation Science?
Henry M. Morris, Gary E. Parker
Creation Life Publishers, Inc.
San Diego, Ca.
1982

Also:

http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a37d00a8465b5.htm

Oxnard (Fossils, Teeth, and Sex: New Perspectives on human evolution; Seattle U. of Wash Press) also claims that Australopithecine fossils are unique- they are different from both humans and modern apes.

American Biology Teacher, Volume 41, May 1979, page 274: Oxnard "...earlier finds, for instance, at Kanapoi, existed at the same time as, and probably even earlier than, the original gracile Australopithecines... almost indistinguishable in shape from that of modern Humans at four and a half million years...".


http://www.mcremo.com/chapter.html

In his 1975 book, Uniqueness and Diversity in Human Evolution, Oxnard claimed "Pending further evidence we are left with the vision of intermediately sized animals, at home in the trees, capable of climbing, performing degrees of acrobatics, and perhaps of arm suspension." And in a 1975 article in Nature, Oxnard claimed, “it is rather unlikely that any of the Australopithecines . . . can have any direct phylogenetic link with the genus Homo."

Oxnard isn’t the first to question Australopithecus’ status as a human ancestor. It’s human status was questioned early on, but as Oxnard complained in his 1984 book, The Order of Man. “In the uproar, at the time, as to whether or not these creatures were near ape or human, the opinion that they were human won the day. This may well have resulted not only in the defeat of the contrary opinion but also the burying of that part of the evidence upon which the contrary opinion was based. If this is so, it should be possible to unearth this other part of the evidence."

Note that I will not have to say a word against the integrity of creationists to respond to this. If even Richard Dawkins or Stephen J. Gould themselves claimed that the Kanapoi elbow was human, I would only quote this in response:

The claim that KP 271 was human has been one of the stronger creationist arguments because, although it had not been proven, neither was it demonstrably wrong (unlike almost every other creationist argument about human evolution). However a recent paper now strongly indicates that KP 271 is an australopithecine and not a human fossil.
Lague and Jungers (1996) conducted an extensive study of the lower humeri of apes, humans, and hominid fossils. They used multivariate analysis, a technique which is highly praised by creationists when it delivers results favorable to them. Lague and Jungers' results show convincingly that KP 271 lies well outside the range of human specimens. Instead, it clusters with a group of other hominid fossils so strongly that the probability that it belongs to the human sample, rather than fossil hominid group, is less than one thousandth (0.001). They conclude:

"The specimen is therefore reasonably attributable to A. anamensis (Leakey et al. 1995), although the results of this study indicate that the Kanapoi specimen is not much more "human-like" than any of the other australopithecine fossils, despite prior conclusions to the contrary" (Lague and Jungers 1996)
​

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_anomaly.html#kp271

About australopithecines: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_piths.html

Shoddy evidence is refuted by better, more recent evidence, not character potshots. Next? What do you think your single strongest piece of evidence against evolution is? (By the way, what do you define as "evolution"?)

About my lecturer. She's a semiconductors and quantum physics expert, but she ended up teaching a first-year physics course (and loves it, too!). So it's not surprising that she'd not be as good in other areas, in particular maritime physics and seawater chemistry. In fact, your professor is probably either a generalist - meaning that he knows quite a bit about everything, but not everything in-depth - or a specialist, who knows a whole lot about one particular topic but not much about all others. Of course, either will be able to handle the job of teaching a first-year course, but not a term paper (especially if it ends up being detailed), and especially not criticisms by creationists, which can be very subtle (if still completely wrong). So no, I'm not being cheated of my money, and I hope you aren't either!

 

[flaja]

Note that I will not have to say a word against the integrity of creationists to respond to this. If even Richard Dawkins or Stephen J. Gould themselves claimed that the Kanapoi elbow was human, I would only quote this in response:

The claim that KP 271 was human has been one of the stronger creationist arguments because, although it had not been proven, neither was it demonstrably wrong (unlike almost every other creationist argument about human evolution). However a recent paper now strongly indicates that KP 271 is an australopithecine and not a human fossil.​

Lague and Jungers (1996) conducted an extensive study of the lower humeri of apes, humans, and hominid fossils. They used multivariate analysis, a technique which is highly praised by creationists when it delivers results favorable to them. Lague and Jungers' results show convincingly that KP 271 lies well outside the range of human specimens. Instead, it clusters with a group of other hominid fossils so strongly that the probability that it belongs to the human sample, rather than fossil hominid group, is less than one thousandth (0.001). They conclude:

"The specimen is therefore reasonably attributable to A. anamensis (Leakey et al. 1995), although the results of this study indicate that the Kanapoi specimen is not much more "human-like" than any of the other australopithecine fossils, despite prior conclusions to the contrary" (Lague and Jungers 1996)​

​

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_anomaly.html#kp271

About australopithecines: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_piths.html

Shoddy evidence is refuted by better, more recent evidence, not character potshots. Next? What do you think your single strongest piece of evidence against evolution is? (By the way, what do you define as "evolution"?)

About my lecturer. She's a semiconductors and quantum physics expert, but she ended up teaching a first-year physics course (and loves it, too!). So it's not surprising that she'd not be as good in other areas, in particular maritime physics and seawater chemistry. In fact, your professor is probably either a generalist - meaning that he knows quite a bit about everything, but not everything in-depth - or a specialist, who knows a whole lot about one particular topic but not much about all others. Of course, either will be able to handle the job of teaching a first-year course, but not a term paper (especially if it ends up being detailed), and especially not criticisms by creationists, which can be very subtle (if still completely wrong). So no, I'm not being cheated of my money, and I hope you aren't either!

We can play dueling scientists all day long, but it wouldn’t demonstrate anything other than Evolutionism and Creationism are not science. Anything that is as open to as much interpretation as fossils are cannot fall within the realm of science. There is simply too much speculation involved.

 

[notto]

We can play dueling scientists all day long, but it wouldn’t demonstrate anything other than Evolutionism and Creationism are not science. Anything that is as open to as much interpretation as fossils are cannot fall within the realm of science. There is simply too much speculation involved.

Why do you feel that speculation is not part of science? It is part of the scientific method itself.

You seem to be suggesting that interpretation of evidence is not science.

What then, is science?

(it is also interesting to note that you now don't want to play 'dueling scientists' when your entire argument up to this point is based on exactly that. Why the sudden change of tactics? Does this mean that all your posts up to this point that rely on that tactic should simply be ignored?)

 

[shernren]

Notto has a good point there.

We can play dueling scientists all day long, but it wouldn’t demonstrate anything other than Evolutionism and Creationism are not science. Anything that is as open to as much interpretation as fossils are cannot fall within the realm of science. There is simply too much speculation involved.

However, aren't you going back on your earlier position?

My thesis was that evolution is not a proven fact, only a theory that is based on inconsistent evidence that is often manipulated into a forced fit within the theory. I have met some science teachers (since college) that do concede this point, but this particular professor was adamant that evolution was fact and not a theory.

(emphasis added)

When the evidence is incomplete (as is always the case with fragmentary fossil evidence).

When the evidence is mutually contradictory (as often happens with so-called scientific dating methods).

When the evidence is intentionally fraudulent (Piltdown Man, Java Man et cetera).


When Darwinists themselves cannot agree on what the evidence available actually means (the Leakeys and Johanson).

For you claimed that fossils were difficult to interpret within an evolutionary framework, did you not? This is a classic creationist mode of argumentation: bring up a whole list of things evolution supposedly can't explain, and then when an evolutionist does offer an explanation, back up and say "well, both evolution and creation explain these things, we can't really tell anyhow, it isn't a scientific issue any more."

Firstly, this is a concession that evolution can actually explain stuff. Mind you, there are plenty of hypothetical situations which evolution would only be able to explain with great difficulty if at all (e.g. Cambrian rabbits, chimeras, swapped modules, multiple divergent hierarchies), so there's no reason here to say that evolution's too flexible to be falsified - it can be disproved, it just hasn't been.

Moreover, this does not stop the debate from being a scientific one. Let's say I have a murder case on my hands. I know that a man was shot. I have narrowed it down to two suspects who had no alibi and were found with guns. But all I know is that the man was shot.

My data is not sufficient to find the answer. Does that mean that this is no longer a forensic, scientific dispute? Should I flip a coin to decide who hangs and who walks? Hardly. I collect more data.

If I find that the man was shot at a long distance, and that one suspect's gun is a sniper rifle while the other's is a revolver, that's extra data that confirms one view while disconfirming the other.
If I can match the bullet in the man's chest to one of the guns but not the other, that's extra data that confirms one view while disconfirming the other.

The more data is added to a dataset in consideration, the less likely that a wrong theory will be able to accommodate it. If evolution was wrong, therefore, it would just be a matter of time and data before its wrongness was manifest to all. And remember, when big theories fall they fall hard - so any scientist who could demonstrably disprove evolution would be a hero to the biological community, because any theory that replaces evolution will be much more powerful than it was.

Thus, your idea that no amount of data can disprove evolution would only be true if evolution doesn't actually explain any data. But it does! I note that you have mentioned almost no genetics here, including the twin nested hierarchy or ERV insertions in the primate clade or human chromosome 2's fusion artifacts.

So I'm giving you a final chance to give me the best argument from your paper. Show me the one thing that evolution can't possibly explain, can't possibly accommodate, can't logically lead to without self-destructing. If you can't find me a piece of evidence that does that - or don't know how to - then I'll show you how it's done and see exactly what creationism cannot explain.

 

[Assyrian]

Genesis 1:11-12 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.


There isn't a similar command for animals or humans,

There isn't a command here either, not a command 'to reproduce after their kind' anyway. There is a command given to the earth to produce organisms, which is what evolution says happened.

but Genesis seems to go out of its way to e

mphasize the concept of “kind” with each phase of creation so the implication is that animals and man were to reproduce with the objective of preserving their respective kinds as well.

You think there is a command for trees 'to reproduce after their kind', though there isn't, and you admit there isn't any such command for the creation of fish, or of beasts, or man, and you think this is an emphasis implying organisms were to reproduce after their kind. That doesn't make sense.

Genesis 1 does use the word 'kind' a lot as you say, and there is a consistent use, but not the way you think. It does not say God commanded creatures to reproduce according to their kinds, but that God created, and ordered the earth to produce, different kinds of creatures.

Gen 1:11 Then God said, "Let the land produce vegetation:
seed-bearing plants
and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds."
And it was so.
12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds
and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.
20 And God said, "Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky."
21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teems, according to their kinds,
and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.
24 And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds:
livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so.
25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds,
the livestock according to their kinds,
and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.

Creationists think according to their kinds is connected with the subclause 'bearing seed' and interpret it as if it was given as a command, when throughout Genesis 1 the consistent factor in the use of kind is that it comes with a main verb 'let... produce' or 'God created'. We are not being told that plants were producing seeds according to their kind, but that the earth produced differnet kinds of seed bearing plant.

Genesis tells us that God created all the different kinds, the different species, by commanding the earth to produce them.