Search This Blog

Tuesday, December 26, 2006

Championship - quality Samoyed pups coming!


Kendara Samoyeds is the kennel run by my mother-in-law and her longtime friend. They have been breeding and showing Samoyeds (and Chows) for decades, wow! They've segued away from the Chows now but have kept breeding Samoyeds from their championship stock. If you want a healthy and classic Samoyed pup or juvenile, email Mary or Joyce at kendara@uti.com and they'll let you know who is available. They have a new litter of pups due on the 30th of December. Happy New Year!!!!!!!!!

Wednesday, December 20, 2006

Ho Ho Ho....I read recent comments stemming from the rapid speciation post

Commenters in italics

Me in text

Over the weekend I did some research and was preparing to present what I found, but in the process I came to realize some unfortunate truths:

1. Radar will dismiss any evidence that he does not like. This includes things such as radiometric dating of the earth, the prediction and finding of Tiktaalik, the distribution of fossils in layers of rock, and so on.


No, Radar will present evidence to refute things he disagrees with, and when he does commenters just shut up, fail to understand or pretend to not understand. Remember this later on, when I will demonstrate this.

2. Radar will reinterperate the evidence that he can in order to make it say what he wants. The recent article on rapid speciation readily comes to mind in this category.

Remember what I just stated? The article on speciation was straightforward and based on concrete evidence. The commenter is helpless to refute it, so he claims that I am "reinterpreting" evidence. It is to laugh!

3. Radar will form false analogies in order to trivialize opposing views. Mazement touched on this above. It is one thing for me to say that, because I have used both Mac and PC, I find that PCs work better for my purposes. It would be something completely other to say that, because I have had a computer since I was eight years old, I can conclusively tell you that everything Radar thinks he knows about computers is wrong.

Huh? Care to give an example, or are you just making charges without evidence?

4. After having his pet arguments thoroughly refuted and left behind (we thought) Radar will continue to bring them back as though he had proven them to us. The probability bound he continues to spout is one such case that simply put is "complete excrement of bull."

That rapid speciation article must have really hit the target, the above is more ad hominem attack without content.

There can be no rational discussion where there is this kind of intellectual dishonesty. Radar's mind has clearly been made up and no amount of evidence will change it when, in his mind, his salvation depends upon it not being changed. I do find it interesting that of all people on earth, the only ones who believe in a young earth are those with a religious reason for doing so.

Congratulations, commenter! You have presented an entire comment filled with completely empty and unsubstantiated charges! Lets hope the next one is better...

~~~~~~~

Are you really saying that only scientists can understand science and the rest of us peasants should just shut up and blindly believe what we are told???!!!

I think you're over-reading the bit you were replying to.

Let's move the argument to another field. Suppose you were trying to convert someone to Christianity, and all he had to say was, "Christianity makes no sense! Sometimes they say there's one God, and other times they say there's three. Why won't they make up their minds? And if the Ark of the Covenant was only four feet long, then how did Noah fit all of those animals into it?"

And suppose you patiently corrected him, and then five minutes late he was making the same flawed arguments as if he hadn't heard you?


I often feel that way when presenting arguments on this blog, as a matter of fact. Glad you can feel my pain!

Scientists feel the same way. Modern biology isn't something that was thrown together in an afternoon, it's the product of years of full-time research by thousands of scientists. If you've found a "common-sense" objection to their theories, then there's a good chance that some scientist has already thought about it and can explain why it isn't a problem.

Oh, let's stay with the analogy. This is the situation that existed in the church back in the Middle Ages. I will explain in a moment.

So, no one's claiming that non-scientists can't do science. The claim is that it's arrogant and insulting to say that you understand science better than the vast majority of professionals working in the field.

NO, it isn't. One man's opinion is not inherently better than another man's simply because he has a degree on his wall. The majority opinion can become the bully that pushes the other opinions around because it is the majority but not necessarily because it is right. The minute we decide that the majority opinion must be right, we put an end to scientific research and critical thinking and we might as well shut down science.

Back to the Middle Ages. The average man was not encouraged to receive education nor was he to even own a Bible. The clergy learned to read and they owned the Bibles and they told the peasants what to do and how to think. The prevailing thought was that only the clergy could really understand the Bible and only they could tell the rest of mankind what it contained.

Fortunately, there were some learned individuals that believed that all men should be allowed to own a Bible and be able to read it, and that each man should have his own relationship with the Bible and with God. Men like Nuremberg and Martin Luther, during the Reformation, led the way of revolution in Western Civilization that ultimately led to the establishment of the United States.

I will not kowtow to a scientific establishment that wishes to tell me what to think and what to believe! The evidence is there for all to see and we can all use our minds and decide what we believe the evidence actually means. If you think that thinking for yourself is "arrogant and insulting", then perhaps I should just feel sorry for you. Don't bother passing the Kool-Aid.

To build on the analogy before:

Claiming that there's a conflict between unoformitarianism and catastrophism is just as meaningless as claiming that there's a conflict between monotheism and trinitarianism.


Oh, please! Classic uniformitarianism was definitely not catastrophism, catastrophism has been added in to the new, improved not-quite-uniformitarianism that you apparently seek to defend. You don't know your scientific history.

The "10^50th" argument is based on a seriously flawed misunderstanding of the processes involved; it's on a par with misunderstanding the difference between Noah's Ark and the Ark of the Covenant.


I did pursue the statistical thread for awhile until I realized that many evolutionists also believe in multiverses. In other words, if the odds against something evolving are too great, you just bring in the idea that there could have been almost limitless universes and this just happens to be the one where the impossible became possible. Therefore things along the line of 10^50 become absurd to argue. I present the information that others have written but I don't intend to make it a topic of discussion anymore.

I will say, though, that one of the "discoverers" of DNA, Crick, was so certain that DNA could not possibly have evolved by chance that he became a very strong "panspermian". He was an atheist, so he substituted spacemen from an unknown and unobservable location for a creator God.


I'm pretty sure that rebuttals to both of those arguments have been posted here already.

Professor Schaefer taught at Berkeley so I'm inclined to think he's credible. But are we sure he's a Young-Earth Creationist? In this paper (top of page 3) he says that he believes that the Universe is 15-20 billion years old, and warns against "a wooden or unnaturally literalistic understanding of every [Bible] verse".


You got me here. I knew he was a creationist, didn't check to see if he was a YEC. He isn't. I will be sure to research this before I present the next one, sorry.

~~~~~~~

This interaction is funny. There is this fundamental belief splitting the two sides- both sides see the other side as brainwashed, indoctrinated, and just plain wrong- and no amount of evidence will compel either side to flop to the other side. It's interesting to watch.


I think so, too. Of course, I am laboring under the belief that one side is actually right. I am also trying to allow evidence to win the day. It is a long haul. But the very first thing I asserted about this debate was that worldview was king and that the presuppositions that one brings to the table tend to determine which side you will take. My assertion is this - the naturalistic materialist sees anything that is labeled "God" or "supernatural" and immediately says, "It cannot be!" Therefore that side is deliberately blind to possibilities that the rest of us are free to consider and either accept or reject. The blind leading the blind?


To Radar-

I really can't believe that you try and explain the ark thing with "evidence" and reasoning. That to me is where you start to lose cred. If you want to call the gathering, feeding, storing, caring, washing, breeding, disbursement,........, and all the other problems a flood theory presents a miracle, I can buy that. Sure, if God was my thing I could see believing that God can do anything and that he performed this wild miracle and basically did the whole ark thing him/her/itself. Beyond the miracle theory nothing else makes sense to me. I read your other posts about the ark and they just seem absolutely unreasonable-- the only way this could happen is with complete and utter divine intervention.


You misunderstand. God is capable of miracles and much of the Flood story is a story of miracles, absolutely. But what I have done is to look at the evidence left behind. Based on the evidence, is the miraculous Flood story both possible and plausible? I have asserted strongly that the answer is "yes"! I am not saying that the Flood was caused entirely by natural events nor that Noah depended upon his own strength and wisdom in building the Ark, gathering the animals and caring for them.

If you read my Ark articles with that in mind, you will understand that I am simply looking at the evidence in that way and presenting to the reader how what is recorded in the Ark could have happened. I also contend that the much of what is recorded in Genesis is recorded in part in cultures all over the world. I further contend that a balanced look at the evidence would concede that, if you allow for the possibility of God, it is more reasonable to believe that God created the world rather than the story of macroevolution.

~~~~~~~

Explain why these are "problems".

Isn't it obvious? Based on Radar's numbers, we've got a minimum of 16,000 animals, and that's assuming that you believe that macroevolution is possible and that one species can evolve into another within the same genus. (I think that's also assuming that the ark didn't carry any dinosaurs, or any other animals that went extinct in prehistoric times.)


Did you read the post???!!! Macroevolution has absolutely nothing to do with this at all! 16,000 animals included dinosaurs in the numbers and the speciation involved took place as a result of natural selection working with the genetic material at hand. This loss of information in the gene pool produces speciation but certainly is, if anything, the opposite of macroevolution. This is what I mean by someone either pretending to not understand or else simply just not understanding at all. Wow.

There were only 8 people on the ark, so figure each person was responsible for 2,000 animals. That's a lot of work! A few large animals can go into hibernation, but most of them need food and water practically every day, and a lot of them don't do well in enclosed spaces and need a chance to move around. They also produce manure and various other wastes that would have to be cleaned up.

John Woodmrappe did sketch out a scenario that would allow for all of this to be done. But the Bible just doesn't go into detail in this regard. Were all the animals juveniles? Did they all hibernate? There are all sorts of possibilities but if all the animals were alive and requiring care, the 8-person crew would be able to handle the job if they worked in shifts. Therefore, that would be possible but not comfortable.

Is there a zoo near where you live? Some of them have special tours where you can go behind-the-scenes and see how much work is involved. It's not as easy as it looks! They need way more than 1 full-time employee per 2,000 animals.

I've gotta agree with Lava. The only way the Ark story works is as a continuous year-long act of divine intervention, with Noah & family just doing a token amount of work so they wouldn't feel completely useless. (And I don't think there's anything in the Bible to contradict that.) There'd also need to be one last miracle afterwards, to erase all the evidence of a world-wide flood by creating the geologic column and so forth.


Hmmm, you were doing pretty good with those two paragraphs until you got to the geologic column. The geologic column is a strong piece of evidence that the Flood actually occurred and it is a problem for evolutionists. As I have said, and they haven't been able to refute it, the column is a story of catastrophism by water all over the world. This fits the world-wide flood. I think the other explanations are stretches that border on, no, actually enter in to the world of the ridiculous. Do you really think that the world was subjected to eleven-twelve world-wide catastrophes that resulted in water-produced sedimentary layers? No? Do you then think the layers are layed down in a uniform fashion? No? How about dozens and dozens of localized disasters that somehow laid down similar layers around the world? No? So you look at the geologic columns and tell me YOUR story...


Okay, back to the evidence. I presented some compelling evidence showing that variation in kind (you may call it speciation) by natural selection is able to make rapid and significant changes to organisms through the selection of and often the loss of genetic material. This supports the rapid changes within types or kinds of animals after the Flood.

On the other hand, over several generations of study and tests and attempts to find evidences of macroevolution, is just isn't happening. It is not being observed to happen at all.

These statements are based on actual observation, not my opinion. The observations back up the idea of a Creator God who made animals with a rich genetic code that would be able to help the organisms adjust to wide varieties of environment and still fulfill their place in the ecosystem of the planet.

Macroevolution, which requires additions to the gene pool, is not observed. Evolutionists will say that macroevolution happens too fast to see in the fossil record, and too slow to be observed in real life. But, darn it, you would expect to see something after a couple of hundred years of trying, wouldn't you?

In any event, let us stay on rapid speciation and the addition or loss of genetic information. I am still waiting for the first post from a macroevolutionist who can bring facts to bear to his side of this issue. Still waiting...

Posts may well be few between now and after Christmas. Peace and blessings on Christmas to all of you!!!!!!!!!!!!

Sunday, December 17, 2006

Over the river and through the mill to grandaughter's room we went

It is always different when your baby has a baby. My daughter Michelle has produced a 5 pound, 12 ounce beauty named Angela Marie. Mom and baby were in the hospital a few counties away and we had Saturday to go and visit.

Strangely, the night before I had a dream in which I was much younger and my kids were all little again. I was holding them on laps and tossing them around and running with them, having a ball! I awoke, realized they were all big now, and felt a very profound sense of loss. I couldn't have my little boys leaping at me anymore, my little girls running away from my threatened tickle monster...I was exceedingly morose.

Later, I realized that in my dad-of-small-kids days I was very athletic and could throw them around and teach them all sorts of sports and just go all day long. Now that my kids were big, I had been in a serious accident, had surgeries, and just wasn't the physical presence I had been. I wouldn't be the same kind of dad now. Plus, no one could take all the memories away, I had been a very loving, hands-on father and my small guys would always be able to run and play in my mind even though they were now big.

I decided that it was the right time of life to become the grandfather. God is smart about these things! I would get to hang out with little kids, but now they would be the kids of my little kids and I would get them in much smaller doses, so a certain amount of dynamic goofing around would be feasible. Yeah, I guessed this was all okay.

So, we would grab the van and hit the road back to the old stomping grounds, where both the new parents and my mom live. The plan was to go get great-grandma and take her with us, and that went smoothly. Next, we went to the hospital to visit the proud new mom and dad and the baby. Uhm, we forgot the camera!!!! Fortunately, the hospital gift shop had disposable cameras and we were all set.

Angela is a very pretty little baby girl. Her C-sectioned mom would have to stay in the hospital along with her baby for a couple of days and dad was staying in the room, too. Great-grandma couldn't stay too long, so after awhile we said our goodbyes. We had time to go out to eat a midday meal, drop off my mom and hit the road. We made plans to come back the next week.

The first indication that things were going downhill was when I noticed the van was kind of leaning...the right front tire was almost entirely flat! Now, the van is pretty new and the tires have a lot of tread, so that was a surprise. We turned on the flashing lights and limped to the nearest gas station. Closed! Disgruntled, we limped to the second gas station. Open, hurrah! But the business end of their air hose had been broken off and we couldn't add air there, either. I had no idea where another station might be, so I reluctantly purchased a can of fix-a-flat. I crouched for five minutes while the can filled the tire enough to be safe and, tire bolstered, drove to the restaurant.

When we finally got ready to go back on the highway, we first stopped at a gas station, added some air to the tire to make the pressure correct after getting gas, and we were off!

Not a rumble strip


We were on the Indiana Toll Road, it was nice and dark and there was a light, cold drizzle forcing me to turn on the wipers on intermittent setting. We were flying along about 65 miles an hour when I saw the sign annnouncing a toll booth approaching. Just after that, I felt a vibration and there was a rumble. I figured they'd put in some additional rumble strips. But when the rumble increased and the steering wheel began to vibrate I knew it was a flat tire. But I was in the left-hand lane, with a car behind me and a couple of trucks to my right. I had to slow down dramatically, turning on my signal, and keep the car steady until the trucks passed and I could move to the right lane and on to the side of the road. We were just before a bridge so there wasn't much of an emergency lane there at all. By the time I could get stopped it was hard to steer and I feared perhaps the tire would shred and begin ripping off of the wheel.

Our van is a Grand Voyager with all the bells and whistles, you know what I mean, and we even have a central console with a food/drink compartment that will either cool or heat your stuff. But the jack and jack-handle looked pretty mickeymouse to me at first glance. First glance turned out to be right.

The spare was theoretically lowered from its berth beneath the rear area of the van by turning a screw. In this case, a metal cord lowered but the tire stayed right where it was. I completely lowered the metal cord without dislodging the spare, A struggle ensued as I tried spinning and hitting and pulling on the spare while sprawled on the pavement with big trucks zooming by at breakneck speed and the cold drizzle coming down. My poor wife was joining in the endeavor, providing light with a tiny keychain flashlight she had with her. (I had previously bought a set of those "shake-and-shine" flashlights and, as it turns out, they quit working after a few weeks of remaining unshook. What a ripoff!)

With the spare not coming off, I then grabbed the cell phone and called 911, who patched me in to the Toll Road operator. She let me know that I could call for a tow truck if I wished, but there was no service vehicle patrolling the Toll Road, so if I couldn't get the spare to work I'd have no other choice. If I left my vehicle on the road more than two hours, it would be towed by them at my expense. Great. After two different conversations (having ended the first to think and discuss with the wife what to do and so on) I was told by the operator that a maintenance truck was not far away and they might have a hammer or sledge that would help me get the spare off.

While we waited, I went back to pull and yank at the spare with the help of my wife. The spare almost immediately fell off right on my awkwardly splayed left hand. OUCH!!!! So it was off, but the stupid thing that had theoretically held the tire in place, a T-shaped thingy that had been at the end of the metal cord, was too big to get through the opening in the center of the spare tire. GRRRRRRRRRR!

I finally made the jackhandle into a hammer and, after whacking my hand once or twice in the process, managed to beat the stupid T-thingy through the opening and free the spare tire. We actually had a spare that was ready to go. So I figured all was well now. All I had to do was break the lug nuts, jack up the van, take off the nuts and change out the tire.

Design engineers at Chrysler strike again



It was bad enough that the "crank down" tire wouldn't crank down and that the T-thingy had to be hammered off....while still under the van.....in the drizzle, in the dark, with a smashed hand. Yeah, that was bad enough. Now, when I tried to loosen the lug nuts, it turned out that the wimpy little jackhandle wasn't strong enough to do the job. A couple of those nuts had been airhammered on a bit too strong and that little jackhandle just failed to handle the torque needed to do the job. I was getting pretty darned frustrated by this time...The spare tire design was a failure in a couple of important ways, the jackhandle was inadequate and we were getting nowhere fast.

They calvary thunders to the rescue

Just then, a car pulled up behind and I could see that it was a cruiser. The Highway Patrol! It was a somewhat diminuitive female officer named Sandra Sherer, who with a smile began saving the day. Did she have a jack? Yes, she had a four-way....and a 2 and 1/2 ton jack! What? Yes, she had a very cool portable little floor jack in a black plastic carrying case (I am getting one of those!) and a wonderful chrome four-way spinner.

It was also cool that, right next to her patrol car and leaning against the guard rail was a wheel cover...ours! I hadn't mentioned that the wheel cover had fallen off and I had written it off, probably way back somewhere and probably bounced off of the road. But no, it was just propped up there, unscuffed, waiting to be snagged and tossed into the back of the van.

We moved my pathetic little Chrysler jack out of the way and I hunkered down to begin taking the lug nuts loose on the front tire. Just then the highway maintenance truck arrived and the driver, Joe Clark, came up to help. I had just muscled the lugs all loose, but he helped me get the lugs off after the jack raised the van, and then get the flat tire off and the spare on, etc. I profusely thanked Officer Sherer and maintenance worker Clark (You guys rock!) and we were able to head back down the road.

It's always sumthin'

Except the parking brake was stuck. I couldn't get it loose, the patrol car was waiting patiently behind, so I decided to begin driving and pulling on the handle at the same time, hoping it would loosen. AAAArgh! I headed out, pulling and yanking on the handle while driving, wondering what next could take place? Fortunately, I felt the handle actually give and felt the van surge as the brake came loose and we were able to drive the rest of the way home without further incident.

Naturally, today the youngest daughter drove the little Kia some 20 miles away and promptly got stuck with a dead battery. I sent the college son to go get her, because I could tell the battery was dead and it was certainly an electrical problem, perhaps the alternator, since the battery is maybe two weeks old. I just couldn't deal with going out and fooling around with the stupid car. I figured tomorrow the battery would have had time to charge and we could drive it in the daytime, without the lights, and drop it off at my mechanic, who is a friend.

Bill the mechanic

It is a great thing to have an auto mechanic who is both competent and trustworthy and, even better, doesn't charge an arm and a leg to do things to your car. I once did all my own automobile work, other than messing with transmissions, but since I hurt my back and had surgery I have eschewed most auto repair myself. I can take the little car to Bill and he will find the problem quickly and fix it. Heck, I can take the van to Bill, put two new tires on the front and save the good but used left front tire as an actual spare. I'll put that dumb little temporary spare back in its little hideyhole, but on long trips we'll just toss an actual spare in the far back. It's a big van, so there's lots of room.

It has to be done right away. The Kia daughter needs the Kia, because she has a job and the college son needs to drive the Contour to classes and to work. The Subaru Forester is what we drive around town, but we'll need the van for the road. Saturday we go to have Christmas with great grandma again and also granddaughter. Sunday we celebrate Christmas with yet another daughter, owner of the two grandsons. Monday we travel out of state to visit my mother-in-law for Christmas there. Yeah, then my wife's cousin is getting married on New Year's, so we travel out of state for that, too.

So I am the owner of a sore hand, and I'm grumpy about the stupid cars, and so I am not particularly inspired. Such is life. Church was good and it was nice to hang out with friends. Football was entertaining today. But I have a busy work schedule all next week. I may not make a lot of long posts this week.

Of course, you may be too busy shopping and traveling and entertaining to read and comment on blogs anyway. Ha! In any event, from me to you, a slice of my life and if you aren't online again later this week, a merry a blessed Christmas to you! Through all that took place, I am now a grandpa for the third time. Hurrah!

Friday, December 15, 2006

The Lords of Evolution do not deign the peasantry shall opine!

Commenters in italics, me in plain text:

You demonstrated that IF the world was mostly flat and IF there was only one continent and IF water came up from underground THEN the world could have been covered. But where is the evidence that any of these things DID happen in the last four thousand years.

You mean besides water-catastrophic fossil rock layers all over the entire planet and a narrative involving an ark and a flood found in most cultures in the world? How about the Genesis account of the flood, which fits available evidence.

I still see no place where this 16,000 number came from. The link you mentioned simply says "I then figured out how many animals were on the Ark, arriving at approximately 16,000." There is no mention of how that number was reached.

Using the Genus as an equivalent generally to the kind, he assigns 7428 mammals, 4602 birds and 3724 reptiles to the ark. 15,754 is then rounded up to 16,000

The claim that dinosaurs simply grew larger because they lived longer than lizards now has two problems with it:

First, where is the evidence that any organism will continue to grow the longer it lives (it seems to me that this is obviously not the case.)


I quote from this site, something that is common knowledge to those familiar with zoology:

Which is true when it comes to animal growth? Animals:

A. Reach a particular size and then stop growing
B. Keep growing indefinitely
C. All of the above

If you guessed C, congratulations! The skeletons of most mammals reach a certain size and then stop growing. But many animals, including some mammals, keep growing throughout their lives. Kangaroos, for example, just keep growing and growing until they die. Most fish, amphibians, lizards, and snakes are also indeterminate growers. Until something--disease, a predator, or old age-takes them down, these animals know no bounds when it comes to size.


Dinosaurs, being most akin to snakes/amphibians/lizards could have been expected to keep growing throughout their lives. In antediluvial conditions, they grew to often enormous sizes, as the fossil record shows.

Second, this contradicts your other claims that dinosaurs lived after the flood. If their size was due to different atmospheric conditions, they would not have been around post flood, would they?

The documentation of man encountering dinosaur after the Flood usually presents dinosaurs as being big, but not Patagonia-huge as they were before the flood. It appears that post-Flood dinos tended not to grow any larger than half of their antediluvian limits. This is also true of most of the paintings and carvings and drawings of dinosaurs from the past.

What is insulting (not to me personally but I'm sure a great number of respected scientists would feel so) is that because you "have taken courses in Biology, Physics, Chemistry and Anthropology as well as Geology" you seem to think that you have the knowledge to overturn a couple hundred years worth of some of the most important scientific discoveries made.

You gotta be kiddin' me!!!!! Do I have to be a chef to determine whether a strip steak is tasty? Must I be a musician to decide whether or not I like an album by Muse? Should football fans be banned from cheering or booing unless they can prove that they are coaches? Are you really saying that only scientists can understand science and the rest of us peasants should just shut up and blindly believe what we are told???!!! Not in this lifetime and not this blogger, dude! You can take that elitist attitude back to Berkeley or wherever it was first input into you and...well, leave it there. (I am a gentleman). Insulting, to disagree with you? To disagree with Richard Dawkins? Hmm, what if you guys are WRONG?

On the topic of world view and science, if it were all about world view, Francis Collins would not be a proponent of evolution. Plain and simple. He is a firm believer in god and a devoutly religious man. However, he also has a knowledge of DNA and genetics which I would say surpasses most people alive, as well as a firm understanding of evolutionary theory. If DNA and genetics poses such a barrier to evolution as you suggest, and worldview is responsible for belief in evolution, as you have asserted multiple times, Francis Collins would not be be a proponent of evolution. Period. The same can be said for many many other scientists with similar credentials and beliefs. I gave you a few names previously but I'm sure if you really want I can find hundreds more just to demonstrate that this is not an anomaly.

I can find hundreds of creation scientists, too. So what? 40 years ago, I would have found that the majority of geologists were uniformitarians. 50 years ago the majority of adults in the Soviet Union would have claimed to be communist, and 70 years ago most Germans claimed to be Nazis. 700 years ago the vast majority of mankind thought the earth was flat.

Francis Crick, one of the "discovers" of DNA is an atheist, and yet do you know he didn't believe life happened by chance? He knew that DNA was too complex and there were too many factors involved that precluded its evolution...but since he hated the idea of God, he was a panspermia advocate. Yeah, unknown spacemen seeded the earth with life, that's science!

Remember my series by Dr. Schaefer? Here are his credentials:

"Professor Henry F. (Fritz) Schaefer is one of the most distinguished physical scientists in the world. The U.S. News and World Report cover story of December 23, 1991 speculated that Professor Schaefer is a “five time nominee for the Nobel Prize.” He has received four of the most prestigious awards of the American Chemical Society, as well as the most highly esteemed award (the Centenary Medal) given to a non-British subject by London’s Royal Society of Chemistry. He is a Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. Moreover, his general interest lectures on science and religion have riveted large audiences in nearly all the major universities in the U.S.A. and in Beijing, Berlin, Budapest, Calcutta, Cape Town, New Delhi, Hong Kong, Istanbul, London, Paris, Prague, Sarajevo, Seoul, Shanghai, Singapore, Sofia, St. Petersburg, Sydney, Tokyo, Warsaw, Zagreb, and Zürich.

For 18 years Dr. Schaefer was a faculty member at the University of California at Berkeley, where he remains Professor of Chemistry, Emeritus. Since 1987 Dr. Schaefer has been Graham Perdue Professor of Chemistry and Director of the Center for Computational Chemistry at the University of Georgia."

Dr. Schaefer is a YEC creationist, just as I am. Is he an insult to Isaac Asimov? I will gladly post an article by a credentialed creation-believing scientist every week, if the public demands, and I could keep doing it with a different scientist each week for years and years.

I agree with scientists who say things such as the following:

"Based on probability factors . . any viable DNA strand having over 84 nucleotides cannot be the result of haphazard mutations. At that stage, the probabilities are 1 in 4.80 x 10 to the 50th. Such a number, if written out, would read:

480,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.

"Mathematicians agree that any requisite number beyond 10 to the 50th has, statistically, a zero probability of occurrence (and even that gives it the benefit of the doubt!). Any species known to us, including the smallest single-cell bacteria, have enormously larger number of nucleotides than 100 or 1000. In fact, single cell bacteria display about 3,000,000 nucleotides, aligned in a very specific sequence. This means that there is no mathematical probability whatever for any known species to have been the product of a random occurrence—random mutations (to use the evolutionist's favorite expression)."
—I.L. Cohen, Darwin was Wrong (1984), p. 205.

Therefore

"The usual answer to this question is that there was plenty of time to try everything. I could never accept this answer. Random shuttling of bricks will never build a castle or a Greek temple, however long the available time. A random process can build meaningful structures only if there is some kind of selection between meaningful and nonsense mutations."—Nobel Prize winner Albert Szent-Gyorgyi, "The Evolutionary Paradox and Biological Stability," in Molecular Evolution, p. 111.

At the very least, evolution remains completely unproven and undemonstrated, certainly not worthy of being the feature of the systematic brainwashing that takes place in our school systems and information media day after day. I stand with those who question these fallacies and contend for the truth!

Beneficial mutations?

To append the last post, concerning the issue of mutation as the engine that drives macroevolution, an excerpt from a terrific article by Jerry Bergman, Ph.D. which you will find here.


Evidence for Beneficial Mutations

It is also widely known that beneficial mutations are extremely rare. Some workers have estimated that far less than .01 percent of all expressed mutations are helpful to the organism. As Francisco Ayala (1978) noted “mutation is the ultimate source of all genetic variation,” but useful genetic variation “is a relatively rare event....” (p.63). Dobzhansky (1957) likewise concluded that “the mutants which arise are, with rare exceptions, deleterious to their carriers, at least in the environments which the species normally encounters” (p. 385). The conclusion that very few beneficial mutations occur in nature is still held by many today. In Strickberger’s words “new mutations that have an immediate beneficial effect on the organism seem generally to be quite rare” (2000, p. 227).

In order to locate all alleged examples of beneficial mutations, I carried out a computer search of the literature. My review covered all published scientific studies that dealt with beneficial mutations. The definition of beneficial mutation used was a mutation that was regarded as beneficial by the authors surveyed. Key words used in the computer search included synonyms of beneficial, such as “favorable, helpful, usable, valuable, adaptive, good, advantageous, supportive, positive,” etc. The search of two data bases totaling 18.8 million records found that, of all articles discussing mutations, only 0.04 percent, or 4 in 10,000 articles on mutations, were located that discussed beneficial or favorable mutations. Some overlap exists in the data bases searched, consequently the actual total number of records searched was less than 18.8 million. The overlap in the search was estimated by extrapolating from the records found. Assuming that the same level of overlap exists in the entire database, a total of approximately 16 million records was searched. These searches may have missed some relevant articles but are useful to indicate trends.

All of the 126 examples located were then reviewed, focusing on evidence for information-gaining beneficial mutations. It was found that none of them contained clear, empirically supported examples of information-gaining, beneficial mutations. Most “examples” of actual, beneficial mutations were loss mutations in which a gene was disabled or damaged, all of which were beneficial only in a limited situation.

A review of both textbooks and journal articles on evolution demonstrated that the most common examples of beneficial mutations were sickle cell anemia, bacterial resistance to antibiotics, Ancon short legged sheep, viral/bacterial immunity, and a “putative beneficial mutation for lipid transport” (Galton, et. al., 1996; Strickburger, 2000).

An example of a mutation that was beneficial in specific situations was damage to the Chemokine receptor 5, (CCR5), the principle co-receptor in T-cells that causes cells with CD4 receptors (primarily T-cells) to be unable to take the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) into the cell. As a result, a person with this mutation has an abnormally high immunity to HIV infection (Huang, 1996; Wilkinson, 1998).

Discussion of the Beneficial Mutation Literature Review

Most of the literature covered the topic of beneficial mutations in general, and did not document specific mutations. The second largest category was literature dealing with loss mutations that were beneficial to humans only in certain situations. An example of such loss mutations, illustrating that many “beneficial mutations” were not beneficial for the animal, was a muscle mutation in the Belgian Blue breed of cattle. This is very valuable to beef farmers because it results in 20 to 30% more muscle than average. The meat is also very tender and lower in fat (Seitz, et al., 1999; McPherron, et al., 1997). A different mutation in the same gene is also responsible for the very muscular Piedmontese breed of cattle.

Muscle growth is regulated by a number of proteins, including myostatin. The Belgian Blue strain mutation deactivates the myostatin gene. Consequently, there is less regulation of the muscle growth, and the muscle bulk becomes abnormally large. Genetic engineers have bred muscular mice by using the same principle. Like seedless fruit and many similar mutations, this one is beneficial to humans only and not to the cattle. Among the mutation’s several negative side effects is a reduction of the animal’s fertility. Although this Belgian Blue mutation produces “beneficial” effects for farmers and consumers, it is the result of information loss—as are mutations that produce seedless fruit. Therefore, it is the opposite of the production of new beneficial information that would be necessary to achieve macroevolutionary changes.

Another example of a so-called “beneficial” mutation that was discovered in 1889 in Atchison, Kansas, is a mutant hornless Hereford cow. Hornless cattle suffer fewer injuries in herds, and for this reason many cattleman had been surgically dehorning their herd. The new breed eliminated this requirement, and it soon became a common domesticated breed (Walker, 1915, p. 68). In the wild, though, the Hereford cow would be at a distinct disadvantage.

The most well known loss mutation was discovered in 1791 by Seth Wright, a Massachusetts farmer. He noted that a male lamb in his flock had short, bent legs resembling a dachshund (Walker, 1915, p. 68). He realized that a flock of bowlegged sheep could not jump high fences, which could save the sheepherder time and money because only short barriers would be needed to contain them. He carefully raised this sheep, and, as the trait was evidently caused by a dominant gene, he was able to produce a new sheep “breed,” which is now called Ancon sheep (Hickman, et al., 2001). It is now realized, however, that this so-called breed is actually a usually lethal deformity that causes achondroplasia, and this “breed” has rapidly gone extinct in spite of efforts to save it.

The Number of Mutations NeoDarwinism Requires to Evolve a Species

A total of 1.7 million species of animals have been identified from comparative studies of preserved specimens (Blackmore, 2002). Researchers estimate that somewhere between 3 million and 30 million species now exist. The most common estimate is around 13 million (Margulis and Schwartz, 1998, p. 3; Blackmore, 2002).

According to an Amersham bioscience report (2001, p. 1), it is estimated that there are thousands of different proteins used in the human body (see also “Preteome” AAAS Science Netlinks). Nuclear pore complexes alone comprise 50 to 100 different proteins (Allen, 2000, p. 1651). All of them are produced by the estimated 35 to 45 thousand human genes that, according to neoDarwinists, evolved from other, less-complex, and often shorter genes. Shermer (2002, p. 229) estimates that “trillions of distinct modifications” were required to evolve humans alone. Presumably, each modification would require many mutations.

A significant fraction of open reading frames has been judged not to match any another sequence in the database, indicating that a significant number of all proteins may be unique to each genus of animal (Bailey, 2001; Siew and Fischer, 2003, p. 7). Thus, as many as 200 million different proteins may exist. From 150,000 to 250,000 extinct animal species have also been identified and reported in the paleontological literature. NeoDarwinists estimate that as many as 99 percent of all species that have ever lived are extinct (Margulis and Sagan, 2002, p. 52; Raup, 1977, p. 50). Although some claim the number is far lower, assuming this estimate to be valid would put the number of species that have ever lived at over 200 trillion!

Given the estimate that roughly an average of 1,000 transitional forms are required to evolve a species (a number that is a rough estimate and is dependant on various assumptions)—this would mean that 2x1017 transitional forms have existed. If 1,000 mutations are required for each transitional form, this would translate into 2x1020 beneficial mutations that are required. And not one clear beneficial mutation or transitional form has yet been convincingly demonstrated, although likely some do exist. The paucity of clearly helpful mutations must be considered in context with the estimate that 2x1020 mutations that are required to produce the natural living world existing today and the number of animals that are speculated to have once existed.

Given a low estimate of 1,000 steps required to evolve the average protein (if this were possible) over 2x1014 beneficial mutations would have been needed to evolve just the proteins that are estimated to exist today. So far only 60 species, including the nematode worm, humans, yeast, rice, mustard plant, and bacteria have had their DNA fully sequenced. As more life forms are sequenced, the above estimates may go either up or down. The same evolutionary problem exists in attempting to use mutations to explain the origin of the genes required to make fat, nucleic acid, carbohydrate families, and other compounds that are produced by living organisms and are necessary for life.

Thursday, December 14, 2006

More on evidences for creation versus evolution via comments

Commenters in italics, my replies in ordinary text.

Some highlights from radar's flood series:


"In an antediluvian world with just one continent, covering the tallest peak by twenty feet could happen with an outpouring of water that had been trapped underground and rising of sea floors"


I also presented the amount of water available in the oceans now and suspended in the air and that amount just happens to coincide with my statement. Xiangtao, being unable to refute it, just mocks it instead.

"In order for the life we now have on this planet to have been contained in the Ark, that life that could not have been sustained outside of the Ark, there would have had to have been about 16,000 kinds of vertebrates and birds carried along with Noah. Based upon the nutrional needs of these animals, Noah and his family could have theoretically worked in shifts and cared for their needs. It is certainly reasonable, however, that because of both the emotional impact that such a voyage would have on the animals and also the strain of constant care that would be placed upon the crew, that God caused the animals to enter some kind of state of hibernation for a good part of the voyage and that he probably sent along the smallest viable juveniles rather than full-grown adults."

There was documentation presented for that number of 16,000. I also showed that the dimensions of the Ark were plenty big enough for the task, and that the design was much like modern huge ocean-going vessels. God was only 4,000 years or so ahead of us when it came to boat design. I also pointed out that the Bible called for a certain type of animal to be taken on the Ark and with certain numbers. The speculative part was simply exploring some possibilities about how the animals might have been sustained while on the Ark. Since evolutionists would, if honest, admit that almost the entirety of their assertions are speculative I am not ashamed to present a few of my own.

I also recommend looking into various links found on this page for further reference concerning Noah's Ark and the Flood.

"There are clues in the fossil record that the Earth's atmosphere was somewhat different pre-Flood. The physical structure of dinosaur remains seem to tell us that the world included an atmosphere that was more oxygen-rich and that animals, like humans, had longer lifespans. Dinosaurs, being a kind of lizard, likely just continued to grow during their lives and therefore for them to reach such amazing proportions would have had the ability to live far beyond the lifespans of modern animals. However, these creatures should not have been able to live in an atmosphere like we have today."

Yes, the size and structure of the larger dinosaurs and extinct mammals and other clues in the fossil record indicate that atmospheric conditions and certainly other environmental conditions were different pre-Flood. If this becomes a bone of contention requiring a separate post, I may do one.

These are a few selections of many that are assertions of things that "might" have happened, with no evidence that they actually did happen. If you go back and read the comments of these articles, you will find plenty of comments along the lines of "evidence please". Naturally these requests are ignored.

No, these requests are not ignored. I tend to present far more facts than the commenters, who usually just mock and deride and bring nothing new to the table. Both macroevolution and creationism must use primarily the same evidences, and the differences are in how these evidences are interpreted. Unlike evolution, though, creation assertions remain basically unchanged, for they still fit the evidences. Evolution has to keep changing as more evidence comes forth.

For instance? Uniformitarianism was once a key part of macroevolution teaching. The fossil record was supposed to have been in layers laid down over long millions of years, step by step, in a uniform manner. Creationists said all along that the fossil record is that of catastrophism because it is a record of the flood and the dynamic events immediately following that flood, including ice ages as the globe adjusted to the new continents and temperatures, etc, associated with the Noahic Flood.

Whereas the fossil rock layers are not uniform around the world, they have some major things in common: They are sedimentary rocks and they were caused by the action of water and their size and ubiquity means catastrophism. With so many layers, creationists see the working of flood dynamics, which lay down layers of sediment, and also see the post-flood actions of massive mud and landslides and the workings of glaciation, etc. which all lead to the various massive layers now found.

How do macroevolutionists explain these layers? Multitudes of separate catastrophes?

lava said...
Radar,
First of all, let me say I really enjoy reading your blog. While I don't agree with almost anything you say, you post some interesting arguments/ideas. It is interesting to hear how the other half thinks.


Yep, that is one reason I love doing this blog!

Second, this whole Noah's Ark thing and a 6,000 year old earth just baffles me. I'd love to know at some point in the future your thoughts on how humans spread and different races "occured". I don't know how many people were supposedly on the ark, but I just don't get how its possible that those people repopulated, spread to the 4 corners of the earth, and so many different/distinct races "occured". All in under 6,000 years. A follow up to that question is, do you believe current dating techniques are just wrong? Evidence suggests humans have been around a whole lot longer then that.

Lava, I recently posted on rapid speciation, which applies to mankind as well in terms of racial characteristics. If you note, in the last Egypt post there are historic references to the time of Peleg and the division of the earth, when various groups set off to populate different areas. Just before the formation of Egypt, the families of Ham, Shem and Japheth (the sons of Noah) went their separate ways. It is a fascinating thing that the genealogies of people in every "corner" of the planet list one of these three men as being patriarchs. Some genealogies mention Noah and even Adam! You might check out some of my posts on genealogies (I think I spelled it "geneology" in a couple of cases, blah!) to view some of the evidence available.

In truth, there is no reliable evidence of mankind being around much before about 2300 BC. This is what a creationist would expect, that the Flood would wipe out all traces of the prior civilization. Or, almost all, since now and then an anachronistic artifact will show up in a rock layer or in coal. Furthermore, pretty much any dating method favored by evolutionists has proven to be unreliable much past maybe three thousand or so years back, and even then often not. No, it is a macroevolutionists best weapon to scoff at a short history for mankind, since real evidence is not available to them. Like it or not, the only truly reliable historical documents we have that stretch back much beyond 700 BC or so is the Bible and there is nothing that claims to go beyond about 2300 BC that can be believed.

To get into more detail about the races of mankind, I posted Is that Alleles there is? That is a good starting point. This one may be of interest, too. You'll find that with most posts like this, I later follow up to deal with questions and assertions made by commenters. There are about 19 posts that deal most particularly with the Ark in some way, for instance.


xiangtao said...
What we recommended to you radar was that you learn something about biology and evolution NOT from creationist sources. I'll give a shot at answering some of this but if you want better answers, you really should go talk to someone in the biology department at a nearby university. I know you have plenty of good ones in your area.


This is becoming insulting, Xiangtao. My grade point average in college was well above 3.5 and as I have mentioned previously, I have taken courses in Biology, Physics, Chemistry and Anthropology as well as Geology and I had seriously considered a career in Paleontology. I have been an amateur fossil collecter since I was a child and an observer of the rock record for longer than you have been alive, I would imagine. When will you quit using this simplistic and arrogant device to take the focus off of the actual discussion?


As to quick changes in the population, I'm not aware that anyone said minor changes (limb length, body size, etc.) could not change rapidly. We see that sort of thing happen all the time. For example, I am considerably shorter than the other males in my family. My wife is also short so there is a good chance our son will be short. Keep this up for a few generations and we have a much shorter population than before. What does take millions of years is the kind of evolution that goes from fish to amphibian.


So you say. The difference is, I have presented hard evidence that rapid speciation does take place and that such speciation is a result of the loss of genetic information and operates by natural selection in order to ensure the survival of the kind. You, on the other hand, make a baseless, unobservable assertion that fish becomes amphibian.

The topic of new genetic information is where you most desperately need to find some better sources. Mutation quite often produces new genetic material, usually through the mechanism of gene duplication. Again I ask you, if genetic information were a problem for evolution, why would someone such as Francis Collins believe in it?

Francis Collins has his own mind, which I have not read recently. But as I have said before, world view plays a large part in what you believe. In addition, many scientists whose fields are not precisely or even generally in the same field as those who study evolution will tend to simply believe the majority opinion. Some eventually decide to study this opinion for themselves and there are certainly large numbers of creationists who are former believers in evolution. I am one of their number.

I have never doubted that mutations occur and that sometimes such mutations wind up making changes to the gene pool. Most of these mutations either make no change to the creature itself, because of the portion of the DNA string where they reside, and the vast majority of the rest are deleterious. Scientists have had the opportunity to study or be aware of millions of generations of bacteria and have never observed bacteria converting into paramecium. Xiangtao can present no evidence of mutation driving a change of a kind of organism either through millions of bacteria generations or thousands of fruit fly generations nor even hundreds of generations of daisies.

We will go into more detail in a later post about this subject to further illustrate the paucity of the argument that a macroevolutionist brings to the discussion in this arena.

lava said...
RE: Noah's Ark as is brought it again here. I just can't fathom this happening. There are soooooo many questons. So, the animals got off the ark- how did they get to all the continents? Animals that feed off of other animals, for example an Owl and mice, how did they live? The owl has to eat the mice, but the mice have to duplicate to live. I don't get it. Also aren't there issues of inbreeding?


Lava, kindly read this particular article concerning some of your further questions. Also, I earlier provided a link to several flood/ark posts. This one is a start. This one is good.

RE: the rest of this article. There is just this leap from showing animals can adapt quickly to saying this helps support creationism/discredit evolution. The author justifies this leap by saying "But since evolutionists mistakenly interpret all such adaptation/speciation as ‘evolution happening’, they are left stunned when it happens much faster than their traditional interpretations of the fossil record would allow." I don't think thats right.

Well, this is the name of that tune- Rapid speciation, having been proven to occur, means that all of the myriad varieties of living organisms found on earth today that would have been preserved within the Ark within the gene pool of the ancestral kinds can be shown to have had plenty of time to have arisen. Rapid changes also philosophically go against the evolutionary grain, which demands long time frames for evolution to occur, conveniently meaning that we cannot be expected to observe it happening. Therefore the "science" of macroevolution is far more speculative than that of creationism.

Darwin observed variation in kind, or microevolution, and from that eventually came his postulation about macroevolution. But he didn't really understand genetics at all, or have a concept of microbiology, or understand that all the operations he considered in the population of finches and other creatures on the Galapagos were simply natural selection working from a pre-existing pool of genetic traits imbedded in the DNA. His ignorance allowed him to be pretty confident in his assertions and macroevolutionists have been covering up sad-but-truths ever since. Macroevolution is "THE GREAT AND POWERFUL OZ" while the evidence supporting it are one small, timid man behind a curtain.

Prophecy feedback and dating Egypt

As usual, comments will be in italics with my responses in normal text:

cranky old fart said...

Radar,

First of all your Mr. "Universe was created after last call on Oct. 23, 4004 BCE" didn't say Egypt was drained of all people and animals for 40 years, so you still owe me a source, not visa versa.


My source said it was drained of all people, and the custom of the day was to capture and/or kill the people and take the livestock. So, like it or lump it, that is what happened.

Second, as creeper and I remind you above, you are Mr. "the Bible is literal", so don't suddenly give me all this symbolic stuff on something as straight forward as:

"No foot of man or animal will pass through it; no one will live there for forty years"


I gave you a brief synopsis of how poetic/prophetic language works throughout the Bible. Highboy mentioned this as well. You don't have the advantage of taking multiple Bible classes in college (I have taken several, at seminary) so it may be hard for you to understand, perhaps, don't know. But I do have an honest explanation based on the Bible, history and the established methods of studying Bible prophecy. What have you got?

Third, we note that Ussher was working in the 17th century. The rosetta stone wasn't even discovered until the 19th. Poor Bishop Ussher was working 200 yars before the dawn of Egyptology and the mountain of new resources that have been brought to the table. All modern sources clearly describe a 26th dynasty in Egypt that, of course, has no 40 year lifeless gap predicted by Ezekiel.

"All modern sources" being exactly whom? Is there any extant Egyptian historical documentation? Are there copies not written by Egyptians? Ussher himself noted that Scaliger said about the Egyptians, "The priests of Egypt told Herodotus of such things as he desired to know. They spoke only of things that glorified their country, but concealed the rest. This showed their cowardice and slavery, by concealing the payment of tribute they made to the Chaldeans."

Ussher used the best sources available in his time period, relying primarily on sources like Herodotus(484–425 BC), who was alive during the time period when Egypt was emptied of people and recorded the same, and Xenophon (427-355 BC) who was an historian born shortly after the events occurred. He also depended on the works of great scholars like Joseph Justus Scaliger, who among other things restored the Chronicle of Eusebius and specialized in the ancient histories of the Persians, the Babylonians, the Jews and the Egyptians.

Modern scholars who depend on writings more recently collected, whose origins usually are somewhat suspect, realize that their timelines don't match up with those of the ancients, who give a much shorter duration to the kingdoms of Egypt and attribute less power to them as well.

Imagine two thousand years from now, when archaeologists dig up a Soviet history textbook from 1975 and begin to rewrite history. They would discover, to their amazement, that Soviets invented the light bulb, the television, flight, heck, even washing machines!!!! Names like Wright and Edison would be wiped from college textbooks to be replaced by names like Sergei Sergeiovich. In the same manner, these scholars find the hyped-up "historical documents of Egypt" and ignore Herodotus entirely. What did he know? He may have been there, but we have the rosetta stone!!!


Finally, your souce says all the world was wiped out in 2349 BCE, so, in any case, ya gotta question his dating of Egyptian history which goes back, according to most every modern historian, to at least 3000 BCE.

Looking forward to your next rationalization.


While I am looking forward to your first bit of evidence to support your statements. Allow me to say again something said before, to refresh everyone's memories about Egypt and modern Egyptology:

~~~~~~~Today's Primary Post~~~~~~~

Manetho and Egyptian History: The original works are lost.

Manetho is the prime source used by those who study ancient Egypt geneologies.

"Despite Manetho's importance for the study of the history of Ancient Egypt, nothing much is really known about the man himself. Even the exact meaning of his name has been a point of discussion among Egyptologists and although it is now generally agreed upon that the name "Manetho" comes from the Ancient Egyptian mniw-htr, which means "keeper of the horses", the existence of such a name is not attested by Ancient Egyptian sources.

Manetho lived in Sebennytos, the capital of Egypt during the 30th Dynasty, and was a priest during the reigns of Ptolemy I and Ptolemy II. He is said to have been involved in the creation of the cult of Serapis - a god added to the Egyptian pantheon with both Hellenistic and Egyptian traits during the reign of Ptolemy I -, but this can not be confirmed.

Manetho owes his importance to the fact that he wrote the Aegyptiaca, a collection of three books about the history of Ancient Egypt, commissioned by Ptolemy II in his effort to bring together the Egyptian and Hellenistic cultures."
Ancient-Egypt.org

The same source reveals that - "Soon after the original composition, the Aegyptiaca was epitomised, probably by extracting a framework of kings to which clung the occasional historical statement. At the same time, however, the original work was being abused, commented and falsified for political and religious motives. It is not unlikely that at this time, new works about the history of Egypt were being written under Manetho's name. Such works were often full of tendentious commentaries and anachronisms.

The classical authors who copied, commented or made references to the Aegyptiaca were thus confronted with different sources, all claiming to have been based on the original work. Josephus knew both the original Aegyptiaca or its epitome, and the fake Manethoan literature, but he was often unable to distinguish between them. Africanus knew and used the epitomised Aegyptiaca, while Eusebius quoted from Africanus and from a version of the Epitome altered by the Hellenistic Jews for religious purposes."


So, whereas the Genesis material has been carefully copied and documented for over three thousand years, the original work of Manetho is not available and there is no certainty of the accuracy of the currently available references to his work. This doesn't discount the available information but makes the researcher aware that total accuracy will not be found. Even before we delve too deeply into Manetho we know that it will be a source for approximate dates rather than a resource for certainty.

Manetho recorded The Tower of Babel and birth of Peleg as historical events!

"An interesting piece of information comes from Manetho, who recorded the history of Egypt in the third century BC. He wrote that the Tower of Babel occurred five years after the birth of Peleg. If this was so, then this would confirm that the migrations recorded in Genesis 10 occurred over a period of time, for the apparent leaders of many of these national groups would have been very young children when the confusion of languages occurred." Larry Pierce.

Pierce makes a strong case for using the Bible with other ancient resources to better establish the beginning of Egypt:

" Four generations after Noah, Genesis 10:25 records the birth of Peleg (meaning division) ‘for in his days was the earth divided’. Some suggest the continents of the earth were divided at this time. However, this seems unlikely, as such a process would have had to occur within a very confined time period. The resultant geological violence would be overwhelmingly catastrophic—like another Noahic Flood all over again. Any continental separation thus likely occurred during the Flood.

The traditional interpretation, which seems more reasonable, relates this verse to the division of people/nations at the Tower of Babel event in Genesis 11. (Just like the English ‘earth’ can have a variety of meanings, the Hebrew erets can also mean nation(s)—thus erets Yisrael, the land (nation, people) of Israel.) According to the biblical chronology as deduced by Archbishop Ussher, the Flood occurred in 2349–2348 BC, and Peleg was born in 2247 BC about a hundred years later. Do ancient writers shed any light on when this happened? The answer is a resounding yes.


Babylon begins

The year was 331 BC. After Alexander the Great had defeated Darius at Gaugmela near Arbela, he journeyed to Babylon. Here he received 1903 years of astronomical observations from the Chaldeans, which they claimed dated back to the founding of Babylon. If this was so, then that would place the founding of Babylon in 2234 BC, or about thirteen years after the birth of Peleg. This was recorded in the sixth book of De Caelo (‘About the heavens’) by Simplicius, a Latin writer in the 6th century AD. Porphyry (an anti-Christian Greek philosopher, c. 234–305 AD) also deduced the same number.

Egypt emerges

The Byzantine chronicler Constantinus Manasses (d. 1187) wrote that the Egyptian state lasted 1663 years. If correct, then counting backward from the time that Cambyses, king of Persia, conquered Egypt in 526 BC, gives us the year of 2188 BC for the founding of Egypt, about 60 years after the birth of Peleg. About this time Mizraim, the son of Ham, led his colony into Egypt. Hence the Hebrew word for Egypt is Mizraim4 (or sometimes ‘the land of Ham’ e.g. Psalm 105:23,27)."

Dr. Clifford Wilson suggests that there is evidence that Moses got his geneologies not from word-of-mouth and inspiration of God but from written records: New Conditions After The Flood

"After the Flood, atmospheric and climatic conditions apparently changed, and the potential life-span of all created beings was dramatically reduced. Archaeologists such as Professor Samuel N. Kramer have pointed to the record outside the Bible of the dispersion that took place at the time of the building of the Tower of Babel. Eminent Professor William Foxwell Albright wrote about the astonishing accuracy of the ‘Table of Nations’ in Genesis chapter 10. The fragmentary ‘Epic of Atrahasis’—including both creation and the Flood—has caused some scholars to acknowledge that Genesis chapters 1 to 11 were written as literal history. That history starts at Genesis chapter 1—and the term ‘mythical'; (even used in a philosophical sense) should not be applied to the Bible record.

Records Written Before Moses

Another interesting point is that those early Genesis records were in written form even before the time of Moses (he collated them). Way back in 1948 P.J. Wiseman had his book published, New Discoveries in Babylonia About Genesis. His son, Professor Donald J. Wiseman, retired Professor of Assyriology a London University, recently updated his father’s work in Clues to Creation in Genesis, supporting the basic theories of his late father.

The early records were written on clay tablets, divided by the literary device of a colophon at the end of each tablet—indicated by the words, ‘These are the generations of...’."


It is Egyptian Chronologies which require adjustment.

"By the traditional chronology of Egyptian history the 18th dynasty ruled from about 1550 to 1320 BC. According to Bible chronology the Exodus occurred about 1446 BC. But there is no evidence from 18th dynasty Egyptian records of a major disaster such as would have resulted from the 10 devastating plagues that fell on Egypt, or of the destruction of the Egyptian army during this period. Nor is there archaeological evidence for an invasion of Palestine under Joshua during this period.

The solution to this problem is a recognition that the chronology of Egypt needs to be reduced by centuries, bringing the 12th dynasty down to the time of Moses and the Exodus. When this is done there is found abundant evidence for the presence of large numbers of Semitic slaves at the time of Moses, the devastation of Egypt and the sudden departure of these slaves.

A reduction of the chronology of Egypt would also be reflected in the interpretation of the archaeological ages in Israel. There is little evidence for an invasion of Palestine at the end of the Late Bronze Period. But at the end of the Early Bronze Period there is evidence of Jericho’s fallen walls and the arrival of a new people with a new culture who should be identified as the invading Israelites under Joshua."
- Archaeologist David Down.

What follows is an excerpt from Down's article in Journal of Creation (TJ) Archive > Volume 15 Issue 1

A proposed revision of Egyptian chronology

"It is true that there is no evidence for Moses, the ten plagues that fell upon Egypt or the exodus ‘at that time’. But there are a number of scholars who claim that a gross error in chronology has been made in calculating the dates of Egyptian history and that they should be reduced by centuries. Such a re-dating could bring the 12th dynasty down to the time of Moses, and there is plenty of circumstantial evidence in that dynasty to support the Biblical records.

One of the last kings of the 12th dynasty was Sesostris III. His statues depict him as a cruel tyrant quite capable of inflicting harsh slavery on his subjects. His son was Amenemhet III, who seems to have been an equally disagreeable character. He probably ruled for 46 years, and Moses would have been born near the beginning of his reign.

Amenemhet III may have had one son, known as Amenemhet IV, who was an enigmatic character who may have followed his father or may have been a co-regent with him. If the latter, Amenemhet IV could well have been Moses. Amenemhet IV mysteriously disappeared off the scene before the death of Amenemhet III.

Amenemhet III had a daughter whose name was Sobekneferu. It is known that she had no children. If she was the daughter of Pharaoh who came down to the river to bathe, it is easy to understand why she was there. It was not because she had no bathroom in her palace. She would have been down there taking a ceremonial ablution and praying to the river god Hapi, who was also the god of fertility. Having no children she would have needed such a god, and when she found the beautiful baby Moses there she would have considered it an answer to her prayers (Exodus 2:5—6).

But when Moses came of age he identified himself with the people of Israel and was obliged to flee from Egypt. This left a vacuum on the throne, and when Amenemhet III died there was no male successor. Sobekneferu ascended the throne and ruled for 8 years as a Pharaoh, but when she died the dynasty died and was succeeded by the 13th dynasty.

The Israelite slaves

For the past 15 years I have been promoting a revised chronology for Egypt. This results in identifying the Semitic slaves, who were employed in building the pyramids of the 12th dynasty at Kahun in the Faiyyum, as the Israelite slaves referred to in the book of Exodus. Fifteen years ago I was regarded as being out of touch with archaeological reality, but time has changed all that.

Of course, Dr Immanuel Velikovsky proposed the same revision before I did, and so did Dr Donoville Courville, but they were written off as irrelevant because they were not archaeologists. Since then, recognized archaeological scholars have joined the chorus of revision.

In 1991, Peter James published his book Centuries of Darkness, claiming that the chronology of Egypt should be reduced by 250 years. James was a reputable scholar, and his book carried a preface by Professor Colin Renfrew of Cambridge University recognizing that ‘a chronological revolution is on its way’ (p. XVI), claiming that ‘history will have to be rewritten’ (p. XIV). In 1995, David Rohl published A Test of Time, in which he claimed that the chronology of Egypt should be reduced by 350 years. All this meant that the end of the 12th dynasty of Egypt would be dated to the 15th century BC, which would be about the time of the Biblical Exodus, and the slaves known to have lived at Kahun and laboured on the building of the 12th dynasty pyramids were the Israelite slaves.

Professor Bryant Wood, from the Associates for Biblical Research, has also concluded that the Semitic slaves who lived at Kahun were indeed the Israelites. He reaches his conclusion from a different perspective but the end result is the same. He concludes that the period of 430 years mentioned in Exodus 12:40 was not the total period of time from Abraham to the Exodus, as seemingly implied in Galatians 3:17, but was the actual period of the Israelite presence in Egypt. This assumption would likewise place the Israelite slaves in the 12th dynasty

The evidence very well fits the Biblical record which says,

‘There arose a new king over Egypt who did not know Joseph. And he said to his people, "Look, the people of the children of Israel are more and mightier than we; come, let us deal wisely with them, lest they multiply and it happen in the event of war, that they join our enemies and fight against us, and so go up out of the land." Therefore they set taskmasters over them to afflict them with their burdens’ (Exodus 1:8—11).

Sir Flinders Petrie excavated the city of Kahun in the Faiyyum and Dr Rosalie David wrote a book about his excavations in which she said,

‘It is apparent that the Asiatics were present in the town in some numbers, and this may have reflected the situation elsewhere in Egypt … . Their exact homeland in Syria or Palestine cannot be determined … . The reason for their presence in Egypt remains unclear.’

Neither Rosalie David nor Flinders Petrie could identify these Semitic slaves with the Israelites because they held to the traditional chronology which placed the Biblical event centuries later than the 12th dynasty.

There was another interesting discovery Petrie made. ‘Larger wooden boxes, probably used originally to store clothing and other possessions, were discovered underneath the floors of many houses at Kahun. They contained babies, sometimes buried two or three to a box, and aged only a few months at death.’

There is a Biblical explanation for this. Pharaoh had ordered the Hebrew midwives, ‘When you do the duties of a midwife for the Hebrew women, and see them on the birth stools, if it is a son, then you shall kill him’ (Exodus1:16). The midwives ignored this command so ‘Pharaoh commanded all his people saying, "Every son who is born you shall cast into the river … " ’ (verse 22). Many grieving mothers must have had their babies snatched from their arms and killed. They apparently buried them in boxes beneath the floors of their houses.

Another striking feature of Petrie’s discoveries was the fact that these slaves suddenly disappeared off the scene. Rosalie David wrote:

‘It is apparent that the completion of the king’s pyramid was not the reason why Kahun’s inhabitants eventually deserted the town, abandoning their tools and other possessions in the shops and houses.’

‘There are different opinions of how this first period of occupation at Kahun drew to a close ... . The quantity, range and type of articles of everyday use which were left behind in the houses may indeed suggest that the departure was sudden and unpremeditated.’

The departure was sudden and unpremeditated! Nothing could better fit the Biblical record. ‘And it came to pass at the end of the four hundred and thirty years–on that very same day–it came to pass that all the armies of the LORD went out from the land of Egypt’ (Exodus 12:41).

The ten plagues on Egypt

Pharaoh had yielded to Moses’ demands to allow his slaves to leave because of the ten devastating plagues that fell on Egypt (Exodus 7—12). The waters of the sacred River Nile were turned to blood, herds and flocks were smitten with pestilence, lightning set combustible material on fire, hail flattened the crops and struck the fruit trees, and locusts blanketed the country and consumed what might have been left of plant life. The economy of Egypt would have been so shattered that there should be some record of such a national catastrophe–and there is.

In the Leiden Museum in Holland is a papyrus written in a later period, but most scholars recognize it as being a copy of a papyrus from an earlier dynasty. It could have been from the 13th dynasty describing the conditions that prevailed after the plagues had struck. It reads,

‘Nay, but the heart is violent. Plague stalks through the land and blood is everywhere … . Nay, but the river is blood. Does a man drink from it? As a human he rejects it. He thirsts for water … . Nay, but gates, columns and walls are consumed with fire … . Nay but men are few. He that lays his brother in the ground is everywhere … . Nay but the son of the high-born man is no longer to be recognized … . The stranger people from outside are come into Egypt … . Nay, but corn has perished everywhere. People are stripped of clothing, perfume and oil. Everyone says "there is no more". The storehouse is bare … . It has come to this. The king has been taken away by poor men.’"


There is excellent evidence to suggest that the Biblical geneologies are accurate and it is the Egyptian dates that are incorrect. In addition, the Egyptian records indicate a flood, the Tower of Babel and a start for the empire after the birth of Peleg (one of the Bible Patriarchs). All of this is consistent with the creation scenario.

It is well known that writing began with the children of Israel. What is not often publicized is the occasional find of writings in the fossil record. One could suggest that it is probable men were writing long before the flood but such records were almost entirely wiped out along with other traces of culture by the incredibly dynamic and violent Flood. The Bible account is the only one we have concerning life before the Flood and the growth of civilization thereafter. It appears that Manetho does not present evidence to the contrary.

~~~~~~~Back to comments~~~~~~~

cranky old fart said...

"You reject the Gospels because of the lack of contemporary sources"

I said that? When?

Dude, I'd be the last one to claim the Bible is literal. That is radar's position, except when it's not.

BTW, the flood is less contradicted by the age of Egypt (since the 2349 thing is just hilarious on its own) than by the lack of physical evidence.


Read the post above and say that again, cranky. There is a great deal of evidence that states that you just don't know what you are talking about but merely parroting the liberal propaganda. The "2349 thing" has more going for it that anything you have come up with to date.

xiangtao said...

"Please. Radar has posted a mountain of evidence pointing to the Deluge. I'll leave that to him."

Actually, radar posted a mountain of assertions which were never backed up with any real evidence.


Trying to be civil, xiangtao, but that statement is complete excrement of bull. I actually have posted a ton of evidence concerning the flood, not simply assertions. Here are some 34 posts I have made on the subject!

When it comes to evidences surrounding the Flood, I point to the same evidences that evolutionists use to back their claims. I interpret the evidence differently and have a bit more documentation (re: The Bible) than they do to back it up. I have presented at least as much evidence as any commenter, heck, more. Xiangtao speaketh with forked tongue!

This post segues nicely into tomorrow, in which we look into the commenter's thoughts on rapid speciation and the loss of genetic information during the operation of natural selection and how these observed facts support creation rather than evolution. See you then!

Tuesday, December 12, 2006

Speciation: Class is now in session

Some of my commenters have said that I need to "take a class on evolution/genetics", an attempt to influence the readers, apparently. It is a way of saying that I just don't have any idea what the heck I am talking about. Thanks, guys. Yes, commenters often react to posts with mockery and derision or condescension. Alert! When you see that, guys, you know they are on the short end of the argument stick.

So let us get down to brass tacks and take a careful look at individual aspects of evolution and creation so that there is no doubt exactly what is being discussed and what an evolutionist would have you believe versus what the evidence is in the real world. We'll begin by "blogging" an article on rapid speciation. The article will be presented in italics, with my additional commentary in normal text.

Speedy species surprise

The rapid appearance today, of new varieties of fish, lizards, and more defies evolutionary expectations … but fits perfectly with the Bible.

by David Catchpoole and Carl Wieland


Researchers in Trinidad relocated guppies (Poecilia reticulata) from a waterfall pool teeming with predators to previously guppy-free pools above the falls where there was only one known possible predator (of small guppies only, therefore large guppies would be safe).1 The descendants of the transplanted guppies adjusted to their new circumstances by growing bigger, maturing later, and having fewer and bigger offspring.

The speed of these changes bewildered evolutionists, because their standard millions-of-years view is that the guppies would require long periods of time to adapt. One evolutionist said, ‘The guppies adapted to their new environment in a mere four years–a rate of change some 10,000 to 10 million times faster than the average rates determined from the fossil record.’2


Hmmmm. Could this be evolution in action??? But so fast? It reminds me of a recent comment:

I said, "Macroevolution has never been demonstrated to occur"

Anonymous said, "For the simple and obvious reason that given what macroevolution is (try to read up on this from a scientific perspective, not a propaganda one), it is not something we would ever expect to see in a human lifetime, especially not at the scale you're thinking of."

In any event, a big change is taking place in the gene pool here. We read on...


Leggy lizards

And it’s not just guppies. In the Bahamas, small numbers of anole lizards (Anolis sagrei) were transplanted from an island with tall trees to nearby islands where there were previously no lizards and only smaller bushy vegetation. Body form rapidly changed in succeeding generations.3 In particular, the relative length of hindlimbs was greatly decreased–thought to be an adaptation for life amongst the twigs of the scrubby vegetation in the lizards’ new habitat. (Lizards that live on tree trunks have longer legs than those that live on twigs–an apparent trade-off between the agility necessary for twig-to-twig jumping and the speed that longer limbs provide on the broad surface of tree trunks.)4,5

But again it was the speed of adaptation, many thousands of times higher than (their interpretation of) the ‘fossil record’ that surprised evolutionists.6


Evolution posits a long time for macroevolution to occur. The sedimentary fossil rocks of the earth are interpreted by them to represent hundreds of millions of years, the time needed to move from (by some unknown but not-done-by-God miraculous occurrence) non-life to the millions of millions of living beings found on earth today.


Daisy diaspora


On small islands off British Columbia, the seeds of wind-dispersed weedy plants in the daisy family (Asteraceae) are rapidly losing their ability to ‘fly’. Specifically, the embryo part of the seed is becoming fatter while the parachute-like ‘pappus’ that keeps each seed aloft is becoming smaller. These changes are advantageous because they reduce dispersal–otherwise, on such tiny islands, lightweight windblown seeds would be lost in the ocean (which is why they have left fewer descendants). Note that these changes involve the loss of the capacity for long-range airborne dispersal.7


Does this mean that evolution is not only alive and well, but it moves at breakneck speed now?

Flies, fish and finches

Other examples of rapid adaptation, even to the extent of producing ‘new species’—speciation—abound. (If a population arises from another which cannot interbreed anymore with its parent population, it is generally defined as a new species.) Creation magazine recently reported how evolutionists described as ‘alarming’ the rate of change in the wingspan of European fruit flies introduced accidentally to America.8,9,10 Similarly, rapid changes have been reported recently for Drosophila fruit flies and sockeye salmon–within just nine and thirteen generations respectively.11

In the case of Darwin’s famous finches, it had been estimated that from one million to five million years would have been necessary for today’s Galápagos Island species to radiate from their parent populations. But actual observations of rapid finch adaptation have forced evolutionists to scale that back to a timeframe of just a few centuries.12


Funny thing, scientists have been trying to induce evolution-by-mutation in fruit fly populations for years, using thousands of generations of fruit flies, with completely disappointing results. Yet on their own, fruit flies have shown the ability to change rapidly.

Mosquitoes and mice

Not long ago, evolutionists were astonished to find that bird-biting mosquitoes, which moved into the London Underground train network (and are now biting humans and rats instead), have already become a separate species.13 And now a study of house mice in Madeira (thought to have been introduced to the island following 15th century Portuguese settlement) has found that ‘several reproductively isolated chromosomal races’ (in effect, new ‘species’) have appeared in less than 500 years.14

In all of these instances, the speedy changes have nothing to do with the production of any new genes by mutation (the imagined mechanism of molecules-to-man evolution), but result mostly from selection of genes that already exist. Here we have real, observed evidence that (downhill) adaptive formation of new forms and species from the one created kind can take place rapidly. It doesn’t need millions of years.


So we have concrete evidence that speciation can and does take place in hundreds of years and doesn't require millions of years. We also find that such speciation occurs not from mutation, but from selection from the existing gene pool! This is an important thought to keep in mind as we go forward.

Shouldn’t evolutionists rejoice, and creationists despair, at all this observed change? Hardly. Informed creationists have long stressed that natural selection can easily cause major variation in short time periods, by acting on the created genetic information already present. But this does not support the idea of evolution in the molecules-to-man sense, because no new information has been added.

Selection by itself gets rid of information, and of all observed mutations which have some effect on survival or function,15 so far even the rare ‘beneficial’ ones are also losses of information. The late-maturing, larger guppies resulted simply from a re-shuffling of existing genetic material.16 Such variation can even be sufficient to prevent two groups from interbreeding with each other any more, thus forming new ‘species’ by definition, without involving any new information.


In other words, speciation takes place when certain traits are naturally selected as a result of the environment. This results in a loss of information within populations. If this loss occurs across the entire gene pool of a kind of creature, then that information is lost forever and never regained. Such losses are quite obvious in the case of an extinction of a species, such as the legendary Dodo. Occasionally the result will be organs or limbs that are referred to as "vestigal" but that is another post, since so often so-called vestigal organs and structures do serve a purpose.

The loss of genetic information brings about speciation, but this is the opposite of macroevolution. Macroevolution requires information to be added to the gene pool. So these evidences of rapid speciation are certainly hostile to the idea of evolution. But what does this mean to creationists?

The Biblical account of history not only accommodates such rapid changes in body form, but actually requires that it would have happened much faster than evolutionists would expect. As the animals left the Ark, multiplying to fill the Earth and all those empty ecological niches, natural selection could easily have caused an original ‘dog kind’ (e.g.) on the Ark to ‘split’ into wolves, coyotes, dingoes, etc. Because there are historical records showing some of these subtypes in existence only a few hundred years after the Flood, this means that there had to have been some very rapid (non-evolutionary) speciation. So it is encouragingly supportive of Biblical history when some such rapid changes are seen still occurring today.17 And this is being repeatedly confirmed.

But since evolutionists mistakenly interpret all such adaptation/speciation as ‘evolution happening’, they are left stunned when it happens much faster than their traditional interpretations of the fossil record would allow. (This is, of course, easy to understand when it is realized that the standard idea about the fossil record–that it is a ‘tape-recording’ of millions of years–is in fact a misinterpretation. The record reflects the way in which a global Flood and some of its after-effects buried a world of plants and animals, in a time sequence which did not involve millions of years.)

Because such fast changes challenge traditional evolutionary ideas, the findings are often disputed, but with little success.2 Rapid ‘evolution’ (a misnomer, as we have seen) is welcomed by some fossil experts who support the idea of ‘punctuated equilibrium’.18 This is the notion that the evolutionary history of life is one of mostly no change, ‘punctuated’ by short, sharp bursts of evolution (which, conveniently, happen too briefly to be recorded in the fossils). However, not only is this still a minority view among evolutionists, it begs the question of why, if fast change is everywhere, has not a vastly greater number of new species been generated over ‘geologic time’? I.e. the observed changes are still too fast for comfort.

Not only is this rapid change not adding information, even some evolutionists point out that evolution in the molecules-to-man sense was not observed in any of these studies. The finches are still finches, the mosquitoes stay mosquitoes, and the mice remain mice. One evolutionary geneticist, referring to the guppy data, said, ‘As far as I know, these are still guppies.’2


Macroevolution is not observed, but what we see is microevolution. We creationists tend to call it, factually, variation within kind. Variation within kind can produce wide varieties within a kind of animal but never produces an increase in genetic information nor can it cause one kind of animal to segue into a different kind.

Setting the record straight

If we start with the Word of the One who knows all, the evidence of today’s world makes a great deal of sense. Creatures were to reproduce ‘after their kind’, so mice come from mice, lizards from lizards, daisies from daisies. Evolution has never occurred, nor does it occur today. But organisms have a wonderful ‘built-in’ genetic capacity for rapid change in response to environmental pressures–most easily observed today in isolated island environments.

Such examples of rapid adaptation give us an insight into how the Earth’s many vacant ecological niches were recolonized after the Flood–a global event in real history. This event buried the ‘world that then was’ (2 Peter 3:6). Because this was already a fallen world, the fossils record death, suffering and disease. Because it was a created world, the fossil record consists of the remains of some creatures that no longer exist, and some that still do, but no sequence of one type changing by stages into a totally different type, whether slowly or quickly.


Thus is illustrated one of the fundamental flaws in the idea of macroevolution, Variation in kind was observed without being fully understood and it was supposed by the observers that they were seeing evidence of a process by which all varieties of organisms came to be. Eureka! An alternative to the idea that God created! Now we know better, only microevolution is observed and it most definitely is not a means by which dinosaurs could become birds. Faced with evidences that are contrary to evolutionary theory, it is the evolutionists who ignore facts and prefer to believe fanciful and totally unsupported stories.

Perhaps the commenters who want me to go back to class might be benefitted by attending a class at, say, the Institute for Creation Research and bone up on the basics of speciation and the actual operation of natural selection?

Presented for your information: References and notes

1.

Reznick, D.N., Shaw, F.H., Rodd, F.H. and Shaw, R.G., Evaluation of the rate of evolution in natural populations of guppies (Poecilia reticulata), Science 275(5308):1934—1937, 1997. Return to text.
2.

Morell, V., Predator-free guppies take an evolutionary leap forward, Science 275(5308):1880, 1997. Return to text.
3.

Losos, J.B., Warheit, K.I. and Schoener, T.W., Adaptive differentiation following experimental island colonization in Anolis lizards, Nature 387(6628):70—73, 1997. Return to text.
4.

Case, T.J., Natural selection out on a limb, Nature 387(6628):15—16, 1997. Return to text.
5.

Morell, V., Catching lizards in the act of adapting, Science 276(5313):682—683, 1997. Return to text.
6.

Evolutionists have invented a unit called the ‘darwin’ for measuring the speed of change in the form (body size, leg length, etc.) of a species. In the case of the Anolis sagrei lizards, the rate of change ranged up to 2,117 darwins–whereas evolutionists had only ‘measured’ rates of 0.1 to 1.0 darwins over the ‘millions of years in the fossil record’. For the guppies in Trinidad, the rates were even higher: from 3,700 to 45,000 darwins. Artificial selection experiments on laboratory mice show rates of up to 200,000 darwins. (Ref. 2 and Ref. 4.) Return to text.
7.

In the insect world, too, the loss of genetic information for flight can be advantageous, as shown by the success of wingless beetles on windswept islands. See Wieland, C., Beetle bloopers, Creation 19(3):30, 1997. Return to text.
8.

Fruit flies spread wings, Creation 22(4):5, 2000. Return to text.
9.

Walker, M., Flying out of control–alien species can evolve at an alarming rate, New Scientist 165(2222):15, 2000. Return to text.
10.

Huey, R.B. et al., Rapid evolution of a geographic cline in size in an introduced fly, Science 287(5451):308—309, 2000. Return to text.
11.

Marchant, J., Darwin strikes back–one modern idea about evolution turns out to be wrong, New Scientist 168(2262):11, 2000. Return to text.
12.

Wieland, C., Darwin’s finches: evidence supporting rapid post-Flood ‘adaptation’, Creation 14(3):22—23, 1992. Return to text.
13.

As they were no longer able to interbreed with the surface bird-biting variety any more, Wieland, C., Brisk biters, Creation 21(2):41, 1999. Return to text.
14.

Britton-Davidian, J. et al., Rapid chromosomal evolution in island mice, Nature 403(6766):158, 2000. Return to text.
15.

Many mutations are ‘neutral’ in this sense, i.e. just meaningless gobbledygook, and are often described as ‘transparent to selection pressures’. For instance, the non-critical portion of the amino acid chain of some proteins can vary without apparently affecting the way the protein works. Return to text.
16.

The major variation being observed seems to be from small, isolated populations starting with a mere subset of the total genetic information (thus variability). Natural selection acts on this, as does genetic drift, i.e. the statistical tendency for some forms of genes to be lost within small populations by pure chance. Return to text.
17.

The ‘long-age creation’ ministry of Dr Hugh Ross, Reasons to Believe, not long ago devoted a radio program to their apparent denial of observed speciation, repeatedly accusing AiG of believing in ‘evolution’. They completely failed to understand the point we have been making for years about information. Evolution is allegedly capable of having ‘created’ a huge amount of new information by natural processes. Thus, one may have a ‘new species’ by some man-made definition, but if nothing new has been added to the pool of biological information (but rather that information has been decreased), it boggles the mind to see how that could support ‘real’ evolution. The real issue is of course that rapid speciation further highlights the non-necessity of their local-flood compromise of the Genesis record. Return to text.
18.

Stephen Jay Gould was probably the best-known exponent of this view. However, the majority of evolutionists hold to the classical neo-Darwinian view of ‘mostly slow-and-gradual’ evolution. A leading member of this camp reportedly said that Gould ‘should not be publicly criticized because he is at least on our side against the creationists’; see Creation 21(4):9, 1999.