I have been a bad, bad Blogger.

I have been writing, and lecturing. But I have not been posting. In part, there has been nothing new in the creationist twaddleverse to really get into for more than an hour or so.

But just today I came across a reason to post. The reason is an American Hindu creationist named Michael Mamas who posted a load of creatocrap on the Huffington Post "Science" blog.
One obvious problem is that Huffpost leads this as "Science."

I used a few hours responding. The text follows.

I am always interested by a tag line like, “How Darwinism and Creationism Can Peacefully Coexist.” And sucker that I am, I’ll typically read the copy. Only occasionally am I treated to such idiocy as this text from Mr. Mamas. Commonly, the word “Darwinism” is a good clue that the author has no clue.

His first major error is the idea that creationism is limited to the Christian believers in literal interpretations of Genesis. There are many varieties of creationists as seen below;

Jewish

Spetner, Lee

1997 Not By Chance: Shattering the Modern Theory of Evolution.  New York: The Judaica Press

Muslim

Harun Yahya (Adnan Okbar)

2007 "Atlas Of Creation" Istanbul: Global Publishing

Hindu

Michael A Cremo, Richard L. Thompson

1998 "Forbidden Archeology: The Hidden History of the Human Race" Bhaktivedanta Book Publishing

Neo-pagan/Native American

Deloria, Vine Jr.

1997 “Red Earth, White Lies” Golden Colorado: Fulcrum Publishing

Some of the comments to this article make the same mistake. They also have neglected to do a simple Google search on Mr. Mamas, and his organization, “Mount Soma; The Center of Rational Spirituality.” He is in fact a sort of hybridized Hindu guru want-to-be.

 

He wrote, "Throughout history, numerous religions have held the belief that we are created in God’s image and that the birth of the universe was an act of divine creation. Over 100 years ago, Darwin challenged this age-old concept, declaring that species evolved from single cell organisms to sponges, lizards, apes, and ultimately to human beings through the process of natural selection. Scientists and theologians faced a huge rift."

Mr. Mamas’ errors also extend to the historical record. For example, Charles R. Darwin never addressed the origin of life, or the universe. In fact he wrote that attempting to address this was “mere rubbish.” He had observed to botanist Joseph Hooker, "It is mere rubbish thinking at present of the origin of life; one might as well think of the origin of matter." (29 Mar 1863). Darwin’s first edition of “Origin of Species” was published in 1859. In it he sought to avoid directly challenging a divine origin going so far as to write, "Authors of the highest eminence seem to be fully satisfied with the view that each species has been independently created. To my mind it accords better with what we know of the laws impressed on matter by the Creator, that the production and extinction of the past and present inhabitants of the world should have been due to secondary causes, like those determining the birth and death of the individual. When I view all beings not as special creations, but as the lineal descendants of some few beings which lived long before the first bed of the Cambrian system was deposited, they seem to me to become ennobled." Note that he does think (correctly) that in Darwin’s time he and others thought life had descended, and elaborated from very simple ancestors.

Mr. Mamas is still wrong at the same by implying later that biologists still claim there are strictly linear descent lines. The simple Linnaean system of ordering species dated to the 1600s long before Darwin. It has been largely rejected for a generation. Still worse is his notion that Darwin created the situation that, “Scientists and theologians faced a huge rift.” The effort to avoid the obvious conflicts between experimental/empirical science and the thousands of religions dates at least to the 1600s. At most Darwin laid another log on superstition’s funeral pyre.

For the past century, Darwin’s theory has been the cornerstone of biological science. I adore the beauty of it, and certainly there is truth to it. However, it is important to note that a computer study of the theory concluded that it couldn’t possibly be right because the evolution of species happened much more quickly than the theory indicates.

Mr. Mamas launched into the absurd with the sentence, “However, it is important to note that a computer study of the theory concluded that it couldn’t possibly be right because the evolution of species happened much more quickly than the theory indicates.”

There are 4 gross errors. I was impressed.

1) A “computer study” does not “conclude” anything. Creationists like to use so-called “simulation models” to claim that genetic mutations promoted by natural selection are so rare that even with billions of years evolution could not happen. An example of this sham is Behe and Snoke (2004).

2) Alternately, creationists pretend to have computer models “proving” genetic mutations are so toxic that life could not have evolved. The current favorite example of this lie is “Mendel's Accountant” created by plant geneticist, and young earth creationist John Sanford (2001). (His collaborators are all also YECs).

There are creationist B.S. "computer programs" that falsely claim evolution is both too fast, and too slow. 

3) So where is Mr. Mamas get this lame idea that evolution “happened much more quickly than the theory indicates” ? I suspect he failed to grasp some basic understanding of Gould and Eldredge (1977). The offered no “computer study.” They noted that there were occasionally rapid expansions in the number of discernable species in what were geologically short (several million years) periods. What was later discovered was that these “blooms” were following massive extinction events. However, as young men, Steve Gould, and Niles Eldredge were sure that they had “overturned Darwin.”

4) Did Darwin ever demand that evolution must have been slow? That would certainly be a key fact to confirm. In fact, Darwin held (and published) that the pace of evolution could be variable. (Darwin, 1859, 1860)

Behe, Michael J., and David W. Snoke (2004) "Simulating evolution by gene duplication of protein features that require multiple amino acid residues." Protein Science 13, no. 10 : 2651-2664.

Sanford, John, John Baumgardner, Wes Brewer, Paul Gibson, and Walter ReMine (2001) “Mendel's Accountant: A biologically realistic forward-time population genetics program." Scalable Computing: Practice and Experience 8, no. 2 .

Gould, Stephen Jay, and Niles Eldredge (1977) "Punctuated equilibria: the tempo and mode of evolution reconsidered." Paleobiology 3, no. 02 : 115-151.

Darwin, C. (1859) “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life” J. Murray, London, UK.

Darwin, C. (1860) “The Voyage of the Beagle” 1962 Natural History Library Edition. Doubleday and Co., Garden City, NY, USA.

Merging Darwin’s theory of natural selection with the unified field theory accounts for why there have been several examples of accelerated evolution throughout history. Where does that process end? The process culminates in a species that embodies the coherence, intelligence, harmony, and order inherent in the unified field itself. Think of the sandbox. You can keep running that vibration into the sandbox until ultimately a pattern on the surface of the sand becomes a full reflection of the intelligence in the vibration. The same is true for the process of the evolution of species.

Mr. Mamas proceeded to leave absurdity for psychosis by hallucinating a grand “unified field underlying all existence.” Merely dishonest is his assertion that this is something “Modern physicists agree” upon. But leaving this aside, he still managed additional major falsehoods in just two (short) paragraphs.
First, there is no “unified field theorem” in physics to merge with biology.

Second, there is a good reason for the observed “rapid” episodes of species radiations; they follow mass extinctions. Without competitors in a radically changed environment, evolution is allowed to run wild. The causes of mass extinction vary from gigantic sustained volcanic activity, asteroid impacts, both of these, and even by life itself. In the latter example, see the literature on the pre-Cambrian Great Oxidation Event. There is no need of a “unified field theory.”

Third, there is no theoretical support, or empirical support that “the evolution of those species was in a direction toward the coherence inherent in the unified field.” This is insane, or a conjob. We already dismissed the existence of a regulating “unified field theory.” (If you want a literature to read, Gross 2005, Hawking 1988, Krauss 2012, Susskind 2005, Woit 2006,  Stenger 2009).

Gross, David

2005 “The Quantum Structure of Space and Time: Proceedings of the 23rd Solvay Conference on Physics”  Ed. David Gross (Brussels: World Scientific Pub Co Inc)

Hawking, Stephen

1988 "A Brief History of Time" Bantam Books

Krauss, Lawrence

2012 “A Universe From Nothing” New York: Free Press

Stenger, V. J.

2009 “Quantum Gods: Creation, Chaos and the Search for Cosmic Consciousness” Prometheus Books.

Susskind, Leonard

2005 "The Cosmic Landscape: String Theory and the Illusion of Intelligent Design"  New York: Little and Brown Publishers

Woit, Peter

2006 "Not Even Wrong: The Failure of String Theory" New York: Basic Books

That is to say, species evolved in a direction toward the image of God.

There are just two remaining errors outstanding for either their basic ignorance, or as gross frauds. Since Mr. Mamas sells enlightenment for a profession, we cannot exclude a PT Barnum inspired self-interest. This is the claim that, “Theologians think of the unified field as “God.” and, “… species evolved in a direction toward the image of God.”

The first is compounded that there is no “unified field,” and practicing theologians (members of the thousands of priesthoods) place their authority on direct Divine inspiration. The second I find the most amusing. 1), this notion that evolution is goal directed is in direct contradiction of evolutionary biology. 2) it is obvious that Mr. Mamas imagines we humans are in some “elevated” class of organisms nearer to the “image of God” than say a rat is. But rats are as ancient, and then some, as any primate clade. 3) slime mold are more ancient as our lineage. Are they the image of god(s). Maybe there is a special slime god? 4) no theologian I read has presented their god as a merely material being. They are usually some grand immaterial magic wielding thug. I doubt that is the direction we are headed. But as a long time Dungeons&Dragons fan, I am ready for my +3 vorpal blade to go toe to toe with bad guys.

Just another from Michael Snyder: Lie #24

I thought I would quit at 12, but exposing creationist frauds is like eating potato chips - hard to stop at just a dozen.

Lie #24 (Quote Mine) Why did evolutionist Dr. Lyall Watson make the following statement?…

“The fossils that decorate our family tree are so scarce that there are still more scientists than specimens. The remarkable fact is that all of the physical evidence we have for human evolution can still be placed, with room to spare, inside a single coffin!”

This was attributed by the creationist rags published by the Institute for Creation Research to Lyell(sic)(correct spelling Lyall) Watson, "The Water People," Science Digest, vol. 90 (May 1982), p. 44. First Lyall Watson has no doctorate in a science. Second, “Science Digest” was not a professional scientific journal, and was not peer reviewed. It was a “Readers Digest” formatted magazine that looked for sensationalized articles they dumbed down for their readers. Thirdly, the author Lyall Watson was a sham with a long list of pseudo-scientific books about the supernatural, and “psychic powers.” examples are ’Supernature’ (1973) called ’A natural history of the supernatural.’ Watson was the author of additional New Age nonsense such as “BEYOND SUPERNATURE” (1986).

But finally, the major lie is that this is merely a lie. Even in 1982 we had far more human fossil material than admitted by creationists even today. This is a variation on Creationist Claim CC030.

Michael Snyder, "44 Reasons Why Evolution Is Just A Fairy Tale For Adults.” Exposing 1 - 12.

Creationist frauds and lies regarding the sciences have a characteristic pattern similar to other forms of science denial. I recommend reading a NewsWeek article recently published, Can You Inoculate Against Science Denial? By John Cook The following graphic gives a rough outline of how science denial follows common patterns whether employed by creationists, anti-vaccination loons, or climate change deniers.

Mr. Michael Snyder is a lawyer, and like too many lawyers he is not shy about lying if it will make him money. He has already scored on the denier’s hit list by falsely presenting himself as an expert on biology, paleontology, geology, and anthropology. His not an expert in any of those sciences. He is not even a poor student. His “44 Reasons Why Evolution Is Just A Fairy Tale For Adults” is a promotion for his book, and a click-bait advertising website. (I won’t link to it). His “44 Reasons” are entirely false. Worse, none are original and it seems conclusive that Mr. Snyder is merely plagiarizing other creationists.

As we will see below, these 44 falsehoods are a mix of refuted, or baseless assertions, quote mines, as well as just plain lies that follow the pattern mentioned above. For the quote mines, I always recommend the TalkOrigins “Quote Mine Project.” When the particular falsehood prompted by Mr. Snyder is a Quote Mine, I’ll generally just refer to the TalkOrigins exposure of his fraud. None are actually original to Mr. Snyder. Some have been repeated by creationists for decades in spite of the fact they are lies. It is also worth pointing out that most of these 44 have been already debunked from just two other easily available resources, the TalkOrigins An Index of Creationist Claims, and Dr. Douglas Theobald’s “29+ Evidences for Macroevolution The Scientific Case for Common Descent”

(Note added: I found another blog that debunked the first 9 of Mr. Snyder's falsehoods, written last February, 2014.)

Falsehood #1 "If the theory of evolution was true, we should have discovered millions upon millions of transitional fossils that show the development of one species into another species. Instead, we have zero.”

This is a lie. It is debunked by the resources I linked to above. It is false Claim CC200. We have museums and museum warehouses filled to the rafters with transitional fossils. One I have personally worked with was Gomphotaria pugnax, a transitional species between the bears, and the pinnipeds. The transitional fossils for the cetaceans are very well known showing the shift from land animals to fully aquatic. The most accessible general reader source is from the laboratory of Dr. J. G. M. Thewissen, also an excellent source on the evolution of Sirenians. The known transitional fossils fall into six families, Indocetidae, Pakicetidae, Ambulocetidae, Remingtonocetidae, Protocetidae, Dorudontidae, and Basilosauridae. The transitional fossils of the Sirenians are less well studied with only about fifty specimens. None the less, the broad outline connecting the elephants, hippos, and manatees is known. The early transitional fossils for the pinipeds are the least well known. The best fossil specimen in the world (over 90% complete) of the most likely common ancestor of the pinipeds, Gomphotaria pugnax, was discovered by one of my former students and is curated by a museum where I was a director. Gomphoria shows the fossil connection between the pinipeds and their ancient ancestor bears.

Lie #2 (Quote Mine) When Charles Darwin came up with his theory, he admitted that no transitional forms had been found at that time, but he believed that huge numbers certainly existed and would eventually be discovered…

“Lastly, looking not to any one time, but to all time, if my theory be true, numberless intermediate varieties, linking closely together all the species of the same group, must assuredly have existed. But, as by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?”

This is a “quote mine.” Quote mining is “the use of a (usually short) passage, taken from the work of an authority in some field, "which superficially appears to support one's position, but [from which] significant context is omitted and contrary evidence is conveniently ignored" (The TalkOrigin “Quote Mine Project.”) Darwin did pose the question of where would we find the fossils that confirmed his theory of common descent. He actually devoted a whole chapter to his geological study and wondered if the loss of geological fossils might have been so great that his “transitional” fossils could never be found. That was over 150 years ago. He should not have worried. We have more than adequately confirmed his theory. Here is a list of books written for non-specialists on the discovery of transitional fossils;

Prothero, Donald.
2007 "Evolution: What The Fossils Say and Why It Matters" Colombia University Press.

Shubin, Neal
2008 “Your Inner Fish” New York: Pantheon Books

Tattersall, Ian
1995 "The Fossil Trail" Oxford University Press


Ward, Peter Douglas
1992 “On Methuselah’s Trail: Living Fossils and the Great Extinctions” (New York: W. H. Freeman,).

Lie #3 (Quote Mine) “Even some of the most famous evolutionists in the world acknowledge the complete absence of transitional fossils in the fossil record. For example, Dr. Colin Patterson, former senior paleontologist of the British Museum of Natural History and author of “Evolution” once wrote the following…

“I fully agree with your comments about the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them …. I will lay it on the line – there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.”

This is Quote Mine # 56. It even has an extended debunking, Patterson Misquoted.

Flasehood #4 (A Quote Mine) Stephen Jay Gould, Professor of Geology and Paleontology at Harvard University, once wrote the following about the lack of transitional forms…

“The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution.”

This is merely TalkOrigins Quote Mine #50.

#5 (A Quote Mine) Evolutionist Stephen M. Stanley of Johns Hopkins University has also commented on the stunning lack of transitional forms in the fossil record…

“In fact, the fossil record does not convincingly document a single transition from one species to another.”

This is debunked at TalkOrigins Quote Mine #7.

Lie #6 If “evolution” was happening right now, there would be millions of creatures out there with partially developed features and organs. But instead there are none.

In fact there are “millions of creatures out there with partially developed features and organs.” Charles Darwin was most interested in the greatly modified organs that we see today called “vestigial” organs. He was unaware of amphibians without lungs, or fish with them. He did not know that the monotremes were mammals that still laid eggs. Mr. Snyder is either an ignorant lout who wants his followers to stay ignorant, or he is a con-man.

Lie #7 If the theory of evolution was true, we should not see a sudden explosion of fully formed complex life in the fossil record. Instead, that is precisely what we find.

This is simply another appeal to ignorance. This is perfect demonstration that Mr. Snyder has not made even a slight good faith effort to learn about evolution. This particular lie of his is refuted by the following books (These are written for professionals and are not the feel-good-trivial-lies familiar to creationists);

Erwin, Douglas H., James W. Valentine
2013 "The Cambrian Explosion: The Construction of Animal Diversity" New York: Roberts and Company Publishers

Valentine, James W.
2005 “On the Origin of Phyla” University of Chicago Press

Here are the facts in very simple terms. The origin of multicellular organisms was first found about 2.5 billion years ago. This was one billion years after the first fossil single cell organisms, and 1.3 billion years after the first geochemical evidence of life.

“Complex” organisms with specialized cells appeared over a billion years ago. Additional references to those above are;

Rosing, T. Minik
1999 “13C-Depleated Carbon Microparticles in >3700-Ma Sea-Floor Sedimentary rocks from West Greenland” Science 283 (5402): 674

Rosing, Minik T. and Robert Frei
2004 “U-rich Archaean sea-floor sediments from Greenland – indications of >3700 Ma oxygenic photosynthesis" Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 217 237-244

Schopf, J. William
1999 "Cradle of Life: The Discovery of Earth's Earliest Fossils" , Princeton University Press

#8 (Quote Mine) Paleontologist Mark Czarnecki, an evolutionist, once commented on the fact that complex life appears very suddenly in the fossil record…

“A major problem in proving the theory has been the fossil record; the imprints of vanished species preserved in the Earth’s geological formations. This record has never revealed traces of Darwin’s hypothetical intermediate variants – instead species appear and disappear abruptly, and this anomaly has fueled the creationist argument that each species was created by God.”

This is Quote Mine #26. It is just another of Mr. Snyder’s many lies.

#9 (Quote Mine) The sudden appearance of complex life in the fossil record is so undeniable that even Richard Dawkins has been forced to admit it…

“It is as though they [fossils] were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists. Both schools of thought (Punctuationists and Gradualists) despise so-called scientific creationists equally, and both agree that the major gaps are real, that they are true imperfections in the fossil record. The only alternative explanation of the sudden appearance of so many complex animal types in the Cambrian era is divine creation and both reject this alternative.”

This is Quote Mine #40

My advice to Mr. Snyder is to stop lying. 1 John 4:1. Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.

Lie #10 Nobody has ever observed macroevolution take place in the laboratory or in nature. In other words, nobody has ever observed one kind of creature turn into another kind of creature. The entire theory of evolution is based on blind faith.

This is actually two lies. First, I was a working scientist for 40 years. I know what I discovered, and I know the degree of severe criticism and review scientists hold each other to every day. I do not accept anything on “blind faith.” Scientists do not accept anything on “blind faith.” I do place a modicum of trust in my fellow scientists, but only that little bit. I trust them to fear what happens to a scientist caught lying. And the fact that it is a great career opportunity for a young scientist to expose the errors of a senior scientist leads me to trust that over time errors will be exposed and corrected. This contrasts science with religion. Religionists will brand (or burn, or stone to death) any deviations from dogma. This is on-going around the world even today.

The big lie is that we are not fully able to document the evolution of new species from older ones. I have compiled a list of dozens of published examples, The Emergence of New Species. For additional information about how Mr. Snyder has lied, see Dr. Douglas Theobald’s “29+ Evidences for Macroevolution The Scientific Case for Common Descent.”

#11 (Quote Mine) Evolutionist Jeffrey Schwartz, a professor of anthropology at the University of Pittsburgh, openly admits that “the formation of a new species, by any mechanism, has never been observed.”

This is Quote Mine # 53 slightly varied. In simple terms, Mr. Snyder is lying again. Worse, he has merely copied someone else lying.

The bigger lie is that we are not fully able to document the evolution of new species from older ones. I have compiled a list of dozens of published examples, The Emergence of New Species.

Lie #12 (Quote Mine) “Even evolutionist Stephen J. Gould of Harvard University has admitted that the record shows that species do not change. The following is how he put it during a lecture at Hobart & William Smith College…

“Every paleontologist knows that most species don’t change. That’s bothersome….brings terrible distress. ….They may get a little bigger or bumpier but they remain the same species and that’s not due to imperfection and gaps but stasis. And yet this remarkable stasis has generally been ignored as no data. If they don’t change, its not evolution so you don’t talk about it.”

This is a very odd “quote” as it has no text as a reference. It is claimed to be a “lecture” that Steven Gould was supposed to have given to Hobart & William Smith College in 1980. There is no text, or record of this so-called “lecture.” In the creationist’s alternate reality, this lecture was titled, “Is a New and General Theory of Evolution Emerging?” There is no independent documentation that such a lecture ever took place, or what might have been said. What is interesting is that there was a paper by Gould published by the journal Paleobiology in 1980 with the title that creationist sources give to the illusive ‘lecture.’ In that paper, Steve Gould never wrote anything near the faked “quote.” The 1980 paper was also the subject of Mr. Snyder's Falsehood #4 which was merely TalkOrigins Quote Mine #50.

“Is a New and General Theory of Evolution Emerging?” Stephen Jay Gould
Paleobiology Vol. 6, No. 1 (Winter, 1980), pp. 119-130

The "Scientific Method"

I was indulging in some creationist debating the other day. As usual, there was a bull creationist (also climate denier, and all-round right-wing loon). He triumphantly presented the following model of "the scientific method" demanding that it be applied to evolution.




This is a lot over simplified as a "model" of the scientific method, but it is found all over the internets. It is about appropriate for third grade. I'll expand it as it seems needed. But just for fun, let's see how Darwin did this.

"Ask a Question"

In Darwin's case, the question had already been asked 50 years earlier. The question was known as "the species problem." In the short form, the 1700s naturalists (pre-scientific biologists) realized that species were not fixed, they varied a lot, and there were many life forms that had existed than no longer existed. So the question was already asked, "How do we properly define a species to reflect the fact that they are changing, and can become extinct."

"Do Background 'research' "

I don't like the use of the word "research" at this step. A better phrase would be, "Do a Literature Search." There are hundreds of scientific journals published every day, and thousands of books published every year. Today you must ask if your question is a real one that has not already been long answered. Also, because there are actual careers in the sciences it has become a long process of professional education and training before anyone gets to propose and carry out a personal research project. I was lucky to have trained when a university undergraduate could still do independent work.

Darwin's education was quite remarkable as a preparation for his eventual career as a scientist. I sketched it out at "Notes on Charles Darwin’s Education."

The best part of Darwin's training was in Geology. However, his first scientific report was from research he did supervised by Dr. Robert Edmund Grant, who shortly after became Professor of comparative anatomy and zoology at London University (1827-1874). Grant referred in print to two of Darwin’s original discoveries made in 1826; that the so-called "ova of Flustra" were in fact larvæ of a parasitic worm in rock mussels (Mytilus), and that the little globular bodies which had been supposed to be the young state of Fucus loreus were the egg-cases of the worm-like Pontobdella muricata. Darwin had read papers on these observations to the student’s “Plinian Society” founded by Professor Robert Jameson.

An excellent biography was recently published, "Darwin's Sacred Cause" by Adrian Desmond, and James Moore (2009, University of Chicago Press).

"Construct a Hypothesis"

The obvious problem with this step is that hardly anyone knows what a "hypothesis" really is. I recently wrote up a short tutorial, "Scientific Fact, Theory, and Law." I learned from an undergraduate class in the philosophy of science. Our major reading was Karl Popper's "Logic of Scientific Discovery" published in English in 1959, and Carl Hempel's 1965 book, "Aspects of Scientific Explanation." I still have my copies.

But, Darwin's most famous notebook sketch is reproduced below. He drew it while aboard the HMS Beagle on a 5 year scientific, and navigation mission between December 1831 and October 1836. Here is Darwin's hypothesis for the solution of the "Species Problem."

"Test your hypothesis by conducting an experiment"

This is the most easily misunderstood step in the formula above. First, a properly constructed hypothesis must be a logical consequence of your theory. This must be a statement which is observable in principle, and it must be different from any hypothesis derived from alternate theories. For example, Theory #1 "Thunder is caused by Thor." Theory #2, "Thunder is sound generated by the supersonic expanding gasses ionized by the electrical and heat energy of lightening." If we merely watch lightening and listen to thunder, there is no data that select one theory over another. One of the first internationally celebrated American scientists was Benjamin Franklin. In 1750 he published a proposed experiment to test if lightening was electric. His discovery earned him an outstanding scientific reputation. He was elected a fellow of the Royal Society of Science in 1756. Since we know now that lightening was electricity and that sound was energy transmitted by air, the idea that lightening caused thunder is favored. The latter theory was not definitively established until 2003 by spectrographic studies of lightening. So, it is important to remember that a "hypothesis" and its testing can be built on the results of centuries of experiments, and observation.

The second difficulty of understanding the scientific method is the popular misconception of what is an "experiment." The easiest example to describe is from chemistry- mix two chemicals together and determine if they made a new product. You can repeat this thousands of times, and mostly you will get the same result each time. We do similar experiments in biology- increase or decrease the expression of a gene and see how this changes the function of a cell, organ, or animal. But, there is another form of "experiment" which is the repeated observation of a natural phenomena. This is the experimental method of astronomers who don't need to create stars in laboratories. They repeatedly look at the light, or other radiation from stars or planets and note any variation in position, or spectra. Geologists can study tectonic plates without needing to create a planet in their laboratories. They make repeated observations of the chemistry, mineralogy, and structure of rocks from specified locations and compare any variations to other study locations.

The variety and distribution of life on Earth is of much greater complexity than thunder and lightening. Charles Darwin wanted to explain these facts; life forms had existed in the past which no longer existed, life forms had existed that were very different from those found today, plants and animals geographically near to one another were more closely related even when they varied physically, plants and animals geographically distant from one another were less closely related even when they were similar physically. The most popularly recognized research work by Darwin was his five year journey around the world (1832 to 1836). Unless they have read Darwin's best selling book, "Voyage of the Beagle" (1839), most people don't realize that Darwin spent weeks and months at a time ashore conducting research on geology, and the biology of plants, animals and fossils. One of Darwin's first important publications was the 206 page book "The structure and distribution of coral reefs. Being the first part of the geology of the voyage of the Beagle, under the command of Capt. Fitzroy, R.N. during the years 1832 to 1836," (1842. London: Smith Elder and Co.). This was followed in 1844 by, "Geological observations on the volcanic islands visited during the voyage of H.M.S. Beagle, together with some brief notices of the geology of Australia and the Cape of Good Hope. Being the second part of the geology of the voyage of the Beagle, under the command of Capt. Fitzroy, R.N. during the years 1832 to 1836" (London: Smith Elder and Co.). In these works Darwin's explanation for the formation of coral atolls was presented which is still our modern understanding.

Many biological studies were also published (1838 to 1843) by other scholars with Darwin having provided the collected material, and their geological contexts. What will surprise most people is that once back home in England, Darwin undertook an 8 year intensive study of barnacles. From 1846 to final publication in 1854, Darwin wrote a total of 4 books, two on the modern species, and two on the fossil. While this work was seen as a distraction by Darwin's friend Thomas Huxley, Darwin was obviously testing his ideas about evolution by the systematic study of a globally distributed, and easily collected group of species. It should also be known that these studies are still highly regarded by professional specialists today.

So, from 1832 to 1854 Darwin was actively "conducting an experiment" in the proper sense of making systematic observations of nature.

"Analyze your data and draw a conclusion"

"Report your results (Was your hypothesis correct?)"

It is getting time to wrap this up. There are several plain mistakes in the "scientific method" model above and this is from either the practical approach favored by Thomas Kuhn's "Structure of Scientific Revolutions," or the abstract philosophical approaches of Popper, or Hempel. And it is contradicted by my 40 years of scientific work, and publication.

First, in a properly conducted research project, the result of your analysis is your conclusion. There should not be any large step between the results and your conclusion. For example, my most recent publication was last month. In it, I and my collaborator Prof. George E. Miller analyzed the elemental composition of clays, and pottery from archaeological sites, and river drainages in S. California using neutron activation analysis. These geochemical data were then subjected to statistical study used to match the ancient pottery to clays and minerals which identified the source materials used by pre-historic potters. The results were our conclusions. There was categorical evidence that the pottery had been manufactured at, or near the locations where it had been found. There was no evidence that this pottery had been traded in from distant locations. We had designed the project so that whatever the results were, we could state them as an either/or contrast.

Darwin's problem was much more complex. He in fact did need to organize his thoughts to present first the pattern of the biological data, and then how his theory of natural selection on inherited traits, produced new species following common descent, and extinctions. We know that he worked on the resulting publication between 1854 and 1858. What caused him to stop worrying at minor details was the letter he received from a fellow biologist, the young Alfred Russel Wallace on 18 June 1858. In that letter, Wallace sent a manuscript of a paper about evolution. Darwin saw that it was essentially the same ideas he had been working on for decades. As a result, the paper by Wallace, and one by Darwin were read at the London meeting of the Linnaean Society the following month. Darwin's "On the Origin of Species," was completed and published on 24 November 1859.

I am not an astrophysicist, but I don't need to be one.

I have my news feed tuned to show articles with any connection to evolution, creationism, science education, and a half-dozen other tags. In the Dec. 23, 2012 trawl there was this gem by the "Reverend" Michael Bresciani. A Google search failed to show any reason this guy should be revered for anything. He claims to be a Prophet of God Almighty, and has pages of prophecies. I read a few. As far as I can tell he is about as successful, and specific as the daily horoscopes on newspaper comic pages.

Judging from his, Christmas Speaks to the Evolutionist, this guy has a low high school reading ability. Or, he is possibly really smart, and has a huge scam working. His screed was reposted in a far-right on-line "journal."

The only "science" in this lump of creatocrap was a garbled remark,

The Big Bang theory recently took a big bang itself at the discovery of a galaxy that is almost all black holes according to scientists at the University of Texas in Austin. The discovery punches some serious black holes in the assumption that the universe developed spontaneously without outside or intelligent intervention.

This is only one of hundreds of new discoveries made by creation scientists in the last few decades that have loaded a preponderance of proof onto the side of intelligent design. So why aren’t evolutionists taking a look see?

The actual science was discussed Here: in the University of Texas press release. The original paper was published in Nature on the 28th of November this year, "An over-massive black hole in the compact lenticular galaxy NGC 1277." There was also a brief news item in the same issue.

The Creatocrap
"a galaxy that is almost all black holes"

The Facts
There is only one "Black Hole" in any known Galaxy. There is only one core Black Hole in galaxy NGC 1277, the subject of this idiots remarks (as if he knew it). *Clarification added March 16, 2013: There is only a single core black hole in elliptical galaxies like the Milky Way, or NGC 1277. Small black holes can form in super novas of very massive stars.

The Facts
There is no known galaxy that is "almost" all Black Holes. Even galaxy NGC 1277 which this fool is yammering about, has a Black Hole that is only 14% of the mass of the galaxy. Galaxy NGC 1277 is actually small, only 1/10th the size the Milky Way.

The Creatocrap
The discovery punches some serious black holes in the assumption that the universe developed spontaneously without outside or intelligent intervention.

The Facts
This discovery does not challenge any origin of the universe theories- it is about the evolution of galaxies. This observation cannot suggest any form of "intelligent intervention."

The Facts
It merely challenges a single idea about the ratio of Black Hole mass to galaxy mass, and how that related to the formation of new stars.

The Creatocrap
This is only one of hundreds of new discoveries made by creation scientists

The Facts
This was not a discovery made by "creation scientists." It isn't even that new. (See below)

Just a year ago, Nature also published a news item, "Record-breaking black holes fill a cosmic gap: Largest black holes ever discovered shed light on the early Universe" (06 December 2011). The original article was, "Two ten-billion-solar-mass black holes at the centers of giant elliptical galaxies" Nature
480, 215–218 (08 December 2011).

Deleted by the Kingman Arizona "Daily Miner"

I wrote a reply to the following creatocrap. It was deleted due to "excessive length."


Linda Athens Wednesday, December 19, 2012
Kingman Arizona "Daily Miner"

It is NOT a fact 99.9% of scientists believe in evolution. In fact, most good scientists believe in God. That is FACT.
*****************

Ms. Athens repeats a number of common creationist, and fundamentalist errors about science, faith, and history. I doubt that any of them are original with her, as they are easily found in creationist pamphlets. She makes an interesting misstatement claiming, "In fact, most good scientists believe in God." This was compounded because she prefaced it with the false assertion that significant numbers of scientists reject evolutionary theory in biology. (I'll ignore the trivial argument about 99.9% of anything. For the purpose of exposing Ms. Athens, 98.0%, or 69.99% are equally acceptable numbers).

We need to work backwards through this chain of errors. Her conclusion was that "good scientists believe in God." I reject that trivial falsehood that "good" can only be applied to a Christian, although Ms. Athens probably thinks so. In that case a "good" scientist is someone expert in, and professionally successful in science. The question of how these scientists think about the existence of gods, or a non-material immortal soul has been studied going back nearly a century. The following paragraph is closely adapted from Larson and Witham (1998).

James H. Leuba surveyed American scientists in 1914 regardering their belief, or non-belief in a personal god, and an immortal soul. 58% of 1,000 randomly selected US scientists expressed disbelief or doubt in the existence of God, and that this figure rose to near 70% among the 400 “greater” scientists within his sample. Leuba repeated his survey in somewhat different form 20 years later, and found that these percentages had increased to 67% and 85% (1933). Larson and Witham repeated Leuba’s 1914 survey in 1996 and found little change from 1914 for American scientists generally, with 60.7% expressing disbelief or doubt in the existence of gods. (Larson, E. J. & Witham, L. Nature 386, 435–436 1997).

Leuba had also identified "great scientists" as opposed to those merely employed in science. To try and match that population, Larson and Witman in 1998 surveyed members of the American National Academy of Sciences (NAS). The NAS is the most prestigious scientific organization in the United States. Established by Congress in 1863, membership is highly restricted. Larson and Witham found that, "Disbelief in God and immortality among NAS biological scientists was 65.2% and 69.0%, respectively, and among NAS physical scientists it was 79.0% and 76.3%. Most of the rest were agnostics on both issues, with few believers. We found the highest percentage of belief among NAS mathematicians (14.3% in God, 15.0% in immortality). Biological scientists had the lowest rate of belief (5.5% in God, 7.1% in immortality), with physicists and astronomers slightly higher (7.5% in God, 7.5% in immortality). Overall comparison figures for the 1914, 1933 and 1998 surveys appear in Table 1.

BELIEF IN PERSONAL GOD 1914 1933 1998

Personal belief 27.7 15 7.0
Personal disbelief 52.7 68 72.2
Doubt or agnosticism 20.9 17 20.8

BELIEF IN IMMORTALITY 1914 1933 1998

Personal belief 35.2 18 7.9
Personal disbelief 25.4 53 76.7
Doubt or agnosticism 43.7 29 23.3*

* There was a typographic error. The agnostic position is likely ~16%.

Edward J. Larson and Larry Witham: "Leading Scientists Still Reject God." Nature, 1998; 394, 313.

Leuba, J. H. The Belief in God and Immortality: A Psychological, Anthropological and Statistical Study (Sherman, French & Co., Boston, 1916).

The Augusta Chronicle

I made a few posts yesterday to the Augusta Chronicle following a published Letter to the Editor by a typically ignorant creationist.

As it happens, the Chronicle has a policy blocking anyone not subscribed to their paper from reading, or looking in anyway to more than 5 items per month.

As of last night, I cannot see- let alone reply to- anything on the Augusta Chronicle's discussion board.

Readers are welcome to leave any comments here that they care to make. Perhaps we could carry on the discussion.

Junk DNA, and Junk Creationism

(Heads up Feb. 24, 2013: There is a new paper "On the immortality of television sets: “function” in the human genome according to the evolution-free gospel of ENCODE," published in the "Genome Biology and Evolution" journal that does a total debunking of the absurd claims made by the ENCODE project).


The creationists, particularly the intelligent design breed, have been shouting that discovering some functions in "junk" DNA somehow proved their fantasy is correct. Discotute fellow Jon Wells even wrote a book about it, "The Myth Of Junk DNA."

Soon after the discovery of how DNA stored sequences used to replicate proteins there began a bidding war for research funds to specify the DNA sequences and identify their function. In the battle, non-coding sections were called "junk DNA" since there was no obvious function that could be intuitively connected with a particular gene. A protein coding sequence clearly had a function, even if what the protein did was unknown at the time. Since building a sequence data base was then extremely expensive (and boring), the argument against deciphering non-translated "Junk DNA" won out. But, the possible functionality of "Junk DNA" was raised in the late 1970s. The argument was simple: there was an evolutionary cost to making copies of useless DNA. Since this cost was being paid, the "Junk" must have a function. The human genome project was conceived after the discovery of polymerase chain reaction (PCR) in 1983. Many researchers were still objecting to spending scarce research money on non-coding sequences as late as 1989.

Some likely functions of this "junk" were discovered by geneticists in the late 1980s, reaching journal publications by the early 1990s. The development of automated sequencing machines around 2000 finally eliminated the last objections to sequencing "junk."

(See;
AD Riggs (1990) “Marsupials and Mechanisms of X-Chromosome Inactivation”.
Australian Journal of Zoology 37(3) 419 – 441 (Suggested that "junk DNA" would not be preserved without some function, identified control functions specifically as promoters of spreading).

J Brosius and S J Gould (1992) “On "genomenclature": a comprehensive (and respectful) taxonomy for pseudogenes and other "junk DNA"” PNAS November 15, vol. 89 no. 22 10706-10710 (They propose that “junk DNA” is evolutionarily significant by providing raw material for future functions, is implicitly the source for current gene functions, and preserves the evolutionary history of organisms. Received 1991).

Emile Zuckerkandl, 1992, “Revisiting junk DNA” Journal of Molecular Evolution Volume 34, Number 3 / March, 1992 (Received 1991) (Suggested that "junk DNA" would not be preserved without some function, speculated that there were control functions).

What did the creationists have? ... The best they can do is a 1998 article by William Dembski. In an article for the Christian magazine “First Things,” he noted the discovery of functionality by scientists (not by creationists) in portions of the human genome that had been considered as uninteresting “junk DNA” by many. Specifically, Dembski quotes Bodnar et al’s 1997 abstract from, “Deciphering the Language of the Genome.” To a competent reader, Dembski is defending creationism’s position from scientific advances by attempting to co-opt them.

Bodnar, JW, J Killian, M Nagle, S Ramchandani (1997) “Deciphering the Language of the Genome.” Journal of Theoretical Biology Vol 189, Issue 2, 21 November 1997 Pages 183-193).

Dembski, William A. (1998) “Science and Design” First Things 86 (October 1998): 21-27.

The ENCODE project began releasing reports with 30 articles published in the first week of September this year. They generated a great deal of excitement, and controversy. The first highly controversial topic was how they chose to define "functional" for DNA sequences. Basically, any segment of DNA that was transcribed by RNA was anointed as "functional." The directors of the project are already walking back from that claim. They weakly explained that the "public" might have been confused. Days later, a key project leader, Ewan Birney, Ph.D., was trying to justify using "80% functionality" in his press releases. His answer was to redefine "functional." In practical terms, "functional" became anything they could find that could bind somewhere. For what Birney admitted most people think of as "functional," the percentage falls hard to ~20%.

Here is a portion of his self commentary;.

Q. Ok, fair enough. But are you most comfortable with the 10% to 20% figure for the hard-core functional bases? Why emphasize the 80% figure in the abstract and press release?
A. (Sigh.) Indeed. Originally I pushed for using an “80% overall” figure and a “20% conservative floor” figure, since the 20% was extrapolated from the sampling. But putting two percentage-based numbers in the same breath/paragraph is asking a lot of your listener/reader – they need to understand why there is such a big difference between the two numbers, and that takes perhaps more explaining than most people have the patience for. We had to decide on a percentage, because that is easier to visualize, and we choose 80% because (a) it is inclusive of all the ENCODE experiments (and we did not want to leave any of the sub-projects out) and (b) 80% best coveys the difference between a genome made mostly of dead wood and one that is alive with activity. We refer also to “4 million switches”, and that represents the bound motifs and footprints.

We use the bigger number because it brings home the impact of this work to a much wider audience. But we are in fact using an accurate, well-defined figure when we say that 80% of the genome has specific biological activity.

http://genomeinformatician.blogspot.com ... ughts.html

The only thing holding back "the progress of genomic research" has been lack of money, and the religious-right blocking stem cell research.

Creatocrap from James Nienhuis, Article 1, part 2

Link to Part 1

Nearly all cultures surveyed by ethnographers have a creation myth. They have some common features. They delineate a "time" before the creation of humanity when the universe was populated by magical beings, and then some reason these gods decided to create humans. They give some explanation for death, for another example. When the creation took place is either left open (long long ago, etc.), or ignored altogether. The creation story in Genesis is of the latter type actually making no temporal references at all.

Humans need reliable freshwater. Nearly all humans live where there are rivers. Even in tropical regions, rivers and the bays at the mouths of rivers are preferred living places. We see the same thing in archaeological site locations. Nearly all Mesopotamian agricultural societies relied on irrigation following the major drying trend from about 6,000 years before present, to about 3,000 years B.P. There is an interesting geological correlation here, 6K YBP is about when the sea level raise from the end of the last major glaciations stabilized to current average pool levels. The Neolithic origin of agriculture was about 2,000 years before that. It seems obvious that as declining rainfall, and then declining river flow reduced available water for crops, irrigation was developed as a substitute. The oldest recorded creation myth from Sumeria, the Epic of Atrahasis, rationalized the creation of mankind as workers used by the gods to maintain their irrigation canals.

It is a simple, and obvious fact that even during long term droughts, rivers will flood eventually. To a Neolithic farmer the flood that washed away her crops, house, and perhaps most of her community was one that did destroy her whole world. To people who had no idea how large to world really was, the "whole world" was just a little larger than the distance they had walked. It should be obvious to the most naive observer that all cultures will have a flood story about the "big one" that destroyed the world. And if everyone had died there was nobody to tell the tale, so there will always be a hero protected by the gods.

Mr. Nienhuis spins the notion in the last of his first article that all the creation myths, and all the flood myths originated from the biblical account in Genesis 1-11. This isn't original. I suspect that as agricultural populations expanded these myths of floods, and gods, and paradises expanded. The declining nomads, and hunter and gatherer populations under physical and cultural assault, retreated to marginal habitats while replacing their old origin stories with those of the more powerful invaders. But, the Genesis flood stories were themselves derived from the Sumerian, and Babylonian myths we know today as the Epic of Atrahasis, and of Gilgamesh.

Mr. Nienhuis also ventures into the weirdness with unsupportable claims that Einstein's General Relativity, and "the deterioration rates of cosmological entities" are supports for a thousands of years old creation. He then scattered a slew of falsehoods about the "scientific support" for a global flood, lack of transitional fossils, and the "recent dispersion from the Mesopotamian region" of all humanity. We finally reach the end of his sermonette with his pitch to "READ MY BOOK." Always a classic. After all he presents "extremely compelling information" that "science is severely in error regarding earth and cosmological history."

Creatocrap from James Nienhuis, Article 1, part 1

I was pointed to the "scientific proofs" for young earth creationism published by a man called James I. Nienhuis, and his website "Genesis Veracity." Specifically, someone called "Apologia717" wrote,

"I have weighed the validity of genesisveracity.com against the more than 1000 + page biology or geology textbooks citing thousands of peer reviewed scientific papers and genesisveracity makes the most logical sense...."

Will you discuss with me???? After the debate I can turn an atheist into a believer? I pray that is my mission to further GODS Purpose...."

So, I proposed we take the creatocrap one article at a time. (This seems to be very similar to debunking Mrs. Chatman, but maybe a bit deeper pile). Here we start with Article #1: You Have Not Been Told the Whole Story.

Mr. Nienhuis has a real talent for the Gish Gallop method of debate. This is named for the famous creationist Duane Gish who could spout so many lies and half-truths in a single breath that his opponents were left dumfounded. Nienhuis adds the refinement of using far-right political buzzwords intended to play up his audience's prejudices. In the first sentence he highlights that, "The "elites" of various scientific communities," are not to be trusted because, well that they are "elites." In the fake populist far-right, only billionaires are to be trusted because they are not "elites." Just ask Mittens Romney.

His first assertion of a "fact" is, "However, the assumptions that are the "building blocks" of the derivational dating methods of the physical world are severely cracked. The "assumptions" that Mr. Nienhuis, and his YEC associates most object to are the actual facts which irrefutably demonstrated the Earth is 4.5 billion years old. These are the many radiometric dating methods. The single most important question is "Are Constants Constant?" which I answered at the linked post. The answer is yes they are constant, and have been constant for over six billion years.

Mr. Nienhuis continued, "Most of the scientists throughout human history have believed that the earth and universe are young." Aside from the fact that there have not been any scientists for most of human history, the Hindu tradition claims the cosmos is infinitely ancient. That tradition is older than the Bible by many centuries. In various other traditions there are cyclic creations, an example currently popular with the New Age folks is the Mayan creation myth. In the Sumerian, and other Mesopotamian traditions there was specific creation of the Earth, but from older material of unspecified age. Genesis is of course familiar to anyone likely to be reading this little article.

Mr. Nienhuis next makes several assertion (mostly wrong) in a sentence that will need to be broken down into its components. He wrote, "Only in the 1700's and 1800's did old-earth and universe theories become popular, "thanks" to Lyell, Darwin, Hutton, and Marx, among others.

Before addressing the historical failures of this claim, I want to highlight the political manipulation that is the hallmark of Nienhuis. He mentions (Charles) Lyell (1797-1875), (Charles) Darwin (1809-1882), (James) Hutton (1726-1797), and (Karl) Marx (1818–1883) as proponents of an ancient Earth. Only three of these men were contributors to geology. The only possible reason to mention Karl Marx in this context is to trigger far-right hostility to communists. Marx had nothing what so ever to say regarding the age of the earth, or any other topic in geology. When he wrote about miners, he was totally uninterested in what happened geologically in the mines.

The notion that the Earth could not possibly be anywhere near the 6,000 years old computed by James Ussher in 1650 was not popular until the 20th century. One might think that with the prolific young earth creationists, it is not popular even now. But, popularity is not a scientific proof of anything. Among informed scientists, the knowledge that the Earth was ancient preceded evolutionary biology by over a century, and was not first proposed by atheists. However, prior to the geological discoveries of Smith, and Hutton in the late 1700s, scientists were too afraid of religious persecution to publish their conclusions. The earliest non-biblical idea of the age of the Earth seems to have come from Benoit de Maillet (1656-1738). His ideas were only published posthumously in 1748. Both Newton, and von Leibniz thought that the Earth's original state was molten and both offered ideas of how the Earth's surface could have been molded in a plastic state. Neither men, in spite of their public renown dared publish any non-biblical estimate of the age of the Earth. The first scientist to publicly dispute any biblical age calculations while still living was Comte de Buffon (1707-1788). His experiments on the cooling time of iron spheres allowed him to conclude the Earth must have had at least 74,832 years to cool. In private papers not published until many years after his death, he expressed the thought that the actual age could be as high as 3 billion years. For other early attempts to find extra-biblical estimates of the age of the Earth see; Dr. G. Brent Dalrymple, "The Age of the Earth" (1991 Stanford University Press).

Darwin was first regarded as a geologist, and his proposed mechanism for the formation of pacific ocean coral atolls is still recognized today as the correct one. But, it was the discoveries of Hutton, and William Smith (1749-1817) that truly established geology as a science. Smith showed that geological strata were deposited sequentially, and that the fossils in sedimentary strata were temporally ordered. Hutton is best known for his demonstrations that the same physical forces acting today could account for the entire geological record.

Charles Lyell is still best known for his three volume text, Principles of Geology published between 1830 and 1833. It was Darwin's college professor Sedgwick who sent him off on the HMS Beagle with the first volume of Lyell’s "Principles," which Darwin said, “Allowed me to see with the eyes of Hutton.” Darwin cared little about the age of the Earth. When Lord Kelvin insisted that the Earth was no more than 100 million years old, Darwin accepted this, although he had privately speculated it was much older. It didn't matter to him how long evolution had taken- it had happened in what ever time was available. (Additional materials on Darwin's education are available, Here.

Link to Part 2