Here is an example where in the wolf to dog transition there is gain of information:
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2013/01/diet-shaped-dog-domestication
2 Likes
From my calculations, more like 15 million, except that to increase the decay rate, you would also have to decrease the energy involved (binding energy), which would make every atom larger than hydrogen disintegrate, and make fusion impossible.
1 Like
Now, there are recent land snails mixed in, which we do not include in studies of the fossil fauna, but they are obviously that: recent land snails that lived in the quarry, died, and had their shells incorporated into the sediment. The taphonomy is obviously distinct: finding translucent brown land snail shells is not the same as finding Santeevoluta in the Waccamaw. Which should happen if the claims about age-mixing are accurate.
2 Likes
This is completely illogical. If they assume radiometric dating to be correct, that means the dating scheme is based on radiometric dating!
Whether you agree with radiometric dating, or you don’t… to say that the foundation of the dating scheme is radiometric measurements, while also saying "geologists still do use rocks to date fossils and fossils to date rocks. Don’t they? " is a colossal non sequitur.
How did you end up saying something like this, Craig? I am quite sure you possess the intelligence to avoid non sequiturs, but you seem to not be giving careful thought to the issues you’re writing about. Maybe slow down a little.
Best regards,
Chris
1 Like
Wow, this forum has “exploded” with posts. I will only respond to a few. According to Werner, all his teaching on evolution came from evolutionists. So if his education about evolution was poor, that is on the evolutionary community. It was not until later when he was challenged that he looked at the evidence for himself, and became a creationist.
I think that the problem is that @cewoldt, like just about every other YEC out there, seriously underestimates the level of rigour and painstaking attention to detail involved in scientific research. Or, if he is aware of it, he believes (without any evidence whatsoever) that “evolutionists” do not maintain the same standards.
I remember when I first heard about isochron dating. It was halfway through my second year at university, at the end of a Bible study group on Romans 1 which was being led by a geology student. A couple of us had been reading some YEC literature, and I wondered if verses 20-23 was talking about “evolutionists” who made all sorts of assumptions and circular reasoning in how they dated rocks and came up with their narratives about who or what evolved from what.
He responded by first of all not only telling us that YECism is “a joke” and “laughable,” but explaining exactly why YECism is “a joke” and “laughable.” Specifically: that their own studies consistently rely on tiny samples with huge error bars which they then parade as evidence that the entire scientific community is out by a factor of a million.
Then he showed me his lecture notes on isochron dating.
I remember sitting staring at them in stunned silence for a whole ten minutes solid. I’d gone into that discussion believing that “evolutionists” made all sorts of assumptions and glaring logical fallacies that were so obvious that you could credibly explain them to A level science students. Now, here he was, explaining to me that mainstream geologists do not make the assumptions and leaps of logic that YECs claim that they make.
There’s one thing in particular that I learned that day. If someone is attempting to debunk mainstream science, and their debunking can be understood by someone without a science degree, then they are almost certainly not debunking what real scientists do in reality, but an over-simplified and inaccurate straw man. After all, if scientific methods really did have the kind of flaws that non-scientists could understand, then surely subject matter experts with PhDs would have spotted the flaws long ago and come up with ways of working round them.
7 Likes
Interesting article. Thanks. The article notes a “gain” of information, that is true. But according to the article, this is not new information. It is rather a duplication of existing information. Microorganisms to man evolution requires significant amounts new information, not reshuffling, duplication, or even deletion of information. The source of that new or novel information is the challenge for evolution.
I agree wholeheartedly that any biblical scholar, not just creationists, must seek to understand and apply the entire teaching of the Bible. And I agree that the Bible is not a book of science, but where it speaks on areas touching science, it is authoritative.
One of the major questions is whether Genesis is history–an historical narrative, or alternately poetic or such. I have engages in extensive reading on this subject on all points of view, and obviously there is a range of opinions. But I find the evidence that Genesis is historical narrative to be by far the best explanation.
Yes, I have read John Walton, John Sailhammer, Jonathan Sarfati, Hugh Ross, and many others I can’t even recall. Walton loses me when he says that Genesis 1 is the cosmic temple inauguration and nothing more. Sailhammer’s explanation is that Genesis One is about the preparation of the land (Eden) for the people, and that the first verse was all it had to say about creation. I found this interpretation to be intriguing (Genesis Unbound). In the first edition, he posited that his explanation was consistent with YEC, OEC, EC and ID positions. Then in his second edition, he promoted evolution. Again, he lost me. If it is only the first verse of Genesis 1 that speaks of creation, how does he as a theologian weigh in on a scientific question (as does Walton as well.)
Genesis is of immense theological importance. (I am not suggesting that you find it otherwise. I think your comments are suggesting there is little of scientific importance, not denying the theological importance.) All or almost all of the major doctrines of scripture have foundational principles in Genesis–the nature of God; the nature of human kind; hamartiology (the doctrine of sin) and how that relates to redemption. Jesus is the second Adam. Marriage and even the length of the week are based on creation. There are so many important distinctions made: the Creator and the creation; male and female; man in the image of God as distinguished from the rest of creation; darkness and light; dry land and seas–you get the idea. Who was Adam? What was the fall and how did that impact all of creation? What does it mean that people are made in the image of God? Jesus seems to infer that the world was created in seven days, so what does that do for our doctrines of biblical inspiration. And of course, many evolutionists think that biblical inerrancy is a distraction.
Of course, theologians promoting the framework hypothesis and the cosmic temple inauguration thesis and such have also worked out answers that they find satisfactory. But after my careful and extensive study, I do not find them satisfactory.
You also take umbrage to the term “biblical creationist.” I understand why you would feel that way. YEC is claiming to have the correct biblical position.
Let’s look at another statement you have made:
I get the part of new combinations. Of course, with the size of the human genome, there is a huge amount of possible combinations of genetic material, such that each human is unique. But recombination is not new information, at least in the way that YEC, OEC or ID proponents mean.
And no one that has thought it through would say that intelligence is required for any kind of new information. For example-“e mrdbuu”–this is new information generated by random strokes on the keyboard, not the application of intelligence. But it is not the kind of information that genetic information is, instructions for building an organism.
I realize that information theory and the origins of genetic information is a complex topic, and whole books have been written on it. Stephen Meyer has written on it from an Intelligent Design position. But you make the following statement:
You may believe Stephen Meyer’s claims are wrong. I don’t. I think his position that new genetic information must come from intelligence is well supported. But I would hope you would at least credit him with intellectual integrity even if you disagree with his conclusion.
One more issue, as I do need to be up early tomorrow morning. Mendelian genetics. Okay, compared to the US population as a whole, my understanding of genetics is probably better than 95% of them. Compared to a geneticist, I probably know 0.01%. But I think this concept is true. Let’s call the gene for long dog hair L, and the gene for short dog hair S. Of course, there may be more than one gene that affects hair length, but the concept still stands. As a group of dogs move north or the climate turns colder, the dogs with only short hair genes are not well adapted, and the dogs with only long hair genes are best adapted, giving them a reproductive advantage. At some point, the genetic information for short dog hair is completely eliminated from that particular gene pool, so no amount of breeding, selective or natural, of that “breed” will ever produce short hair again. Of course, if a short haired dog wanders into their area, the short haired gene could be reintroduced, but that is not at question.
But the point is, the long haired breed now has a loss of the information for short hair, and because of its reproductive isolation, is likely to have loss of other genetic information that its ancestors had, which I call “devolution.” But it seems that you disagree with that logic. Can you please explain why.
But the point is, the long haired breed now has a loss of the information for short hair, and because of its reproductive isolation, is likely to have loss of other genetic information that its ancestors had, which I call “devolution.” But it seems that you disagree with that logic. Can you please explain why. Now I’ve lost track of your posting, so I will do my best to quote you accurately from memory. “The evidence for the millions of years of geological history is as early as the 1600s and 1700, and is well documented and universally accepted and unambiguous.”
Well yes, by deep time advocates. But there are many more challenges to deep time. I expect you believe they have all been adequately answered. I do not. And so similar to the way that you object to my identifying YEC as “biblical creation”, an absolute truth claim, I object to your absolute truth claim about millions of years of geological history.
Thank you. We are travelling later this week, but I am sure you will not feel deprived by my inability to respond again before this particular forum expires.
Is the fossil evidence modified?
Whoa, this forum has taking on the characteristics of a stampede. Yikes. So let’s go through the sequence of events. This is not all in response to the post under which it comes, but as the forum suggests, since only three responses are allowed until another one comes in, I have put several responses in this one post.
-
The initial question was asked, “Is the fossil evidence modified?” To this I responded that Dr. Carl Werner’s work may provide some insight into that question. Some questions were subsequently asked about that work, and I answered them. See Evolution: The Grand Experiment and Living Fossils: The Grand Experiment Vol. 2.
-
Then Werner’s work was denigrated because, we were told, if he were a real paleontologist, he would have done more than taking pictures. He would have done DNA analysis and chemical analysis (among other things as well.) I responded to the statement about DNA and chemical analysis. I doubt that any of the fossils Werner accessed or photographed have DNA or soft tissues on which to do DNA or chemical analysis.
-
So it was not I that brought up the issue of DNA analysis, but my post was attacked as if first, I was unaware that DNA existed in fossils or that analysis had been done although I had already noted that. It also seems that someone thought I had alleged that Schweitzer had found DNA that could be sequenced. I don’t think I made that comment. I am also aware that the permineralization was removed before the soft tissue was uncovered.
-
I have been to the Museum of the Rockies and seen the exhibit there and have read some of Schweitzer’s articles. I am also aware of the controversy surrounding her discoveries, and how she was attacked for them as if she was giving comfort to creationists. So she persisted in doing her research to show that soft tissues had actually been preserved. And she also attempted to show how they could be preserved by the iron in the blood products. However, researcher Mark Armitage has shown through his thin sectioning and use of dyes on dinosaur soft tissue that the iron never reached the preserved tissues that he was working with, and by extension, could not have preserved the tissues that Schweitzer had either.
-
Prior to this time, research had been done that showed that unpermineralized soft tissues could only last for a few thousand years at most. This was actual research into tissue decay that was extrapolated to that conclusion. So yeah, it is okay for evolutionists to be wrong and then correct the error. But first, that research concluding that soft tissue can only be expected to last a few thousand years has not been shown to be wrong. And even if the prior research is wrong by a factor of two or three or 100 or 1000, 65 million year is still not possible. This prior research would have to be off by 5 orders of magnitude, which is hugely unlikely. It likely is only believed to be wrong because the dinosaur soft tissue is believed to 65 million years old. But because of the prior commitment to deep time, the evolutionary community still claims that 65 million years stands. That there might be a problem with the time measurement device was not even considered.
Something does seem to be wrong with the dating method. Perhaps it is not the rates of decay, but one of the other assumptions in the radiometric dating method is wrong, such as beginning values of the parent and daughter elements, or contamination or leakage. Or maybe it is the rate of radiometric decay, and there is an unidentified factor that counter balances the heat production of a higher decay rate. Just for illustration, not as a suggestion that this is a real answer, but a significantly reduced amount of zero point energy early in the universe. No, we have not yet reached infinite collective knowledge of physics.
-
Creationists asked for permission to do carbon dating on these dinosaur fossils, but it was denied. After all, there would be no C14 found in a fossil that was 65 million year old. And if C14 was found, then . . . well, we don’t want to go there. But of course, it would be “contamination.” But the Creation Research Society uncovered other T. Rex fossils and did submit them to C14 analysis, and came back with the results of 25,000 and 35,000 years before the present. (see next paragraph.)
-
Well, Schweitzer’s fossils were found buried fairly deep down. Who is disputing that? Someone jumps to the conclusion that I am talking about her fossils when I say that some were found close to the surface. But since these dinosaur fossils were not made available to creationists (the old “find your own fossils at your own expense rather than accessing fossils that were found and researched using your tax dollars” canard), the Creation Research Society went to private land and found their own dinosaur fossils containing soft tissue, only about three feet deep. Yes, they also contained soft tissue even though they were very close to the surface. And before you denigrate the evidence found there, go read the peer reviewed articles on this and the subsequent remarkable research done by microscopist Mark Armitage, also written and published in peer reviewed journals. (see https://dstri.org/). No, this soft tissue was not biofilm.
This snide remark sums up everything that is wrong with YEC “creation science.”.
You MUST fully and correctly account for contamination before claiming ANYTHING. Especially before you claim that hundreds of thousands of well established scientific measurements are out by factors of up to a million.
This is a standard that applies to EVERY area of science. By putting “contamination” in scare quotes and dismissing it as some sort of “rescuing device,” YECs are demanding to be held to lower standards of quality control than everyone else. Essentially, they’re demanding to be given a free pass on this one.
In any other area of science, if you put “contamination” in scare quotes and dismissed it as a “rescuing device,” you would kill people.
First of all, you’ll need to cite your sources. Where is this research, what exactly did it show, and how large were the error bars that it placed on the limits?
Secondly, Mary Schweitzer’s soft tissue samples were not unpermineralised. She had to soak them in a demineralising solution for a week to extract them. I’ve already made this point.
5 Likes
And this just illustrates a lack of understanding of what scientists actually do.
Do you really think that geochronologists are blind to unknowns about the initial values of parent and daughter elements, or contamination or leakage? Of course not! That’s why they have come up with techniques such as isochron dating, which avoids having to make assumptions about either of these two factors.
Similarly, do you really think that they are blind to the question of whether nuclear decay rates could have changed or not in the past? Once again, this is a well-researched topic. There are things about physics that we don’t know, but the underlying mechanisms affecting nuclear decay rates are not one of them. Scientists don’t blindly assume constant nuclear decay rates; on the contrary, they engage in a lot of research to establish limits to how much they could have changed in the past.
It’s easy to come out with broad, hand-waving statements about “assumptions.” But unless you’ve actually studied the subject properly from people who actually do it for a living, you’re going to end up claiming that they make assumptions that they do not, or claiming that the assumptions that they do make are not testable when in fact they are.
2 Likes
Further on nuclear decay rates: for any decay rates to change requires a proportionate change in the strengths of the Weak Nuclear Force (increasing with decay rate) and Strong Nuclear Force (decreasing with decay rate).
The main problem is that the strong nuclear force is what binds nucleons together (both keeping them as nucleons and binding the nucleus), hence, if the strong nuclear force decreased in strength by a factor of less than 10, let alone 10,000,000,000, every composite particle would disintegrate.
2 Likes
Unreason cannot be overcome with reason.
1 Like
That’s like me saying I learned everything I know about Christianity from Christians which is how I know the Trinity is God, Abraham, and Gaia.
When Werner gets such basic facts wrong it casts doubt on either his choice of teachers, his ability to learn from teachers, or his memory.
When you are attacking the scientific consensus it is up to you to learn what the consensus is. It’s a matter of responsibility.
5 Likes
This was a case of willful ignorance.
It’s still more information. And the article goes on to say,
“Dogs and wolves have the same number of copies of another gene, MGAM , which codes for maltase, another enzyme important in starch digestion. But there are four key differences between the sequence in dogs and wolves. One difference causes dogs to produce longer versions of maltase. That longer protein is also seen in herbivores, such as cows and rabbits, and omnivores, such as mouse lemurs and rats, but not in other mammals, suggesting length is important to plant-eaters. These differences make the dog maltase more efficient, the researchers report.”
2 Likes
The differences between dogs and wolves are many. Even when wolf cubs are socialized with humans from an early age, they never develop the same intense affection for humans that dogs have. And dogs are much better than wolves at understanding human gestures.
Kindly take the time to watch this and reply, if you would, please:
2 Likes
It also has no way of explaining a geologic formation with indications of repeated significant changes in sea level. Such a set of formations is abundantly clear from the marine faunas of the southeastern United States.
The specific points of evidence for repeated changes in sea level are the fact that most of the formations, or subunits of them, have indurated or leached upper sections (or are completely indurated or leached). Induration and leaching both require at minimum a few decades of fresh groundwater percolating through the layer. Thus, we can observe a sequence of layers that require many changes from above sea level to significantly below and back. In addition, each layer must have lasted long enough for large bivalves and corals to grow, and then their shells/skeletons to sit on the ocean floor with other things living on them (at minimum, about a century, given the lifespans of the organisms involved).
The Waccamaw Formation (which is among the shorter-duration ones) alone gives an absolute minimum total depositional time of about a thousand years, given the four separate indurated layers (ignoring sedimentation and erosion rates). This estimate makes some rather unrealistically high assumptions about how densely you could pack the organisms in life, thus the actual time is much longer.
Given the abrupt faunal changes, like Ecphora and Chesapecten disappearing between immediately overlying formations (most sites have significant unconformities, though), there is very little mixing of the formations, and, if the timescale is only a few thousand years, unreasonably rapid faunal turnover (i.e. a typical species goes extinct within 50 generations).
There is also the problem of globally equivalent planktonic microfossil sequences, and globally equivalent stable isotope ratio sequences . Both require a few thousand years, at absolute minimum, to equalize around the globe.
3 Likes
There is almost no end of things.