I thought since my other EPM thread poped up here recently (Ten Major flaws in evolution) I would post this. As I mentioned in that thread someone said I should send it to them, so I did, I finally got an e-mail back suggesting a visit a couple places including the supposed updated Ten major flaws page. The page was updated but not fixed, just reorganized with bad arguments, so I thought I would reply by answering the other article I was told to visit. Bellow it what I wrote, its rather long so I don't expect too many people to read it, but I figured I would most it for fun.
Hello,
I was directed to this article which unfortunately contains many errors so I thought I would correct them. The article is here, http://epm.org/articles/Creationevo.html This is rather long, because it often takes longer to correct errors than it does to make them.
Upward Mutations
Without a definition of what genetic information is its very hard to comment on this. However if an increase in genetic information means an addition of genetic material which leads to a new ability as well, then we have observed this.
Bacteria has been observed gaining the ability to digest nylon through an insertion mutation (addition of genetic code) that caused a frame shift.
http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm
Transitional Fossils
Fossilization
Fossilization is a rare event and generally only gives us bones to go on. So many changes are missed because either they are in soft tissue or weren't fossilized. As in punctuated equilibrium it is also possible that speciation happened away from the main group of animals, then the new group of animals came back and took over, causing a jump in the fossil record. To fix that jump we would need to find the smaller area that the transitional fossils would be in, and we have yet to dig up the entire earth so there are many things that are hiding.
there are a couple common false arguments about transitionals to go over.
1) Is to ask for smaller and smaller transitional until none can be provided, then it is declared that there are no real transitional fossils. For example, we have fossil A and fossil B and fossil C is a transitional between the two. It is then asked for a transitional between fossil A and C and B and C. Lets say fossil D is a transitional for A and C and fossil E is a transitional for B and C. So it currently looks like this:
A->D->C->E->B.
It is then asked for fossils in between A and D, D and C, C and E, E and B. This continues until fossils can no longer be provided. This is a false argument because it ignores the evidence provided and that at one point we will lack fossils because they are rare. In many transitional sets we do have enough fossils to paint a pretty good picture.
2) Another is that the transitional fossil is labeled as being from one of the two species it is said to be a transitional of and not a real transitional. Often its claimed that the organism just had a disease that made it look slightly different. The problem with this is that they can never show any evidence for the claimed disease, and that many creationists can't agree on which group (or "kind") the fossil should be put in, which actually helps the idea that it is a transitional fossil. We can see this here, http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/compare.html
Transitional Fossils
There are quite a few good lists of transitional fossils, here is a transitional list for the whale, one of the many. Summarized from http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part2b.html . For more information I would recommend a visit to the link.
Eoconodon or similar triisodontine arctocyonids (early Paleocene) -- Similar to the early exyclaenid condylarths, had strong canine teeth, blunt cheek teeth and flattened claws.
Microclaenodon (mid-Paleocene) -- A transitional genus intermediate between Eoconodon and the Mesonychids. Its molar teeth are reorganized to look like premolars. It was adapted more toward carnivory.
Dissacus (mid-Paleocene) -- Molars closer to premolars and other tooth changes.
Hapalodectes or a very similar mesonychid (early Eocene, around 55 Ma) -- Very narrow shearing molars, a distinctively shape zygomatic arch and vascularized areas between the molars. probably a close relative to the whale ancestor.
Pakicetus (early-mid Eocene, 52 Ma) -- The oldest fossil whale known. Terrestrial ears, not good for underwater sound location or deep diving. Molars have very mesonychid like cusps but other teeth are like those of later whales. Nostrils are still at the front of the head.
Ambulocetus natans (early-mid Eocene, 50 Ma) -- Still retains four legs, although they were stubby. Had large back feet that stuck out like tail flukes but lacked real tail flukes and had a simple long tail. Long snout with no blowhole.
Rodhocetus (mid-Eocene, 46 Ma) -- Smaller hind legs with a powerful tail. Nostrils had moved back from the tip of the snout.
Basilosaurus isis, Protocetes, Indocetus ramani and similar small-legged whales of the mid-late Eocene (45-42 Ma) -- Still retained hind legs but most likely couldn't walk on them anymore. B isis might have bee a cousin to the modern whale.
Prozeuglodon (late Eocene, 40 Ma) -- Hind legs almost gone but still present. 6" hind legs on a 15 foot body.
Eocetus, & similar "archeocete whales" of the late Eocene -- More advanced whales, that had lost their hind legs, but retained more primitive skull and teeth with unfused nostrils. Much larger streamline bodies with a tail fluke.
In the Oligocene, whales split into two lineages:
1.Toothed whales:
Agorophius (late Oligocene) -- partly telescoped skull with cheek teeth still rooted.
Prosqualodon (late Oligocene) -- Fully telescoped skull with nostrils on top
Kentriodon (mid-Miocene) -- Skull telescoped but still symmetrical.
2.Baleen (toothless) whales:
Aetiocetus (late Oligocene) -- Most primitive mysticete whale. Most likely the stem group for all baleen whales. mysticete style loose jaw hinge and air sinus, but retained its teeth
Mesocetus (mid-Miocene) --- lost its teeth.
Modern baleen whales first appeared in the late Miocene.
Index fossils
This is a complete misunderstanding of how index fossils work, they are not circular. Not every fossil is an index fossil. They work like this,
1) A fossil is constantly found in certain strata of the earth.
2) The strata of the earth is dated.
3) The fossil is found again at another dig.
4) Since it is only found in strata that is a certain age, the scientists can get a quick estimate of the age of the strata. If this age is questionable, then the strata could be dated to double check.
Not circular at all, and not what the article claims.
Frauds
And of course Piltdown Man and Nebraska are brought up. It seems odd that evolutionists can't live these two mistakes down, even though they happened almost 50 years ago (those must be some old High school textbooks) yet it seems to be ok that creationists have false information still up on their sites as truth. The facts of the matter is, yes they were errors, yes evolutionists were the ones that discovered they were errors, and yes evolutionists stopped using them when they were discovered as fakes. So it appears that evolutionists are fallible people but are willing to correct their mistakes when they are made, I have no complaints with this.
Peppered Moths
There are many things written about this and many studies done, most suggest that the claims that the data was falsified are false. However, there is no point to discussing them because it is agreed upon that they show natural selection in action, what the studies were ment to show.
Young Earth
Decay Rates
There are ways to change the beta decay rate, however they don't pose any problems for radiometric dating methods. The way beta decay is increased is through large amounts of pressure and heat. In the paper cited it requires that the element be in a plasma state. The radiometric clock in many methods, such as K/Ar starts only when the rock becomes solid, thus the increased beta decay would not effect the K/Ar clock because the pressure and heat required to turn the K into plasma would also restart the radiometric clock (once it cooled), causing no problem for these methods. It is often forgotten that radioactive decay produces heat, and if the decay was increased by a million times it would produce a very large amount of heat and it would most likely leave evidence behind. And finally there are different types of decay, not only has it not been shown that they can change, but multiple radiometric dating methods will often agree on an age (as long as the methods are being used correctly, which will be discussed later).
Assumptions
Many other assumptions are taken into account when using dating methods. For example, its not known how much parent-less Argon is in rocks when the K/Ar dating method is used. This is one of the reasons it is used on old samples only, because the longer the K decays, the less the parent-less argon effects the date given, at a certain point the range given by K/Ar is larger than the parent-less argon can effect, keeping it from being a problem. Of course the next question is, How do you know the sample is old to begin with? The answer is that you use multiple dating methods and pay attention to what you receive. For the K/Ar dating method, the Ar/Ar dating method can be used if parent-less argon is suspected.
Thrown out dates
When deciding on a final date some dates are thrown out, this is often because the scientists realize people aren't perfect and errors can be made. Multiple samples are taken and multiple radiometric tests are done, they are then all graphed and the median line that most fall under is often what is taken as the final date. Realizing that errors can happen. The total data is often given, even for these odd dates.
Faulty Dating
I would say we can trust radiometric dating much more than we can trust creationist groups to accurately present it. So far every time I have seen a creationist group claim a dating method gave bad results, it was normally because they misused it. If you use it incorrectly, of course it will give bad results. A couple of examples,
1) A living sea mollusk or other sea creature has been C-14 dated as being 3000 years old.
Answer: Any animal that gets their C-14 from a source other than the air cannot be dated using the C-14 dating method because the ratio of C-14 to C-12 is different in the water than in the air. Thus sea creatures cant be dated using C-14.
2) 50 year old Lava flows have been dated at up to 3.5 million years using the K/Ar dating method.
Answer: Multiple samples were taken and some did actually give a correct date of <0.27 The question is, how would we know this was the correct date without assumptions? We use a different radiometric test on the sample to see if we can get it to give the same dates. This wasn't done. Its suggested that parent-less argon is what was causing the old dates, so also performing Ar/Ar dating on the samples should have been done. They used the method outside of its boundaries and didn't follow through to try and confirm the dates, the error is not in the dating method but the people who were using it.
3) C-14 dating of wood in sandstone conflicts with the ancient dates of the sandstone.
Answer: There was no conflict, the writer misunderstood the data he received from the lab and proceeded to base his conclusion on this misunderstanding. More about it can be found here,
http://www.geocities.com/arikayx/datinginconflict.html
Helium and other Young earth evidence
The amount of Helium in the atmosphere is not a good way to date the earth because it is being removed at about the same rate that it is being produced. The two types of helium removals are thermal and ionic. Thermal removal is the heating of the helium allowing it enough energy to escape the atmosphere. Ionic removal is when the helium gets ionized in the upper atmosphere and is taken away by the solar winds. Thus this is not evidence for a young earth.
There are many other claims that the earth is young but few if any hold up to scrutiny, here is a list of some and why they aren't evidence for a young earth,
http://www.geocities.com/arikayx/youngearthrefute.html
Laboratory formed organic compounds
abiogenesis
This is a common made mistake. Abiogenesis is not part of the theory of evolution, so any claims that problems in abiogenesis hurt evolution are false. Evolution starts after abiogenesis and it doesn't matter where the first bits of life came from, just as long as they are here. As far as evolution cares, the omnipotent, Invisible, flying, Tie dyed, Unicorn, could have sneezed the first life onto earth on its way to watch a super nova. Modern abiogenesis is still a growing theory and isn't even fully formed yet, because it has a ways to go it is often picked on by creationists who think that if they can prove it wrong, evolution will also collapse. Although its not as solid as evolution it is promising and is currently the best theory we have, many experiments have been performed since the Urey Miller experiment. Dr. Sydney Fox has done many experiments and many of his papers can be found at www.pubmed.com.
Modern Abiogenesis is sometimes confused with spontaneous generation, but they are different theories. Modern abiogenesis says that very primitive life, basically self replicating chemicals, can come from chemical reactions. Spontaneous generation on the other hand said that complex life came from nonliving matter.
Statistics
I have seen some bad and faulty statistics about abiogenesis so I would need to see the source of the presented data before I trusted it. However, as I said before, Abiogenesis is not fully understood, so any statistics done based on what we know will be faulty because they are based on an incomplete model.
Con...
Hello,
I was directed to this article which unfortunately contains many errors so I thought I would correct them. The article is here, http://epm.org/articles/Creationevo.html This is rather long, because it often takes longer to correct errors than it does to make them.
Upward Mutations
Without a definition of what genetic information is its very hard to comment on this. However if an increase in genetic information means an addition of genetic material which leads to a new ability as well, then we have observed this.
Bacteria has been observed gaining the ability to digest nylon through an insertion mutation (addition of genetic code) that caused a frame shift.
http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm
Transitional Fossils
Fossilization
Fossilization is a rare event and generally only gives us bones to go on. So many changes are missed because either they are in soft tissue or weren't fossilized. As in punctuated equilibrium it is also possible that speciation happened away from the main group of animals, then the new group of animals came back and took over, causing a jump in the fossil record. To fix that jump we would need to find the smaller area that the transitional fossils would be in, and we have yet to dig up the entire earth so there are many things that are hiding.
there are a couple common false arguments about transitionals to go over.
1) Is to ask for smaller and smaller transitional until none can be provided, then it is declared that there are no real transitional fossils. For example, we have fossil A and fossil B and fossil C is a transitional between the two. It is then asked for a transitional between fossil A and C and B and C. Lets say fossil D is a transitional for A and C and fossil E is a transitional for B and C. So it currently looks like this:
A->D->C->E->B.
It is then asked for fossils in between A and D, D and C, C and E, E and B. This continues until fossils can no longer be provided. This is a false argument because it ignores the evidence provided and that at one point we will lack fossils because they are rare. In many transitional sets we do have enough fossils to paint a pretty good picture.
2) Another is that the transitional fossil is labeled as being from one of the two species it is said to be a transitional of and not a real transitional. Often its claimed that the organism just had a disease that made it look slightly different. The problem with this is that they can never show any evidence for the claimed disease, and that many creationists can't agree on which group (or "kind") the fossil should be put in, which actually helps the idea that it is a transitional fossil. We can see this here, http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/compare.html
Transitional Fossils
There are quite a few good lists of transitional fossils, here is a transitional list for the whale, one of the many. Summarized from http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part2b.html . For more information I would recommend a visit to the link.
Eoconodon or similar triisodontine arctocyonids (early Paleocene) -- Similar to the early exyclaenid condylarths, had strong canine teeth, blunt cheek teeth and flattened claws.
Microclaenodon (mid-Paleocene) -- A transitional genus intermediate between Eoconodon and the Mesonychids. Its molar teeth are reorganized to look like premolars. It was adapted more toward carnivory.
Dissacus (mid-Paleocene) -- Molars closer to premolars and other tooth changes.
Hapalodectes or a very similar mesonychid (early Eocene, around 55 Ma) -- Very narrow shearing molars, a distinctively shape zygomatic arch and vascularized areas between the molars. probably a close relative to the whale ancestor.
Pakicetus (early-mid Eocene, 52 Ma) -- The oldest fossil whale known. Terrestrial ears, not good for underwater sound location or deep diving. Molars have very mesonychid like cusps but other teeth are like those of later whales. Nostrils are still at the front of the head.
Ambulocetus natans (early-mid Eocene, 50 Ma) -- Still retains four legs, although they were stubby. Had large back feet that stuck out like tail flukes but lacked real tail flukes and had a simple long tail. Long snout with no blowhole.
Rodhocetus (mid-Eocene, 46 Ma) -- Smaller hind legs with a powerful tail. Nostrils had moved back from the tip of the snout.
Basilosaurus isis, Protocetes, Indocetus ramani and similar small-legged whales of the mid-late Eocene (45-42 Ma) -- Still retained hind legs but most likely couldn't walk on them anymore. B isis might have bee a cousin to the modern whale.
Prozeuglodon (late Eocene, 40 Ma) -- Hind legs almost gone but still present. 6" hind legs on a 15 foot body.
Eocetus, & similar "archeocete whales" of the late Eocene -- More advanced whales, that had lost their hind legs, but retained more primitive skull and teeth with unfused nostrils. Much larger streamline bodies with a tail fluke.
In the Oligocene, whales split into two lineages:
1.Toothed whales:
Agorophius (late Oligocene) -- partly telescoped skull with cheek teeth still rooted.
Prosqualodon (late Oligocene) -- Fully telescoped skull with nostrils on top
Kentriodon (mid-Miocene) -- Skull telescoped but still symmetrical.
2.Baleen (toothless) whales:
Aetiocetus (late Oligocene) -- Most primitive mysticete whale. Most likely the stem group for all baleen whales. mysticete style loose jaw hinge and air sinus, but retained its teeth
Mesocetus (mid-Miocene) --- lost its teeth.
Modern baleen whales first appeared in the late Miocene.
Index fossils
This is a complete misunderstanding of how index fossils work, they are not circular. Not every fossil is an index fossil. They work like this,
1) A fossil is constantly found in certain strata of the earth.
2) The strata of the earth is dated.
3) The fossil is found again at another dig.
4) Since it is only found in strata that is a certain age, the scientists can get a quick estimate of the age of the strata. If this age is questionable, then the strata could be dated to double check.
Not circular at all, and not what the article claims.
Frauds
And of course Piltdown Man and Nebraska are brought up. It seems odd that evolutionists can't live these two mistakes down, even though they happened almost 50 years ago (those must be some old High school textbooks) yet it seems to be ok that creationists have false information still up on their sites as truth. The facts of the matter is, yes they were errors, yes evolutionists were the ones that discovered they were errors, and yes evolutionists stopped using them when they were discovered as fakes. So it appears that evolutionists are fallible people but are willing to correct their mistakes when they are made, I have no complaints with this.
Peppered Moths
There are many things written about this and many studies done, most suggest that the claims that the data was falsified are false. However, there is no point to discussing them because it is agreed upon that they show natural selection in action, what the studies were ment to show.
Young Earth
Decay Rates
There are ways to change the beta decay rate, however they don't pose any problems for radiometric dating methods. The way beta decay is increased is through large amounts of pressure and heat. In the paper cited it requires that the element be in a plasma state. The radiometric clock in many methods, such as K/Ar starts only when the rock becomes solid, thus the increased beta decay would not effect the K/Ar clock because the pressure and heat required to turn the K into plasma would also restart the radiometric clock (once it cooled), causing no problem for these methods. It is often forgotten that radioactive decay produces heat, and if the decay was increased by a million times it would produce a very large amount of heat and it would most likely leave evidence behind. And finally there are different types of decay, not only has it not been shown that they can change, but multiple radiometric dating methods will often agree on an age (as long as the methods are being used correctly, which will be discussed later).
Assumptions
Many other assumptions are taken into account when using dating methods. For example, its not known how much parent-less Argon is in rocks when the K/Ar dating method is used. This is one of the reasons it is used on old samples only, because the longer the K decays, the less the parent-less argon effects the date given, at a certain point the range given by K/Ar is larger than the parent-less argon can effect, keeping it from being a problem. Of course the next question is, How do you know the sample is old to begin with? The answer is that you use multiple dating methods and pay attention to what you receive. For the K/Ar dating method, the Ar/Ar dating method can be used if parent-less argon is suspected.
Thrown out dates
When deciding on a final date some dates are thrown out, this is often because the scientists realize people aren't perfect and errors can be made. Multiple samples are taken and multiple radiometric tests are done, they are then all graphed and the median line that most fall under is often what is taken as the final date. Realizing that errors can happen. The total data is often given, even for these odd dates.
Faulty Dating
I would say we can trust radiometric dating much more than we can trust creationist groups to accurately present it. So far every time I have seen a creationist group claim a dating method gave bad results, it was normally because they misused it. If you use it incorrectly, of course it will give bad results. A couple of examples,
1) A living sea mollusk or other sea creature has been C-14 dated as being 3000 years old.
Answer: Any animal that gets their C-14 from a source other than the air cannot be dated using the C-14 dating method because the ratio of C-14 to C-12 is different in the water than in the air. Thus sea creatures cant be dated using C-14.
2) 50 year old Lava flows have been dated at up to 3.5 million years using the K/Ar dating method.
Answer: Multiple samples were taken and some did actually give a correct date of <0.27 The question is, how would we know this was the correct date without assumptions? We use a different radiometric test on the sample to see if we can get it to give the same dates. This wasn't done. Its suggested that parent-less argon is what was causing the old dates, so also performing Ar/Ar dating on the samples should have been done. They used the method outside of its boundaries and didn't follow through to try and confirm the dates, the error is not in the dating method but the people who were using it.
3) C-14 dating of wood in sandstone conflicts with the ancient dates of the sandstone.
Answer: There was no conflict, the writer misunderstood the data he received from the lab and proceeded to base his conclusion on this misunderstanding. More about it can be found here,
http://www.geocities.com/arikayx/datinginconflict.html
Helium and other Young earth evidence
The amount of Helium in the atmosphere is not a good way to date the earth because it is being removed at about the same rate that it is being produced. The two types of helium removals are thermal and ionic. Thermal removal is the heating of the helium allowing it enough energy to escape the atmosphere. Ionic removal is when the helium gets ionized in the upper atmosphere and is taken away by the solar winds. Thus this is not evidence for a young earth.
There are many other claims that the earth is young but few if any hold up to scrutiny, here is a list of some and why they aren't evidence for a young earth,
http://www.geocities.com/arikayx/youngearthrefute.html
Laboratory formed organic compounds
abiogenesis
This is a common made mistake. Abiogenesis is not part of the theory of evolution, so any claims that problems in abiogenesis hurt evolution are false. Evolution starts after abiogenesis and it doesn't matter where the first bits of life came from, just as long as they are here. As far as evolution cares, the omnipotent, Invisible, flying, Tie dyed, Unicorn, could have sneezed the first life onto earth on its way to watch a super nova. Modern abiogenesis is still a growing theory and isn't even fully formed yet, because it has a ways to go it is often picked on by creationists who think that if they can prove it wrong, evolution will also collapse. Although its not as solid as evolution it is promising and is currently the best theory we have, many experiments have been performed since the Urey Miller experiment. Dr. Sydney Fox has done many experiments and many of his papers can be found at www.pubmed.com.
Modern Abiogenesis is sometimes confused with spontaneous generation, but they are different theories. Modern abiogenesis says that very primitive life, basically self replicating chemicals, can come from chemical reactions. Spontaneous generation on the other hand said that complex life came from nonliving matter.
Statistics
I have seen some bad and faulty statistics about abiogenesis so I would need to see the source of the presented data before I trusted it. However, as I said before, Abiogenesis is not fully understood, so any statistics done based on what we know will be faulty because they are based on an incomplete model.
Con...
