Search This Blog

Tuesday, April 09, 2013

Fossils and Fossil Rocks KILL OFF Evolution - Part 7 - Baraminology and Foraminifers

Linnaeus was a Christian who recognized that God created organisms as kind/kinds = "miyn" or min and "bara" (created/create) in Hebrew.   The original Linnaean taxonomic system was intended by Carl Linnaeus to define the kinds and establish a hierarchy of organisms as they speciated from the original kinds.   Linnaeus did not coin the term, "Bariminology" but he was the first Baraminologist all the same.   His system was intended to show how organisms descended from the kinds and was not in any way related to Darwinism and in fact is designed in the opposite way.   Linnaeus, as other Creationists, represented the organisms as descending from primary ancestors, speciating or devolving as you will but certainly NOT evolving.  Go to the Speciation page to learn more about that process, observed by Darwin but incorrectly analyzed and understood by him.

Here is an excerpt from the Baraminology page at Conservapedia.:


...History

The term baramin was coined in 1941 by Frank Marsh from the Hebrew words bara (create) and min (kind).
It was resurrected in 1990 by Kurt Wise for use as the unit of creation in his discontinuous biosystematical system. From this came the term baraminology. That same year at the Second International Conference on Creationism in PittsburghWalter ReMine introduced additional sub-terms to help clarify baraminological discourse: holobaraminmonobaraminapobaramin, and polybaramin.[3]

Baraminological Terms

  • Holobaramin: A Holobaramin is a grouping that contains all organisms related by descent, not excluding any. For example, Humans are a holobaramin, meaning all members of our species (Homo sapiens) are descended from a singular creation event (i.e. the creation of Adam and Eve) and will always be fully and completely human. Culturally, many racial ideas and myths still stubbornly linger on, but recent research regarding genetic diversity in humans, has convinced a great majority of scientists that "race" is no longer a useful concept in understanding our species) An example would be dogs, which form a holobaramin since wolvescoyotes, domesticated dogs and other canids are all descended from two individuals taken aboard the Ark, and there are no other creatures that are genetically continuous with them. This term is synonymous with the use of "baramin" above and is the primary term in baraminology.
  • Monobaramin: A monobaramin is an ad hoc group of organisms who share common descent. Any group of specific members of a holobaramin such as wolves, poodles, and terriers or the humans Tom, Dick, and Harry are monobarmins. Holobaramins contain monobaramins; for instance, wolves are a monobaramin of the Dog holobaramin.
  • Apobaramin: An apobaramin is a group of holobaramins. Humans and Dogs are an apobaramin since both members are holobaramins. A group containing Caucasians and wolves is not an apobaramin since both members are monobaramins.
  • Polybaramin: A polybaramin is an ad hoc group of organisms where at least one of the members must not be a holobaramin and must be unrelated to any or all of the others. For example: Humans, wolves and a duck are a polybaraminic group. This term is useful for describing such hodgepodge mixtures of creatures.
Three additional terms introduced by Wise:[3]
  • Archaebaramin: An archaebaramin is the originally-created individual(s) of a given holobaramin. For instance, Adam and Eve form the archaebaramin of the holobaramin of Humanity.
  • Neobaramin & Paleobaramin: A neobaramin is the living population of a given holobaramin, whereas a paleobaramin represents older forms of a given holobaramin. Neobaramins have undergone genetic degradation from their perfectly created forms (archaebaramin) and so may differ from their paleobaramins in notable ways. For example, the neobaramin of Humanity has a much shorter lifespan and greater prevalence of genetic diseases than the Human paleobaramin (e.g. Adam lived for 930 years[4] and his children could interbreed without fear of deformity[5]).

Baraminic Demarcation

In order to determine the baraminicity of a given group of organisms, baraminic demarcation must be evaluated. This process involves four foundational concepts[6]:
  • Biological Character Space (BCS): A theoretical multidimensional space in which each character (e.g. height or color) of an organism comprises a dimension, and particular states of that character occupy unique positions along the dimension. A single organism is therefore precisely defined by a single point in the multidimensional space.
  • Potentiality Region: A region of that biological character space within which organismal form is possible. Therefore, any point in the biological character space that is not within a potentiality region describes an organism that cannot exist.
  • Continuity: describes the relationship between two organisms which are either in the same potentiality region, or linked to each other by a third, such that transmutation between the two is theoretically possible.
  • Discontinuity: describes the relationship between two organisms which are in disconnected potentiality regions, such that transmutation between the two is impossible.
Thus, organisms that are found to be continuous in a BCS potentiality region form a holobaramin or monobaramin (depending on if all organisms within the potentiality region are considered), whereas those that are discontinuous form a polybaramin or apobaramin (again, depending on completeness of the organisms considered)...
References mentioned:
  1.  http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3855/#kinds
  2.  The impracticality of reconciling the Linnean and the cladistic systems
  3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 "Baraminology -- Classification of Created Organisms", by Wayne Frair, Ph.D, Originally published in CRS Quarterly, Vol. 37, Num. 2, Sept. 2000.
  4.  Wieland, Carl, "Living for 900 years"Creation 20(4):10–13, September 1998.
  5.  "Cain's wife -- who was she?", Answers In Genesis
  6.  "A Refined Baramin Concept", Wood et al., 2003, Baraminology Study Group.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Several major Creation Science organizations are working on developing Baraminology.   ICR, AIG, Creation.com are all invested in this and the CRSQ is advancing the science.   This 2006 paper was entitled "The Current Status of Baraminology" and now in 2013 the Creation Biology Society will, as they did in 2012,  seek and receive more presentations and abstracts-with-thorough papers to be reviewed and, if passing muster, published.


The Creation Biology Society is a group of scientists devoted to researching and improving Baraminology, the classification system of organisms for the 21st Century.   Currently meeting once per year to review and present technical papers and publish both papers and presentations for the use of the scientific community.  They go into a bit more depth than Conservapedia.



About Us: Taxonomic Concepts and Methods


We believe that phylogenetic discontinuity is obvious for most groups approximating the family level and higher categories. Therefore, baraminology sees multidimensional biological character space crisscrossed with a network of discontinuities that circumscribe islands of biological diversity. Within these character space islands, the basic morpho-molecular forms are continuous or potentially continuous. Discontinuity in this sense does not refer to either the minor breaks in quantitative ranges that are used to delimit species or the modifications on a basic theme that demarcate genera. It is the unbridged chasms between body plans - forms for which there is no empirical evidence that the character-state transformations ever occurred. The mere assumption that the transformation had to occur because cladistic analysis places it at a hypothetical ancestral node does not constitute empirical evidence.

The baramin concept, as recently refined (Wood et al, 2003), includes all the organisms in a single bounded region of biological character space. This concept is a theoretical construct intentionally left fluid, as it is unlikely all members (all past ancestors and present descendants) can actually be known. However, four other terms (with baramin as a root) are used to apply the concept to sets of known organisms:
  • holobaramin is the complete set of known organisms that belong to a single baramin. In other words, it is a group that (1) shares continuity (meaning that each member is continuous with at least on other member) and (2) is bounded by discontinuity. This is the empirical approximation of the theoretical baramin.
  • monobaramin is a group of known species that share continuity without regard to discontinuity with other organisms. That is, it may be either part or all of a holobaramin.
  • An apobaramin is a group of known species that are bounded by discontinuity without regard to internal continuity. That is, it may be one or more complete holobaramins.
  • polybaramin is an artificial group of known species that share continuity with organisms outside the group and discontinuity occurs within the group. That is, it consists (through faulty analysis) parts of two or more holobaramins and should be avoided, as it is comparable to a polyphyletic taxon in conventional systematics.
These groups are not taxonomic ranks but approximations of the "created kinds" or "created biodiversity units". From the definitions, it is clear that a given conventional taxon may be thought of as a monobaramin, a holobaramin, or an apobaramin, depending on the available data supporting either continuity or discontinuity among its members. For example, if diverse species can hybridize (at least in the laboratory), they exhibit continuity and they are members of the same monobaramin. On the other hand, mammals, which are characterized by a unique yet varied body plan, are probably discontinuous from other vertebrates and comprise an apobaramin. If data exist that support both internal continuity and a boundary of discontinuity, the taxon would be a holobaramin. Thus, as more information becomes available, a monobaramin may become a holobaramin or an apobaramin may become a holobaramin.

Thus, the method of baraminology is successive approximation. Baraminology provides the framework for membership criteria through its emphasis on additive and subtractive evidence (see below). Additive evidence is used to establish that two species are truly related (members of the same monobaramin). Subtractive evidence is used to show that two groups of species are not related (different apobaramins). By building up a monobaramin by additive evidence and dividing out unrelated species from the larger apobaramin, the holobaramin should be converged on when the membership of the growing monobaramin and shrinking apobaramin are the same. See Wood and Murray 2003.

Major Additive Criteria:
  1. Succesful interspecific hybridization. If members of two different species can successfully hybridize, they share genetic and morphogenetic programs and are, thus, holistically continuous. Although Marsh (see historical context) relied on hybridization as the single method of identifying which species were members of the same baramin, the problems with using hybridization as the exclusive baraminic membership criterion are many. Asexually reproducing species and species known only from fossils are impossible to classify using hybridization. Even among sexual species, failure to hybridize may be due to other causes than discontinuity.
  2. Morpho-molecular similarity. Are the natural and artificially hybridized forms linked by overlapping quantitative measures, by character-state transitions in which all the states are observable in known and otherwise similar organisms, or by a homoplastic distribution (recombination) of redundant character states among similar organism? A statistical measure has been developed called Baraminic Distance (BD). A positive correlation of BD is interpreted as evidence of continuity of two organisms.
  3. Stratomorphic Series. Stratigraphic fossil series connected by clear character-state transitions are evidence of continuity. For example, fossil and modern squids qualify as a monobaramin (see Cavanaugh et al. 2003).
Major Subtractive Criteria:
  1. Scripture claims discontinuity. This should be concluded only after completion of a semantic and contextual study of relevant words and passages. Clear examples are that Scripture claims humans to be an apobaramin and that cetaceans are discontinuous from land mammals (i.e., each created on separate days).
  2. Morpho-molecular dissimilarity. Are the natural and hybridized forms within the group separated from organisms outside the group by gaps that are significantly greater than intra-group differences? A negative correlation of BD is evidence of discontinuity.
  3. Unique synapomorphies. Is the group circumscribed by a set of unique morphologies or molecular sequences? These synapomorphies should lack empirically observed transitions to states in other supposedly related but outside groups.
  4. Lack of fossil intermediates. That is, there is no known fossil ancestral group, and fossils with "ancestral states" or "states transitional to other groups" are unknown. Forms identifiable in Flood sediments were probably distinct from the time of creation. A good example is Archaeopteryx, which likely represents its own unique baramin, distinct from both dinosaurs and modern birds.
I am doing my best to present evidence that will help free people from the grip of the very illogical and scientifically deleterious Darwinist worldview, a worldview that supports censorship and propaganda, threatens careers and drains good resources away from research worth doing by pointing them an nonsensical tasks, such as feverishly searching the skies for SETI when we have intelligent messages sent to us within organisms.  Could we cure cancer if we dumped Darwinism and quit funding the NCSE?   If we quit wasting classroom time and time booked on telescopes and the ridiculous amount of money spent on attempting to find a hominid ancestor of mankind or some kind of transitional fossil, could we extend lives?

Subjective Taxonomic Classification



       Since a single gene pool can produce "drastic" differences in phenotypic forms, how are scientists so sure of their fossil classification models?   Often only slight phenotypic differences are enough to place a fossil creature in a different species, genus or even family group than its modern-day counterpart or than its counterpart found elsewhere in the geologic column.  The problem is that differences, even fairly significant differences, are known to exist between members of the same gene pool.  Because of this fact, taxonomic classification models can be quite subjective and even misleading.
       For example, scientists from Berkeley have noted that, "the planktonic larvae of many marine invertebrates are commonly described as separate species when they are first discovered in the ocean. Only later when they can be reared in the laboratory can the link to their adult form be recognized. Similarly, the different life stages of many fungi are given different names because they have different physical forms and hosts. Only through detailed inoculation studies can mycologists work out which forms are members of the same life cycle. Since some fungi may have more than five discrete life cycle stages, this can be a long process. Similar problems exist for some marine algae and multiple-host parasitic organisms of many kinds. Even among well-studied vertebrates, some tropical birds have been described as separate species until they are observed to mate and rear young together."24
       "Detailed study of large sympatric populations and fossil assemblages of the highly variable species Elphidium excavatum (Terquem) [Benthic foraminifera] collected from 20 widely spaced locations indicates that a variety of morphotypes of Elphidium can be linked to one another in a number of interlocking intergradational series. Ten morphotypes are recognized and grouped as formae (ecophenotypes) of Elphidium excavatum (Terquem); these morphotypes were previously considered as 22 independent taxa by various authors. Although all of these formae belong to the same species, it is suggested [by the authors] that the distinction among them should be retained because of their potential as a valuable interpretive tool in paleo-ecological and biostratigraphic studies of Holocene and Pleistocene sediments."25
       "Because they are based on different stages in the life-cycle, fossil dinoflagellates and living dinoflagellates have largely received two sets of names, the equivalencies of which are becoming increasingly well known. For example, Gonyaulax spinifera and related species are known to produce cysts assignable to the genus Spiniferites. Indeed, it is generally informally acknowledged that Spiniferites and Gonyaulax are taxonomic synonyms. For several reasons this synonymy has not been formally proposed: 1) the fossil generic name Spiniferites is senior to the extant name Gonyaulax and acceptance of the synonymy would bring considerable changes to the nomenclature of this major extant genus (and conservation of Gonyaulax would cause a reciprocal chaos among fossil names); 2) the exact correspondence of Spiniferites species with Gonyaulax species is not clear; and 3) it is impossible to establish whether earlier representatives of the genus Spiniferites were cysts with a thecate stage identical to living Gonyaulax. In other words, to many researchers, it is useful and desirable to retain both Gonyaulax and Spiniferites while acknowledging that they may represent the same biological taxon."26
       The naming of hominid fossils not immune from this subjective problem.   In a March 2002 statement, Tim White, who co-directs the Laboratory for Human Evolutionary studies said, "There's been a recent tendency to give a different name to each of the fossils that comes out of the ground, and that has led to what we think is a very misleading portrayal of the biology of human evolution.  But, when you find a fossil like this one so similar to Asian and European ones, it indicates the same species." "This whole species question is all about what you accept as a sharp enough distinction to tell you that it is a separate species," said Susan Anton, a Rutgers University anthropologist. "This particular skull is not going to solve that problem."27
       Specific hominid fossils, such as the Solo fossils, have presented a bit of a problem as far as classification in concerned. "When they were first discovered, von Koenigswald believed them to be "tropical Neanderthalers." In 1963, Bernard Campbell classified them as Homo sapiens soloensis. Santa Luca, in 1980, classified them as Homo erectus erectus, with Milford Wolpoff declaring that they were not Homo erectus. Still others called them "archaic Homo sapiens." Because of their obvious similarity to the other Japanese and Chinese "classic" Homo erectus material, most investigators today recognize them as Homo erectus. The Solo fossils do, however, have a larger cranial capacity than does the average Homo erectus skull. For this reason, many evolutionists could not resist the temptation to consider the Solo people as "transitional" between Homo erectus and modern humans. Unfortunately, since evolutionists believe that modern humans arrived on the scene by 100,000 YBP, transitional fossils at 27,000 YBP will not fit.  It is now known that there are many late-date Australian fossils almost identical to the Solo (Ngandong) people."28
       The classifications of plants is classically prone to give different names to very similar plants or even parts of the same plant.  Bill DiMichele, a paleobotanist, notes, "The problem of organ association is one of the reasons why paleobotanists insist on so many different names for isolated parts of the same whole plant. Furthermore, there are phenotypic convergences that can cause great confusion, such leaves of virtually identical morphology borne on ferns and seed plants. Separate names for each fossil plant organ can be carried to extremes, however, and not all paleobotanists, myself included, favor the attribution of separate names to organs otherwise known in attachment (yes, this is still done routinely, no kidding)."29
       The Mazon Creek flora is incredibly diverse. Over 400 species from at least 130 genera have been identified from Mazon Creek nodules. However, the number of different kinds of plants represented is very difficult to determine. There are at least two reasons for this difficulty. The first reason is the convention among paleobotanists that separate plant parts receive different names. This procedure tends to inflate the number of plant names. The second reason is that paleobotanists are still trying to determine which taxa are valid.30 
       According to Meyen and Traverse the problems of naming fossils are as follows. "1. Living plants are assignable to a single taxon at any rank whereas fossil plants with dispersed parts and no observable original connections may be referred to several taxa of the same rank and have different names (Stigmaria, Lepidodendron, Lepidostrobus) 2. In living plants, all individuals belonging to a species belong to the same genus, etc. whereas in fossil plants various specimens of a species may or may not belong to the same genus and the genus may belong to different families when the complete plant is considered (Stigmaria may belong to genera assigned to Lepidodendraceae, Sigillariaceae, or Lepidocarpaceae). 3. Living plants are assigned to a complete hierarchy of taxa whereas fossil plants may be assigned only to genera with higher rankings unknown (some leaf genera might belong to pteridosperms, ferns, or cycads). 4. Living plants cannot be assigned to different genera based upon different types of preservation whereas fossil plants may be. 5. Different ontogenetic phases of the living plant do not normally serve as a distinction for a taxon whereas in fossil plants this is possible (seeds, microspores, megaspores, cysts). They concluded that fossil plant nomenclature requires only two special circumstances be reflected in the ICBN: 1) the possibility to keep genera of fossil plants outside the hierarchy of formally named higher taxa; and 2) the possibility to retain names of taxa established for various parts." 31,32
       As it turns out, "Intraspecific variation is ubiquitous in systematic characters, yet systematists often do not deal with polymorphism explicity. For example, morphological systematists typically exclude characters in which any or "too much" polymorphism is observed, and molecular systematists often avoid intraspecific variation by sampling a single individual per species. Recent empirical studies have suggested that polymorphic characters contain significant phylogenetic information but are more homoplastic than fixed characters. Excluding polymorphic characters decreased accuracy under almost all conditions examined, even when only the more variable characters were excluded. Sampling a single individual per species also consistently decreased accuracy. Thus, two common approaches for dealing with intraspecific variation in morphological and molecular systematics can give relatively poor estimates of phylogeny."33 (Back to Top)



     



       Foraminiferans are actually protozoans (single celled animals) of the Order Foraminiferida.  Their fossilized remains have been commonly used to relatively date sedimentary rock.  This practice is especially extensive in the oil industry.  These creatures are usually quite tiny, but have a fairly wide range of size from 0.1 millimeter (mm) to almost 20 centimeters (cm) in length with an average that is less than 1 mm. They also have an extraordinarily fast doubling time of 3.65 days.  The parts of the creatures that are preserved in the fossil record are their shells.  Actually, these shells are not really shells in that they are "intra-ectoplasmic" structures called "tests".  These tests function somewhat like a skeleton and are formed of small interconnected chambers.  The chamber connections are small openings between each chamber.  The openings are called "foramina" from which the name "foraminifers" comes from.  Foraminiferan shells or tests come in many shapes and sizes and have many different designs to include simple tubes, straight series chambers, coils of chamber and even complex labyrinths.  Their walls can be formed by particulate matter picked up from the surrounding environment or they can be formed of pure calcareous material that is secreted by the foraminifer.  Foraminifers interact with their environment through pores and apertures that exist in the test wall.  Their taxonomy is based first on the wall mineralogy and microstructure, then on chamber arrangement, apertural shape and position, and finally ornamentation. 21,22
       Foraminifers are not only abundant in the fossil record but live today as well.  They can be found practically anywhere where there is a body  of water to include deep sea trenches, shallow seas and oceans, and even fresh water lakes.  However, different types of foraminifers occupy different types of environments.  For example, planktonic and pelagic species live in open water at various depths while benthic species live near, on, or in the ocean floor.  In deep ocean environments, calcareous (made of calcium) material is dissolved, so foraminifers in this environment tend to be of the type that agglutinates surrounding material to make their tests instead of forming calcareous tests.  Foraminifers move around via "pseudopodia" or hair-like extensions of protoplasm and have been clocked at several millimeters per hour.  These are also used as "arms" for the gathering of food and building materials and for attachment to other objects.  Sometimes the pseudopodia are even used to aid in floatation, as is the case with planktonic species.  Foraminifers can also tolerate extreme environments to include very low oxygen levels, hyper- and hypo-salinity, as well as extremes of pH and temperature.  What is interesting is that these different environments play a role on the type of framiniferan that occupies a particular area.  For example, areas with low oxygen levels have foraminifers with a more flattened shape to increase absorption surface area.   Their walls also tend to be thinner, more porous, and less ornamented. 22




         So, what do these very interesting creatures have to do with the theory of evolution?   Well, as previous hinted at, different foraminifers are found in different layers within the geologic column.   In fact, some are so closely associated with a given layer that when they are found, they practically define that layer within the geologic column.  This association is so reliable that oil drilling companies rely heavily on the identification of these creatures as they drill their wells to the proper depth.  Obviously then, if the layers in the geologic column represent long periods of historical time, the differences in foraminifers represent evolutionary changes over time.  The layers could not possible have been formed rapidly by a watery catastrophe such as are mentioned in flood legends, for how would these foraminifers, who are similar in size and density, be sorted so neatly into the various layers in which they are found?  There are some, such as the geologist Glenn Morton, who argue that:  

      "Foraminifera are small, single cellular animals which would have existed in the oceans prior to the flood and due to their small size should be found all mixed together in the same or closely related strata...   Given the small size of the average species, they should all sort out at about the same time from the waters of the flood with the largest at the bottom and the smallest at the top.  This is not what we find when we look at the foraminifera fossil record. Genera of forams, all possessing the similar shape and similar size and only differing in the details of the test decoration, are found over vast vertical distances in the geologic column...  It is like throwing similar size and density sand particles, which are colored different colors, into a river and having the colors all sort out. This is impossible. Yet forams are so sorted. The only conclusion can be that their order is not due to a global flood but to a long period of deposition in which the animal life changed." 21    
       
       Morton's argument is especially interesting when one considers that different foraminiferan test decoration are found within the same species depending upon environmental factors of the local habitat.  Tammy Tosk, also a geologist, argues that both habitat preference as well as environmental factors can have a rapid impact on foraminiferan morphology.22  Consider the following illustration and note that the foraminifers of today vary in morphology according to changes in ocean depth.  





       As illustrated above, Tosk argues that morphologic variation or "sorting" within the geologic column can be based on normal ecologic distribution.  Tosk goes on to argue that within a single foraminifer species, certain members may have thickly ornamented tests under normal oxygen concentrations and thin less-ornamented tests in environments where oxygen concentrations are low.  Such variations that are based, not in genetics, but in environmental influences, are called "ecophenotypic" variations.  Based on these ideas, Tosk theorizes about how the geologic foraminiferan data could be explained by a rapid catastrophic burial:

      "Because of the many examples of variation in living and fossil forms, foraminifers are considered to be extraordinarily plastic (Kennett 1976). A foraminifer may contain enough genetic information to express many different forms, depending on the conditions...  A significant problem arises because similar forms are classified differently if they occur at different stratigraphic levels. These cases are explained as iterative evolution, that is, the same form evolved repeatedly through geologic history. Thus classification is subjectively influenced by evolutionary theory. Repeated occurrences could be explained as easily by a catastrophic flood model. If the foraminifers found fossilized at various levels in the geologic column were living at the same time in different ecologic zones, species common to several ecologic zones would be found at several levels. Gaps in the record only indicate that the species was not present in the source area or the ecologic zone being buried at that time, not that it was totally extinct. No coincidence of repeated extinction and identical evolution is required.  
       Ecologic zonation as developed by Clark (1946) would mean that foraminifers living in the lower seas or deeper parts of the ocean would be buried first as the sediments were redeposited by the gradually rising flood waters, while those from higher ecologic zones would be buried later The fossil record seems generally consistent with this model. [The figures above] show the distribution of foraminifers today and of fossils in the geologic column. Simple agglutinated forms that now live in environments ranging from the deep sea to estuaries, are found fossilized in Early Paleozoic and younger strata. Calcareous benthic species now predominate both in bathyal environments and in Mesozoic strata of the past, and presently floating planktonic forms from a higher ecologic zone are abundant in the higher Cenozoic strata of the past.
       In the oceans today, calcareous material is dissolved below the carbonate compensation depth (CCD) usually at a depth of about 4000 m, depending on carbon dioxide concentration. Neither benthic nor planktonic calcareous foraminifers are generally found below that depth on the abyssal plains or in deep sea trenches, because their calcareous shells would be dissolved. Agglutinated forms are dominant
       Agglutinated species are common in the Lower Paleozoic, and the benthic calcareous foraminifers found generally have thicker walls than forms higher in the geologic column. They could have lived near the pre-flood CCD where most calcareous forms, especially thinner-shelled planktonic species, would have been completely dissolved. Lower Paleozoic foraminifers are consistent, therefore, with the distribution expected by a catastrophic flood.
       The fusulinids in the Upper Paleozoic, however, are an anomaly. Some species of fusulinids grew to volumes of more than 100 m3 (Ross 1979). Foraminifers which grew that large today have symbiotic photosynthetic algae living in their tests, and so must live within tens of meters of the ocean surface where sunlight is available. Large foraminifers from other groups live in shallow water tropical environments today; therefore, the fusulinids are interpreted also to have lived in a similar environment (Ross 1979), yet we do not find them at the top of the geologic column. Possibly they grew at the surface of pre-flood bodies of water of low altitude (Figure 1).
       Planktonic foraminifers are not found in Paleozoic or Lower Mesozoic deposits. Even though living planktonic foraminifers float and would not be expected to be found in the early flood deposits, tests of those which had died before the flood should have been on the sea floor and should have been buried with those living there. Either they were not present in those ecologic zones, or they were not preserved as fossils. Because they have thinner, more porous tests than benthic forms, they could easily have been dissolved preferentially on the sea floor before the onset of catastrophic flooding, if their shells sank below the CCD.
       Benthic hyaline calcareous foraminifers become abundant in the Mesozoic. Triassic and Jurassic foraminifers are generally not as well preserved as later forms. In Cretaceous strata, both benthic and planktonic forms are diverse and abundant, making it correlative with the upper bathyal zone of the ocean today.
       Foraminifers older than the Cretaceous are generally widely distributed. A Triassic species may be found in both Australia and Idaho, but nowhere in between (Tosk and Andersson 1988). Cretaceous and younger foraminifers have distribution patterns correlative with modern assemblages (Sliter 1972). Under the prevailing paradigm, this would mean that the pre-Cretaceous seas were more cosmopolitan because modern hydrographic patterns and ecologic distributions had not yet developed. Continental fragmentation and sea-floor spreading during the Cretaceous are used to account for the development of modern oceanic patterns at that time.
       In a flood model, however, this pattern is what would be expected. During the more violent stages of the flood events, foraminifers from a small area would be scattered widely over the earth. As the violence of the flood died down, foraminifers would not be transported as far and might even begin developing their own ecologic distribution patterns. Major deposition during and after the Cretaceous could have become localized in basins and at continental margins. Life for foraminifers may have returned to normal in less affected areas."
22

       So, it seems at least possible to conclude that the apparent "sorting" of foraminifers in the fossil record could have occurred outside of slow process of millions of years involving gradual evolutionary changes.  Morphologic variations seen today are often based on ecologic environment that are fairly distinctly "sorted."  Arguments such as Morton presents need not necessarily or even preferentially support the long age scenario over a catastrophic formation of much of the geologic column. 
       But what about arguments that Morton also raises that foraminiferans show smooth evolution between species?  Consider the series of slowly changing forms presented at the right.  Morton refers to this series as a clear example of plankton evolution in action by saying,


      "One can clearly see the gradual transformation of the earliest into the latest species.  This gradual change is imperceptible...  Gradualistic evolution is documented among these tiny creatures laying bare the false claim that there are no transitional forms. What it shows is that the flood-advocates don't read anything except their own literature."  21

     Well, after reading Morton's "literature" it seems that such variations in morphology might be easily explained by variations in environment.  These forms pictures at the right might in fact be members of the same species of plankton.  After all, foraminifer are quite "plastic" indeed.  The genetic information contained in one common gene pool seems quite capable of producing startling morphologic variations.  Considering this ecophenotypic variation potential, how then is Morton so sure that "gradualistic evolution" is taking place here? (Back to Top)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The website has the references numbered correctly.   I've listed the bulk of them here but beginning with 1 rather than 20.  

  1. Coffin HG. 1987. Sonar and scuba survey of a submerged allochthonous "forest" in Spirit Lake, Washington. Palaois 2:179-180.
  2. Tosk, Tammy. 1988. Origins 15(1):8-18.
  3. Holmes,P.L. (1994): The sorting of spores and pollen by water: experimental and field evidence. - In: Traverse,A. [ed.]: Sedimentation of organic particles, 9-32, 10 figs., 1 tab.; Cambridge: Univ. Press.
  4. Greuter, W. et al., 1996. Taxon 45: 349-372.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Gradualistic" is one of those Darwinspeak words that is used when there is no actual evidence to support the claim.   Foraminifers are best explained as variation within kind, with their "tests" tending to change depending upon where they are found by depth and pressure and not presenting a line of evolution.

47 comments:

Jon W said...

"Linnaeus was a Christian... "

in a time and culture when calling yourself anything else meant an end to your public life. Even then, Linnaeus got in trouble with some Christian theologians for even suggesting that Man was part of the animal kingdom.

"Baraminology" is cargo-cult pseudoscience, because it can't be proven wrong. You disagree? Fine. Name one possible-in-the-real-world discovery that would prove to you that it's false.

radar said...

You first, Jon. Name something that would falsify Darwinism to you. Lord knows I have given you 100 reasons over the years and you have not budged. So let's see you defend YOUR cargo-cult pseudoscience hypothesis...

Anonymous said...

"Name something that would falsify Darwinism to you."

Finding remains of homo sapiens - or any other modern tetrapod - in Cambian layers.

Really not that hard.

Your turn.

radar said...

As for Baraminology, if a dog and a cat could mate, or any descendent of a dog and any descendent of the cat, then it would be falsified.

We do find that cat kinds (such as lions and tigers) can mate, just as the Baraminologist would expect. In fact the rigor of Baraminology is far better than what you Darwinists have done to taxonomy. It is a nasty mess! You give different names to the same creature in different layers. You throw in unproven cladistic gar-bahge. You also have taken a top-down classification system and tried to make it apply to a bottom-up hypothesis.

Linnaeus was highly regarded in his time by Christians and secularists alike, becoming a Baron by appointment, I believe, and even called "The Second Adam" as a sign of respect. Baraminology is exactly what Carl would be doing RIGHT NOW if he was alive today.

radar said...

No, we do not expect to find man in Cambrian layers because he did not live on the sea floor or swim in swamps.

In fact, the Bible is explicit in that God intended to destroy the civilization of mankind, so human fossils and human artifacts are rare in the fossil layers. We find an occasional tool or pot in coal seams and that is about it. Since God targeted the human civilization it is likely the areas where the water expulsions and volcanic activity began was in the populated areas of the continent.

So unless you know of people who live on sea bottoms, no.

radar said...

Furthermore, God sent at least one pair of every land-dwelling tetrapod onto the Ark as they were not expected to survive the Flood. If you only have one pair of dogs, you would certainly take a pair of original kinds (with the most genetic material) and the same holds true for the other animals and birds on the Ark.

Plants, sea creatures, insects, microbes of all kinds - they were not taken on the Ark as some of them would survive the Flood without help.

The inclusion of eight humans made it possible to include as much genetic material as possible to aid in the survivability of man after the Flood.

You know, even the propagandized and useless NCSE admitted that Baraminology was a rigorous scientific field of study.

Leticia said...

Radar, again, my friend. You have out done yourself. But it seems no matter how much scientific proof you put on here, the Libs refuse to believe it and cling to their false belief in Darwinism.

God and His perfect creation is irrefutable.

radar said...

Ah, Leticia, it is disappointing to see such simplistic comments from Jon and the Anonymi after I post very thorough information that explains the science of Baraminology very well.

Jon and the Anonymi? Hey, maybe they can start a cover band and sing about the wonders of Darwinism?

"Something from nothing
Life for free
Design from chaos
Naturally

Meaning from random unplanned accidents
Explosions and mistakes
formed my sentience

I want my
I want my
I want my life for free

I want no
I want no
Responsibility"

Anonymous said...

"As for Baraminology, if a dog and a cat could mate, or any descendent of a dog and any descendent of the cat, then it would be falsified."

So would mainstream understanding of evolution, so that really doesn't help us at all in terms of supporting creationism over mainstream science.

"We do find that cat kinds (such as lions and tigers) can mate, just as the Baraminologist would expect"

... as would any mainstream scientist.

"In fact the rigor of Baraminology is far better than what you Darwinists have done to taxonomy. It is a nasty mess!"

Can you point us to the complete baraminological taxonomy so we can check out your overblown claims firsthand? Specifically how does it differ from the taxonomy of mainstream science? I would suggest to you that baraminology is nowhere close to mainstream science in terms of its completeness, and so you have the luxury of avoiding any of the more ambiguous cases. And before it can be claimed to be better, it has to first be as complete.

"No, we do not expect to find man in Cambrian layers because he did not live on the sea floor or swim in swamps."

Approximately which geological layer do creationists hypothesize was what we would call "land" right before the global flood?

The prediction was not intended to imply that man lived on the sea floor, but that right before the hypothetic global flood man lived on land, and shortly after, that became what we would now call the sea floor. Which according to creationists was then rapidly covered in multiple layers of sediment etc.

So whichever layer creationists say was the bottom layer of the global flood, if we find human remains there, or the remains of, say, a cow or a dog, then yes, that would be a huge problem for mainstream science.

"So unless you know of people who live on sea bottoms, no."

Let's pretend this myth of yours actually happened.

Day before the flood: man alive on land.

Day after the flood: man dead on sea bottom.

Which happens to be the same place.

No need to be obtuse about this.

Surely, if this story were true, some humans would have been caught in their homes or trapped under something heavy. Or at least a cow or a land turtle or a pig or whatever. Isn't that the whole story of fossils caught in rapid submersion? Now it's all about how they were rapidly submerged but then UNIVERSALLY whisked away? Does that sound consistent to you?

"In fact, the Bible is explicit in that God intended to destroy the civilization of mankind, so human fossils and human artifacts are rare in the fossil layers. We find an occasional tool or pot in coal seams and that is about it."

By admitting that human remains as such even exist, you're shooting yourself in the foot. The God in this story can easily destroy human civilization by killing all humans. He doesn't then need to then pulverize all their remains, as you're already admitting he didn't.

"You know, even the propagandized and useless NCSE admitted that Baraminology was a rigorous scientific field of study."

Link please. Sounds like you may have misunderstood or misrepresented something there.

radar said...

We need better commenters!

The first sedimentary layers poured down on bottom-dwelling sea creatures. No people live on the bottom of the sea. Therefore "Cambrian" rocks are full of trilobites and bivalves and crinoids and the like. Some organisms with more mobility that were commonly near the bottom, such as nautiloids, were able to escape the first outpouring of sediments but became trapped in another layer.

The reason tree are found mostly higher up in the fossil record is because they FLOAT. Trees get stripped of most or all roots and branches, become water-logged with mineral-rich floodwaters and then sink usually straight down until they hit bottom and are subsequently covered in situ by more sedimentary layers. We see this happening in a similar fashion in Spirit Lake, although minus the waves of sediments coming afterwards. This is why we have so many polystrate trees and reeds.

Simple landforms were buried later in the Flood as the waters rose and tides washed over them. Humans and bigger or more nimble organisms sometimes were able to escape and survive until the end or near the end of the first stage of the Flood. Once the waters covered the entire Earth, only giant mats of floating plants could provide refuge to some such organisms. But storms and dehydration and starvation would eventually kill any larger organisms trying to ride out the Flood.

Your complete lack of even a simple understanding of Flood Geology makes explanations difficult, like explaining Algebra to a fourth grader. Will the fourth grader comprehend Algebra? Yes, if he learns the basics of math he will understand Algebra.

You Darwinists need to have at least a cursory understanding of Creation Science so that you can ask intelligent questions. You have the cranial capacity, you have not been particularly diligent to learn, that is the problem.

So learn the basics and then you may well ask good questions for a change. I know the basics of evolution so I have done my part. Do yours!

Jon W said...

"Your complete lack of even a simple understanding of Flood Geology makes explanations difficult, like explaining Algebra to a fourth grader."

Most reasonably bright kids are already using the concepts of algebra by fourth grade. They just don't know it.

Anyway, it's your complete lack of understanding of the fossil record that makes it difficult to explain how wrong "flood geology" is. For example:

"The reason tree are found mostly higher up in the fossil record is because they FLOAT."

Even when they're still rooted in the ground? The Joggins fossil forests include such trees -- roots, trunk, and all.

Anyway, as always you fail to grok because you believe lies about the fossil record. Not only are trees found throughout the geologic column, different strata contain different kinds of trees, and the types of trees that are found show a consistent pattern. Today angiosperms are trees of lowlands and warm climates, while gymnosperm trees (conifers) generally inhabit higher-altitude and cooler climes. One would therefore expect angiosperms to appear lower in the rocks, if flood geology were true, as the rising floodwaters covered first the lowlands, then the high ground. Yet conifers appear in the fossil record first, while there are no angiosperms of any kind found below the Upper Jurassic.

Jon W said...

" Name something that would falsify Darwinism to you."

A legitimate fossil of a centaur, a griffin, a mermaid, or any other organism that doesn't fit anywhere in the conventional Tree of Life.

radar said...

"The reason tree are found mostly higher up in the fossil record is because they FLOAT." (me)

Even when they're still rooted in the ground? The Joggins fossil forests include such trees -- roots, trunk, and all.

Totally wrong! Joggins actually has reeds, not trees and they do not have full root systems nor do they have one floor. They are located throughout the layers, sometimes upside down or sideways. How can you be so certain of yourself when you do not have even a rudimentary idea of the Joggins formation and what is in it? Wow!

Anyway, as always you fail to grok because you believe lies about the fossil record. Not only are trees found throughout the geologic column, different strata contain different kinds of trees, and the types of trees that are found show a consistent pattern. Today angiosperms are trees of lowlands and warm climates, while gymnosperm trees (conifers) generally inhabit higher-altitude and cooler climes. One would therefore expect angiosperms to appear lower in the rocks, if flood geology were true, as the rising floodwaters covered first the lowlands, then the high ground. Yet conifers appear in the fossil record first, while there are no angiosperms of any kind found below the Upper Jurassic.

No, Jon, we do not find any buried standing forests in the rock records at all! The floodwaters buried bottom-dwelling sea creatures and in places farthest from the most violent activities some areas of land were buried quickly. But the rest of your story is fiction. We find bottom-dwelling sea creatures in the highest mountains all over the globe, because the crust of the old continent was primarily subducted and the lower sedimentary layers wound up being uplifted by the process. So land was either devastated and turned into sediments to be deposited (close to the areas of dynamic water and volcanic expulsions) or subducted as the original continent was split apart and new sedimentary rock was raised up to take the place of the former crust.

Then near the end of the process the tectonic plates collided and new mountains were upthrust, taking sedimentary rocks with their fossils up with them. We can see the mountain ranges of the Western portion of the New World as being upthrust by the oollision. The less dramatic mountains of the Eastern United States did not experience such a collision, but we do see a Coriolis Effect in the formation of Southeastern mountainous regions. Obviously the rock was still wet and elastic to demonstrate the Coriolis Effect!

Trees are found in sediments as trunks ripped from the ground and stripped of most or all of their branches and roots systems. Keep on looking at the fossils, Jon.

So only a mermaid will falsify Darwinism to you? Aghast! You are no scientist, professional or amateur.

radar said...

Oh, and Jon? You are WAY behind in the Darwinist teachings. There is no longer a tree of life. There is rather kind of a field of shrubbery in that all sorts of different kinds of organisms cannot trace back to one ancestor. Instead, there are supposedly multiple ancestors for differing lines of organisms.

I think it is all nonsense, but that is what Darwinist science teaches now.

Jon W said...

"So only a mermaid will falsify Darwinism to you? Aghast! You are no scientist, professional or amateur."

See, I told you you couldn't understand my counterpoints, much less answer them coherently.

Any of the organisms I listed, or any of numerous other mythological animals -- hippogriff, satyr, hydra, minotaur, sphinx to name a few -- would falsify evolutionary theory because evolutionary theory says that such a thing is impossible.

It would be impossible to find an organism that is half human and half fish, because such a thing would be a fusion of two widely separate branches of the Tree of Life.

It would be impossible to find an organism that is half human and half horse. Impossible in two different ways, in fact: it's a fusion of two separate branches of life, and it's a tetrapod with three pairs of limbs. No known tetrapod, living or extinct, has ever had more than two pairs of limbs.

And so on and so forth. There, I answered your question. Now it's your turn. Name a possible-in-the-real-world discovery that would convince you that creationism is wrong. Note that your "cat and dog mating" example is not possible in the real world.

"No, Jon, we do not find any buried standing forests in the rock records at all! "

Ah, but we do. Gilboa, Dorset, Danville ... there are many examples.

"Instead, there are supposedly multiple ancestors for differing lines of organisms."

Hey, you got something right! Well, sort of. Rule 15 applies. The base of the Tree of Life is a muddle, apparently because of horizontal gene transfer between prokaryotic and early eukaryotic cells. But the two major kingdoms of macroscopic life, Metaphyta and Metazoa, are each a single coherent evolutionary entity.

radar said...

Jon, until you can admit that you are completely wrong about standing trees this is the end of the conversation. You do not know what you are talking about. There is not one standing forest of prediluvial trees in the sedimentary rocks.

Whereas I do know the "tree of life" is no longer a Darwinist teaching and you probably had to go look it up?

Baraminologists compare DNA sequences and also physiological data to determine what the basic kinds are and to determine how they have speciated or gone extinct. They are doing a 21st Century version of taxonomy as Linnaeus would have done with better information.

Unlike Darwinists, we do not give the same organism six different names depending upon which sedimentary rock layer it is located in or what stage of development it was in when preserved by the Flood.

Anonymous said...

Baraminologists compare DNA sequences and also physiological data to determine what the basic kinds are and to determine how they have speciated or gone extinct. They are doing a 21st Century version of taxonomy as Linnaeus would have done with better information.

Molecular phylogeny eh? Once again, your cutting-edge science is literally decades behind the curve, as this approach is not even remotely novel.

On another note, given the way you've interacted with your commenters recently and given that you seem to think you are competent in many diverse scientific fields, I'd dearly love to see you take a couple college-level exams in genetics and in geology. My bet: if you did terribly, you'd concoct some sort of wild-eyed conspiracy theory in order to protect your obscenely bloated ego.

Finally, your treatment of Jon lately is ridiculous. I don't know why he even tries anymore. He has the patience of a saint to put up with it.

Jon W said...

"I don't know why he even tries anymore. He has the patience of a saint to put up with it. "

Two reasons. One, because maybe, just maybe, one of those lurkers who only reads comments might someday get the idea that Radar doesn't know what he's talking about, go look for himself, and discover that Radar and his creationist sources really don't know what they're talking about.

And two, because it's fun watching him squirm. The lengths to which he'll go in order to avoid admitting that I know what I'm talking about and he doesn't ...

Hey Radar! If angiosperms have always been around, and all trees were jumbled around in the Flood before being fossilized, then why is it that no one has ever found a fossil layer in which angiosperm trees are mixed with therapsids?

Anonymous said...

"No people live on the bottom of the sea."

... until there is a massive flood. Then they all do.

I refer you back to "So whichever layer creationists say was the bottom layer of the global flood, if we find human remains there, or the remains of, say, a cow or a dog, then yes, that would be a huge problem for mainstream science".

Which layer do creationists contend was "land" on the day before the alleged global flood? What continents do they contend were above sea level on that fateful day? And what falsifiable predictions are there that would confirm such layers being "land" on that day?

Incidentally, Radar, a little googling on your site reveals that you once made this claim: "The bottom-most layers have both modern and extinct creatures and there are modern creatures amongst the fossils at most levels. The lie that only extinct animals are in those layers is just that, a lie."

Would you care to amend this claim, or do you stick by it?

"Therefore "Cambrian" rocks are full of trilobites and bivalves and crinoids and the like."

But strangely enough they are not full of modern bottom-dwelling sea creatures. That in itself is a falsification of creationism amd confirmation of an old Earth and the theory of evolution.

"The reason tree are found mostly higher up in the fossil record is because they FLOAT."

Trees don't float. Wood floats. Trees are literally rooted to the ground. Even if their trunks are ripped away, there would still be a layer of roots or remnants of roots to indicate where the trees used to be.

Fine, creationists immediately hypothesize some all-destructive force that not only levels all in its path but that also hits trees with such enormous force that their roots are instantly ripped out (think for a moment about what force that would require...).

Any force sufficient to uproot root-bearing soil to the extent that all trees would have been uprooted and turned to floating mats would also have smashed Noah's ark itself to bits. Think about it.

"Humans and bigger or more nimble organisms sometimes were able to escape and survive until the end or near the end of the first stage of the Flood."

Either this process happened slowly enough that people could escape and survive or it happened so quickly that trees were ripped out roots and all. Take your pick.

"You Darwinists need to have at least a cursory understanding of Creation Science so that you can ask intelligent questions."

Creationism isn't scientifically relevant as long as creationists can't present a single falsifiable hypothesis that would bolster their claims.

Jon W said...

I suppose I should add a third reason: I enjoy learning, and I often learn new things in the course of coming up with the evidence to jam Radar's words down his throat.

Radar blathereth: "Jon, until you can admit that you are completely wrong about standing trees this is the end of the conversation. You do not know what you are talking about. There is not one standing forest of prediluvial trees in the sedimentary rocks."

Well, since there's no such thing as "prediluvial trees," that much of your statement is true. There are, however, examples of standing fossil forests in the sedimentary rocks. As I said previously, one of the most famous (in paleontological circles) is the Gilboa fossil forest, first found in the 1920s in a rock quarry, but then sadly buried and only recently re-exposed, and then only for a short time. However, in just a few weeks of examination, Binghamton University paleontologists prepared "a 1,200 m2 map showing numerous Eospermatopteris root systems in life position within a mixed-age stand of trees. Unexpectedly, large woody rhizomes with adventitious roots and aerial branch systems identified as aneurophytalean progymnosperms run between, and probably climb into, Eospermatopteris trees." (from http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v483/n7387/full/nature10819.html, emphasis added)


See also http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/03/120301102716.htm: " What they found this time was a large, substantially intact portion of the ancient forest horizon, complete with root systems." (emphasis added).

But Radar says that all trees were ripped out of the ground by the Flood, and stripped of their roots, twigs, and leaves. And Radar is an honorable man.

Note also that neither article, nor any of the other recent articles on the Gilboa forest, suggests that preserved forests of this sort are a new thing. The emphasis is on the detail of the Gilboa fossils, not simply their existence; the mere existence of such fossil forests is well known and universally accepted among geologists.

Oh, and an old diorama prepared after the forest was first found in the 1920s clearly shows three separate fossil horizons at Gilboa, each complete with tree stumps and root systems.

But Radar says that in situ fossil forests don't exist. And Radar is an honorable man.

radar said...

"Low-angle cross-bedded sandstones in the Gilboa region containing several Eospermatopteris levels suggest that the site was formed by recurrent, marine-influenced and possibly catastrophic, processes with a relatively high frequency of disturbance." (Stein et al. 2012. 81)

So this is apparently an anomaly, a quick-growth swamp that avoided the first most violent stages of the Flood and then was subsequently buried by sedimentary flows that are typical of the Flood. We have found some places where animals took shelter during the early parts of the Flood, laying eggs, sometimes scavenging temporarily exposed animals, leaving trackways heading uphill as the waters rose.

But this is very interesting - an area of swampland that was buried after the first violent waves of Floodwaters uprooted and scattered other forests. I am going to look into this further.

It was still buried by the Flood (see the quote by Stein) and preserved by the sediments that buried it. Darwinists may have found a preserved forest that was buried more tranquilly than the typical area but no Flood, no preservation. You still have the sedimentary rock layers that buried the area in sandstone and preserved it. The only question is why the area did not initially get torn up and scattered like the typical fossilized trees found around the world.

So you have finally surprised me with something I did not know that actually gives me a reason to research it.

Now suppose you work on things like the existence of the Universe, life, information and aspects of organisms that make Darwinism impossible while I check out this swamp forest? Betcha I have answers before you do!

Chuck said...

You'll get a vacation from these commenters once the Special Olympics gets going again.

Anonymous said...

Using disabilities as insults, eh? Classy, that.

Anonymous said...

"It was still buried by the Flood (see the quote by Stein)"

should read

"It was still buried by a flood (see the quote by Stein)"

This is one of the key errors in thinking that creationists keep making. Evidence of a flood is not evidence of THE Flood. It MAY be compatible with the Flood, but it's not evidence for it.

radar said...

Most of what Jon says is just not true and I am accustomed to his insults and the untruths are merely annoying. Jon ignores the major problems with evolution and concentrates on minor points that do not have the relevance to the main issues

I was shocked that he came up with something interesting for a change. I am doing research on the site and, for now, will tentatively agree that an in situ forested swamp area seems to have been preserved by the Flood rather than destroyed.

He has his "me, too" anonymous fans who naturally walk in lockstep with him. Try not to break your arms patting yourselves on the back.

Anonymous said...

On a totally unrelated note, some time ago you mentioned a lava flow near the Grand Canyon that contains pottery shards. I'd like to discuss this in detail please.

Leticia said...

Radar, it truly is sad. In fact, I believe if you had an apple in your hand they would argue that it was an orange and that you came up with this diabolical scheme to trick them into believing you were, indeed, holding an apple.

Shame.

Jon W said...

My, my. Such a fine, earnest, heartfelt apology, Radar. A sterling example of Christian grace and humility. You set a truly stirring example for your fellows.

Anonymous said...

Derision is still not an argument, Radar.

Anonymous said...

"Most of what Jon says is just not true"

Like what, specifically? Generally when one looks into Jon's claims, they are backed up by facts.

radar said...

What apology? There is nothing to apologize for...

Fact - Neither Jon nor any other commenter has provided a coherent answer to the formation of the Universe.

Or life.

Or information.

Or sentience.

Or given us a certain transitional form because you do not seem to get what a transitional would be. Check out what Darwin thought.

Commenters continually use derision against me so my occasional jabs back are rather conservative.

Jon should admit that he doesn't read the posts before he comments. He and I both know he has done this.

Jon usually comments on issues that are NOT the primary point of the post. He often brings up something from a previous post or some rabbit trail question or comment.

Jon and the Anonymi are therefore not even addressing the main problems of evolution and trying to skirt the main issues by looking at fringe items and attempting to make people focus on those.

Therefore I must have to finish off the fossil series and post a Creationism 101 series so Jon and the Anonymi will see what the basics of the Creationist teaching is and lay off the strawmen, hopefully.

Finally, I put my efforts into the posts and comments may cause me to make a post in response. But I will not do your research for you if I have already posted the answer.

Jon made one interesting point - an area where trees (obviously fast-growing "ditchweed" swamp type trees) were buried and preserved by floodwaters rather than completely ripped up and buried later. That is interesting and I am researching it. But it was still buried by the Noahic Flood based on what I read about what it was buried in and the nature of the sedimentary rock.

Anonymous said...

"Or given us a certain transitional form because you do not seem to get what a transitional would be."

The creationist strawman that you also like to present is a non-viable organism, e.g. half a wing. The theory of evolution would never predict such a thing, and yet you insist that it does.

It would be a transitional only in a cartoon-like misunderstanding of the theory of evolution, which is what creationists are trying to push here.

Pushing claims like this only discredits your prior claim that you know your way around evolution.

radar said...

Darwin expected organisms in transition from one form to another, not having a good concept of what an organism actually was. He did not know cells and had very little idea of the remarkable complexity and design of organisms. He thought that perhaps the fossil record would show arms becoming wings and that there was some kind of survival advantage in having arms with some wing qualities that would eventually lead to wings.

We now know that it takes millions of changes in order for an arm to become a wing and Michael Behe's research on mutations shows that at the very most two beneficial mutations could possibly carry forward to the next generation. It therefore would take an inconceivably long time for such a thing to develop even if (and this is so problematic) the mutated organism did have so much of an advantage that it became the dominant one and then became the base for another small mutated step forward.

Naturally most mutations are either harmful or deadly, therefore the likelihood of mutations actually accomplishing an advancement such as the conversion from an arm to a wing is preposterously small.

Thus, we do not see transitional forms because they do not happen. Darwin expected a continuum of such forms but they did not happen.

Although Darwinists like Dawkins came up with formal programs to "prove" evolution like the Weasel program or various GA programs, they cannot overcome the statistical barriers that exist in the real world. Such programs have a targeted goal and work towards the goal. Blind mutations have no goal nor do they have direction.

http://evoinfo.org/papers/2010_TheSearchForASearch.pdf

Natural selection is a matter of the environment allowing the variety of an organism that is most likely to survive the particular circumstances to reproduce and pass down genetic information most like itself. There is a large pool of genetic information in all organisms, available to provide choices. Where did the information come from, the coding mechanism, the cell, with the meta-information, the ATP Synthase process...how about the distal switching built into the cell, the ability for bacteria to pass genetic materials back and forth, the

radar said...

...the study of epigenetics, a process that required engineering and design. In fact Darwinism has tried in vain to find an actual mechanism that works behind the facade of "mutation plus natural selection" when natural selection is a part of the designed ability of organisms to vary and mutations are actually causing organisms to devolve and go extinct.

The DNA strand actually has anti-mutation correctors that cut out incorrect portions of the strand and replace with corrected code. But mutations accumulate faster than the corrective system can handle. Therefore organisms devolve.

Real science, my friends, does not allow for the fanciful hypothesis of an 19th Century gentleman to be believed in a 21st Century world. You must awaken from your sleepy hypnotized indoctrinated paralysis and see the truth.

radar said...

Jon's assertions are hardly substantive compared to the posts to which he has attached them. I suppose there is a site where Darwinists find a list of 101 things to post on Creationist blogs to annoy them? :-)

Tragedy is when one of my friends or family dies. Joy is when someone has a baby or gets married. Joy is also found when a truth is uncovered like a nugget of gold in a pile of stones. I find myself conversing with people who believe that a pile of bricks and wood and nails would eventually evolve into a house when I know full well it would crumble into dust. At times it is amusing and other times it is kind of sad. Most of you actually believe what you say?

Jon W said...

"Real science, my friends, does not allow for the fanciful hypothesis of an 19th Century gentleman to be believed in a 21st Century world. "

Well, since that's not what evolutionary theory is, your statement isn't exactly relevant. Although it is amusingly ironic, coming from somebody who thinks a collection of fanciful Stone Age fireside tales is to be believed in a 21st-century world.

On the subject of "the existence of the Universe" -- what, exactly, is your question?

On "the existence of life" and "the existence of information": you'll need to define the words "life" and "information" before those questions can be answered.

On the subject of transitional forms, Anonymous above is right: what you demand as a "transitional form" is something that evolutionary theory says is impossible.

"The DNA strand actually has anti-mutation correctors that cut out incorrect portions of the strand and replace with corrected code. But mutations accumulate faster than the corrective system can handle. "

And some of those mutations are beneficial. Therefore organisms evolve.

Also, many of the variations on which evolution depends are not, strictly speaking, genetic mutations at all. They are the result of new combinations among existing genes.

radar said...

"Real science, my friends, does not allow for the fanciful hypothesis of an 19th Century gentleman to be believed in a 21st Century world. " -me

Well, since that's not what evolutionary theory is, your statement isn't exactly relevant. Although it is amusingly ironic, coming from somebody who thinks a collection of fanciful Stone Age fireside tales is to be believed in a 21st-century world.

Not so, since the Biblical account of creation makes sense when we look at organisms and find that they are designed. The creation account is logical, the evolutionary hypothesis is complete mythology that does not fit the evidence.

On the subject of "the existence of the Universe" -- what, exactly, is your question?

Creationists have a First Cause for the Universe and can point to the fact that it had a beginning. Darwinists cannot identify a first cause or the existence of a singularity, or scientific laws, or time or existence itself.

On "the existence of life" and "the existence of information": you'll need to define the words "life" and "information" before those questions can be answered.

We covered information in great detail and that whole issue is memorialized at !The Ultimate Information Post at the top of my links list. You have all failed to explain the existence of information apart from the existence of a mind or person to produce it. You have also failed to give any good reason to overturn the Law of Biogenesis as it has remained unbroken since it was established, as have the Laws of Thermodynamics.

On the subject of transitional forms, Anonymous above is right: what you demand as a "transitional form" is something that evolutionary theory says is impossible.

Then you agree that evolutionary theory is impossible?

"The DNA strand actually has anti-mutation correctors that cut out incorrect portions of the strand and replace with corrected code. But mutations accumulate faster than the corrective system can handle. "

And some of those mutations are beneficial. Therefore organisms evolve.

No they don't. You cannot point to anything other than either broken systems that cause bacteria to "eat" citrase in both aerobic and non-aerobic conditions, thus actually hindering their ability to survive, or the nylonase bacteria were shown to be a result of genetic information sharing. Scientists were able to take the very same bacteria and induce them to begin "eating" nylon waste in one week's time! It appears to be just another design feature of bacteria.

Also, many of the variations on which evolution depends are not, strictly speaking, genetic mutations at all. They are the result of new combinations among existing genes.

So now you are simply describing speciation. Pre-existing genetic material being selected by environmental factors. That is Creationist teaching :-)

Jon W said...

"the Biblical account of creation makes sense"

No more so than any other religion's creation myth, and less so than many of them.

"Darwinists cannot identify a first cause"

Yet. Assuming there was one at all, which isn't a safe assumption.

"We covered information in great detail"

On the contrary. You've never given a definition of "information" that was useful in this context, because you've never answered the question "how do you measure the amount of information in a gene?" Without that bit of [snicker.wav] information, you can't tell if a particular variant gene has more or less information in it than its ancestor-gene did. And your claim that "mutation can't produce new information" is left without any support at all, floating in mid-air much like Wile E. Coyote after his latest Acme gadget has backfired on him.

"You cannot point to anything other than either broken systems that cause bacteria to "eat" citrase in both aerobic and non-aerobic conditions,"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limone_sul_Garda

"So now you are simply describing speciation. Pre-existing genetic material being selected by environmental factors. That is Creationist teaching :-)"

No, it's evolutionary teaching. On two different levels, in fact. First, it's how many features of organisms evolve -- ie, the bird's wing is a modified dinosaur arm. Second, it's an example of creationism evolving. Thirty years ago, creationists declared flatly that speciation was impossible. Even your idol Dr. Henry Morris said so. And second-stage creationists like you screamed and yelled and stamped their little feet about "no new species!" just the same way you do about "no beneficial mutations!" Almost word for word, in fact.

Then scientists produced several new species, most of them by accident -- mostly mosquitoes and other invertebrates. And they found evidence of recent speciation in fish, birds, lizards, and even a couple of mammals. So along about twenty years ago, creationist authors changed their tune and started saying "speciation is part of God's design." That was about the same time that creationists gave up on denying that continental drift had happened, and instead added "Continental Demolition Derby" to the Flood.

One of the great ironies of the C/E controversy is that conventional theory is so successful that creationists have been forced to accept most of it. The data for genetic variation and natural selection are so overwhelming that even your own leaders finally realized just how stupid they sounded when they tried to deny it. The only things they (and you) still don't accept are macro-evolution and geologic time.

radar said...

Jon, do not be preposterous! Speciation is a Creationist idea and it was a Creationist who even proposed the mechanism of Natural Selection. You remember that Edward Blyth fellow, don't you? He fully expressed the concept in 1835, long before Darwin wrote anything. So Creation Science saw and identified Natural Selection and see it as part of the design features of organisms. That Darwin took the idea and stood it on its head is of no consequence. It works the way Blyth thought rather than the hypothesis of Darwin.

Running away and hiding from the information problem has been a specialty of yours, so now bringing in yet another issue is just dodging it. I used the dictionary definition of information and pointed out exactly how and why it needs an intellgent source to be produced.

Telling me I have to be able to know the precise amount of information in a genome is like telling me I have to know the precise weight of all the basketball players on the court before I can write about a game that was played. It is simply not relevant. Typical Darwinist dodge. I will be making a post listing all the typical dodges Darwinists use to escape difficult questions they cannot begin to answer.

Then you set up another strawman after that and pretend that Creationists have had to agree with Darwinists. No, Darwin stole Natural Selection from a Creationist. Also, Creationists do NOT agree with "continental drift" at all, we believe that the evidence shows that one continent was deluged and the tectonic plates of the world began to subduct while new crustal rock was being produced at the other end of the process as the Earth cracked open to release vast amounts of subterranean water and gas as well as lots of lava. The rocks themselves hold evidence of the Global Flood, not just in the myriad fossils buried and preserved but in the record of magnetic field reversals, Coriolis Effect observed in rocks, Polonium radiohaloes and evidence that some of the subducted crust has not yet warmed up to the standard temperature of magma yet...possible if the Flood was 4,000 some years ago, impossible if tectonic plates were subducted millions of years ago.

There are so many reasons we can be sure the Flood was recent - Helium in granitic zircons, lack of equilibrium in atmosphere for carbon and other emissions, pressurized oil and gas deposits all over the world which would not remain compressed for millions of years, the occasional pot or piece of machined metal or living clam or frog in coal seams supposedly millions of years old...

Darwinism borrowed Natural Selection from Creationists, pretended broken things build them, invented long ages for the Flood-caused sedimentary rocks and then pretend we steal ideas from YOU???!!!

Creation Science will not need to take any ideas from people who are wrong about pretty much everything. We do our own research and publish journals and release books and papers to the world. Secularists decided to become censors many decades ago so we had to form our own societies to do peer review and research. Guess what? We are not surprised by the new revelations about the increasingly complex cell or DNA functionality or the discovery of more "Lazarus Taxa" because that all fits into Creation Science and is a problem for Darwinism.

Jon W said...

And yet, the fact remains that creationists have been forced to accept most of conventional theory. Search your feelings, young padawan; you know it to be true.

Radar, I've been grasering creationist arguments for twenty years. I know your side used to deny plate tectonics and speciation. I've seen you do it. And then the data supporting both became too great to deny. So leading creationists went back into their caves and dug around for a while, until they uncovered "evidence" that seemed to say micro-evolution was a creationist idea all along. Which is a great big belly-laugher of a lie. Science left behind the ideas of a divine Creation and a young earth in the early 1800s, when geologists realized that there was no way to explain the rocks in terms of a young Earth and paleontologists realized that those bones they were finding in the rocks belonged to extinct animals, which made nonsense of Genesis 6-7. Modern YEC is wholely and entirely an invention of late-1800s religious fundamentalists idea, and there is no more science behind it now than there ever was.

radar said...

Jon, you are a liar. My next post will prove it! It will be up today in a few minutes.

radar said...

http://radaractive.blogspot.com/2013/04/taking-time-out-to-go-back-to-basics.html

Care to apologize, Jon?

Piltdown Superman said...

Jon says quite a few things that are the opposite of the truth. When the facts are against them, change the subject and resort to personal attacks like a schoolboy caught smoking on the playground and wanting revenge on his teacher.

Then this brilliance: "Modern YEC is wholely and entirely an invention of late-1800s religious fundamentalists idea, and there is no more science behind it now than there ever was."

Prejudicial conjecture based on blatant dishonesty.

radar said...

Uncle Piltie, this is the answer for Jon...

Jon W said...

And yet, the fact remains that creationists have been forced to accept most of conventional theory. Search your feelings, young padawan; you know it to be true.


Oh boy, here comes the blather...

Radar, I've been grasering creationist arguments for twenty years. I know your side used to deny plate tectonics and speciation.

Actually I have promoted rapid plate subduction for several years. Wrong. As to speciation, Creationists recognized it before Darwinists did! You are completely wrong! Edward Blyth. Checkmate!

I've seen you do it.

Now you are lying outright.

And then the data supporting both became too great to deny. So leading creationists went back into their caves and dug around for a while, until they uncovered "evidence" that seemed to say micro-evolution was a creationist idea all along.

Nope. Edward Blyth had done a paper on the process decades before Darwin plagiarized Blyth and twisted the conclusions. Speciation has been understood and used by mankind throughout recorded history, which is how we developed corn from grass and developed fatter cows and dogs of all sorts of kinds to serve as herders or guard dogs or sled dogs or sight hounds or trackers or bird dogs or...etc. Speciation was recognized long ago and Darwin learned of Natural Selection from a Creationist.


Which is a great big belly-laugher of a lie. Science left behind the ideas of a divine Creation and a young earth in the early 1800s, when geologists realized that there was no way to explain the rocks in terms of a young Earth and paleontologists realized that those bones they were finding in the rocks belonged to extinct animals, which made nonsense of Genesis 6-7.

Do you just spew out nonsense without research or evidence at all? Geologists were influenced by the blatant lies of Lyell. Uniformitarianism has been abandoned by the vast majority of geologists. Fossils buried by the Noahic Flood was the early reaction of Creationists to fossils and is our position today as well.

Modern YEC is wholely and entirely an invention of late-1800s religious fundamentalists idea, and there is no more science behind it now than there ever was.

The principles of modern YEC were in place before Darwin and, now that we know Darwin was wrong, we have the long process of re-educating the vast propagandized masses who are often as remarkably wrong as you. New findings like DNA and irreducible complexity and flesh remains in fossil organisms are all good news for us, not you.

http://radaractive.blogspot.com/2013/04/taking-time-out-to-go-back-to-basics.html

I invite readers to compare the evidence to the claims of Jon W. His personal attacks on my writings and knowledge are not only far from civil but are absolute blatant and ridiculous lies. His characterization of Creation Science is ludicrous in the extreme. It really calls into question his level of knowledge on the subjects he addresses and the likelihood that he will be truthful in the things he asserts in the future.

There was a commenter who used to come here and continued to accuse me of lying until I proved him wrong and he refused to admit it even when his very words were reprinted. He quit commenting rather than admit his error. The Fonzie syndrome. So we wait to see if Jon is made of the same stuff.

Jon W said...

Radar, you're beginning to act like the liberals you're always yakking about: badger and bully your opponents until they give up and leave in disgust, then crow about how that proves you were right all along.

If you had any substantive counterarguments to offer you'd be doing it. Instead, all you do is emit glittering generalities liberally mixed with abusive attacks against me. As a Christian, you make a fine example for Christianity's enemies. As a scientist ... well, you aren't, and let's leave it at that. In any case, over the last week or so you've proven graphically that one thing you're not is able to discuss these topics rationally. That being the case, I really don't see any reason to continue.

Piltdown Superman said...

Jonny Boy can't man up. I've seen this many times, when they are bested, they say, "No I'm not!" and play the wounded victim card. "I really don't see any reason to continue", indeed. He's been proven a liar, has not been able to substantiate his assertions, has been more interested in attacking our host rather than dealing with the subject matter — yes, it's in everyone best interests if he chews his leg off, escapes the trap and hopes the rest of his den can restore his lost pride.

radar said...

Jon, you were caught lying and making blatantly untrue charges which I quite thoroughly proved to all were false. Your rant against me and Creation Science was all complete BS and I simply used the evidence to prove you wrong.

So you are doing what bullies do when they are beaten and what Darwinists do when they are proven wrong - running away.

A responsible man would admit that he was wrong. I have no idea why you made false charges about what I had posted on the blog, as every post is still up and viewable. I cannot understand why you consider yourself an expert and did not know Edward Blyth was the Creationist who explained the process of Natural Selection within a Creationist framework. But then Darwin took Blyth's work and plagiarized it.

Unlike "the liberals" I refuted your statement point-by-point. Since you cannot get away from the truth, you insult me and run away.

Christians are not doormats, we are warriors. We do not club people over the head, we wage war on the battlefield of ideas and philosophies. The Bible states that "the gates of Hell will not stand" against us. Gates are not offensive weapons, they were closed by walled cities when under attack.

I attack Darwinism with evidence in my blog posts. You attack me personally on a regular basis and use derision to reply to the evidence I present. After one of your ad hominem and fact-free rants, I refuted you in the comments thread and made a post on Friday, April 12th, which proved your charges about Creation Science to be false.

You are giving up. Your gates were knocked down. I assume you will go somewhere that the blog owner doesn't know his stuff and you can use false information to cause him concern. Thing is, I let Darwinists speak their minds as long as the language is not crude. You will find most blogs are not as friendly to the First Amendment as I am.

You could apologize and admit your errors and carry on. It would certainly be refreshing to find an honest Darwinist who could admit they screwed up.