Luskin vs. Science (and Scientific American)

imagine if the Kansas science standards were challenged in court in a Kitzmiller-like case

I believe the standards have not yet been implemented -- everyone is waiting for the election results, I expect, and everyone is on summer break right now. Some school boards have already declared they will not adopt the standards, so that presumably means it is voluntary. All else is speculation, which a lawyer could do better than I.

where Intelligent Design goes to rest after a long day of snookering the gullible

I won't accuse Luskin of "plain old fabricated lies", as he does KCFS and Rennie --- because it is clear that Luskin genuinely (incredibly) believes all of the ridiculous stuff he says, even if it contradicts stuff he and his allies have said at other points when it was convenient.

— Nick Matzke

Are you saying that he genuinely believes A on Thursday and no longer genuinely believes the "Not A" that he genuinely believed on Wednesday? Or do you mean that he genuinely believes that both A and "Not A" can be true at the same time?

— Frank J

Frank J wrote: Are you saying that he genuinely believes A on Thursday and no longer genuinely believes the "Not A" that he genuinely believed on Wednesday? Or do you mean that he genuinely believes that both A and "Not A" can be true at the same time?

Finally, the Kansas Science Standards explain that "[w]hether microevolution (change within a species) can be extrapolated to explain macroevolutionary changes (such as new complex organs or body plans and new biochemical systems which appear irreducibly complex) is controversial" (pg. 76). Excepting the segment on irreducible complexity, this indicator resembles a statement by Robert Carroll, who asked, "[c]an changes in individual characters, such as the relative frequency of genes for light and dark wing color in moths adapting to industrial pollution, simply be multiplied over time to account for the origin of moths and butterflies within insects, the origin of insects from primitive arthropods, or the origin of arthropods from among primitive multicellular organisms?" (Carroll, 1997). Questions about the sufficiency of microevolution to explain macroevolution have been raised in mainstream scientific literature (e.g. see Simons, 2002; Carroll, 1997), as has support for the notion of irreducible complexity (e.g. see Lönnig & Saedler, 2002). In fact, over 600 doctoral scientists from around the world have signed a statement explaining they are "skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life." They state that "[c]areful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged." This may not constitute a majority position, but it certainly validates consideration by students in Kansas.

As for the scientists Luskin quotes --- imagine if the Kansas science standards were challenged in court in a Kitzmiller-like case. Would Douglas Futuyma, WF Doolittle, Carl Woese, Niles Eldredge, Robert Caroll, and Eors Szathmary get up on the witness stand

Prebiotic Oxygen. A key question in origin-of-life research is the oxidation state of the prebiotic atmosphere (the current best guess is that the origin of life occurred somewhere around 4.0-3.7 bya (billion years ago)). Wells wants you to think that there is good evidence for significant amounts free oxygen in the prebiotic atmosphere (significant amounts of free oxygen make the atmosphere oxidizing and make Miller-Urey-type experiments fail). He spends several pages (14-19) on a pseudo-discussion of the oxygen issue, citing sources from the 1970's and writing that (p. 17) "the controversy has never been resolved", that "Evidence from early rocks has been inconclusive," and concluding that the current geological consensus -- that oxygen was merely a trace gas before approximately 2.5 bya and only began rising after this point -- was due to "Dogma [taking] the place of empirical evidence" (p. 18). None of this is true (see e.g. Copley, 2001). Certain minerals, such as uraninite, cannot form under significant exposure to oxygen. Thick deposits of these rocks are found in rocks older than 2.5 bya years ago, indicating that essentially no oxygen (only trace amounts) was present. On page 17 Wells notes that uraninite deposits have been found in more recent rocks, but neglects to mention to his readers that these only occur under rapid-burial conditions, whereas ancient deposits of uraninite occur in slow deposition conditions, for example in sediments laid down by rivers, so that the minerals were exposed to atmospheric gases for significant periods of time before burial. 'Red beds' are geologic features containing highly oxidized iron (rust) indicative of high amounts of oxygen. Wells (p. 17) notes that red beds are found before 2 bya, but fails to mention that the temporal limit of red beds is just a few hundred million years before 2 bya. Wells doesn't even mention the evidence that banded iron formations (incompletely oxidized iron indicative of ultralow-oxygen conditions) are very common prior to 2.3 bya and very rare afterwards. Wells also doesn't mention that early paleosols (fossil soils) from about ~2.5 bya contain unoxidized cerium, impossible in an oxygenic atmosphere (e.g., Murakami et al., 2001). Finally, Wells doesn't mention to his readers that pyrite, a mineral even more vulnerable to oxidation than uraninite, is found unoxidized in pre-2.5 bya rocks, and with significant evidence of long surface exposure (i.e. grains weathered by water erosion; e.g. Rasmussen and Buick, 1999). Why does Wells leave out the converging independent lines of geological evidence pointing to an anoxic early (pre ~2.5 bya) atmosphere? Was the prebiotic atmosphere reducing? Are the Miller-Urey experiments "irrelevant"? The famous Miller-Urey experiments used a strongly reducing atmosphere to produce amino acids. It is important to realize that the original experiment is famous not so much for the exact mixture used, but for the unexpected discovery that such a simple experiment could indeed produce crucial biological compounds; this discovery instigated a huge amount of related research that continues today. Now, current geochemical opinion is that the prebiotic atmosphere was not so strongly reducing as the original Miller-Urey atmosphere, but opinion varies widely from moderately reducing to neutral. Completely neutral atmospheres would be bad for Miller-Urey-type experiments, but even a weakly reducing atmosphere will produce lower but significant amounts of amino acids. In the approximately two pages of text where Wells actually discusses the reducing atmosphere question (p. 20-22), Wells cites some more 1970's sources and then asserts that the irrelevance of the Miller-Urey experiment has become a "near-consensus among geochemists" (p. 21). This statement is misleading. What geochemists agree on is that if the early earth's mantle was of the same composition as the modern mantle and if only terrestrial volcanic sources are considered as contributing to the atmosphere, and if the temperature profile of the early atmosphere was the same as modern earth (this is relevant to rates of hydrogen escape) then there will be much less hydrogen compared to Miller's first atmosphere (20% total atm.). Even if this worst-case scenario is accepted, hydrogen will not be completely absent, in fact there is a long list of geochemists that consider hydrogen to have been present (although in lower amounts, roughly 0.1-1% of the total atmosphere). At these levels of H2 there is still significant (although much lower) amino acid production. Also, many geochemists think that these conditions do not represent the early earth, contrary to the impression given by Wells. For example, on p. 20, Wells mentions terrestrial volcanos emitting neutral gases (H2O, CO2, N2, and only trace H2), but he fails to mention that mid-ocean ridge vents could have been significant sources of reduced gases -- they are important sources of reduced atmospheric gases even today, emitting about 1% methane (Kasting and Brown, 1998) and producing reduced hydrogen and hydrogen sulfide (e.g. Kelley et al., 2001; Perkins, 2001; Von Damm, 2001) and potentially ammonia prebiotically (Brandes et al., 1998; Chyba, 1998). Why does Wells exclude oceanic vents from consideration? Another strange omission is that Wells completely fails to mention the extraterrestrial evidence, which is the only direct evidence we have of the kinds of chemical reactions that might have occurred in the early solar system. For example he neglects to mention the famous Murchison meteorite, which contains mixtures of organic compounds much like those produced in Miller-Urey style experiments, and which constitutes direct evidence that just the right kind of prebiotic chemistry was occurring at least somewhere in the early solar system, and that some of those products found their way to earth (see e.g. Engel and Macko, 2001 for a recent review). Wells asserts that since the 1970's, non-reducing atmospheres have become the "near-consensus." The latest article that Wells cites supporting this view, however, is a 1995 nontechnical news article in Science (Cohen, 1995). Why doesn't he quote Kral et al. (1998), who write, The standard theory for the origin of life postulates that life arose from an abiotically produced soup of organic material (e.g., Miller, 1953; Miller, 1992). The first organism would have therefore been a heterotroph deriving energy from this existing pool of nutrients. This theory for the origin of life is not without competitors (for a review of theories for the origins of life see Davis and McKay, 1996), but has received considerable support from laboratory experiments in which it has been demonstrated that biologically relevant organic materials can be easily synthesized from mildly reducing mixtures of gases (e.g., Chang et al., 1983). The discovery of organics in comets (e.g., Kissel and Kruger, 1987), on Titan (e.g., Sagan et al., 1984), elsewhere in the outer solar system (e.g., Encrenaz, 1986), as well as in the interstellar medium (e.g., Irvine and Knacke, 1989) has further strengthened the notion that organic material was abundant prior to the origin of life. None of this is meant to convey the impression that no controversies exist (both Cohen (1995) and the Davis and McKay (1996) article cited by the above-quoted Kral et al. (1998) are about the various competing hypotheses about the origin of life). But textbooks generally mention some of these hypotheses (briefly of course, as there is only space for a page or two on this topic in an introductory textbook), and furthermore generally mention that the original atmosphere was likely more weakly reducing than the original Miller-Urey experiment hypothesized, but that many variations with mildly reducing conditions still produce satisfactory results. This is exactly what is written in the most popular college biology textbook, Campbell et al.'s (1999) Biology, for instance. In other words, the textbooks basically summarize what the recent literature is saying. The original Miller-Urey experiment, despite its limitations, is also repeatedly cited in modern scientific literature as a landmark experiment. So why does Wells have a problem with the textbooks following the literature? Wells wants textbooks to follow the experts, and it appears that they are.

— Nick Matzke

Miller-Urey Experiment: The Atmosphere: Tamzek is correct to assert that, "a key issue in the origin-of-life research is the oxidation state of the prebiotic atmosphere", for the presence of any free oxygen on the early earth would cause a non-reducing atmosphere, rendering origins of life experiments moot. Tamzek asserts that there is strong evidence for a reducing atmosphere on the early Earth, and that Wells provides an incomplete and out-of-date discussion of the issue. While, there is no doubt that Stanley Miller obtained amino acids through certain reactive gaseous mixtures, it should be noted that Miller-Urey experiments were designed and conducted without considering the actual chemical composition of the atmosphere. Miller himself admits that "[i]t is assumed that amino acids more complex than glycene were required for the origin of life, then these results indicate a need for CH4 (methane) in the atmosphere"1 and "[w]e believe that there must have been a period when the earth's atmosphere was reducing, because the synthesis of compounds of biological interest takes place only under reducing conditions."18 Yet Abelson found that, "geologists favor ... that genesis of air and oceans is a result to of planetary outgassing ... and ... produce and atmosphere consisting of CO2, N2, and H2"2. Though Abelson wrote this in 1966, it has remained orthodox theory as Rode (1999) wrote, "modern geochemistry assumes that the secondary atmosphere of the primitive earth (i.e. after diffusion of hydrogen and helium into space) had been formed by outgassing of volcanoes and therefore that it mainly consisted of carbon dioxide, nitrogen, water, sulfur dioxide and even small amounts of oxygen."16 Though Tamzek suggests the Earth's early mantle may have had a different composition than it does today, this claim goes against much modern geological thought. The basis many geologists use for dating the Earth rests on the assumption that chondritic meteorites are very representative of a "bulk Earth composition", the composition of the early Earth. These allegedly ancient chondrite "snapshots" of the mantle are in many respects similar to modern xenoliths from deep mantle. Canil (2002) actually found that vanadium redox states in peridotite-bearing mantle xenoliths and Archean cratons imply that Earth's mantle was just as oxidized in the Archean as it is today109. The paper concluded that, "such reduced [atmospheric] components [CO and H2] are not supported by results of this and many other studies, which imply a scenario of Archean mantle redox not unlike that of today"109 The paper retains a naturalistic origin of life by saying, "[l]ife may have found its origins in other environments or by other mechanisms"109. Wells is not at odds with modern geochemical thought or the scientific data to assert that primitive Earth volcanoes would have contributed to an oxygenic atmosphere. Abelson goes on to say that there is "no evidence for ... but much against" an ammonia-methane atmosphere, noting that, "[a] quantity of ammonia equivalent to present atmospheric nitrogen would be destroyed [by ultraviolet radiation] in ~30,000 years."2 He, and Lasaga et. al. found that methane gas would have left a signature of organic carbon in ancient sedimentary rocks, perhaps even due to a 1 to 10 m thick "primordial oil slick"15 (after all, Miller-Urey experiments produced by far more tar than anything else, and if many prebiotics were produced, then tar should have covered the early earth), for which there is no geological evidence. Schopf notes that the Swaziland Supergroup (~3.2 Ga) contains inorganic carbon, "indicating that carbon dioxide, and not methane, may have been the dominant form of atmospheric carbon at this point in time"16. This challenges the importance of undersea thermal vents as a contributor of methane, which Tamzek says Wells "exclude[s]" wrongly. Tamzek claims that hydrogen would have been contributed by undersea vents making the atmosphere more reducing, however hydrogen is so light that most researchers recognize it would easily float to the top of Earth's atmosphere where it would be lost into space. Regardless, Miller found that without methane, hydrogen based H2 - N2 - CO / CO2 atmospheres produce nothing more than the amino acid glycine1, and that this is most effective when hydrogen / carbon ratios are high > 2, very unlikely on the early earth. Without methane or ammonia, origins of life experiments are generally useless. These facts alone are enough to justify Wells' assertion that the methane and ammonia-using Miller-Urey experiment "continues to be used as an icon" saying "we are given the misleading impression that scientists have empirically demonstrated the first step in the origin of life". In agreement with Wells would probably be origins of life researcher Robert Shapiro who said, "[w]e have reached a situation where a theory has been accepted as fact by some, and possible contrary evidence is shunted aside."17 However, beyond Miller-Urey, Tamzek spends most of his rebuttal trying achieve the difficult task of using geological evidence to prove anything about the Earth's early atmosphere--much less that the atmosphere was reducing. The Geological Evidence--Reducing, Oxic, or Inconclusive? Tamzek gives geological evidence showing the lack of oxygen in the Earth's early atmosphere while Wells also provides a variety of mainstream lines of evidence pointing towards an oxygenic early atmosphere, a view shared by many other scientists. Regardless of one's perspective on this issue, this discussion will be prefaced with the words of Nasa Astrobiology Institute researcher Hiroshi Ohtomo who recently said, "[I]t will take many different lines of evidence to prove this [oxygen level on early Earth] one way or the other"10, as this is a very difficult issue to asses with many lines of evidence often apparently in opposition. A prime example of conflicting lines of evidence is Tamzek's implication that the presence of unoxidized cerium in paleosols (fossil soils) from 2.5 Ga35 settle the case, even though red beds, admitted by Tamzek as "indicative of high amounts of oxygen", are found from the exact same period--2.5 Ga19. What are we to do in these situations? The bottom line is that geochemistry doesn't always take place in the presence of the atmosphere--both oxic and anoxic conditions can be simulated in environments removed from exposure to the atmosphere. For this reason, it is difficult to make any strong statements either way from geology. Using biological methods, however, we can make a better approximation. The earliest estimate is that there are signs of life on earth about 3.8 Ga11 (courtesy of our friends at Scripps Institution for Oceanography), with the earliest fossil bacteria are from about 3.5 Ga20, which look like modern photosynthetic oxygen-producing cyanobacteria. Scientists who have conducted computer modeling of early oxygen production from bacteria have concluded that the atmosphere could reach near present-day levels within 30 Ma, despite what geological evidences seem to say! Thus, it is likely that from at least 3.5 Ga on, life on earth was indeed raising oxygen levels, countering Tamzek's claim that 2.5 Ga unoxidized cerium in paleosols is indicative of an oxygen-free atmosphere. Evidence for an early Archean atmosphere which was either reducing or oxidizing seems equivocal. Tamzek asserts that the mineral uraninite, present on the early Earth, cannot form under "significant exposure to oxygen", however a recent publication from the Nasa Astrobiology Institute stated that its P.I. had observed the, "survival of uraninite ... under an oxic atmosphere" and instability of uraninite under an oxygen-poor atmosphere, which was said to be "supporting ... evidence for ... an oxic Archaean atmosphere."7 Regardless, the origin of uraninite has also been a subject of controversy. Some researchers have found that the uranium conglomerates bearing uraninite have a texture and mineralogical makeup (uraninite, pyrite, molybdenite, and sulfides) one would expect if they were deposited by hydrothermal solutions, indicating that the uranium was deposited deep in the earth, far removed from the atmosphere, similar to what is observed happening in the origin of modern and more recently formed uraninite deposits9 (which obviously occurred in an oxygenic atmosphere). Furthermore the uraninites occur at the bottom of basins, often near uncomformities, below uranium bearing rocks, where we would expect such hydrothermal deposits to be found. This led Davidson9 to conclude that the uraninite bearing rocks are not placer (riverine) deposits, as is suggested by Tamzek. Wells is very justified in asserting that with regards to the atmospheric composition, "[e]vidence from the ancient rocks has been inconclusive". Red beds, which first occur around 2.5 Ga19, can also be used as an indicator of atmospheric content, for as Tamzek says, they are "indicative of high amounts of oxygen". However, "high amounts of oxygen" aren't necessary to inhibit pre-biotic chemistry--even a slightly oxidizing atmosphere, which would oxidize some rocks, such as "banded iron formations (BIFs)," could prevent pre-biotic synthesis chemistry. Early Pre-Cambrian (Archean) BIFs contain fully oxidized minerals grains of hematite and magnetite which were laid down in the primary strata21, 22. Tamzek claims that banded iron formations point towards a reducing atmosphere, but the question remains, how did these "incompletely oxidized" BIFs get "incompletely oxidized?" These could be evidence for oxygen on the early earth, simply because they show oxidation, and at least point away from a reducing atmosphere. Regardless, the thin poorly oxidized laminae of BIFs are reminiscent of those found in modern lake sediments, which form today even though our atmosphere is oxic. BIFs only require anoxic conditions to form and do not necessarily tell anything about the atmospheric composition. In fact, BIFs from about 2.0 Ga, when the atmosphere was supposedly becoming more oxygenic, look the same as BIFs from earlier pre-Cambrian BIFs19. Given that red beds--supposedly evidence of an oxic atmosphere, have been found contemporary with banded iron formations, it seems difficult to determine if the atmosphere strongly affects either of their formation, it is likely that neither are good indicators of atmospheric composition. Not only is there weak evidence against an oxidizing atmosphere, but there is no evidence that the methane-ammonia atmosphere necessary for prebiotic synthesis ever existed2, 3. Tamzek's claims that the early earth had a reducing atmosphere contradicts admissions from the rebuttal to Jonathan Wells posted by the NCSE4 and publicly stated by NCSE director Eugenie Scott5 in a public lecture critiquing "Icons of Evolution". The NCSE acknowledges that the early atmosphere might have had oxygen and says that modern scientists have "changed the experimental conditions to reflect better knowledge of the Earth's early atmosphere"4, which is why both NCSE director Eugenie Scott5 and NCSE President Kevin Padian23 have publicly stated that the early Earth's atmosphere probably contained oxygen. Tamzek also suggests that enough pre-biotic monomers could have been delivered via meteorite impacts. While some organics have been found in meteorites in quantities similar to those expected from Miller-Urey type experiments24, Anders noted that it is unlikely that many organic molecules would survive the shock of impact on meteorites with a mass of more than 10-8 gram, only which could be gently decelerated by the atmosphere such as not to heat up so much and destroy the monomers13. Anders concluded that meteorites are a poor vehicle for bringing organic carbon to earth, leaving the hopes of origins of life researchers in "cometary dust"13. Wells is not the only one to doubt scenarios of pre-biotic synthesis. So drastic is the evidence against pre-biotic synthesis, that in 1990 the Space Studies Board of the National Research Council recommended to scientists a "reexamination of biological monomer synthesis under primitive Earthlike environments, as revealed in current models of the early Earth"3. However, as for the soup itself, even if pre-biotic synthesis had occurred, the primordial soup is thought to have been extremely dilute24, and this says nothing about its components, which would have degraded extremely quickly and most likely been destroyed less than every million years during sterilizing impact events common on the early Earth25. And of course once you get the soup, you're only a few steps out of countless needed for the origins of life. In conclusion, Tamzek is justified in presenting his side of the issue with regards to the oxidation state of the Earth's early atmosphere. However, it seems clear that these are difficult issues to examine, and that it is perhaps better to go along with Jonathan Wells' statement that, "[e]vidence from the ancient rocks has been inconclusive" making Tamzek's charge that Wells provides a "psuedo-discussion" innocuous. Regardless, Wells is correct in finding that the textbooks do inappropriately claim strong evidence for pre-biotic synthesis.

— Casey Luskin

Miller-Urey Experiment Abelson goes on to say that there is "no evidence for ... but much against" an ammonia-methane atmosphere, noting that, "[a] quantity of ammonia equivalent to present atmospheric nitrogen would be destroyed [by ultraviolet radiation] in ~30,000 years."2 He, and Lasaga et. al. found that methane gas would have left a signature of organic carbon in ancient sedimentary rocks, perhaps even due to a 1 to 10 m thick "primordial oil slick"15 (after all, Miller-Urey experiments produced by far more tar than anything else, and if many prebiotics were produced, then tar should have covered the early earth), for which there is no geological evidence. Schopf notes that the Swaziland Supergroup (~3.2 Ga) contains inorganic carbon, "indicating that carbon dioxide, and not methane, may have been the dominant form of atmospheric carbon at this point in time"16. This challenges the importance of undersea thermal vents as a contributor of methane, which Tamzek says Wells "exclude[s]" wrongly.

— Ian Musgrave

As this is around 300 million years after the first known bacterial fossils, and well after the time frame of the origin of life (4.2-3.8 Bya), is anyone surprised. Furthermore, in Kastings model, methane is a minor (around 20 ppm) not dominant form in the atmosphere, so this is doubly irrelevant to the hydrothermal vent model.

Evolution does not consist solely of "RM & NS" (random mutation and natural selection). A cowardly DI type statement like
"We are skeptical of the ability of RM & NS to account for the history of life"
is a non-statement. Biologists are beyond skeptical of that. Genetic drift, the high frequency of nearly neutral mutations, extinction, and meteors are a few other major factors. Disco can't find people other than their own Fellows and a few sycophants to support their alternative so they run a fake statement instead.

Personally, I think that when folk do what would, in the intelligent and informed, be put down as lying, they should be allowed to make for themselves the argument they are not lying but instead are stupid as a bag of hammers.

The literal meaning of "critical analysis" is distinct from I.D. (aka the conjecture that life was deliberately engineered). But the I.D. pushers aren't using it to mean what it literally means.

Henry

The validity of Darwinism does not rest on the putative failure of its competitors.

Evolution does not consist solely of "RM & NS" (random mutation and natural selection). A cowardly DI type statement like
"We are skeptical of the ability of RM & NS to account for the history of life"
is a non-statement. Biologists are beyond skeptical of that. Genetic drift, the high frequency of nearly neutral mutations, extinction, and meteors are a few other major factors. Disco can't find people other than their own Fellows and a few sycophants to support their alternative so they run a fake statement instead.

Evolution does not consist solely of "RM & NS" (random mutation and natural selection). A cowardly DI type statement like
"We are skeptical of the ability of RM & NS to account for the history of life"
is a non-statement. Biologists are beyond skeptical of that. Genetic drift, the high frequency of nearly neutral mutations, extinction, and meteors are a few other major factors. Disco can't find people other than their own Fellows and a few sycophants to support their alternative so they run a fake statement instead.

Is there an echo in here? ;)

"Are you saying that he genuinely believes A on Thursday and no longer genuinely believes the "Not A" that he genuinely believed on Wednesday? Or do you mean that he genuinely believes that both A and "Not A" can be true at the same time?"

Why certainly.

Holding mutually contradicting ideas simultaneously is one of the hallmarks of creationists.

Consistency is irrelevant. Only evolution is wrong is what matters.

Apologies for the repeated comment. I kept getting timed out trying to post, then suddenly...

Does anyone else find it strange that IDiots generally gauge the validity of their "theory" on the failure of ToE? What gives, Paley? Are you saying that we should only evaluate theories using evidence? If so, great. I'm sure you can link me to reams of positive evidence for ID?

— blipey

the Kansas Science Standards explain that "whether microevolution ... can be extrapolated to explain macroevolutionary changes ... is controversial"

the Kansas Science Standards explain that "whether microevolution ... can be extrapolated to explain macroevolutionary changes ... is controversial"

Re "that micro math as taught in the schools, does not extrapolate well to real world macro math situations, such as actually using it to fill out tax forms."

Well of course not, cause tax forms involve reactions with atoms of elements governmentium and bereaucratium, which aren't accounted for in basic math.

Ian ignores most of Luskin's response...

— The Ghost of Paley

The oxygenation of the atmosphere and oceans Heinrich D. Holland Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B (2006) 361, 903---915 doi:10.1098/rstb.2006.1838 Published online 19 May 2006 "These measurements indicate that the O2 content of the Archaean atmosphere was generally less than ca 10K (-)5 present atmospheric level (PAL) (2 p.p.m.v.; Kasting et al. 2001; Pavlov & Kasting 2002). At the time of writing, there is no defensible alternative to this interpretation of the pre-2.45 Gyr MIF-S signals."

Now then. Paley has used the creationist method: distract! and often distract by changing the subject to OOL.

Remember the real topic here: The Kansas suspects have laced the state science standards with creationism aka ID, and have the gall to deny this.

The literal meaning of "critical analysis" is distinct from I.D. (aka the conjecture that life was deliberately engineered). But the I.D. pushers aren't using it to mean what it literally means.

Before complaining about our model

The evidence was and is that early O2 was practically nil:[snip]

— P.D.

"I'd like to comment on whether "Critical Analysis" is logically distinct from teaching Creationism or Intelligent Design."

Aside from that there is no such thing, such misdirected criticism is what Luskin, and indeed ID, bases most efforts on.

But criticism by peers is part and parcel of all science, it can't be selected out of the usual process, and no area requires to be singled out as having special need for it.

Deal with it! And stop using terms that are confused with existing ones. ( http://www2.selu.edu/Academics/Faculty/elejeune/critique.htm , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_discourse_analysis ) Inigo Montoya will have his revenge.

blipey wrote: Does anyone else find it strange that IDiots generally gauge the validity of their "theory" on the failure of ToE? What gives, Paley? Are you saying that we should only evaluate theories using evidence? If so, great. I'm sure you can link me to reams of positive evidence for ID?

The evidence was and is that early O2 was practically nil:[snip]

— Paley

Except for the disturbing V/Sc ratios in Archean basalts [snip] [ref to The constancy of upper mantle fO2 through time inferred from V/Sc ratios in basalts Zheng-Xue Anser Li, Cin-Ty Aeolus Lee Earth and Planetary Science Letters 228 (2004) 483--- 493]

If so, the transition from a reducing to an oxidizing atmosphere at ~2.3 Gy probably had nothing to do with changes in mantle fO2.

— Li and Lee

Only have a few minutes...

The evidence was and is that early O2 was practically nil:[snip]

— The Ghost of Paley

Except for the disturbing V/Sc ratios in Archean basalts, which suggest little evolution of upper mantle fO2 throughout most of the earth's "history",..

This exchange covers the whole "critical analysis" model. Creationists propose some criticism of evolution based on misreading and misunderstanding of science. Scientists patiently explain why they are wrong. Creationists reply with more misread and misunderstood science. Scientists patiently explain why this is wrong as well. Creationists reply again with even more badly misunderstood science. Scientists, gritting their teeth, patiently explain, yet again, why the creationists are wrong. And so it goes, this is no way to educate children about science.

Before complaining about our model, perhaps you should work on your own.

You, uh, don't HAVE any model. Remember?

In this direction [pointing to the right], if you just believe you're a product of material cause, you'll have a whole different set of exits: exits for secular humanism, atheism, Buddhism and other Eastern religions, with different views of morals.

— Calvert the Nobbes

Oops, wrong thread.

As for the scientists Luskin quotes --- imagine if the Kansas science standards were challenged in court in a Kitzmiller-like case. Would Douglas Futuyma, WF Doolittle, Carl Woese, Niles Eldredge, Robert Caroll, and Eors Szathmary get up on the witness stand and affirm that the Kansas Science Standards accurately represented their views on the relevant science?

Holding mutually contradicting ideas simultaneously is one of the hallmarks of creationists. Consistency is irrelevant. Only evolution is wrong is what matters.

— Stuart Weinstien

GoP,

"Before complaining about our model, perhaps you should work on your own."

Could you please post or point to the link for your, "our model".

With regard to "bird/theropod":

"Some researchers today do not agree that dinosaurs gave rise to birds, and are working to falsify this theory, but so far the evidence for the theory has swamped their efforts. If they were to conclusively establish that birds are more likely descended from another group (Crocodylomorpha, the group containing crocodiles, has been suggested), that would be a major upheaval in our knowledge of phylogeny. One single well-preserved fossil bird unequivocably of Triassic age might shed some doubt on the theory of the maniraptoran affinities of birds. That would be a major find. Some bird-like fossils have been presented as Triassic birds, but so far have not held up under peer review. Such is the dynamic nature of science."

This is how science works...as new evidence is found, ideas are validated or put aside.

Efforts by you and your Creationist/ID retards to try and paint this as deception rather than a lving process is dishonest.

...critical analysis seeks to expose Darwinistic concepts to the crucible of skeptical scrutiny.

In HIGH SCHOOL? Sure, we'll just sandwich it in between designing the next generation of stealth jet-fighters, and negotiating sectarian peace in Iraq. I guess we'll have to skip the civics and history if we want the kids home by dinnertime.

Serious question for GoP: Should reading and discussing the Dover ruling be a part of this "skeptical scrutiny?" It certainly seems to cover the entire controversy quite well.

Another question for GoP: what is ID's methodology for determining the age of the Earth? And what, exactly, has it determined?

Another question for GoP: what is ID's methodology for determining the age of the Earth? And what, exactly, has it determined?

I wouldn't say GoP is a spokesman for ID, I'd say he's a spokesman for GoPism, which is a collection of totally bonkers ideas even most ID supporters would avoid.

test

That paper, it doesn't mean what you think it means. What it says is the conversion of the atmosphere from anoxic to oxic at around 2.3 Gyr (with abiogeneisis occurring somewhere around 4.2-3.8 Gyr) is not due to exhaustion of mantle buffering capacity. It in no way says there was substantial O2 in the Archean atmosphere (and if fact says there was negligible levels).

— Ian

What caused the GOE is a matter of continuing debate. Central to this debate is the nature of the inputs, Fin, and outputs, Fout, of O2 from the atmosphere: if FoutNFin, there will be no free O2 in the atmosphere, and if FoutbFin, O2 levels will rise. This means that O2 inputs were lower and/or O2 sinks were higher before the GOE. Of interest here is the role of volcanic degassing as an atmospheric O2 sink. Volcanic gases serve as O2 sinks because a certain proportion of the gas consists of reduced volatile species (e.g., CO, H2, S2, H2S, CH4), which will react with O2 in the atmosphere. In general, there are two ways to increase the volcanic sink for O2. One is to increase the total volcanic emissions. Another is to decrease the oxygen fugacity (fO2) of the volcanic gases, keeping total volcanic emissions constant.

The question now is whether the permitted 0.3 log unit difference between the Archean and modern mantles as discussed above is sufficient enough to influence the O2 content of the atmosphere. We thus re-examine the role of mantle fO2 in controlling the volcanic sink of atmospheric O2. Today, the production of O2 occurs dominantly by photosynthesis (CO2+H2O=CH2O+O2) and to a lesser extent by bacterial reduction of ferric to ferrous iron (e.g., 2Fe(OH)3+4H2SO4=2FeS2+7.5O2+7H2O, 2Fe2O3= 4FeO+O2). It is believed that most of this O2 production is consumed by weathering of reduced components in rocks, and only a small proportion of today's atmospheric O2 reacts with reduced gases released by volcanism and metamorphic processes [2]. In the Archean, however, it has been further suggested by Kump et al. [2] that oxidative weathering would not have been as important as it is today because of the lower levels of O2 in the Archean atmosphere. If so, volcanic sinks would dominate the consumption of O2 in Archean times. [my emphasis]

Taking the present day O2 input at face value (bold horizontal line in Fig. 5C), we see that at the present fO2 of the mantle (~FMQ), the volcanic sink is lower than the input of O2 regardless of which O2 sink curve is taken. This indicates that neither oceanic or continental volcanoes are presently a significant sink for O2; there must instead be other sinks, such as oxidative weathering processes as pointed out by others, such as Holland [36]. It can also be seen that the crossover between the possible volcanic sinks (oceanic, continental or a combination of the two) and the average O2 input occurs roughly between FMQ_1.4 and FMQ_1.8, which means that at fO2s less than this range, the volcanic sink is greater than the O2 input, ultimately leading to the depletion of atmospheric O2. We now examine the above box model in the context of our new constraints on mantle fO2 in the Archean and the present. There are four ways to change the balance between O2 production and consumption in order to explain the GOE (Fig. 5C). Prior to 2.3 Ga, the Earth could have been characterized by (1) a mantle with lower fO2, (2) Fig. 4. Volcanic volatile composition ternary diagram based on a compilation of 34 observed volcanic gas systems. Solid squares represent different observed volcanic volatile systems. Open circle represents the average composition. Z.-X. Anser Li, C.-T. Aeolus Lee / Earth and Planetary Science Letters 490 228 (2004) 483---493 higher total volcanic emissions, (3) lower O2 production and/or (4) the presence of additional O2 sinks, which are not present today. Our observations from V/Sc systematics indicate that the fO2s of Archean and modern convecting mantles differ by no more than 0.3 log unit. Assuming that the O2 inputs and volcanic degassing rates in our box models are constant and that there are no unaccounted O2 sinks in the Archean, it can be seen from Fig. 5C that an increase in fO2 by 0.3 log unit cannot explain the transition from an oxygen-poor to -rich atmosphere. If, on the other hand, the uncertainty in the O2 inputs or volcanic degassing rates is considered, it can be seen from Fig. 5C that it easy to come up with a particular combination of O2 inputs and volcanic degassing rates that allows for the crossover to occur at 0.3 log unit below the present day fO2 of the mantle. However, based on the range of V/Sc data in MORBs and thermobarometrically determined fO2s of abyssal peridotites and MORB glasses, the fO2 of the modern upper mantle probably varies at least between FMQ and FMQ-1. If only a 0.3 log unit difference in mantle fO2 is required to switch the atmosphere from O2-poor to O2-rich, the present day mantle would straddle this transition point, possibly making atmospheric O2 levels extremely sensitive to small perturbations in mantle fO2. Other than the 2.3 Gy GOE, changes of similar magnitude in atmospheric O2 levels have not been observed. We thus conclude that the near constancy of upper mantle fO2 since 3.5 Gy ago indicates that mantle fO2 was probably not the dominant influence on atmospheric O2 levels, consistent with the conclusions of Delano [4].

The possibility that the Earth's upper mantle has been oxidized since the early Archean (cf. [3,4,6,7]) has previously been argued to be inconsistent with the fact that the mantle must have at some point been in equilibrium with the metallic core and hence should be characterized by low fO2s. However, it has been recently suggested that disproportionation of FeO to Fe0 and Fe3+ at high pressures followed by segregation of the metal phase to the core could lead to a net increase in the amount of oxygen, and hence fO2, of the mantle early in Earth's history [37]. [my emphasis]

By the way, Casey Luskin is a dual expert in the law and geology, so evos can't dismiss him without cause. I still think his essay deserves a longer reply than Ian gave.

That's why creationists remain unimpressed with Darwinian claims of extensive corroboration. It's never allowed to be disconfirmed in the first place.

Other than having gone to law school and passed the bar, what "expertise" in the law has Luskin ever displayed, Ghosty? I've been shown no evidence that he's not a lowest-common-denominator flunky.

And we don't dismiss Luskin "without cause," yo! We have every reason to do so?

You've no been asked several times to present ID's "model." I know you'll just plead some pressing engagement, but either get around to doing so or retract your implicit claim that there's any such thing as an ID theory or model for how biological systems are designed and created.

GoP: You just pasted up an incredibly long post, so you really have no excuse not to answer any of the direct and relevant questions I and others have asked you.

I will ask again: Should high-school students learn and discuss the Dover ruling as part of the "critical analysis" of evolution you claim to want?

And: How does ID "theory" determine the age of the Earth?

Or if not a model, just let us know exactly where it disagrees with current theory? Nah, that's probably too much to ask, too.

Henry

GoP: You just pasted up an incredibly long post, so you really have no excuse not to answer any of the direct and relevant questions I and others have asked you. I will ask again: Should high-school students learn and discuss the Dover ruling as part of the "critical analysis" of evolution you claim to want? And: How does ID "theory" determine the age of the Earth?

— Raging Bee

I suspect the kids will wonder why Darwins consider court decisions supporting evidence for their side, though.

A little internet research confirms that Casey Luskin is a very young, inexperienced attorney: he was admitted to the California bar only in late 2005 (which makes him merely one more of about a quarter-million lawyers who have been issued identification numbers by the California Bar organization).

Although he apparently lives and "works" in Seattle as a "lawyer for" the Disco Institute, he's not a member of the Washington State Bar and can't actually practice as a lawyer in the Washington courts on his own (he'd need to get a temporary pass and have a Washington lawyer standing by to "spot" for him).

Luskin is a graduate of the University of San Diego School of Law. USD School of Law has been around since 1954 and is accredited by the ABA. It's hardly a Top Ten (or even Top Fifty) law school nationally, though one ranking has it knocking on the door of the Top Fifty.

USD is a also a Catholic school. It might be tempting to jump to some conclusion from that, except that we all know that--unlike Luskin--Catholicism does not deny evolution.

USD Law School has several "law review" publications (the very rough equivalent of science's peer-reviewed journals), but Luskin apparently makes no claim to having "made" law review or to having published/edited any legal articles while he was in attendance there. Nor do I see any immediate indication that he has written any legal article for any law review published by any law school, much less for any prestigious legal journal.

Certainly if Luskin bore any of these indicia of legal "expertise," that would be trumpeted in his bio on the Disco site, but nothing like that shows up. Outside of the string of laughable articles (and one equally-laughable book "critiquing" Judge Jones' Dover decision, of which he is one of four co-authors) "published" by ID advocate organizations such as the Disco Institute, I see no evidence that Luskin has done any scholarly writing on any subject.

Nor am I able to find any hint that Luskin has accumulated--in his legal career of eight whole months!--even the barest patina of the kind of experience and respect from his peers within the legal community that might support Ghost of Paley's claim that Luskin is a legal "expert."

Sorry, Ghosty: Luskin's just another DI hack, pure and simple. And your assertion is yet another of your evidence-free mental excursions.

I love it! There are Pandas and Penguins and Darwins! Three kinds!

I just want some class time devoted to the problems with Darwinism, Heliocentrism, Old Earthism, etc.

— GoP

I just want some class time devoted to the problems with Darwinism, Heliocentrism, Old Earthism, etc.

Why? To understand the problems properly, you have to know the material. Pedagogically, this isn't the proper level.