Creationists evolve "new" arguments to explain genetic diversity
Posted 2 August 2016 by Matt Young
Guest post by David MacMillan.
David MacMillan is an author, engineer, and researcher who formerly wrote for Answers in Genesis before obtaining his degree in physics. He now writes about science and culture for Panda's Thumb, the Huffington Post, and several other blogs.
In the buzz of excitement surrounding Opening Day at the Ark Encounter, the team of writers at Answers in Genesis continues their struggle to explain how all terrestrial life could have been shoved onboard the Ark and then exploded back out into millions of species in only a few dozen centuries. The more they write, however, the more difficult it becomes to make sense of their approach. Nathaniel Jeanson has a new post that further compounds my confusion.
One of AIG's youngest writers, Jeanson sports an impressive Harvard degree in cell biology and has previously worked with the Institute for Creation Research. Given his degree, it must be assumed he has enough education to understand the subjects he is writing about. Jeanson appears sincere, and it is evident he believes his conclusions fervently. He has to know, though, that his arguments are completely detached from those conclusions. He writes with the awkward obfuscation of someone trying to defend a sinking ship while earnestly attempting to remain tenuously bound to the uncomfortable constraints of reality.
In past discussion, I've unpacked the hyperevolutionary claims of Ken Ham's post-Flood speciation boom, as well as the implications of the whole ancestral-pair model. Young-earth creationists believe the entirety of the fossil record represents a single snapshot of the world ecosystem at a single point in time. All fossils are assumed to have been descended from the various "kinds" created during the Creation Week just a few centuries before the flood. Yet creationists have also committed to the notion that all this genetic diversity was preserved on the Ark and was reflected, however briefly, in the post-flood world.
The creationist model of genetics can be compared to a deck of playing cards that is continually being shuffled and dealt and cut. Each generation reproduces and shuffles the cards, producing new "hands" from the existing diversity in the deck. To creationists, speciation is the equivalent of cutting the deck and limiting a population to a smaller subset of the original deck of cards.
This approach presents enormous challenges. In their model, each of the "original kinds" was created with a "full deck" of genetic material, immediately being "cut" into new species that would end up being buried and fossilized in the Flood. But the Ark needed to preserve the "full deck" present at creation within each family; the post-flood world would then restart the process of splitting each of those decks into new species to form the diversity of life we see today.
An illustration of how creationists view genetic information and speciation events.
The figure illustrates a series of problems that would not otherwise be readily apparent. For one thing, terrestrial creatures in the fossil record should not really look anything like modern terrestrial creatures, because they purportedly arose through a completely different set of speciation events. Of course, this doesn't stop Answers in Genesis from touting "living fossils" ad nauseum. It is also unclear exactly how these creationists imagine that the genetic "deck" present at creation still existed at the flood. Presumably a sub-population from within each "created kind" avoided any sort of speciation in order to make it onto the Ark.
Still, the largest challenge remains clear: how do a couple of thousand ancestral pairs become millions of species in just a few thousand years, simply by shuffling and cutting the "deck" a few times?
One thing is for sure: it has nothing to do with the life cycle of amphibians. The life cycle of a frog from egg to tadpole to adult is fascinating to be sure, but it has nothing whatsoever to do with the process of speciation. Yet, astoundingly, this is what Jeanson leads with.
To skeptics of the Scriptures, producing so many species in such a short time span—short as compared to the evolutionary time span—seems implausible.
These skeptics forget the evidence right under their nose[s]. While the origin of over 30 living cat species might appear to require significant morphological changes, visible variety of a much greater magnitude can arise in an even shorter frame of time. For example, a frog begins its life as a fertilized egg—as single cell. No limbs, head, eyes, tongue, long toes, and so on are visible at the single-cell stage. Yet, in the process of development and maturity that spans less than 3 years, these anatomical features are formed. This progression from a single cell to an adult frog represents far more visible change than the process of forming new species from the kinds on board the Ark.
It is hard to imagine an argument more utterly irrelevant, surpassing even the inanity of "Why are there still monkeys?" and verging on statements like "I've never seen an ape becoming a person!" Why does Jeanson, a PhD biologist, make it—especially when he immediately repudiates it?
I can only assume that he is seeking some example that sounds even vaguely similar to what he wants to prove. It's like a lawyer who says, "I couldn't possibly tell the jury that the victim told the police she wasn't hurt, because that would be hearsay" and hopes it "sticks" even when the judge rules his statements irrelevant.
With undeterred persistence, Jeanson leaps from one lily pad of irrelevancy to the next by bringing up "DNA differences" in order to lead into a discussion of mitochondrial DNA clocks.
Can enough genetic diversity arise in a few thousand years to make the young-earth speciation model work? Today, millions of DNA differences separate species from one another. How can millions of DNA differences arise in a few thousand years? To the skeptic, the answer is simple—millions of DNA differences can't.
Ridiculously misleading. Speciation indeed involves numerous changes in DNA, but at a scale orders of magnitude higher than the number of DNA differences that typically exist between individual members of one species. In this paragraph, Jeanson illustrates a prime example of a tactic common among creationists. Humans have three billion base pairs, so variation of 0.4 % becomes "millions" of differences at the base pair level. Creationists cite these numbers without any comparison or explanation of what they represent, since they know that their audience will not have enough background information to recognize the fallacy.
Jeanson could have explained the significance of these numbers. Instead, he changes gears mid-argument, bringing up mitochondrial DNA. Mitochondrial DNA is not subject to sexual recombination and thus provides a genetic clock to identify divergence time between two lineages. It is a subject about which creationists already have existing discussions, so Jeanson simply slides into these talking points despite the fact that DNA differences in mitochondrial DNA have absolutely nothing to do with nuclear DNA differences or speciation.
His line of argument can only be compared to an earnest shotgun-inspired Gish Gallop. Mainstream science claims that there's not enough time for speciation, and mainstream science also claims that there's not enough time for mitochondrial DNA differences to accumulate—so if we can cast doubt on the latter claim, then maybe the general confusion will carry over to the former one.
Without explaining why he brought up mitochondrial DNA, Jeanson switches gears once more and spends several paragraphs explaining that two members of the same species can have numerous DNA differences. This fact has nothing to do with the issue at hand, but somehow he thinks it does—or at least thinks it is relevant:
Copying errors are unable to explain the vast amount of [nuclear] DNA differences we see today because the vast majority of these differences are not the product of error, but of deliberate design. Similarly, it appears that God created nuclear DNA differences in the animal kinds as well. Genetic calculations suggest that God created tens of millions of DNA differences from the start.
What good does this do? He tells us:
Once the animals stepped off the Ark, their reservoir of DNA differences could have easily translated into a massive amount of morphological change.
This claim is clear, concise, and well-defined. Jeanson could go on to provide evidence for this claim or make verifiable predictions associated with it. For example, he could point to observed speciation events matching this model (if any existed) or he could predict a series of conditions under which a single pair of organisms can produce rapid multiple branching speciation in its offspring.
But he doesn't.
In a final topic change, Jeanson starts talking about junk DNA. Non-coding DNA has absolutely nothing to do with the generation of new species; it is just another tangentially related topic where prepared talking points already exist. After repeating the various prepared discussion concerning "junk" DNA, he claims:
Since DNA now appears to be extremely functional, it would seem that the production of a new species would simply require a few DNA differences to arise.
This statement is absurd, unsubstantiated, and demonstrably false speculation. It is irresponsible at best.
What we have here is, I suppose, precisely what would be expected from someone who has a high level of familiarity with the subject and yet knows he has no chance of making a cogent argument. He just goes through a bunch of tangentially related topics, making a bunch of fact statements that are usually not entirely wrong, and then declares victory. Even though none of his explanations have anything to do with the mechanism for turning a few thousand animal pairs into millions of species in just a few dozen centuries, he concludes:
With millions of DNA differences—massive amounts of DNA variety—encoded into each kind from the start of their existence, the potential for speciation is mind-boggling. Combined with the fact that species can recover enormous population sizes in very short amounts of time, in addition to the fact that the vast majority of DNA sequences within a creature appear to be functional, these results demonstrate that millions of species in a few thousand years is not only plausible, it is also probable.
The claim that millions of DNA differences constitute "massive amounts of DNA variety" capable of generating thousands of speciation events is ridiculously wrong.
There is something mind-boggling here, all right. But it is not the potential for post-flood speciation. What boggles my mind is the ability of creationists to talk so much and yet say so very little.
314 Comments
Michael Fugate · 2 August 2016
Copying errors are unable to explain the vast amount of [nuclear] DNA differences we see today because the vast majority of these differences are not the product of error, but of deliberate design.
What?
Just Bob · 2 August 2016
Michael Fugate said:
Copying errors are unable to explain the vast amount of [nuclear] DNA differences we see today because the vast majority of these differences are not the product of error, but of deliberate design.
What?
Right. What?
HOW can creationists tell which "DNA differences" are "the product of error" and which are "deliberate design"? They must have a method of distinguishing one cause of "difference" from the other, otherwise how could they make the calculation that "the vast majority of these differences are not the product of error, but of deliberate design"? Did Jeanson prepare a table listing "the vast amount of [nuclear] DNA differences we see today" and categorizing each as "error" or "design"? No? Well, when he does that, I'm sure he will include his criteria for discriminating "error" from "design".
robat345 · 2 August 2016
I have a science links blog and linked to your blog: https://www.solipsistssoiree.blogspot.com
John Harshman · 2 August 2016
Two questions:
1. Does AiG indeed claim that the entire fossil record, from Archaean to Pleistocene, is the result of the Flood, or if not, where are the lines between pre-Flood, Flood, and post-Flood sediments?
2. Does AiG have any actual position on what the various "kinds" are?
Pinning them down on both those points seems necessary in order to figure out what they're really claiming, assuming they know themselves.
Rich Wilson · 2 August 2016
Does AiG have any actual position on what the various âkindsâ are?
The closest I've seen is in this discussion between Michael Shermer and Georgia Purdom at one point she says it's "at about the family level".
sorry, I don't have the timestamp
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a_CLIGJW6Ic
Flint · 2 August 2016
"What boggles my mind is the ability of creationists to talk so much and yet say so very little."
What always boggles mine is how impervious even the most preposterous and indefensible beliefs are to even the most sophisticated education.
John Harshman · 2 August 2016
Rich Wilson said:
Does AiG have any actual position on what the various âkindsâ are?
The closest I've seen is in this discussion between Michael Shermer and Georgia Purdom at one point she says it's "at about the family level".
sorry, I don't have the timestamp
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a_CLIGJW6Ic
This is a common claim, but when you try to pin them down on it, there turn out to be so many exceptions and caveats as to make it useless. I've asked creationists to name just one kind they're sure of. No success so far.
TomS · 2 August 2016
John Harshman said:
Rich Wilson said:
Does AiG have any actual position on what the various âkindsâ are?
The closest I've seen is in this discussion between Michael Shermer and Georgia Purdom at one point she says it's "at about the family level".
sorry, I don't have the timestamp
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a_CLIGJW6Ic
This is a common claim, but when you try to pin them down on it, there turn out to be so many exceptions and caveats as to make it useless. I've asked creationists to name just one kind they're sure of. No success so far.
The Bible does not use the Hebrew word min "kind" in reference to humans.
Mike Elzinga · 2 August 2016
He (Jeanson) writes with the awkward obfuscation of someone trying to defend a sinking ship while earnestly attempting to remain tenuously bound to the uncomfortable constraints of reality.
Has anyone noticed this same phenomenon going on with the leaders of the Republican Party in response to their Presidential nominee, Donald Trump?
Robert Byers · 3 August 2016
David MacMillan. We creationists already know there was sudden speciation. We see it in people. All people groups of different looks were arrived within a few centuries after the flood. No more, I think, since 2000B.C. YEC creationists differe on the fossil record. Some like me say it was the k-t line which was the flood line. so above is post flood. others see its fossils before the ice age as from the flood line. Why not YEC punctuated equilibrium? Just less time for equilibrium and more punchy! Who knows the boundaries of genetic change. if it requires triggers its silence right now would not be evidence that genes can't do great things.
We do know there were the snake kind and the primate kind(which we are a copy of) and the ark story talks of the dove and crow. We do know some kinds. Then witnessing the present diversity in these teaches mechanism is there. The creationist writer offers a option for how diversity could easily explode from genetic options. he did a good job.
TomS · 3 August 2016
Robert Byers said:
David MacMillan.
We creationists already know there was sudden speciation. We see it in people. All people groups of different looks were arrived within a few centuries after the flood. No more, I think, since 2000B.C.
Are you suggesting that there is more than one species of historical human?
richard09 · 3 August 2016
It appears to me he is saying that human races represent different species. That's - novel.
David MacMillan · 3 August 2016
Michael Fugate said:
Copying errors are unable to explain the vast amount of [nuclear] DNA differences we see today because the vast majority of these differences are not the product of error, but of deliberate design.
What?
Circular reasoning meets utter inanity?
But hey, if that's his hypothesis, let him make predictions based on it. I'll wait.
John Harshman said:
Two questions:
1. Does AiG indeed claim that the entire fossil record, from Archaean to Pleistocene, is the result of the Flood, or if not, where are the lines between pre-Flood, Flood, and post-Flood sediments?
2. Does AiG have any actual position on what the various "kinds" are?
Pinning them down on both those points seems necessary in order to figure out what they're really claiming, assuming they know themselves.
Good questions.
The answer, on both points, is a resounding NO. That is, they will quite often make claims that seem to reflect a position, but they are unable to keep their stories straight and contradict themselves constantly. Even within AiG there are many mutually exclusive claims.
They will generally say that the "vast majority" of fossils were laid down in the Flood, but they readily make exceptions to this. They have zero consistency in what they say is pre-flood, flood, and post-flood. They've tapped the K-T boundary, Hutton's Unconformity, Powell's Unconformity...basically anything and everything. They never agree with each other.
In the past, creationists placed "kind" at the genus or occasionally the family level (selectively, of course), but with the Ark Encounter project looming, they have moved "kind" higher and higher. Old articles on the AiG website say that giraffes are clearly designed as their own separate kind; current articles say that giraffes and okapis are members of the same kind with the long-neck designs "preprogrammed", while other articles suggest that giraffes and okapis could actually be part of an even larger "ruminant" kind including cattle and deer. Basically they just make it up as they go along. Their justification, amazingly, is something they call "cognitum" -- they propose that humans (presumably Christian creationists) have an ability to distinguish the barrier between kinds. Pure hokum.
Flint said:
"What boggles my mind is the ability of creationists to talk so much and yet say so very little."
What always boggles mine is how impervious even the most preposterous and indefensible beliefs are to even the most sophisticated education.
Indeed. I'm just flatly amazed that Jeanson managed to get a PhD from Harvard.
Then again, I got through my degree in physics without having to take chemistry or biology or geology so...
TomS said:
The Bible does not use the Hebrew word min "kind" in reference to humans.
Indeed. I argue that when min is used in Genesis 1, it would more accurately be translated as "type": in other words, the sea brought forth the type of creatures that swim in the sea, and the fields brought forth the type of beasts that roam the fields, and so forth. Nothing whatsoever to do with cladistic or taxonomic classification.
Robert Byers said:
Who knows the boundaries of genetic change.
Science.
The creationist writer offers a option for how diversity could easily explode from genetic options.
he did a good job.
No, he does not. He simply claimed it could. He offered neither explanation nor mechanism nor evidence.
Given the scare quotes, the answer is probably yes. Lisle's "logic" is something else.
ashleyhr · 3 August 2016
From reading one of Jeanson's other recent articles, it's clear that he is (reluctantly?) proposing that (terrestrial at least) species somehow did not even exist by the time of the Genesis flood (1,500 years after creation of 'kinds') and that they only speciated post-flood - into all of what we see today plus all extinct species. Thus representatives of 'kinds' went onto the ark. How on EARTH can animals not be members of species (or hybrids)? That makes no scientific sense. And why would rapid (unbiblical) speciation happen from a limited number of reproducing and recolonising animals post-flood but apparently not happen (the flood was not n extinction event) pre-flood?
I'm afraid I have forgotten exactly where previously I made this comment. I think it MAY have been THIS article I was reacting to. https://answersingenesis.org/creation-science/baraminology/getting-enough-genetic-diversity/ (in fact I seed THIS is the article David is addressing, rather than the latest one dated 30 July)
ashleyhr · 3 August 2016
Sorry about the typos.
ashleyhr · 3 August 2016
"We creationists already know there was sudden speciation." No you don't. It's just a faith-based conclusion YECs have arrived at.
ashleyhr · 3 August 2016
I think Byers accidentally agreed that there have been other (now extinct) Homo species. Heresy (if you are a YEC)!
David MacMillan · 3 August 2016
ashleyhr said:
From reading one of Jeanson's other recent articles, it's clear that he is (reluctantly?) proposing that (terrestrial at least) species somehow did not even exist by the time of the Genesis flood (1,500 years after creation of 'kinds') and that they only speciated post-flood - into all of what we see today plus all extinct species. Thus representatives of 'kinds' went onto the ark. How on EARTH can animals not be members of species (or hybrids)? That makes no scientific sense. And why would rapid (unbiblical) speciation happen from a limited number of reproducing and recolonising animals post-flood but apparently not happen (the flood was not n extinction event) pre-flood?
Not quite. What he is proposing is, in fact, even more ridiculous.
He's saying that God originally created breeding populations of terrestrial animals during creation week, which began diversifying into NUMEROUS species. At the same time, however, there were members of that population which somehow retained the entire genetic diversity of the original breeding population. At the Flood, those "key" members boarded the flood, while all the new species which had arisen were buried and fossilized. After the flood, those "key" members emerged and reconstituted breeding populations, then began furiously speciating again.
Michael Fugate · 3 August 2016
Here's my proposal, the animals on the ark were all polyploids, but because of special post-flood meiosis, the offspring were all diploid. God could do anything, right?
Flint · 3 August 2016
Flint said:
"What boggles my mind is the ability of creationists to talk so much and yet say so very little."
What always boggles mine is how impervious even the most preposterous and indefensible beliefs are to even the most sophisticated education.
Indeed. I'm just flatly amazed that Jeanson managed to get a PhD from Harvard.
Then again, I got through my degree in physics without having to take chemistry or biology or geology so...
I recall reading an interesting statistic. Seems that of all the young earth creationists who enter college to get a degree in biology and actually get that degree, 80% are STILL young earth creationists at graduation. It's said that convictions not based on evidence cannot be altered with evidence, and this statistic seems to bear that out. And even MORE evidence is just as ineffective, as Jeanson, Wells, Wise, Ross et. al. can testify.
eric · 3 August 2016
ashleyhr said:
I think Byers accidentally agreed that there have been other (now extinct) Homo species. Heresy (if you are a YEC)!
Actually, it seems to me that he's saying human groups 'with different looks' today are different species, and that this speciation took place relatively quickly after Noah landed.
Flint said:
I recall reading an interesting statistic. Seems that of all the young earth creationists who enter college to get a degree in biology and actually get that degree, 80% are STILL young earth creationists at graduation. It's said that convictions not based on evidence cannot be altered with evidence, and this statistic seems to bear that out.
Well, that's the glass half full way of looking at it. Personally I think a 20% reduction in the most hard core of religious fundamentalists with a mere 4 years of higher education is pretty good. Not what we might hope, but definitely significant given the time period involved. At least IMO.
David MacMillan · 3 August 2016
Flint said:
I recall reading an interesting statistic. Seems that of all the young earth creationists who enter college to get a degree in biology and actually get that degree, 80% are STILL young earth creationists at graduation. It's said that convictions not based on evidence cannot be altered with evidence, and this statistic seems to bear that out. And even MORE evidence is just as ineffective, as Jeanson, Wells, Wise, Ross et. al. can testify.
I believe it.
Then again sample size is probably pretty low.
Michael Fugate said:
Here's my proposal, the animals on the ark were all polyploids, but because of special post-flood meiosis, the offspring were all diploid. God could do anything, right?
Hah!
Rolf · 3 August 2016
I presume non-YEC creationists and probably many traditional YEC's as well don't really believe all the funny things Robert believes. But he's a special kind of creationist, just making things up to match his personal beliefs in utter disregard of facts or respect for human intelligence.
David MacMillan · 3 August 2016
Rolf said:
I presume non-YEC creationists and probably many traditional YEC's as well don't really believe all the funny things Robert believes. But he's a special kind of creationist, just making things up to match his personal beliefs in utter disregard of facts or respect for human intelligence.
Most of the AIG types have an agreed-upon narrative that is at least internally consistent, if not at all consistent with science or observation.
ashleyhr · 3 August 2016
David
"Not quite. What he is proposing is, in fact, even more ridiculous.
Heâs saying that God originally created breeding populations of terrestrial animals during creation week, which began diversifying into NUMEROUS species. At the same time, however, there were members of that population which somehow retained the entire genetic diversity of the original breeding population. At the Flood, those âkeyâ members boarded the flood, while all the new species which had arisen were buried and fossilized. After the flood, those âkeyâ members emerged and reconstituted breeding populations, then began furiously speciating again."
I admit I did not plough through the whole 23 July article. But I went partly by the words at the top "How Species Arose After the Ark" and partly by (as I now rediscover) Jeanson's comment within his article of 18 June 2016 "the kinds on board the Ark were not individual species but, rather, representatives of various biological families". If he is saying that in Genesis 6 species did exist but that 'no' species went to Noah then he seems to be trying to have his cake and eat it.
Since the flood is NEVER presented in the Bible as an 'extinction event' (what was the ark for if not to save terrestrial species/kinds from total extinction) Jeanson appears to be being unbiblical if he is claiming exactly what you attribute to him in his 23 July article ie saying some species did then exist but all of those were killed by the flood.
Meanwhile ... https://answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken-ham/2016-08-03-why-ark-covered-accoya-wood/ (can't say I had been wondering about that - but it seems Noah was somehow 'better' at handling pitch than AiG are)
There's also this: https://discourse.biologos.org/t/why-does-ken-hams-ark-building-have-differing-bow-stern-shapes/5461
And your post has been flagged in comments at both the two latest posts at Naturalis Historia (blog by a non-YEC and science teaching Christian).
Ashley
Matt Young · 3 August 2016
I have a science links blog and linked to your blog
Thanks for the link! The Solipsist's Soiree is an interesting blog that posts links to and short abstracts of recent science posts. Why a solipsist would operate a blog is beyond me.
Tenncrain · 3 August 2016
Flint said:
Flint said:
"What boggles my mind is the ability of creationists to talk so much and yet say so very little."
What always boggles mine is how impervious even the most preposterous and indefensible beliefs are to even the most sophisticated education.
Indeed. I'm just flatly amazed that Jeanson managed to get a PhD from Harvard.
Then again, I got through my degree in physics without having to take chemistry or biology or geology so...
I recall reading an interesting statistic. Seems that of all the young earth creationists who enter college to get a degree in biology and actually get that degree, 80% are STILL young earth creationists at graduation. It's said that convictions not based on evidence cannot be altered with evidence, and this statistic seems to bear that out. And even MORE evidence is just as ineffective, as Jeanson, Wells, Wise, Ross et. al. can testify.
Historians such as Ronald Numbers suggest that YECs can often earn biology degrees with relatively little difficulty. While it can be strongly said that nothing in biology makes sense without evolution, Numbers points out that various biology subfields are relatively distant from any evidence for evolution. In addition, fundamentalist schools with medical programs out of necessity have to deal with some biology which somewhat swells the numbers of YEC biologists....even if in biology subfields more isolated from evolution.
But compared to biology, fields like geology have far less "wiggle room" for fundamentalists to escape evolution and the great age of the earth. During the 1950s, the likes of Henry Morris and John Whitcomb were dismayed and frustrated at the complete lack of YECs with advanced degrees in geology. Many YECs tried for decades to learn formal geology but either got scared out of the field altogether or simply converted from Flood geology to mainstream geology. It would not be until the 1980s that the likes of Kurt Wise and Steve Austin got legit PhDs in geology.
My own experience as a former fundamentalist may mirror this out, although I was working to graduate with something other than a science degree. I was a devoted YEC when I started college. My university biology class hardly caused a few ripples around my YEC faith. However, my university geology course was basically the beginning of the end for my fundamentalism.
Pierce R. Butler · 3 August 2016
David MacMillan:
Heâs saying that God originally created breeding populations of terrestrial animals during creation week, which began diversifying into NUMEROUS species. At the same time, however, there were members of that population which somehow retained the entire genetic diversity of the original breeding population.
C'mon, connect the dots!
Noah took two (or seven) samples of embryonic stem cells for each "kind" aboard the ark, plus enough food for eight for a year. That not only resolves the storage/sewage/etc quibbles godless realists like to raise, but left plenty of room for family on-board skate parks, bowling alleys, and video arcades.
Henry J · 3 August 2016
Re "Noah took two (or seven) samples of embryonic stem cells for each âkindâ aboard the ark, plus enough food for eight for a year. "
But what did he use for wombs for them to grow in?
Henry J · 3 August 2016
Re "Creationists evolve..."
If only they would!
Robert Byers · 3 August 2016
David MacMillan said:
Rolf said:
I presume non-YEC creationists and probably many traditional YEC's as well don't really believe all the funny things Robert believes. But he's a special kind of creationist, just making things up to match his personal beliefs in utter disregard of facts or respect for human intelligence.
Most of the AIG types have an agreed-upon narrative that is at least internally consistent, if not at all consistent with science or observation.
In any court case one should have ones own lawyer.
The only thing solid is biblical boundaries. After that people must figure things out.
My ideas follow some and not others. A few novel ideas probably but its a big world. I don't know.
However YEC do have different conclusions about the deposition of sedimen and fossils with.
for many , like me, its the k-t line.
Its not confusing or contradictory. Its different conclusions.
maybe once some thought the giraffe was a kIND and on the ark. Today its just a long necked okapi. For some this is just part of another enclosing KIND.
I say marine mammals just in kinds from the land originally and so from those off the ark.
I say wolves, bears, seal(probably) are within some KIND. Diversity exploding after the flood.
the great case is people. Look at all the types, all finished a few centuries after the flood surely, but all from a family on the ark.
At least this amount of biological change can happen in KINDS.
i don't recognize YEC from the portrayal here.
After some boundaries we are just trying to do our best to intellectually figure it all out.
We are ahead with conclusions at least.
Genetic mechanisms being possible in our glorious dna is a option and very likely.
Why not?
Just Bob · 3 August 2016
Robert Byers said:
The only thing solid is biblical boundaries.
Pork is UNCLEAN, an abomination before the Lord. DON'T EAT IT!
Isn't that boundary solid enough?
Scott F · 3 August 2016
David MacMillan said:
ashleyhr said:
From reading one of Jeanson's other recent articles, it's clear that he is (reluctantly?) proposing that (terrestrial at least) species somehow did not even exist by the time of the Genesis flood (1,500 years after creation of 'kinds') and that they only speciated post-flood - into all of what we see today plus all extinct species. Thus representatives of 'kinds' went onto the ark. How on EARTH can animals not be members of species (or hybrids)? That makes no scientific sense. And why would rapid (unbiblical) speciation happen from a limited number of reproducing and recolonising animals post-flood but apparently not happen (the flood was not n extinction event) pre-flood?
Not quite. What he is proposing is, in fact, even more ridiculous.
He's saying that God originally created breeding populations of terrestrial animals during creation week, which began diversifying into NUMEROUS species. At the same time, however, there were members of that population which somehow retained the entire genetic diversity of the original breeding population. At the Flood, those "key" members boarded the flood, while all the new species which had arisen were buried and fossilized. After the flood, those "key" members emerged and reconstituted breeding populations, then began furiously speciating again.
Uh, I'm not a biologist, but "genetic diversity" is supposed to describe the quantity of genetic differences in a population of a species. You can't have "genetic diversity" within a single individual, or even a single breeding pair, such as one would find on The Ark(tm). Take for example, your giraffe kind. Within a species, you might have genes for short necks, medium necks, long necks, and really long necks. But you can't have all of that "diversity" in a single individual. You can't have one individual that has the genes for both a short neck and a really long neck at the same time.
That makes no sense at all.
Look at the cheetah. The whole point of a genetic bottle neck is that you end up with less genetic diversity, not more.
Mickey Mortimer · 4 August 2016
Robert Byers said:
I say wolves, bears, seal(probably) are within some KIND. Diversity exploding after the flood.
the great case is people. Look at all the types, all finished a few centuries after the flood surely, but all from a family on the ark.
You obviously don't realize that the amount of genetic variation between living humans is tiny (~0.1-0.4%) compared to that between dogs and bears (~8%). So no, humans are a terrible example for your idea.
Scott F is right though that the entire concept of a pair of animals somehow having a lot of genetic diversity is just impossible. It's not like a deck of cards- dogs don't have sections ACGH, bears ABDI and seals ADE (unless you're arguing for polyploidy?). They all have basically the same sections, but with detailed differences in each. Each of our eggs and sperm only has one base pair in each position, which barring mutations are one of the two base pairs found in our parents. Which is why genetic bottlenecks are a thing and you can't get viable populations based on two individuals. Even if God magically created the original Genesis kinds with varying sperm and eggs (since they had no parents), each offspring would still just get eggs or sperm each with one base pair in each position, so be unable to sire hugely varying offspring after the flood.
Unless the animals on the ark WERE the original created individuals, that lived longer ala Methuselah! Yes, that's it. But then the ur-caniforms would have to magically join the walrus egg with the walrus sperm, and the panda egg with the panda sperm, etc., and be able to raise all the variations, and establish huge populations of currently recognized species within ~3400 years.
Which is why I don't see why AIG doesn't just say "God magiced it" to explain these things. Even ignoring all of the geological, physical, archaeological, etc. magic that would have to occur for the Noachic Flood to be true, at the VERY least God is creating animals and plants from non-living material within a week in Genesis according to YECs. How can you believe that and still be concerned with genetic reality? Genesis says two of every animal went on the ark (plus the extra clean ones)? Then it happened via magic. God teleported them close and put them in magic stasis and shrunk them to fit. Then once the flood ended, God magically remade the ecosystem viable via creating all the vegetation, bacteria, landforms, etc. (hence the olive branch the dove returns with in Genesis 8:11) and teleported the animals to their locations and magically made populations with viable genetic variations. There you go- no more ridiculous than the initial creation. Why was none of this reported in Genesis? Noah's family didn't really care about the unclean animals once they were out of view and never saw past their landing area on Ararat, so didn't record it for Moses. Also note the non-magic consequences of a global flood aren't described- totally barren land full of salt from the receding ocean so that agriculture is doomed, plus all those skeletons laying everywhere that we find as fossils, etc.. No, it's really as if God magiced a functioning world back into place, so why not just say he did that for the animal kingdom as well? That's what I'd do if I were a YEC. If you start with magic as a premise, just use it.
TomS · 4 August 2016
Mickey Mortimer said:
Unless the animals on the ark WERE the original created individuals, that lived longer ala Methuselah! Yes, that's it. But then the ur-caniforms would have to magically join the walrus egg with the walrus sperm, and the panda egg with the panda sperm, etc., and be able to raise all the variations, and establish huge populations of currently recognized species within ~3400 years.
The time available is rather shorter than that.
If we place the Flood at 2500 BC and Abraham at 2000 BC. The Bible mentions goats and sheep in the time of Abraham. That's just 500 years.
There are Egyptian paintings of a variety of animals, and mummies of animals, which are essentially the same as modern varieties. And that's, what, 1000 BC or so?
eric · 4 August 2016
Robert Byers said:
Its not confusing or contradictory. Its different conclusions.
Yes, but wouldn't you like to be able to know which conclusion is correct? And how do you do that, except to look at the world and see which conclusions are most consistent with how the world looks?
I say wolves, bears, seal(probably) are within some KIND. Diversity exploding after the flood.
the great case is people. Look at all the types, all finished a few centuries after the flood surely, but all from a family on the ark.
At least this amount of biological change can happen in KINDS.
Here is the problem (from the YEC perspective) with your idea, Robert: the genetic changes required to go from a mid-state progenitor to a wolf and a bear are much bigger than the genetic changes required to go from a mid-state progenitor to a human and a chimpanzee (and gorilla, and probably several other species). So when you say that "at least this amount of biological change can happen," then you're saying that your creationist concept of evolution within kinds allows for enough change for humans and chimpanzees to have evolved from a common ancestor. We know the genetic differences between wolves and bears. We know as an observable fact, that those differences are larger than the differences between human and chimpanzee. There is no possible way to create a genetic "kind" that puts wolves and bears together but keeps humans humans and other great apes separate.
Genetic mechanisms being possible in our glorious dna is a option and very likely.
Why not?
I wish you would follow your own advice here, Robert. Yes indeedy genetic mechanisms for diversification over time are very likely. Why not?
Mickey Mortimer · 4 August 2016
TomS said:
The time available is rather shorter than that.
If we place the Flood at 2500 BC and Abraham at 2000 BC. The Bible mentions goats and sheep in the time of Abraham. That's just 500 years.
There are Egyptian paintings of a variety of animals, and mummies of animals, which are essentially the same as modern varieties. And that's, what, 1000 BC or so?
Of course. I'm just using their own timeline as devil's advocate. The Genesis versions probably date to ~600 BCE and the flood story itself to at least 1700 BCE. And you could say the fossil DNA we have for cave lions, mammoths, etc. are from tens of thousands of years ago (thus before creation), that Egyptian archaeological records overlap the supposed flood time, etc.. These are examples of where YECs need magic to support their cause- that radiometric dating isn't a thing, that mainstream archaeology is fundamentally wrong, etc.. So if they're already using magic to ignore that, why not just say God ****ed with genetics to get the current biosphere? Compared to creating entire organisms from a formless void, waters, etc. in a week, how is magicing everything else more difficult? Genesis goats and sheep, or Egyptian animals could just be similar or identical genetic combinations of current animals, given a magical ability to remake them after the flood. The YEC worldview has no reason to even involve science, so why do they try?
TomS · 4 August 2016
Mickey Mortimer said:
TomS said:
The time available is rather shorter than that.
If we place the Flood at 2500 BC and Abraham at 2000 BC. The Bible mentions goats and sheep in the time of Abraham. That's just 500 years.
There are Egyptian paintings of a variety of animals, and mummies of animals, which are essentially the same as modern varieties. And that's, what, 1000 BC or so?
Of course. I'm just using their own timeline as devil's advocate. The Genesis versions probably date to ~600 BCE and the flood story itself to at least 1700 BCE. And you could say the fossil DNA we have for cave lions, mammoths, etc. are from tens of thousands of years ago (thus before creation), that Egyptian archaeological records overlap the supposed flood time, etc.. These are examples of where YECs need magic to support their cause- that radiometric dating isn't a thing, that mainstream archaeology is fundamentally wrong, etc.. So if they're already using magic to ignore that, why not just say God ****ed with genetics to get the current biosphere? Compared to creating entire organisms from a formless void, waters, etc. in a week, how is magicing everything else more difficult? Genesis goats and sheep, or Egyptian animals could just be similar or identical genetic combinations of current animals, given a magical ability to remake them after the flood. The YEC worldview has no reason to even involve science, so why do they try?
Your final question is the sort of thing which struck me when I first heard YECs. I had heard of people who denied evolution, and I assumed that they would take the obvious way: The fossils are fake, or they are misunderstood, or they are planted by the devil. But they have decided to take a complicated way of accepting some science and some of the Bible, and adding on much of their own fantasy, and not even taking care to be consistent.
Mickey Mortimer · 4 August 2016
Your final question is the sort of thing which struck me when I first heard YECs. I had heard of people who denied evolution, and I assumed that they would take the obvious way: The fossils are fake, or they are misunderstood, or they are planted by the devil. But they have decided to take a complicated way of accepting some science and some of the Bible, and adding on much of their own fantasy, and not even taking care to be consistent.
It's funny, isn't it? They accept their god can create living organisms out of void and waters in a week, but their satan which rules this planet for the time being can't create fossils except for the most extreme of the hillbilly/rightwing. Guess it's analogous to how most depend on science to heal as opposed to exorcisms or blessings, or grieve when a loved one dies only to supposedly face eternal bliss...
Henry J · 4 August 2016
Re "The YEC worldview has no reason to even involve science, so why do they try? "
It's not about right.
It's not about wrong.
It's about power.
eric · 4 August 2016
Henry J said:
Re "The YEC worldview has no reason to even involve science, so why do they try? "
It's not about right.
It's not about wrong.
It's about power.
Yep. Specifically in this case, it's about the power of putting Christian doctrine and government support for religion into public schools. The reason "why they bother" making it science is because that is their only way of getting it into schools.
And yes, they could use Bible-as-Literature electives. But those have largely been a failure - while a few schools may have them, country-wide so few kids are interested that the proponents rarely get past the administrative hurdle of needing enough students to hold a class. Not to mention that the people who sign up for such electives are typically the believers themselves, and not the kids they want to evangelize. No, the putting-God-back-in-school crowd specifically wants to reach the broad-based, large number of students that a highly regarded college-prep subject draws.
Joe Felsenstein · 4 August 2016
TomS said:
...
The time available is rather shorter than that.
If we place the Flood at 2500 BC and Abraham at 2000 BC. The Bible mentions goats and sheep in the time of Abraham. That's just 500 years.
There are Egyptian paintings of a variety of animals, and mummies of animals, which are essentially the same as modern varieties. And that's, what, 1000 BC or so?
A lot earlier than that. There are Egyptian reliefs from at least 3100 BC (see here) which show cows.
Michael Fugate · 4 August 2016
What makes me laugh is that conservatives/traditionalists know next to nothing about history. They see things they don't like today and just assume that it could not have been worse in the past. For instance, politics is often brought up as somehow dirtier now than in the times of Lincoln, Jefferson and Washington. Little do they know how nasty things were with several congressmen dying in duels and corruption being rampant. It is like their approach to science, evidence is secondary.
John Harshman · 4 August 2016
Joe Felsenstein said:
A lot earlier than that. There are Egyptian reliefs from at least 3100 BC (see here) which show cows.
Sorry, but that's before the Flood. Those aren't cows, they're generalized representatives of the bovid kind.
David MacMillan · 4 August 2016
Here's a graphic depiction of how creationists view genetic diversity before and after the flood, as best as I understand it:
Selectable and speciatable genetic diversity exists at the level of the population, not at the level of the individual, so this simply does not work. Yet somehow they claim that the Ark Representative Pairs had all the genetic diversity of the originally-created population.
It should be noted that in this depiction, everything is part of the same "original kind". Each node in the branching tree represents a sub-population, and the rainbow DNA strand segment shows the genetic diversity within that population. Speciation happens when the "genetic diversity" of two daughter populations no longer overlaps.
The silly thing, of course, is that the "population" which crosses the flood line on the Ark is a population of 2. But yet somehow that pair has more genetic diversity than the entire range of preflood populations within the kind.
Michael Fugate · 4 August 2016
Isn't the perfect answer to AiG "Were you there?". Genesis mentions nothing about genetic diversity in originally created kinds and most other "facts" that AiG trots out about their version of "history".
Pierce R. Butler · 4 August 2016
Henry J said:
Re "Noah took two (or seven) samples of embryonic stem cells for each âkindâ aboard the ark, plus enough food for eight for a year. "
But what did he use for wombs for them to grow in?
Mrs. Noah and her daughters-in-law must have been versatilely pluripotent.
Robert Byers · 4 August 2016
Mickey Mortimer said:
Robert Byers said:
I say wolves, bears, seal(probably) are within some KIND. Diversity exploding after the flood.
the great case is people. Look at all the types, all finished a few centuries after the flood surely, but all from a family on the ark.
You obviously don't realize that the amount of genetic variation between living humans is tiny (~0.1-0.4%) compared to that between dogs and bears (~8%). So no, humans are a terrible example for your idea.
Scott F is right though that the entire concept of a pair of animals somehow having a lot of genetic diversity is just impossible. It's not like a deck of cards- dogs don't have sections ACGH, bears ABDI and seals ADE (unless you're arguing for polyploidy?). They all have basically the same sections, but with detailed differences in each. Each of our eggs and sperm only has one base pair in each position, which barring mutations are one of the two base pairs found in our parents. Which is why genetic bottlenecks are a thing and you can't get viable populations based on two individuals. Even if God magically created the original Genesis kinds with varying sperm and eggs (since they had no parents), each offspring would still just get eggs or sperm each with one base pair in each position, so be unable to sire hugely varying offspring after the flood.
Unless the animals on the ark WERE the original created individuals, that lived longer ala Methuselah! Yes, that's it. But then the ur-caniforms would have to magically join the walrus egg with the walrus sperm, and the panda egg with the panda sperm, etc., and be able to raise all the variations, and establish huge populations of currently recognized species within ~3400 years.
Which is why I don't see why AIG doesn't just say "God magiced it" to explain these things. Even ignoring all of the geological, physical, archaeological, etc. magic that would have to occur for the Noachic Flood to be true, at the VERY least God is creating animals and plants from non-living material within a week in Genesis according to YECs. How can you believe that and still be concerned with genetic reality? Genesis says two of every animal went on the ark (plus the extra clean ones)? Then it happened via magic. God teleported them close and put them in magic stasis and shrunk them to fit. Then once the flood ended, God magically remade the ecosystem viable via creating all the vegetation, bacteria, landforms, etc. (hence the olive branch the dove returns with in Genesis 8:11) and teleported the animals to their locations and magically made populations with viable genetic variations. There you go- no more ridiculous than the initial creation. Why was none of this reported in Genesis? Noah's family didn't really care about the unclean animals once they were out of view and never saw past their landing area on Ararat, so didn't record it for Moses. Also note the non-magic consequences of a global flood aren't described- totally barren land full of salt from the receding ocean so that agriculture is doomed, plus all those skeletons laying everywhere that we find as fossils, etc.. No, it's really as if God magiced a functioning world back into place, so why not just say he did that for the animal kingdom as well? That's what I'd do if I were a YEC. If you start with magic as a premise, just use it.
How do you know the constraints and laes of genetics? Who knows how these things work? no one!
The whole foundation of evolutionism is based on mutationism.
So these mutations are wondrously the creation of the complexity and diversity of biology.
Well then the mutations are within the system. Thats all one needs by your own sides view.
Everybody needs to explain biology mechanisms to bring change.
By the way, somewhere, I read that mutations multiplied in something that was under stress and it was observed that it must be in the system to increase mutations when needed. This alone and a wee bit more can easily give creationists a door to explaining massive, sudden, instant biological change.
Robert Byers · 4 August 2016
eric said:
Robert Byers said:
Its not confusing or contradictory. Its different conclusions.
Yes, but wouldn't you like to be able to know which conclusion is correct? And how do you do that, except to look at the world and see which conclusions are most consistent with how the world looks?
I say wolves, bears, seal(probably) are within some KIND. Diversity exploding after the flood.
the great case is people. Look at all the types, all finished a few centuries after the flood surely, but all from a family on the ark.
At least this amount of biological change can happen in KINDS.
Here is the problem (from the YEC perspective) with your idea, Robert: the genetic changes required to go from a mid-state progenitor to a wolf and a bear are much bigger than the genetic changes required to go from a mid-state progenitor to a human and a chimpanzee (and gorilla, and probably several other species). So when you say that "at least this amount of biological change can happen," then you're saying that your creationist concept of evolution within kinds allows for enough change for humans and chimpanzees to have evolved from a common ancestor. We know the genetic differences between wolves and bears. We know as an observable fact, that those differences are larger than the differences between human and chimpanzee. There is no possible way to create a genetic "kind" that puts wolves and bears together but keeps humans humans and other great apes separate.
Genetic mechanisms being possible in our glorious dna is a option and very likely.
Why not?
I wish you would follow your own advice here, Robert. Yes indeedy genetic mechanisms for diversification over time are very likely. Why not?
This is a stray point. Yet humans are indeed in the bodies of primates but this is unique. our KIND is special. We are made in Gods image and so can not have a body of our own to represent our identity. Animals did and do.
so we are renting another body. We are the only creature that looks like another creature.
This is evidence of a unique creation.
Joel Eissenberg · 5 August 2016
Robert Byers posts: "However YEC do have different conclusions about the deposition of sedimen [sic] and fossils with. for many , like me, its [sic] the k-t line."
What is the YEC explanation for how iridium came to be concentrated at the K-Pg boundary?
Rolf · 5 August 2016
It is a long time since Robert first 'explained' his opinion about genetics: Genetics is, as most of science, not science.
Life changes according to what Robert "thinks" it does, period.
Takes nothing for one species to change into another species. Probably entire populations, it makes no sense for only a pair male-female to break away and start a new species.
I think I should ask Robert how he explains the origins of the Thylacine. Did one Wolf, a pair of Wolves, or an entire population of Wolves change into Thylacines at the same time?
He never explained that the first time he made the claim that the Thylacine is just a little different looking Wolf. Or something like that.
Mickey Mortimer · 5 August 2016
Robert Byers said:
How do you know the constraints and laes of genetics? Who knows how these things work? no one!
The whole foundation of evolutionism is based on mutationism.
So these mutations are wondrously the creation of the complexity and diversity of biology.
Well then the mutations are within the system. Thats all one needs by your own sides view.
Everybody needs to explain biology mechanisms to bring change.
By the way, somewhere, I read that mutations multiplied in something that was under stress and it was observed that it must be in the system to increase mutations when needed. This alone and a wee bit more can easily give creationists a door to explaining massive, sudden, instant biological change.
Actually people DO know how the constraints and 'laws' of genetics work- they're called geneticists, and thousands of technical articles have been published detailing the field. You might as well be the Insane Clown Posse saying "****ing Magnets! How they work?"
Mutations are one part of the process, but based on how genetics actually works (which again, people DO know), you can't get from two ur-caniforms to viable populations of hundreds of species as genetically distinct as dogs and bears in a few thousand years. The ridiculous analogy here would be you claiming that since taking steps is within the system of locomotion from point A to point B, that's all one needs to walk to the sun. Just like you'd need to account for asphyxiation, starvation, dehydration, radiation, longevity, etc. to walk to the sun, you need to account for each egg/sperm only having one version of each nucleotide, that each parent's genes have to be similar enough to form viable offspring, that there are only so many generations within a few thousand years, etc. All those things population geneticists have figured out already which makes your idea impossible without magic.
Finally, that thing you read somewhere was about the field of epigenetics, which is ironically about changes in the organism that aren't caused by changes in the genetic code. So no, it doesn't increase mutations, but instead changes how genes act in a way that can be passed down a few generations. Population geneticists know about this, and no, it can't lead to hyper-speciation.
So again, note the trend- scientists do know how these things work and know that post-Noachian hyper-speciation is impossible given science. So why don't you just claim god magiced it all, Robert? It would be much more defensible and easier than you pretending you have anything useful to say about the state of science.
Joel Eissenberg · 5 August 2016
Robert Byers posts: "This alone and a wee bit more can easily give creationists a door to explaining massive, sudden, instant biological change."
OK. Then propose a mechanism and design an experiment capable of testing that mechanism.
KlausH · 5 August 2016
Henry J said:
Re "Noah took two (or seven) samples of embryonic stem cells for each âkindâ aboard the ark, plus enough food for eight for a year. "
But what did he use for wombs for them to grow in?
According to the Bible, they were adult mated pairs that could walk onto the ark, not eggs, embryos, or babies.
John Harshman · 5 August 2016
KlausH said:
According to the Bible, they were adult mated pairs that could walk onto the ark, not eggs, embryos, or babies.
It isn't meant to be taken literally. It refers to any manufacturer of dairy products.
ashleyhr · 5 August 2016
To be aware of comments here by Trevor on 5 August: https://thenaturalhistorian.com/2016/08/03/the-young-earth-hyper-evolution-hypothesis-a-collection-of-critiques/#comments (David himself has already seen Trevor's comment about the deck of cards analogy and about non-coding DNA and has responded to them)
John Harshman · 5 August 2016
Thanks to Trevor for pointing out this big problem in David's post, which I had not noticed:
Non-coding DNA has absolutely nothing to do with the generation of new species
I don't know where that comes from, but it certainly isn't true. In fact non-coding DNA is crucial to much of the variation among species, and presumably therefore to speciation also. Much non-coding DNA is regulatory, e.g. transcription factor binding sites. It's only a few percent of the genome, but a greater percentage than coding DNA, and at least as important. Perhaps what David should have said is that regulatory DNA is no different from coding DNA in its ability to change by mutation and change frequency by drift and selection, and so is no different as a cause of speciation. It's not a magic engine of hyperevolution, just another part of regular evolution.
David MacMillan · 5 August 2016
John Harshman said:
Thanks to Trevor for pointing out this big problem in David's post, which I had not noticed:
Non-coding DNA has absolutely nothing to do with the generation of new species
I don't know where that comes from, but it certainly isn't true. In fact non-coding DNA is crucial to much of the variation among species, and presumably therefore to speciation also. Much non-coding DNA is regulatory, e.g. transcription factor binding sites.
Apparently I phrased this poorly.
As I explained to Trevor at the link above, this was specifically in response to Jeanson's claim that because non-coding DNA was functional rather than pure junk, this somehow allows speciation from only "a few DNA differences":
"Since DNA now appears to be extremely functional, it would seem that the production of a new species would simply require a few DNA differences to arise."
This is, of course, an utterly baseless claim.
I should have said something more along the lines of "The fact of non-coding DNA functionality in no way suggests that speciation can be attained with only a few genetic differences."
John Harshman · 5 August 2016
David MacMillan said:
John Harshman said:
Thanks to Trevor for pointing out this big problem in David's post, which I had not noticed:
Non-coding DNA has absolutely nothing to do with the generation of new species
I don't know where that comes from, but it certainly isn't true. In fact non-coding DNA is crucial to much of the variation among species, and presumably therefore to speciation also. Much non-coding DNA is regulatory, e.g. transcription factor binding sites.
Apparently I phrased this poorly.
As I explained to Trevor at the link above, this was specifically in response to Jeanson's claim that because non-coding DNA was functional rather than pure junk, this somehow allows speciation from only "a few DNA differences":
"Since DNA now appears to be extremely functional, it would seem that the production of a new species would simply require a few DNA differences to arise."
This is, of course, an utterly baseless claim.
I should have said something more along the lines of "The fact of non-coding DNA functionality in no way suggests that speciation can be attained with only a few genetic differences."
But speciation can be attained with only a few genetic differences. It only takes a minimum of two point mutations in two spots, if they're just the right spots. There are simple models of two-locus speciation, if you're interested. There are species, quite good species, between which no genetic differences have so far been detected, simply because they have speciated so recently that there has been no time for fixation through most of the genome. I'm sure that there are fixed differences in a few loci; there must be, to account for morphological differences and isolation itself. But as far as I know, nothing has been found yet. I'm thinking specifically of the rosy finches, genus Leucosticte.
Let's also make a distinction between non-coding DNA and junk DNA. Most of the non-coding DNA in your genome (and most species' genomes) is indeed junk and can have no morphological effect. The small percent that isn't junk, mostly regulatory DNA, can and does. The first problem with Trevor is that he thinks all non-coding DNA is functional, which it clearly is not. But that seems to have absolutely nothing to do with his claim that a few differences can cause speciation, which is true.
However, we don't see just a few differences. We see large number of differences between species, around 40 million between chimps and humans, and much greater differences between other species pairs he probably thinks are the same "kind". What it would take for speciation is irrelevant. What's relevant is what we actually see.
We also see much more than just speciation, which is just the evolution of reproductive isolation. We see big differences in phenotype. Just how big depends on what species creationists are willing to put into the same "kind". But I suspect many of these differences couldn't result from just a few DNA mutations. Nobody knows quite how many functional mutations separate humans from chimps, but the lowest estimates are in the thousands.
justawriter · 5 August 2016
Bobby B's comments to me boils down to what in Star Trek fandom is called "wantum mechanics." Whatever the writer wantums (wants) to make the plot work, happens. Even if there is an universal author out there somewhere (and if there is, I assume he is a raging alcoholic) he is too busy scripting black hole mergers and galactic collisions to bother with fatty bags of water on backwards planets.
Robert Byers · 5 August 2016
Joel Eissenberg said:
Robert Byers posts: "However YEC do have different conclusions about the deposition of sedimen [sic] and fossils with. for many , like me, its [sic] the k-t line."
What is the YEC explanation for how iridium came to be concentrated at the K-Pg boundary?
To base a boundary, really important in origin subjects, on a material sandwiched between depositional layers of sediment is the extreme conclusion.
Anyways.
In the , few or uncommon, areas of the iridium IT can be seen as simply as from whats on top.
In other words its just a sorted layer in front of the rest following. the depositions above the k-t line ( i know they now say the other term but most don't know it) are often of volcanic material or if sediment THEY still all are following the iridium. the iridium coming from massive volcanic action a few centuries after the flood.
Iridium layer is just the shock troops of a army behind it in certain places.
Robert Byers · 5 August 2016
Mickey Mortimer said:
Robert Byers said:
How do you know the constraints and laes of genetics? Who knows how these things work? no one!
The whole foundation of evolutionism is based on mutationism.
So these mutations are wondrously the creation of the complexity and diversity of biology.
Well then the mutations are within the system. Thats all one needs by your own sides view.
Everybody needs to explain biology mechanisms to bring change.
By the way, somewhere, I read that mutations multiplied in something that was under stress and it was observed that it must be in the system to increase mutations when needed. This alone and a wee bit more can easily give creationists a door to explaining massive, sudden, instant biological change.
Actually people DO know how the constraints and 'laws' of genetics work- they're called geneticists, and thousands of technical articles have been published detailing the field. You might as well be the Insane Clown Posse saying "****ing Magnets! How they work?"
Mutations are one part of the process, but based on how genetics actually works (which again, people DO know), you can't get from two ur-caniforms to viable populations of hundreds of species as genetically distinct as dogs and bears in a few thousand years. The ridiculous analogy here would be you claiming that since taking steps is within the system of locomotion from point A to point B, that's all one needs to walk to the sun. Just like you'd need to account for asphyxiation, starvation, dehydration, radiation, longevity, etc. to walk to the sun, you need to account for each egg/sperm only having one version of each nucleotide, that each parent's genes have to be similar enough to form viable offspring, that there are only so many generations within a few thousand years, etc. All those things population geneticists have figured out already which makes your idea impossible without magic.
Finally, that thing you read somewhere was about the field of epigenetics, which is ironically about changes in the organism that aren't caused by changes in the genetic code. So no, it doesn't increase mutations, but instead changes how genes act in a way that can be passed down a few generations. Population geneticists know about this, and no, it can't lead to hyper-speciation.
So again, note the trend- scientists do know how these things work and know that post-Noachian hyper-speciation is impossible given science. So why don't you just claim god magiced it all, Robert? It would be much more defensible and easier than you pretending you have anything useful to say about the state of science.
In my notes or where I read it i would have to seek it out. Yet i understood it was saying the mutation rate increased in some stress issue. then the mutations would be selected on. i would have to find it.
your dismissal of what genetics can do is just yopu say you know it can't.
We see it in peoples looks (as a yEC sees it).
I see no reason for no option in instant genetic change turning creatures as needed into what they became.
not a lot but a wee bit.
so bears and wolves and seals with a few years or generations had changed and never changed again.
Nobody knows what the glory of genes can do. Biology is glorious because of genes. they really are the most brilliant, complicarted things in the universe.
In all the gears and wires there is no ceiling to what they can do.
Evolutionism must use them to bring biology glory. They must use mutations. What is a mutation? its just another change from something else. its possible for genes to change instantly. mutations are the evidence.
Mickey Mortimer · 6 August 2016
Robert Byers said:
In my notes or where I read it i would have to seek it out. Yet i understood it was saying the mutation rate increased in some stress issue. then the mutations would be selected on. i would have to find it.
your dismissal of what genetics can do is just yopu say you know it can't.
We see it in peoples looks (as a yEC sees it).
I see no reason for no option in instant genetic change turning creatures as needed into what they became.
not a lot but a wee bit.
so bears and wolves and seals with a few years or generations had changed and never changed again.
Nobody knows what the glory of genes can do. Biology is glorious because of genes. they really are the most brilliant, complicarted things in the universe.
In all the gears and wires there is no ceiling to what they can do.
Evolutionism must use them to bring biology glory. They must use mutations. What is a mutation? its just another change from something else. its possible for genes to change instantly. mutations are the evidence.
What you understood about the source was wrong then, as evolution via stress is a classic epigenetic talking point. What you understood is _wrong_.
My dismissal is not just me. Perhaps you missed where I said there is an entire field of science devoted to how genes can and do function. How many of their technical papers have you downloaded and understood? That you see no reason such hyper-evolution couldn't occur is just further evidence you're near completely ignorant of the field. Again, we DO know what genes can do. I explained that to you, but you didn't engage with it at all. Good job completely ignoring my analogy of walking to the sun to stupidly and inaccurately claim "What is a mutation? its just another change from something else. its possible for genes to change instantly. mutations are the evidence."
Why is Byers still allowed on this message board, btw? He clearly ignores counterarguments and contributes nothing useful.
Rolf · 6 August 2016
Robert Byers said:
Mickey Mortimer said:
Robert Byers said:
How do you know the constraints and laes of genetics? Who knows how these things work? no one!
The whole foundation of evolutionism is based on mutationism.
So these mutations are wondrously the creation of the complexity and diversity of biology.
Well then the mutations are within the system. Thats all one needs by your own sides view.
Everybody needs to explain biology mechanisms to bring change.
By the way, somewhere, I read that mutations multiplied in something that was under stress and it was observed that it must be in the system to increase mutations when needed. This alone and a wee bit more can easily give creationists a door to explaining massive, sudden, instant biological change.
Actually people DO know how the constraints and 'laws' of genetics work- they're called geneticists, and thousands of technical articles have been published detailing the field. You might as well be the Insane Clown Posse saying "****ing Magnets! How they work?"
Mutations are one part of the process, but based on how genetics actually works (which again, people DO know), you can't get from two ur-caniforms to viable populations of hundreds of species as genetically distinct as dogs and bears in a few thousand years. The ridiculous analogy here would be you claiming that since taking steps is within the system of locomotion from point A to point B, that's all one needs to walk to the sun. Just like you'd need to account for asphyxiation, starvation, dehydration, radiation, longevity, etc. to walk to the sun, you need to account for each egg/sperm only having one version of each nucleotide, that each parent's genes have to be similar enough to form viable offspring, that there are only so many generations within a few thousand years, etc. All those things population geneticists have figured out already which makes your idea impossible without magic.
Finally, that thing you read somewhere was about the field of epigenetics, which is ironically about changes in the organism that aren't caused by changes in the genetic code. So no, it doesn't increase mutations, but instead changes how genes act in a way that can be passed down a few generations. Population geneticists know about this, and no, it can't lead to hyper-speciation.
So again, note the trend- scientists do know how these things work and know that post-Noachian hyper-speciation is impossible given science. So why don't you just claim god magiced it all, Robert? It would be much more defensible and easier than you pretending you have anything useful to say about the state of science.
In my notes or where I read it i would have to seek it out. Yet i understood it was saying the mutation rate increased in some stress issue. then the mutations would be selected on. i would have to find it.
your dismissal of what genetics can do is just yopu say you know it can't.
We see it in peoples looks (as a yEC sees it).
I see no reason for no option in instant genetic change turning creatures as needed into what they became.
not a lot but a wee bit.
so bears and wolves and seals with a few years or generations had changed and never changed again.
Nobody knows what the glory of genes can do. Biology is glorious because of genes. they really are the most brilliant, complicarted things in the universe.
In all the gears and wires there is no ceiling to what they can do.
Evolutionism must use them to bring biology glory. They must use mutations. What is a mutation? its just another change from something else. its possible for genes to change instantly. mutations are the evidence.
Thatâs all made up nonsense from a science ignorant person trying to make science conformant with religious writings from people who knew nothing about the world, except maybe how to select for spotted domesticated animals.
They were practicing what we know as artificial selection; a variation on the ubiquitous phenomenon of natural selection.
Artificial works in the same way as natural selection: It functions like a mechanism for slow changes to a population, âselectionâ, i.e. the fact that not every individual within a population share the same chances as everyone else of contributing to the future gene pool of the population.
But why should we teach you science here, Robert? Why donât you get hold of some real science books on evolution and genetics â and read for understanding.
The latter point is crucial for you, since you show a strong tendency to twist whatever science you happen to stumble across in ways to make it fit your own ideas. You abuse science, you have no respect for science.
Donât you understand that all the scientists at work in biology and all sciences supporting biological research are just as smart as the scientists that have brought us cell phones, the Internet, rockets roaming the solar system and beyond â even put man on the moon?
Thatâsâ why I love and respect science and scientists.
How do you fit into that picture? You donât! You are standing on the outside and donât even know how to get a glimpse of whatâs on the inside.
I, OTOH, have only 7 years of school but have used my intellect to study many fields of science, and one of the results have been that in my job I have been able to solve problems that other people with an education that earned them the right to title of â Engineerâ didnât even have a clue about how to solve? (When working as a salesman I cheated with âSales Engineerâ on my calling card)
An aside, I am confident enough about myself that I really believe that I am a better writer in English than you are, with only my own effort as the cause of that.
I am afraid I canât see you as anything but like a fish out of water. What about taking a sabbatical and come back after you have learned to swim?
Rolf · 6 August 2016
Just to make it clear: I said "I cheated" - but I knew my stuff and I knew what I was doing!
Rolf · 6 August 2016
Just to make it clear: I said "I cheated" - but I knew my stuff and I knew what I was doing!
Rolf · 6 August 2016
Robert, here is an example of evolution of a new trait from a scientific point of view. Do you find it acceptable or do you have a better explanation?
John Harshman said:
But speciation can be attained with only a few genetic differences. It only takes a minimum of two point mutations in two spots, if they're just the right spots. There are simple models of two-locus speciation, if you're interested. There are species, quite good species, between which no genetic differences have so far been detected, simply because they have speciated so recently that there has been no time for fixation through most of the genome. I'm sure that there are fixed differences in a few loci; there must be, to account for morphological differences and isolation itself. But as far as I know, nothing has been found yet. I'm thinking specifically of the rosy finches, genus Leucosticte.
Could you please point me to a paper (either theoretical or experimental) that discusses two species with only small genetic differences (preferably to a paper that isnât behind a paywall).
I am interested in the concept of species
Let's also make a distinction between non-coding DNA and junk DNA. Most of the non-coding DNA in your genome (and most species' genomes) is indeed junk and can have no morphological effect. The small percent that isn't junk, mostly regulatory DNA, can and does. The first problem with Trevor is that he thinks all non-coding DNA is functional, which it clearly is not. But that seems to have absolutely nothing to do with his claim that a few differences can cause speciation, which is true.
You appear to agree with Larry Moran, who says (my interpretation)
1) No-one has ever suggested that all non-coding DNA is junk
2) Most of the DNA is junk
Would you say that this is the consensus today ?
However, we don't see just a few differences. We see large number of differences between species, around 40 million between chimps and humans, and much greater differences between other species pairs he probably thinks are the same "kind". What it would take for speciation is irrelevant. What's relevant is what we actually see.
We also see much more than just speciation, which is just the evolution of reproductive isolation. We see big differences in phenotype. Just how big depends on what species creationists are willing to put into the same "kind". But I suspect many of these differences couldn't result from just a few DNA mutations. Nobody knows quite how many functional mutations separate humans from chimps, but the lowest estimates are in the thousands.
I see reproductive isolation, especially if it is due to geological barriers, a poor indicator to differentiate between species. In the year 1000, we had numerous human species all over the world, but now we have only one human species, because we have improved our methods of travelling.
Earlier, you explained to me, how it is equally correct to say that the genetic similarity between the humans and the chimps is either 98.8 % or 95 %. Pääbo discovered that Northern Europeans have got 1...4 % of Neanderthal genes, while Southern Africans have none.
Surely, the people in the Northern Europe belong to a different species and are distict from the people in the Southern Africa ?
Scientist working in the field of genetics appear to toss out numbers in the public without explaining what those numbers mean (I am personally convinced that they themselves understand what the numbers mean).
John Harshman · 6 August 2016
Eric Finn said:
Could you please point me to a paper (either theoretical or experimental) that discusses two species with only small genetic differences (preferably to a paper that isnât behind a paywall).
I am interested in the concept of species
Here is the first reference I found. You can probably find more by googling "Leucosticte genetics" and following the references. As for the theoretical stuff, start by googling "two-locus model of speciation".
You appear to agree with Larry Moran, who says (my interpretation)
1) No-one has ever suggested that all non-coding DNA is junk
2) Most of the DNA is junk
Would you say that this is the consensus today ?
I agree with those two points, and yes, that's what Larry says too. Is it the consensus? Hard to say. There are a lot of people who don't seem to understand the situation. But all the people who claim that all non-coding DNA was once considered junk are trying to present functional non-coding DNA as a surprise. Nobody ever actually says that all non-coding DNA is junk. By the way, that's "most of the human genome", not "the DNA". There are species that have very little junk; but there are also species that have orders of magnitude more junk.
I see reproductive isolation, especially if it is due to geological barriers, a poor indicator to differentiate between species. In the year 1000, we had numerous human species all over the world, but now we have only one human species, because we have improved our methods of travelling.
"Reproductive isolation" generally refers to something that happens in sympatry, and mere geographical separation isn't considered enough. And no, we didn't have numerous isolated human populations in the year 1000, except possibly Tasmania. Even Australia and the Americas had some connection to the rest of the world, even back then.
Earlier, you explained to me, how it is equally correct to say that the genetic similarity between the humans and the chimps is either 98.8 % or 95 %. Pääbo discovered that Northern Europeans have got 1...4 % of Neanderthal genes, while Southern Africans have none.
Surely, the people in the Northern Europe belong to a different species and are distict from the people in the Southern Africa ?
No, they don't. I hope I didn't actually say that it was equally correct to say that 98.8% (actually 98.7%) and 95% are equally valid. I hope I said that you could use the 95% measure, but it's a stupid way to count genetic similarity. As for the Neanderthal genes, you are mixing three different and incompatible measures of genetic similarity. Southern Africans are actually more genetically different from each other than they are from Northern Europeans. Anyway, it isn't just genetic distance that diagnoses different species.
Scientist working in the field of genetics appear to toss out numbers in the public without explaining what those numbers mean (I am personally convinced that they themselves understand what the numbers mean).
Sometimes. And sometimes people just ignore the explanations. Would you like something explained?
Matt Young · 6 August 2016
Why is Byers still allowed on this message board, btw? He clearly ignores counterarguments and contributes nothing useful.
I guess I have been a little lazy this week. But it is useful sometimes to post rebuttals of creationists' arguments, not for the creationist themselves, but for other readers. True, he contributes nothing useful, but he sometimes elicits instructive comments from others.
Mr. Byers, incidentally, seems to me to be curious and willing to learn. Unfortunately, all he learns are facts, and he invariably twists those facts to fit his worldview. At least he is receptive to new information; the Martinez troll does not even understand the difference between a fact and an assumption.
W. H. Heydt · 6 August 2016
Robert Byers said:
To base a boundary, really important in origin subjects, on a material sandwiched between depositional layers of sediment is the extreme conclusion.
Anyways.
In the , few or uncommon, areas of the iridium IT can be seen as simply as from whats on top.
In other words its just a sorted layer in front of the rest following. the depositions above the k-t line ( i know they now say the other term but most don't know it) are often of volcanic material or if sediment THEY still all are following the iridium. the iridium coming from massive volcanic action a few centuries after the flood.
Iridium layer is just the shock troops of a army behind it in certain places.
The specific instance that kicked off the whole testable hypothesis of a large impact being critical the the K-Pg extinction was from Gubbio, Italy. The whole sequence, before, the boundary clay, and after are marine sediments. FYI...volcanism was considered, specifically the Deccan Traps in India, but the dating wasn't a close enough match. The Iridium laced layer has been found world wide. There is extensive literature on it.
Besides the boundary layer, there is also shocked quartz, which volcanoes can't produce, but impacts do. There is also the Chicxulub crater, located partially on shore in northwestern Yucatan and tsunami debris (a *lot* of tsunami debris) in the surrounding areas, like Puerto Rico. So it's not *just* an Iridium laced clay layer. It is multiple, independent pieces of evidence that all point to the same thing: The impact of an approximately 10 Km diameter meteorite.
This all points up the problem with many of your arguments. You focus on one small aspect of the work and try to dismiss or disprove that small aspect, while ignoring all the rest of the evidence.
Eric Finn · 6 August 2016
Thank you for your quick reply !
John Harshman said:
Earlier, you explained to me, how it is equally correct to say that the genetic similarity between the humans and the chimps is either 98.8 % or 95 %. Pääbo discovered that Northern Europeans have got 1...4 % of Neanderthal genes, while Southern Africans have none.
Surely, the people in the Northern Europe belong to a different species and are distict from the people in the Southern Africa ?
No, they don't. I hope I didn't actually say that it was equally correct to say that 98.8% (actually 98.7%) and 95% are equally valid. I hope I said that you could use the 95% measure, but it's a stupid way to count genetic similarity. As for the Neanderthal genes, you are mixing three different and incompatible measures of genetic similarity. Southern Africans are actually more genetically different from each other than they are from Northern Europeans. Anyway, it isn't just genetic distance that diagnoses different species.
You explained how one can end up with a 95% similarity figure -- but you also stated that in your opinnion 'it is a biologically meaningless way to do the comparison'.
Neanderthal genes. I know that I mixed incompatible measures in my example. My problem is that I can't convincingly explain, why 4% of Neanderthal genes does not make Europeans more genetically distant fron Africans than humans are from chimps (only 1.3% difference).
See below.
Would you like something explained?
Yes, please. Neanderthal genes (and Denisova genes).
In an attempt to make it easier for you to answer my stupid (or at least ignorant) questions, I will shortly outline my understanding for you to dissect. I will give you a set of statements.
A gene is a stretch of the DNA that codes for one or more proteins. At least some of the genes are slightly different in different individuals, but the resulting proteins are either the same or highly similar in their function. We can label gene variants in a population. As a hypothetical example, a population in Nothern Europe shows variants A, B, C and N in one particular gene. A population in Southern Africa lacks totally the variant N, but instead has variants A, B, C, D, E, F and G.
The differences between the variants are typically small, when measured counting the differences in the base pair sequences. So, the addition of the version N adds only a little to the human genome diversity, when we are looking at the genome sequencis.
Upto 4% of the Nothern Europeans has got at least one gene that is labelled N. Not a single individual (living today) has got 4% of his genes labelled N.
Further question: How many genes in the human genome are exactly the same and how many show variation ?
harold · 6 August 2016
I'm late to this party but David McMillan said -
They will generally say that the âvast majorityâ of fossils were laid down in the Flood, but they readily make exceptions to this. They have zero consistency in what they say is pre-flood, flood, and post-flood. Theyâve tapped the K-T boundary, Huttonâs Unconformity, Powellâs Unconformityâ¦basically anything and everything. They never agree with each other.
That's because creationists can't get over the idea that creationism is the default. That's one of the rigid biases that their conscious mind can't escape from. They don't have to present a coherent view of creationism; it's just a default and all they have to do, in their minds, is show that it hasn't been "perfectly disproven".
They sometimes try to "prove from above" that "evolution must be impossible, evidence be damned, so forget about all the evidence". E.g. the wrong arguments from "thermodynamics" and "probability". Even if those arguments weren't wrong, they aren't positive arguments for any creationist scenario. But to them that doesn't matter, because creationism is presumed to be the default. Any argument "against evolution" is an argument for their version of creationism. Also, if an argument against evolution is shown to be wrong, in their minds, that doesn't decrease the credit of other arguments against evolution. Nor do the arguments need to be coherent with respect to one another.
AIG, and also Robert Byers, tend to take a different approach. They tend to use the "here's a convoluted and somewhat incoherent model of how creationism could fit the evidence" strategy. Of course, the next step would be to show evidence for that model, and to show why it is even better than the theory of evolution. But since in their minds creationism wins by default, the next step isn't necessary. If you claim to have shown an idea of how creationism "could" explain the data, that's good enough, since creationism is the default. (This shows you how, at an unconscious level, they are quite bothered by doubts of creationist scenarios. Even with the lowest possible bar for creationism - "unless absolutely proven to be wrong it must be true by default" - they feel the clear need to endlessly obsess over the scientific data.)
Why is Byers still allowed on this message board, btw? He clearly ignores counterarguments and contributes nothing useful.
I'm not a moderator, but my answer to this - not the same as that of the actual moderator - is "so what?"
Now, I do agree with dumping Byers or anyone else to the BW for excessive repetition within a thread.
However, as for banning people, I would see reasons like threats, vulgar language, false accusations, mis-representation of the views of others, using sock puppets and/or individual frenzy to create massive verbosity to "brute force take over" a thread by posting too fast for responses, for example, as reasons to ban. Being consistently wrong does not seem like a reason to ban.
Joel Eissenberg · 6 August 2016
"Being consistently wrong does not seem like a reason to ban."
I agree. In addition, nobody is forcing you to feed the troll.
tomh · 6 August 2016
Joel Eissenberg said:
In addition, nobody is forcing you to feed the troll.
I don't see Byers as a troll, he seems so sincere, in a drunken-uncle sort of way. I'll admit, I can't usually get through his comments, but he seems a very different sort than, say, FL, who really does seem to like to irritate.
Just Bob · 6 August 2016
I too give up after a sentence or two of his comments. Byers is dense as lead and has a strange inability to use the basic conventions of casual writing. But he's never insulting or condescending, and I don't recall his ever departing from his YECciness into homophobia, religious bigotry, or politics. He doesn't condemn evolution as being atheistic, or threaten anyone with hell.
As a matter of fact, other than his strict adherence to YEC-despite-all-evidence, and out-of-thin-air explanations that to him are the equal of scientific data, I don't believe he brings religion into it at all. For all the evidence I can recall, he might be a YEC atheist, if that's even possible.
Just Bob · 6 August 2016
IOW, he's the rare YEC who sticks to the science. Of course he hasn't a clue about science, but still his refraining from either proselytizing or damning is appreciated.
https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad · 6 August 2016
Just Bob said:
I too give up after a sentence or two of his comments. Byers is dense as lead and has a strange inability to use the basic conventions of casual writing. But he's never insulting or condescending, and I don't recall his ever departing from his YECciness into homophobia, religious bigotry, or politics. He doesn't condemn evolution as being atheistic, or threaten anyone with hell.
As a matter of fact, other than his strict adherence to YEC-despite-all-evidence, and out-of-thin-air explanations that to him are the equal of scientific data, I don't believe he brings religion into it at all. For all the evidence I can recall, he might be a YEC atheist, if that's even possible.
That certainly isn't so. I found this at UD:
I am Canadian. in Canada the media is very anti-Christian, anti-Canadian, anti-kindness.
They want to fight the battles for Americaâs soul but in cAnada have little to do. its a very small establishment nation un representitive of the people. So very left wing.
Very boring also.
i question however bringing relevance to any book. Unless it actually is a influence on many people then even wishing disaster on its sales just brings strength or influence to any book that has sales. in this case it would stamp a anti-christian book with credibility. Sales must not be the measure of a books value in its substance. evil books can sell millions and good books sell none.
The issue here is not the book but as the author of this piece , Ms OâLeary. has often said the rampant crusading Jihad against Christian faith and involvement based on that, and Christian identity in the establishment and some elements of the population.
Glad to see the book a flop but its irrelevant to the bigger motivations and the bigger problem that has come to pass in North America.
In fact I welcome these books because it gives opportunity to make accusations like I just did.
If we believe there is a war against christianity then publicity about this is gained from their attacks. Well done or flops.
UD Source
Well, that's UD, but I don't think it would be very hard to find bits and pieces like it at Pandasthumb, since he really seems not to have much of a filter working on his "thoughts." It's just what I found quickly with a search engine (I know he's said at PT that the "Darwinists" censor, at least, and probably nearly everything else in the comment quoted, I just don't want to trudge through the schlock he's written at PT to find it).
As to whether he's a troll, you'd have to decide if you're talking about effect or intent. He does seem too earnest and believing to really be trying to be a troll, but his effect is little different from that of a troll, save the sense that he stupidly believes what he writes. He doesn't actually discuss, merely repeating whatever nonsense he's said previously if there's any sort of "response" at all, certainly no serious concern for his ignorance or lack of thinking about the issues. He's here to shed his "knowledge," not to discuss with the censoring Darwinists, nor to learn what he so badly fails to understand.
Glen Davidson
W. H. Heydt · 6 August 2016
Just Bob said:
I too give up after a sentence or two of his comments. Byers is dense as lead and has a strange inability to use the basic conventions of casual writing. But he's never insulting or condescending, and I don't recall his ever departing from his YECciness into homophobia, religious bigotry, or politics. He doesn't condemn evolution as being atheistic, or threaten anyone with hell.
As a matter of fact, other than his strict adherence to YEC-despite-all-evidence, and out-of-thin-air explanations that to him are the equal of scientific data, I don't believe he brings religion into it at all. For all the evidence I can recall, he might be a YEC atheist, if that's even possible.
He also has some rather...odd...ideas about how US law works, expecially with respect the separation of church and state as inferred from the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution. I'd give him a pass on that if he learned anything by being corrected since he is, apparently, a Canadian, and is likely not well versed in US law, even at a lay level.
This is essentially the gist of Jeanson's "reply."
For many, the answer is ignorance. In the US public educational system, the courts have effectively forbidden the teaching of what Iâve just outlined. Not surprisingly, since the vast majority of scientists are trained in this public education system, they are completely unaware of the existence of my conclusions.
This whine has been going on for about 50 years now; it was going on when I was giving talks on creationist pseudoscience back in the 1970s and 80s.
The ID/creationist problems are not just with biology and evolution, they encompass all of physics, chemistry, geology, and the history of science as well. Worse yet, when one gets past their flurry of word games, one sees that they flunk these subjects at the high school level.
Granville Sewell is still dead wrong about the second law of thermodynamics; and still he whines. Jason Lisle is dead wrong about celestial mechanics of the Earth and Moon and general relativity; and still he whines. Georgia Purdom thinks bacteria became "bad" after the Fall; and still she whines. And so it goes for every one of these characters in the ID/creationist socio/political movement. We have discussed their pseudoscience thoroughly here on Panda's thumb for years; and still they whine and don't get it.
These YECs - and their cohorts pushing the "court-proofed" spinoff called intelligent design - are miffed because they can't get their junk science into the regular peer-review journals. So, over the years, they have constructed a Potemkin village of cargo cult "science," and then they whine to the public that they are just as good as the scientific community that has finally wised up to their tactics and stopped debating them.
ID/creationists have never exhibited any awareness of just how bad their own understanding of science is. They, to a person, have "studied" science they way "study" their sectarian beliefs; they use exegesis, hermeneutics, etymology (often faked), and generalized word-gaming to make science fit their beliefs. The resulting pseudoscience has nothing to do with the physical universe and doesn't lead to any technology. In the fifty years that they have been operating, ID/creationists have produced nothing but sectarian propaganda and headaches for school districts.
ID/creationists still want to debate scientists in public; they don't know how to do anything else related to research and doing the business of science. Jeanson has no clue of just how bad he and his cohorts mangle scientific concepts and evidence.
Mike Elzinga · 7 August 2016
Here is Jeanson's challenge to "prove" that his whining is legitimate.
Here are some ways that you can investigate the evolutionistsâ strategy and explore why so many scientists object to young-earth creation:
â¢Share the links to this series as far and wide as you can.
â¢As you encounter evolutionists, ask them to name the major young-earth creation technical journals. If they can, ask them how many papers that they have read in those journals. Press them to describe the details in these papers. If, as I suspect, they are unable to supply the requested information, share links to the technical papers that we have published and footnoted in this series.
â¢Follow up with them to see if theyâve read them. And then send us a write-up of the results.
Jeanson doesn't know what he would be in for. Many of us have been reading their "papers" for decades; and we know exactly why they are pseudoscience.
Furthermore, the audience Jeanson is talking to will not have a clue about what scientists object to in the writings of their ID/creationist leaders. Their science educations are far worse; thanks to their dear leaders. Jeanson is sending out babes to be slaughtered while he sits back and watches.
It's a pretty funny rebuttal, claiming most scientists are simply ignorant of YEC arguments. It mostly complains that MacMillan didn't respond to Jeanson's original "technical" paper in Answers Research Journal. From what I read of the article, it features the same terrible arguments (e.g. the tadpole-frog example, which conflates changes in gene expression during the frog's lifetime with changing the genes themselves during speciation). Oh, and it might make Byers sad that Jeanson even admits "experimental data to date fail to demonstrate that epigenetic changes are stable long-term (e.g., over multiple generations), at least in animals."
I found it interesting that Jeanson actually attempted to argue for why God didn't just magic things after the flood. After citing a couple passages from Hebrews supposedly showing God discontinued fiat creation after the sixth day of creation, he then admits-
"Though Jesus suspended some of these laws of nature and performed many miracles during His earthly ministry, and though some of His miracles seemed to involve fiat creative activity, these miracles were the exception, not the rule to Godâs âupholdingâ activity. Hence, divine creation of new âkindsâ ceased after Day 6, but Godâs active involvement in the universe did notâa conclusion which represents the second Scriptural bound on the origin of species question."
So why couldn't post-flood ecosystem rebooting also be an exception? There's nothing limiting the number of exceptions. Besides Jesus, note Aaron via God's power makes lice from dust (Exodus 8:17), and whenever Moses turns water to blood that's creating blood cells from unliving material, or when God makes Moses' hand leprous (Exodus 4:6) that indicates God created Mycobacterium that causes leprosy. Then there's the manna which God creates, which must be biological material in order to provide nutrition. And this is all just at the beginning of the Bible. Seems God made life many times after that sixth day...
Those Hebrews passages are also rather useless for arguing his point. Hebrews 1:3 may say God is "upholding all things by the word of His power", but it never claims God doesn't also create by fiat anymore. Similarly, while Hebrews 4:3 says "the works were finished from the foundation of the world", "works" are not necessarily divine creation.
Robert Byers · 7 August 2016
Mickey Mortimer said:
Robert Byers said:
In my notes or where I read it i would have to seek it out. Yet i understood it was saying the mutation rate increased in some stress issue. then the mutations would be selected on. i would have to find it.
your dismissal of what genetics can do is just yopu say you know it can't.
We see it in peoples looks (as a yEC sees it).
I see no reason for no option in instant genetic change turning creatures as needed into what they became.
not a lot but a wee bit.
so bears and wolves and seals with a few years or generations had changed and never changed again.
Nobody knows what the glory of genes can do. Biology is glorious because of genes. they really are the most brilliant, complicarted things in the universe.
In all the gears and wires there is no ceiling to what they can do.
Evolutionism must use them to bring biology glory. They must use mutations. What is a mutation? its just another change from something else. its possible for genes to change instantly. mutations are the evidence.
What you understood about the source was wrong then, as evolution via stress is a classic epigenetic talking point. What you understood is _wrong_.
My dismissal is not just me. Perhaps you missed where I said there is an entire field of science devoted to how genes can and do function. How many of their technical papers have you downloaded and understood? That you see no reason such hyper-evolution couldn't occur is just further evidence you're near completely ignorant of the field. Again, we DO know what genes can do. I explained that to you, but you didn't engage with it at all. Good job completely ignoring my analogy of walking to the sun to stupidly and inaccurately claim "What is a mutation? its just another change from something else. its possible for genes to change instantly. mutations are the evidence."
Why is Byers still allowed on this message board, btw? He clearly ignores counterarguments and contributes nothing useful.
I only wrote down about the increase mutation rate due to some issue because its a noteworthy point. Just for myself and can't remember the source.
whatever is known about genes is open to knowing more and probably not much is known really. Genes are the most complicated things in the universe, save for the spiritual. Not physics either.
The mutation might just be a special case of a changing gene. Thats why I asked what is a mutation?! The point is that evolutionists need the genes to change badly for evolution to be true. So mutations are badly needed. so evolutionists are agreeing that "mutations" will change a gene that is to be used. The conclusion is that genes can change. The mutation is proof.
SO a further equation suggestion ncan be genes can change, or mutate, for triggers after passing thresholds.
Everybody needs genetic change quick. I see a option gor genetic change as evidenced by the change from mutations. A line of inquiry.
Robert Byers · 7 August 2016
Rolf said:
Robert, here is an example of evolution of a new trait from a scientific point of view.
Do you find it acceptable or do you have a better explanation?
Evolution of new traits
I read it but its just old time selection after human intervention. I don't see its relevance.
Funny you say you had the confidence to take on engineers etc despite not having the education.
Then why question anybody taking on anyone on any matter?
Your proof, by your witness, that its right.
You didn't accept what your experts told you but did your own thinking./
Just like me.
Robert Byers · 7 August 2016
W. H. Heydt said:
Robert Byers said:
To base a boundary, really important in origin subjects, on a material sandwiched between depositional layers of sediment is the extreme conclusion.
Anyways.
In the , few or uncommon, areas of the iridium IT can be seen as simply as from whats on top.
In other words its just a sorted layer in front of the rest following. the depositions above the k-t line ( i know they now say the other term but most don't know it) are often of volcanic material or if sediment THEY still all are following the iridium. the iridium coming from massive volcanic action a few centuries after the flood.
Iridium layer is just the shock troops of a army behind it in certain places.
The specific instance that kicked off the whole testable hypothesis of a large impact being critical the the K-Pg extinction was from Gubbio, Italy. The whole sequence, before, the boundary clay, and after are marine sediments. FYI...volcanism was considered, specifically the Deccan Traps in India, but the dating wasn't a close enough match. The Iridium laced layer has been found world wide. There is extensive literature on it.
Besides the boundary layer, there is also shocked quartz, which volcanoes can't produce, but impacts do. There is also the Chicxulub crater, located partially on shore in northwestern Yucatan and tsunami debris (a *lot* of tsunami debris) in the surrounding areas, like Puerto Rico. So it's not *just* an Iridium laced clay layer. It is multiple, independent pieces of evidence that all point to the same thing: The impact of an approximately 10 Km diameter meteorite.
This all points up the problem with many of your arguments. You focus on one small aspect of the work and try to dismiss or disprove that small aspect, while ignoring all the rest of the evidence.
I know the story. Its famous.
The iridium layer would be everywhere WHERE there is a layer on top. its the top one that is the origin, most likely, for it. It was just incoming a wee bit faster.
Shocked quartz is created by volcanoes in tiny microscopic amounts and so can be in bigger amounts.
The Yucatan crater/debris is not evidence for anything. Its a after the fact information.
The case for the impact has always been a strange one but its needed.
It was a great gain for YEC. It finalized a great fauna/flora segregation event in earth history.
Some, not enough, YEC thinkers see this as the flood year impact.
I love the boundary but the iridium claim is unsupported relative to the certainty with which they pronouced what happened 65 millions ago,. Some still try to say volcanic action was involved by the way.
Mickey Mortimer · 7 August 2016
Robert Byers said:
I only wrote down about the increase mutation rate due to some issue because its a noteworthy point. Just for myself and can't remember the source.
whatever is known about genes is open to knowing more and probably not much is known really. Genes are the most complicated things in the universe, save for the spiritual. Not physics either.
The mutation might just be a special case of a changing gene. Thats why I asked what is a mutation?! The point is that evolutionists need the genes to change badly for evolution to be true. So mutations are badly needed. so evolutionists are agreeing that "mutations" will change a gene that is to be used. The conclusion is that genes can change. The mutation is proof.
SO a further equation suggestion ncan be genes can change, or mutate, for triggers after passing thresholds.
Your statement "probably not much is known really" is simply false. Just because you don't know much about genes doesn't mean the thousands of scientists who study and publish on them are as ignorant. It would be great if you would concede that since you have no evidence that scientists are so clueless about genetics.
Genes are near certainly not "the most complicated things in the universe", which is a useless statement unless you define complexity. They're just sequences of nucleotides that are activated and regulated via chemistry. Anything containing a gene, such as a cell, will be more complicated by definition. And an organ that contains cells is more complicated yet. An organism even more so, an ecosystem even more so. Or a planet, or a solar system, or a galaxy, etc., etc..
Everybody needs genetic change quick. I see a option gor genetic change as evidenced by the change from mutations. A line of inquiry.
But as I've told you twice now, geneticists know enough about genes to know you can't get from two post-flood animals to the populations we see now in YEC time. They've done the work. They have the equations. Just because mutations are a thing doesn't mean we can pile up so many mutations in that time frame and get the reality we have today. I don't know why you don't believe me. Genes and mutations aren't mysterious things that might work in any way we imagine- they have known functionality and limitations. The plain truth is you aren't going to get today's ecosystem from a YEC flood without miracles.
So why don't you just invoke miracles? As I noted above, God creates life numerous times after creation week. This would just be another time.
TomS · 7 August 2016
This is not as clear-cut, but the story in Judges 14 where Samson kills a lion and bees appear in the lion's carcass has been taken to be a case of spontaneous generation. (In particular, what is called "equivocal generation".) Judges 14:14 "Out of the strong came forth sweetness."
gnome de net · 7 August 2016
Robert Byers said:
The Yucatan crater/debris is not evidence for anything. Its a after the fact information.
And bullet holes, empty cartridges, blood, fingerprints and footprints aren't evidence at a crime scene.
harold · 7 August 2016
Mike Elzinga said:
Here is Jeanson's challenge to "prove" that his whining is legitimate.
Here are some ways that you can investigate the evolutionistsâ strategy and explore why so many scientists object to young-earth creation:
â¢Share the links to this series as far and wide as you can.
â¢As you encounter evolutionists, ask them to name the major young-earth creation technical journals. If they can, ask them how many papers that they have read in those journals. Press them to describe the details in these papers. If, as I suspect, they are unable to supply the requested information, share links to the technical papers that we have published and footnoted in this series.
â¢Follow up with them to see if theyâve read them. And then send us a write-up of the results.
Jeanson doesn't know what he would be in for. Many of us have been reading their "papers" for decades; and we know exactly why they are pseudoscience.
Furthermore, the audience Jeanson is talking to will not have a clue about what scientists object to in the writings of their ID/creationist leaders. Their science educations are far worse; thanks to their dear leaders. Jeanson is sending out babes to be slaughtered while he sits back and watches.
In fact this common creationist complaint - also heard from all reality deniers, e.g. "if you haven't read every letter of every ranting word or every insane holocaust denial book, 'journal' and web site you can't argue against holocaust denial" - is usually the opposite of the truth.
Science supporters are very familiar with creationist sources, and we quote and paraphrase them accurately.
Creationists literally essentially never address the actual claims of science accurately. Imagine asking a typical creationist to name major scientific journals.
The vast majority of them do not have either good amateur knowledge or relevant degrees in the fields they claim to discuss.
The few who do have seemingly relevant degrees make statements easily refuted by reference to the most basic findings in the field of their degree. They must have used some sort of "choke down objections, memorize for test, completely ignore and deny the minute after the test" strategy to get the degrees. But only a few manage that.
(Also, the "you have to read every single word to disagree with any words" thing is an obvious and very childish attempt at a trick. "While you were rebutting me I wrote more repetitive nonsense and I can always do that, therefore you can never read everything I wrote, therefore nah, nah, nah you can never disagree with me". But scientists could say the same thing if they wanted. "While you were cranking out repetitive crap for AIG we published more science, therefore you can never 'read all science', therefore nah, nah, nah you can never disagree with us". They just aren't that silly.)
Rolf · 7 August 2016
Robert Byers said:
Rolf said:
Robert, here is an example of evolution of a new trait from a scientific point of view.
Do you find it acceptable or do you have a better explanation?
Evolution of new traits
I read it but its just old time selection after human intervention. I don't see its relevance.
Funny you say you had the confidence to take on engineers etc despite not having the education.
Then why question anybody taking on anyone on any matter?
Your proof, by your witness, that its right.
You didn't accept what your experts told you but did your own thinking./
Just like me.
Oh Robert, you are so dead wrong!
I beg of you, don't ever again make a comparison between me and yourself! There are lightyears separating the two of us.
I study and listen to the experts, that is, real scientists, Nobel prize winners and their peers in all of the relevant scientific disciplines.
That's a different world from the one occupying your mind.
You have no respect for even the greatest of scientists, your highest authority is the Bible.
I don't bother with AIG, CMI and other creationist outfits, they are useless as sources of scientific information. They are of the same stock as yourself.
Understand? Only science is what counts today and every day and every hour of both days and nights.
No "thinking" from religiosly induced ignorance and faith in worthless ancient scriptures.
Robert, from all that you have written I predict that even if you live to be a hundred years old you won't have learned anything of what we say.
What you "think" is of no interest to anyone else, so why do you keep repeating the same old nonsense that we now know by heart?
You may repeat it as many times as you like but it will always be just another kind of faeces.
Please admit that you read me wrong with respect to who I trust in matters of science!
alicejohn · 7 August 2016
David MacMillan said:
Here's a graphic depiction of how creationists view genetic diversity before and after the flood, as best as I understand it:
Genetic Tree
Selectable and speciatable genetic diversity exists at the level of the population, not at the level of the individual, so this simply does not work. Yet somehow they claim that the Ark Representative Pairs had all the genetic diversity of the originally-created population.
It should be noted that in this depiction, everything is part of the same "original kind". Each node in the branching tree represents a sub-population, and the rainbow DNA strand segment shows the genetic diversity within that population. Speciation happens when the "genetic diversity" of two daughter populations no longer overlaps.
The silly thing, of course, is that the "population" which crosses the flood line on the Ark is a population of 2. But yet somehow that pair has more genetic diversity than the entire range of preflood populations within the kind.
This thinking has always been a theological conundrum to me that no one has satisfactorily explained. Why would God create a world and proclaim it to be "good" (as He does several times in the first chapter of Genesis), but design it in such a way that it will be destroyed a couple of millennium later because he knows it will turn bad? Why would God need to preserve all genetic diversity in a single mating pair unless he knew he would have to destroy everything but the single pair during a flood? Why create fountains of the deep and some kind of water canopy held back by floodgates which are capable of flooding the entire Earth unless you knew you were going to one day flood the entire Earth?
Why didn't God get it right the first time? Or for that matter, the second time?
Consilience: Eluding YEC since the beginning.
https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad · 7 August 2016
One thing that strikes me is that Jeanson didn't in the slightest come up with any pretense of evidence that his scenario took place. I know, not a new thing in creationism, but that's one of the continuing problems with creationism/ID, the sense that they only need to come up with "plausible scenarios" (according to their magic) and no evidence whatsoever.
But then, bringing evidence in would only be a problem, as fossil and cave painting evidence completely refute his claims. Oh, but they dispute the dating methods? Well, what if they do? They don't do that any better than they come up with evidence for their flood. So, in the first place, they don't bother with evidence for their claims, and, in the second place, their claims are contradicted by the evidence. And water is wet, yes. But sometimes you might have to say that water is wet if there are people running around claiming that (liquid) water is dry.
Why does an omnipotent, omniscient agency need to resort to design to get something done?
Necessity is the mother of invention.
When we think of design, what we think of is a situation where something is going to be changed. But the creator is already responsible for the ways things are, do what is the point of going to the drawing board for a design?
Even if creators change their mind (or is there a competing creator?) why resort to design? Rather, just say, "This is what I want. I don't need to design." There is no necessity which gives rise to invention.
David MacMillan · 7 August 2016
Mike Elzinga said:
Here is Jeanson's challenge to "prove" that his whining is legitimate.
Here are some ways that you can investigate the evolutionistsâ strategy and explore why so many scientists object to young-earth creation:
â¢Share the links to this series as far and wide as you can.
â¢As you encounter evolutionists, ask them to name the major young-earth creation technical journals. If they can, ask them how many papers that they have read in those journals. Press them to describe the details in these papers. If, as I suspect, they are unable to supply the requested information, share links to the technical papers that we have published and footnoted in this series.
â¢Follow up with them to see if theyâve read them. And then send us a write-up of the results.
Jeanson doesn't know what he would be in for. Many of us have been reading their "papers" for decades; and we know exactly why they are pseudoscience.
Furthermore, the audience Jeanson is talking to will not have a clue about what scientists object to in the writings of their ID/creationist leaders. Their science educations are far worse; thanks to their dear leaders. Jeanson is sending out babes to be slaughtered while he sits back and watches.
Crowdsourcing apologetics now, it seems.
This business of getting laypeople to harass academics with AiG material and "send us a write-up of the results" is, amusingly, how I first got AiG to post my work. I took the ACT early, at 16, and so I immediately started getting a bunch of college recruiter materials. I took it upon myself to call up one of the Christian colleges and get on the phone with someone in the biology department, and proceeded to harangue him at length about creationism. I wrote the whole thing up with theatric flair and emailed it off to AiG and they gleefully posted it.
Jeanson's objection to my censure is actually a really lovely case of quote mining. If you go back and read what I wrote, you'll see that his claim -- that only a couple of DNA differences are sufficient for repeated speciation -- is followed immediately by a long-winded explanation of junk DNA's functionality. As I stated, the functionality of junk DNA doesn't magically lift the barriers to rapid repeated speciation; he's just bringing it up because it's a prepared talking point he can provide to his lay audience, and they'll think it's connected when it's really not.
I actually read his longer technical paper that he authored with my old buddy Lisle the following day. It's very long. And makes all the same errors.
TomS said:
This is not as clear-cut, but the story in Judges 14 where Samson kills a lion and bees appear in the lion's carcass has been taken to be a case of spontaneous generation. (In particular, what is called "equivocal generation".) Judges 14:14 "Out of the strong came forth sweetness."
I think the point of that story has more to do with vow-keeping. As a Nazarite, it was particularly important for Samson to avoid eating unclean things, and eating something from the carcass of a carnivore was a big problem. As a result of this breach (in the story), his victory was turned into defeat.
Then again bees obviously can't colonize an animal carcass in the space of an afternoon.
Mike Elzinga · 7 August 2016
David MacMillan said:
Jeanson's objection to my censure is actually a really lovely case of quote mining. If you go back and read what I wrote, you'll see that his claim -- that only a couple of DNA differences are sufficient for repeated speciation -- is followed immediately by a long-winded explanation of junk DNA's functionality. As I stated, the functionality of junk DNA doesn't magically lift the barriers to rapid repeated speciation; he's just bringing it up because it's a prepared talking point he can provide to his lay audience, and they'll think it's connected when it's really not.
I actually read his longer technical paper that he authored with my old buddy Lisle the following day. It's very long. And makes all the same errors.
Jeans complains,
"Conversely, even in the course of this series, evolutionists have illustrated my main point. For example, going back in our series to our discussion of the origin of genetic diversity, I summarized the data and conclusions from the 29,000-word technical paper that I published earlier this year. To make it clear that the web post was summarizing previously published work, I referenced the technical paper repeatedly. A recent article on the Pandaâs Thumb blog has attempted to rebut my conclusions."
Emphasis added.
One of the characteristics of all ID/Creationist writings is their pretentious wordiness.
Every leader of the ID/Creationist movement cranks out a blizzard of words that hides some of the most egregious errors, misconceptions, and misrepresentations of science that have ever appeared in writing. It's the old Gish Gallop on paper. Dembski is a master at this; covering up extremely silly assertions - assertions that can be stated in a sentence or two - with pages and pages of pseudo-philosophical rationalizations that try to make himself appear erudite. Jeanson is doing the same.
If one is reading an ID/Creationist "paper" that involves math and physics, go straight to the math and bypass all the words. You will find instantly that the math is irrelevant nonsense and that they can't even get units right when plugging variables into equations; and that is something even high school physics and chemistry students can understand. In something like fifty years - from Morris and Gish to Dembsk, Sewell, Abel, Lisle and the rest - I have never found an exception.
In the case of biology, it's words, words, words, and more words; a literal blizzard of crap in which all subtle details of the science of biology are mangled and buried under a ton of obfusation. This is probably why most ID/Creationists and their followers pick on biology; by the time one wades through all their bogus claims, one can lose track of the basic concepts that ID/Creationist always get wrong.
So, if one is trying to slog through an ID/Creationist "paper" on biological concepts, the first thing one should do is ignore all the words and check to see if the ID/Creationist gets any well-understood biological concepts right. One will almost always find basic concepts mangled beyond recognition. Having established that fact, one can then conclude that the rest of the words are irrelevant.
TomS · 7 August 2016
What I look for in antievolution writing is anything positive, substantial, an alternative account.
Something which is not subject to the exact same difficulty which they claim to have found in evolution.
And, then, just for amusement, to see whether the fault that they describe applies at least as well against reproduction. Scientific Storkism.
Rolf · 7 August 2016
Has not Intelligent Design always been more about claims of what evolution cannot do than what ID can do, if anything?
Mike Elzinga · 7 August 2016
TomS said:
What I look for in antievolution writing is anything positive, substantial, an alternative account.
Something which is not subject to the exact same difficulty which they claim to have found in evolution.
And, then, just for amusement, to see whether the fault that they describe applies at least as well against reproduction. Scientific Storkism.
They already think they have done this.
By mangling scientific concepts to fit with sectarian dogma, they think they have established their dogma "scientifically;" and that remains the whole purpose of ID/Creationism. Making their sectarian beliefs appear to be established scientifically is their way of trying to get around the law to force their religion on everyone else.
Basically ID/creationism boils down to sectarian "elitist snobbery." It is a modern version of some very old sectarian bigotry.
W. H. Heydt · 7 August 2016
Robert Byers said:
W. H. Heydt said:
Robert Byers said:
To base a boundary, really important in origin subjects, on a material sandwiched between depositional layers of sediment is the extreme conclusion.
Anyways.
In the , few or uncommon, areas of the iridium IT can be seen as simply as from whats on top.
In other words its just a sorted layer in front of the rest following. the depositions above the k-t line ( i know they now say the other term but most don't know it) are often of volcanic material or if sediment THEY still all are following the iridium. the iridium coming from massive volcanic action a few centuries after the flood.
Iridium layer is just the shock troops of a army behind it in certain places.
The specific instance that kicked off the whole testable hypothesis of a large impact being critical the the K-Pg extinction was from Gubbio, Italy. The whole sequence, before, the boundary clay, and after are marine sediments. FYI...volcanism was considered, specifically the Deccan Traps in India, but the dating wasn't a close enough match. The Iridium laced layer has been found world wide. There is extensive literature on it.
Besides the boundary layer, there is also shocked quartz, which volcanoes can't produce, but impacts do. There is also the Chicxulub crater, located partially on shore in northwestern Yucatan and tsunami debris (a *lot* of tsunami debris) in the surrounding areas, like Puerto Rico. So it's not *just* an Iridium laced clay layer. It is multiple, independent pieces of evidence that all point to the same thing: The impact of an approximately 10 Km diameter meteorite.
This all points up the problem with many of your arguments. You focus on one small aspect of the work and try to dismiss or disprove that small aspect, while ignoring all the rest of the evidence.
I know the story. Its famous.
The iridium layer would be everywhere WHERE there is a layer on top. its the top one that is the origin, most likely, for it. It was just incoming a wee bit faster.
Shocked quartz is created by volcanoes in tiny microscopic amounts and so can be in bigger amounts.
The Yucatan crater/debris is not evidence for anything. Its a after the fact information.
The case for the impact has always been a strange one but its needed.
It was a great gain for YEC. It finalized a great fauna/flora segregation event in earth history.
Some, not enough, YEC thinkers see this as the flood year impact.
I love the boundary but the iridium claim is unsupported relative to the certainty with which they pronouced what happened 65 millions ago,. Some still try to say volcanic action was involved by the way.
Have you read the Alvarez, Alvarez, Asaro and Michels paper? The Iridium containing layer *is* found globally.
Yes, there are some current hypotheses that the Deccan Traps eruptions put the fauna under stress, but no one is claiming that the impact didn't happen. The argument is over whether or not the impact was the final blow that eliminated the megafauna (among other groups, bear in mind that foram species in the oceans went extinct, too) of the Cretaceous. There was life before the boundary as well as after and the boundary layers are not consistent with a flood. You also need to read up on the "Z Coal" layer.
Again...multiple, independent pieces of evidence that point to the same thing. If you are going to propose a different hypothesis, you need to account for *all* of the evidence, not just selected bits of it. (And that also means that you need to know what all of the available evidence is, plus the exact details of current theory....get reading, you've got a lot of catching up to do.) You also have to propose an explanation that fits what is known *better* than current theory. It should also account for facts that are not well explained by current theory. "God did it" is NOT such a hypothesis.
John Harshman · 7 August 2016
Eric Finn said:
Neanderthal genes. I know that I mixed incompatible measures in my example. My problem is that I can't convincingly explain, why 4% of Neanderthal genes does not make Europeans more genetically distant fron Africans than humans are from chimps (only 1.3% difference).
In an attempt to make it easier for you to answer my stupid (or at least ignorant) questions, I will shortly outline my understanding for you to dissect. I will give you a set of statements.
A gene is a stretch of the DNA that codes for one or more proteins. At least some of the genes are slightly different in different individuals, but the resulting proteins are either the same or highly similar in their function. We can label gene variants in a population. As a hypothetical example, a population in Nothern Europe shows variants A, B, C and N in one particular gene. A population in Southern Africa lacks totally the variant N, but instead has variants A, B, C, D, E, F and G.
The differences between the variants are typically small, when measured counting the differences in the base pair sequences. So, the addition of the version N adds only a little to the human genome diversity, when we are looking at the genome sequencis.
Upto 4% of the Nothern Europeans has got at least one gene that is labelled N. Not a single individual (living today) has got 4% of his genes labelled N.
Further question: How many genes in the human genome are exactly the same and how many show variation ?
First off, it isn't about proteins or even about genes. It's about the genome. Second, it's about averages. The average European has around 4% Neandertal DNA, or the current estimate may be a bit less.
Now, as for distances. Neandertal DNA is on average around 0.5% different from modern human. One modern human is about 0.1% different from another. Let's do the math: the average of 4% of 0.5% and 96% of 0.1% is 0.12%, close enough to 0.1% to be lost in the rounding error. And that chimp is still 1.3% different from any modern human.
I don't know the answer to your further question.
Tenncrain · 7 August 2016
I agree that one can learn much just by reading the knowledgeable replies to Byers. Unlike FL who can quickly retreat on his own back to the BW when the science is more than he wants to face, we know Byers will usually soldier on with his version of "science" no matter how telling his ignorance, bigotry and the effects of his Morton's demon (click here) are.
In addition, Byers and other YECs being unable/unwilling to set aside their prejudices remind me as an ex-YEC how challenging and at times very uncomfortable it was to discard my own YEC/Flood geology beliefs.
BTW, Byers mentioned in this thread that even he knows that the "K-T boundary" is the old name of what is now called the "K-Pg boundary" but Robert states he uses K-T anyway as most don't know what K-Pg is. If Byers had bothered to check, even AIG and creation.com now refer to the K-Pg boundary. At the least, one might say K-Pg boundary (formally called K-T boundary). If one is referring to a scientific study done decades ago, one could state K-T boundary (referred today as the K-Pg boundary) . No sense in continuing to adhere totally to Tertiary which was somewhat muddled in meaning thus why the International Commission on Stratigraphy has for some time discouraged the use of Tertiary as a formal geochronological unit.
TomS · 7 August 2016
Mike Elzinga said:
TomS said:
What I look for in antievolution writing is anything positive, substantial, an alternative account.
Something which is not subject to the exact same difficulty which they claim to have found in evolution.
And, then, just for amusement, to see whether the fault that they describe applies at least as well against reproduction. Scientific Storkism.
They already think they have done this.
By mangling scientific concepts to fit with sectarian dogma, they think they have established their dogma "scientifically;" and that remains the whole purpose of ID/Creationism. Making their sectarian beliefs appear to be established scientifically is their way of trying to get around the law to force their religion on everyone else.
Basically ID/creationism boils down to sectarian "elitist snobbery." It is a modern version of some very old sectarian bigotry.
I don't think that I made myself clear. I think that they think that they have established their dogma. What I find lacking is any description of their dogma as an account for the way that the world of life works.
"That's the way it is" is not an alternative to evolutionary biology. Nor is "God/intelligent designers could have done it (because they could have done anything)."
If they could tell us what there is about G/ID that leads to the eyes of humans being more like the eyes of chimps, rather than like the eyes of insects, or like the eyes of octopuses - that is the sort of thing that I find lacking.
Robert Byers · 7 August 2016
Mickey Mortimer said:
Robert Byers said:
I only wrote down about the increase mutation rate due to some issue because its a noteworthy point. Just for myself and can't remember the source.
whatever is known about genes is open to knowing more and probably not much is known really. Genes are the most complicated things in the universe, save for the spiritual. Not physics either.
The mutation might just be a special case of a changing gene. Thats why I asked what is a mutation?! The point is that evolutionists need the genes to change badly for evolution to be true. So mutations are badly needed. so evolutionists are agreeing that "mutations" will change a gene that is to be used. The conclusion is that genes can change. The mutation is proof.
SO a further equation suggestion ncan be genes can change, or mutate, for triggers after passing thresholds.
Your statement "probably not much is known really" is simply false. Just because you don't know much about genes doesn't mean the thousands of scientists who study and publish on them are as ignorant. It would be great if you would concede that since you have no evidence that scientists are so clueless about genetics.
Genes are near certainly not "the most complicated things in the universe", which is a useless statement unless you define complexity. They're just sequences of nucleotides that are activated and regulated via chemistry. Anything containing a gene, such as a cell, will be more complicated by definition. And an organ that contains cells is more complicated yet. An organism even more so, an ecosystem even more so. Or a planet, or a solar system, or a galaxy, etc., etc..
Everybody needs genetic change quick. I see a option gor genetic change as evidenced by the change from mutations. A line of inquiry.
But as I've told you twice now, geneticists know enough about genes to know you can't get from two post-flood animals to the populations we see now in YEC time. They've done the work. They have the equations. Just because mutations are a thing doesn't mean we can pile up so many mutations in that time frame and get the reality we have today. I don't know why you don't believe me. Genes and mutations aren't mysterious things that might work in any way we imagine- they have known functionality and limitations. The plain truth is you aren't going to get today's ecosystem from a YEC flood without miracles.
So why don't you just invoke miracles? As I noted above, God creates life numerous times after creation week. This would just be another time.
Limitations are not settled. As long as genes have mutations one only needs to increase mutation creation to have them instantly create new biological forms from the parent. This is just one option.
Evolutionism functions on the mutation concept. The changing of a gene to something else that allows a selective advantage.
Who says mutations are just mistakes? Who says mutation mistakes are just a special case for how genes can change?
Who says genes only are changed by mutations?
The glory of the gene has not been conquered intellectually.
Anyways I see the mutation concept as proof to how genes change and are useful in the new change. This being a fast event in the life cycles of a newly reproduced gene.
From this one can see how rapid diversity can happen.
Robert Byers · 7 August 2016
Tenncrain said:
I agree that one can learn much just by reading the knowledgeable replies to Byers. Unlike FL who can quickly retreat on his own back to the BW when the science is more than he wants to face, we know Byers will usually soldier on with his version of "science" no matter how telling his ignorance, bigotry and the effects of his Morton's demon (click here) are.
In addition, Byers and other YECs being unable/unwilling to set aside their prejudices remind me as an ex-YEC how challenging and at times very uncomfortable it was to discard my own YEC/Flood geology beliefs.
BTW, Byers mentioned in this thread that even he knows that the "K-T boundary" is the old name of what is now called the "K-Pg boundary" but Robert states he uses K-T anyway as most don't know what K-Pg is. If Byers had bothered to check, even AIG and creation.com now refer to the K-Pg boundary. At the least, one might say K-Pg boundary (formally called K-T boundary). If one is referring to a scientific study done decades ago, one could state K-T boundary (referred today as the K-Pg boundary) . No sense in continuing to adhere totally to Tertiary which was somewhat muddled in meaning thus why the International Commission on Stratigraphy has for some time discouraged the use of Tertiary as a formal geochronological unit.
Possibly your right. K-Pg might be better now . however mostly in the near past I was CORRECTED that it was k-t. you can't win.
Its trivial.
Your wrong that I'm more ignorant or bigoted then anyone else. Who is the judge?
I argue on the merits of the caee and am not affected by prejudice or anymore then anyone else. I'm sure less as a creationist lives in both worlds etc on origin matters. Our opponents live only in one and then bump into the other in the lunchroom.
Who is more likely entwined in their own bias? Whats the probability curve here?
Robert Byers · 7 August 2016
Rolf said:
Robert Byers said:
Rolf said:
Robert, here is an example of evolution of a new trait from a scientific point of view.
Do you find it acceptable or do you have a better explanation?
Evolution of new traits
I read it but its just old time selection after human intervention. I don't see its relevance.
Funny you say you had the confidence to take on engineers etc despite not having the education.
Then why question anybody taking on anyone on any matter?
Your proof, by your witness, that its right.
You didn't accept what your experts told you but did your own thinking./
Just like me.
Oh Robert, you are so dead wrong!
I beg of you, don't ever again make a comparison between me and yourself! There are lightyears separating the two of us.
I study and listen to the experts, that is, real scientists, Nobel prize winners and their peers in all of the relevant scientific disciplines.
That's a different world from the one occupying your mind.
You have no respect for even the greatest of scientists, your highest authority is the Bible.
I don't bother with AIG, CMI and other creationist outfits, they are useless as sources of scientific information. They are of the same stock as yourself.
Understand? Only science is what counts today and every day and every hour of both days and nights.
No "thinking" from religiosly induced ignorance and faith in worthless ancient scriptures.
Robert, from all that you have written I predict that even if you live to be a hundred years old you won't have learned anything of what we say.
What you "think" is of no interest to anyone else, so why do you keep repeating the same old nonsense that we now know by heart?
You may repeat it as many times as you like but it will always be just another kind of faeces.
Please admit that you read me wrong with respect to who I trust in matters of science!
I was not comparing us but noted you said, if I understood, you questioned engineers who had more, or a lot more, education then yourself. you implied you won the contention and so i said AMEN. The 'experts' must prove their conclusions on the merits.
Being a expert is not proof of being right to anyone. To someone who knows they are not right its an absurdity to be impressed.
I think we agree on this point.
Robert Byers · 7 August 2016
W. H. Heydt said:
Robert Byers said:
W. H. Heydt said:
Robert Byers said:
To base a boundary, really important in origin subjects, on a material sandwiched between depositional layers of sediment is the extreme conclusion.
Anyways.
In the , few or uncommon, areas of the iridium IT can be seen as simply as from whats on top.
In other words its just a sorted layer in front of the rest following. the depositions above the k-t line ( i know they now say the other term but most don't know it) are often of volcanic material or if sediment THEY still all are following the iridium. the iridium coming from massive volcanic action a few centuries after the flood.
Iridium layer is just the shock troops of a army behind it in certain places.
The specific instance that kicked off the whole testable hypothesis of a large impact being critical the the K-Pg extinction was from Gubbio, Italy. The whole sequence, before, the boundary clay, and after are marine sediments. FYI...volcanism was considered, specifically the Deccan Traps in India, but the dating wasn't a close enough match. The Iridium laced layer has been found world wide. There is extensive literature on it.
Besides the boundary layer, there is also shocked quartz, which volcanoes can't produce, but impacts do. There is also the Chicxulub crater, located partially on shore in northwestern Yucatan and tsunami debris (a *lot* of tsunami debris) in the surrounding areas, like Puerto Rico. So it's not *just* an Iridium laced clay layer. It is multiple, independent pieces of evidence that all point to the same thing: The impact of an approximately 10 Km diameter meteorite.
This all points up the problem with many of your arguments. You focus on one small aspect of the work and try to dismiss or disprove that small aspect, while ignoring all the rest of the evidence.
I know the story. Its famous.
The iridium layer would be everywhere WHERE there is a layer on top. its the top one that is the origin, most likely, for it. It was just incoming a wee bit faster.
Shocked quartz is created by volcanoes in tiny microscopic amounts and so can be in bigger amounts.
The Yucatan crater/debris is not evidence for anything. Its a after the fact information.
The case for the impact has always been a strange one but its needed.
It was a great gain for YEC. It finalized a great fauna/flora segregation event in earth history.
Some, not enough, YEC thinkers see this as the flood year impact.
I love the boundary but the iridium claim is unsupported relative to the certainty with which they pronouced what happened 65 millions ago,. Some still try to say volcanic action was involved by the way.
Have you read the Alvarez, Alvarez, Asaro and Michels paper? The Iridium containing layer *is* found globally.
Yes, there are some current hypotheses that the Deccan Traps eruptions put the fauna under stress, but no one is claiming that the impact didn't happen. The argument is over whether or not the impact was the final blow that eliminated the megafauna (among other groups, bear in mind that foram species in the oceans went extinct, too) of the Cretaceous. There was life before the boundary as well as after and the boundary layers are not consistent with a flood. You also need to read up on the "Z Coal" layer.
Again...multiple, independent pieces of evidence that point to the same thing. If you are going to propose a different hypothesis, you need to account for *all* of the evidence, not just selected bits of it. (And that also means that you need to know what all of the available evidence is, plus the exact details of current theory....get reading, you've got a lot of catching up to do.) You also have to propose an explanation that fits what is known *better* than current theory. It should also account for facts that are not well explained by current theory. "God did it" is NOT such a hypothesis.
There is no evidence for the impact concept.
they just find a fauna/flora, land/sea great segregation in types and dominane by observation of fossils.
then they find this iridium layer and get excited about space rocks.
AMEN to the segregation conclusion. just what we want, for YEC who see the k-Pg line as the flood segregation year.
I suggest the iridium layer is simply part of what overtops it.
what is overtop is the important depositional event. Not below.
How did it get there? Its not as much as below and scattered around earth.
Its volcanic sediment or sediment from other sources YET irifium in both cases was being expelled from volcanoes throught the earth.
its an option. The iridium just got ahead of these sediment loads or was sorted ahead.
Yet easily iridium layer is explained from whats on top.
its very flimsy evidence to damand a impact killing off everything based on a layer of iridium.
Its just very superficial. my idea not much better but still working from earth processes.
David MacMillan · 7 August 2016
It's worth pointing out that Jeanson's rebuttal/rejoinder was not actually part of the original draft of his most recent post. He posted his "Why won't anyone agree with me??" article early Saturday morning, but it appeared hastily written and incomplete. It was taken down and then reposted several hours later with the references to my post (and the attacks on Dr. Joel) added in.
Mike Elzinga said:
David MacMillan said:
Jeanson's objection to my censure is actually a really lovely case of quote mining. If you go back and read what I wrote, you'll see that his claim -- that only a couple of DNA differences are sufficient for repeated speciation -- is followed immediately by a long-winded explanation of junk DNA's functionality. As I stated, the functionality of junk DNA doesn't magically lift the barriers to rapid repeated speciation; he's just bringing it up because it's a prepared talking point he can provide to his lay audience, and they'll think it's connected when it's really not.
I actually read his longer technical paper that he authored with my old buddy Lisle the following day. It's very long. And makes all the same errors.
Jeans complains,
"Conversely, even in the course of this series, evolutionists have illustrated my main point. For example, going back in our series to our discussion of the origin of genetic diversity, I summarized the data and conclusions from the 29,000-word technical paper that I published earlier this year. To make it clear that the web post was summarizing previously published work, I referenced the technical paper repeatedly. A recent article on the Pandaâs Thumb blog has attempted to rebut my conclusions."
Emphasis added.
One of the characteristics of all ID/Creationist writings is their pretentious wordiness.
Every leader of the ID/Creationist movement cranks out a blizzard of words that hides some of the most egregious errors, misconceptions, and misrepresentations of science that have ever appeared in writing. It's the old Gish Gallop on paper. Dembski is a master at this; covering up extremely silly assertions - assertions that can be stated in a sentence or two - with pages and pages of pseudo-philosophical rationalizations that try to make himself appear erudite. Jeanson is doing the same.
If one is reading an ID/Creationist "paper" that involves math and physics, go straight to the math and bypass all the words. You will find instantly that the math is irrelevant nonsense and that they can't even get units right when plugging variables into equations; and that is something even high school physics and chemistry students can understand. In something like fifty years - from Morris and Gish to Dembsk, Sewell, Abel, Lisle and the rest - I have never found an exception.
In the case of biology, it's words, words, words, and more words; a literal blizzard of crap in which all subtle details of the science of biology are mangled and buried under a ton of obfusation. This is probably why most ID/Creationists and their followers pick on biology; by the time one wades through all their bogus claims, one can lose track of the basic concepts that ID/Creationist always get wrong.
Indeed. Word count is not nearly as meaningful as Jeanson seems to think, or as his lay audience will likely believe. I don't care how many thousands of words you write; if you mess up basic concepts in the first few paragraphs, you might as well be describing your stamp collection for the rest of the paper.
Like I said, it wasn't necessary that I read through his 29,000 word paper before writing my post, because I was responding to an entirely different article. If he'd said "Once the animals stepped off the Ark, their reservoir of DNA differences could have easily translated into a massive amount of morphological change, as shown in my recent research analysis," that would be one thing. But instead, he defended his assertion by talking about functionality in non-coding DNA. So he can hardly expect me to ignore the argument he made and instead engage a connection he failed to provide.
Mike Elzinga · 7 August 2016
TomS said:
I don't think that I made myself clear. I think that they think that they have established their dogma. What I find lacking is any description of their dogma as an account for the way that the world of life works.
"That's the way it is" is not an alternative to evolutionary biology. Nor is "God/intelligent designers could have done it (because they could have done anything)."
If they could tell us what there is about G/ID that leads to the eyes of humans being more like the eyes of chimps, rather than like the eyes of insects, or like the eyes of octopuses - that is the sort of thing that I find lacking.
I think I understood you; and I agree that they think they have established their sectarian dogma. But they also know that the courts won't allow them to use the institutions of government to force their dogma onto others.
Back in 1970, Henry Morris and Duane Gish got the ball rolling on a "respectable" Trojan horse in the form of a "science" bent to fit sectarian dogma. Both of these characters had the audacity to go out and taunt the scientific community into public debates on campuses around the country in order to give the appearance of a major "scientific controversy" while at the same time leveraging the credentials of the scientists they goaded into debating them. Their audacity also got them a lot of free media attention.
I still have copies of their original books which they hoped would be adopted by public schools. They wrote two versions; one which was directed at their sectarian audiences and harrangued scientists and the secular world, and another for public schools that didn't mention religion but got all the science wrong anyway.
Gish would even show up unannounced in the biology classrooms in Kalamazoo, Michigan and harrass the biology instructors in front of the students. I have known personally some of the instructors who were repeatedly harrassed by him.
There is no question that Morris and Gish started a deliberate war on secular society; and they tried to make their sectarian views appear to be supported by science. That's how sure the were about the superiority of their sectarian beliefs. Morris, in particular, would point out to his audiences how serious he was and "what was at stake."
Sputnik, and the resulting changes in the science curriculum that it set off in this country, made these characters angry; and they set about establishing the Institute for Creation Research to formally concoct an extremely audatious and agressive campaign to fight back.
The later "Wedge Document" of the Discovery Institute is a formal sectarian declaration of war on secular science that has its roots in the "Scientific Creationism" of Morris and Gish. There is a lot of arrogance and anger in the ID/creationist movement; and it continues even after Kitzmiller vs. Dover.
Given the current political season and the cycles of political opportunity that these people wait for, it would be wise not to become complacent and underestimate the damage these characters can still do. Just look at the Right Wing lust to get a President who will appoint several members of the US Supreme Court as well as many other Federal judges. The ID/creationist movement wants judges that will rule in its favor no matter how unconstitutional such rulings would be.
As I have often said here on Panda's Thumb; these characters need to be taken down by knowledgeable nobodies coming out of nowhere and disappearing back into nowhere. No more staged debates and leveraged respectability for the ID/creationists; they have now accumulated fifty years of crap that we can rub their faces in, and it is all in the public domain. They can no longer distance themselves from those fifty years of accumulated idiocy on their part; they have painted themselves into a corner from which there is no escape.
One doesn't have to get into "theological" debates with them to make them look silly; their pseudoscience is more than adequate for that. Arguing with them about their sectarian dogma would prod them into screaming religious persecution, which they are extremely prone to do in order to get sympathy. But they can't fight back using their "knowledge" of science; they already flunk at the high school level.
Mike Elzinga · 7 August 2016
David MacMillan said:
Like I said, it wasn't necessary that I read through his 29,000 word paper before writing my post, because I was responding to an entirely different article. If he'd said "Once the animals stepped off the Ark, their reservoir of DNA differences could have easily translated into a massive amount of morphological change, as shown in my recent research analysis," that would be one thing. But instead, he defended his assertion by talking about functionality in non-coding DNA. So he can hardly expect me to ignore the argument he made and instead engage a connection he failed to provide.
Yup; I think you handled it superbly.
These ID/creationists count on taunting scientists into endless quagmires of word games and getting a free ride and respectability on the back of a working scientist. Jeanson is using the same tactic that was invented by Duane Gish using his infamous Gish Gallop; throw out tons of garbage and then sneer at the end of the debate, âWell, you didnât answer even a tenth of my arguments.â
Jeanson is also feeling the sting of being ignored by the scientific community. We no longer debate them because of their hackneyed tactics.
W. H. Heydt · 7 August 2016
Robert Byers said:
There is no evidence for the impact concept.
they just find a fauna/flora, land/sea great segregation in types and dominane by observation of fossils.
then they find this iridium layer and get excited about space rocks.
AMEN to the segregation conclusion. just what we want, for YEC who see the k-Pg line as the flood segregation year.
I suggest the iridium layer is simply part of what overtops it.
what is overtop is the important depositional event. Not below.
How did it get there? Its not as much as below and scattered around earth.
Its volcanic sediment or sediment from other sources YET irifium in both cases was being expelled from volcanoes throught the earth.
its an option. The iridium just got ahead of these sediment loads or was sorted ahead.
Yet easily iridium layer is explained from whats on top.
its very flimsy evidence to damand a impact killing off everything based on a layer of iridium.
Its just very superficial. my idea not much better but still working from earth processes.
Sigh... You've got it backwards. The faunal turnover has been long noted. Indeed, there were creationist proposals after fossils started being discovered, people realized that the fossils didn't match anything in the Bible so the problem was, what did it all mean? One of the ideas was that the world and fauna we know were the latest in a series of creations that were destroyed.
As more knowledge was gained, and an understanding that life changes and that there is deep time, our modern undertanding of how life developed emerged. There was still the problem (using the most common expression of it), What killed the dinosaurs? The boundary in the rocks was clear, but both the time over which it happened and cause remained unknown.
Then Walter Alvarez showed his father, Luis Alvarez, the Gubbio clay that marked the boundary and they set out to try to figure out how long it took the clay to form. They came up with the idea of checking siderophilic elements (that is, elements more common in the steady drizzle of infalling material) and using how much was there against the known rate of accumulation to see how long it took. Since Iridium was the easist for them to measure, they used that. Then the results came back with far more Iridium than was reasonable. So they had to find out why there was too much.
It was that *excess* Irirdium over what they were expecting that led them to conclude that there had been a large impact. The impact is a conclusion from the data, not an expectation going in.
It was after *that* that the search began to see if a crater could be found (it was by no means certain that it would still exist...there has been a lot of plate movement in 65 million years). However, a crater has been found, and dated, and it matches. Once the crater was located, it was then possible to look around to see if there was other evidence that you would expect from such an event, such as tsunami deposits in places that such an impact would put them. Those, too, have been found.
So you see, Mr. Byers, you have to account for *everything*. Just asserting that there "is no evidence for an impact" won't cut it. There is a lot of evidence for it, and it all fits together. Any alternate proposal you care to make has to fit those facts at least as well as current theory. That the impact happened is now established and confirmed fact. Even people who don't think that is what "killed the dinosaurs" don't try to claim the impact didn't happen.
Mike Elzinga · 7 August 2016
âThere is no evidence for the impact concept. they just find a fauna/flora, land/sea great segregation in types and dominane by observation of fossils. then they find this iridium layer and get excited about space rocks.â
Byers doesnât know where that much iridium comes from.
W. H. Heydt · 7 August 2016
Something I should have added to my recent reply to Mr. Byers...
Sir, do you understand that Iridium in the "Irirdium layer" is measured in parts per million...or less? It's NOT a centimeter Iridium that was plated all over the planet like a coat of paint. (If that were the case, we'd be *mining* it.)
DS · 8 August 2016
Robert Byers said:
Possibly your right. K-Pg might be better now . however mostly in the near past I was CORRECTED that it was k-t. you can't win.
Its trivial.
Your wrong that I'm more ignorant or bigoted then anyone else. Who is the judge?
I argue on the merits of the caee and am not affected by prejudice or anymore then anyone else. I'm sure less as a creationist lives in both worlds etc on origin matters. Our opponents live only in one and then bump into the other in the lunchroom.
Who is more likely entwined in their own bias? Whats the probability curve here?
Well let's see, who is more likely to be biased, the guy who has a sincere curiosity about life, gets three degrees and becomes a professional biologist, devotes his life to science, publishes in professional journals and fervently seeks the truth at all costs, or the hopelessly ignorant guy who refuses to learn anything and only interprets reality in term of his his own preconceptions? You don't have to look further than the first word of his post to realize that booby is completely an totally full of shit, as usual. He absolutely refuses to learn anything or correct himself about anything, ever. We do all have our biases, but there is a big difference between those who recognize that and try to overcome it and those who who worship their own shortcomings. booby is the poster child for a mind warped by creationism, as the conversation that followed his ridiculous post demonstrates. Any rational person can judge whose views are constrained by evidence and whose merely reflect wishful thinking and prejudice. It is clear whats the probability curve here.
Rolf · 8 August 2016
I was not comparing us but noted you said, if I understood, you questioned engineers who had more, or a lot more, education then yourself. you implied you won the contention and so i said AMEN. The âexpertsâ must prove their conclusions on the merits. Being a expert is not proof of being right to anyone. To someone who knows they are not right its an absurdity to be impressed. I think we agree on this point.
Sorry, you got me all wrong. I stand 100% behind science, scientists and engineers. It is not all that difficult to see which horse to bet on. I've been at it for 70+ years and think I know what I am doing. But you don't, and that's a fact as good as any.
You, however, assumes that all scientists or engineers are wrong if they disagree with you because you are smarter and know better than them.
Do you know they are wrong? If you think they are wrong, prove it or at least reference the facts. Without supporting facts, your claims are without merit.
We present facts, you present what you âthinkâ, without any corroborating evidence. How do you explain that?
It seems you are completely in the dark about the principle of evolution.
Evolution is NOT: A member of a population suddenly evolving into a different species. Doesn't happen. Mutations like that are an impossibility.
Here is a fact you'll have to learn, understand and accept as a fact: Speaking of animals, speciation, i.e. the process/mechanism of evolution new species is something that goes on in a population over a length of time - if conditions are favorable for evolutionary mechanisms to do their work..
Nor does a male/female pair ever give birth to a different species.
Speciation is what happens when a group within a population becomes reproductively separated from the rest of the population. Such things happen for instance when islands, or even continents break apart. An event like that took place about 30 million years ago when South America âsailedâ away from Africa.
Thatâs why apes on the American continent show 30 million years of genetic evolution separating them from the Old World apes.
Darwin guessed it but at that time they didnât have enough information about the age of the earth.
Evolution is a slow process, and it takes place within populations. Evolution is not about one or a couple of individuals suddenly morphing into new species.
Mutations may happen all the time and it happens to all of us during our lifetime. But even with earthâs 7 billions population of human beings, none of them give birth to anything but more humans.
If we sent a population to another planet, after a sufficiently long time of separation the populations would no longer be capable of interbreeding. I have no clue about how long time that might take.
Don't you ever experience cluelessness?
There are many examples of genetically related species on earth that may produce offspring between them. But that is not without problems, you might perhaps learn something here:
Ligers and Tigons
TomS · 8 August 2016
Clearly, I am not making myself at all clear if you think that I intend to talk about their theology. Their talk about Noah and baramins and all of that is, at most, a distraction from what I think the science of evolutionary biology is about: the variety of life. And while they deny the evolutionary explanation is correct, they do not attempt to offer an alternative.
A creator (or intelligent designer or any supernatural agency), by virtue of their freedom from natural constraints, is equally capable of producing anything. Therefore, invoking them does not distinguish between what happens to be the case and all the possibilities that aren't.
And we see that YEC, ID, and all the other varieties of evolution denial do not attempt to account for the variety of life. They don't have a way of dealing with the variety of life. All they can do is to attack, in an advertising campaign, negative political advertising.
There is no alternative to evolutionary biology. All the creationists do is to attack evolution. (Or wander off talking about different subjects.) The ID people may claim that there is a better explanation, but they do not offer any such an explanation (better or worse, no explanation).
Those of us who are interested in evolutionary explanations are prone to be attracted to the red herrings. It can be fun, and even interesting as a kind of game to "find all of the ways that Noah's Ark is impossible", but it has nothing to do with the serious point: why is there this variety of life? It is instructive to explain why "the tornado in the junkyard" does not present a problem for evolution. But even if it did, the evolution-deniers do not have an answer.
From time to time I like to remind my friends that there is no alternative to an evolutionary explanation for the variety of life. And that YEC and ID do not even attempt to offer any alternative.
Mike Elzinga · 8 August 2016
TomS said:
Clearly, I am not making myself at all clear if you think that I intend to talk about their theology. ...
I think we may be talking past each other a bit. I have known ID/creationism as a socio/political movement that had its âofficialâ beginning in 1970 with the founding of the Institute for Creation Research by Morris and Gish. There were precursors to this movement; and some influence appears to have come from the talks and writings of A.E. Wilder-Smith.
You say that ID/creationists do not attempt to provide explanations; and I agree that they certainly havenât provided any mechanisms for the variety of life. But I would not say that they donât try to provide âexplanations;â they instead bend the science to fit their sectarian beliefs and then claim that this âscienceâ explains â or âis consistent withâ â their reading of their holy book which is the âreal explanation.â
It is a bit easier to see their attempts at âexplanationâ with the math, physics, and chemistry. For example, that old hackneyed second law of thermodynamics argument was one of the favorites of Morris and Gish. It accomplished two things in the minds of the âscientificâ creationists; (1) it was used to caricature the âstupidityâ of the physicists who they accused of not being able to see the âobvious consequencesâ of their own theories, and (2) it was used to demonstrate that the Fall was real because everything that was perfect before the Fall is now running down and decaying after the Fall, just as the âsecond law of thermodynamicsâ says it should.
Lisleâs more recent âsolutionâ to the âDistant Starlight Problemâ was to use âspecial relativityâ and âasynchronous time conventionâ to make light travel at infinite speed toward and at c/2 away from every point in space. The resulting âphysicsâ then âsolvesâ the Distant Starlight Problem and their story in Genesis is thereby vindicated.
The same tactic has been used by Dembski in declaring that the probability of the occurrence of complex molecular assemblies is calculated by Np where N = 2500 and p is calculated in the same way that one calculates the probability of the string of ASCII characters in a Shakespearean sonnet. Dempskiâs âchemistryâ explains why scientists are so stupid in not being able to see the consequences of their own theories, and it also is supposed to explain why âintelligent interventionâ is required to make the complex molecules of life. ID/creationists think they donât have to explain the âintelligenceâ because it is âobvious.â
And so it goes with every bent and broken scientific concept by the ID/creationists.
All of these tactics are designed to make the âargumentâ that science (really their mangled version of science) supports their version of religion and not what scientists claim it supports. This is what ID/creationists have been doing ever since Morris and Gish.
True they are struggling with speciation; but make no mistake, they are trying to come up with a âscienceâ that will âexplainâ speciation and that is also consistent with their sectarian beliefs.
The bottom line, however, is that what they have come up with as âscienceâ has nothing to do with reality; and that is where they have shot themselves in the head. Our Constitution gives them their right to their âreligion;â but injecting their pseudoscience into the public school curriculum is not only professionally irresponsible, it is unethical and just plain stupid.
Stem Cell Monk · 8 August 2016
So in the card shuffling analogy, do the cards represent genes or alleles? I would think that explaining allele diversity this way would be obviously false, since one diploid mating pair could only carry a maximum of 4 alleles.
Mike Elzinga · 8 August 2016
Correcting myself here.
The same tactic has been used by Dembski in declaring that the probability of the occurrence of complex molecular assemblies is calculated by Np
Bad wording, sorry. That should be the expected number of occurrences of a complex molecular assembly.
Mike Elzinga · 8 August 2016
Stem Cell Monk said:
So in the card shuffling analogy, do the cards represent genes or alleles? I would think that explaining allele diversity this way would be obviously false, since one diploid mating pair could only carry a maximum of 4 alleles.
Itâs actually far worse than that. Atoms and molecules interact strongly with each other within an environment made up of water at a finite temperature.
Cards - or ASCII characters - do not interact with each other; so the calculations of the probabilities of card arrangements are irrelevant to the way that one calculates the probabilities of molecular arrangements.
Stem Cell Monk · 8 August 2016
Mike Elzinga said:
Itâs actually far worse than that. Atoms and molecules interact strongly with each other within an environment made up of water at a finite temperature.
Cards - or ASCII characters - do not interact with each other; so the calculations of the probabilities of card arrangements are irrelevant to the way that one calculates the probabilities of molecular arrangements.
I was commenting on the supposed shuffling mechanism in the OP, but I agree with your analysis Mike. ID folks seem to make some pretty incompetent mistakes translating chemistry and population dynamics into properly descriptive maths.
Mike Elzinga · 8 August 2016
Stem Cell Monk said:
I was commenting on the supposed shuffling mechanism in the OP, but I agree with your analysis Mike. ID folks seem to make some pretty incompetent mistakes translating chemistry and population dynamics into properly descriptive maths.
Indeed.
The models of allele frequencies and propagation within populations are based on real, observed data. These observed probabilities are the end result of the underlying physics and chemistry along with the interactions atoms and molecules are making within their environments. We donât see the chemistry and physics directly, but do observe the phenomenological results of that physics and chemistry.
With the development of faster supercomputers and programs, we hope to eventually link the modeling of evolving molecular systems to the observations we see in populations. But the basic point is that real, working biologists make their calculations based on real data taken from the real physical world; not from âmodelsâ bent to justify sectarian beliefs.
Michael Fugate · 8 August 2016
Speaking of Jeanson, here the first paragraph of his acknowledgements for his dissertation:
Metabolic regulation of hematopoietic stem cells
Jeanson, Nathaniel Thomas. Harvard University, 2009.
None of this work would have been possible without the enablement of Jesus Christ my Creator, whose resurrection from the dead and promise of eternal glory make earthly pursuits valuable, meaningful, and eternally significant. Apart from the transforming knowledge of the beauty of holiness that comes from the illuminating rush of the Scripture, this work would have been abandoned several years ago.
The dissertation work, of course, used mouse models to understand human stem cells - doesn't make much sense in a creationist frame, but then again nothing much does.
They attribute all their own motives to the âevolutionistsâ and tell us that Satan is deceiving even the churches. This was the drive behind Henry Morris and Duane Gish; it is what Morris meant when he referred to âwhat is at stake.â
Michael Fugate · 8 August 2016
Mike Elzinga said:
If anyone doubts that the YECâs believe they are in a war with the secular world, here is an example in their own words.
They attribute all their own motives to the âevolutionistsâ and tell us that Satan is deceiving even the churches. This was the drive behind Henry Morris and Duane Gish; it is what Morris meant when he referred to âwhat is at stake.â
The guy claims he taught in public schools and is a "curricular specialist"...
Evolution is one of the primary baits that has been used to reel people, especially kids, into a secular worldview. Because if evolution is true, the Bibleâs history is false. If the Bibleâs history is false, why would you trust what it says about marriage, gender, sanctity of life, or eternal salvation? If Godâs Word is not the authority on all things, itâs not the authority on anything.
Put that way, one could only conclude the Bible is not an authority on anything. I am not sure that is the answer he is seeking.
ashleyhr · 8 August 2016
There's yet another Jeanson article, I see: https://answersingenesis.org/natural-selection/speciation/why-dont-more-people-accept-the-young-earth-view-of-speciation/ Somewhat skimmed but it looks like special pleading, pseudo-science garbage, and an attack upon 'evolutionists'. "Evidence from genetics and from Darwin himself argues for the recent origin of species." He then has the gall to suggest that scientists reject YEC speciation views/models purely out of ignorance. No - it's because they write pseudo-scientific garbage borne of a fundamentalist religious agenda. (Though by 'ignorance' he means not that people have been brainwashed that YECs write garbage so much as that people have no knowledge of what YECs actually claim - and that if they did they would probably accept their claims.)
The article also has a go at someone at Biologos for not following through with 'dialogue' over AiG claims. Which is rich considering AiG's utter refusal to engage with awkwards science questions posed by many of their critics: Please see the thread (the relevant link is being rejected here for some reason) about Rabble Rouser Ken Ham at the British Centre for Science Education community forum; AiG have for instance totally ignored ALL my questions about the feasibility and plausibility of their wild claims of total 'recent dinosaur extinction')
And the article has a go at THIS blog too. As I see David MacMillan has already flagged at Naturalis Historia (blog post dated 3 August).
Jeanson sounds a bit rattled and/or indignant. He accuses MacMillan of intellectual dishonesty for failing to quote from the abstract of a previous Jeanson co-authored article: "Our Created Heterozygosity and Natural Processes (CHNP) model significantly advances the young-creation explanation for the origin of species, and it makes testable predictions by which it can be further confirmed or rejected in the future". Yet - whilst David could have cited this - it is NOT from the paper MacMillan was critiquing (something Jeanson is not very upfront about to say the least in using the phrase 'the abstract of the paper' - there is NOTHING about 'created heterozygosity' in the abstract of the 23 June paper).
And of course if you wish to comment under Jeanson's article you CAN'T. They won't allow ANY comments. But some of his readers will be viewing comments here and at Naturalis Historia.
As for 'peer review' if Jeanson's new article was peer-reviewed it was NOT scientifically peer reviewed if only one or more other AiG staff members reviewed it prior to online publication ... And plenty of YECs write blogs too! "This example of poor scholarship is symptomatic of Duffâs approach to the origins issue, and many of his other posts reflect similar shortsightedness on our technical papers." Personally I've seen NO evidence of that - and Jeanson does not provide a convincing example. Yes - I think AiG are rattled as well as indignant. (As for 'created heterozygosity', I did mention this YEC idea in one of my comments either here or at NH - I forget which.)
As for Jeanson's footnote 12, the link is NOT about a member of the 'scientific community' but a journalist at the Boston Globe apparently failing to read enough of the material put out by AiG.
Robert Byers said:
There is no evidence for the impact concept.
they just find a fauna/flora, land/sea great segregation in types and dominane by observation of fossils.
then they find this iridium layer and get excited about space rocks.
AMEN to the segregation conclusion. just what we want, for YEC who see the k-Pg line as the flood segregation year.
I suggest the iridium layer is simply part of what overtops it.
what is overtop is the important depositional event. Not below.
How did it get there? Its not as much as below and scattered around earth.
Its volcanic sediment or sediment from other sources YET irifium in both cases was being expelled from volcanoes throught the earth.
its an option. The iridium just got ahead of these sediment loads or was sorted ahead.
Yet easily iridium layer is explained from whats on top.
its very flimsy evidence to damand a impact killing off everything based on a layer of iridium.
Its just very superficial. my idea not much better but still working from earth processes.
Sigh... You've got it backwards. The faunal turnover has been long noted. Indeed, there were creationist proposals after fossils started being discovered, people realized that the fossils didn't match anything in the Bible so the problem was, what did it all mean? One of the ideas was that the world and fauna we know were the latest in a series of creations that were destroyed.
As more knowledge was gained, and an understanding that life changes and that there is deep time, our modern undertanding of how life developed emerged. There was still the problem (using the most common expression of it), What killed the dinosaurs? The boundary in the rocks was clear, but both the time over which it happened and cause remained unknown.
Then Walter Alvarez showed his father, Luis Alvarez, the Gubbio clay that marked the boundary and they set out to try to figure out how long it took the clay to form. They came up with the idea of checking siderophilic elements (that is, elements more common in the steady drizzle of infalling material) and using how much was there against the known rate of accumulation to see how long it took. Since Iridium was the easist for them to measure, they used that. Then the results came back with far more Iridium than was reasonable. So they had to find out why there was too much.
It was that *excess* Irirdium over what they were expecting that led them to conclude that there had been a large impact. The impact is a conclusion from the data, not an expectation going in.
It was after *that* that the search began to see if a crater could be found (it was by no means certain that it would still exist...there has been a lot of plate movement in 65 million years). However, a crater has been found, and dated, and it matches. Once the crater was located, it was then possible to look around to see if there was other evidence that you would expect from such an event, such as tsunami deposits in places that such an impact would put them. Those, too, have been found.
So you see, Mr. Byers, you have to account for *everything*. Just asserting that there "is no evidence for an impact" won't cut it. There is a lot of evidence for it, and it all fits together. Any alternate proposal you care to make has to fit those facts at least as well as current theory. That the impact happened is now established and confirmed fact. Even people who don't think that is what "killed the dinosaurs" don't try to claim the impact didn't happen.
Well it seems you did a good summery.
indeed it makes my case.
Yes the boundary was first noticed by the fauna/flora/sediment type .
Yes incoming sediment is a important point.
Yes iridium exists here and so finding more of it might be a clue.
Its more simple and easy to see the incoming sediment as having sorted the iridium or it just got ahead of the following sediment.
So one can hypothesis volcanoes did it quickly, just as quick as a impact, and this very common on the planet from sudden convulsions.
That is the more likely source of the greater amount of iridium. I didn't know how deep it was.
Its very likely its just part of the sediment load that is above it.
No space rovks are needed.
the finding of a crator means nothing more then finding a hole and doing dating things and poof there is your answer.
Its a grasping for a conclusion on minor evidence.
there is a better answer and at least a option for the iridium layer. its not a smoking gun at all.
A creationist could predict thisv layer too if they were thinking about the sediment layers above the k-Pg line.
I think its funny/unreasonable to so embrace as a fact the space rock story.
DS · 8 August 2016
right booby a creationist predicted this right after it was found by real scientists way to go your wrong it's a gun smoking in the boys room
Scott F · 8 August 2016
Robert Byers said:
there is a better answer and at least a option for the iridium layer.
Then propose one.
its not a smoking gun at all.
A creationist could predict thisv layer too if they were thinking about the sediment layers above the k-Pg line.
Uh, no they couldn't.
You see, Robert. This is why you don't understand science. In Real Science, the data comes first.
No scientist at all had predicted this iridium-rich layer of sediment. No one. It was discovered by accident. Once it was discovered, it needed an explanation. Real scientists came up with lots of ideas. They tested those ideas over a long period of time, gathering more evidence and more data. And, the best idea, the idea that survived the competition, the idea that explained all of the evidence the best, won out. That is now the idea that all Real Scientists agree upon.
If new evidence is presented, then the agreed-upon idea will be changed to fit the new data.
To date, no Creationist has proposed an alternative, any alternative, that explains all of the observed data.
To come back after the fact and say, "We could have predicted that", when in fact you could *not* have predicted anything of the sort, is called a "post hoc" justification. It is very childish, and very much the YEC method of "predicting" events after they have occurred.
I think its funny/unreasonable to so embrace as a fact the space rock story.
Fortunately, Real Science does not depend on what you find to be funny.
Now this, this is funny:
Its ... easy to see the incoming sediment as having sorted the iridium or it just got ahead of the following sediment
Do you even know what "sediment" is? How it forms? How in blazes does one "sediment" get "ahead of the following sediment"? Maybe one sediment tries really really hard to fall faster that the other sediment? Because it wants to get there first?
And you really don't know where iridium comes from either, do.
Scott F · 8 August 2016
DS said:
right booby a creationist predicted this right after it was found by real scientists way to go your wrong it's a gun smoking in the boys room
Close. You need a couple of random capital letters, at least period somewhere, and some misspellings. If you're clever, the misspellings should be both obvious typos, and random phonetic mistakes. Also, I don't think Robert knows what the word "it's" with an apostrophe is.
Good effort, though.
W. H. Heydt · 8 August 2016
Robert Byers said:
Well it seems you did a good summery.
indeed it makes my case.
Yes the boundary was first noticed by the fauna/flora/sediment type .
Yes incoming sediment is a important point.
Yes iridium exists here and so finding more of it might be a clue.
Its more simple and easy to see the incoming sediment as having sorted the iridium or it just got ahead of the following sediment.
So one can hypothesis volcanoes did it quickly, just as quick as a impact, and this very common on the planet from sudden convulsions.
That is the more likely source of the greater amount of iridium. I didn't know how deep it was.
Its very likely its just part of the sediment load that is above it.
No space rovks are needed.
the finding of a crator means nothing more then finding a hole and doing dating things and poof there is your answer.
Its a grasping for a conclusion on minor evidence.
there is a better answer and at least a option for the iridium layer. its not a smoking gun at all.
A creationist could predict thisv layer too if they were thinking about the sediment layers above the k-Pg line.
I think its funny/unreasonable to so embrace as a fact the space rock story.
Scott F did a good job of showing where you've gone wrong. I just want to add that your claim that it was do to volcanic activity has the problem of not explaining the tsunami deposits in Perto Rico, pretty much half way around the world from the proposed site of the volcanic activity at the Deccan Traps. (And, by the way, that kind of eruption is effusive...many layers of relatively fluid lava, not explosive eruptions that can cause tsunamis, like the 1883 eruption of Krakatau).
Remember...I said you have to account for *all* the evidence. You don't get to pick and choose which bits can be forced to fit your own ideas. If your idea won't cover some of the data and someone elses idea covers everything yours does and more besides, you idea fails and falls by the wayside.
Mike Elzinga · 8 August 2016
Larry Moran, with thanks to PZ Myers, has a video of Mike Pence up on his website in which Pence is giving a âcritiqueâ of evolution in the House of Representatives back in 2002.
Just a reminder that these sectarian ideologues are still in play during these nutty political seasons.
eric · 9 August 2016
Mike Elzinga said:
Larry Moran, with thanks to PZ Myers, has a video of Mike Pence up on his website in which Pence is giving a âcritiqueâ of evolution in the House of Representatives back in 2002.
Just a reminder that these sectarian ideologues are still in play during these nutty political seasons.
Fourteen years is a long time - plenty of time for a politician to sincerely change their position on such an issue. I think it's definitely worth asking both Presidential and VP candidates the question again. The optimist in me says that with Trump as the nominee, we might actually get a GOP ticket that accepts evolution (mainly because I don't think that's a battle he cares about fighting). The realist/cynic in me says that regardless of what Trump says, Pence will send dog whistle signals to the party's Christian fundamentalist base that he secretly agrees with them, while publicly trying everything he can not to answer the question directly. But that realist part of me also tells me that if this occurs, Pence will fail because everyone knows what deferring on the evolution question means, and that despite his efforts at obfuscation, his answer will likely drive more independents away from the GOP.
Michael Fugate · 9 August 2016
Why tie your belief to the Bible being not only theologically true, but historically and scientifically true? Isn't this too easy to refute - leaving your followers vulnerable to giving up religion altogether? Should you be putting your God to the test in this way? Not only that, why continue to believe such after you have read it? Historically, theologians, philosophers, natural historians, etc. have long concluded that the Bible just cannot be profitably read that way, so why now? Is there something about AiG followers that they need absolute certainty to believe - isn't that a contradiction?
ashleyhr · 9 August 2016
It's remarkable how little the Jeanson riposte of 6 August engages with the scientific substance of this MacMillan post. He completely ignores the following strong arguments:
- "Speciation indeed involves numerous changes in DNA, but at a scale orders of magnitude higher than the number of DNA differences that typically exist between individual members of one species. In this paragraph, Jeanson illustrates a prime example of a tactic common among creationists. Humans have three billion base pairs, so variation of 0.4 % becomes âmillionsâ of differences at the base pair level. Creationists cite these numbers without any comparison or explanation of what they represent, since they know that their audience will not have enough background information to recognize the fallacy"; "The claim that millions of DNA differences constitute âmassive amounts of DNA varietyâ capable of generating thousands of speciation events is ridiculously wrong.";
- "DNA differences in mitochondrial DNA have absolutely nothing to do with nuclear DNA differences or speciation.";
- "He tells us: "Once the animals stepped off the Ark, their reservoir of DNA differences could have easily translated into a massive amount of morphological change." This claim is clear, concise, and well-defined. Jeanson could go on to provide evidence for this claim or make verifiable predictions associated with it. For example, he could point to observed speciation events matching this model (if any existed) or he could predict a series of conditions under which a single pair of organisms can produce rapid multiple branching speciation in its offspring. But he doesnât." (In the following sentences Jeanson neither refers to his previously proposed 'created heterozygosity' idea, nor sets out evidence or verifiable predictions as MacMillan has suggested; instead he embarks on discussion of how some functional DNA was previously thought by non-creationists ie scientists to be non-functional.)
- "Non-coding DNA has absolutely nothing to do with the generation of new species; it is just another tangentially related topic where prepared talking points already exist. After repeating the various prepared discussion concerning âjunkâ DNA, he claims: "Since DNA now appears to be extremely functional, it would seem that the production of a new species would simply require a few DNA differences to arise." This statement is absurd, unsubstantiated, and demonstrably false speculation. It is irresponsible at best."
All in all a pretty pathetic and feeble response from AiG. Which does not sit well with his and Jason Lisle's previous claim (in the Conclusion to their technical paper - which was scarcely referenced in the 23 June article despite Jeanson's claims of 6 August): "Created heterozygosity in combination with presently observable natural processes (the CHNP model) appears sufficient to explain the vast phenotypic and genotypic diversity observable today, and the CHNP model makes testable predictions by which its strength can be evaluated further in the future. Thus, speciation on the young-earth timescale is not only plausible; it is quickly becoming scientifically superior to any other explanation for the origin of the rich diversity of life on this planet."
He sounded confident. Yet is unable or unwilling to deal with the scientific substance of THIS article.
ashleyhr · 9 August 2016
PS I'm reminded that David stated in an earlier comment (which John H and others have discussed since): "I should have said something more along the lines of âThe fact of non-coding DNA functionality in no way suggests that speciation can be attained with only a few genetic differences.â"
John Harshman · 9 August 2016
ashleyhr said:
It's remarkable how little the Jeanson riposte of 6 August engages with the scientific substance of this MacMillan post. He completely ignores the following strong arguments:
- "Speciation indeed involves numerous changes in DNA, but at a scale orders of magnitude higher than the number of DNA differences that typically exist between individual members of one species.
This just isn't true. The divergence between species is typically higher than between conspecifics, but it doesn't have to be, and it's not because of speciation but because species have typically been separated for a long time. Speciation is theoretically possible with just two point mutations. Jeanson's scenario is ridiculous, but that isn't why.
- "DNA differences in mitochondrial DNA have absolutely nothing to do with nuclear DNA differences or speciation.";
Closer to true, but not quite. Mitochondrial differences can affect compatibility between male and female genomes, and thus influence speciation. And mitochondrial changes can select for compensating nuclear changes.
- "He tells us:
"Once the animals stepped off the Ark, their reservoir of DNA differences could have easily translated into a massive amount of morphological change."
This claim is clear, concise, and well-defined. Jeanson could go on to provide evidence for this claim or make verifiable predictions associated with it. For example, he could point to observed speciation events matching this model (if any existed) or he could predict a series of conditions under which a single pair of organisms can produce rapid multiple branching speciation in its offspring.
But he doesnât." (In the following sentences Jeanson neither refers to his previously proposed 'created heterozygosity' idea, nor sets out evidence or verifiable predictions as MacMillan has suggested; instead he embarks on discussion of how some functional DNA was previously thought by non-creationists ie scientists to be non-functional.)
That at least is a valid criticism.
- "Non-coding DNA has absolutely nothing to do with the generation of new species; it is just another tangentially related topic where prepared talking points already exist.
As I have previously pointed out, this is egregiously wrong. Non-coding DNA includes both junk DNA (nothing to do with speciation) and regulatory DNA (much to do with speciation, as much as or more so than protein-coding DNA).
After repeating the various prepared discussion concerning âjunkâ DNA, he claims:
"Since DNA now appears to be extremely functional, it would seem that the production of a new species would simply require a few DNA differences to arise."
This statement is absurd, unsubstantiated, and demonstrably false speculation. It is irresponsible at best."
Creationists seem not to like the idea that junk DNA exists. But how non-coding DNA being entirely functional would help their case is unclear. Anyway, junk does exist.
All in all a pretty pathetic and feeble response from AiG. Which does not sit well with his and Jason Lisle's previous claim (in the Conclusion to their technical paper - which was scarcely referenced in the 23 June article despite Jeanson's claims of 6 August): "Created heterozygosity in combination with presently observable natural processes (the CHNP model) appears sufficient to explain the vast phenotypic and genotypic diversity observable today, and the CHNP model makes testable predictions by which its strength can be evaluated further in the future. Thus, speciation on the young-earth timescale is not only plausible; it is quickly becoming scientifically superior to any other explanation for the origin of the rich diversity of life on this planet."
Fer sher. Created heterozygosity seems limited to four alleles (at least for other than clean animals), and lots of divine intervention would be required to maintain even that for the thousand-plus years between creation and the flood, as well as to get just the right two heterozygotes (different alleles for every single locus!) onto the ark. And even so, that wouldn't allow for a fraction of the genetic diversity we see within populations, much less the distances between species. This notion is dead in the water, so to speak.
Michael Fugate · 9 August 2016
In light of Jeanson and Osborne, here is what AiG believes materials/atheists/evolutionists to write in their dissertation acknowledgements:
None of this work would have been possible without the enablement of random mutation and natural selection my Creator, whose undying vigilance and promise of adaptation make earthly pursuits valuable, meaningful, and eternally significant. Apart from the transforming knowledge of the beauty of nature that comes from the illuminating rush of scientific endeavor (and reading Darwin's Origin), this work would have been abandoned several years ago.
The Jeanson and Lisle paper, on the other hand, is an exercise in putting lipstick on a pig.
For example, one of the speciation events in the Felid âkindâ (Pendragon and Winkler 2011) involves the formation of stripes (e.g., in tigers). Once the DNA sequence which specifies this trait is identified, each of the YEC hypotheses on speciation should be evaluated for their ability to causally explain this relationship.
...[T}he CHNP hypothesis proposes that diploid individuals were created heterozygous, and that natural processes since this event (including recombination, gene conversion, mutation, natural selection, etc.) have distributed and/or added to the original created genetic diversity, thus producing the genotypic and, consequently, phenotypic diversity we observe today.
To be sure, this is not a deistic hypothesis. Under the CHNP model, God doesnât create and then abandon His creation. Rather, the CHNP model recognizes that God is actively involved in His creation, providentially upholding it to this day, and the model recognizes that God works via means, including via the environment and the natural processes that He supernaturally designed and upholds.
So they have gone from saying there wasn't enough time for evolution to occur to saying that time is irrelevant. There are barriers between "kinds", but there aren't. Speciation can't occur, unless it can. And they claim their "model" doesn't involve miracles past creation week....
Nevertheless, some have still tried to argue that the mechanisms controlling these two processes are the same. For example, Dembski and Wells (2008) have suggested that DNA is not the primary physical basis for heredity, implying that analogies between development and speciation are legitimate. However, experimental data to date fail to demonstrate that epigenetic changes are stable long-term (e.g., over multiple generations), at least in animals. Instead, the primary role of epigenetics appears to be maintenance of cell identity differences within an individual, not maintenance of organismal differences between individuals (Grossniklaus et al. 2013; Heard and Martienssen 2014). Whether the data continue to trend towards this conclusion remains to be seen. Until a paradigm shift occurs, the most relevant field to consider on the question of metazoan speciation is still genetics, and if objections to the YEC timescale wish to be taken seriously, they must be based on genetics, not morphology.
Emphasis added
From an energetics perspective, these characters are in big trouble. Changes at the genetic level in the DNA involve energies on the order of electron volts.
Just to put this in perspective, liquid water exists within an energy window of 0.012 to 0.016 eV. Epigenetic changes would have to fit within this window; and the sex of some lizards and phenomena like hypothermia and hyperthermia occur within a much narrower window.
If one is going to claim that rapid speciation is going to be taking place at the level of genetics (on the order of an electron volt), one asserting a massive increase in energy influx that will speed up those changes.
YECâs have claimed that radioactive decay in the elements used for radiometric dating was much faster in the past. One might think they could attribute this rapid speciation to the much larger background radiation of this past rapid decay. However, there would be a rather nasty snag in this line of thinking; all living organisms would be cooked and life would become extinct very quickly.
This is where the issues of energy cascades come into the picture of abiogenesis. The building blocks of life had to come from energy cascades in which the more tightly bound building blocks were formed and then shuttled into less energetic environments. Those basic building blocks canât be kept in an energetic environment and continue to exist; they will be torn apart.
However, once they have formed, they become the templates for structures that exist in less energetic environments. Speciation then is the result of an occasional disruption of a basic building block at the more energetic level; but such events cannot happen too often, otherwise the softer structures built on top of them would be constantly torn apart.
The basic pace of evolution has to be consistent with the energy environment in which more the loosely bound structures built upon those âhardâ templates underneath can remain relatively intact. You canât fry your living organisms with large fluxes of energy on the order of an electron volt in order to make them evolve faster.
Rikki_Tikki_Taalik · 9 August 2016
Much has been said of the iridium concentrations in the Kt boundary but that's not the only material evidence in that layer. As far north as Utah and Colorado one can find micro beads of glass from molten rock as well as shocked quartz that can only develop under high impact conditions that was ejected into the atmosphere. Byers assertions of this being "hypothesized" with minor or scant evidence is blatantly false. To say the amount of material ejected from the impact site was enormous is an incredible understatement. For it to have been spread so far and wide and Byers would have us believe what's found in this layer is somehow the result of volcanic activity yet there's no evidence of any such event along those lines that could have produced and spread that material over that incredible expanse. Nor can that volcanic activity itself produce the shocked quartz.
Of course that's just speaking of the materials themselves and not the pattern of its deposition around the world. Much like one can study the crime science forensics of blood splatter for example, we know how the material is distributed across the earth, we have core samples from the ocean floor from around the vast impact site, the mapping of non-fallout material that radiated across land near the impact site and the effects of the ocean that radiated from the site, and all of this dates to the same period of time. So not only do we know how large the impactor was we even know fairly accurately the direction it arrived from and the angle of impact and speed given that data.
Not only is it pretty much impossible that any volcanic event could be the explanation that fits all the facts, Byers would have us believe that not only could it explain them, but that this was occurring at the same time as a global flood and somehow all this variety of materials magically sorted itself out in the midst of the great gushing of the fountains of the deep into a single layer to appear as though it came from a single impact. (While also sorting out dinos from large mammals, etc., etc.) And somehow didn't manage to poison the very atmosphere Noah and company had to breathe for about a year. And so on...
I'm pretty tired so I hope I was reasonably coherent.
Rikki_Tikki_Taalik · 9 August 2016
Oh, and it's also worth mentioning that this material all shares the same composition or "fingerprint" demonstrating that it came from a common source/location on the planet. So any assertion that materials found in the layer could possibly be from a variety of volcanic events happening simultaneously around the globe doesn't hold any flood water either. We already use that kind of fingerprinting to date past volcanic events and their origin and this would have been evident in the data.
John Harshman · 9 August 2016
Michael Fugate said:
The Jeanson and Lisle paper, on the other hand, is an exercise in putting lipstick on a pig.
For example, one of the speciation events in the Felid âkindâ (Pendragon and Winkler 2011) involves the formation of stripes (e.g., in tigers).
It seems likely, based on this quote, that they don't know what the word "speciation" means.
Robert Byers · 9 August 2016
Scott F said:
Robert Byers said:
there is a better answer and at least a option for the iridium layer.
Then propose one.
its not a smoking gun at all.
A creationist could predict thisv layer too if they were thinking about the sediment layers above the k-Pg line.
Uh, no they couldn't.
You see, Robert. This is why you don't understand science. In Real Science, the data comes first.
No scientist at all had predicted this iridium-rich layer of sediment. No one. It was discovered by accident. Once it was discovered, it needed an explanation. Real scientists came up with lots of ideas. They tested those ideas over a long period of time, gathering more evidence and more data. And, the best idea, the idea that survived the competition, the idea that explained all of the evidence the best, won out. That is now the idea that all Real Scientists agree upon.
If new evidence is presented, then the agreed-upon idea will be changed to fit the new data.
To date, no Creationist has proposed an alternative, any alternative, that explains all of the observed data.
To come back after the fact and say, "We could have predicted that", when in fact you could *not* have predicted anything of the sort, is called a "post hoc" justification. It is very childish, and very much the YEC method of "predicting" events after they have occurred.
I think its funny/unreasonable to so embrace as a fact the space rock story.
Fortunately, Real Science does not depend on what you find to be funny.
Now this, this is funny:
Its ... easy to see the incoming sediment as having sorted the iridium or it just got ahead of the following sediment
Do you even know what "sediment" is? How it forms? How in blazes does one "sediment" get "ahead of the following sediment"? Maybe one sediment tries really really hard to fall faster that the other sediment? Because it wants to get there first?
And you really don't know where iridium comes from either, do.
The sediment was deposited and then turned to stone. The sediment often, above the K-pg line, was pf volcanic origin and the rest can have other surces. However the sediment/rock about the iridium is the origin for it. Its not a later phase as they try to say.
A creationist easily can predict this result if they accept the K-Pg line as the flood line and then, centuries later, have a source for the incoming sediment loads which turn to stone.
It works fine and is more likely then impacts.
Which is very unlikely and very unsupported. in fact the fauna/flora change really leads it all. they just don't have other options. We do.
Robert Byers · 9 August 2016
W. H. Heydt said:
Robert Byers said:
Well it seems you did a good summery.
indeed it makes my case.
Yes the boundary was first noticed by the fauna/flora/sediment type .
Yes incoming sediment is a important point.
Yes iridium exists here and so finding more of it might be a clue.
Its more simple and easy to see the incoming sediment as having sorted the iridium or it just got ahead of the following sediment.
So one can hypothesis volcanoes did it quickly, just as quick as a impact, and this very common on the planet from sudden convulsions.
That is the more likely source of the greater amount of iridium. I didn't know how deep it was.
Its very likely its just part of the sediment load that is above it.
No space rovks are needed.
the finding of a crator means nothing more then finding a hole and doing dating things and poof there is your answer.
Its a grasping for a conclusion on minor evidence.
there is a better answer and at least a option for the iridium layer. its not a smoking gun at all.
A creationist could predict thisv layer too if they were thinking about the sediment layers above the k-Pg line.
I think its funny/unreasonable to so embrace as a fact the space rock story.
Scott F did a good job of showing where you've gone wrong. I just want to add that your claim that it was do to volcanic activity has the problem of not explaining the tsunami deposits in Perto Rico, pretty much half way around the world from the proposed site of the volcanic activity at the Deccan Traps. (And, by the way, that kind of eruption is effusive...many layers of relatively fluid lava, not explosive eruptions that can cause tsunamis, like the 1883 eruption of Krakatau).
Remember...I said you have to account for *all* the evidence. You don't get to pick and choose which bits can be forced to fit your own ideas. If your idea won't cover some of the data and someone elses idea covers everything yours does and more besides, you idea fails and falls by the wayside.
i don't think the Deccan traps is the origin either.
I see a vast volcanic event, up and doqn at least, the spine of the americas.
yet thats beside the point.
My point is that iridium is easily explained from the sediment layer above it. Thats the clue.
your side denies this timeline. They say the sediment layer about the iridium layer is much later.
Yet there is no reason to say that.They just don't have imagination for other options.
The stuff about tsaumies is just evidence for these waves. Even if from some impact its not evidence for a great one that wiped everyone out.
Its not evidence of anything. First they must demonstrate why iridium in a layer is a big deal demanding rocks from outer space.
Robert Byers · 9 August 2016
Rikki_Tikki_Taalik said:
Much has been said of the iridium concentrations in the Kt boundary but that's not the only material evidence in that layer. As far north as Utah and Colorado one can find micro beads of glass from molten rock as well as shocked quartz that can only develop under high impact conditions that was ejected into the atmosphere. Byers assertions of this being "hypothesized" with minor or scant evidence is blatantly false. To say the amount of material ejected from the impact site was enormous is an incredible understatement. For it to have been spread so far and wide and Byers would have us believe what's found in this layer is somehow the result of volcanic activity yet there's no evidence of any such event along those lines that could have produced and spread that material over that incredible expanse. Nor can that volcanic activity itself produce the shocked quartz.
Of course that's just speaking of the materials themselves and not the pattern of its deposition around the world. Much like one can study the crime science forensics of blood splatter for example, we know how the material is distributed across the earth, we have core samples from the ocean floor from around the vast impact site, the mapping of non-fallout material that radiated across land near the impact site and the effects of the ocean that radiated from the site, and all of this dates to the same period of time. So not only do we know how large the impactor was we even know fairly accurately the direction it arrived from and the angle of impact and speed given that data.
Not only is it pretty much impossible that any volcanic event could be the explanation that fits all the facts, Byers would have us believe that not only could it explain them, but that this was occurring at the same time as a global flood and somehow all this variety of materials magically sorted itself out in the midst of the great gushing of the fountains of the deep into a single layer to appear as though it came from a single impact. (While also sorting out dinos from large mammals, etc., etc.) And somehow didn't manage to poison the very atmosphere Noah and company had to breathe for about a year. And so on...
I'm pretty tired so I hope I was reasonably coherent.
Nothing to do with the biblical flood. The claim that iridium could only come from impact from space is what is being questioned and dismissed.
i'm saying the iridium is simply from exactly whats on top. It was a front leader in that sediment deposition. often volcanic material . Other sediment/rock also could caryy and sort this material in front.
About your other examples of quartz and beads etc. these are not only from impact pressure but pressure period. Volcanoes can be hypothesis to have created them.
in fact i know they say tiny tiny diamons were created underground suddenly. Microscophic almost.
Great volcanic action everywhere could easily deal with these minerals and make beads and bracelots.
Why not? The mechanism is pressure. Not only impacts do this.
Yes it would be global as much as the overlying sediment loads are global.
Thats the origin.
John Harshman · 9 August 2016
in fact i know they say tiny tiny diamons were created underground suddenly.
This is my favorite of all time. It's almost makes having Byers here worthwhile.
Rolf · 10 August 2016
Robert said:
in fact i know they say tiny tiny diamons were created underground suddenly.
What's the source of your 'fact'? Who says what you say that they say?
Rikki_Tikki_Taalik · 10 August 2016
Robert Byers said:
Nothing to do with the biblical flood. The claim that iridium could only come from impact from space is what is being questioned and dismissed.
i'm saying the iridium is simply from exactly whats on top. It was a front leader in that sediment deposition. often volcanic material . Other sediment/rock also could caryy and sort this material in front.
I'll ignore this baffle-gab.
About your other examples of quartz and beads etc. these are not only from impact pressure but pressure period. Volcanoes can be hypothesis to have created them.
No, Robert. "Pressure" does not produce glass beads. Molten minerals ejected into the atmosphere where they spin and cool to form a sphere produces them. Neither does "pressure", your magic out for everything not "sorted", produce shocked quartz. Shocked quartz by definition requires an instantaneous application of extreme energy, hence the "shocked" effect that is observed.
in fact i know they say tiny tiny diamons were created underground suddenly. Microscophic almost. Great volcanic action everywhere could easily deal with these minerals and make beads and bracelots. Why not? The mechanism is pressure. Not only impacts do this.
Yes it would be global as much as the overlying sediment loads are global.
Thats the origin.
Except, as I pointed out it my followup comment which you either missed or ignored, the elemental makeup of the beads would vary greatly depending on their origin. But that's not what we find, we find a consistent elemental makeup of the material which implies a single source. Using this elemental fingerprint we can generally identify the location of the activity that produced it. Multiple or a massive widespread sourcing would cause this material to vary widely it's in makeup and would be easily discernible.
Additionally, I'm unaware of any evidence of this "Great volcanic action everywhere" ever occurring. You are welcome to point out where this "everywhere" all supposedly occurred if you can, or we can file this in the "assertion without evidence" folder.
And, that's my one and out.
John Harshman · 10 August 2016
Oops. It's no longer my favorite of all time. I misread "diamons" for "diatoms". "Diamons" is merely amusing. "Diatoms" would have been epic.
DS · 10 August 2016
Scott F said:
DS said:
right booby a creationist predicted this right after it was found by real scientists way to go your wrong it's a gun smoking in the boys room
Close. You need a couple of random capital letters, at least period somewhere, and some misspellings. If you're clever, the misspellings should be both obvious typos, and random phonetic mistakes. Also, I don't think Robert knows what the word "it's" with an apostrophe is.
Good effort, though.
sorry i was Inadvertently cohernet its wont happen again
W. H. Heydt · 10 August 2016
Robert Byers said:
i don't think the Deccan traps is the origin either.
I see a vast volcanic event, up and doqn at least, the spine of the americas.
yet thats beside the point.
My point is that iridium is easily explained from the sediment layer above it. Thats the clue.
your side denies this timeline. They say the sediment layer about the iridium layer is much later.
Yet there is no reason to say that.They just don't have imagination for other options.
The stuff about tsaumies is just evidence for these waves. Even if from some impact its not evidence for a great one that wiped everyone out.
Its not evidence of anything. First they must demonstrate why iridium in a layer is a big deal demanding rocks from outer space.
There is no evidence for large scale volcanic activity in North America anywhere near (it time) to the K-Pg boundary. The only large volcanic province that is even close in time is the D3ccan Traps. If you're trying to fit the eruptions of the Yellowstone hotspot in here, you're off by over 60 million years. So if you want to blame it on volcanic activity, that's your only choice until you find another source with the proper dating. And, as rikki-tikki-taalik points out, volcanic activity won't produce the shocked quartz or micro-tektites also found at the K-Pg boundary.
The sediments below the boundary clays are older. The ones above, younger. That's the way sediment is deposited. If you want to dispute that, you need to show an actual mechanism with both direct evidence and math to back up your contention. You have done neither.
Yes, the tsunami deposits *are* evidence of large waves, specifically a tsunami generated by a large impact event. Which is to say, those deposit *support* the impact hypothesis and don't support any other hypothesis.
The reason finding trace amounts of Iridium in the boundary clay is a big deal is that Iridium is, relatively speaking, much more common in material coming in from space than it is in general surface rocks. In the effort to determine how long it took for the K-Pg clay layer to be deposited, more Iridium was found (though still very tiny amounts...that's why the work was done by neutron activation analysis and not just straight chemistry) than could be accounted by the steady accumulation from bits of space dust hitting the Earth all the time. It was the *excess* Iridium that led the Alvarez team to consider all the possibilities they could think of--including volcanic activity--and finally settle on the most probable cause being an large impact. Other teams then *tested* the predictions of that hypothesis and confirmed the findings. It wasn't just a lucky guess, or a failure to consider other, less abruptly catastrophic events, but a reasoned analysis from the data at hand.
You are still not coming to grips with *all* the data. You are trying to ignore inconvenient facts and fit what remains into your chosen scenario. Even the facts that you are not ignoring don't fit your scenario.
ashleyhr · 10 August 2016
AiG have failed to post the Jeanson 6 August attack on Facebook. I find that interesting: https://www.facebook.com/AnswersInGenesis/
Robert Byers · 10 August 2016
Rikki_Tikki_Taalik said:
Robert Byers said:
Nothing to do with the biblical flood. The claim that iridium could only come from impact from space is what is being questioned and dismissed.
i'm saying the iridium is simply from exactly whats on top. It was a front leader in that sediment deposition. often volcanic material . Other sediment/rock also could caryy and sort this material in front.
I'll ignore this baffle-gab.
About your other examples of quartz and beads etc. these are not only from impact pressure but pressure period. Volcanoes can be hypothesis to have created them.
No, Robert. "Pressure" does not produce glass beads. Molten minerals ejected into the atmosphere where they spin and cool to form a sphere produces them. Neither does "pressure", your magic out for everything not "sorted", produce shocked quartz. Shocked quartz by definition requires an instantaneous application of extreme energy, hence the "shocked" effect that is observed.
in fact i know they say tiny tiny diamons were created underground suddenly. Microscophic almost. Great volcanic action everywhere could easily deal with these minerals and make beads and bracelots. Why not? The mechanism is pressure. Not only impacts do this.
Yes it would be global as much as the overlying sediment loads are global.
Thats the origin.
Except, as I pointed out it my followup comment which you either missed or ignored, the elemental makeup of the beads would vary greatly depending on their origin. But that's not what we find, we find a consistent elemental makeup of the material which implies a single source. Using this elemental fingerprint we can generally identify the location of the activity that produced it. Multiple or a massive widespread sourcing would cause this material to vary widely it's in makeup and would be easily discernible.
Additionally, I'm unaware of any evidence of this "Great volcanic action everywhere" ever occurring. You are welcome to point out where this "everywhere" all supposedly occurred if you can, or we can file this in the "assertion without evidence" folder.
And, that's my one and out.
Fine about these materials from molten material ejected. Thats the volcanoes.
The quartz being from one source is not a problem. Volcanoes equally exploding would easily have a like size etc.
These details can be seen as still indicating a volcanic explosions everywhere.
Its an option and more likely.
Anyways its still just a calculation, based on elimination of other options, that leads to the space rock hypothesis.
Robert Byers · 10 August 2016
W. H. Heydt said:
Robert Byers said:
i don't think the Deccan traps is the origin either.
I see a vast volcanic event, up and doqn at least, the spine of the americas.
yet thats beside the point.
My point is that iridium is easily explained from the sediment layer above it. Thats the clue.
your side denies this timeline. They say the sediment layer about the iridium layer is much later.
Yet there is no reason to say that.They just don't have imagination for other options.
The stuff about tsaumies is just evidence for these waves. Even if from some impact its not evidence for a great one that wiped everyone out.
Its not evidence of anything. First they must demonstrate why iridium in a layer is a big deal demanding rocks from outer space.
There is no evidence for large scale volcanic activity in North America anywhere near (it time) to the K-Pg boundary. The only large volcanic province that is even close in time is the D3ccan Traps. If you're trying to fit the eruptions of the Yellowstone hotspot in here, you're off by over 60 million years. So if you want to blame it on volcanic activity, that's your only choice until you find another source with the proper dating. And, as rikki-tikki-taalik points out, volcanic activity won't produce the shocked quartz or micro-tektites also found at the K-Pg boundary.
The sediments below the boundary clays are older. The ones above, younger. That's the way sediment is deposited. If you want to dispute that, you need to show an actual mechanism with both direct evidence and math to back up your contention. You have done neither.
Yes, the tsunami deposits *are* evidence of large waves, specifically a tsunami generated by a large impact event. Which is to say, those deposit *support* the impact hypothesis and don't support any other hypothesis.
The reason finding trace amounts of Iridium in the boundary clay is a big deal is that Iridium is, relatively speaking, much more common in material coming in from space than it is in general surface rocks. In the effort to determine how long it took for the K-Pg clay layer to be deposited, more Iridium was found (though still very tiny amounts...that's why the work was done by neutron activation analysis and not just straight chemistry) than could be accounted by the steady accumulation from bits of space dust hitting the Earth all the time. It was the *excess* Iridium that led the Alvarez team to consider all the possibilities they could think of--including volcanic activity--and finally settle on the most probable cause being an large impact. Other teams then *tested* the predictions of that hypothesis and confirmed the findings. It wasn't just a lucky guess, or a failure to consider other, less abruptly catastrophic events, but a reasoned analysis from the data at hand.
You are still not coming to grips with *all* the data. You are trying to ignore inconvenient facts and fit what remains into your chosen scenario. Even the facts that you are not ignoring don't fit your scenario.
You are providing dsates for deposition. I don't accept these dates.
Its not relevant to the discussion anyways.
All that is found is iridium in amounts more then usual between deposition events for sediment loads that became rock.
First the fauna/flora segregation in fossils in deposits and then this iridium line.
Creationism offers a better analysis.
The iridium is just part of the over lying sediment/roc. It was sorted or dragged along and sorted or just flying ahead of volcanic sediment being ejected out. A recipe of sediment movement.
Any great volcanic action can account for any elements being created from such pressure.
So a hypothesis is offered for the iridium layer and so POOF goes the space rock hypothesis. If it ever was a real hypothesis in science?!
My point is there is no demanding evidence to say a impact from space landed at that moment causing all the trouble.
These depositional events are accounted for in biblical creationism very easily and more likely.
The impact thing I find strangely unsupported relative to its acceptance.
Mike Elzinga · 10 August 2016
Minimum-energy canopy scenario for Noahâs purported worldwide flood:
(1) Rate of energy deposition: 1.6 x 108 watts per square meter (The equivalent of 40 kg of TNT going off every second over every square meter of the Earth)
(2) Atmospheric temperature climbing to 10,570 degrees Fahrenheit.
(3) Atmospheric pressure going to 860 atmospheres.
âFountains-of-the-deepâ scenario includes superheated steam coming up from Earthâs mantle, and ocean basins being gouged out of solid rock and mountains we see today being built up. Far greater energy scenario.
In fact, any purported scenario put forth by YECs would have deposited millions of times more energy onto the Earthâs surface than the meteor that hit the Yucatan Peninsula and wiped out the dinosaurs. The entire Earthâs surface would have been completely burned off. Nothing would have survived: not Noah, not his impossible-to-construct unseaworthy ark, and not any of other people or animals in the ark. Everything would have been turned into a complete plasma at a temperature of over 10,500 degrees Fahrenheit.
The story of Noahâs flood is physically impossible to square with the planet we see today. No amount of ignorant word gaming will make it so.
Scott F · 10 August 2016
Robert Byers said:
The sediment was deposited and then turned to stone. The sediment often, above the K-pg line, was pf volcanic origin and the rest can have other sources.
Ah, so you have no idea what "sediment" is, nor how it is formed. The iridium layer is buried in the middle of clay. Clay is simply not "of volcanic origin". Have you ever in your life seen volcanic rock? Have you ever touched any kind of volcanic rock? Have you ever touched "clay"? The two are nothing alike.
However the sediment/rock about the iridium is the origin for it. Its not a later phase as they try to say.
What does that even mean? Oh, never mind. It doesn't actually mean anything. It simply represents the random firings in your head at the time the words spilled out.
A creationist easily can predict this result if they accept the K-Pg line as the flood line and then, centuries later, have a source for the incoming sediment loads which turn to stone.
I see that you don't know what the word "predict" means, either. Seeing an event that others have discovered, and then after the event saying, "I could have predicted that", is in fact *not* a prediction. It is wishful thinking.
It works fine and is more likely then impacts.
Which is very unlikely and very unsupported. in fact the fauna/flora change really leads it all. they just don't have other options. We do.
That's true. Your other options are, "God magic'ed it to happen that way." But for some strange reason, you don't seem to want to use that very obvious option.
tomh · 10 August 2016
eric said:
I think it's definitely worth asking both Presidential and VP candidates the question again.
When asked about his current view on evolution, Pence's campaign pointed to a 2009 interview on Hardball with Chris Matthews, where this exchange took place:
Chris Matthews asked Pence in the interview: "Do you believe in evolution, sir?"
Pence responded: "I embrace the view that God created the heavens and the earth and the seas and all thatâs in them."
Matthews continued: "But do you believe in evolution as the way he did it?"
Pence replied: "The means, Chris, that he used to do that, I canât say."
Apparently he has said nothing since on the subject, and won't be pinned down now.
W. H. Heydt · 10 August 2016
Robert Byers said:
Fine about these materials from molten material ejected. Thats the volcanoes.
The quartz being from one source is not a problem. Volcanoes equally exploding would easily have a like size etc.
These details can be seen as still indicating a volcanic explosions everywhere.
Its an option and more likely.
Anyways its still just a calculation, based on elimination of other options, that leads to the space rock hypothesis.
That's completely incohereht. You are simultaneously claiming that a single volcano (to account for the compositional identity of the material) *and* volcanoes everywhere to account for the world wide effects. Don't you ever stop to consider the conflicts *within* your proposals? Don't you realize that those contradictions absolutely *destroy* your conjecture?
Scott F · 10 August 2016
tomh said:
eric said:
I think it's definitely worth asking both Presidential and VP candidates the question again.
When asked about his current view on evolution, Pence's campaign pointed to a 2009 interview on Hardball with Chris Matthews, where this exchange took place:
Chris Matthews asked Pence in the interview: "Do you believe in evolution, sir?"
Pence responded: "I embrace the view that God created the heavens and the earth and the seas and all thatâs in them."
Matthews continued: "But do you believe in evolution as the way he did it?"
Pence replied: "The means, Chris, that he used to do that, I canât say."
Apparently he has said nothing since on the subject, and won't be pinned down now.
I would really like the moderator in the debate to ask each candidate how old the Earth is, to within, say, three orders of magnitude. The follow up question would be, how do you know? The justification for the question is, on whom do you depend for the facts that you need to know about the World around you, and how do you go about evaluating that information and those opinions?
A President can't be expected to know everything about the World. How that person learns about the World is a critical aspect of leadership.
Scott F · 10 August 2016
Robert Byers said:
Any great volcanic action can account for any elements being created from such pressure.
Oh, sweet, dear Robert. You have absolutely no idea how elements are actually created.
The creation of iridium does indeed require pressure. Lots and *lots* of pressure. In fact, it requires the kind of pressure that one finds in the heart of stars when they explode in a super nova. In other words, the energy required to create iridium would be enough energy to vaporize the entire planet Earth, and every other object in our solar system, including Jupiter and the Sun itself, turning them all into a vast cloud of expanding plasma.
Yet as far as you know, that's about the same amount of energy in a small volcanic explosion. Right?
W. H. Heydt · 10 August 2016
Robert Byers said:
You are providing dsates for deposition. I don't accept these dates.
Its not relevant to the discussion anyways.
All that is found is iridium in amounts more then usual between deposition events for sediment loads that became rock.
First the fauna/flora segregation in fossils in deposits and then this iridium line.
Creationism offers a better analysis.
The iridium is just part of the over lying sediment/roc. It was sorted or dragged along and sorted or just flying ahead of volcanic sediment being ejected out. A recipe of sediment movement.
Any great volcanic action can account for any elements being created from such pressure.
So a hypothesis is offered for the iridium layer and so POOF goes the space rock hypothesis. If it ever was a real hypothesis in science?!
My point is there is no demanding evidence to say a impact from space landed at that moment causing all the trouble.
These depositional events are accounted for in biblical creationism very easily and more likely.
The impact thing I find strangely unsupported relative to its acceptance.
You are correct. I'm providing dates. The dates are--on the one hand--for the K-Pg boundary, approximately 65MYA, and on the other hand, the eruptions from the Yellowstone hotpsot eruptions, approximately 2.3MYA to about 600KYA. I don't care if you don't like those dates. If you're going to dispute the dates, you need to either find a source for actual reserach giving substantially different dates, or do the work yourself. Either whoever has done the dating work that you care to cite, or you, if you do it yourself, need to do enough work to demonstrate that the dating has been done competently.
It is clear that, not only do you not know how sediment is deposited, but you don't even know what a hypothesis is. Biblical creationism not only does not account easily for the deposits, it can't account for them at all.
You know...there was time when the cause of Barringer Crater in Arizona was debated. The question was: Impact or volcano? A lot of work was done to finally pin it down as an impact crater. Scientists *can* tell the difference between volcanic craters and impact craters. They can also tell the difference between volcanic deposits and impact generated deposits. The "impact thing" is accepted because a lot of evidence was accumulated and the that evidence showed that the only explanation that made any sense at all was an impact. If that puzzles you, then it is your lack of understanding, not something wrong with the scientific research that reached that conclusion. You really need to break out of your self-induced blindness and learn how science works, how scientists come to conclusions about the world, what evidence is, and how to work with it.
I have maintained for years that the difference between ignorance and stupidity is that ignorance is curable. *Learn* and cure your ignorance.
tomh · 10 August 2016
Scott F said:
A President can't be expected to know everything about the World. How that person learns about the World is a critical aspect of leadership.
Well, Trump will tell you that he learns about the world from his own super-smart brain.
eric · 11 August 2016
Scott F said:
I would really like the moderator in the debate to ask each candidate how old the Earth is, to within, say, three orders of magnitude.
Well that's not going to happen. Unless we get very lucky and somebody sneaks one through at a town-hall style event. Ironically, our best chance that the subject will come up would be if Trump or Pence holds a closed-door event with religious conservatives, because they would be allowed to bring it up in that sort of situation whereas I doubt staff would allow any independent to ask the same question of their candidate in a more public/open forum.
Before yesterday, I was hoping Science magazine would ask it, as every cycle they lead a multi-organizational effort to request the candidates write responses to a set of science-oriented questions. Because of their reputation and the multi-organization nature of it, the candidates (or at least their staff) usually respond. Science's questions for 2016 were published yesterday and you can read them here. Sadly no specific question about evolution made the list. For the most part, I can see how the questions they chose are more relevant and broad-reaching in terms of policies a President might actually implement. Personally though, I would've included a question about evolution over their current question #17. IMO current question #17 is more about policy choices for law enforcement and the changing of drug use laws, it has little or nothing to do with the intersection of science and broader society.
eric · 11 August 2016
Robert Byers said:
The iridium is just part of the over lying sediment/roc. It was sorted or dragged along and sorted or just flying ahead of volcanic sediment being ejected out. A recipe of sediment movement. Any great volcanic action can account for any elements being created from such pressure.
Not to beat a dead horse, but (some of) the major problems with your claim are:
1. The iridium layer is found between non-volcanic soil layers too.
2. You have no tested or testable hypothesis for how this sorting occurs. We can also directly observe the flows from volcanos, and we directly observe no such elemental sorting. This is not some 'different interpretation of the same evidence' that you like to claim. The physical phenomena you assert will happen when a volcano erupts doesn't happen.We watch volcanos erupt and we see that such sorting doesn't happen.
3. No, volcanos can't make elements. As with the sorting claim, we watch volcanos erupt and we see that your claim is untrue. We can also go to an accelerator, make elements, and show that the conditions required to do this are conditions that cannot be achieved in a volcanic eruption.
As Scott F says, I think your only real option here is to invoke 'God miracled it to look like this.' Because you really can't get a consistent global higher-concentration iridium layer out of a natural, physics-obeying volcanic eruption.
TomS · 11 August 2016
eric said:
Robert Byers said:
The iridium is just part of the over lying sediment/roc. It was sorted or dragged along and sorted or just flying ahead of volcanic sediment being ejected out. A recipe of sediment movement. Any great volcanic action can account for any elements being created from such pressure.
Not to beat a dead horse, but (some of) the major problems with your claim are:
1. The iridium layer is found between non-volcanic soil layers too.
2. You have no tested or testable hypothesis for how this sorting occurs. We can also directly observe the flows from volcanos, and we directly observe no such elemental sorting. This is not some 'different interpretation of the same evidence' that you like to claim. The physical phenomena you assert will happen when a volcano erupts doesn't happen.We watch volcanos erupt and we see that such sorting doesn't happen.
3. No, volcanos can't make elements. As with the sorting claim, we watch volcanos erupt and we see that your claim is untrue. We can also go to an accelerator, make elements, and show that the conditions required to do this are conditions that cannot be achieved in a volcanic eruption.
As Scott F says, I think your only real option here is to invoke 'God miracled it to look like this.' Because you really can't get a consistent global higher-concentration iridium layer out of a natural, physics-obeying volcanic eruption.
Doesn't creationism demand that any sorting cannot be the result of natural forces? The "second law of thermodynamics", "entropy" and that sort of thing?
Isn't the only way that a consistent global layer come about, according to their argument, is by "intelligent design"?
Scott F · 11 August 2016
TomS said:
Doesn't creationism demand that any sorting cannot be the result of natural forces? The "second law of thermodynamics", "entropy" and that sort of thing?
Isn't the only way that a consistent global layer come about, according to their argument, is by "intelligent design"?
That, sir, is an excellent point.
Robert Byers · 11 August 2016
Scott F said:
Robert Byers said:
Any great volcanic action can account for any elements being created from such pressure.
Oh, sweet, dear Robert. You have absolutely no idea how elements are actually created.
The creation of iridium does indeed require pressure. Lots and *lots* of pressure. In fact, it requires the kind of pressure that one finds in the heart of stars when they explode in a super nova. In other words, the energy required to create iridium would be enough energy to vaporize the entire planet Earth, and every other object in our solar system, including Jupiter and the Sun itself, turning them all into a vast cloud of expanding plasma.
Yet as far as you know, that's about the same amount of energy in a small volcanic explosion. Right?
Iridium come from the earth too. The origin for iridium is supplied by volcanic eruptions regardless how its created. thats my point. The iridium is not a separate event from whats above it but is part of that sediment accumulation. It was one great event. Different things going on depending on the area however i see all layers above the k-Pg line as from a single event lasting weeks or months etc a few centuries after the flood.
Yet thats beside the point.
i'm only pointing out how easily otherr options are more likely for the iridium then space rocks.
Robert Byers · 11 August 2016
eric said:
Robert Byers said:
The iridium is just part of the over lying sediment/roc. It was sorted or dragged along and sorted or just flying ahead of volcanic sediment being ejected out. A recipe of sediment movement. Any great volcanic action can account for any elements being created from such pressure.
Not to beat a dead horse, but (some of) the major problems with your claim are:
1. The iridium layer is found between non-volcanic soil layers too.
2. You have no tested or testable hypothesis for how this sorting occurs. We can also directly observe the flows from volcanos, and we directly observe no such elemental sorting. This is not some 'different interpretation of the same evidence' that you like to claim. The physical phenomena you assert will happen when a volcano erupts doesn't happen.We watch volcanos erupt and we see that such sorting doesn't happen.
3. No, volcanos can't make elements. As with the sorting claim, we watch volcanos erupt and we see that your claim is untrue. We can also go to an accelerator, make elements, and show that the conditions required to do this are conditions that cannot be achieved in a volcanic eruption.
As Scott F says, I think your only real option here is to invoke 'God miracled it to look like this.' Because you really can't get a consistent global higher-concentration iridium layer out of a natural, physics-obeying volcanic eruption.
I never said how it was done. I simply see the volcanoes carrying the iridium along with what they expell. Not moving along the ground but in the air etc.
Yes other sediment loads are moving suddenly into place. so i see it as a option the iridium being sorted while moving with them.
Any sediment its found in has a option for having carried it. Remember your sides iridium layer must have a distribtion system also. by air and fanning out. i do too. only other stuff is carrying it along or pushing it ahead or a sorting option.
the big point is that the first conclusion should be the iridium is part of the episode that laid whats above it. not unlikely space rocks.
Robert Byers · 11 August 2016
W. H. Heydt said:
Robert Byers said:
You are providing dsates for deposition. I don't accept these dates.
Its not relevant to the discussion anyways.
All that is found is iridium in amounts more then usual between deposition events for sediment loads that became rock.
First the fauna/flora segregation in fossils in deposits and then this iridium line.
Creationism offers a better analysis.
The iridium is just part of the over lying sediment/roc. It was sorted or dragged along and sorted or just flying ahead of volcanic sediment being ejected out. A recipe of sediment movement.
Any great volcanic action can account for any elements being created from such pressure.
So a hypothesis is offered for the iridium layer and so POOF goes the space rock hypothesis. If it ever was a real hypothesis in science?!
My point is there is no demanding evidence to say a impact from space landed at that moment causing all the trouble.
These depositional events are accounted for in biblical creationism very easily and more likely.
The impact thing I find strangely unsupported relative to its acceptance.
You are correct. I'm providing dates. The dates are--on the one hand--for the K-Pg boundary, approximately 65MYA, and on the other hand, the eruptions from the Yellowstone hotpsot eruptions, approximately 2.3MYA to about 600KYA. I don't care if you don't like those dates. If you're going to dispute the dates, you need to either find a source for actual reserach giving substantially different dates, or do the work yourself. Either whoever has done the dating work that you care to cite, or you, if you do it yourself, need to do enough work to demonstrate that the dating has been done competently.
It is clear that, not only do you not know how sediment is deposited, but you don't even know what a hypothesis is. Biblical creationism not only does not account easily for the deposits, it can't account for them at all.
You know...there was time when the cause of Barringer Crater in Arizona was debated. The question was: Impact or volcano? A lot of work was done to finally pin it down as an impact crater. Scientists *can* tell the difference between volcanic craters and impact craters. They can also tell the difference between volcanic deposits and impact generated deposits. The "impact thing" is accepted because a lot of evidence was accumulated and the that evidence showed that the only explanation that made any sense at all was an impact. If that puzzles you, then it is your lack of understanding, not something wrong with the scientific research that reached that conclusion. You really need to break out of your self-induced blindness and learn how science works, how scientists come to conclusions about the world, what evidence is, and how to work with it.
I have maintained for years that the difference between ignorance and stupidity is that ignorance is curable. *Learn* and cure your ignorance.
If i accepted the dates I would already be rejecting YEC creationism.
you can't retreat behind these dates.
I simply said iridium is easily explained in a sandwiched layer as from the source above. Part of the source above iwas volcanic actions spewing stuff out and triggering sediment movements and other movements on earth that deposited quickly sediment loads.
Seeing this iridium layer as evidence, or evem a hint, of a space rock is unlikely and extreme. its not needed.
There are better options. Doesn't matter the scenario. it was from volcanoes most likely. Popssibly just carried along, sorted, by fast moving sediment loads here and there on earth.
Rolf · 12 August 2016
The K-T boundary is not within my field of expertise. Thank God we have Robert. He is an expert on iridium, sedimentation, volcanoes, radiometric dating, and most everything else scientific.
We do not need scientists, expensive instruments and extensive research, or books. We only need Robert. How he does it is beyond comprehension. He certainly is a genius. Why aren't universities queueing at his doorstep?
Please Robert, how come you are so much smarter than our scientists? They work hard for years, yet you know better than them just by intuition?
Robert, please tell, how old is the Earth?
My mind boogles thinking of how much time and money I have wasted on books.
DS · 12 August 2016
After all of his talking points have been completely refuted with actual evidence, booby demonstrates that none of that means anything to him. He just keeps repeating his already demolished arguments and spouting his ignorant nonsense. He is proud of the fact that no amount of logic or evidence can change is mind. Of course, that is not something to be proud of, as any rational person knows full well. He can't reject the accurate dating of geological events without rejecting YEC (those are his actual words), so he simply can;t accept the dates, period, end of discussion. It doesn't matter if every single expert disagrees with him, he simply doesn't care. He just assumes that he knows more than all of them combined, because h just so darn brilliant, don't ya know. He just can't be wrong, he can't. So his ignorant opinion will never change, ever. And he thinks that this means that he wins!
Well booby, if that is really your opinion then here is mine. Whatever you believe is wrong. I don't want to see any evidence. I don't want to discuss it. My opinion is that your opinion is wrong. It doesn't matter that I have never met you. It doesn't matter if I know anything about the crap you are spouting or not. It doesn't matter what the so called experts say. In my opinion you are wrong and you will always be wrong about everything.. If you believe in YEC it is automatically wrong. If you don't like that reasoning, stop using it.
Please let booby keep posting here. But please, move every one of his ignorant screeds to the bathroom wall where they belong. Of course, you could save yourself the trouble by just banning the boob, but then we would not have this shining example of your mind on YEC.
eric · 12 August 2016
Robert Byers said:
so i see it as a option the iridium being sorted while moving with them.
We can directly observe your option is not true. We watch a volcano erupt, and see that it doesn't sort iridium out of the other material.
How do you address this point?
W. H. Heydt · 12 August 2016
Robert Byers said:
If i accepted the dates I would already be rejecting YEC creationism.
That's your problem, not mine. I'm familiar with how dating is done, so I have no problem with the dates. If you think the dates are wrong, you need to be explicit about how you date the materials. You know...actual research results, not handwaving Biblical arguments.
you can't retreat behind these dates.
Sure I can because I know how dating is done and the dates given are consistent with known facts. *You* have a problem with the dating because you have no way to date rocks and are simply rejecting them because they don't fit your pre-conceived notions.
I simply said iridium is easily explained in a sandwiched layer as from the source above. Part of the source above iwas volcanic actions spewing stuff out and triggering sediment movements and other movements on earth that deposited quickly sediment loads.
Seeing this iridium layer as evidence, or evem a hint, of a space rock is unlikely and extreme. its not needed.
There are better options. Doesn't matter the scenario. it was from volcanoes most likely. Popssibly just carried along, sorted, by fast moving sediment loads here and there on earth.
I guess you missed the part where Alvarez, et. al. considered volcanoes. They weren't *trying* to fit the data to an impact, but once they eliminated other causes that might fit the data, the only one left was an impact. You volcano scenario just doesn't fit the evidence. I realiae that it's a idee fixe for you, but that doesn't make it correct.
I should also point out that scientists from other disciplines really didn't like the impact hypothesis, most notably, Paleontolgists and especially William Clemmons, head of the Paleo department at UC Berkeley. But even there, the fight was more over proximate cause of the extinction event, not over whether or not the impact event actually occurred. Alvarez nailed the impact down quite thoroughly. I'd tell you to go argue the point with Luis Alvarez, but he died some years ago. You might take it up with his son, Walter Alvarez who did the geological work. If you want dispute things like the isotopic signature of the Iridium pointing to being from an impact from space rather than from a Terrestrial source, you need to take it up with Helen Michels and Frank Asaro who did the neutron activation analysis work.
There is a considerable body of literature supporting the reality of the impact, dating it, and the location of the crater. You have yet to come to grips with any of the actual data, let alone the scientific conclusions drawn from that data.
Malcolm · 12 August 2016
DS said:
After all of his talking points have been completely refuted with actual evidence, booby demonstrates that none of that means anything to him. He just keeps repeating his already demolished arguments and spouting his ignorant nonsense. He is proud of the fact that no amount of logic or evidence can change is mind. Of course, that is not something to be proud of, as any rational person knows full well. He can't reject the accurate dating of geological events without rejecting YEC (those are his actual words), so he simply can;t accept the dates, period, end of discussion. It doesn't matter if every single expert disagrees with him, he simply doesn't care. He just assumes that he knows more than all of them combined, because h just so darn brilliant, don't ya know. He just can't be wrong, he can't. So his ignorant opinion will never change, ever. And he thinks that this means that he wins!
It's worse than that. Byers, like Ray and Flawed, thinks that everyone else does the same. It makes no difference how often they are corrected, they will go on thinking that their argument is just as valid as everyone else's, because they are all based entirely on presuppositions.
Robert Byers · 12 August 2016
eric said:
Robert Byers said:
so i see it as a option the iridium being sorted while moving with them.
We can directly observe your option is not true. We watch a volcano erupt, and see that it doesn't sort iridium out of the other material.
How do you address this point?
first. it was massive explosions, many, at one time. i just increase the size.
Then a option is as fanning out it comes in front of the rest of the material.
Second it might sort in front of the following material.
third. it might land on the ground ahead and mingle with ground sediment. Then, for many reasons, that sediment travels and before it stops it has sorted some of the irididium.
For everybody there must be a fanning out of this iridium from a source.
then it must land and later went covered it must not have been moved or interfered with by whats covering it.
In fact i see as unlikely your sides claim that sediment could so easily move on top over time without messing up the iridium layer.
Rolf · 12 August 2016
WTF are you talking about?
As soon as the iridum has hit where it falls, on land or the seabed, it stays there. It is a very heavy metal that stays where it has fallen.
What sorting mechanism are you proposing? Have you ever had a look at how snow falls? It falls on top of the snow that has fallen before, and stays there. No sorting. Robert, is there no limit to your stupidity? It seems to me that you think you can make nature obey your ideas of how it should behave.
Robert, it isn't so! Nature works in the ways of nature itself, not in the ways your brain wants it to work.
W. H. Heydt · 12 August 2016
Robert Byers said:
first. it was massive explosions, many, at one time. i just increase the size.
Then a option is as fanning out it comes in front of the rest of the material.
Second it might sort in front of the following material.
third. it might land on the ground ahead and mingle with ground sediment. Then, for many reasons, that sediment travels and before it stops it has sorted some of the irididium.
For everybody there must be a fanning out of this iridium from a source.
then it must land and later went covered it must not have been moved or interfered with by whats covering it.
In fact i see as unlikely your sides claim that sediment could so easily move on top over time without messing up the iridium layer.
It has already be pointed out, multiple times, that the sorting behavior you are trying invoke isn't observed. That you are clinging to that idea suggests that either you haven't actually read the replies to what you've written, haven't understood those replies, or that you are sticking to your notion because you don't have anything to back up what you *want* to happen, regardless of what is actually *observed* to happen in explosive eruptions.
Next up...you can't just, willy-nilly add more or bigger eruptions as an ad hoc fix. You need to point to actual geological evidence for your supposed eruptions and the rock have to be dated to match the K-Pg boundary.
There are known mechanisms to spread fine particulate matter around the world. That's why one of Alvarez research sources was the report on the 1883 Krakatau eruption, which did just that, by injecting material into the Stratosphere. Note that date...the ability of a sufficiently energetic event to distribute material around the world has been solidly established since at least the late 19th century. Your proposal doesn't match that data any more than it matches the data from an impact.
No one has asserted that the boundary clay was moved, save by normal tectonic forces, which in this case are rather slow. That it was covered by later layers is also normal geological process, and the same thing is still going on today. And--by the bye--that the layers neatly accumulated without disturbance *also* means that they cound not have been deposited under the conditions consistent with a global flood (even if--as Mr. Elizinga has frequently pointed out, is barred by thermodynamic calculations).
I am not writing these responses in any hope--however slim--that you will learn anything, as you clearly are resisting all efforts to help you understand why you ideas are false, but so that other reading this thread will understand that you are not coming to grips with the reality of the matter. But if you want to prove me wrong...feel free to propose a conjecture that fits the data. However, your mass volcano scenario doesn't, so give that one up.
W. H. Heydt · 12 August 2016
I am reminded of the original problem of erratics (boulders located far from the the strata they came from). The early proposed answer was to suggest that they were moved by flowing water in floods. When it was pointed out that no flood anyone had ever seen could have done the job, people proposed a *bigger* flood. Ultimately, it was determined that, yes, they were moved by water, but it was in the form of glaciers.
What brings this to mind is Mr. Byers attempt to get out of the hole he dug himself by suggesting a volcanic eruption to account for the boundary clay composition--which was shown to be inadequate--is to change to bigger and more widespread volcanoes. This despite that that flies in the face of the "single source" composition signature of the material.
Scott F · 12 August 2016
Robert Byers said:
In fact i see as unlikely your sides claim that sediment could so easily move on top over time without messing up the iridium layer.
I told you before, Robert. You have no idea what "sediment" is, or how it is formed. You can't tell the difference between "sediment" and volcanic rock.
Here's a hint. Have you ever gone wading barefoot in a pond or on the shore of a lake? What was that stuff that squished up between your toes? We call it "mud".
Where does that mud come from? It comes from fine silt settling out of the water. The water settles down and stops churning, and all the fine dust and silt settles to the bottom. The silt can be brought in by streams and rivers, or it can come in as dust blown by the wind. We see this happening right before our eyes.
As the dust and silt settles to the bottom of the water, it covers the dust and silt that settled there last year. And that's on top of the dust and silt that settle below it the year before. Year after year, the dust and silt collects on the bottom of the water. Eventually, that pond or lake fills in and becomes a meadow. Under the grass of that meadow is several feet of new "sediment".
We have seen this happen within a human lifetime. In fact, it happens within the career of a single geologist. Put a time lapsed camera on a stick, and we can watch it happen. This is why engineers have to keep dredging out rivers and lakes and harbors. The dust and silt keeps settling to the bottom year after year, and filling in the body of water. We know it happens, because we see it happening.
Now. Repeat the process. Year after year after year, layer after layer after layer of dust and silt, making more and more mud, deeper and deeper.
Over thousands of years, you get deeper and deeper layers of sediment, piled up on top of each other. As those layers pile up, the layers press out the water from underneath, the mud becomes sediment, and the sediment compresses and becomes rock.
It happens slowly, in calm gentle ponds and lakes and shallow seas (like the Gulf of Mexico today).
Now, in the middle of that, one day we have an "event" that throws up a lot of dust into the atmosphere. In this case, the dust happens to include an over abundance of iridium. Like all the other years of dust, this dust eventually settles out of the air. Naturally, more of the dust will fall closer to the "event", while some of the finer dust will stay in the air for a long time, and gets blown by the wind around the entire planet. It can stay in the air for years. Eventually this dust lands on our pond or lake, and settles to the bottom of the water, along with all the other dust. Just one more layer of dust and silt, in the middle of years of layers of normal dust and silt.
But this layer of dust and silt just happens to have lots more iridium than every other year, because of the "event".
Then, thousands of more years, thousand of more layers of normal dust and silt gently settle on top of the iridium layer. The process of forming sediment continues, just like it has always done, and always will. There is no magic about it. No magic sorting, or rushing to get to the bottom before all other other sediment falls on top of it.
That, Robert, is how sediment is formed, how there can be sediment below the layer of iridium, and how there can be sediment above the iridium without "messing up" the fine layer of iridium.
You see Robert, your problem is that you believe "sediment" (bet you didn't know that "sediment" is just hardened "mud") was laid down by a dramatic, churning, gut wrenching global flood in less than a single year. And you would be absolutely right. A dramatic, churning, gut wrenching global flood would mess up a fine layer of iridium. I think everyone, even you, would agree with that.
And yet...
And yet, we have a fine undisturbed layer of iridium that can be found all over the entire world. It's not "messed up". A fine undisturbed layer that everyone, even you, agrees would have been impossible to form during a global flood.
You see, Robert. This is what we in the reality-based world call "evidence". Here is a thing that we all agree could not possibly have formed during a global flood. Yet, it exists.
We must, therefore, conclude, based on the evidence, that a global flood could not have occurred. We don't start out assuming that there wasn't a global flood. We look at the evidence to see what it tells us The evidence not only does not support the idea of a global flood, all of the evidence (like this one little layer of undisturbed iridium dust) tells us that a global flood could not have occurred.
The evidence tells us what happened.
In contrast, in your world inside your closed mind, you tell the evidence what you believe to be true. And, magically, because you wanted it to be true, it becomes true. For you.
phhht · 12 August 2016
Robert Byers said:
eric said:
Robert Byers said:
so i see it as a option the iridium being sorted while moving with them.
We can directly observe your option is not true. We watch a volcano erupt, and see that it doesn't sort iridium out of the other material.
How do you address this point?
first. it was massive explosions, many, at one time. i just increase the size.
Then a option is as fanning out it comes in front of the rest of the material.
Second it might sort in front of the following material.
third. it might land on the ground ahead and mingle with ground sediment. Then, for many reasons, that sediment travels and before it stops it has sorted some of the irididium.
For everybody there must be a fanning out of this iridium from a source.
then it must land and later went covered it must not have been moved or interfered with by whats covering it.
In fact i see as unlikely your sides claim that sediment could so easily move on top over time without messing up the iridium layer.
Robert Byers, you are just making stuff up.
You are fantasizing and fabricating, pulling stuff out of the air, without a shred of evidence to back you up. You act as if reality held no sway over what actually happened, and I think you believe that. You believe you can just imagine an alternative reality and thus refute unwelcome facts.
Well, Robert Byers, you cannot.
Daniel · 13 August 2016
Robert Byers said:
first. it was massive explosions, many, at one time. i just increase the size.
Then a option is as fanning out it comes in front of the rest of the material.
Second it might sort in front of the following material.
third. it might land on the ground ahead and mingle with ground sediment. Then, for many reasons, that sediment travels and before it stops it has sorted some of the irididium.
For everybody there must be a fanning out of this iridium from a source.
then it must land and later went covered it must not have been moved or interfered with by whats covering it.
In fact i see as unlikely your sides claim that sediment could so easily move on top over time without messing up the iridium layer.
This is quickly becoming one of my favorite smackdowns here. It is absolutely fascinating. Byers is literally making stuff up, literally out of his ass. When told that this doesn't actually happen in real, that real life volcanoes don't deposit world-wide layers of iridium, he doubles down. It is incredible!
This kind of conversations really show how ignorant and ridiculous creationists are, and therefore, this kind of conversations are what make it worthwhile to answer them.
https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad · 13 August 2016
Daniel said:
Robert Byers said:
first. it was massive explosions, many, at one time. i just increase the size.
Then a option is as fanning out it comes in front of the rest of the material.
Second it might sort in front of the following material.
third. it might land on the ground ahead and mingle with ground sediment. Then, for many reasons, that sediment travels and before it stops it has sorted some of the irididium.
For everybody there must be a fanning out of this iridium from a source.
then it must land and later went covered it must not have been moved or interfered with by whats covering it.
In fact i see as unlikely your sides claim that sediment could so easily move on top over time without messing up the iridium layer.
This is quickly becoming one of my favorite smackdowns here. It is absolutely fascinating. Byers is literally making stuff up, literally out of his ass. When told that this doesn't actually happen in real, that real life volcanoes don't deposit world-wide layers of iridium, he doubles down. It is incredible!
This kind of conversations really show how ignorant and ridiculous creationists are, and therefore, this kind of conversations are what make it worthwhile to answer them.
Same sort of made-up bullshit as Jeanson, the only difference is that Jeanson can sound sciency to those who know little about these issues.
Byers just sounds like the ignorant dullard he is.
Glen Davidson
stevaroni · 13 August 2016
Daniel said:
Robert Byers said:
first. it was massive explosions, many, at one time..... Then, for many reasons, that sediment travels and before it stops it has sorted some of the irididium.
For everybody there must be a fanning out of this iridium from a source....
then it must land and later went covered it must not have been moved or interfered with by whats covering it.
This is quickly becoming one of my favorite smackdowns here. It is absolutely fascinating. Byers is literally making stuff up, literally out of his ass. When told that this doesn't actually happen in real, that real life volcanoes don't deposit world-wide layers of iridium, he doubles down. It is incredible!
The fascinating thing to me is that once again Beyers will invest all this energy arguing a point that doesn't actually matter to him, and, once again, do it without without even realizing it.
Beyers is arguing that there was no asteroid in the giant distant past that killed off the dinosaurs. There were just a whole bunch of volcanoes in the giant distant past that did it instead. That's what put down the layer of iridium.
However that layer of iridium got there, the dinosaurs are only below it, any reasonably modern type is only (far, far) above it, and judging by the piles of rock on top of it it it's been there a long, long time.
Even if you remove the meteor, none of this comports in any way with what Genesis tells us.
Instead of arguing volcanoes, Beyers should be arguing that a meteor did kill the dinosaurs. God sent the meteor because they were wicked. That explanation would, at least, have some sort of Biblical precedent.
https://me.yahoo.com/a/Y6BnTTQokvG_X5XFUnEgD25Q.bDl5hE-#9e1d9 · 13 August 2016
I have never a reasonable explanation by a Noachian flood creationist for the presence of paleosols (buried soils) scattered throughout the stratigraphic column. Was the Earth simultaneously flooded and dry?
TomS · 13 August 2016
Am I correct in finding this sort of behavior on the part of creationists?
One makes a stab at solving a difficulty in the creationist position the "evolutionists" show a difficulty in that solution. Rather than giving up on that solution, it is as if the solution is now treated like a central doctrine, and must be defended. Of course, the makeshift solution is often even more difficult to defend, and calls for more drastic measures. And there is a downward spiral into more and more difficulties. When they could avoid these difficulties by the simple step of admitting that the original speculation was not all that crucial to their important beliefs.
Matt Young · 13 August 2016
I told you before, Robert. You have no idea what âsedimentâ is, or how it is formed. You canât tell the difference between âsedimentâ and volcanic rock.
Hereâs a hint. Have you ever gone wading barefoot in a pond or on the shore of a lake? What was that stuff that squished up between your toes? We call it âmudâ.
Where does that mud come from? It comes from fine silt settling out of the water. The water settles down and stops churning, and all the fine dust and silt settles to the bottom. The silt can be brought in by streams and rivers, or it can come in as dust blown by the wind. We see this happening right before our eyes....
I thought that was an uncommonly clear explanation. Not that it will do any good.
W. H. Heydt · 13 August 2016
https://me.yahoo.com/a/Y6BnTTQokvG_X5XFUnEgD25Q.bDl5hE-#9e1d9 said:
I have never a reasonable explanation by a Noachian flood creationist for the presence of paleosols (buried soils) scattered throughout the stratigraphic column. Was the Earth simultaneously flooded and dry?
Not being a either a creationist or otherwise steeped in the Bible (I'm a fallen away Unitarian), I would hazard a guess that they would claim that those layers were really never soil at all. That they have been "misinterpreted".
Mike Elzinga · 13 August 2016
TomS said:
Am I correct in finding this sort of behavior on the part of creationists?
One makes a stab at solving a difficulty in the creationist position the "evolutionists" show a difficulty in that solution. Rather than giving up on that solution, it is as if the solution is now treated like a central doctrine, and must be defended. Of course, the makeshift solution is often even more difficult to defend, and calls for more drastic measures. And there is a downward spiral into more and more difficulties. When they could avoid these difficulties by the simple step of admitting that the original speculation was not all that crucial to their important beliefs.
I told you before, Robert. You have no idea what âsedimentâ is, or how it is formed. You canât tell the difference between âsedimentâ and volcanic rock.
Hereâs a hint. Have you ever gone wading barefoot in a pond or on the shore of a lake? What was that stuff that squished up between your toes? We call it âmudâ.
Where does that mud come from? It comes from fine silt settling out of the water. The water settles down and stops churning, and all the fine dust and silt settles to the bottom. The silt can be brought in by streams and rivers, or it can come in as dust blown by the wind. We see this happening right before our eyes....
I thought that was an uncommonly clear explanation. Not that it will do any good.
You're quite kind. I'm no geologist, and the explanation was very simplified, but Robert doesn't know basic facts about the world and how it works, things that most kids learn before they even start school, let alone before they get to the sixth grade. It seems that Robert needs that level of explanation, because that is the level of his reasoning.
As you say, not that it will do any good.
I just don't get even the notion of some sort of silt or dust trying to rush ahead, trying to fall faster and get ahead of some other silt or dust, just so the mud can intentionally segregate itself so that it can be found years later in just the "right" layers, just to confuse the gullible atheist scientist, all to cause him to be sent to Hell. The mind boggles at how boggled such a mind must be.
God certainly must work in mysterious ways to have creating a world that looks exactly like it's 4.543 billion years old, and that life just looks like it is billions of years old.
You'd think that a Christian God would want his creation to understand and worship him, rather than try to fool them and lead them astray.
Scott F · 13 August 2016
I'm confused about the deck-of-cards analogy.
Let me try to describe how I interpret that analogy.
The "Created Kinds", each individual animal (and plant, presumably) had all of the possible copies of all of the possible genes of all of the future descendant species in their genome prior to The Flood. The act of "Creationist Speciation" consists of a single pair of individual animals, one male and one female, each in the same generation, each a descendant of the Created Kind individual, where the male and female each "lose" exactly the same set of "genes" from the parent individual, such that each pair can then breed together, thus starting a new species "from scratch".
For a made up example, the parent "Created Kind" of the Bear/Wolf/Dog/Thylacine Kind would have contained all of the genes for a bear and for a wolf and for a dog and for a thylacine. (Or, perhaps instead a super set of all of the genes of the daughter "species"?) Then, some time in the first hundred years after getting off The Ark, this Bear/Wolf/Dog/Thylacine Kind individual had a son that (for some mysterious, unspecified reason) had only the genes for a "bear". Remember, this is The Fall(tm), where "information" can only be lost, and never gained. Shortly after, the Bear/Wolf/Dog/Thylacine Kind individual also had a daughter that had only the genes for a "bear". This son and daughter pair started a new generation of a new "species" called "bear", which (for some other mysterious, unspecified reason) continued unchanged until this day. Similar events occurred for the new "wolf" son and daughter individuals, the new "dog" son and daughter individuals, and the new "thylacine" son and daughter individuals.
But these "Creationist Speciation" events weren't acts of "Creation" (since "Creation" happened only once at the start of the worlds), but were consequences of The Fall(tm) 2,000(+) years earlier. Consequences, which manifested themselves (simultaneously and spontaneously) only after The Flood(tm), and for some mysterious unspecified reason have not happened again once in recorded history.
Is that a reasonably accurate description of the deck-of-cards analogy and what it is trying to describe??
Mike Elzinga · 13 August 2016
Scott F said:
Is that a reasonably accurate description of the deck-of-cards analogy and what it is trying to describe??
That is somewhat how I understood it. Each âkindâ aboard the ark carried within it all the âinformationâ to produce all the âkindsâ that YECs say exist today.
However, there is a peculiar wrinkle in YEC âthermodynamicsâ that messes with all this âinformation.â Morris, Gish, and their students at the Institute for Creation Research all claim that their âsecond lawâ means that everything is running down and decaying after the Fall. Lifespans have been steadily decreasing and âinformationâ is being lost. âGenetic entropy,â they say.
So why do they claim that all these new âkindsâ came into existence since the Flood when all that âinformationâ about âfuture kindsâ was being lost due to the âfull enforcement of the âsecond law of thermodynamicsâ?â According to their scenario, âkindinationâ should have been taking place at a much higher rate earlier in their âhistory,â before âinformation was lost;â and that would mean that there were many more âkindsâ to take aboard the ark than they seem to want to deal with.
As the old saying goes; âOh what a tangled web they weave when they bend science to deceiveâ
Robert Byers · 13 August 2016
Scott F Your not following the conversation. Its nothing about the Noahs flood. This is a questioning of the flimsy evidence for a impact that caused so much trouble. They base it greatly on a trivial layer or iridium. They say it can't come from anyplace save space. I say its easily explained by events on earth. Volcanoes can be the source for this element. Then the origin of its deposition can be explained by volcanoes exploding everywhere. Then the mechanism for its landing in a layer can be explained by sorting from the blasts, or sorting within sediment loads also moving sudden;t from the chaos or other options. Then your side must also explain its sorting. You must say the IMPACT sent the iridium scattering and settling in a sorted way. You must then also say later sediment loads did not mess up the layer as they were deposited over time on top. your sides stuff is very unlikely. I can see it all as a single event preserving a segregated layer.
TomS · 14 August 2016
Mike Elzinga said:
Scott F said:
Is that a reasonably accurate description of the deck-of-cards analogy and what it is trying to describe??
That is somewhat how I understood it. Each âkindâ aboard the ark carried within it all the âinformationâ to produce all the âkindsâ that YECs say exist today.
However, there is a peculiar wrinkle in YEC âthermodynamicsâ that messes with all this âinformation.â Morris, Gish, and their students at the Institute for Creation Research all claim that their âsecond lawâ means that everything is running down and decaying after the Fall. Lifespans have been steadily decreasing and âinformationâ is being lost. âGenetic entropy,â they say.
So why do they claim that all these new âkindsâ came into existence since the Flood when all that âinformationâ about âfuture kindsâ was being lost due to the âfull enforcement of the âsecond law of thermodynamicsâ?â According to their scenario, âkindinationâ should have been taking place at a much higher rate earlier in their âhistory,â before âinformation was lost;â and that would mean that there were many more âkindsâ to take aboard the ark than they seem to want to deal with.
As the old saying goes; âOh what a tangled web they weave when they bend science to deceiveâ
I had the impression that they claim that the number of "kinds" ("baramins") never increases, and the only novelty is in the "microevolution" level (news species and such, probably including genera). No "baraminogenesis" after the creation Hexameron. (I bet that that is the first time that that sentence has ever appeared in English. :-)
Yes, weaving of tangled webs seems to be a good description of their practice.
Rolf · 14 August 2016
Robert said:
This is a questioning of the flimsy evidence for a impact that caused so much trouble. They base it greatly on a trivial layer or iridium. They say it canât come from anyplace save space. I say its easily explained by events on earth. Volcanoes can be the source for this element. Then the origin of its deposition can be explained by volcanoes exploding everywhere. Then the mechanism for its landing in a layer can be explained by sorting from the blasts, or sorting within sediment loads also moving sudden;t from the chaos or other options. Then your side must also explain its sorting. You must say the IMPACT sent the iridium scattering and settling in a sorted way. You must then also say later sediment loads did not mess up the layer as they were deposited over time on top. your sides stuff is very unlikely. I can see it all as a single event preserving a segregated layer.
Take it easy now Robert.
First thing to do is to look at the evidence. And view it from the perspective of what actually can and do happen in nature. You are only creating your own fantay stories - it isn't even science fiction, it is sheer nonsense from a very igorant and arrogent person. I say you are arrogant because you tell the world that you alone, without education, knowledge and understanding, knows and understand the world better than professional scientists and researchers.
That is ridiculous. It isn't that easy! Learning takes an effort. What is needed here is an effort that you are not willing to do or capable of doing.
You are just inventing worthless fiction, creating fantasy stories to satisfy your ego.
Here is what you should study. When you have done your homework, come back and tell us what you found.
Chicxulub Crater
Rolf · 14 August 2016
Ignorant, I hate it when that happens.
gnome de net · 14 August 2016
Robert Byers said:
I say [the Iridium layer at the K-Pg boundary is] easily explained by events on earth.
Volcanoes can be the source for this element.
Can you cite any reports of Iridium produced by contemporary volcanoes and how the amount of deposited Iridium varies with distance from the source?
W. H. Heydt · 14 August 2016
Rolf said:Ignorant, I hate it when that happens.
Better ignorant than stupid. One can, at least in theory, do something about ignorant.
W. H. Heydt · 14 August 2016
Robert Byers said:
Scott F
Your not following the conversation.
Its nothing about the Noahs flood.
This is a questioning of the flimsy evidence for a impact that caused so much trouble.
They base it greatly on a trivial layer or iridium. They say it can't come from anyplace save space.
I say its easily explained by events on earth.
Volcanoes can be the source for this element. Then the origin of its deposition can be explained by volcanoes exploding everywhere.
Then the mechanism for its landing in a layer can be explained by sorting from the blasts, or sorting within sediment loads also moving sudden;t from the chaos or other options.
Then your side must also explain its sorting.
You must say the IMPACT sent the iridium scattering and settling in a sorted way. You must then also say later sediment loads did not mess up the layer as they were deposited over time on top.
your sides stuff is very unlikely.
I can see it all as a single event preserving a segregated layer.
I agree that it has nothing to do with "Noah's Flood", but that *was* the jumping off point.
It's not just the Iridium, and again I'd like to note that the Iridium is a very tiny component of the clay layer that was analyzed that kicked off the whole issue in the early 1980s.
There is a larger picture you are still missing. The clay layer is sandwiched between layers of limestone. Marine limestone is formed by the slow accumulation of left over "skeletons" of forams as the slowly settle to the bottom of oceans. Since there is limestone both above and below the K-Pg clay layer, something "turned off" the deposition of calcerous deposits that harden into limestone. Alvarez initial question was: How long did it take for the clay layer to form? How long was the formation of limestone "turned off"? To answer that, he looked for some way to measure the time. Reasoning that the infall of meteoric material--primarily dust from micrometorites--could be used to measure how long it took by measuring how much of some detectable siderophilic element was in the clay. He settled on Iridium because there aren't any Terrestrial sources for it that would be thinly scattered about and it could be measured using neutron activation analysis even at extreme low concentrations. Alvarez was told that it was unlikely that there would be enough Iridium to actually measure, the concentration would be below the limits of analysis. So that's the set up...
Then the results came in and there was way more than expected. Far more than could have come in from the steady drizzle of micrometeorites. That was both an unexpected result and a problem. It could have meant that his whole method for determining the time it took for the clay layer to form was wrong. Or it could have meant that there was some very large source of Iridium being spread around at exactly that time. So he set out to find something that would account for the excess Iridium (still very tiny amounts) and, given other data like shocked quartz and microtektites, the only match was a large impact. The rest, as they say, is history.
Now, I don't know why you have a problem with large impacts. The expected occurrence rate can be calculated. (For something size of the K-Pg boundary event, it works out to about 100 million years, so the last one being 65MYA is plausible.) I don't know why you are fixated on volcanoes, especially after it has been explained to you--repeatedly--that the observed behavior doesn't fit the evidence. This has gotten to the point that ignorance is no excuse. You are acting like a toddler who insists on getting his way in spite of any reasonable statements from his parents.
Matt Young · 14 August 2016
Youâre quite kind.
I could probably find a great many students who would dispute that claim.
Iâm no geologist, and the explanation was very simplified, but Robert doesnât know basic facts about the world and how it works, things that most kids learn before they even start school, let alone before they get to the sixth grade. It seems that Robert needs that level of explanation, because that is the level of his reasoning.
All the more impressive then; you are not a geologist but have evidently understood the process well enough to spell it out in words of one syllable. There is no excuse for a young-earth creationist -- at least one who spouts about the iridium layer -- to not understand it equally well before spouting. That they do not shows unequivocally just how bankrupt creationism is. As other people have noted, they make up, um, stuff with absolutely no regard for physical reality.
Helena Constantine · 14 August 2016
Robert Byers said:
Scott F
Your not following the conversation.
Its nothing about the Noahs flood.
This is a questioning of the flimsy evidence for a impact that caused so much trouble.
They base it greatly on a trivial layer or iridium. They say it can't come from anyplace save space.
I say its easily explained by events on earth.
Volcanoes can be the source for this element. Then the origin of its deposition can be explained by volcanoes exploding everywhere.
Then the mechanism for its landing in a layer can be explained by sorting from the blasts, or sorting within sediment loads also moving sudden;t from the chaos or other options.
Then your side must also explain its sorting.
You must say the IMPACT sent the iridium scattering and settling in a sorted way. You must then also say later sediment loads did not mess up the layer as they were deposited over time on top.
your sides stuff is very unlikely.
I can see it all as a single event preserving a segregated layer.
I have to ask, Robert, how was the iridium sorted? Do you think that it could fallen have faster because it was heavier?
Scott F · 14 August 2016
Robert Byers said:
Scott F
Your not following the conversation.
Its nothing about the Noahs flood.
First off, Robert, this is about an event that happened 65 million years ago. Itâs an event that you, personally, donât believe happened, because you are a Young Earth Creationist, and the Earth (as far as you are concerned) is less than 10,000 years old. Young Earth Creationists believe that *all* of geology happened during Noahâs Flood. If I recall correctly, you yourself have argued that all of the sediment that makes up the Grand Canyon was laid down during Noahâs Flood, and then carved by Noahâs Flood in less than a year. Here, weâre just talking about a couple of layers of clay a few meters thick, in that 2,000 meter thick layer of sediment that you say was deposited in less than a year.
Are you now proposing that this extinction event did not occur during Noahâs Flood? The only extinction event that a Young Earth Creationist would admit to? If not, they pray tell when you believe that all of the dinosaurs disappeared from the Earth.
This is a questioning of the flimsy evidence for a impact that caused so much trouble.
They base it greatly on a trivial layer or iridium. They say it can't come from anyplace save space.
That is correct. That is because iridium is (according to Wiki) one of the rarest elements on Earth. Even if a volcano could somehow concentrate iridium, there simply is not enough iridium in the surface of the Earth to have created the fine thin layer that we see today. When the Earth was young and still molten, the heavy iridium sunk toward the center of the Earth, along with most of the other heavy elements.
However, iridium is much more common in rocks in space. The rocks in space did not go though a period of being molten, and so the space rocks retain most of the iridium that they originally had.
I say its easily explained by events on earth.
Volcanoes can be the source for this element. Then the origin of its deposition can be explained by volcanoes exploding everywhere.
That may be what you say, but what you say is wrong. The source of iridium cannot be explained by âevents on earthâ. The problem you have is that iridium is also the densest element on Earth. Were it to be heated and melted, it would sink to the bottom of the volcano, not spewed out the top. The events you describe are simply, physically impossible.
Then the mechanism for its landing in a layer can be explained by sorting from the blasts, or sorting within sediment loads also moving sudden;t from the chaos or other options.
Uh, what âchaosâ are you talking about? You just said this isnât part of Noahâs Flood.
So letâs say there was a huge volcanic explosion. Youâre saying that when something blows up, when something is destroyed in an explosion, the dust and debris automatically sort themselves? Pray tell how?
Then your side must also explain its sorting.
I already did. You simply ignored what I said. But let's try again.
âSedimentâ, such as clay, is the result of dust and silt settling to the bottom of a pond, lake, or shallow sea. Over time, the resulting mud is compressed into rock. It takes years and years for this dust and silt to build up into layers.
So⦠Thousands of years of dust and silt settling to the bottom of the water. Suddenly, a big event comes along (somewhere else in the world) that throws up a lot of iridium into the air. Over a short span of years (maybe 10 years or so), this iridium-rich dust settles to the bottom of our pond, lake, or shallow sea. Then thousands of more years of dust and silt settle on top of this iridium-rich layer.
Two things. First, the site of the âbig eventâ certainly was chaotic. There was a lot of churning and mixing of the layers of Earth. In that area, there is no fine, undisturbed layer of iridium. In fact, *all* of the layers of Earth in this area are badly churned and mixed up. But that was just locally, where the âbig eventâ happened, maybe a few thousand square miles. That sounds big, but not compared to the size of the Earth. All over the rest of the Earth, the ponds, and lakes, and shallow seas remained relatively undisturbed, except by this extra dust.
Second, the âsortingâ as you described is not caused by some physical process. It is caused by Time. Over Time, layers of plain silt settle. Then a layer of iridium silt settles. Then, over thousand of more years of Time, layers of plain silt settle on top of that. The same process, âsilt settling to the bottom of the waterâ, continues to happen at the same pace, the same rate, continuously over the course of thousands of years. There is no special âsortingâ required. There is no special physical mechanism that âdecidesâ to place the iridium in this layer, and not in others. I donât have to come up with some fancy mechanism that would sort the iridium dust from all of the other dust.
All it takes, is Time. âTimeâ, which your Young Earth Creationism doesnât allow for.
Now, if you want to tell me that I have to explain how the iridium layer could have been sorted in days, or within the year of Noahâs Flood, I would agree with you that it would simply be impossible for this fine undisturbed layer of iridium dust to form.
But Iâm not constrained by your measly 6,000 years of Earth history. I have millions and billions of years of Earth history in which lots and lots of things can happen. Things like, dust settling to the bottom of the lake, creating layers upon layers upon mountains of layers of sediment and clay.
You must say the IMPACT sent the iridium scattering and settling in a sorted way. You must then also say later sediment loads did not mess up the layer as they were deposited over time on top.
your sides stuff is very unlikely.
I can see it all as a single event preserving a segregated layer.
Robert, you have asked me to explain how the sorting occurred. I have done so.
Now, you explain to me how a massive volcanic explosion could have done the same thing in a single event. How long did it take for this sorting to happen? How did this sorting happen? What is the physical mechanism that acted then, but we cannot see happening now? And, if we cannot see that mechanism happening today, ...
"Were you there?"
You see, I have no need to come up with any âspecialâ sorting mechanism. Nothing special is required. Simple, physical events that we see with our own eyes, events happening all around us today are sufficient to explain the âsortingâ we see in the rocks, given millions of years of Time in which to happen.
But you say it happened all at once in a âsingle eventâ.
How, in all this chaos, does a fine layer of sediment get âsortedâ? In less than a year.
Please explain.
W. H. Heydt · 14 August 2016
Scott F said:...Here, weâre just talking about a couple of layers of clay a few meters thick...
Just a minor nitpick from one non-Geologist to another... The K-Pg boundary clay at Gubbio is very close to 1 cm. thick and--if I'm not mistaken--is quite similar elsewhere, not "meters".
I provide this correction for three reasons... First, to keep the facts cited correct. Second, it helps show just how short a deposition interval is involved. Third, to show Mr. Byers that reasonable people can see their statements be corrected without getting all defensive and "doubling down" on an initial error.
Scott F · 14 August 2016
W. H. Heydt said:
Scott F said:...Here, weâre just talking about a couple of layers of clay a few meters thick...
Just a minor nitpick from one non-Geologist to another... The K-Pg boundary clay at Gubbio is very close to 1 cm. thick and--if I'm not mistaken--is quite similar elsewhere, not "meters".
I provide this correction for three reasons... First, to keep the facts cited correct. Second, it helps show just how short a deposition interval is involved. Third, to show Mr. Byers that reasonable people can see their statements be corrected without getting all defensive and "doubling down" on an initial error.
Indeed. I stand corrected, and rightly so.
But, in self defense, I was also trying to describe this particular layer of clay buried within other layers of sediment, and how distinct layers of sediment can form over time without the need for any special "sorting" mechanism. It was that thicker layer of sediment in which the K-Pg layer is embedded that I was alluding to. Even then, a measure of "a few meters thick" may not be accurate, or may vary considerably from one site to the next, depending on local conditions at the time.
I will freely admit that there are a lot of details that I glossed over, for two reasons. First, I don't reliably know the details (even though at a Wiki/Google level, those details are readily available). Second, the details would get in the way of a "simple" description of the process.
Robert isn't arguing the "details". He's not arguing the distribution and age of the trees. He's saying that the forest doesn't even exist. :-)
For his sake, I would keep it simple.
But, yes. For accuracy, and for other readers, the details are important.
gnome de net · 14 August 2016
Scott F said:
...iridium is also the densest element on Earth.
Yeah, but it's not as dense as some of the visitors at Panda's Thumb.
Robert Byers · 14 August 2016
W. H. Heydt said:
Robert Byers said:
first. it was massive explosions, many, at one time. i just increase the size.
Then a option is as fanning out it comes in front of the rest of the material.
Second it might sort in front of the following material.
third. it might land on the ground ahead and mingle with ground sediment. Then, for many reasons, that sediment travels and before it stops it has sorted some of the irididium.
For everybody there must be a fanning out of this iridium from a source.
then it must land and later went covered it must not have been moved or interfered with by whats covering it.
In fact i see as unlikely your sides claim that sediment could so easily move on top over time without messing up the iridium layer.
It has already be pointed out, multiple times, that the sorting behavior you are trying invoke isn't observed. That you are clinging to that idea suggests that either you haven't actually read the replies to what you've written, haven't understood those replies, or that you are sticking to your notion because you don't have anything to back up what you *want* to happen, regardless of what is actually *observed* to happen in explosive eruptions.
Next up...you can't just, willy-nilly add more or bigger eruptions as an ad hoc fix. You need to point to actual geological evidence for your supposed eruptions and the rock have to be dated to match the K-Pg boundary.
There are known mechanisms to spread fine particulate matter around the world. That's why one of Alvarez research sources was the report on the 1883 Krakatau eruption, which did just that, by injecting material into the Stratosphere. Note that date...the ability of a sufficiently energetic event to distribute material around the world has been solidly established since at least the late 19th century. Your proposal doesn't match that data any more than it matches the data from an impact.
No one has asserted that the boundary clay was moved, save by normal tectonic forces, which in this case are rather slow. That it was covered by later layers is also normal geological process, and the same thing is still going on today. And--by the bye--that the layers neatly accumulated without disturbance *also* means that they cound not have been deposited under the conditions consistent with a global flood (even if--as Mr. Elizinga has frequently pointed out, is barred by thermodynamic calculations).
I am not writing these responses in any hope--however slim--that you will learn anything, as you clearly are resisting all efforts to help you understand why you ideas are false, but so that other reading this thread will understand that you are not coming to grips with the reality of the matter. But if you want to prove me wrong...feel free to propose a conjecture that fits the data. However, your mass volcano scenario doesn't, so give that one up.
Sorting concepts are very common in geomorphology and other subjects.
My point is that great volcanoes could easily supply the iridium just as a impact would. It is a excellent option.
THEN its deposition on the ground has options.
Then everyone must account for the deposition and so must admit there was something organizing/controling deposition.
then your side must account for the overlying sediment/roc not disturbing the layer yet dramatically covering it and under great pressure turning to stone over time.
I never said one volcanoe. I always for years have seen a major volcanic reaction on earth. This to account for all the fossilization that took place above the k-Pg line. Including also related sediment surges for other reasons but connected to the same event.
I just don't introduce here my idea.
Debunking the space rock thing is easily done by another, better, option. Then its flimsy anyways.
the same great energy that your side says created the iridium layer from the impact has the same great energy from great , many, volcanoes , . why they did explode is another issue.
Robert Byers · 14 August 2016
Scott F said:
Robert Byers said:
In fact i see as unlikely your sides claim that sediment could so easily move on top over time without messing up the iridium layer.
I told you before, Robert. You have no idea what "sediment" is, or how it is formed. You can't tell the difference between "sediment" and volcanic rock.
Here's a hint. Have you ever gone wading barefoot in a pond or on the shore of a lake? What was that stuff that squished up between your toes? We call it "mud".
Where does that mud come from? It comes from fine silt settling out of the water. The water settles down and stops churning, and all the fine dust and silt settles to the bottom. The silt can be brought in by streams and rivers, or it can come in as dust blown by the wind. We see this happening right before our eyes.
As the dust and silt settles to the bottom of the water, it covers the dust and silt that settled there last year. And that's on top of the dust and silt that settle below it the year before. Year after year, the dust and silt collects on the bottom of the water. Eventually, that pond or lake fills in and becomes a meadow. Under the grass of that meadow is several feet of new "sediment".
We have seen this happen within a human lifetime. In fact, it happens within the career of a single geologist. Put a time lapsed camera on a stick, and we can watch it happen. This is why engineers have to keep dredging out rivers and lakes and harbors. The dust and silt keeps settling to the bottom year after year, and filling in the body of water. We know it happens, because we see it happening.
Now. Repeat the process. Year after year after year, layer after layer after layer of dust and silt, making more and more mud, deeper and deeper.
Over thousands of years, you get deeper and deeper layers of sediment, piled up on top of each other. As those layers pile up, the layers press out the water from underneath, the mud becomes sediment, and the sediment compresses and becomes rock.
It happens slowly, in calm gentle ponds and lakes and shallow seas (like the Gulf of Mexico today).
Now, in the middle of that, one day we have an "event" that throws up a lot of dust into the atmosphere. In this case, the dust happens to include an over abundance of iridium. Like all the other years of dust, this dust eventually settles out of the air. Naturally, more of the dust will fall closer to the "event", while some of the finer dust will stay in the air for a long time, and gets blown by the wind around the entire planet. It can stay in the air for years. Eventually this dust lands on our pond or lake, and settles to the bottom of the water, along with all the other dust. Just one more layer of dust and silt, in the middle of years of layers of normal dust and silt.
But this layer of dust and silt just happens to have lots more iridium than every other year, because of the "event".
Then, thousands of more years, thousand of more layers of normal dust and silt gently settle on top of the iridium layer. The process of forming sediment continues, just like it has always done, and always will. There is no magic about it. No magic sorting, or rushing to get to the bottom before all other other sediment falls on top of it.
That, Robert, is how sediment is formed, how there can be sediment below the layer of iridium, and how there can be sediment above the iridium without "messing up" the fine layer of iridium.
You see Robert, your problem is that you believe "sediment" (bet you didn't know that "sediment" is just hardened "mud") was laid down by a dramatic, churning, gut wrenching global flood in less than a single year. And you would be absolutely right. A dramatic, churning, gut wrenching global flood would mess up a fine layer of iridium. I think everyone, even you, would agree with that.
And yet...
And yet, we have a fine undisturbed layer of iridium that can be found all over the entire world. It's not "messed up". A fine undisturbed layer that everyone, even you, agrees would have been impossible to form during a global flood.
You see, Robert. This is what we in the reality-based world call "evidence". Here is a thing that we all agree could not possibly have formed during a global flood. Yet, it exists.
We must, therefore, conclude, based on the evidence, that a global flood could not have occurred. We don't start out assuming that there wasn't a global flood. We look at the evidence to see what it tells us The evidence not only does not support the idea of a global flood, all of the evidence (like this one little layer of undisturbed iridium dust) tells us that a global flood could not have occurred.
The evidence tells us what happened.
In contrast, in your world inside your closed mind, you tell the evidence what you believe to be true. And, magically, because you wanted it to be true, it becomes true. For you.
In this matter the global flood is not relevant.
Other sources are to account for the sediment loads/then rock be deposited.
Its a point i made that the iridium is most likely part of the event that deposited the sediment loads.
THEN I added that your side needs to explain how the iridium was not messed up by your sides concept of the sediment loads on top.
I am saying your slow deposition would not likeluy work. it would not be so fine and genetle. If it happened it would mess/crush/move out of place a iridium layer sitting nicely on top.
In fact your side needs time for the sediment loads to weigh down and turn all to stone etc. I say this alone would mess up the iridium layer.
THEREFORE the iridium layer was deposited aLONG with the overlying sediment loads where it was deposited. All in days or weeks after a event.
i like it and it shows impact is not the only option or even likely. anyways the only evidence for impact is this detail, or two, about minerals etc fanning out AND the fauna/flora difference at the k-Pg boundary.
Robert Byers · 14 August 2016
Helena Constantine said:
Robert Byers said:
Scott F
Your not following the conversation.
Its nothing about the Noahs flood.
This is a questioning of the flimsy evidence for a impact that caused so much trouble.
They base it greatly on a trivial layer or iridium. They say it can't come from anyplace save space.
I say its easily explained by events on earth.
Volcanoes can be the source for this element. Then the origin of its deposition can be explained by volcanoes exploding everywhere.
Then the mechanism for its landing in a layer can be explained by sorting from the blasts, or sorting within sediment loads also moving sudden;t from the chaos or other options.
Then your side must also explain its sorting.
You must say the IMPACT sent the iridium scattering and settling in a sorted way. You must then also say later sediment loads did not mess up the layer as they were deposited over time on top.
your sides stuff is very unlikely.
I can see it all as a single event preserving a segregated layer.
I have to ask, Robert, how was the iridium sorted? Do you think that it could fallen have faster because it was heavier?
the iridium was landed. So the same mechanisms that deposited it from the impact work with any impact. my impact is great volcanic explosions. So from that fanning out OR part of the sediment loads put into motion I can say it was sorted most likely to account for the layer. Everyone must do a sorting of it.
Robert Byers · 14 August 2016
Scott f my computer was failing yesterday and so I thought my posts did not take. Today , with this conviction, i answered in sequence and so a 'sorting" error is going on. a repeat of points. So to your LAST post. You complain iridium is not on earth enough to make a layer. WEll its from the power and sources of great volcanoes, dozens or hundreds, exploding at once, up and down the spine of the Americas etc that easily could produce it. Why not/ Its there and speculation that its there can be made. The speculation that space rocks has is just that. Who says they have any, or much, iridium? Who is sampling them? In another post I answered your criticism about why your layer would be messed up over time by sediment accumulation. However gentle it would never be that gentle, and everywhere,. Where is your iridium layer MESSED up by sediment accumulation? no where/ very unlikely!
All everyone has is this iridium layer. its source and integrity , I say, is better explained as a single event. Its a good option within existing natural operations. Volcanoes are natural however great.
gnome de net · 14 August 2016
@ Robert Beyrs:
Has any recent volcano produced any iridium in its ash or lava?
W. H. Heydt · 14 August 2016
Robert Byers said:
Sorting concepts are very common in geomorphology and other subjects.
My point is that great volcanoes could easily supply the iridium just as a impact would. It is a excellent option.
THEN its deposition on the ground has options.
Then everyone must account for the deposition and so must admit there was something organizing/controling deposition.
then your side must account for the overlying sediment/roc not disturbing the layer yet dramatically covering it and under great pressure turning to stone over time.
I never said one volcanoe. I always for years have seen a major volcanic reaction on earth. This to account for all the fossilization that took place above the k-Pg line. Including also related sediment surges for other reasons but connected to the same event.
I just don't introduce here my idea.
Debunking the space rock thing is easily done by another, better, option. Then its flimsy anyways.
the same great energy that your side says created the iridium layer from the impact has the same great energy from great , many, volcanoes , . why they did explode is another issue.
That is so wrong, in so many ways that one scarcely knows where to begin...
"Sorting" is not a geochemical process. In order to make a case for the Iridium in the boundary clays being of volcanic origin, you *first* have to show some igneous rocks that contain measurable traces of Iridium. A citation from a peer reviewed journal with suffice to start with (bear in mind that people on this forum will look up and *read* anything you cite, so you better be sure the paper says what you need it to say). The only thing it takes to "control" and "organize" sedimentation is time, relatively calm water (at the bottom, churn it up as much as you like at the top) and gravity. As Scott F has noted the process has been observed to happen in real time. This isn't some strange thing that happened only once and only in the past. It is a normal, everyday process. To see just how consistent the process is, look up "varves".
So now you want volcanoes all up and down the American continents, all going at once. Where are the lava fields with dates that match the K-Pg boundary? There are, world wide some extensive flood basalt areas, typically called "traps", but not always. The closest one in time to the K-Pg boundary are the Deccan Traps--and those are off by about a million years. They aren't in North America, though. They're in India.
And, no, it isn't easy to debunk the impact. You haven't the faintest clue about what it would take to do that.
Now look...I think volcanoes are neat and I read up on them from time to time. That doesn't mean that I am going to ascribe anything I don't understand to volcanic activity, though.
Daniel · 14 August 2016
My point is that great volcanoes could easily supply the iridium just as a impact would. It is a excellent option
Volcanoes don't do this. We can observe this today. Lava flows don't contain that amount of iridium. Solidified lava flows don't contain that amount of iridium. Ancient basalts don't contain that amount of iridium. We know this because we can see it happen.
You pulled this out if your ass.
I never said one volcanoe. I always for years have seen a major volcanic reaction on earth. This to account for all the fossilization that took place above the k-Pg line.
Are you aware that there are miles of layers above the K-Pg line?
the same great energy that your side says created the iridium layer from the impact has the same great energy from great , many, volcanoes
You are confused. Neither meteor impacts nor volcanoes produce iridium. Iridium is produced by supernovas. Meteors merely carry iridium on their backs.
And meteor impacts and volcanoes don't produce the same effect. Volcanoes don't deposit world-wide layers of iridium. Volcanoes don't produce ejecta patterns nor shocked quartz not tektites nor domed craters. We know this because we can see it today. You pulled this out of your ass.
anyways the only evidence for impact is this detail, or two, about minerals etc fanning out AND the fauna/flora
You forgot about that little giant hole in the ground... you know, the crater, which was predicted to exist in layers of that age.
WEll its from the power and sources of great volcanoes, dozens or hundreds, exploding at once, up and down the spine of the Americas etc that easily could produce it. Why not
BECAUSE VOLCANOES DON'T PRODUCE A WORLD-WIDE LAYER OF IRIDIUM. WE KNOW THIS BECAUSE WE CAN SEE IT TODAY, AND WE CAN SEE IT IN OLD, SOLIDIFIED LAVA FLOWS. YOU PULLED IT OUT OF YOUR ASS.
Also, how can you posit hundreds of volcanoes erupting at the same time? One single volcano is enough to leave a year without a summer. How did humanity survive hundreds of eruptions, going all over the Americas? You also pulled this out of your ass.
The speculation that space rocks has is just that. Who says they have any, or much, iridium? Who is sampling them?
We do have in fact hundreds of meteorites. They contain a higher concentration of iridium. Repeat: we have meteorites. It is not a speculation, it is not a guess, it is not a wish. We have actual, physical meteorites on our posession. WE HAVE THEM. WE KNOW FOR A FACT THEY CONTAIN A HIGHER CONCENTRATION OF IRIDIUM.
But anyway Byers, please keep going! This is very entertaining. Rest assured, you are helping our side with your "arguments"!
Scott F · 14 August 2016
Robert Byers said:
Scott f
my computer was failing yesterday and so I thought my posts did not take. Today , with this conviction, i answered in sequence and so a 'sorting" error is going on. a repeat of points.
Fair enough. We all have computer problems from time to time. Besides, it doesnât really change anything about your âargumentâ, such as it is.
So to your LAST post.
You complain iridium is not on earth enough to make a layer.
WEll its from the power and sources of great volcanoes, dozens or hundreds, exploding at once, up and down the spine of the Americas etc that easily could produce it. Why not/ Its there and speculation that its there can be made.
Why not? Because the iridium simply isnât there. We have drilled cores into the Earth, all over the Earth. There simply isnât enough iridium there. It doesnât exist.
Yes, âspeculationâ is all you have, because all of the actual evidence says that what you say is simply impossible.
We, on the other hand, are not speculating at all. We have measurements. We have data. We have rocks and soil.
The speculation that space rocks has is just that.
Uh, no, not at all. Again, we have actual rocks. We have meteorites that have fallen to the ground. We have picked them up and analyzed them. These âspace rocksâ contain literally hundreds of times more iridium than we have found in rocks here on the Earth.
But there is more than that. Every element comes in different varieties, different isotopes. Same number of protons, but different numbers of neutrons. In every sample of an element, there is some of one isotope, some of another, and some of a third, and so on. The ratio of these isotopes is like a fingerprint, a signature. The ratio of these isotopes, these different versions of iridium, is the same in all of the âspace rocksâ that have been collected. This ratio in the space rocks is the same as the ratio of iridium isotopes in the K-T boundary layer. (Sorry. K-T is just easier to remember.) In all other areas of the Earth, the ratio of iridium isotopes is different than the ratio in the K-T boundary layer. This ratio is the real nail in the coffin for the idea that the iridium came from Earth. Even if your volcanoes existed, the kind of iridium that they might spew out is different than what we actually measure in the K-T boundary.
Who says they have any, or much, iridium? Who is sampling them?
Geologists. The people who study rocks. Physicists. Astrophysicists (for the âspace rocksâ). Chemists. Petroleum engineers. (Oil companies drill a lot of holes in the ground.) Materials engineers (the ones who actually make stuff out of iridium). You know. Actual scientists and engineers. And lots of them. And all of them.
Not a single creationist has done any drilling or sampling or measuring. Not a single one.
In another post I answered your criticism about why your layer would be messed up over time by sediment accumulation. However gentle it would never be that gentle, and everywhere,.
No you didnât. You simply claimed it would be messed up, and then claimed it again without any evidence or even without any understanding of how sediment actually forms. Your "claim" flies in the face of everything we know and see about how sediment forms. In fact, we see and measure in real time how the slow accumulation of silt and dust forms fine layers in the bottoms of rivers, ponds, lakes, and seas. We see it all the time. We see it with our own eyes. We witness it. You donât even need any instruments. All you need is a shovel to dig up the mud, and look with your very own Mark-One eyeballs. It's kind of like counting tree rings, and happens for the same reasons. (Figure that one out, if you will. :-)
Where is your iridium layer MESSED up by sediment accumulation? no where/ very unlikely!
As you say, Robert, you have just made my point for me. Over most of the Earth, the iridium layer is NOT âmessed upâ. In some places, it is bent and folded a bit (see here), but that happened only after the sediment had formed into rock and clay.
On the other hand, in the Yucatan Peninsula in Mexico, the iridium layer *is* all âmessed upâ. In fact, there is no iridium âlayerâ there at all. Instead there is a jumble of rock and debris that one would expect from an impact.
All everyone has is this iridium layer. its source and integrity , I say, is better explained as a single event.
Its a good option within existing natural operations. Volcanoes are natural however great.
No, that is not âall everyone hasâ. We actually have a crater, the Chicxulub crater buried in the Yucatan Peninsula. Take a look. The associated gravity anomaly is pretty impressive, along with all the sink holes. None of these things can be explained by any number of volcanoes.
We have shocked quartz crystals (called tektites, see here) that physically cannot be made in volcanoes. This is another âsmoking gunâ for an impact. We never, ever, in the history of geology have ever seen tektites come out of a volcano. Volcanoes, even the most massive ones, simply do not have enough energy density to create these âtektitesâ. The only place these are found are at impact sites (and not even all of those), and at the test sites for nuclear weapons.
Again, as Mike has explained so many times, you simply donât understand the energies involved. The largest eruption in recent times, the island of Krakatoa, released about 8x1017 joules of energy. The Chicxulub impact released about 5x10^23 joules of energy. That is 1 million times as more energy than your volcano. Even if you had thousands of the largest volcanoes going off at once, that would still be 1,000 times less energy than from the single impact event.
Again, none of this can be explained by any number of any sized volcanoes that you want to make up. And these volcanoes that you fantasize about simply do not exist anywhere in the Western Hemisphere. Go ahead. Point to them on a map. Try it. The Yellowstone Super Volcano ? Nope. We know that it is the largest volcano in North America. We know exactly how many times it has exploded since if first showed up in North America. We know how much energy it produced, and what the fallout from those explosions contained. The fallout didn't contain iridium. It didn't contain shocked quartz. And the energy simply was not great enough.
Now, after all that, did the K-T impact actually kill off the dinosaurs? We still don't know for sure. It could have. Just maybe. It was on the low end of the energy required, but it might have done the deed. If it didn't kill them off directly, it certainly contributed to their extinction, and it certainly happened at the same time as their extinction.
And, Robert, you still haven't explained how your sorting mechanism might have done the trick in a matter of hours or days. Again, all you have is arm-chair speculation about things you know nothing about.
In contrast, we have rocks, even "space rocks" (how cool are "space rocks"!!), and craters, and mud, and clay, and isotope ratios, and tsunami debris (I haven't mentioned tsunami debris yet), and gravity, and silt, and water. All things that we can see and feel and touch today. No "speculation" required.
Most importantly, we have TIME, and lots of it. You, on the other hand, have no time at all.
Scott F · 15 August 2016
Oops. Bad HTML karma. Worse editing.
Krakatoa, ~8x1017 joules of energy, over several days. Chicxulub, ~5x1023 joules of energy. That's 106 or one million times more energy deposited in the span of a half dozen seconds.
Now, to be sure, the Deccan Traps (or their equivalent on the Yellowstone Plateau) would have used more total energy to raise 500,000 cubic kilometers of lava. The Chicxulub crater is only about 3,600 cubic kilometers. But, the Chicxulub crater was completely excavated in a matter of seconds. The Deccan Traps were created over millions of years.
https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad · 15 August 2016
It wasn't for nothing that volcanoes were considered a possible source after the iridium layer was discovered. But do flood basalts emit sufficient enriched iridium plumes to create such a layer? Now it seems unlikely, mainly because the iridium does appear to be from an asteroid.
Especially, the shocked quartz seems not to be produced by volcanoes, of course, and the crater in the Yucatan seems no coincidence. But volcanoes can be the source of at least some iridium enrichment, so they can't simply be ruled out as possible sources for iridium enrichment.
Scott F said:
Oops. Bad HTML karma. Worse editing.
Krakatoa, ~8x1017 joules of energy, over several days. Chicxulub, ~5x1023 joules of energy. That's 106 or one million times more energy deposited in the span of a half dozen seconds.
Now, to be sure, the Deccan Traps (or their equivalent on the Yellowstone Plateau) would have used more total energy to raise 500,000 cubic kilometers of lava. The Chicxulub crater is only about 3,600 cubic kilometers. But, the Chicxulub crater was completely excavated in a matter of seconds. The Deccan Traps were created over millions of years.
The minimum energy scenario for Noahâs flood (namely, the âcanopy theoryâ) deposited energy at a rate of 1.6 x 106 watts per square meter. Multiplying that by the area of the Earthâs surface and by the number of seconds in 40 days gives a total energy deposition of 2.8 x 1029 joules. Compare that with the Chicxalub event.
At the rate of energy deposition under the minimum energy scenario (1.6 x 106 watts per square meter), the temperature of the atmosphere would have climbed to 10,600 degrees Fahrenheit in less than a week. Iron melts at 2,800 degrees Fahrenheit.
I suspect that Byers doesnât have a clue about what any of this means, let alone what it implies for the story of the Flood. The entire surface of the Earth would have been melted and then vaporized. The Earth would now have a hard glassy surface; no life whatsoever. And that purported event was spread out over 40 days with everything having to cool down after that.
If all the water in that Flood event had occurred in the few seconds of an asteroid collision with the Earth, the Flood event would have been comparable to the energies and destruction that occurred during the collisions that were happening during the early formation of the Earth itself.
But what do YECs know of the sizes of these energies? One needs at least a high school education in math, physics, and chemistry. YECs donât have anything close to that kind of knowledge.
mark · 15 August 2016
The evidence for a catastrophic bolide impact at the Cretaceous-Paleogene boundary includes far more than the anomalous iridium layer (which is *not* trivial)--geologic evidence of an impact crater; shocked quartz; tsunami deposits, and more. But what it really comes down too, if one is to believe the Creationist account as passed down orally through the pre-scientific past, then one must accept that modern science has it all wrong--in geology, physics, chemistry, and biology--but the bronze-age shepherds and farmers had it right. Why did the Noachian flood sediments not follow Stoke's Law? How did the immediate post-Flood ecosystems operate when animals were released into a world in which all life was wiped out? These days, when a species invades a new region, there are already fauna and flora they can feed on and compete with. As science progresses and can explain more and more of natural history, the Creationist explanation becomes more and more convoluted.
eric · 15 August 2016
mark said:
As science progresses and can explain more and more of natural history, the Creationist explanation becomes more and more convoluted.
Well, I'll say this for Robert Byers - his ideas aren't becoming more convoluted. They seem to be simplicity itself: when told that an eruption observationally, factually doesn't sort chemicals by element, he just shrugs and keeps believing they do.
Thanks, Glen, for answering half of my question which had a two-fold purpose. I really didn't know if volcanoes could eject iridium or if Robert (deliberately-misspelled) Beyrs could provide any evidence to support his wild assertions. Perhaps he can provide additional citations. Or not.
David MacMillan · 15 August 2016
Damn. Byer's fuss over iridium has been...ridiculous.
Also entertaining.
Scott F said:
I'm confused about the deck-of-cards analogy.
Let me try to describe how I interpret that analogy.
The "Created Kinds", each individual animal (and plant, presumably) had all of the possible copies of all of the possible genes of all of the future descendant species in their genome prior to The Flood. The act of "Creationist Speciation" consists of a single pair of individual animals, one male and one female, each in the same generation, each a descendant of the Created Kind individual, where the male and female each "lose" exactly the same set of "genes" from the parent individual, such that each pair can then breed together, thus starting a new species "from scratch".
Err...sort of?
The deck of cards analogy is imperfect, partially because diploid factors and reproduction aren't really represented, partially because creationists haven't been really clear about how their system is claimed to work, and partially because their system doesn't, in fact, actually work.
The individual cards just generally represent "genetic information"; the more that is passed down a given line, the more options for further speciation that line retains. In your example, they probably wouldn't say that the male and female would each need to lose the exact same genes; they'd probably say something about more copies of certain genes being preserved and other genes being lost in a population over time.
Despite AiG's exceedingly misleading graphics, the handful of relatively informed writers at AiG probably DOES understand that speciation is a population-level phenomenon. So they'd accept that for speciation to occur, you'd have to have a split in the population, with certain genes becoming rarer and rarer.
So, to use the analogy, the "population" is a big bunch of complete decks of cards. Each individual deck has Spades, Clubs, Hearts, and Diamonds. Then, a population split separates the decks of cards into two different groups. The decks in Group A start to lose some of their spades (because their environment isn't particularly friendly to spades), while the decks in Group B start to lose some of their diamonds (because their environment isn't particularly friendly to diamonds). Over time, Group A loses all its spades and Group B loses all its diamonds, causing two new species to emerge: Clubs-Hearts-Diamonds in Group A and Spades-Clubs-Hearts in Group B.
For a made up example, the parent "Created Kind" of the Bear/Wolf/Dog/Thylacine Kind would have contained all of the genes for a bear and for a wolf and for a dog and for a thylacine.
Well, my former work notwithstanding, AiG would still insist that the Bear Kind and the Canid Kind and the Dasyuromorphid Kind are all separate and distinct.
For a clearer example, let's consider felids.
On the sixth day, God created the ubercat. The ubercat had all the genetic information for every attribute of every cat which ever lived. It had the genes for the stripes of a tiger, for the rosettes of a leopard, for the mane of a lion. It had the genes for the melanated skin of spotted cats and the unmelanated skin of the black-footed cat. It had the genes for the dagger-like teeth of the Smilodon fatalis as well as the genes for the mandible flanges of Megantereon. It had the genes for the unretractable claws of cheetahs and the gigantic body of the cave lion. It even had the genes for the serrated teeth of Xenosmilus.
Ironically, AiG identifies the ubercat with Proailurus, a tiny feline roughly twice the size of a tree squirrel.
Anyway, God created bunches and bunches of virtually-identical ubercats on the sixth day. They all ate plants, of course, but that is neither here nor there. The population of ubercats began to spread out and break apart, all while reproducing madly. After the Fall, each separate population began to slowly lose genes, causing them to morph gradually into more specific species of feline.
Yet somehow, at the time of the flood, there were still at least two ubercats that had all the same amount of genetic information present in each of the original ubercats. These two ubercats got on the Ark, hibernated for a year, and then got off the ark. They scavenged the rotting carcasses of animals killed by the flood, which kept them alive long enough for the prey animals on the ark to get free and start multiplying; then, they started multiplying as well.
Within a decade, there were thousands and thousands of ubercats. Almost immediately, they began splitting up in population and diversifying. In under a hundred years, the populations had already split up enough to break domesticated cats away from the rest. Sub-populations within the main group lost information, morphing into populations of cave lions, populations of saber-toothed cats, populations of leopards, and more. Within about 500 years, all the sub-populations had split apart into the modern species, and speciation abruptly stopped.
If you believe that.
Matt Young · 15 August 2016
On the sixth day, God created the ubercat.
I think you mean ur-cat.
Mike Elzinga · 15 August 2016
Matt Young said:
On the sixth day, God created the ubercat.
I think you mean ur-cat.
Ubercat is a more recent subspecies of Uber drivers. These guys are ubercool, man!
Matt Young · 15 August 2016
These guys are ubercool, man!
Right, and the ur-cool guys were the beatniks.
Mike Elzinga · 15 August 2016
Matt Young said:
These guys are ubercool, man!
Right, and the ur-cool guys were the beatniks.
Hee hee; I think we are revealing our ages. :-)
Just Bob · 15 August 2016
Mike Elzinga said:
Matt Young said:
These guys are ubercool, man!
Right, and the ur-cool guys were the beatniks.
Hee hee; I think we are revealing our ages. :-)
How many people under 30 even know what a beatnik was?
Scott F · 15 August 2016
David MacMillan said:
Scott F said:
I'm confused about the deck-of-cards analogy.
Let me try to describe how I interpret that analogy.
The "Created Kinds", each individual animal (and plant, presumably) had all of the possible copies of all of the possible genes of all of the future descendant species in their genome prior to The Flood. The act of "Creationist Speciation" consists of a single pair of individual animals, one male and one female, each in the same generation, each a descendant of the Created Kind individual, where the male and female each "lose" exactly the same set of "genes" from the parent individual, such that each pair can then breed together, thus starting a new species "from scratch".
Err...sort of?
The deck of cards analogy is imperfect, partially because diploid factors and reproduction aren't really represented, partially because creationists haven't been really clear about how their system is claimed to work, and partially because their system doesn't, in fact, actually work.
The individual cards just generally represent "genetic information"; the more that is passed down a given line, the more options for further speciation that line retains. In your example, they probably wouldn't say that the male and female would each need to lose the exact same genes; they'd probably say something about more copies of certain genes being preserved and other genes being lost in a population over time.
Despite AiG's exceedingly misleading graphics, the handful of relatively informed writers at AiG probably DOES understand that speciation is a population-level phenomenon. So they'd accept that for speciation to occur, you'd have to have a split in the population, with certain genes becoming rarer and rarer.
So, to use the analogy, the "population" is a big bunch of complete decks of cards. Each individual deck has Spades, Clubs, Hearts, and Diamonds. Then, a population split separates the decks of cards into two different groups. The decks in Group A start to lose some of their spades (because their environment isn't particularly friendly to spades), while the decks in Group B start to lose some of their diamonds (because their environment isn't particularly friendly to diamonds). Over time, Group A loses all its spades and Group B loses all its diamonds, causing two new species to emerge: Clubs-Hearts-Diamonds in Group A and Spades-Clubs-Hearts in Group B.
For a made up example, the parent "Created Kind" of the Bear/Wolf/Dog/Thylacine Kind would have contained all of the genes for a bear and for a wolf and for a dog and for a thylacine.
Well, my former work notwithstanding, AiG would still insist that the Bear Kind and the Canid Kind and the Dasyuromorphid Kind are all separate and distinct.
For a clearer example, let's consider felids.
On the sixth day, God created the ubercat. The ubercat had all the genetic information for every attribute of every cat which ever lived. It had the genes for the stripes of a tiger, for the rosettes of a leopard, for the mane of a lion. It had the genes for the melanated skin of spotted cats and the unmelanated skin of the black-footed cat. It had the genes for the dagger-like teeth of the Smilodon fatalis as well as the genes for the mandible flanges of Megantereon. It had the genes for the unretractable claws of cheetahs and the gigantic body of the cave lion. It even had the genes for the serrated teeth of Xenosmilus.
Ironically, AiG identifies the ubercat with Proailurus, a tiny feline roughly twice the size of a tree squirrel.
Anyway, God created bunches and bunches of virtually-identical ubercats on the sixth day. They all ate plants, of course, but that is neither here nor there. The population of ubercats began to spread out and break apart, all while reproducing madly. After the Fall, each separate population began to slowly lose genes, causing them to morph gradually into more specific species of feline.
Yet somehow, at the time of the flood, there were still at least two ubercats that had all the same amount of genetic information present in each of the original ubercats. These two ubercats got on the Ark, hibernated for a year, and then got off the ark. They scavenged the rotting carcasses of animals killed by the flood, which kept them alive long enough for the prey animals on the ark to get free and start multiplying; then, they started multiplying as well.
Within a decade, there were thousands and thousands of ubercats. Almost immediately, they began splitting up in population and diversifying. In under a hundred years, the populations had already split up enough to break domesticated cats away from the rest. Sub-populations within the main group lost information, morphing into populations of cave lions, populations of saber-toothed cats, populations of leopards, and more. Within about 500 years, all the sub-populations had split apart into the modern species, and speciation abruptly stopped.
If you believe that.
That's pretty much as I was trying to describe, in terms of genetic content. The only difference I see is the amount of time for the "Creationist Speciation" to occur.
You identify a "gradual" decay of information in a population. "Gradual" being a relative term, here, since, relative to actual Darwinian speciation, "Creationist Speciation" is happening at super hyper lightning speed.
In contrast, I presented the one-male-one-female single generation model. I based this on the fact that Creationists continue to insist that Darwinian speciation is impossible. As I understood the argument, you would (for example) have to have exactly one male and one female of the type new-species-dog born to old-species-wolf parents. Specifically, I have read that the first new-dog male is sitting around waiting for the first new-dog female to show up, so that they can start a new species. This is clearly impossible, so Darwinian speciation is impossible.
This suggests to me that this is how Creationists view any kind of speciation. Ergo, the notion of "Creationist Speciation" must entail the same kind of single-generation speciation event, where the uber-canine gives birth to the first male of the new-species-dog, which then has to wait around for the first female of the new-species-dog to be born to the uber-canine. To the Creationist, this is more "plausible", since it's "easy" to lose massive numbers of genes in one generation (due to The Fall, of course), than it is to "gain" exactly the right kind of genes in one generation.
But you're saying that's not the case? That Creationists actually believe in divergence of populations? The CrocoDuck not withstanding?
(Which also seems pretty weird. I mean, they say that the CrocoDuck is impossible therefore Darwinian speciation is impossible, yet the CrocoDuck is exactly the kind of creature they describe for each of the uber-Kinds.)
Henry J · 15 August 2016
Matt Young said:
On the sixth day, God created the ubercat.
I think you mean ur-cat.
So would weasel kind have come from the ur-mine?
mark · 15 August 2016
https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad said:
Volcanoes don't appear to have been the source of the K-Pg iridium, but volcanoes can produce iridium-enriched emissions: Iridium enrichment in airborne particles from kilauea volcano: january 1983.
It wasn't for nothing that volcanoes were considered a possible source after the iridium layer was discovered. But do flood basalts emit sufficient enriched iridium plumes to create such a layer? Now it seems unlikely, mainly because the iridium does appear to be from an asteroid.
Especially, the shocked quartz seems not to be produced by volcanoes, of course, and the crater in the Yucatan seems no coincidence. But volcanoes can be the source of at least some iridium enrichment, so they can't simply be ruled out as possible sources for iridium enrichment.
Glen Davidson
From the report by Zoller et al. (1983) in Science 222(4628)1118-1121: The January 1983 eruption of Kilauea produced highly enriched levels if Ir in airborne particulate matter (fortuitously collected), which had not previously been observed in such volcanic material. The Gold:Iridium ratio in these samples differed from the ratio in the K-Pg boundary layer. The boundary layer is also enriched in other platinum-group elements in ratios similar to meteorites. Also, the presence of Sb, Se, and As in both the Kiluaea emission and the boundary layer sediment leaves open the possibility that volcanic components may have been involved at the boundary.
Some workers continue to eye the Deccan Traps with suspicion as being at least partly involved in the end-Cretaceous extinction.
Nevertheless, whether the mass extinction was due to bolide impact, volcanic exhalations, or a combination of the two, the card trick that is the subject of this post just doesn't fit with what we know about the timing of mass extinction (and remember, there were several, with the Permian-Triassic being the most severe), nor does it seem consistent with biogeography, species origination rates, and ecology.
Scott F · 15 August 2016
David MacMillan said:
Damn. Byer's fuss over iridium has been...ridiculous.
Also entertaining.
Indeed. Even if we grant him the volcano theory, he still hasn't explained this "intelligent sorting" mechanism of his.
Maxwell's Daemon, perhaps? Or maybe Morton's Demon? :-)
Scott F · 15 August 2016
mark said:
https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad said:
Volcanoes don't appear to have been the source of the K-Pg iridium, but volcanoes can produce iridium-enriched emissions: Iridium enrichment in airborne particles from kilauea volcano: january 1983.
It wasn't for nothing that volcanoes were considered a possible source after the iridium layer was discovered. But do flood basalts emit sufficient enriched iridium plumes to create such a layer? Now it seems unlikely, mainly because the iridium does appear to be from an asteroid.
Especially, the shocked quartz seems not to be produced by volcanoes, of course, and the crater in the Yucatan seems no coincidence. But volcanoes can be the source of at least some iridium enrichment, so they can't simply be ruled out as possible sources for iridium enrichment.
Glen Davidson
From the report by Zoller et al. (1983) in Science 222(4628)1118-1121: The January 1983 eruption of Kilauea produced highly enriched levels if Ir in airborne particulate matter (fortuitously collected), which had not previously been observed in such volcanic material. The Gold:Iridium ratio in these samples differed from the ratio in the K-Pg boundary layer. The boundary layer is also enriched in other platinum-group elements in ratios similar to meteorites. Also, the presence of Sb, Se, and As in both the Kiluaea emission and the boundary layer sediment leaves open the possibility that volcanic components may have been involved at the boundary.
Some workers continue to eye the Deccan Traps with suspicion as being at least partly involved in the end-Cretaceous extinction.
Nevertheless, whether the mass extinction was due to bolide impact, volcanic exhalations, or a combination of the two, the card trick that is the subject of this post just doesn't fit with what we know about the timing of mass extinction (and remember, there were several, with the Permian-Triassic being the most severe), nor does it seem consistent with biogeography, species origination rates, and ecology.
Okay, Robert. Now pay close attention. This is how "Scientific" discussions in the reality based world work.
First, I explain that I'm not an expert, but based on known and familiar evidence, I make several claims.
Second, Glen and others say, Heh, wait a minute. There is some data that contradicts one of your claims. Glen (et al) being the nice guys that they are, they provide links to reference material. Even though Glen is a nice guy, I (being the skeptical sort) go and read the information found at those links. Not because I don't trust him, but because I'm curious to find out what he knows that I don't know.
Third, I return to Glen, and say, Heh, you're right. I read about the evidence that you found, which is cool and curious. That data does indeed contradict my assertion. My assertion is therefore wrong, and I will not make that assertion again in the future, because I don't want to repeat things that I know are not true.(**)
Thank you, Glen (et al) for the new information.
Fourth, Glen (et al), being kind and generous sort, point out that, while some of my assertions had been inaccurate, there is still lots of other data that everyone agrees upon, and the fact that I was wrong about some of the details does not invalidate my general point.
Do I take Glen's word as an authority, and believe him without question? No. Do I take the scientific paper as an authority, and believe it without question? No. However, I trust that data reported in the paper is accurately reporting the evidence that was found. Why do I trust this? I cannot personally verify the data. But I know that, if it the paper or data wasn't accurate, someone else who could validate the data would present a contradiction if there was one to present. At least, ideally so. I also know that if I wanted to devote the time and effort to study and learn, I too (in principle) could gain enough knowledge and experience to be able to validate this data.
So, I provisionally trust the data that Glen presents, I discover that I was wrong, and I learn just a bit more each time, so that now I'm not as wrong as I was before.
Robert, this is in contrast to how you argue.
When you see something that you don't like, you simply say, "I don't like that" or "I don't understand how that could happen", "therefore it never happened, or couldn't have happened, or it doesn't exist". You don't provide any new evidence. You don't propose any alternative process for how something happened. You simply make bald assertions without any evidence or data. When challenged to "support" your claims, you simply repeat your bald assertions. You admit that what you are doing is pure speculation. And because of this, you simply assume that the the other guy is also engaging in pure speculation. You ignore all of the evidence, and then you claim that your unsupported speculation is better than anyone else's solid evidence. You (or Creationists in general) argue that if one little fact claim of mine can be shown to be wrong in some particular, then that means that all of my claims and conclusions are completely wrong, regardless of all the other data supporting those claims.
That's just not how real grownups have conversations about the real world.
(**) I was going to say that I would also not want to look foolish spouting off something that was not true. But on reflection, I realize that I don't mind looking foolish at all, IF that leads to my better understanding of how the world works. I recall many times in school I would be the only one in class to raise my hand and ask a stupid question. Often times other students would come up to me after class and say, "I'm glad you asked that question. I didn't understand either, but I was afraid to speak up and look foolish."
So, no. I don't really mind saying stupid stuff. Once. What's embarrassing is saying stupid stuff more than once.
Something, Robert, that you might reflect on.
https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad · 15 August 2016
I found this on ebay:
Samples of iridium-enriched layer
What's interesting, I think, is the bit from the US (little blackened "stones," and glassy fragments and droplets), showing the tremendous heat caused by the impact. Of course the US portion is relatively near the blast, but still over a thousand miles away (Montana). I was briefly tempted to buy, but didn't really see that the sample(s) would hold my interest for very long.
I wanted to see if huge impact formations like Sudbury and Witwatersrand had left iridium layers--or indeed, layers of anything else. But I didn't find out either way, and it would probably be hard to match nearly as well as Chicxulub and the K-Pg layer, but I did find this:
The Triassic-Jurassic Extinction which occurred approximately 200 mya.
High Iridium concentration.
No impact crater has yet been discovered.
Another extinction tied to another iridium-rich layer?
Like it says, no crater discovered, but that would hardly be surprising from so long ago. Almost no ocean floor is that old, and that covers a huge portion of the earth, and even craters on land can be difficult to find after that much time (Chicxulub was found via drilling for oil--clearly not done everywhere--although tell-tale geography was seen afterward that mark out the land portions). I have seen a 2011 article saying that they were still working on it. It'll be interesting if they ever pin it down to an asteroid, even more interesting if it's anything else, probably.
Glen Davidson
https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad · 16 August 2016
Chicxulub was found via drilling for oil
I should have written "exploring for oil," as I don't know of significant oil having been found in the crater itself. Even if it has been, I believe that it was the exploratory drilling that led geologists to recognize that it was an impact crater.
Glen Davidson
Robert Byers · 16 August 2016
gnome de net said:
@ Robert Beyrs:
Has any recent volcano produced any iridium in its ash or lava?
I don't know. there are so few and so tiny these days and bringing material from a more closer to surface place.
Robert Byers · 16 August 2016
W. H. Heydt said:
Robert Byers said:
Sorting concepts are very common in geomorphology and other subjects.
My point is that great volcanoes could easily supply the iridium just as a impact would. It is a excellent option.
THEN its deposition on the ground has options.
Then everyone must account for the deposition and so must admit there was something organizing/controling deposition.
then your side must account for the overlying sediment/roc not disturbing the layer yet dramatically covering it and under great pressure turning to stone over time.
I never said one volcanoe. I always for years have seen a major volcanic reaction on earth. This to account for all the fossilization that took place above the k-Pg line. Including also related sediment surges for other reasons but connected to the same event.
I just don't introduce here my idea.
Debunking the space rock thing is easily done by another, better, option. Then its flimsy anyways.
the same great energy that your side says created the iridium layer from the impact has the same great energy from great , many, volcanoes , . why they did explode is another issue.
That is so wrong, in so many ways that one scarcely knows where to begin...
"Sorting" is not a geochemical process. In order to make a case for the Iridium in the boundary clays being of volcanic origin, you *first* have to show some igneous rocks that contain measurable traces of Iridium. A citation from a peer reviewed journal with suffice to start with (bear in mind that people on this forum will look up and *read* anything you cite, so you better be sure the paper says what you need it to say). The only thing it takes to "control" and "organize" sedimentation is time, relatively calm water (at the bottom, churn it up as much as you like at the top) and gravity. As Scott F has noted the process has been observed to happen in real time. This isn't some strange thing that happened only once and only in the past. It is a normal, everyday process. To see just how consistent the process is, look up "varves".
So now you want volcanoes all up and down the American continents, all going at once. Where are the lava fields with dates that match the K-Pg boundary? There are, world wide some extensive flood basalt areas, typically called "traps", but not always. The closest one in time to the K-Pg boundary are the Deccan Traps--and those are off by about a million years. They aren't in North America, though. They're in India.
And, no, it isn't easy to debunk the impact. You haven't the faintest clue about what it would take to do that.
Now look...I think volcanoes are neat and I read up on them from time to time. That doesn't mean that I am going to ascribe anything I don't understand to volcanic activity, though.
Igneous rocks are from volcanic and other great impacts within the earth. Yes they are created quickly.
Its easy to suggest iridium is in material that is interfered with by volcanoes.
why not? Its just a material.
Robert Byers · 16 August 2016
Scott F said:
Oops. Bad HTML karma. Worse editing.
Krakatoa, ~8x1017 joules of energy, over several days. Chicxulub, ~5x1023 joules of energy. That's 106 or one million times more energy deposited in the span of a half dozen seconds.
Now, to be sure, the Deccan Traps (or their equivalent on the Yellowstone Plateau) would have used more total energy to raise 500,000 cubic kilometers of lava. The Chicxulub crater is only about 3,600 cubic kilometers. But, the Chicxulub crater was completely excavated in a matter of seconds. The Deccan Traps were created over millions of years.
Another poster has some link to how volcanoes could have iridium. Further this would be based on trivial puffs we now have. Not the great explosions clearly evidenced in the Americas. In fact the whole American plains was covered by volcanic debris.
It comes down to explaining a very trivial layer of iridium for claiming a incredible claim that meteorite destroyed the biology on earth 65m ago.
In any great series of volconos happening at once, and bringing up its guts from low down its easy to say iridium would be found and expelled to cover some areas of earth. Then overtoping sediment layers, related to the event, would land on top without messing it up much.
I say your slow accumulation idea for the layers on top of the iridium layer, just sitting there waiting, would distort it completely.
Your slow accumulation of water borne sediment would not be like the trivial actions we have today. Which by the way are often them,selves not gentle.
Thats why you should find great messed up areas in your layers if your idea was true. Its a probability thing.
Its very rocks from space. However much iridium in in them its not special relative to eatyh.
Earth can provide this material.
Its not evidence all impacts had iridium in any important amounts or any. that it would fan out from a impact on earth in the way proposed. Its all speculation. We all do this.
however iridium is found on earth and not certain in rocks, or all of them, from space.
Its just guessing some impact had it and fanned it out.
The quartz thing is likely just more evidence of great reactions in the material being deposited by or resulting from great volcanic action.
its a good option is my option.
Especially the overlying sediment being part of the origin of the iridium layer. not a later events .
Robert Byers · 16 August 2016
https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad said:
Volcanoes don't appear to have been the source of the K-Pg iridium, but volcanoes can produce iridium-enriched emissions: Iridium enrichment in airborne particles from kilauea volcano: january 1983.
It wasn't for nothing that volcanoes were considered a possible source after the iridium layer was discovered. But do flood basalts emit sufficient enriched iridium plumes to create such a layer? Now it seems unlikely, mainly because the iridium does appear to be from an asteroid.
Especially, the shocked quartz seems not to be produced by volcanoes, of course, and the crater in the Yucatan seems no coincidence. But volcanoes can be the source of at least some iridium enrichment, so they can't simply be ruled out as possible sources for iridium enrichment.
Glen Davidson
Thanks for the link.
i thought i had read many times about iridium being part of volcanic deposition.
Since its a element on earth it easily would be brought up by great explosions, called volcanoes, especially in days where they were hugh and many.
Then the clue being the overlying sediment loads. The iridium was just in front/coming alongside volcanic material or sediment loads brought into motion by the volcanic action.
A recipe.
Robert Byers · 16 August 2016
mark said:
https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad said:
Volcanoes don't appear to have been the source of the K-Pg iridium, but volcanoes can produce iridium-enriched emissions: Iridium enrichment in airborne particles from kilauea volcano: january 1983.
It wasn't for nothing that volcanoes were considered a possible source after the iridium layer was discovered. But do flood basalts emit sufficient enriched iridium plumes to create such a layer? Now it seems unlikely, mainly because the iridium does appear to be from an asteroid.
Especially, the shocked quartz seems not to be produced by volcanoes, of course, and the crater in the Yucatan seems no coincidence. But volcanoes can be the source of at least some iridium enrichment, so they can't simply be ruled out as possible sources for iridium enrichment.
Glen Davidson
From the report by Zoller et al. (1983) in Science 222(4628)1118-1121: The January 1983 eruption of Kilauea produced highly enriched levels if Ir in airborne particulate matter (fortuitously collected), which had not previously been observed in such volcanic material. The Gold:Iridium ratio in these samples differed from the ratio in the K-Pg boundary layer. The boundary layer is also enriched in other platinum-group elements in ratios similar to meteorites. Also, the presence of Sb, Se, and As in both the Kiluaea emission and the boundary layer sediment leaves open the possibility that volcanic components may have been involved at the boundary.
Some workers continue to eye the Deccan Traps with suspicion as being at least partly involved in the end-Cretaceous extinction.
Nevertheless, whether the mass extinction was due to bolide impact, volcanic exhalations, or a combination of the two, the card trick that is the subject of this post just doesn't fit with what we know about the timing of mass extinction (and remember, there were several, with the Permian-Triassic being the most severe), nor does it seem consistent with biogeography, species origination rates, and ecology.
Fine. The important pojnt is that easily it should be seen that volcanic eruptions can bring up any type of element/material that is down there. So the greater, and greater number, of volcanoes easily would produce iridium as a front line deposit to the following deposits. Also the irifium landing anywhere could be sorted by sediment lovements also triggered uniquely.
likewise any thing can be seen as done by volcanoes because the great enery is al that would be done in a impact from space.
its just a matter of degrees.
The deccan volcanoes, represented by the fossil types, need only be seen as a tiny episode in a great episode of volcanic action on the planet a few centuries after the flood.
Its very unlikely a impact from space could be discovered or wipe thinhgs out. It was too easily accepted to explain the fauna/flora segregation.
Rolf · 16 August 2016
Robert said:
Igneous rocks are from volcanic and other great impacts within the earth. Yes they are created quickly. Its easy to suggest iridium is in material that is interfered with by volcanoes. why not? Its just a material.
You say suggestion is easy. You are right, it is easy for you to make suggestions.
The only problem is that your suggestions don't work because they do not fit the facts. You seem incapable of identifying your own errors. ISTM your thinking is very shallow.
Mickey Mortimer · 16 August 2016
Robert Byers said:
Scott F said:
Oops. Bad HTML karma. Worse editing.
Krakatoa, ~8x1017 joules of energy, over several days. Chicxulub, ~5x1023 joules of energy. That's 106 or one million times more energy deposited in the span of a half dozen seconds.
Now, to be sure, the Deccan Traps (or their equivalent on the Yellowstone Plateau) would have used more total energy to raise 500,000 cubic kilometers of lava. The Chicxulub crater is only about 3,600 cubic kilometers. But, the Chicxulub crater was completely excavated in a matter of seconds. The Deccan Traps were created over millions of years.
Another poster has some link to how volcanoes could have iridium. Further this would be based on trivial puffs we now have. Not the great explosions clearly evidenced in the Americas. In fact the whole American plains was covered by volcanic debris.
It comes down to explaining a very trivial layer of iridium for claiming a incredible claim that meteorite destroyed the biology on earth 65m ago.
In any great series of volconos happening at once, and bringing up its guts from low down its easy to say iridium would be found and expelled to cover some areas of earth. Then overtoping sediment layers, related to the event, would land on top without messing it up much.
I say your slow accumulation idea for the layers on top of the iridium layer, just sitting there waiting, would distort it completely.
Your slow accumulation of water borne sediment would not be like the trivial actions we have today. Which by the way are often them,selves not gentle.
Thats why you should find great messed up areas in your layers if your idea was true. Its a probability thing.
Its very rocks from space. However much iridium in in them its not special relative to eatyh.
Earth can provide this material.
Its not evidence all impacts had iridium in any important amounts or any. that it would fan out from a impact on earth in the way proposed. Its all speculation. We all do this.
however iridium is found on earth and not certain in rocks, or all of them, from space.
Its just guessing some impact had it and fanned it out.
The quartz thing is likely just more evidence of great reactions in the material being deposited by or resulting from great volcanic action.
its a good option is my option.
Especially the overlying sediment being part of the origin of the iridium layer. not a later events .
I'll make it simple, Robert- Volcanoes CANNOT make shocked quartz. They don't have anywhere near the amount of energy applied in a short time interval. It doesn't matter how big the volcano is- that's simply not how volcanoes work. Only events as powerful as asteroid impacts or nuclear explosions can do it. So you are wrong that volcanoes could be responsible for the KT layer. No matter how you try to excuse it, you're WRONG. Just admit you are wrong about that, and show some evidence you actually read and understand what we write.
It's not even vital to your YEC view that the KT layer isn't caused by an asteroid impact. For all you or Genesis knows, that could be how God released the "fountains of the great deep" to cause the Noachian flood. That's even been suggested by some creationists (e.g. Spencer, 1998). Thus your arguments are both impotent, stubborn AND pointless. So admit you are WRONG.
Reference- Spencer, W.R., Catastrophic impact bombardment surrounding the Genesis Flood, Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Creationism, Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, pp. 553â566, 1998.
eric · 16 August 2016
Robert Byers said:
Also the irifium landing anywhere could be sorted by sediment lovements also triggered uniquely.
If by "uniquely" you mean "God could have screwed with physics in order to separate out the iridium", then yes that's a theological possibility. But it makes God seem deceptive and it makes your explanation no better than last Thursdayism. Why would he bother, other than to deceive us into thinking it happened another way?
OTOH if by "uniquely" you mean "some unknown [handwave handwave] physics process that only occurred one time in the history of volcanic eruptions on Earth, but during that one time occurred simultaneously in all volcanos, including a bunch of volcanos that somehow showed up on the North American continent and then disappeared again," that is what is known as special pleading. Before any scientist took such a hypothesis (and I'm being charitable with the term) seriously, you would have to come up with independent evidence that your hypothesis was true (independent, Robert, means something other than the iridium layer you're trying to explain). Frankly, the idea of North American volcanos suddenly appearing and disappearing in a few thousand years is about as non-credible as Velikovsky's ideas or the Mormon idea of the Americas being settled by 1st century Israelites.
The deccan volcanoes, represented by the fossil types, need only be seen as a tiny episode in a great episode of volcanic action on the planet a few centuries after the flood.
Such a 'great episode of volcanic action' would have left far more clues and signatures than just an iridium layer. Where's all the other things it should have produced? You can't invoke massive and recent volcanic activity to explain an iridium layer but then pretend it would do nothing else. People were living in the Americas 5-10,000 years ago. So where are the Vesuvious-like remains of human settlements being wiped out by this sudden and catastrophic volcanic activity, to name just one such thing?
Its very unlikely a impact from space could be discovered or wipe thinhgs out. It was too easily accepted to explain the fauna/flora segregation.
Actually IIRC the reverse is true; in the 1800s and early 1900s lay people were claiming rocks from space were coming down and hitting the Earth, but the 'modern' western scientists at the time rejected the notion as preposterous. They had to be convinced it was actually occurring. The hypothesis that rocks from space are responsible for changes on Earth is a relatively "latecomer" in terms of geological hypotheses, accepted only grudgingly because of the good fit it made to the data.
DS · 16 August 2016
It doesn't matter how much evidence you present. It doesn't matter if you prove that what booby believes is completely and totally impossible. It doesn't matter how illogical or self-contradictory his mindless sputtering is. He will always believe exactly what he wants to believe. That is why he has stayed a YEC for all these years. He just can't conceive of the possibility that he could be wrong, so he just isn't. After nine pages of people pointing out his errors, he still clings to them like a badge of honor. He just makes crap up and projects his own shortcomings onto everybody else as an excuse to ignore everything they say. He actually believes that his own random thoughts are evidence of something in reality. And the more crap he makes up, the more obvious it becomes that he is willing to ignore all of reality in order to continue to believe that he is always right. It's really the same thing that every creationist does, he's just more blatant about it.
David MacMillan · 16 August 2016
Just Bob said:
Mike Elzinga said:
Matt Young said:
These guys are ubercool, man!
Right, and the ur-cool guys were the beatniks.
Hee hee; I think we are revealing our ages. :-)
How many people under 30 even know what a beatnik was?
I minored in history, and I'm just barely under 30.
And I had to look it up because I had forgotten.
Scott F said:
You identify a "gradual" decay of information in a population. "Gradual" being a relative term, here, since, relative to actual Darwinian speciation, "Creationist Speciation" is happening at super hyper lightning speed.
Indeed. Though they think this is justifiable because they imagine that all the information is already there, ready to be filtered out into new species by natural selection. They don't realize that natural selection of a population is the limiting factor on speciation. Mutations are the easy part.
In contrast, I presented the one-male-one-female single generation model. I based this on the fact that Creationists continue to insist that Darwinian speciation is impossible. As I understood the argument, you would (for example) have to have exactly one male and one female of the type new-species-dog born to old-species-wolf parents. Specifically, I have read that the first new-dog male is sitting around waiting for the first new-dog female to show up, so that they can start a new species. This is clearly impossible, so Darwinian speciation is impossible.
But you're saying that's not the case? That Creationists actually believe in divergence of populations? The CrocoDuck not withstanding?
(Which also seems pretty weird. I mean, they say that the CrocoDuck is impossible therefore Darwinian speciation is impossible, yet the CrocoDuck is exactly the kind of creature they describe for each of the uber-Kinds.)
I can only think that the CrocoDuck is an intentional and obvious strawman that they employ purely for comedic effect. They want to mock "evolution" so they create ridiculous caricatures just to get a laugh. Call them on it, and they'd say "Yes, well, obviously that's not what any secular scientist would predict, but how can they even know?" and similar nonsense.
AiG's writers clearly don't fully appreciate the complexities or time limitations of population-level Darwinian speciation, but they accept it as the driver.
Mickey Mortimer said:
I'll make it simple, Robert- Volcanoes CANNOT make shocked quartz. They don't have anywhere near the amount of energy applied in a short time interval. It doesn't matter how big the volcano is- that's simply not how volcanoes work. Only events as powerful as asteroid impacts or nuclear explosions can do it. So you are wrong that volcanoes could be responsible for the KT layer. No matter how you try to excuse it, you're WRONG. Just admit you are wrong about that, and show some evidence you actually read and understand what we write.
It's not even vital to your YEC view that the KT layer isn't caused by an asteroid impact. For all you or Genesis knows, that could be how God released the "fountains of the great deep" to cause the Noachian flood. That's even been suggested by some creationists (e.g. Spencer, 1998). Thus your arguments are both impotent, stubborn AND pointless. So admit you are WRONG.
Indeed. Suggesting that volcanoes can make shocked quartz is like suggesting that a BUNCH of knights all jousting at once could eventually create a Higgs Boson.
Robert Byers said:
I say your slow accumulation idea for the layers on top of the iridium layer, just sitting there waiting, would distort it completely. Your slow accumulation of water borne sediment would not be like the trivial actions we have today. Which by the way are often them,selves not gentle. Thats why you should find great messed up areas in your layers if your idea was true. Its a probability thing.
Did you not pay attention to anything that was explained to you about sedimentation? Water-borne sediment does not mean that a rushing flow of water mixed up a bunch of mud and dumped it somewhere. Sediment precipitates out of calm water. This is observable fact.
And your caricature of mainstream geology is amusing, but also tiresome. Of course there are regions where the layer is gapped or messed up.
The deccan volcanoes, represented by the fossil types, need only be seen as a tiny episode in a great episode of volcanic action on the planet a few centuries after the flood.
All life would be gone.
All of it.
All life. Gone.
Nothing left.
That's what would happen if volcanism on the order you're discussing happened.
And it still wouldn't shock quartz.
mark · 16 August 2016
Robert Byers said:
... In fact the whole American plains was covered by volcanic debris. ...
This statement requires explanation. What sort of "volcanic debris" are you referring to? How thick is it? What is the age, or age range, of this material? What is the degree of Ir enrichment of this material? What are the Au/Ir ratios, as well as the ratios of other platinum elements and Ir? What is the depositional/diagenetic context? Please cite references. As far as I can tell, there is little or no controversy over whether the Ir-enriched layer between the Cretaceous and the Paleogene is due to the bolide impact (Chicxulub crater); some researchers are, however, still arguing over whether that bolide impact was the sole cause of the mass extinction.
DS · 16 August 2016
mark said:
Robert Byers said:
... In fact the whole American plains was covered by volcanic debris. ...
This statement requires explanation. What sort of "volcanic debris" are you referring to? How thick is it? What is the age, or age range, of this material? What is the degree of Ir enrichment of this material? What are the Au/Ir ratios, as well as the ratios of other platinum elements and Ir? What is the depositional/diagenetic context? Please cite references. As far as I can tell, there is little or no controversy over whether the Ir-enriched layer between the Cretaceous and the Paleogene is due to the bolide impact (Chicxulub crater); some researchers are, however, still arguing over whether that bolide impact was the sole cause of the mass extinction.
well i just made it up so i have no references i never have any cause its all make believe you know make it up and believe in it and its true
W. H. Heydt · 16 August 2016
Robert Byers said:
i thought i had read many times about iridium being part of volcanic deposition.
Where? (aka Citation, please.)
W. H. Heydt · 16 August 2016
https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad said:
I should have written "exploring for oil," as I don't know of significant oil having been found in the crater itself. Even if it has been, I believe that it was the exploratory drilling that led geologists to recognize that it was an impact crater.
Glen Davidson
There has been a recent (this year) effort to drill into the floor of the crater. There is a BBC report on that here: http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-36377679
Thanks, Glen, for answering half of my question which had a two-fold purpose. I really didn't know if volcanoes could eject iridium or if Robert (deliberately-misspelled) Beyrs could provide any evidence to support his wild assertions. Perhaps he can provide additional citations. Or not.
According to the Science paper by Zoller et al. (1983, v.222:1118-1121), iridium was a gaseous component of the volcanic fumes, later adhering to particles (such as those collected at the Mauna Loa Observatory)--not in lava. The authors figured Ir was mobilized by fluorine. Fluorine gases come from deep magma sources. The authors note that observations at five other active volcanoes found no Ir enrichment.
Thanks, Glen, for answering half of my question which had a two-fold purpose. I really didn't know if volcanoes could eject iridium or if Robert (deliberately-misspelled) Beyrs could provide any evidence to support his wild assertions. Perhaps he can provide additional citations. Or not.
According to the Science paper by Zoller et al. (1983, v.222:1118-1121), iridium was a gaseous component of the volcanic fumes, later adhering to particles (such as those collected at the Mauna Loa Observatory)--not in lava. The authors figured Ir was mobilized by fluorine. Fluorine gases come from deep magma sources. The authors note that observations at five other active volcanoes found no Ir enrichment.
Interesting.... That suggests that one *might* find some Ir enrichment in Iceland, where volcanoes are also associatated with a mantle hotspot and are known to release a lot (relatively speaking) of Fluorine. So much so that a significant cause (among others) of famine and death in Iceland following the 1783 eruption of Laki was due to fluoridosis. (Florine compounds settling on plants, livestock eating the plants and dying from fluoridosis, leading to famine.) Article here: http://volcano.oregonstate.edu/laki-iceland-1783
mark · 16 August 2016
Robert Byers also said
Fine. The important pojnt is that easily it should be seen that volcanic eruptions can bring up any type of element/material that is down there. So the greater, and greater number, of volcanoes easily would produce iridium as a front line deposit to the following deposits. Also the irifium landing anywhere could be sorted by sediment lovements also triggered uniquely. likewise any thing can be seen as done by volcanoes because the great enery is al that would be done in a impact from space. its just a matter of degrees. The deccan volcanoes, represented by the fossil types, need only be seen as a tiny episode in a great episode of volcanic action on the planet a few centuries after the flood. Its very unlikely a impact from space could be discovered or wipe thinhgs out. It was too easily accepted to explain the fauna/flora segregation.
This is just nonsense. I mentioned above that the Zoller et al. study also looked at five other volcanoes but did not observe enriched Ir--they believe the Ir enrichment seen in the Kilauea material was due to its combination with gaseous fluorine (IrF6). Furthermore, and importantly, it is not just the presence of an element, or its concentration, but also the ratios of its concentration to other key elements, particularly gold and other platinum group elements, that are used to assess the earthly or cosmic source of a substance. Isotopes also go into analysis of source.
It is preposterous to claim that "anything" can be done by volcanoes--impact craters, shocked quartz, and other features can be attributed to impact but not volcanoes. We have actually observed impact craters; in fact, we have observed impacts on earth (although not as large as the end-Cretaceous impact)--one was caught on cell-phone video in Russia a few years ago. Wed also observed a comet impact Jupiter. How about Meteor (Barringer) Crater in Arizona? A number have been "discovered" on Earth.
mark · 16 August 2016
And how could I forget the recently discovered Chesapeake Bay impact structure, located near the mouth of Chesapeake Bay (see Geol. Soc. Amer. Special Paper SPE458, 2009).
W. H. Heydt · 16 August 2016
mark said:
And how could I forget the recently discovered Chesapeake Bay impact structure, located near the mouth of Chesapeake Bay (see Geol. Soc. Amer. Special Paper SPE458, 2009).
Then there is what I first heard of as the "Vredefort Ring": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vredefort_crater . It's even bigger than Chicxulub.
mark · 16 August 2016
Olsson et al. (Geology 25(8):759-762, 1997) described a core that penetrated a layer of ejecta at the K-Pg boundary in New Jersey. A 6-cm thick layer of spherule-bearing impact ejecta overlay a glauconitic clay, the top of which bore spherical impressions, indicating the spherules dropped onto a soft substrate, one that was not being eroded. Shocked quartz was present in the upper cm of the spherule layer. Above the spherule layer was a glauconitic, silty clay that contained a few reworked clay clasts deposited on top of the spherules.
The lower clay layer is very fossiliferous; the upper layer poorly fossiliferous. Most of the Cretaceous planktonic foraminifera were wiped out, replaced above the spherule bed by a different assemblage. The authors conclude that there was a rather quick emplacement of impact ejecta originating from Chicxulub that wiped out marine organisms at this location (where sea level was about 100 meters). Benthic foraminifera did not go extinct, but those above the spherule bed are of reduced size.
The upshot of this study, to quote the abstract: "Thus, the Bass River K-T succession unequivocally links the Chicxulub bolide impact to the mass extinctions at the end of the Mesozoic."
Robert Byers · 16 August 2016
Mickey Mortimer said:
Robert Byers said:
Scott F said:
Oops. Bad HTML karma. Worse editing.
Krakatoa, ~8x1017 joules of energy, over several days. Chicxulub, ~5x1023 joules of energy. That's 106 or one million times more energy deposited in the span of a half dozen seconds.
Now, to be sure, the Deccan Traps (or their equivalent on the Yellowstone Plateau) would have used more total energy to raise 500,000 cubic kilometers of lava. The Chicxulub crater is only about 3,600 cubic kilometers. But, the Chicxulub crater was completely excavated in a matter of seconds. The Deccan Traps were created over millions of years.
Another poster has some link to how volcanoes could have iridium. Further this would be based on trivial puffs we now have. Not the great explosions clearly evidenced in the Americas. In fact the whole American plains was covered by volcanic debris.
It comes down to explaining a very trivial layer of iridium for claiming a incredible claim that meteorite destroyed the biology on earth 65m ago.
In any great series of volconos happening at once, and bringing up its guts from low down its easy to say iridium would be found and expelled to cover some areas of earth. Then overtoping sediment layers, related to the event, would land on top without messing it up much.
I say your slow accumulation idea for the layers on top of the iridium layer, just sitting there waiting, would distort it completely.
Your slow accumulation of water borne sediment would not be like the trivial actions we have today. Which by the way are often them,selves not gentle.
Thats why you should find great messed up areas in your layers if your idea was true. Its a probability thing.
Its very rocks from space. However much iridium in in them its not special relative to eatyh.
Earth can provide this material.
Its not evidence all impacts had iridium in any important amounts or any. that it would fan out from a impact on earth in the way proposed. Its all speculation. We all do this.
however iridium is found on earth and not certain in rocks, or all of them, from space.
Its just guessing some impact had it and fanned it out.
The quartz thing is likely just more evidence of great reactions in the material being deposited by or resulting from great volcanic action.
its a good option is my option.
Especially the overlying sediment being part of the origin of the iridium layer. not a later events .
I'll make it simple, Robert- Volcanoes CANNOT make shocked quartz. They don't have anywhere near the amount of energy applied in a short time interval. It doesn't matter how big the volcano is- that's simply not how volcanoes work. Only events as powerful as asteroid impacts or nuclear explosions can do it. So you are wrong that volcanoes could be responsible for the KT layer. No matter how you try to excuse it, you're WRONG. Just admit you are wrong about that, and show some evidence you actually read and understand what we write.
It's not even vital to your YEC view that the KT layer isn't caused by an asteroid impact. For all you or Genesis knows, that could be how God released the "fountains of the great deep" to cause the Noachian flood. That's even been suggested by some creationists (e.g. Spencer, 1998). Thus your arguments are both impotent, stubborn AND pointless. So admit you are WRONG.
Reference- Spencer, W.R., Catastrophic impact bombardment surrounding the Genesis Flood, Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Creationism, Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, pp. 553â566, 1998.
Why wrong?
The big point for the k-pg line is the iridium. First things first. quartz , shocking or not, is just a special casse in some plces that they try to say was part of the impact. if the volcanoes are so great, and many, then I see no problem for them to have the energy to deposit alongside what otherwise was deposuted by them. I do think volcanos ,the ones that are evidenced in the americas, could beat nukes explosions.
Its speculation but educated.
The impact concept is more unlikely.
Robert Byers · 16 August 2016
eric said:
Robert Byers said:
Also the irifium landing anywhere could be sorted by sediment lovements also triggered uniquely.
If by "uniquely" you mean "God could have screwed with physics in order to separate out the iridium", then yes that's a theological possibility. But it makes God seem deceptive and it makes your explanation no better than last Thursdayism. Why would he bother, other than to deceive us into thinking it happened another way?
OTOH if by "uniquely" you mean "some unknown [handwave handwave] physics process that only occurred one time in the history of volcanic eruptions on Earth, but during that one time occurred simultaneously in all volcanos, including a bunch of volcanos that somehow showed up on the North American continent and then disappeared again," that is what is known as special pleading. Before any scientist took such a hypothesis (and I'm being charitable with the term) seriously, you would have to come up with independent evidence that your hypothesis was true (independent, Robert, means something other than the iridium layer you're trying to explain). Frankly, the idea of North American volcanos suddenly appearing and disappearing in a few thousand years is about as non-credible as Velikovsky's ideas or the Mormon idea of the Americas being settled by 1st century Israelites.
The deccan volcanoes, represented by the fossil types, need only be seen as a tiny episode in a great episode of volcanic action on the planet a few centuries after the flood.
Such a 'great episode of volcanic action' would have left far more clues and signatures than just an iridium layer. Where's all the other things it should have produced? You can't invoke massive and recent volcanic activity to explain an iridium layer but then pretend it would do nothing else. People were living in the Americas 5-10,000 years ago. So where are the Vesuvious-like remains of human settlements being wiped out by this sudden and catastrophic volcanic activity, to name just one such thing?
Its very unlikely a impact from space could be discovered or wipe thinhgs out. It was too easily accepted to explain the fauna/flora segregation.
Actually IIRC the reverse is true; in the 1800s and early 1900s lay people were claiming rocks from space were coming down and hitting the Earth, but the 'modern' western scientists at the time rejected the notion as preposterous. They had to be convinced it was actually occurring. The hypothesis that rocks from space are responsible for changes on Earth is a relatively "latecomer" in terms of geological hypotheses, accepted only grudgingly because of the good fit it made to the data.
I have for years had a concept linking post flood events on earth into one event.
Its not relevant however.
As long as its an option that volcanoes can throw about iridium or any elements due to the great power, depth, and number of them then any layer of anything can be better explained by earth events and not unlikely, very specvulative, ideas of space rocks.
Its just adding another option to very raw and little data for the ancient past.
Then it makes more sense that the iridium layer was part of the following layers on top of it. Those were from a single event as i see it.
Robert Byers · 16 August 2016
David Mac Millian Put quartz in the middle of a great explosion and it will be shocked. why not? who says not? who tried it? How sediment loads are gathered up and deposited is not dominated by modern slow actions. Great movements moving sediment can mimic any slow thing. It was a old careless idea to presume modern deposition is a sample of histoic deposition mechanisms.
Robert Byers · 16 August 2016
mark said:
Robert Byers said:
... In fact the whole American plains was covered by volcanic debris. ...
This statement requires explanation. What sort of "volcanic debris" are you referring to? How thick is it? What is the age, or age range, of this material? What is the degree of Ir enrichment of this material? What are the Au/Ir ratios, as well as the ratios of other platinum elements and Ir? What is the depositional/diagenetic context? Please cite references. As far as I can tell, there is little or no controversy over whether the Ir-enriched layer between the Cretaceous and the Paleogene is due to the bolide impact (Chicxulub crater); some researchers are, however, still arguing over whether that bolide impact was the sole cause of the mass extinction.
its a famous fact. All of north America, almost, was covered by volcanic debris. In fact its the origin for the great fossil death zones full of rhinos/horses/camels/many others found in Nebraska and all points about. In Canada too.
They try to segregate the events but I see it as a single fantastic great event.
Robert Byers · 16 August 2016
mark said:
Robert Byers also said
Fine. The important pojnt is that easily it should be seen that volcanic eruptions can bring up any type of element/material that is down there. So the greater, and greater number, of volcanoes easily would produce iridium as a front line deposit to the following deposits. Also the irifium landing anywhere could be sorted by sediment lovements also triggered uniquely. likewise any thing can be seen as done by volcanoes because the great enery is al that would be done in a impact from space. its just a matter of degrees. The deccan volcanoes, represented by the fossil types, need only be seen as a tiny episode in a great episode of volcanic action on the planet a few centuries after the flood. Its very unlikely a impact from space could be discovered or wipe thinhgs out. It was too easily accepted to explain the fauna/flora segregation.
This is just nonsense. I mentioned above that the Zoller et al. study also looked at five other volcanoes but did not observe enriched Ir--they believe the Ir enrichment seen in the Kilauea material was due to its combination with gaseous fluorine (IrF6). Furthermore, and importantly, it is not just the presence of an element, or its concentration, but also the ratios of its concentration to other key elements, particularly gold and other platinum group elements, that are used to assess the earthly or cosmic source of a substance. Isotopes also go into analysis of source.
It is preposterous to claim that "anything" can be done by volcanoes--impact craters, shocked quartz, and other features can be attributed to impact but not volcanoes. We have actually observed impact craters; in fact, we have observed impacts on earth (although not as large as the end-Cretaceous impact)--one was caught on cell-phone video in Russia a few years ago. Wed also observed a comet impact Jupiter. How about Meteor (Barringer) Crater in Arizona? A number have been "discovered" on Earth.
Why do you say iridium can't be part of the guts of great volcanic outporings when they bring everything up?
The greater the volcano the greater the elements with it. Any equation of these mingling is easily a option for why they find a layer of elements deposited.
The big fact is what is overtop. That is the origin for it. Great sediment movements from great volcanic action. The iridium a good fact for volcanic action as the trigger for the sediment movements.
Any impact must also segregate and sort its elements its throwing around.
Just Bob · 16 August 2016
My guess is that Robert just retired, and now has endless time to flog his idee fixe.
Mickey Mortimer · 16 August 2016
Robert Byers said:
Why wrong?
The big point for the k-pg line is the iridium. First things first. quartz , shocking or not, is just a special casse in some plces that they try to say was part of the impact. if the volcanoes are so great, and many, then I see no problem for them to have the energy to deposit alongside what otherwise was deposuted by them. I do think volcanos ,the ones that are evidenced in the americas, could beat nukes explosions.
Its speculation but educated.
The impact concept is more unlikely.
Why wrong? Because no matter the size or number, volcanoes simply cannot exhibit the physical properties necessary to make shocked quartz. It's a fact. Stoffler and Langenhorst (1994) state "shock effects, as observed in quartz and defined below, cannot be produced by the P-T strain rate regime of any type of endogenic geological process." Volcano explosions are an endogenic geological process. You can read that entire article for free online and see all the experiments and statistics. You do not know more about the subject than those authors and have no evidence (observational or experimental) for your idea. So you are wrong. Admit it and stop thinking your speculations have any value compared to the facts discovered by scientists.
Reference- Stoffler and Langenhorst, 1994. Shock metamorphism of quartz in nature and experiment: I. Basic observation and theory. Meteoritics. 29, 155-181.
Scott F · 16 August 2016
Robert Byers said:
mark said:
Robert Byers said:
... In fact the whole American plains was covered by volcanic debris. ...
This statement requires explanation. What sort of "volcanic debris" are you referring to? How thick is it? What is the age, or age range, of this material? What is the degree of Ir enrichment of this material? What are the Au/Ir ratios, as well as the ratios of other platinum elements and Ir? What is the depositional/diagenetic context? Please cite references. As far as I can tell, there is little or no controversy over whether the Ir-enriched layer between the Cretaceous and the Paleogene is due to the bolide impact (Chicxulub crater); some researchers are, however, still arguing over whether that bolide impact was the sole cause of the mass extinction.
its a famous fact. All of north America, almost, was covered by volcanic debris. In fact its the origin for the great fossil death zones full of rhinos/horses/camels/many others found in Nebraska and all points about. In Canada too.
They try to segregate the events but I see it as a single fantastic great event.
Yes, Robert, it is famous. And we know exactly what did that: the Yellowstone super volcano. In fact, we have been able to track the Yellowstone crater as the North American continent moved over the Yellowstone hot spot, leaving a string of craters, just like the Hawaiian island chain. We have a very good record of all of the volcanic eruptions of Yellowstone over the past 60 million years. Each eruption leaves a distinctive trail of debris, which are thickest near the volcano, and gradually taper to thinner layers further from the volcano. This data gives us very accurate estimates on how big each eruption was, and none of the eruptions came anywhere close to what was required. Finally, the ratio of elements that Yellowstone puts out are well known, and do not match those of the K-T extinction event, and they are not enriched in iridium. Not all volcanoes are. In fact, each volcano spits out elements in a unique ratio. These ratios are so consistent, they are like fingerprints. We can tell the difference between volcanic debris from Yellowstone and (for example) from Mount Mazama that formed Crater Lake, and from Mt. St. Helens.
So, Robert. We know about this one large volcano. It has left a clear mark on the landscape for tens of millions of years. We even know about lots of smaller volcanoes on the West Coast. We know what causes all of them, what powers them, and what kinds of volcanic debris that they put out.
And we have not a single example or scrap of evidence for any of your other "super" volcanoes.
Again, Robert, you are living in a fantasy world inside your head, that has no relationship to the real world.
Malcolm · 16 August 2016
Mickey Mortimer said:
Robert Byers said:
Why wrong?
The big point for the k-pg line is the iridium. First things first. quartz , shocking or not, is just a special casse in some plces that they try to say was part of the impact. if the volcanoes are so great, and many, then I see no problem for them to have the energy to deposit alongside what otherwise was deposuted by them. I do think volcanos ,the ones that are evidenced in the americas, could beat nukes explosions.
Its speculation but educated.
The impact concept is more unlikely.
Why wrong? Because no matter the size or number, volcanoes simply cannot exhibit the physical properties necessary to make shocked quartz. It's a fact. Stoffler and Langenhorst (1994) state "shock effects, as observed in quartz and defined below, cannot be produced by the P-T strain rate regime of any type of endogenic geological process." Volcano explosions are an endogenic geological process. You can read that entire article for free online and see all the experiments and statistics. You do not know more about the subject than those authors and have no evidence (observational or experimental) for your idea. So you are wrong. Admit it and stop thinking your speculations have any value compared to the facts discovered by scientists.
Reference- Stoffler and Langenhorst, 1994. Shock metamorphism of quartz in nature and experiment: I. Basic observation and theory. Meteoritics. 29, 155-181.
The problem is that Robert thinks that he is doing science. He has no concept of how science is actually done. He doesn't believe in experiments or observations.
To Robert, the mere fact that you have shown that his ideas are totally impossible, doesn't mean they aren't still completely plausible. No mere fact will ever convince him that his magic book isn't 100% accurate.
Mickey Mortimer · 17 August 2016
Malcolm said:
Mickey Mortimer said:
Robert Byers said:
Why wrong?
The big point for the k-pg line is the iridium. First things first. quartz , shocking or not, is just a special casse in some plces that they try to say was part of the impact. if the volcanoes are so great, and many, then I see no problem for them to have the energy to deposit alongside what otherwise was deposuted by them. I do think volcanos ,the ones that are evidenced in the americas, could beat nukes explosions.
Its speculation but educated.
The impact concept is more unlikely.
Why wrong? Because no matter the size or number, volcanoes simply cannot exhibit the physical properties necessary to make shocked quartz. It's a fact. Stoffler and Langenhorst (1994) state "shock effects, as observed in quartz and defined below, cannot be produced by the P-T strain rate regime of any type of endogenic geological process." Volcano explosions are an endogenic geological process. You can read that entire article for free online and see all the experiments and statistics. You do not know more about the subject than those authors and have no evidence (observational or experimental) for your idea. So you are wrong. Admit it and stop thinking your speculations have any value compared to the facts discovered by scientists.
Reference- Stoffler and Langenhorst, 1994. Shock metamorphism of quartz in nature and experiment: I. Basic observation and theory. Meteoritics. 29, 155-181.
The problem is that Robert thinks that he is doing science. He has no concept of how science is actually done. He doesn't believe in experiments or observations.
To Robert, the mere fact that you have shown that his ideas are totally impossible, doesn't mean they aren't still completely plausible. No mere fact will ever convince him that his magic book isn't 100% accurate.
But the KT event being an asteroid doesn't even conflict with the Bible. It's such a pointless thing for him to argue. And his volcano explanation is completely nonsensical. Shocked quartz is caused by shock waves, which for a volcano would be the earthquake it causes, but earthquakes can only metamorphose rock by direct contact of the moving components (forming pseudotachylites) as opposed to shockwaves. I still don't get why if Byers is willing to completely contradict geological knowledge here, he doesn't just say "God miracled the shocked quartz."
TomS · 17 August 2016
Mickey Mortimer said:
But the KT event being an asteroid doesn't even conflict with the Bible. It's such a pointless thing for him to argue. And his volcano explanation is completely nonsensical. Shocked quartz is caused by shock waves, which for a volcano would be the earthquake it causes, but earthquakes can only metamorphose rock by direct contact of the moving components (forming pseudotachylites) as opposed to shockwaves. I still don't get why if Byers is willing to completely contradict geological knowledge here, he doesn't just say "God miracled the shocked quartz."
The creationists seem to get stuck with an untenable position of their own making. In order to defend their interpretation of the Bible they make up a spur-of-the-moment way out, and then aren't able to abandon it when it doesn't work. The Bible, obviously, has nothing to say about the origin of iridium, so why the concern about whether it comes from volcanoes or asteroids? But then, the Bible doesn't say anything about fixity of kinds or the origins of species by microevolution from baramins after the Flood. Isn't there a principle like, "I am silent about those things where the Bible is silent"?
Henry Skinner · 17 August 2016
TomS said:
Isn't there a principle like, "I am silent about those things where the Bible is silent"?
No, as evident from the trinity, christmas, mariology, predestination and the rapture. As far as I know most christian theology is extra-biblical.
eric · 17 August 2016
Robert Byers said:
As long as its an option that volcanoes can throw about iridium or any elements due to the great power, depth, and number of them then any layer of anything can be better explained by earth events and not unlikely, very specvulative, ideas of space rocks.
No, simply because you can propose a hypotheses about volcanos doesn't make it a better explanation than an impact. The way to tell which hypothesis is better is to test them. That's done by saying "if this hypothesis were true, what would we see?" and then going out and seeing. Scientists have done that here. And what they see is consistent with an impact, not with the simultaneous global eruption of volcanos that then somehow literally disappeared from view.
Its just adding another option to very raw and little data for the ancient past.
Your understanding of the impact idea is that it is speculative, and that very little data exists that can be used to support it (as opposed to your volcano idea). But your understanding is wrong. Thousands of scientists have been collecting relevant data for decades. You just aren't aware of this because it isn't your field...and because, as a creationist, you seem to have a distinct non-interest in looking up mainstream research on anything.
Then it makes more sense that the iridium layer was part of the following layers on top of it. Those were from a single event as i see it.
No, it doesn't make sense because we watch volcanos spewing out stuff and they don't separate iridium into a layer when they do it. They don't produce the isotopic ratio found in the K-T boundary. The things you claim volcanos do, they don't do.
eric · 17 August 2016
Mickey Mortimer said:
But the KT event being an asteroid doesn't even conflict with the Bible. It's such a pointless thing for him to argue. And his volcano explanation is completely nonsensical... I still don't get why if Byers is willing to completely contradict geological knowledge here...
His creationism seems to be combined with a direct or simple empiricism (I'd use the term naïve, but 'naïve empiricism' has a distinct meaning). IOW, he values his own personal experience over indirect evidence such as scientific studies etc... He looks at pictures of thylacines and wolves, and they look the same to him, so he concludes they are the same...and for him, this trumps what some biologist says about it in any paper. Likewise, I bet that his volcano focus is due to him being more personally familiar with videos of the (admittedly very impressive) power of volcanic explosions, vice impacts. They look to him like they could do it, so they did it. But he's never personally seen a video of a rock fall out of the sky and destroy a large swath of Earth, so they didn't do it.
That's my theory, anyway.
Mickey Mortimer · 17 August 2016
TomS said:
The creationists seem to get stuck with an untenable position of their own making. In order to defend their interpretation of the Bible they make up a spur-of-the-moment way out, and then aren't able to abandon it when it doesn't work. The Bible, obviously, has nothing to say about the origin of iridium, so why the concern about whether it comes from volcanoes or asteroids? But then, the Bible doesn't say anything about fixity of kinds or the origins of species by microevolution from baramins after the Flood. Isn't there a principle like, "I am silent about those things where the Bible is silent"?
I wonder if it's caused by their view of Biblical authority- where if the Bible says it, it must be true, and any accommodation with subsequent evidence is anathema. Do they perhaps see the first creationist explanation of a phenomenon as canon and treat it as if it's scripture? If that explanation is disproven, then any of their ideas might be disproven, which would be unacceptable.
As someone with a geology degree, it's frustrating to see Byers get so much leeway with people trying to explain to him the details of phenomena he clearly has a child's understanding of. We should all just reply "What did Stoffler and Langenhorst get wrong in their review and why?" If Byers can't respond usefully (and we know he can't, since he exhibits no real knowledge of geology), rinse and repeat. Clearly Byers isn't trying to learn, and that's how scientific progress is made- challenge the published consensus.
mark · 17 August 2016
Robert Byers' problem is that he has no concept of details. Details are very important. There are multiple, independent lines of evidence for a terminal Cretaceous impact--it is not merely a layer enriched in iridium. Various papers that have been cited above, and papers referred to in them, discuss these lines of evidence and also discuss the reasons for concluding the iridium enrichment at the K-Pg boundary is of extraterrestrial origin. All iridium is not the same! Geochemical and isotopic associations matter! Another paper, by Meisel et al. (Geology 23(4):313-316, 1995), for example, explains how Osmium and strontium isotopic ratios distinguish ancient crustal from meteoritic sources of these elements and why they support a large bolide impact at the K-Pg boundary. In their original 1980 paper (Science 208(4448):1095-1108), Alvarez et al. even pointed out why the iridium did not come from a supernova or other source outside of the solar system, based on Ir-191/Ir-193 ratio (and lack of measurable Pt-244). So details matter--if you think all iridium is the same, or all species within a genus are the same, you cannot make intellectual progress.
Mickey Mortimer · 17 August 2016
eric said:
Mickey Mortimer said:
But the KT event being an asteroid doesn't even conflict with the Bible. It's such a pointless thing for him to argue. And his volcano explanation is completely nonsensical... I still don't get why if Byers is willing to completely contradict geological knowledge here...
His creationism seems to be combined with a direct or simple empiricism (I'd use the term naïve, but 'naïve empiricism' has a distinct meaning). IOW, he values his own personal experience over indirect evidence such as scientific studies etc... He looks at pictures of thylacines and wolves, and they look the same to him, so he concludes they are the same...and for him, this trumps what some biologist says about it in any paper. Likewise, I bet that his volcano focus is due to him being more personally familiar with videos of the (admittedly very impressive) power of volcanic explosions, vice impacts. They look to him like they could do it, so they did it. But he's never personally seen a video of a rock fall out of the sky and destroy a large swath of Earth, so they didn't do it.
That's my theory, anyway.
So why allow such a person to post to the community? Is Byers the idiot exemplar of creationists that you argue against for readers? Is he here for the personal satisfaction of swatting his ignorant ideas down? Any self aware person would soon realize they're outmatched in the numerous threads I've read here. He's either a Poe or astoundingly oblivious and persistent for an adult. And yes Byers, you read these posts. Does it not concern or embarrass you that commenters with degrees can point to technical papers that disprove you? And if not, why not? Why don't you care that the thousands of geologists around the world disagree with you? What would it take for you to admit shocked quartz cannot be created by volcanoes?
eric · 17 August 2016
Mickey Mortimer said:
So why allow such a person to post to the community?
Because we (well, the owners) like to allow a free exchange, which I think is a generally good strategy (warts and all). A better question is why we all respond. For me it's one part hope he might actually learn something. Another part hope that more reasonable lurkers might have similar gaps in their knowledge, and by answering Robert we are helping someone else understand science better. And about three parts giving into the irrational urge to respond when I get trolled, even though I should know better. :)
DS · 17 August 2016
eric said:
Mickey Mortimer said:
So why allow such a person to post to the community?
Because we (well, the owners) like to allow a free exchange, which I think is a generally good strategy (warts and all). A better question is why we all respond. For me it's one part hope he might actually learn something. Another part hope that more reasonable lurkers might have similar gaps in their knowledge, and by answering Robert we are helping someone else understand science better. And about three parts giving into the irrational urge to respond when I get trolled, even though I should know better. :)
I completely agree. But the proper place for such incoherent blubbering as spewed by booby is on the bathroom wall. This was supposed to be a thread about genetic diversity, but booby thinks that genetics is "atomic and unproven", probably just because he doesn't understand it. So instead he spews forth bilge about volcanoes, never realizing that he knows nothing about that either. We might not have had a decent discussion about genetic diversity anyway, but now we certainly won't. Ban the boob completely, or at least banish him to the bathroom wall, preferably automatically, so no one will have to do any work to prevent his insanity from spreading.
gnome de net · 17 August 2016
A familiar pattern is slowly emerging here: Robert Byers, like many politicians, seems to have a list of well-rehearsed "canned" responses.
Ban the boob completely, or at least banish him to the bathroom wall, preferably automatically, so no one will have to do any work to prevent his insanity from spreading.
PT's policy, I think, is not to ban anyone except for serious infractions like faking their identity. I do not think there is a mechanism to send someone's comment automatically to the Bathroom Wall.
My own policy, which applies only to articles of which I am the author, is to give known trolls like Mr. Byers 1 or 2 comments, then transfer the discussion to the BW. Sometimes, however, the refutations and the discussion among the refuters seems sufficiently interesting that I let the discussion continue (and sometimes I am simply not available to police the discussion for several hours or more). I do not particularly mind if the discussion goes in an unanticipated direction, as long as it seems useful. As someone pointed out above, refuting a troll can provide useful information for lurkers or others.
I am inclined to agree, however, that it is time to stop discussing the iridium layer; if you want to open a further discussion of genetic diversity, please feel free to do so.
W. H. Heydt · 17 August 2016
eric said:
Mickey Mortimer said:
So why allow such a person to post to the community?
Because we (well, the owners) like to allow a free exchange, which I think is a generally good strategy (warts and all). A better question is why we all respond. For me it's one part hope he might actually learn something. Another part hope that more reasonable lurkers might have similar gaps in their knowledge, and by answering Robert we are helping someone else understand science better. And about three parts giving into the irrational urge to respond when I get trolled, even though I should know better. :)
I don't know about anyone else, but I've certainly learned some interesting things in this thread.
W. H. Heydt · 17 August 2016
Matt Young said:
Ban the boob completely, or at least banish him to the bathroom wall, preferably automatically, so no one will have to do any work to prevent his insanity from spreading.
PT's policy, I think, is not to ban anyone except for serious infractions like faking their identity. I do not think there is a mechanism to send someone's comment automatically to the Bathroom Wall.
My own policy, which applies only to articles of which I am the author, is to give known trolls like Mr. Byers 1 or 2 comments, then transfer the discussion to the BW. Sometimes, however, the refutations and the discussion among the refuters seems sufficiently interesting that I let the discussion continue (and sometimes I am simply not available to police the discussion for several hours or more). I do not particularly mind if the discussion goes in an unanticipated direction, as long as it seems useful. As someone pointed out above, refuting a troll can provide useful information for lurkers or others.
I am inclined to agree, however, that it is time to stop discussing the iridium layer; if you want to open a further discussion of genetic diversity, please feel free to do so.
I would presume that another major criterion is if the discussion can be conducted in a reasonably civil manner. I personally like to follow Winston Churchill's dictum, "It never hurts to be polite when you kill a man."
mark · 17 August 2016
As Heckle said to Jeckle, "We're cartoon characters--we can do anything." Jeanson claims that God created Adam and Eve with DNA having certain characteristics based on, well, nothing. If David's diagram accurately reflects Jeanson's argument, it appears that God created some kind of "kinds," with each kind represented by a deck of cards, one of which is shown at the top of the diagram. This might be the "hairy tetrapod kind." The hairy tetrapod kind was taken on deck along with the other decks ("kinds"). Bye-and-bye the Ark landed and all the "kinds" left the boat and began to speciate, by which, apparently is meant, a handful of cards was pulled out of the hairy tetrapod deck to make the Lion species, another handful pulled out to make the giant anteater species, another to make the kangaroo species, and so on. Now I'm confused--what became of the hairy tetrapod kind? Did it forget to disembark? Jeanson implies that each original "kind" was created separately. Did each deck contain a different assortment of the same characters (e.g., 2 of clubs, 5 of hearts, etc.)? Why or why not? Why not use adenine, etc. for one kind and yogurt, etc. for another kind? David is right--it is difficult to make sense of Jeanson's reasoning. There really isn't any science in his work.
Michael Fugate · 17 August 2016
There really isnât any science in his work.
But they try so hard to mimic a scientific paper - inventing a journal, claiming peer review, putting in sections, and graphs with statistics, citing literature, etc. Everything, but the actual commitment to testing hypotheses. It is an SNL parody skit of science. Jeanson probably wears a white lab coat and safety glasses whenever he speaks at a church.
Helena Constantine · 17 August 2016
Robert Byers said:
Put quartz in the middle of a great explosion and it will be shocked. why not? who says not? who tried it?
If you really wanted to know, why didn't you look yourself?
http://web.gps.caltech.edu/~sue/TJA_LindhurstLabWebsite/ListPublications/Papers_pdf/Seismo_622.pdf
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1945-5100.1994.tb00670.x/abstract
http://www.minersoc.org/pages/Archive-MM/Volume_43/43-328-527.pdf
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0016703784902552
Rolf · 17 August 2016
eric said:
Likewise, I bet that his volcano focus is due to him being more personally familiar with videos of the (admittedly very impressive) power of volcanic explosions, vice impacts. They look to him like they could do it, so they did it. But heâs never personally seen a video of a rock fall out of the sky and destroy a large swath of Earth, so they didnât do it.
Thatâs my theory, anyway.
He said somewhere that he's seen many videos on Youtube. I presume Youtube is his preferred source of information. It is so easy, just watch a video and that's it, completely effortless. Instead of wasting time and effort to read papers, articles, books, science sites like Science Daily and so on. That takes an effort. Heaven knows how many thousands of hours I've spent over 70+ years of reading, and much of that has been scientific.
I don't think Robert ever consider the possibility that he may be wrong in any of his claims.
Do you know Robert? Have we ever succeeded in showing you wrong on any subject?
quentin-long · 17 August 2016
Michael Fugate said:
There really isnât any science in his work.
But they try so hard to mimic a scientific paper - inventing a journal, claiming peer review, putting in sections, and graphs with statistics, citing literature, etc. Everything, but the actual commitment to testing hypotheses. It is an SNL parody skit of science. Jeanson probably wears a white lab coat and safety glasses whenever he speaks at a church.
Richard Feynmann coined the best term I know of for this phenomenon: "cargo cult science". The Creationists who practice cargo cult science are imitating the form of science, the style of science, but they're completely missing the substance and content of scienceâthey are incapable of not missing the substance/content of science, because their literally dogmatic precommitment to Creationist ideas absolutely prevents them from not-missing that substance/content.
Do not make the mistake of concluding that cargo cult science is an indication of stupidity, or of generalized inability to do actual science. When a Creationist does work which they don't think is relevant to their Creationist ideas, their work can be just as valid as that of any other scientist. So rather than think of Creationism as a universal science stopper, it's best to think of it as a hobby, a leisure-time activity completely unrelated to the practice of science. It's possible for a scientist to also be a baseball fanâbut when such a person attends a baseball game, they're not doing science. Similarly, it's possible for a scientist to also be a Creationistâbut, again, when such a person is doing Creationism, they're not doing science. In either case, the person is only doing science when they actually do science, not when they're doing their hobby.
tomh · 17 August 2016
W. H. Heydt said:
I don't know about anyone else, but I've certainly learned some interesting things in this thread.
Yes, likewise.
TomS · 17 August 2016
tomh said:
W. H. Heydt said:
I don't know about anyone else, but I've certainly learned some interesting things in this thread.
Yes, likewise.
Creationism gets so much wrong that one can get an education by learning about its mistakes.
Robert Byers · 17 August 2016
This thread did go in a interesting and important direction. Matt Young however says its over if I understand. I am not rejecting REAL evidence or millions of geologists. I reject conclusions that are based on limited data by small numbers of researchers who are too controled by paradigms in thier subjects. All there is from the past is minor data that remains on earth. Any hypothesis can be invoked if its uses the same data. I did and do this. I take on the alternatives. Any elements or material on earth can be explained by mechanisms that everyone must obey anyways. Spreading out of debris needs only a force. I provided another force then a unlikely force proposed. I say any volcanos, great ones exploding, and many all at once from some earth upheaval, represented by sediment loads being deposited and fossilizing biology EASILY is a better source for sorted elements/material sandwiched between sediment loads. People pressed to me iridium and later other stuff but I'm mostly aware of the iridium. The other stuff can have other options. These subjects are not like real science subjects. they are very difficult reconstructions of the ancient past. In fact its forensics working with limited data but asked to make great conclusions. There is no tests/experiments to directly addres these matters. it really is studied speculation. Creationists have more reason to be better at studying it. People just open threads on these matters and focus. i speak for many thoughtful creationists. My answers are pretty good and reflective and knowledgeable. I don't ignore any good points or anybody saying something relevant. Make your case and saying SCIENTISTS SAY SO is not making a case. Its silly. Matt Young did let a good thread go here. It make me hustle because of unexpected interested and information.
Scott F · 17 August 2016
Robert Byers said:
Any hypothesis can be invoked if its uses the same data.
No, Robert. That is entirely backwards from how Science works, how Reality works.
Any hypothesis can be invoked if it explains the same data. All of the same data.
You don't just get to pick and choose which data you want to "use", and ignore the rest of the data, even though that's exactly what you do.
Mickey Mortimer · 18 August 2016
Robert Byers said:
There is no tests/experiments to directly addres these matters.
it really is studied speculation.
Make your case and saying SCIENTISTS SAY SO is not making a case.
Ugh. The article I cited is titled "Shock metamorphism of quartz in nature and EXPERIMENT." The geologists performed experiments. And these show shocked quartz CANNOT come from volcanoes. Note their figure 1 with zero overlap of endogenous processes and shocked quartz. That figure was drawn based on experiments. Why do you think everyone's just guessing at this?
And yes, saying scientists say so in this technical paper IS making a case, unless you can argue against that paper's data or methods. That represents our understanding of reality and you have to show why it's wrong. If you were competent you would be arguing in the form of "figure 1 is based on sources x and y whose faults are a and b", but instead you just assert what you think might be right with no regard to the data. I doubt you even looked up, let alone read, Stoffler and Langenhorst. So why even comment if you're not going to engage with the material?
mark · 18 August 2016
Robert Byers said:
Any elements or material on earth can be explained by mechanisms that everyone must obey anyways.
Spreading out of debris needs only a force.
I provided another force then a unlikely force proposed.
I say any volcanos, great ones exploding, and many all at once from some earth upheaval, represented by sediment loads being deposited and fossilizing biology EASILY is a better source for sorted elements/material sandwiched between sediment loads. ...
... My answers are pretty good and reflective and knowledgeable.
I don't ignore any good points or anybody saying something relevant.
There is a huge compilation of data and research on impacts and on the origin of various elements, but Mr. Byers is evidently completely unfamiliar with it. How do Creationists explain the particular isotopic and elemental ratios--the ones that are consistent with an impactor originating within the solar system but inconsistent with a volcanic origin? And we haven't even discussed the timing of these events, which Jeanson and his fellow Young-Earth Creationists cannot cope cope with. Byers provides no supporting evidence for his claims, nor any coherent rebuttal of the research dealing with an end-Cretaceous impact, resulting in answers that are neither good nor reflective and very certainly not knowledgeable.
Rolf · 18 August 2016
Those silly scientists, always nitpicking on trifles when you have all the right answers, don't you think so, Robert?
Thats what they have for all their studies, digging for fossils and actually going out there to look at rocks and volcanoes, even collecting samples. What in all the world should that be good for? If you can do with Youtube, why can't they? There's got to be something wrong with them.
W. H. Heydt · 18 August 2016
Robert Byers said:
I am not rejecting REAL evidence or millions of geologists.
On the contrary, that is *exactly* what you are doing.
Reading your posts is like watching "Groundhog Day." You repeat your same assertions over and over, never engage with the evidence and reject or ignore anything that either can't be twisted to support your preferred idea or is otherwise "inconvenient" to you. You exhibit no indication that you remember anything. Basically, you refuse to learn from experience. This makes you a badly flawed human.
Prediction: If this topic ever comes up again, you will proceed to repeat your same mistakes...again.
mark · 18 August 2016
Okay, I just had to put this up, as there has been discussion of volcanoes and the Deccan Traps in relation to the bolide impact at the Cretaceous-Paleogene boundary. An article by Richards et al. (2015) in Geological Society of America Bulletin 127(11/12):1507-1520 that hypothesizes that the greatest lava flows of the Deccan Traps (accounting for more than 70 percent of the main-stage eruptions) may have been triggered by the impact at Chicxulub. They didn't just pull this out of their hip pockets, but based it on seismic modeling due to the impact, in conjunction with the other data. This great eruptive pulse formed three major flows over a period of approximately 100 thousand to several hundred thousand years (Oh noes--how can that be reconciled with Jeanson's timeline?).
In the same issue is an article by Korbar et al. (p. 1666-1680) describing a tsunami deposit at the boundary, in present-day Croatia, which they attribute to the impact at Chicxulub. Yes, there are real scientists engaged in real research on these matters.
Scott F · 18 August 2016
Robert Byers said:
I reject conclusions that are based on limited data by small numbers of researchers who are too controled by paradigms in thier subjects.
And yet all you provide is what you, yourself, have admitted is pure speculation on your part, without any evidence to back you up.
Any elements or material on earth can be explained by mechanisms that everyone must obey anyways.
Which is indeed true, yet you simply refuse to obey those mechanisms. You simply make up stuff out of fairy dust.
Spreading out of debris needs only a force.
Yes. Here in the reality-based world we have a name for that. We call it "wind".
I say any volcanos, great ones exploding,
You "say". Yet no such volcanoes exist.
People pressed to me iridium and later other stuff but I'm mostly aware of the iridium. The other stuff can have other options.
These subjects are not like real science subjects.
they are very difficult reconstructions of the ancient past.
In fact its forensics working with limited data but asked to make great conclusions.
But you don't believe in forensics. You believe in making stuff up out of gossamer and moonbeams.
it really is studied speculation.
Creationists have more reason to be better at studying it.
So, you believe that "study" and "speculation" are the same thing?
Why do Creationists (who can't tell the difference between lava and mud) have more reason to be better at studying geology than actual geologists, who spend their lives out in the field digging in the ground and analyzing what they find?
People just open threads on these matters and focus.
So now "study" is the same thing as discussions on blogs on the internet? No gathering and studying of rocks required. Just read a few Creationist web sites, watch a couple of YouTube videos, and you become more of an expert than actual geologists.
Well I've got you beat, then. I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night. That trumps your YouTube videos hands down.
i speak for many thoughtful creationists.
I don't think those two words belong in the same "sentence".
I don't ignore any good points or anybody saying something relevant.
You ignore isotope and element ratios. You ignore the fact that no such volcanoes exist today or in the past. You ignore the fact that we have an actual, honest to gosh crater, of the right size, in the right place, at the right time. You ignore tsunami debris. You ignore the fact that the Yellowstone ash in the North American continent is 40 million years younger than the KT event. You ignore shocked quartz. You ignore how silt behaves in water. You ignore the pattern of how debris spreads out from either a volcano or an impact. You ignore the fact that the Bible says absolutely nothing about any of this. You ignore geography, geology, physics, chemistry, astronomy, hydrology, pretty much all of Science. You even ignore TIME.
You ignore the fact that, as far as a Young Earth Creationist is concerned, what you are arguing about is as relevant to the real world as arguing about who won the most recent Quidditch match at Hogwarts. For you, arguing about what happened 50 million years ago is pure fantasy on your part, since 50 million years doesn't exist for you. You only believe in 6,000 years of history for all of Creation.
What happened to all of those super volcanoes of yours? Where did they go? How did they simply disappear in less than 2,000 years of Creationist history, leaving absolutely no trace here on Earth?
BTW, you mentioned the extinction of camels in North America. We're talking about the event (or events) that extinguished the Dinosaurs. Camels are mammals. Modern camels didn't exist until 50 million years (or thereabouts) after the dinosaurs disappeared. Camels and dinosaurs did not exist at the same time. Yet, you suggest that the volcanic debris in North America that killed the camels are the same debris that killed the dinosaurs.
Make your case and saying SCIENTISTS SAY SO is not making a case. Its silly.
Simply saying "Robert says so" is even sillier.
But no one is making the case saying, "Scientists say so". We're making the case saying, "The Evidence says so."
But you don't even know what that means, do you.
Henry Skinner · 19 August 2016
Scott F said:
Robert Byers said:
it really is studied speculation.
Creationists have more reason to be better at studying it.
So, you believe that "study" and "speculation" are the same thing?
In theology they are.
Eric Finn · 19 August 2016
This âdeck-of-cards-analogyâ may or may not be useful in describing how genetics works.
Personally, I am interested in actual measurable figures. My problem is that I canât really understand the figures presented in popular press. My understanding in biology in general is lacking, and more so in genetics. On the other hand, I feel that I can follow mathematical treatments, including statistics and probabilities.
I used, as an example, the Neanderthal genes in European populations.
1) It has been reported that âEuropeans have got 1...4 % of Neanderthal genesâ
2) The genetic distance between humans and chimpanzees is 1.3 %
3) The genetic distance between any two human individuals is (much) less than 1 %
Quite clearly, some figures are measured in inches, while others are measured in meters.
I have already got an answer (here at PT), how the figure 1.3 % was obtained (and implicitly, how the figure for the human-human genetic distance could be obtained).
I donât know how to interpret the Neanderthal genes
I asked about this (somewhere in the middle of page 3 of this thread), but my question was apparently missed. I would like to re-post my question.
Eric Finn said:
Would you like something explained?
Yes, please. Neanderthal genes (and Denisova genes).
In an attempt to make it easier for you to answer my stupid (or at least ignorant) questions, I will shortly outline my understanding for you to dissect. I will give you a set of statements.
A gene is a stretch of the DNA that codes for one or more proteins. At least some of the genes are slightly different in different individuals, but the resulting proteins are either the same or highly similar in their function. We can label gene variants in a population. As a hypothetical example, a population in Nothern Europe shows variants A, B, C and N in one particular gene. A population in Southern Africa lacks totally the variant N, but instead has variants A, B, C, D, E, F and G.
The differences between the variants are typically small, when measured counting the differences in the base pair sequences. So, the addition of the version N adds only a little to the human genome diversity, when we are looking at the genome sequencis.
Upto 4% of the Nothern Europeans has got at least one gene that is labelled N. Not a single individual (living today) has got 4% of his genes labelled N.
Further question: How many genes in the human genome are exactly the same and how many show variation ?
John Harshman · 19 August 2016
Eric Finn said:
A gene is a stretch of the DNA that codes for one or more proteins. At least some of the genes are slightly different in different individuals, but the resulting proteins are either the same or highly similar in their function. We can label gene variants in a population. As a hypothetical example, a population in Nothern Europe shows variants A, B, C and N in one particular gene. A population in Southern Africa lacks totally the variant N, but instead has variants A, B, C, D, E, F and G.
The differences between the variants are typically small, when measured counting the differences in the base pair sequences. So, the addition of the version N adds only a little to the human genome diversity, when we are looking at the genome sequencis.
Upto 4% of the Nothern Europeans has got at least one gene that is labelled N. Not a single individual (living today) has got 4% of his genes labelled N.
Further question: How many genes in the human genome are exactly the same and how many show variation ?
I answered that somewhere in the middle of page 4. Here it is again:
First off, it isnât about proteins or even about genes. Itâs about the genome. Second, itâs about averages. The average European has around 4% Neandertal DNA, or the current estimate may be a bit less.
Now, as for distances. Neandertal DNA is on average around 0.5% different from modern human. One modern human is about 0.1% different from another. Letâs do the math: the average of 4% of 0.5% and 96% of 0.1% is 0.12%, close enough to 0.1% to be lost in the rounding error. And that chimp is still 1.3% different from any modern human.
I donât know the answer to your further question.
Michael Fugate · 19 August 2016
What do you mean by gene? promoters? eons? introns? What do you mean by exactly the same? DNA sequence? Amino Acid sequence? enzymatic function?
Eric Finn · 19 August 2016
John Harshman said:
I answered that somewhere in the middle of page 4. Here it is again:
First, thank you for your reply.
Second, I apologise for missing your prompt answer. My mistake.
First off, it isnât about proteins or even about genes. Itâs about the genome
It isnât about proteins. I just wanted to present a definition of the gene, as I understand it.
I do think it is about genes, because we are talking about the Neanderthal genes â and talking about the genome simultaneously. Of course, I do understand that you are all the time referring to the differences in the sequences in the homologous parts of the genomes.
Your order-of-magnitude calculation appears to show that even if a person with 4 % of Neanderthal genes in his or her genome existed, this would not change the estimate that âone modern human is about 0.1 % different from anotherâ. I agree with your math.
Do you think that somewhere in the world, there might be an individual with 4 % of his or her genes from Neanderthals ? So, more than 1000 Neanderthal genes (out of estimated 30 000 genes) ?
I donât know the answer to your further question.
Pity.
I wonder, would you be willing to say, as an educated guess, if more than half of the genes are the same and only less than half of the genes show variation ?
John Harshman · 19 August 2016
Eric Finn said:
It isnât about proteins. I just wanted to present a definition of the gene, as I understand it.
I do think it is about genes, because we are talking about the Neanderthal genes â and talking about the genome simultaneously. Of course, I do understand that you are all the time referring to the differences in the sequences in the homologous parts of the genomes.
Your order-of-magnitude calculation appears to show that even if a person with 4 % of Neanderthal genes in his or her genome existed, this would not change the estimate that âone modern human is about 0.1 % different from anotherâ. I agree with your math.
Do you think that somewhere in the world, there might be an individual with 4 % of his or her genes from Neanderthals ? So, more than 1000 Neanderthal genes (out of estimated 30 000 genes) ?
No, we aren't talking about Neandertal genes. We're talking about Neandertal DNA sequences, some of which are or contain genes. Also, not all genes code for proteins. Some make functional RNAs. A gene is a DNA sequence that's transcribed, and sometimes translated, to produce a functional product. But I do suppose that there are many people with 4% Neandertal genes.
I wonder, would you be willing to say, as an educated guess, if more than half of the genes are the same and only less than half of the genes show variation ?
I expect that all the genes show variation. It may be that most of the proteins might show no variation, at least not at any great frequency.
Eric Finn · 19 August 2016
John Harshman said:
No, we aren't talking about Neandertal genes.
I beg to differ. If you are not talking about Neanderthal genes, then you are not answering my questions.
We're talking about Neandertal DNA sequences, some of which are or contain genes. Also, not all genes code for proteins. Some make functional RNAs. A gene is a DNA sequence that's transcribed, and sometimes translated, to produce a functional product.
My definition for a gene was incomplete (to the extent of being wrong).
But I do suppose that there are many people with 4% Neandertal genes.
This is an answer to one of my questions. I am surprised. I will take your statement as provisionally true (as anything is taken âtrueâ in science).
I expect that all the genes show variation. It may be that most of the proteins might show no variation, at least not at any great frequency.
I sort-of anticipated that not all of the variation in the genes will show up in the proteins. Your reply is interesting. It seems to me that this (fact) should affect (and presumably is affecting) the way we view the evolutionary theories. And it also indicates that the field of genetics is complicated to understand, indeed.
I wish to thank you for your replies and your patience.
John Harshman · 20 August 2016
Eric Finn said:
I sort-of anticipated that not all of the variation in the genes will show up in the proteins. Your reply is interesting. It seems to me that this (fact) should affect (and presumably is affecting) the way we view the evolutionary theories. And it also indicates that the field of genetics is complicated to understand, indeed.
It isn't all that complicated. The genetic code is redundant. Up to 6 codons can be synonymous, so a mutation that changes one to another changes the gene without changing the protein.
Rolf · 21 August 2016
I watch the BBC Earth channel these days, Professor Brian Cox is doing a good job of explaining the universe and the origins of life. Seems to me that life is an unavoidable consequence of the existence of liquid water, hydrothermal vents and the laws of chemistry.
Eric Finn · 21 August 2016
John Harshman said:
It isn't all that complicated. The genetic code is redundant. Up to 6 codons can be synonymous, so a mutation that changes one to another changes the gene without changing the protein.
Well, the starting principles in the general relativity or in the quantum mechanics arenât very complicated either.
The genetic code is redundant.
I have heard of concepts genetic drift and neutral theories of evolution. I donât know, if they both mean the same thing to a professional biologist. It seems to me that the both of these concepts might be associated with the redundancy of the genetic code.
Lenski used E. coli bacteria in an experiment, in which he exposed the bacteria to an environment that was almost alien to them. It is my understanding that in spite of the great environmental pressure for natural selection, much of the evolution actually happened via genetic drift. I wonder, did I get this right ?
Mutations are random. Natural selection is definitively not random. Genetic drift is random.
Quantum randomness is yet another thing. It doesnât even obey the classical (Kolmogorov) probabilities. Unfortunately, we are quite far from being ready to apply quantum mechanics to very complicated processes, such as the evolution of cellular life.
John Harshman · 21 August 2016
Eric Finn said:
I have heard of concepts genetic drift and neutral theories of evolution. I donât know, if they both mean the same thing to a professional biologist. It seems to me that the both of these concepts might be associated with the redundancy of the genetic code.
They don't quite mean the same thing, but the difference may not be important to you, and the redundancy (technical term: degeneracy) certainly provides opportunities for drift. Neutral evolution refers to the complete absence of selection, in which case changes in allele frequency are random. Drift, on the other hand, happens when selection may not be completely absent but is weak enough that randomness overwhelms it. In the former, population size is irrelevant. In the latter, smaller populations have more of it.
Different codons that translate to the same amino acid clearly can't be under selection at the level of the protein, but they might be under weak selection for other reasons. Still, they're good candidates for drift. Of course, most of your genome is just junk, so drift is al that happens there.
Mike Elzinga · 21 August 2016
Eric Finn said:
Quantum randomness is yet another thing. It doesnât even obey the classical (Kolmogorov) probabilities. Unfortunately, we are quite far from being ready to apply quantum mechanics to very complicated processes, such as the evolution of cellular life.
Life, as we know it, is soft matter that exists in the energy range of liquid water (0.012 to 0.016 electron volts). While quantum mechanics determines the bonding configurations at the level of the DNA (chemical bonding on the order of an electron volt), the distribution of energy level occupation within the living organism itself follows pretty much the classical, Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution.
Nobel laureate, Brian Josephson, sort of went off the deep end in trying to characterize âlifeâ as a quantum mechanical wave function. To do this means that the collective behavior of complex molecules in the temperature range of liquid water would have to condense into a coherent state that could be collectively described by a single wave function, much like the Bose-Einstein condensation of Cooper pairs of electrons into a superconducting state.
I once attended a seminar by Josephson entitled âThe Wave Function of Life.â Many physicists in the room politely sat through the talk; but many, I included, finally walked out. One of the well-known physicists walking out with me said to me, âWhen you have a Nobel Prize, you can give seminars on complete bullshit and people will politely sit and listen the whole time.â
John Harshman · 21 August 2016
Nobel laureate Roger Sperry once told me (and the rest of my class) that life violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics. One of the other students started arguing with him, sensibly, I thought. But he unaccountably wouldn't be convinced.
Mike Elzinga · 21 August 2016
John Harshman said:
Nobel laureate Roger Sperry once told me (and the rest of my class) that life violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics. One of the other students started arguing with him, sensibly, I thought. But he unaccountably wouldn't be convinced.
Sperry got his Nobel Prize in Physiology and Medicine in 1981, so I am guessing that his source of the notion that life violates the second law of thermodynamics had to have come from the âscientific creationistsâ Henry Morris and Duane Gish. Morris and Gish were the main ones keeping that old trope alive at that time.
No physicist that I know of ever believed that notion, even though the notion was being spread around by one or two âpopularizationsâ of physics as well as by Morris and Gish.
stevaroni · 22 August 2016
John Harshman said:
Nobel laureate Roger Sperry once told me (and the rest of my class) that life violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics. One of the other students started arguing with him, sensibly, I thought. But he unaccountably wouldn't be convinced.
I always point out to a creationist arguing this that you can readily test the theory that life violates the 2nd law.
All we have to do is isolate something living from external influences - as specified by the second law, which refers only to closed systems - and see how it responds.
I helpfully note that a simple way to do this is by taking a living thing, say, perhaps the creationist making the assertion, and converting him into a closed system by sealing him in a 55 gallon drum and leaving him in the back of a cool closet for, say a week or so.
Somehow, they never seem to take me up on the offer to prove their assertion.
Mike Elzinga · 22 August 2016
stevaroni said:
I helpfully note that a simple way to do this is by taking a living thing, say, perhaps the creationist making the assertion, and converting him into a closed system by sealing him in a 55 gallon drum and leaving him in the back of a cool closet for, say a week or so.
To paraphrase an old, hackneyed second law âargumentâ against evolution by Duane Gish, âIf you put a mouse in a thermos bottle, seal it up and put it on a shelf for a million years; then, when you finally open it up, the 2nd law says that a cat wonât come out.â
John Harshman · 22 August 2016
Mike Elzinga said:
Sperry got his Nobel Prize in Physiology and Medicine in 1981, so I am guessing that his source of the notion that life violates the second law of thermodynamics had to have come from the âscientific creationistsâ Henry Morris and Duane Gish. Morris and Gish were the main ones keeping that old trope alive at that time.
No, Sperry was no creationist. He had his own personal religion, a religion of biology, that he also explained to us.
Jon Fleming · 22 August 2016
stevaroni said:
John Harshman said:
Nobel laureate Roger Sperry once told me (and the rest of my class) that life violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics. One of the other students started arguing with him, sensibly, I thought. But he unaccountably wouldn't be convinced.
I always point out to a creationist arguing this that you can readily test the theory that life violates the 2nd law.
All we have to do is isolate something living from external influences - as specified by the second law, which refers only to closed systems - and see how it responds.
Nope. One particular formulation of the second law (ds >= 0) applies only to closed systems. But other formulations apply to all systems. You just have to account for inputs and outputs "carrying" entropy.
stevaroni · 22 August 2016
John Harshman said:
Nobel laureate Roger Sperry once told me (and the rest of my class) that life violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
Well... so what?
Imagine for a second that life is some kind of weird corner case that locally violates the 2nd law.
That would seem to make evolution more likely because it invalidates the great creationist "entropy" shibboleth, which is based entirely on the idea that life, like everything else, should have to obey the 2nd law.
There are corner cases where, at least locally, important general-purpose physical laws are seemingly violated all the time. Photons act like waves sometimes and particles other times, water vapor evaporating up from the sea to form clouds violates the general principal that water does not flow uphill. Get hydrogen cold enough and it seemingly defies a whole slew of physical laws.
This is because most of the commonly quoted "laws" of physics, at least at an everyday level, are general-purpose rules, and they are a simplified model.
After all, nuclear decay happens all the time, and it is totally possible for the atoms in your underwear to go rogue and instantly vaporize you at any given moment. But you probably don't have to worry about this on a day-to-day basis, so our everyday physics doesn't typically account for it.
Although it doesn't seem to be the case, it's totally conceivable, from a scientific point of view, that there could be something about living things that gets to bend around big-picture law of thermodynamics.
But that still wouldn't make a creator any more likely. It would just mean that there's some additional factor at work that applies to this specific situation.
John Harshman · 23 August 2016
stevaroni said:
John Harshman said:
Nobel laureate Roger Sperry once told me (and the rest of my class) that life violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
Well... so what?
Mike Elzinga mentioned a Nobel Laureate going off the deep end. I gave another example. Don't get too excited.
Henry J · 23 August 2016
Any life that violates a law of thermodynamics should be in jail!
stevaroni · 23 August 2016
John Harshman said:
stevaroni said:
Well... so what?
Mike Elzinga mentioned a Nobel Laureate going off the deep end. I gave another example. Don't get too excited.
I think I didn't make myself understood well.
What I meant is that the great creationist shibboleth is that somehow, since entropy should always win, life is impossible unless it somehow violates the 2nd law.
This is, of course, a simplistic distortion of how thermodynamics works, but hey, that's creationist "science" for you.
What I'm asking is, "So what?".
Say, for the sake of argument, that there is something about life that allows it to bend around the 2nd law. There isn't. I know this. But just say there is.
So what?
How would that imply a creator?
In my mind that actually makes evolution more likely because it establishes a corner case where the 2nd law has a loophole, and the mechanism of evolution works in - and only in - that loophole.
Much like photons have a corner case where they act as both particles and waves, or where helium has a corner case where it gets really when very cold, or where water has a corner case where ice is less dense that liquid.
It just means that a special case exists. It doesn't imply divine magic to have a niche process exploiting a niche condition any more than it takes divine magic for a steel needle to float on the surface tension of a drop of water and slowly turn north. In fact the mere existence of niche conditions make these weird corner cases more likely.
stevaroni · 23 August 2016
Henry J said:
Any life that violates a law of thermodynamics should be in jail!
314 Comments
Michael Fugate · 2 August 2016
Just Bob · 2 August 2016
robat345 · 2 August 2016
I have a science links blog and linked to your blog: https://www.solipsistssoiree.blogspot.com
John Harshman · 2 August 2016
Two questions:
1. Does AiG indeed claim that the entire fossil record, from Archaean to Pleistocene, is the result of the Flood, or if not, where are the lines between pre-Flood, Flood, and post-Flood sediments?
2. Does AiG have any actual position on what the various "kinds" are?
Pinning them down on both those points seems necessary in order to figure out what they're really claiming, assuming they know themselves.
Rich Wilson · 2 August 2016
Flint · 2 August 2016
"What boggles my mind is the ability of creationists to talk so much and yet say so very little."
What always boggles mine is how impervious even the most preposterous and indefensible beliefs are to even the most sophisticated education.
John Harshman · 2 August 2016
TomS · 2 August 2016
Mike Elzinga · 2 August 2016
Robert Byers · 3 August 2016
David MacMillan.
We creationists already know there was sudden speciation. We see it in people. All people groups of different looks were arrived within a few centuries after the flood. No more, I think, since 2000B.C.
YEC creationists differe on the fossil record.
Some like me say it was the k-t line which was the flood line. so above is post flood. others see its fossils before the ice age as from the flood line.
Why not YEC punctuated equilibrium? Just less time for equilibrium and more punchy!
Who knows the boundaries of genetic change. if it requires triggers its silence right now would not be evidence that genes can't do great things.
We do know there were the snake kind and the primate kind(which we are a copy of) and the ark story talks of the dove and crow.
We do know some kinds. Then witnessing the present diversity in these teaches mechanism is there.
The creationist writer offers a option for how diversity could easily explode from genetic options.
he did a good job.
TomS · 3 August 2016
richard09 · 3 August 2016
It appears to me he is saying that human races represent different species. That's - novel.
David MacMillan · 3 August 2016
Mike Elzinga · 3 August 2016
I found this curious video by Jason Lisle over on the AiG website.
Can Creationists be "Real" Scientists?
Given the scare quotes, the answer is probably yes. Lisle's "logic" is something else.
ashleyhr · 3 August 2016
From reading one of Jeanson's other recent articles, it's clear that he is (reluctantly?) proposing that (terrestrial at least) species somehow did not even exist by the time of the Genesis flood (1,500 years after creation of 'kinds') and that they only speciated post-flood - into all of what we see today plus all extinct species. Thus representatives of 'kinds' went onto the ark. How on EARTH can animals not be members of species (or hybrids)? That makes no scientific sense. And why would rapid (unbiblical) speciation happen from a limited number of reproducing and recolonising animals post-flood but apparently not happen (the flood was not n extinction event) pre-flood?
I'm afraid I have forgotten exactly where previously I made this comment. I think it MAY have been THIS article I was reacting to.
https://answersingenesis.org/creation-science/baraminology/getting-enough-genetic-diversity/
(in fact I seed THIS is the article David is addressing, rather than the latest one dated 30 July)
ashleyhr · 3 August 2016
Sorry about the typos.
ashleyhr · 3 August 2016
"We creationists already know there was sudden speciation." No you don't. It's just a faith-based conclusion YECs have arrived at.
ashleyhr · 3 August 2016
I think Byers accidentally agreed that there have been other (now extinct) Homo species. Heresy (if you are a YEC)!
David MacMillan · 3 August 2016
Michael Fugate · 3 August 2016
Here's my proposal, the animals on the ark were all polyploids, but because of special post-flood meiosis, the offspring were all diploid. God could do anything, right?
Flint · 3 August 2016
eric · 3 August 2016
David MacMillan · 3 August 2016
Rolf · 3 August 2016
I presume non-YEC creationists and probably many traditional YEC's as well don't really believe all the funny things Robert believes. But he's a special kind of creationist, just making things up to match his personal beliefs in utter disregard of facts or respect for human intelligence.
David MacMillan · 3 August 2016
ashleyhr · 3 August 2016
David
"Not quite. What he is proposing is, in fact, even more ridiculous.
Heâs saying that God originally created breeding populations of terrestrial animals during creation week, which began diversifying into NUMEROUS species. At the same time, however, there were members of that population which somehow retained the entire genetic diversity of the original breeding population. At the Flood, those âkeyâ members boarded the flood, while all the new species which had arisen were buried and fossilized. After the flood, those âkeyâ members emerged and reconstituted breeding populations, then began furiously speciating again."
I admit I did not plough through the whole 23 July article. But I went partly by the words at the top "How Species Arose After the Ark" and partly by (as I now rediscover) Jeanson's comment within his article of 18 June 2016 "the kinds on board the Ark were not individual species but, rather, representatives of various biological families". If he is saying that in Genesis 6 species did exist but that 'no' species went to Noah then he seems to be trying to have his cake and eat it.
Since the flood is NEVER presented in the Bible as an 'extinction event' (what was the ark for if not to save terrestrial species/kinds from total extinction) Jeanson appears to be being unbiblical if he is claiming exactly what you attribute to him in his 23 July article ie saying some species did then exist but all of those were killed by the flood.
Meanwhile ...
https://answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken-ham/2016-08-03-why-ark-covered-accoya-wood/ (can't say I had been wondering about that - but it seems Noah was somehow 'better' at handling pitch than AiG are)
There's also this:
https://discourse.biologos.org/t/why-does-ken-hams-ark-building-have-differing-bow-stern-shapes/5461
And your post has been flagged in comments at both the two latest posts at Naturalis Historia (blog by a non-YEC and science teaching Christian).
Ashley
Matt Young · 3 August 2016
Tenncrain · 3 August 2016
Pierce R. Butler · 3 August 2016
Henry J · 3 August 2016
Re "Noah took two (or seven) samples of embryonic stem cells for each âkindâ aboard the ark, plus enough food for eight for a year. "
But what did he use for wombs for them to grow in?
Henry J · 3 August 2016
Re "Creationists evolve..."
If only they would!
Robert Byers · 3 August 2016
Just Bob · 3 August 2016
Scott F · 3 August 2016
Mickey Mortimer · 4 August 2016
TomS · 4 August 2016
eric · 4 August 2016
Mickey Mortimer · 4 August 2016
TomS · 4 August 2016
Mickey Mortimer · 4 August 2016
Henry J · 4 August 2016
Re "The YEC worldview has no reason to even involve science, so why do they try? "
It's not about right.
It's not about wrong.
It's about power.
eric · 4 August 2016
Joe Felsenstein · 4 August 2016
Michael Fugate · 4 August 2016
What makes me laugh is that conservatives/traditionalists know next to nothing about history. They see things they don't like today and just assume that it could not have been worse in the past. For instance, politics is often brought up as somehow dirtier now than in the times of Lincoln, Jefferson and Washington. Little do they know how nasty things were with several congressmen dying in duels and corruption being rampant. It is like their approach to science, evidence is secondary.
John Harshman · 4 August 2016
David MacMillan · 4 August 2016
Here's a graphic depiction of how creationists view genetic diversity before and after the flood, as best as I understand it:
Genetic Tree
Selectable and speciatable genetic diversity exists at the level of the population, not at the level of the individual, so this simply does not work. Yet somehow they claim that the Ark Representative Pairs had all the genetic diversity of the originally-created population.
It should be noted that in this depiction, everything is part of the same "original kind". Each node in the branching tree represents a sub-population, and the rainbow DNA strand segment shows the genetic diversity within that population. Speciation happens when the "genetic diversity" of two daughter populations no longer overlaps.
The silly thing, of course, is that the "population" which crosses the flood line on the Ark is a population of 2. But yet somehow that pair has more genetic diversity than the entire range of preflood populations within the kind.
Michael Fugate · 4 August 2016
Isn't the perfect answer to AiG "Were you there?". Genesis mentions nothing about genetic diversity in originally created kinds and most other "facts" that AiG trots out about their version of "history".
Pierce R. Butler · 4 August 2016
Robert Byers · 4 August 2016
Robert Byers · 4 August 2016
Joel Eissenberg · 5 August 2016
Robert Byers posts: "However YEC do have different conclusions about the deposition of sedimen [sic] and fossils with. for many , like me, its [sic] the k-t line."
What is the YEC explanation for how iridium came to be concentrated at the K-Pg boundary?
Rolf · 5 August 2016
It is a long time since Robert first 'explained' his opinion about genetics: Genetics is, as most of science, not science.
Life changes according to what Robert "thinks" it does, period.
Takes nothing for one species to change into another species. Probably entire populations, it makes no sense for only a pair male-female to break away and start a new species.
I think I should ask Robert how he explains the origins of the Thylacine. Did one Wolf, a pair of Wolves, or an entire population of Wolves change into Thylacines at the same time?
He never explained that the first time he made the claim that the Thylacine is just a little different looking Wolf. Or something like that.
Mickey Mortimer · 5 August 2016
Joel Eissenberg · 5 August 2016
Robert Byers posts: "This alone and a wee bit more can easily give creationists a door to explaining massive, sudden, instant biological change."
OK. Then propose a mechanism and design an experiment capable of testing that mechanism.
KlausH · 5 August 2016
John Harshman · 5 August 2016
ashleyhr · 5 August 2016
To be aware of comments here by Trevor on 5 August:
https://thenaturalhistorian.com/2016/08/03/the-young-earth-hyper-evolution-hypothesis-a-collection-of-critiques/#comments (David himself has already seen Trevor's comment about the deck of cards analogy and about non-coding DNA and has responded to them)
John Harshman · 5 August 2016
David MacMillan · 5 August 2016
John Harshman · 5 August 2016
justawriter · 5 August 2016
Bobby B's comments to me boils down to what in Star Trek fandom is called "wantum mechanics." Whatever the writer wantums (wants) to make the plot work, happens. Even if there is an universal author out there somewhere (and if there is, I assume he is a raging alcoholic) he is too busy scripting black hole mergers and galactic collisions to bother with fatty bags of water on backwards planets.
Robert Byers · 5 August 2016
Robert Byers · 5 August 2016
Mickey Mortimer · 6 August 2016
Rolf · 6 August 2016
Rolf · 6 August 2016
Just to make it clear: I said "I cheated" - but I knew my stuff and I knew what I was doing!
Rolf · 6 August 2016
Just to make it clear: I said "I cheated" - but I knew my stuff and I knew what I was doing!
Rolf · 6 August 2016
Robert, here is an example of evolution of a new trait from a scientific point of view.
Do you find it acceptable or do you have a better explanation?
Evolution of new traits
Eric Finn · 6 August 2016
John Harshman · 6 August 2016
Matt Young · 6 August 2016
W. H. Heydt · 6 August 2016
Eric Finn · 6 August 2016
harold · 6 August 2016
Joel Eissenberg · 6 August 2016
"Being consistently wrong does not seem like a reason to ban."
I agree. In addition, nobody is forcing you to feed the troll.
tomh · 6 August 2016
Just Bob · 6 August 2016
I too give up after a sentence or two of his comments. Byers is dense as lead and has a strange inability to use the basic conventions of casual writing. But he's never insulting or condescending, and I don't recall his ever departing from his YECciness into homophobia, religious bigotry, or politics. He doesn't condemn evolution as being atheistic, or threaten anyone with hell.
As a matter of fact, other than his strict adherence to YEC-despite-all-evidence, and out-of-thin-air explanations that to him are the equal of scientific data, I don't believe he brings religion into it at all. For all the evidence I can recall, he might be a YEC atheist, if that's even possible.
Just Bob · 6 August 2016
IOW, he's the rare YEC who sticks to the science. Of course he hasn't a clue about science, but still his refraining from either proselytizing or damning is appreciated.
https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad · 6 August 2016
W. H. Heydt · 6 August 2016
David MacMillan · 6 August 2016
Update: Jeanson fires back.
Mike Elzinga · 7 August 2016
Mike Elzinga · 7 August 2016
Mickey Mortimer · 7 August 2016
Robert Byers · 7 August 2016
Robert Byers · 7 August 2016
Robert Byers · 7 August 2016
Mickey Mortimer · 7 August 2016
TomS · 7 August 2016
This is not as clear-cut, but the story in Judges 14 where Samson kills a lion and bees appear in the lion's carcass has been taken to be a case of spontaneous generation. (In particular, what is called "equivocal generation".) Judges 14:14 "Out of the strong came forth sweetness."
gnome de net · 7 August 2016
harold · 7 August 2016
Rolf · 7 August 2016
alicejohn · 7 August 2016
https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad · 7 August 2016
One thing that strikes me is that Jeanson didn't in the slightest come up with any pretense of evidence that his scenario took place. I know, not a new thing in creationism, but that's one of the continuing problems with creationism/ID, the sense that they only need to come up with "plausible scenarios" (according to their magic) and no evidence whatsoever.
But then, bringing evidence in would only be a problem, as fossil and cave painting evidence completely refute his claims. Oh, but they dispute the dating methods? Well, what if they do? They don't do that any better than they come up with evidence for their flood. So, in the first place, they don't bother with evidence for their claims, and, in the second place, their claims are contradicted by the evidence. And water is wet, yes. But sometimes you might have to say that water is wet if there are people running around claiming that (liquid) water is dry.
Glen Davidson
TomS · 7 August 2016
Why does an omnipotent, omniscient agency need to resort to design to get something done?
Necessity is the mother of invention.
When we think of design, what we think of is a situation where something is going to be changed. But the creator is already responsible for the ways things are, do what is the point of going to the drawing board for a design?
Even if creators change their mind (or is there a competing creator?) why resort to design? Rather, just say, "This is what I want. I don't need to design." There is no necessity which gives rise to invention.
David MacMillan · 7 August 2016
Mike Elzinga · 7 August 2016
TomS · 7 August 2016
What I look for in antievolution writing is anything positive, substantial, an alternative account.
Something which is not subject to the exact same difficulty which they claim to have found in evolution.
And, then, just for amusement, to see whether the fault that they describe applies at least as well against reproduction. Scientific Storkism.
Rolf · 7 August 2016
Has not Intelligent Design always been more about claims of what evolution cannot do than what ID can do, if anything?
Mike Elzinga · 7 August 2016
W. H. Heydt · 7 August 2016
John Harshman · 7 August 2016
Tenncrain · 7 August 2016
I agree that one can learn much just by reading the knowledgeable replies to Byers. Unlike FL who can quickly retreat on his own back to the BW when the science is more than he wants to face, we know Byers will usually soldier on with his version of "science" no matter how telling his ignorance, bigotry and the effects of his Morton's demon (click here) are.
In addition, Byers and other YECs being unable/unwilling to set aside their prejudices remind me as an ex-YEC how challenging and at times very uncomfortable it was to discard my own YEC/Flood geology beliefs.
BTW, Byers mentioned in this thread that even he knows that the "K-T boundary" is the old name of what is now called the "K-Pg boundary" but Robert states he uses K-T anyway as most don't know what K-Pg is. If Byers had bothered to check, even AIG and creation.com now refer to the K-Pg boundary. At the least, one might say K-Pg boundary (formally called K-T boundary) . If one is referring to a scientific study done decades ago, one could state K-T boundary (referred today as the K-Pg boundary) . No sense in continuing to adhere totally to Tertiary which was somewhat muddled in meaning thus why the International Commission on Stratigraphy has for some time discouraged the use of Tertiary as a formal geochronological unit.
TomS · 7 August 2016
Robert Byers · 7 August 2016
Robert Byers · 7 August 2016
Robert Byers · 7 August 2016
Robert Byers · 7 August 2016
David MacMillan · 7 August 2016
Mike Elzinga · 7 August 2016
Mike Elzinga · 7 August 2016
W. H. Heydt · 7 August 2016
Mike Elzinga · 7 August 2016
W. H. Heydt · 7 August 2016
Something I should have added to my recent reply to Mr. Byers...
Sir, do you understand that Iridium in the "Irirdium layer" is measured in parts per million...or less? It's NOT a centimeter Iridium that was plated all over the planet like a coat of paint. (If that were the case, we'd be *mining* it.)
DS · 8 August 2016
Rolf · 8 August 2016
TomS · 8 August 2016
Clearly, I am not making myself at all clear if you think that I intend to talk about their theology. Their talk about Noah and baramins and all of that is, at most, a distraction from what I think the science of evolutionary biology is about: the variety of life. And while they deny the evolutionary explanation is correct, they do not attempt to offer an alternative.
A creator (or intelligent designer or any supernatural agency), by virtue of their freedom from natural constraints, is equally capable of producing anything. Therefore, invoking them does not distinguish between what happens to be the case and all the possibilities that aren't.
And we see that YEC, ID, and all the other varieties of evolution denial do not attempt to account for the variety of life. They don't have a way of dealing with the variety of life. All they can do is to attack, in an advertising campaign, negative political advertising.
There is no alternative to evolutionary biology. All the creationists do is to attack evolution. (Or wander off talking about different subjects.) The ID people may claim that there is a better explanation, but they do not offer any such an explanation (better or worse, no explanation).
Those of us who are interested in evolutionary explanations are prone to be attracted to the red herrings. It can be fun, and even interesting as a kind of game to "find all of the ways that Noah's Ark is impossible", but it has nothing to do with the serious point: why is there this variety of life? It is instructive to explain why "the tornado in the junkyard" does not present a problem for evolution. But even if it did, the evolution-deniers do not have an answer.
From time to time I like to remind my friends that there is no alternative to an evolutionary explanation for the variety of life. And that YEC and ID do not even attempt to offer any alternative.
Mike Elzinga · 8 August 2016
Stem Cell Monk · 8 August 2016
So in the card shuffling analogy, do the cards represent genes or alleles? I would think that explaining allele diversity this way would be obviously false, since one diploid mating pair could only carry a maximum of 4 alleles.
Mike Elzinga · 8 August 2016
Mike Elzinga · 8 August 2016
Stem Cell Monk · 8 August 2016
Mike Elzinga · 8 August 2016
Michael Fugate · 8 August 2016
Mike Elzinga · 8 August 2016
If anyone doubts that the YECâs believe they are in a war with the secular world, here is an example in their own words.
They attribute all their own motives to the âevolutionistsâ and tell us that Satan is deceiving even the churches. This was the drive behind Henry Morris and Duane Gish; it is what Morris meant when he referred to âwhat is at stake.â
Michael Fugate · 8 August 2016
ashleyhr · 8 August 2016
There's yet another Jeanson article, I see:
https://answersingenesis.org/natural-selection/speciation/why-dont-more-people-accept-the-young-earth-view-of-speciation/
Somewhat skimmed but it looks like special pleading, pseudo-science garbage, and an attack upon 'evolutionists'. "Evidence from genetics and from Darwin himself argues for the recent origin of species." He then has the gall to suggest that scientists reject YEC speciation views/models purely out of ignorance. No - it's because they write pseudo-scientific garbage borne of a fundamentalist religious agenda. (Though by 'ignorance' he means not that people have been brainwashed that YECs write garbage so much as that people have no knowledge of what YECs actually claim - and that if they did they would probably accept their claims.)
The article also has a go at someone at Biologos for not following through with 'dialogue' over AiG claims. Which is rich considering AiG's utter refusal to engage with awkwards science questions posed by many of their critics:
Please see the thread (the relevant link is being rejected here for some reason) about Rabble Rouser Ken Ham at the British Centre for Science Education community forum; AiG have for instance totally ignored ALL my questions about the feasibility and plausibility of their wild claims of total 'recent dinosaur extinction')
And the article has a go at THIS blog too. As I see David MacMillan has already flagged at Naturalis Historia (blog post dated 3 August).
Jeanson sounds a bit rattled and/or indignant. He accuses MacMillan of intellectual dishonesty for failing to quote from the abstract of a previous Jeanson co-authored article: "Our Created Heterozygosity and Natural Processes (CHNP) model significantly advances the young-creation explanation for the origin of species, and it makes testable predictions by which it can be further confirmed or rejected in the future". Yet - whilst David could have cited this - it is NOT from the paper MacMillan was critiquing (something Jeanson is not very upfront about to say the least in using the phrase 'the abstract of the paper' - there is NOTHING about 'created heterozygosity' in the abstract of the 23 June paper).
And of course if you wish to comment under Jeanson's article you CAN'T. They won't allow ANY comments. But some of his readers will be viewing comments here and at Naturalis Historia.
As for 'peer review' if Jeanson's new article was peer-reviewed it was NOT scientifically peer reviewed if only one or more other AiG staff members reviewed it prior to online publication ... And plenty of YECs write blogs too! "This example of poor scholarship is symptomatic of Duffâs approach to the origins issue, and many of his other posts reflect similar shortsightedness on our technical papers." Personally I've seen NO evidence of that - and Jeanson does not provide a convincing example. Yes - I think AiG are rattled as well as indignant. (As for 'created heterozygosity', I did mention this YEC idea in one of my comments either here or at NH - I forget which.)
As for Jeanson's footnote 12, the link is NOT about a member of the 'scientific community' but a journalist at the Boston Globe apparently failing to read enough of the material put out by AiG.
ashleyhr · 8 August 2016
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2100109-school-field-trips-to-creationist-ark-sink-that-idea-right-now/
Robert Byers · 8 August 2016
DS · 8 August 2016
right booby a creationist predicted this right after it was found by real scientists way to go your wrong it's a gun smoking in the boys room
Scott F · 8 August 2016
Scott F · 8 August 2016
W. H. Heydt · 8 August 2016
Mike Elzinga · 8 August 2016
Larry Moran, with thanks to PZ Myers, has a video of Mike Pence up on his website in which Pence is giving a âcritiqueâ of evolution in the House of Representatives back in 2002.
Just a reminder that these sectarian ideologues are still in play during these nutty political seasons.
eric · 9 August 2016
Michael Fugate · 9 August 2016
Why tie your belief to the Bible being not only theologically true, but historically and scientifically true? Isn't this too easy to refute - leaving your followers vulnerable to giving up religion altogether? Should you be putting your God to the test in this way? Not only that, why continue to believe such after you have read it? Historically, theologians, philosophers, natural historians, etc. have long concluded that the Bible just cannot be profitably read that way, so why now? Is there something about AiG followers that they need absolute certainty to believe - isn't that a contradiction?
ashleyhr · 9 August 2016
It's remarkable how little the Jeanson riposte of 6 August engages with the scientific substance of this MacMillan post. He completely ignores the following strong arguments:
- "Speciation indeed involves numerous changes in DNA, but at a scale orders of magnitude higher than the number of DNA differences that typically exist between individual members of one species. In this paragraph, Jeanson illustrates a prime example of a tactic common among creationists. Humans have three billion base pairs, so variation of 0.4 % becomes âmillionsâ of differences at the base pair level. Creationists cite these numbers without any comparison or explanation of what they represent, since they know that their audience will not have enough background information to recognize the fallacy"; "The claim that millions of DNA differences constitute âmassive amounts of DNA varietyâ capable of generating thousands of speciation events is ridiculously wrong.";
- "DNA differences in mitochondrial DNA have absolutely nothing to do with nuclear DNA differences or speciation.";
- "He tells us:
"Once the animals stepped off the Ark, their reservoir of DNA differences could have easily translated into a massive amount of morphological change."
This claim is clear, concise, and well-defined. Jeanson could go on to provide evidence for this claim or make verifiable predictions associated with it. For example, he could point to observed speciation events matching this model (if any existed) or he could predict a series of conditions under which a single pair of organisms can produce rapid multiple branching speciation in its offspring.
But he doesnât." (In the following sentences Jeanson neither refers to his previously proposed 'created heterozygosity' idea, nor sets out evidence or verifiable predictions as MacMillan has suggested; instead he embarks on discussion of how some functional DNA was previously thought by non-creationists ie scientists to be non-functional.)
- "Non-coding DNA has absolutely nothing to do with the generation of new species; it is just another tangentially related topic where prepared talking points already exist. After repeating the various prepared discussion concerning âjunkâ DNA, he claims:
"Since DNA now appears to be extremely functional, it would seem that the production of a new species would simply require a few DNA differences to arise."
This statement is absurd, unsubstantiated, and demonstrably false speculation. It is irresponsible at best."
All in all a pretty pathetic and feeble response from AiG. Which does not sit well with his and Jason Lisle's previous claim (in the Conclusion to their technical paper - which was scarcely referenced in the 23 June article despite Jeanson's claims of 6 August): "Created heterozygosity in combination with presently observable natural processes (the CHNP model) appears sufficient to explain the vast phenotypic and genotypic diversity observable today, and the CHNP model makes testable predictions by which its strength can be evaluated further in the future. Thus, speciation on the young-earth timescale is not only plausible; it is quickly becoming scientifically superior to any other explanation for the origin of the rich diversity of life on this planet."
He sounded confident. Yet is unable or unwilling to deal with the scientific substance of THIS article.
ashleyhr · 9 August 2016
PS I'm reminded that David stated in an earlier comment (which John H and others have discussed since): "I should have said something more along the lines of âThe fact of non-coding DNA functionality in no way suggests that speciation can be attained with only a few genetic differences.â"
John Harshman · 9 August 2016
Michael Fugate · 9 August 2016
Mike Elzinga · 9 August 2016
Rikki_Tikki_Taalik · 9 August 2016
Much has been said of the iridium concentrations in the Kt boundary but that's not the only material evidence in that layer. As far north as Utah and Colorado one can find micro beads of glass from molten rock as well as shocked quartz that can only develop under high impact conditions that was ejected into the atmosphere. Byers assertions of this being "hypothesized" with minor or scant evidence is blatantly false. To say the amount of material ejected from the impact site was enormous is an incredible understatement. For it to have been spread so far and wide and Byers would have us believe what's found in this layer is somehow the result of volcanic activity yet there's no evidence of any such event along those lines that could have produced and spread that material over that incredible expanse. Nor can that volcanic activity itself produce the shocked quartz.
Of course that's just speaking of the materials themselves and not the pattern of its deposition around the world. Much like one can study the crime science forensics of blood splatter for example, we know how the material is distributed across the earth, we have core samples from the ocean floor from around the vast impact site, the mapping of non-fallout material that radiated across land near the impact site and the effects of the ocean that radiated from the site, and all of this dates to the same period of time. So not only do we know how large the impactor was we even know fairly accurately the direction it arrived from and the angle of impact and speed given that data.
Not only is it pretty much impossible that any volcanic event could be the explanation that fits all the facts, Byers would have us believe that not only could it explain them, but that this was occurring at the same time as a global flood and somehow all this variety of materials magically sorted itself out in the midst of the great gushing of the fountains of the deep into a single layer to appear as though it came from a single impact. (While also sorting out dinos from large mammals, etc., etc.) And somehow didn't manage to poison the very atmosphere Noah and company had to breathe for about a year. And so on...
I'm pretty tired so I hope I was reasonably coherent.
Rikki_Tikki_Taalik · 9 August 2016
Oh, and it's also worth mentioning that this material all shares the same composition or "fingerprint" demonstrating that it came from a common source/location on the planet. So any assertion that materials found in the layer could possibly be from a variety of volcanic events happening simultaneously around the globe doesn't hold any flood water either. We already use that kind of fingerprinting to date past volcanic events and their origin and this would have been evident in the data.
John Harshman · 9 August 2016
Robert Byers · 9 August 2016
Robert Byers · 9 August 2016
Robert Byers · 9 August 2016
John Harshman · 9 August 2016
Rolf · 10 August 2016
Rikki_Tikki_Taalik · 10 August 2016
John Harshman · 10 August 2016
Oops. It's no longer my favorite of all time. I misread "diamons" for "diatoms". "Diamons" is merely amusing. "Diatoms" would have been epic.
DS · 10 August 2016
W. H. Heydt · 10 August 2016
ashleyhr · 10 August 2016
AiG have failed to post the Jeanson 6 August attack on Facebook. I find that interesting:
https://www.facebook.com/AnswersInGenesis/
Robert Byers · 10 August 2016
Robert Byers · 10 August 2016
Mike Elzinga · 10 August 2016
Minimum-energy canopy scenario for Noahâs purported worldwide flood:
(1) Rate of energy deposition: 1.6 x 108 watts per square meter (The equivalent of 40 kg of TNT going off every second over every square meter of the Earth)
(2) Atmospheric temperature climbing to 10,570 degrees Fahrenheit.
(3) Atmospheric pressure going to 860 atmospheres.
âFountains-of-the-deepâ scenario includes superheated steam coming up from Earthâs mantle, and ocean basins being gouged out of solid rock and mountains we see today being built up. Far greater energy scenario.
In fact, any purported scenario put forth by YECs would have deposited millions of times more energy onto the Earthâs surface than the meteor that hit the Yucatan Peninsula and wiped out the dinosaurs. The entire Earthâs surface would have been completely burned off. Nothing would have survived: not Noah, not his impossible-to-construct unseaworthy ark, and not any of other people or animals in the ark. Everything would have been turned into a complete plasma at a temperature of over 10,500 degrees Fahrenheit.
The story of Noahâs flood is physically impossible to square with the planet we see today. No amount of ignorant word gaming will make it so.
Scott F · 10 August 2016
tomh · 10 August 2016
W. H. Heydt · 10 August 2016
Scott F · 10 August 2016
Scott F · 10 August 2016
W. H. Heydt · 10 August 2016
tomh · 10 August 2016
eric · 11 August 2016
eric · 11 August 2016
TomS · 11 August 2016
Scott F · 11 August 2016
Robert Byers · 11 August 2016
Robert Byers · 11 August 2016
Robert Byers · 11 August 2016
Rolf · 12 August 2016
The K-T boundary is not within my field of expertise. Thank God we have Robert. He is an expert on iridium, sedimentation, volcanoes, radiometric dating, and most everything else scientific.
We do not need scientists, expensive instruments and extensive research, or books. We only need Robert. How he does it is beyond comprehension. He certainly is a genius. Why aren't universities queueing at his doorstep?
Please Robert, how come you are so much smarter than our scientists? They work hard for years, yet you know better than them just by intuition?
Robert, please tell, how old is the Earth?
My mind boogles thinking of how much time and money I have wasted on books.
DS · 12 August 2016
After all of his talking points have been completely refuted with actual evidence, booby demonstrates that none of that means anything to him. He just keeps repeating his already demolished arguments and spouting his ignorant nonsense. He is proud of the fact that no amount of logic or evidence can change is mind. Of course, that is not something to be proud of, as any rational person knows full well. He can't reject the accurate dating of geological events without rejecting YEC (those are his actual words), so he simply can;t accept the dates, period, end of discussion. It doesn't matter if every single expert disagrees with him, he simply doesn't care. He just assumes that he knows more than all of them combined, because h just so darn brilliant, don't ya know. He just can't be wrong, he can't. So his ignorant opinion will never change, ever. And he thinks that this means that he wins!
Well booby, if that is really your opinion then here is mine. Whatever you believe is wrong. I don't want to see any evidence. I don't want to discuss it. My opinion is that your opinion is wrong. It doesn't matter that I have never met you. It doesn't matter if I know anything about the crap you are spouting or not. It doesn't matter what the so called experts say. In my opinion you are wrong and you will always be wrong about everything.. If you believe in YEC it is automatically wrong. If you don't like that reasoning, stop using it.
Please let booby keep posting here. But please, move every one of his ignorant screeds to the bathroom wall where they belong. Of course, you could save yourself the trouble by just banning the boob, but then we would not have this shining example of your mind on YEC.
eric · 12 August 2016
W. H. Heydt · 12 August 2016
Malcolm · 12 August 2016
Robert Byers · 12 August 2016
Rolf · 12 August 2016
WTF are you talking about?
As soon as the iridum has hit where it falls, on land or the seabed, it stays there. It is a very heavy metal that stays where it has fallen.
What sorting mechanism are you proposing? Have you ever had a look at how snow falls? It falls on top of the snow that has fallen before, and stays there. No sorting. Robert, is there no limit to your stupidity? It seems to me that you think you can make nature obey your ideas of how it should behave.
Robert, it isn't so! Nature works in the ways of nature itself, not in the ways your brain wants it to work.
W. H. Heydt · 12 August 2016
W. H. Heydt · 12 August 2016
I am reminded of the original problem of erratics (boulders located far from the the strata they came from). The early proposed answer was to suggest that they were moved by flowing water in floods. When it was pointed out that no flood anyone had ever seen could have done the job, people proposed a *bigger* flood. Ultimately, it was determined that, yes, they were moved by water, but it was in the form of glaciers.
What brings this to mind is Mr. Byers attempt to get out of the hole he dug himself by suggesting a volcanic eruption to account for the boundary clay composition--which was shown to be inadequate--is to change to bigger and more widespread volcanoes. This despite that that flies in the face of the "single source" composition signature of the material.
Scott F · 12 August 2016
phhht · 12 August 2016
Daniel · 13 August 2016
https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad · 13 August 2016
stevaroni · 13 August 2016
https://me.yahoo.com/a/Y6BnTTQokvG_X5XFUnEgD25Q.bDl5hE-#9e1d9 · 13 August 2016
I have never a reasonable explanation by a Noachian flood creationist for the presence of paleosols (buried soils) scattered throughout the stratigraphic column. Was the Earth simultaneously flooded and dry?
TomS · 13 August 2016
Am I correct in finding this sort of behavior on the part of creationists?
One makes a stab at solving a difficulty in the creationist position the "evolutionists" show a difficulty in that solution. Rather than giving up on that solution, it is as if the solution is now treated like a central doctrine, and must be defended. Of course, the makeshift solution is often even more difficult to defend, and calls for more drastic measures. And there is a downward spiral into more and more difficulties. When they could avoid these difficulties by the simple step of admitting that the original speculation was not all that crucial to their important beliefs.
Matt Young · 13 August 2016
W. H. Heydt · 13 August 2016
Mike Elzinga · 13 August 2016
Scott F · 13 August 2016
Scott F · 13 August 2016
I'm confused about the deck-of-cards analogy.
Let me try to describe how I interpret that analogy.
The "Created Kinds", each individual animal (and plant, presumably) had all of the possible copies of all of the possible genes of all of the future descendant species in their genome prior to The Flood. The act of "Creationist Speciation" consists of a single pair of individual animals, one male and one female, each in the same generation, each a descendant of the Created Kind individual, where the male and female each "lose" exactly the same set of "genes" from the parent individual, such that each pair can then breed together, thus starting a new species "from scratch".
For a made up example, the parent "Created Kind" of the Bear/Wolf/Dog/Thylacine Kind would have contained all of the genes for a bear and for a wolf and for a dog and for a thylacine. (Or, perhaps instead a super set of all of the genes of the daughter "species"?) Then, some time in the first hundred years after getting off The Ark, this Bear/Wolf/Dog/Thylacine Kind individual had a son that (for some mysterious, unspecified reason) had only the genes for a "bear". Remember, this is The Fall(tm), where "information" can only be lost, and never gained. Shortly after, the Bear/Wolf/Dog/Thylacine Kind individual also had a daughter that had only the genes for a "bear". This son and daughter pair started a new generation of a new "species" called "bear", which (for some other mysterious, unspecified reason) continued unchanged until this day. Similar events occurred for the new "wolf" son and daughter individuals, the new "dog" son and daughter individuals, and the new "thylacine" son and daughter individuals.
But these "Creationist Speciation" events weren't acts of "Creation" (since "Creation" happened only once at the start of the worlds), but were consequences of The Fall(tm) 2,000(+) years earlier. Consequences, which manifested themselves (simultaneously and spontaneously) only after The Flood(tm), and for some mysterious unspecified reason have not happened again once in recorded history.
Is that a reasonably accurate description of the deck-of-cards analogy and what it is trying to describe??
Mike Elzinga · 13 August 2016
Robert Byers · 13 August 2016
Scott F
Your not following the conversation.
Its nothing about the Noahs flood.
This is a questioning of the flimsy evidence for a impact that caused so much trouble.
They base it greatly on a trivial layer or iridium. They say it can't come from anyplace save space.
I say its easily explained by events on earth.
Volcanoes can be the source for this element. Then the origin of its deposition can be explained by volcanoes exploding everywhere.
Then the mechanism for its landing in a layer can be explained by sorting from the blasts, or sorting within sediment loads also moving sudden;t from the chaos or other options.
Then your side must also explain its sorting.
You must say the IMPACT sent the iridium scattering and settling in a sorted way. You must then also say later sediment loads did not mess up the layer as they were deposited over time on top.
your sides stuff is very unlikely.
I can see it all as a single event preserving a segregated layer.
TomS · 14 August 2016
Rolf · 14 August 2016
Rolf · 14 August 2016
Ignorant, I hate it when that happens.
gnome de net · 14 August 2016
W. H. Heydt · 14 August 2016
W. H. Heydt · 14 August 2016
Matt Young · 14 August 2016
Helena Constantine · 14 August 2016
Scott F · 14 August 2016
W. H. Heydt · 14 August 2016
Scott F · 14 August 2016
gnome de net · 14 August 2016
Robert Byers · 14 August 2016
Robert Byers · 14 August 2016
Robert Byers · 14 August 2016
Robert Byers · 14 August 2016
Scott f
my computer was failing yesterday and so I thought my posts did not take. Today , with this conviction, i answered in sequence and so a 'sorting" error is going on. a repeat of points.
So to your LAST post.
You complain iridium is not on earth enough to make a layer.
WEll its from the power and sources of great volcanoes, dozens or hundreds, exploding at once, up and down the spine of the Americas etc that easily could produce it. Why not/ Its there and speculation that its there can be made.
The speculation that space rocks has is just that. Who says they have any, or much, iridium? Who is sampling them?
In another post I answered your criticism about why your layer would be messed up over time by sediment accumulation. However gentle it would never be that gentle, and everywhere,.
Where is your iridium layer MESSED up by sediment accumulation? no where/ very unlikely!
All everyone has is this iridium layer. its source and integrity , I say, is better explained as a single event.
Its a good option within existing natural operations. Volcanoes are natural however great.
gnome de net · 14 August 2016
@ Robert Beyrs:
Has any recent volcano produced any iridium in its ash or lava?
W. H. Heydt · 14 August 2016
Daniel · 14 August 2016
Scott F · 14 August 2016
Scott F · 15 August 2016
Oops. Bad HTML karma. Worse editing.
Krakatoa, ~8x1017 joules of energy, over several days. Chicxulub, ~5x1023 joules of energy. That's 106 or one million times more energy deposited in the span of a half dozen seconds.
Now, to be sure, the Deccan Traps (or their equivalent on the Yellowstone Plateau) would have used more total energy to raise 500,000 cubic kilometers of lava. The Chicxulub crater is only about 3,600 cubic kilometers. But, the Chicxulub crater was completely excavated in a matter of seconds. The Deccan Traps were created over millions of years.
https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad · 15 August 2016
Volcanoes don't appear to have been the source of the K-Pg iridium, but volcanoes can produce iridium-enriched emissions: Iridium enrichment in airborne particles from kilauea volcano: january 1983.
It wasn't for nothing that volcanoes were considered a possible source after the iridium layer was discovered. But do flood basalts emit sufficient enriched iridium plumes to create such a layer? Now it seems unlikely, mainly because the iridium does appear to be from an asteroid.
Especially, the shocked quartz seems not to be produced by volcanoes, of course, and the crater in the Yucatan seems no coincidence. But volcanoes can be the source of at least some iridium enrichment, so they can't simply be ruled out as possible sources for iridium enrichment.
Glen Davidson
Mike Elzinga · 15 August 2016
mark · 15 August 2016
The evidence for a catastrophic bolide impact at the Cretaceous-Paleogene boundary includes far more than the anomalous iridium layer (which is *not* trivial)--geologic evidence of an impact crater; shocked quartz; tsunami deposits, and more. But what it really comes down too, if one is to believe the Creationist account as passed down orally through the pre-scientific past, then one must accept that modern science has it all wrong--in geology, physics, chemistry, and biology--but the bronze-age shepherds and farmers had it right. Why did the Noachian flood sediments not follow Stoke's Law? How did the immediate post-Flood ecosystems operate when animals were released into a world in which all life was wiped out? These days, when a species invades a new region, there are already fauna and flora they can feed on and compete with. As science progresses and can explain more and more of natural history, the Creationist explanation becomes more and more convoluted.
eric · 15 August 2016
gnome de net · 15 August 2016
David MacMillan · 15 August 2016
Matt Young · 15 August 2016
Mike Elzinga · 15 August 2016
Matt Young · 15 August 2016
Mike Elzinga · 15 August 2016
Just Bob · 15 August 2016
Scott F · 15 August 2016
Henry J · 15 August 2016
mark · 15 August 2016
Scott F · 15 August 2016
Scott F · 15 August 2016
https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad · 15 August 2016
https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad · 16 August 2016
Robert Byers · 16 August 2016
Robert Byers · 16 August 2016
Robert Byers · 16 August 2016
Robert Byers · 16 August 2016
Robert Byers · 16 August 2016
Rolf · 16 August 2016
Mickey Mortimer · 16 August 2016
eric · 16 August 2016
DS · 16 August 2016
It doesn't matter how much evidence you present. It doesn't matter if you prove that what booby believes is completely and totally impossible. It doesn't matter how illogical or self-contradictory his mindless sputtering is. He will always believe exactly what he wants to believe. That is why he has stayed a YEC for all these years. He just can't conceive of the possibility that he could be wrong, so he just isn't. After nine pages of people pointing out his errors, he still clings to them like a badge of honor. He just makes crap up and projects his own shortcomings onto everybody else as an excuse to ignore everything they say. He actually believes that his own random thoughts are evidence of something in reality. And the more crap he makes up, the more obvious it becomes that he is willing to ignore all of reality in order to continue to believe that he is always right. It's really the same thing that every creationist does, he's just more blatant about it.
David MacMillan · 16 August 2016
mark · 16 August 2016
DS · 16 August 2016
W. H. Heydt · 16 August 2016
W. H. Heydt · 16 August 2016
mark · 16 August 2016
W. H. Heydt · 16 August 2016
mark · 16 August 2016
mark · 16 August 2016
And how could I forget the recently discovered Chesapeake Bay impact structure, located near the mouth of Chesapeake Bay (see Geol. Soc. Amer. Special Paper SPE458, 2009).
W. H. Heydt · 16 August 2016
mark · 16 August 2016
Olsson et al. (Geology 25(8):759-762, 1997) described a core that penetrated a layer of ejecta at the K-Pg boundary in New Jersey. A 6-cm thick layer of spherule-bearing impact ejecta overlay a glauconitic clay, the top of which bore spherical impressions, indicating the spherules dropped onto a soft substrate, one that was not being eroded. Shocked quartz was present in the upper cm of the spherule layer. Above the spherule layer was a glauconitic, silty clay that contained a few reworked clay clasts deposited on top of the spherules.
The lower clay layer is very fossiliferous; the upper layer poorly fossiliferous. Most of the Cretaceous planktonic foraminifera were wiped out, replaced above the spherule bed by a different assemblage. The authors conclude that there was a rather quick emplacement of impact ejecta originating from Chicxulub that wiped out marine organisms at this location (where sea level was about 100 meters). Benthic foraminifera did not go extinct, but those above the spherule bed are of reduced size.
The upshot of this study, to quote the abstract: "Thus, the Bass River K-T succession unequivocally links the Chicxulub bolide impact to the mass extinctions at the end of the Mesozoic."
Robert Byers · 16 August 2016
Robert Byers · 16 August 2016
Robert Byers · 16 August 2016
David Mac Millian
Put quartz in the middle of a great explosion and it will be shocked. why not? who says not? who tried it?
How sediment loads are gathered up and deposited is not dominated by modern slow actions. Great movements moving sediment can mimic any slow thing.
It was a old careless idea to presume modern deposition is a sample of histoic deposition mechanisms.
Robert Byers · 16 August 2016
Robert Byers · 16 August 2016
Just Bob · 16 August 2016
My guess is that Robert just retired, and now has endless time to flog his idee fixe.
Mickey Mortimer · 16 August 2016
Scott F · 16 August 2016
Malcolm · 16 August 2016
Mickey Mortimer · 17 August 2016
TomS · 17 August 2016
Henry Skinner · 17 August 2016
eric · 17 August 2016
eric · 17 August 2016
Mickey Mortimer · 17 August 2016
mark · 17 August 2016
Robert Byers' problem is that he has no concept of details. Details are very important. There are multiple, independent lines of evidence for a terminal Cretaceous impact--it is not merely a layer enriched in iridium. Various papers that have been cited above, and papers referred to in them, discuss these lines of evidence and also discuss the reasons for concluding the iridium enrichment at the K-Pg boundary is of extraterrestrial origin. All iridium is not the same! Geochemical and isotopic associations matter! Another paper, by Meisel et al. (Geology 23(4):313-316, 1995), for example, explains how Osmium and strontium isotopic ratios distinguish ancient crustal from meteoritic sources of these elements and why they support a large bolide impact at the K-Pg boundary. In their original 1980 paper (Science 208(4448):1095-1108), Alvarez et al. even pointed out why the iridium did not come from a supernova or other source outside of the solar system, based on Ir-191/Ir-193 ratio (and lack of measurable Pt-244). So details matter--if you think all iridium is the same, or all species within a genus are the same, you cannot make intellectual progress.
Mickey Mortimer · 17 August 2016
eric · 17 August 2016
DS · 17 August 2016
gnome de net · 17 August 2016
A familiar pattern is slowly emerging here: Robert Byers, like many politicians, seems to have a list of well-rehearsed "canned" responses.
When he reads an objection or a correction to one of his posts, he reads only until he encounters a hot-button term or phrase that is on his list, ignores everything that follows, and immediately replies with a variation of the corresponding response. He remains insulated from new information. He never confronts the contradictions to his fragile "lines of reasoning", thereby protecting his emotionally-constructed Robert Byers Reality©.
What he doesn't know, can't hurt him.
Matt Young · 17 August 2016
W. H. Heydt · 17 August 2016
W. H. Heydt · 17 August 2016
mark · 17 August 2016
As Heckle said to Jeckle, "We're cartoon characters--we can do anything."
Jeanson claims that God created Adam and Eve with DNA having certain characteristics based on, well, nothing.
If David's diagram accurately reflects Jeanson's argument, it appears that God created some kind of "kinds," with each kind represented by a deck of cards, one of which is shown at the top of the diagram. This might be the "hairy tetrapod kind." The hairy tetrapod kind was taken on deck along with the other decks ("kinds"). Bye-and-bye the Ark landed and all the "kinds" left the boat and began to speciate, by which, apparently is meant, a handful of cards was pulled out of the hairy tetrapod deck to make the Lion species, another handful pulled out to make the giant anteater species, another to make the kangaroo species, and so on. Now I'm confused--what became of the hairy tetrapod kind? Did it forget to disembark? Jeanson implies that each original "kind" was created separately. Did each deck contain a different assortment of the same characters (e.g., 2 of clubs, 5 of hearts, etc.)? Why or why not? Why not use adenine, etc. for one kind and yogurt, etc. for another kind? David is right--it is difficult to make sense of Jeanson's reasoning. There really isn't any science in his work.
Michael Fugate · 17 August 2016
Helena Constantine · 17 August 2016
Rolf · 17 August 2016
quentin-long · 17 August 2016
tomh · 17 August 2016
TomS · 17 August 2016
Robert Byers · 17 August 2016
This thread did go in a interesting and important direction. Matt Young however says its over if I understand.
I am not rejecting REAL evidence or millions of geologists.
I reject conclusions that are based on limited data by small numbers of researchers who are too controled by paradigms in thier subjects.
All there is from the past is minor data that remains on earth.
Any hypothesis can be invoked if its uses the same data.
I did and do this. I take on the alternatives.
Any elements or material on earth can be explained by mechanisms that everyone must obey anyways.
Spreading out of debris needs only a force.
I provided another force then a unlikely force proposed.
I say any volcanos, great ones exploding, and many all at once from some earth upheaval, represented by sediment loads being deposited and fossilizing biology EASILY is a better source for sorted elements/material sandwiched between sediment loads.
People pressed to me iridium and later other stuff but I'm mostly aware of the iridium. The other stuff can have other options.
These subjects are not like real science subjects.
they are very difficult reconstructions of the ancient past.
In fact its forensics working with limited data but asked to make great conclusions.
There is no tests/experiments to directly addres these matters.
it really is studied speculation.
Creationists have more reason to be better at studying it.
People just open threads on these matters and focus.
i speak for many thoughtful creationists.
My answers are pretty good and reflective and knowledgeable.
I don't ignore any good points or anybody saying something relevant.
Make your case and saying SCIENTISTS SAY SO is not making a case. Its silly.
Matt Young did let a good thread go here. It make me hustle because of unexpected interested and information.
Scott F · 17 August 2016
Mickey Mortimer · 18 August 2016
mark · 18 August 2016
Rolf · 18 August 2016
Those silly scientists, always nitpicking on trifles when you have all the right answers, don't you think so, Robert?
Thats what they have for all their studies, digging for fossils and actually going out there to look at rocks and volcanoes, even collecting samples. What in all the world should that be good for? If you can do with Youtube, why can't they? There's got to be something wrong with them.
W. H. Heydt · 18 August 2016
mark · 18 August 2016
Okay, I just had to put this up, as there has been discussion of volcanoes and the Deccan Traps in relation to the bolide impact at the Cretaceous-Paleogene boundary. An article by Richards et al. (2015) in Geological Society of America Bulletin 127(11/12):1507-1520 that hypothesizes that the greatest lava flows of the Deccan Traps (accounting for more than 70 percent of the main-stage eruptions) may have been triggered by the impact at Chicxulub. They didn't just pull this out of their hip pockets, but based it on seismic modeling due to the impact, in conjunction with the other data. This great eruptive pulse formed three major flows over a period of approximately 100 thousand to several hundred thousand years (Oh noes--how can that be reconciled with Jeanson's timeline?).
In the same issue is an article by Korbar et al. (p. 1666-1680) describing a tsunami deposit at the boundary, in present-day Croatia, which they attribute to the impact at Chicxulub. Yes, there are real scientists engaged in real research on these matters.
Scott F · 18 August 2016
Henry Skinner · 19 August 2016
Eric Finn · 19 August 2016
John Harshman · 19 August 2016
Michael Fugate · 19 August 2016
What do you mean by gene? promoters? eons? introns? What do you mean by exactly the same? DNA sequence? Amino Acid sequence? enzymatic function?
Eric Finn · 19 August 2016
John Harshman · 19 August 2016
Eric Finn · 19 August 2016
John Harshman · 20 August 2016
Rolf · 21 August 2016
I watch the BBC Earth channel these days, Professor Brian Cox is doing a good job of explaining the universe and the origins of life. Seems to me that life is an unavoidable consequence of the existence of liquid water, hydrothermal vents and the laws of chemistry.
Eric Finn · 21 August 2016
John Harshman · 21 August 2016
Mike Elzinga · 21 August 2016
John Harshman · 21 August 2016
Nobel laureate Roger Sperry once told me (and the rest of my class) that life violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics. One of the other students started arguing with him, sensibly, I thought. But he unaccountably wouldn't be convinced.
Mike Elzinga · 21 August 2016
stevaroni · 22 August 2016
Mike Elzinga · 22 August 2016
John Harshman · 22 August 2016
Jon Fleming · 22 August 2016
stevaroni · 22 August 2016
John Harshman · 23 August 2016
Henry J · 23 August 2016
Any life that violates a law of thermodynamics should be in jail!
stevaroni · 23 August 2016
stevaroni · 23 August 2016