Sticklebacks, Manatees, and Creationists

Interestingly, Pitx1 is also involved in early pituitary patterning and cellular differentiation during embryonic development (at the Rathke's pouch stage) and in the maintenance of anterior pituitary cell identity and function in the mature gland. It's full name is actually "pituitary homeobox-1".

I am SO GLAD to see Panda'sThumb back up. This is the type of entry I missed. Welcome back "thumb" it is so much easier to "grasp" things with you back in place.

I'm stealing a friend's words here:

"This is, like, 27 different kinds of awesome."

Thank you!

The No Answers in Genesis reply:

1) They are still fish

2) We don't have to do any actual research. We'll let real scientists do the actual work, then we'll just say that we have "different conclusions". It doesn't matter if our conclusions make any sense or not, it doesn't matter if all of the real experts who actually know what they are talking about say we are wrong, what matters is that we must disagree and make it appear that there is some other interpretation. After all, then kind of people we are trying to convince are not generally going to know the difference, so we can fool everybody and never actually do anything. If anyone objects, we can just call them elitist and claim there is some big conspiracy. Yea that's it, a conspiracy. It doesn't matter if that make s any sense either, the gullible will lap it up.

I expect biologists are finding that genes are turned off or regulated in hundreds of different ways, as if Nature was finding ways to regulate and turn off genes entirely by accident...

DS, you forgot "all this proves is that evolution can destroy, but not create, so it really supports ID".

And, "that shows a Common Designer". (Or is that covered by DS's #2, under the provision that it doesn't have to make sense?)

Creationists can't afford to do too much research into rapid speciation. If they don't find any, then their young Earth hypothesis is trashed, but even if they do, then they have to explain why, if there was such rampant and rapid speciation that it transformed a few dozen "kinds" into thousands of highly diverse and widely distributed species in just a few decades, they always claims that mutations and speciation are so terribly hard to come by.

The dirty little secret of creationism is that post-flood evolutionary processes are evolution on a huge dose of steroids -- far beyond anything any credible scientist would claim was possible.

Kudos to the author, Skip, for a very sharp observation!

Good find. I will be sure to use this one the next time the opportunity arises.

It's a great example of how evidence-based reasoning (e.g. science) is true because it makes predictions that turn out to be accurate, and how faith-based reasoning (e.g. creationism) is false because when it makes any predictions at all, those predictions turn out to be just wrong.

This is the one test that faith will always fail on: It just doesn't work. Fact.

Doubt me? Let's put it to the test! Just be prepared to admit that you were wrong when it turns out my prediction that "Faith fails" turns out to be accurate (yet again). Not willing to put your faith to the test? Then your faith has failed (to convince us; yet again). Either way: evidence wins; faith fails.

Science Avenger said: DS, you forgot "all this proves is that evolution can destroy, but not create, so it really supports ID".

Let's say that AIG did fund some research. How would they explain the following if they found it:

1) All of the genes required for limb development are present in the Manatee

2) Pitx 1 is present in the manatee but down regulated due to mutations in the promoter or enhancer

3) Pitx 1 is present in the manatee but down regulated due to mutations similar, but not identical, to those found in the sticklebacks

Would these features be due to an incompetent designer who lacked any ability for foresight or planning? Would they be due to an unimaginative designer who only knew one trick and used it indiscriminately? Would they be due to an ignorant designer who couldn't even remember the trick he used on one species? Would they be due to the "fall" of the manatees? How could they rule out the possibility that these adaptive changes could be produced due to random mutations? How could they rule out the role of selection in shaping these adaptive features? How could they explain all of the other example of such things in thousands of different organisms?

Maybe this is the real reason why creationists don't publish anything, even in their own journals. Maybe everything they discover when the actually do some research really supports evolution.

But if Darwin didn't know that, clearly his theory must be false...or something.

After all, Darwin is just the atheist Bible, and evolution the atheist myth.

At least if your mind is too small to imagine something that isn't just a version of creationist myth.

Glen Davidson

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad said: But if Darwin didn't know that, clearly his theory must be false...or something. After all, Darwin is just the atheist Bible, and evolution the atheist myth. At least if your mind is too small to imagine something that isn't just a version of creationist myth. Glen Davidson

Several points here.

Finding creatures can change is fine with creationism and like creationists like me a very welcome thing.
I love the sickleback stuff.
I

In fact you are making the case not for random mutations but a single mutation happening everywhere.
I don't accept its a mutation out of the blue but more likely a part of another mechanism process to let creatures adapt.
In fact i don't see why finding a single mutation happening everywhere is welcome to evolutionism.
It seems unlikely to be that random but has purpose.

Yes I'm confident marine mammals were first land creatures who adapted in a post flood world.
Yes we need a mechanism but no not random mutationism.

Finding genetic indicators for change is by the way finding nothing about its origin.
It could only be that biological change is intimately genetic and has a trail.

Finding genetic elements turned off is not finding the origin of why that is so.
They are trying here to make the case for mutations leading to all biological change and the skys the limit on that.
All facts here fit fine with creationist ideas.

SA called it.

Robert Byers said: In fact you are making the case not for random mutations but a single mutation happening everywhere. I don't accept its a mutation out of the blue but more likely a part of another mechanism process to let creatures adapt. In fact i don't see why finding a single mutation happening everywhere is welcome to evolutionism. It seems unlikely to be that random but has purpose.

Yes I'm confident marine mammals were first land creatures who adapted in a post flood world. Yes we need a mechanism but no not random mutationism.

All facts here fit fine with creationist ideas.

At least if your mind is too small to imagine something that isn’t just a version of creationist myth

Robert Byers, in your latest mental vomiting, I noticed you again failed to explain why or even how Young Earth Creationism is supposed to be a science magically superior (Evolutionary) Biology.

So, where is all this research you did to prove that manatees were actually land animals that magically transformed themselves into sea animals using magical non-evolutionary hyperevolution over the course of 4000 years?

Oh, wait, no, you've made a complete Idiot for Jesus out of yourself again.

harold said: The idea that evolution reality was going on before any humans had figured it out and will go on even if human knowledge of it is lost is alien to them.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/c5rNlpg124BVj4kCj2yBtmmOk9jw#8caf8 said:

Robert Byers said: In fact you are making the case not for random mutations but a single mutation happening everywhere. I don't accept its a mutation out of the blue but more likely a part of another mechanism process to let creatures adapt. In fact i don't see why finding a single mutation happening everywhere is welcome to evolutionism. It seems unlikely to be that random but has purpose.

Nonsense. If it turns out (as this research appears to indicate) that a single mutation in one of a small number of genes is responsible for a major bodily changes, like the loss of certain limbs, and that many species share those genes, then it stands to reason that random mutations will occasionally strike those same genes in disparate species in the same way. The theory of evolution is strengthened by such discoveries, not weakened.

Yes I'm confident marine mammals were first land creatures who adapted in a post flood world. Yes we need a mechanism but no not random mutationism.

Why? What's the problem with whales not being able to wait out the flood in the water? Surely God could have kept them from being beached in the Himalaya's when the water receded. In fact, why are you bothering to apply any scientific reasoning at all to what was clearly supposed to be a supernatural event, from start to finish? After all, the amount of evolution required to get from an ark-full of animals to the vast variety of species the world has (and has had in all of recorded history), is far harder to swallow than the modest claims of evolutionists.

All facts here fit fine with creationist ideas.

Perhaps, if you're happy with superficial readings and interpretations. Unfortunately for you, science doesn't settle for the superficial.

Robert,

Take a course in biology. Learn the meaning of the term natural selection. Then come back and explain to us why the same mutation must have occurred in every organism that now possesses it. Until then, take my word for it, you haven't got a clue. Mutations are not a reaction to need. There is a vast literature of elegant experiments that disprove this. You are almost as wrong as you are ignorant.

So, Robert Byers, where in the Bible did it say that whales and all other marine mammals are descended from land-dwelling refugees from Noah's Ark, having magically transmuted themselves into sea-dwelling animals in less than 4,000 years?

Where are the evidence you found and the research you did to support this inane claim of yours?

Otherwise, your so-called "creationist criticism" is childish nonsense.

Marine mammals by much evidence seem clearly to have been special cases of dramatic anatomical change coupled with envirorment change. Then there is no fossil evidence of them below the k-t line(fdlood line) and then the seas below the line were filled with so much of so many different types of great sea life.

You say creatures share the same genes for some things and so a common mutation can bring a common change. This line of reasoning is fine. Yet evolution is all about random and happanchance mutations as the driving force. If single mutation type is so able to hit everyone then it suggests its more of a reaction to need then chance. It seems unlikely to have such helpfull mutations just when needed. The creationist criticism here would be that its unlikely that everyone is getting the same mutation happening to bring such needed results (I am not questioning this mutation is responsible here) . It seems more likely there is another mechanism that is just revealed by this mutation . The mutation did not just come along.

Further these are still special cases of atrophy and not the origin of new features.

DS said: Robert, Take a course in biology. Learn the meaning of the term natural selection. Then come back and explain to us why the same mutation must have occurred in every organism that now possesses it. Until then, take my word for it, you haven't got a clue. Mutations are not a reaction to need. There is a vast literature of elegant experiments that disprove this. You are almost as wrong as you are ignorant.

harold said:

DS said: Robert, Take a course in biology. Learn the meaning of the term natural selection. Then come back and explain to us why the same mutation must have occurred in every organism that now possesses it. Until then, take my word for it, you haven't got a clue. Mutations are not a reaction to need. There is a vast literature of elegant experiments that disprove this. You are almost as wrong as you are ignorant.

I thought he was making the less extreme, but still totally wrong, claim that it was "too unlikely" for similar mutations to have occurred in different lineages. However, it looks as if your interpretation is the correct one. I unconsciously modeled his argument as being more reasonable (albeit still wrong) than it really was.

Byers: The creationist criticism here would be that its unlikely that everyone is getting the same mutation happening to bring such needed results (I am not questioning this mutation is responsible here).

"In fact you are making the case not for random mutations but a single mutation happening everywhere."

Whenever creationists argue about the chances of such-and-such protein evolving "by chance," they always make the same error that would get marked wrong in an undergrad probability course: they split joint probabilities of events that aren't independent. And yet here you are, talking about a very situation where the events in question (transcription errors in the genes of two different species) has much weaker correlation.

The only way for your claim to make sense at all is to invoke a deity. This is why real scientists, even the religious ones, leave their gods at the door: they are idealizations, crutches like the frictionless pulleys of physics textbooks, useful to simplify concepts at the beginning, but soon failing to adequately explain observed phenomena. Of course, where in physics this results in epicycles, in theology this results in projection, and the people lose the ability to distinguish between themselves and their gods.

Oh, my. How did that become a rant? I guess I get a little overprotective of math.

John_S said:

Byers: The creationist criticism here would be that its unlikely that everyone is getting the same mutation happening to bring such needed results (I am not questioning this mutation is responsible here).

Why? If my 50-times great grandfather had a beneficial mutation, why would it be unlikely that his thousands of descendants got it too? Of course, it's unlikely that the same mutation would pop up in thousands of people independently. But if you think that's the only way for thousands to have the mutation, you slept through HS biology.

Michael said: "In fact you are making the case not for random mutations but a single mutation happening everywhere." Whenever creationists argue about the chances of such-and-such protein evolving "by chance," they always make the same error that would get marked wrong in an undergrad probability course: they split joint probabilities of events that aren't independent. And yet here you are, talking about a very situation where the events in question (transcription errors in the genes of two different species) has much weaker correlation. The only way for your claim to make sense at all is to invoke a deity. This is why real scientists, even the religious ones, leave their gods at the door: they are idealizations, crutches like the frictionless pulleys of physics textbooks, useful to simplify concepts at the beginning, but soon failing to adequately explain observed phenomena. Of course, where in physics this results in epicycles, in theology this results in projection, and the people lose the ability to distinguish between themselves and their gods. Oh, my. How did that become a rant? I guess I get a little overprotective of math.

Robert, 5 words:

Whale

Fossils

In

The

Desert

Those 5 words disprove all of your notions. Unless you invoke multiple miracles. That is the only recourse you have to any actual science is to require multiple miracles.

BTW: If you have no interest in math and think that it doesn't apply to Biology, then I would encourage you to answer this question without math: What is the percentage chance of an offspring being homozygous for a particular allele if both parents are heterozygous. That's 7th grade stuff... just wait until you get to actual science (ever heard of statistics?).

Robert Byers said:

John_S said:

Byers: The creationist criticism here would be that its unlikely that everyone is getting the same mutation happening to bring such needed results (I am not questioning this mutation is responsible here).

Why? If my 50-times great grandfather had a beneficial mutation, why would it be unlikely that his thousands of descendants got it too? Of course, it's unlikely that the same mutation would pop up in thousands of people independently. But if you think that's the only way for thousands to have the mutation, you slept through HS biology.

As I said the criticism to be teased out here by creationism would be its unlikely that a like mutation creating a like result in unrelated creatures is likely.

If mutations are the motive of the change in different creatures then the same mutation appearing and acting the same in creatures is not welcome to evolution ideas.

Robert Byers said:

John_S said:

Byers: The creationist criticism here would be that its unlikely that everyone is getting the same mutation happening to bring such needed results (I am not questioning this mutation is responsible here).

Why? If my 50-times great grandfather had a beneficial mutation, why would it be unlikely that his thousands of descendants got it too? Of course, it's unlikely that the same mutation would pop up in thousands of people independently. But if you think that's the only way for thousands to have the mutation, you slept through HS biology.

As I said the criticism to be teased out here by creationism would be its unlikely that a like mutation creating a like result in unrelated creatures is likely. If mutations are the motive of the change in different creatures then the same mutation appearing and acting the same in creatures is not welcome to evolution ideas. The appearance of this mutation is suspicious. Again there can be other prompts to genetic change and any mutation, if so relevant indeed, is along for the ride. Evolution is about the wild randomness of mutations having effects. This idea of mutations orderly appearing seems a retreat.

Robert Byers said: The rub here is the idea of evolutionists invoking the same mutation popping up everywhere for everyone to great effect. Naw.

DS said:

Robert Byers said:

John_S said:

Byers: The creationist criticism here would be that its unlikely that everyone is getting the same mutation happening to bring such needed results (I am not questioning this mutation is responsible here).

Why? If my 50-times great grandfather had a beneficial mutation, why would it be unlikely that his thousands of descendants got it too? Of course, it's unlikely that the same mutation would pop up in thousands of people independently. But if you think that's the only way for thousands to have the mutation, you slept through HS biology.

As I said the criticism to be teased out here by creationism would be its unlikely that a like mutation creating a like result in unrelated creatures is likely. If mutations are the motive of the change in different creatures then the same mutation appearing and acting the same in creatures is not welcome to evolution ideas. The appearance of this mutation is suspicious. Again there can be other prompts to genetic change and any mutation, if so relevant indeed, is along for the ride. Evolution is about the wild randomness of mutations having effects. This idea of mutations orderly appearing seems a retreat.

Actually, since the developmental toolkit genes are fundamentally similar in most animals, this isn't at all unreasonable. But then again, if you don't know anything about math and don't think it applies to biology. then it's unlikely that you would be able to make, or even understand a probability calculation. Therefore, you have once again removed yourself from the realm of any possible rational discussion.

Robert Byers said: In fact you are making the case not for random mutations but a single mutation happening everywhere. I don't accept its a mutation out of the blue but more likely a part of another mechanism process to let creatures adapt. In fact i don't see why finding a single mutation happening everywhere is welcome to evolutionism. It seems unlikely to be that random but has purpose.

Scott F said: IF we ever found "a single mutation happening everywhere", it would indeed not be random, and that would indeed be a blow to Evolution. But that hasn't happened, there is no evidence for that, and no one is claiming that it ever did happen.

ogremk5 said: Robert, 5 words: Whale Fossils In The Desert Those 5 words disprove all of your notions. Unless you invoke multiple miracles. That is the only recourse you have to any actual science is to require multiple miracles. BTW: If you have no interest in math and think that it doesn't apply to Biology, then I would encourage you to answer this question without math: What is the percentage chance of an offspring being homozygous for a particular allele if both parents are heterozygous. That's 7th grade stuff... just wait until you get to actual science (ever heard of statistics?).

ksplawn said:

Robert Byers said: The rub here is the idea of evolutionists invoking the same mutation popping up everywhere for everyone to great effect. Naw.

Not the same mutation, but mutations within the same gene family. Different variants (i.e. mutations) of the Pitx1 gene probably cause similar effects since the gene in its normal form controls growth of the pelvic area and limbs in a variety of animals. And the working versions of the gene don't have to be identical either (in fact I'd expect differences among them for distantly related creatures). Since you're not interested in math but biology, why don't you trawl the literature for the different variations of the Pitx1 gene? It's a relatively well-studied one and should give you a lot of reading. -Wheels

Scott F said:

Robert Byers said: In fact you are making the case not for random mutations but a single mutation happening everywhere. I don't accept its a mutation out of the blue but more likely a part of another mechanism process to let creatures adapt. In fact i don't see why finding a single mutation happening everywhere is welcome to evolutionism. It seems unlikely to be that random but has purpose.

Hi Robert, Perhaps I see your misunderstanding here. Let me try to explain. 1. What Evolutionary Scientists have found is that many different kinds of animals have a gene that looks something like Pitx1. In each different species, the gene is slightly different, but in each species it does pretty much the same kind of thing: it has a major effect on the development of the pelvic region in the embryos of each species. 2. Mutations are random. A mutation can happen in any gene in any animal. Sometimes these mutations are passed on to next generation of that animal, and spread through the population. 3. When a random mutation happens to hit the Pitx1 gene, we observe certain changes in the development of the pelvic region of the embryo of that animal. 4. When a different random mutation randomly happens to hit a Pitx1-like gene in another species, then Evolutionary Scientists see similar kinds of changes in the development of the pelvic region of the embryo of that different animal. 5. Evolutionary Scientists therefore infer, or extrapolate, that if a different random mutation were to randomly happen to hit a Pitx1-like gene in a third species, then that animal would also have similar kinds of developmental changes. Conversely, when Evolutionary Scientists see similar kinds of developmental changes, they infer that such changes could be caused by a similar random mutation that had randomly happened in *that* species at some point in its lineage. They then do experiments to see if that other animal has a similar change in its version of the Pitx1-like gene. 6. More evidence, more experiments, stronger inferences, stronger conclusions. No one but creationists is arguing that mutations happen at the same time in different species, or that the same mutation happens in all species deterministically. In one small way you are correct. IF we ever found "a single mutation happening everywhere", it would indeed not be random, and that would indeed be a blow to Evolution. But that hasn't happened, there is no evidence for that, and no one is claiming that it ever did happen. All we're saying is that, *if* such a random mutation does, by chance, happen in a different species at some point in time, then the changes in the animal that are the results of that mutation are likely to be similar to the changes seen in other animals due to similar mutations.

Robert Byers said: In "science" what does PROBABLY count for?

Robert Byers said:

ogremk5 said: Robert, 5 words: Whale Fossils In The Desert Those 5 words disprove all of your notions. Unless you invoke multiple miracles. That is the only recourse you have to any actual science is to require multiple miracles. BTW: If you have no interest in math and think that it doesn't apply to Biology, then I would encourage you to answer this question without math: What is the percentage chance of an offspring being homozygous for a particular allele if both parents are heterozygous. That's 7th grade stuff... just wait until you get to actual science (ever heard of statistics?).

Seventh grade? Where? Whale fossils would only be in a desert that is close to the sea. Simply the sudden raising or dropping of the continents would flood the outskirts. In my creationist model I see a sudden great earth upheaval, a few centuries after the flood, that accounts for the fossilization of sediment/life and modern flooding of land. I welcome marine mammals being found caught up in this action. Its quite common in South America.

Statistics is used a lot in biology. Comparing experimental groups against control groups is stuff that 9th graders begin to do in the lab portions of their biology classes. That requires using various statistical tests and understanding what they mean. And many of these kids take statistics either in the form the Advanced Placement statistics courses or as part of their Integrated Math courses.

In either case, the mathematical methods are usually taught as part of the biology course.

Man, the trolls that hang out here seem to be some of the stupidest people on this planet. They not only don’t know what most high school students learn, they all seemed to have stopped learning somewhere before middle school. It’s as though most of these trolls have dropped out before ever getting to high school; yet they think they can make expert claims about science and what should or should not be taught.

A sudden great Earth upheaval, a few centuries after the Flood, eh?

Which would put it at around 2300 BCE, right?

Byers, I know you don't know this, and you don't want to know this, but there isn't any possible way that could happen and not leave marks that could be easily be seen now. The Sahara Desert, which is where not one, not two, but generations of basilosaurus whale fossils have been found, could not possibly be a sea four thousand years ago and bone-dry now. It can't happen.

There was a major literate civilisation building large monuments right by there, right then, and that civilisation never noticed, never even considered, the existence of a wide open sea a hundred miles to their west? What are you, crazy? (Why do I ask such questions? Of course you're crazy!)

All Egyptian legends, stories, knowledge about the land to their west emphasised that it was a stark, waterless, lifeless desert. "To go west" was to die. Nothing came out of that empty waste but dust and wind. There was no sea there then, nor at any time in human history.

And the Egyptians never noticed this "great Earth upheaval", either, sez you. The land rose out of this sea, and they never even realised it was happening. Their great buildings remained intact while cataclysmic tectonic events, with upthrust on a time-scale unheard-of today, were happening a few hundred miles away. Earthquakes that would have made the last Japanese shift and tsunami - over eight on the Richter at point of origin - look like a minor twitch, were happening every couple of days for a century, and nobody took any notice? Oh, come on!

On the same scale, the Thera explosion of around 1570 BCE would be like popping a zit, but its effects can be clearly read on Minoan civilisation. A little digging on Thera itself turns up a whole shattered city, ruined, destroyed, never resettled. Thebes or Luxor would have been hit much worse by this "great Earth upheaval". Were they? Why, no, they weren't. The archeology of both cities testify to thousands of years of almost completely peaceful continuous occupation.

You're nuts, Byers. You're barking, gurgling, rolling-eyed, drooling, foaming at the mouth, wetting your pants doolalli. You're insane. I've found you occasionally entertaining in the past - but that is now, for me, overlaid with the shame of realising that in the eighteenth century people went to Bedlam Hospital to be amused by the mad, and I am doing the same. I am ashamed of myself for that.

First, Byers, thanks more making me look up more stuff to refute you and learning something very cool in the process.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Livyatan_melvillei
Livyatan melvillei (literally Melville's Leviathan (from the original Hebrew spelling) was found 23 miles south of Ica, Peru. A quick check of Ica, Peru shows that the altitude is 406 meters and it is a desert climate. L. melvillei was dated at 12-13 million years old... that's only about 5 orders of magnitude more than you think the entire Earth has existed.

Of course, Wadi Al-Hitan, 150 kilometers SW of Cairo (as Dave mentioned) contains not one, but multiple species of whale that are A) 100% marine whales and 2) do not exist today. BTW: 150 km SW of Cairo is something we call desert. The Wadi Al-Hitan fossils are 30-40 million years ago.

Ten million years after Livyatan melvillei lived, a large group of whales seems to have become stranded and are now fossils in the Chilean desert. http://news.yahoo.com/whales-desert-fossil-bonanza-poses-mystery-135321328.html

So we have three different groupings of whale fossils, all currently in desert environments, over a span of nearly 48 million years. Even the most recent of which is still several orders of magnitude older than you believe the entire Earth to be.

You might also want to study desertification and how long that process takes... and fossilization and how long that process takes... and, well, 7th grade Biology.

BTW: Even TEXAS requires knowledge of basic genetics in the 7th grade. Including population dynamics and natural selection.

Robert Byers said:

ogremk5 said: Robert, 5 words: Whale Fossils In The Desert Those 5 words disprove all of your notions. Unless you invoke multiple miracles. That is the only recourse you have to any actual science is to require multiple miracles. BTW: If you have no interest in math and think that it doesn't apply to Biology, then I would encourage you to answer this question without math: What is the percentage chance of an offspring being homozygous for a particular allele if both parents are heterozygous. That's 7th grade stuff... just wait until you get to actual science (ever heard of statistics?).

Seventh grade? Where? Whale fossils would only be in a desert that is close to the sea. Simply the sudden raising or dropping of the continents would flood the outskirts. In my creationist model I see a sudden great earth upheaval, a few centuries after the flood, that accounts for the fossilization of sediment/life and modern flooding of land. I welcome marine mammals being found caught up in this action. Its quite common in South America.

Where in the Bible did it say that there was a magic upheaval?

Dave Luckett said: A sudden great Earth upheaval, a few centuries after the Flood, eh? Which would put it at around 2300 BCE, right? Byers, I know you don't know this, and you don't want to know this, but there isn't any possible way that could happen and not leave marks that could be easily be seen now. The Sahara Desert, which is where not one, not two, but generations of basilosaurus whale fossils have been found, could not possibly be a sea four thousand years ago and bone-dry now. It can't happen. There was a major literate civilisation building large monuments right by there, right then, and that civilisation never noticed, never even considered, the existence of a wide open sea a hundred miles to their west? What are you, crazy? (Why do I ask such questions? Of course you're crazy!) All Egyptian legends, stories, knowledge about the land to their west emphasised that it was a stark, waterless, lifeless desert. "To go west" was to die. Nothing came out of that empty waste but dust and wind. There was no sea there then, nor at any time in human history. And the Egyptians never noticed this "great Earth upheaval", either, sez you. The land rose out of this sea, and they never even realised it was happening. Their great buildings remained intact while cataclysmic tectonic events, with upthrust on a time-scale unheard-of today, were happening a few hundred miles away. Earthquakes that would have made the last Japanese shift and tsunami - over eight on the Richter at point of origin - look like a minor twitch, were happening every couple of days for a century, and nobody took any notice? Oh, come on! On the same scale, the Thera explosion of around 1570 BCE would be like popping a zit, but its effects can be clearly read on Minoan civilisation. A little digging on Thera itself turns up a whole shattered city, ruined, destroyed, never resettled. Thebes or Luxor would have been hit much worse by this "great Earth upheaval". Were they? Why, no, they weren't. The archeology of both cities testify to thousands of years of almost completely peaceful continuous occupation. You're nuts, Byers. You're barking, gurgling, rolling-eyed, drooling, foaming at the mouth, wetting your pants doolalli. You're insane. I've found you occasionally entertaining in the past - but that is now, for me, overlaid with the shame of realising that in the eighteenth century people went to Bedlam Hospital to be amused by the mad, and I am doing the same. I am ashamed of myself for that.

Robert Byers said: It doesn't matter if the areas are deserts today. These are areas fairly close to the great water bodies. I do say the fossils/sediment are from sudden creations from earth upheavals. Thats why they find the creatures in bunches. it was a sudden event. All one has to do is squeeze it within a biblical dateline. The African ones could be before the people separated a century after the ark and the S american ones a century or so after that. Therefore these events were before people settled these areas. AS a creationist I welcome discoveries of creatures in these areas as evidence of water catching them or depositing remains. I see the k-t line as the flood line.

Byers: All one has to do is squeeze it within a biblical dateline.

Dave Luckett said:

Byers: All one has to do is squeeze it within a biblical dateline.

All one has to do is require a whole cascade of uncovenanted miracles, geological, geographical, and historical. All one has to do is to assume that the entire chronology of Egyptian history, well established for a century now, is not merely totally bogus, but completely fraudulent. That chronology places the unification of the crowns of Lower and Upper Egypt at about 3100 BCE. Of course there were kingdoms there before that, and people farming and keeping records in the lower Nile Valley even further back. At the time the Bible says Noah was floating an impossible boat in an impossible flood, doing an impossible task for an impossible god, the mighty monuments at Giza were already rising. All one has to do is destroy everything we know, relinquish reason, eschew thought, blow away scholarship and evidence and rationality. That's all. Why, that would be no loss at all - to Byers.

Robert Byers said: In fact Egypt was settled suddenly, lots or people, and the ease of food brought instantly other agendas to build the area up. No need for slow dumb guys getting their act together. They were smart people who simply had easy access to food and beat everyone else.

Robert Byers said:

Dave Luckett said:

Byers: All one has to do is squeeze it within a biblical dateline.

All one has to do is require a whole cascade of uncovenanted miracles, geological, geographical, and historical. All one has to do is to assume that the entire chronology of Egyptian history, well established for a century now, is not merely totally bogus, but completely fraudulent. That chronology places the unification of the crowns of Lower and Upper Egypt at about 3100 BCE. Of course there were kingdoms there before that, and people farming and keeping records in the lower Nile Valley even further back. At the time the Bible says Noah was floating an impossible boat in an impossible flood, doing an impossible task for an impossible god, the mighty monuments at Giza were already rising. All one has to do is destroy everything we know, relinquish reason, eschew thought, blow away scholarship and evidence and rationality. That's all. Why, that would be no loss at all - to Byers.

Discovery usually overthrows previously well held ideas. Surely everyone must understand the poverty of evidence to demonstrate human civilization. The Egyptian stuff is wrongly dated and presumes a klong slow process from huts to kingdoms. In fact Egypt was settled suddenly, lots or people, and the ease of food brought instantly other agendas to build the area up. No need for slow dumb guys getting their act together. They were smart people who simply had easy access to food and beat everyone else.

Multiply the height of a pyramid by the height to the center-of-mass of the pyramid. This gives the potential energy of the pile of stones. This tells how much work is involved in just stacking up the pyramid without accounting for the work done in the stone quarries and the friction in dragging the stones to and up the pyramid.

That additional work can also be estimated fairly accurately. Totaling it all up gives the total amount of work to build a pyramid. Divide that by the energy consumed by an average human in a year and that will tell you how many humans cut, dragged around, and piled up those stones in a year.

In other words, we can calculate the number of man-years required to build a pyramid. This was one of the end-of-chapter problems in a popular physics textbook I taught out of many years ago.

If one can get further estimates on what the human population in Egypt was at the time and what proportion of them were pyramid-building slaves, you can get an estimate of the number of years it took to build the pyramid.

The bottom line to all this is that there is no way one could have obtained such large populations in Egypt after the supposed Noachian Flood.

Mike Elzinga said: Multiply the (h)eight of a pyramid by the height to the center-of-mass of the pyramid.

apokryltaros said: So, are you saying that the Ancient Egyptians were magically poofed into existence in 4004 BC, and were already finished building the Pyramids at Giza when Noah and his family were getting off the Ark? At the same time all those land-animals magically hyperevolved into whales, too? How come you refuse to show any evidence for your inane just-so stories?

In fact Egypt was settled suddenly, lots or people, and the ease of food brought instantly other agendas to build the area up. No need for slow dumb guys getting their act together. They were smart people who simply had easy access to food and beat everyone else.

Sort of suburban sprawl writ large, huh! Some hardhats drain swamps and build shopping malls. These guys drained oceans erected the pyramids. They need their own reality TV show.

Modern construction workers are pussies compared to these guys. Walk like an Egyptian, Baby!

Red Right Hand said: In fact Egypt was settled suddenly, lots or people, and the ease of food brought instantly other agendas to build the area up. No need for slow dumb guys getting their act together. They were smart people who simply had easy access to food and beat everyone else. Sort of suburban sprawl writ large, huh! Some hardhats drain swamps and build shopping malls. These guys drained oceans erected the pyramids. They need their own reality TV show. Modern construction workers are pussies compared to these guys. Walk like an Egyptian, Baby!

apokryltaros said: So, are you saying that the Ancient Egyptians were magically poofed into existence in 4004 BC, and were already finished building the Pyramids at Giza when Noah and his family were getting off the Ark?

prongs said:

apokryltaros said: So, are you saying that the Ancient Egyptians were magically poofed into existence in 4004 BC, and were already finished building the Pyramids at Giza when Noah and his family were getting off the Ark?

Well if the unknown Designer could poof, I mean speak, the Heavens into existence, it would be no problem to speak all the Egyptians and the Pyramids into existence too. On a Thursday. Simple. Problem solved. How easy was that?

(I think you've just strengthened Byers conviction.)

prongs said:

apokryltaros said: So, are you saying that the Ancient Egyptians were magically poofed into existence in 4004 BC, and were already finished building the Pyramids at Giza when Noah and his family were getting off the Ark?

Well if the unknown Designer could poof, I mean speak, the Heavens into existence, it would be no problem to speak all the Egyptians and the Pyramids into existence too. On a Thursday. Simple. Problem solved. How easy was that? (I think you've just strengthened Byers conviction.)