Physicist Nathan_Aviezer has recently replied to a critical review of his work on creationism written 13 years ago by Mark Perakh.
Perakh devoted a page or two to the "paradox of the origin of life" as proposed by Aviezer. Specifically, he quoted Aviezer "...the(sic) life could not develop from inanimate matter because inanimate matter contains neither proteins nor nucleic acids." In his reply to Perakh, Aviezer reiterates this "paradox" writing, "My second example concerns the chicken-and-egg paradox relating to the origin of life. I explained (p. 68, In the Beginning) that all living cells contain both nucleic acids and proteins and that life is quite impossible without both. The paradox lies in the fact that proteins are produced only by nucleic acids and that nucleic acids can exist only in the presence of proteins. Since neither molecule can exist without the other, there is a paradox: how did nucleic acids and proteins come into existence? This paradox is often compared to the famous “chicken-and-egg paradox.” Since chicken eggs come only from chickens and chickens come only from chicken eggs, how did chickens and chicken eggs come into existence?"
Aviezer insisted his superficial treatment of the origin of life was drawn from "leading scientists" (emphasis in the original). His cited experts were David G. Smith, editor-in-chief of The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Earth Sciences (1981), Professor Frank Shu of the University of California, and Professor Jean Audouze, General Editor of "The Cambridge Atlas of Astronomy" (1982). Aviezer then hides behind these "authorities" accusing Perakh of "calling “absurd” the discussion of respected men of science." This is a fraud that should be addressed prior to exploding Aviezer's scientific claims about the origin of life.
I have found over the years that creationists discussing OOL have no idea at all of the available literature. Aviezer is no exception. His citation of the 30 year old work edited by David G. Smith is unimpressive. Further, a literature search shows no original work by DG Smith on the topic. I found the selection of Aviezer's remaining experts rather amusing as like Aviezer and Perakh, they are physicists. Physicists are the smartest of all scientists, and are experts at all things. Just ask Aviezer. (Surgeons have a similarly high opinion of themselves). Frank Shu, a theoretical physicist at Cal Berkeley has a distinguished career spanning over 40 years. But looking at his major interests, such as "SELF-SIMILAR COLLAPSE OF ISOTHERMAL SPHERES AND STAR FORMATION" (1977), or "Planetesimal Formation by Gravitational Instability" (2002), I find nothing on the origin of life. He also conducted research on the formation of chondrites, which in a very abstract way could have relevance to OOL. His 30 year old undergraduate book, "The Physical Universe: An Introduction to Astronomy" (1982) did have a short chapter on origin of life research. And as this was the work cited by Aviezer, we can understand his lack of familiarity with OOL research.
Jean Audouze specialized in stellar nucleosynthesis, the origin of elements heavier than lithium. See for example his, "The First Generation of Stars: First Steps toward Chemical Evolution of Galaxies" 1995. This is at least of some interest to OOL as we need heavy elements to exist as a precursor to any life form. But, it has nothing relevant to any modern study of OOL, or biological evolution.
So, Alviezer lacking any knowledge about origin of life research makes some assertions that insurmountable problems "prove" the existence of the supernatural, and the literal interpretations of various (but not all) biblical texts. A brief review of some recent research debunking Aviezer's claims follows.
The 1970s discovery of ribozymes, small RNAs that are catalytic, a nucleic acid enzyme, resulted in the "RNA world" hypothesis. This proposed that prebiotic RNAs were both metabolic, and a template of molecular memory. Leslie Orgel in 2004 was doubtful about any straight forward solutions, in spite of noting, “The demonstration that ribosomal peptide synthesis is a ribozyme-catalyzed reaction makes it almost certain that there was once an RNA World.” For an early demonstration of spontaneous hypercycles directly related to OOL, see Lee, et al (1997). An exciting RNA example published in 2009 was "Self-sustained replication of an RNA enzyme" (Lincoln et al).
Powner et al (2009) have demonstrated that simple chemical stock when reacted under realistic prebiotic conditions will produce ample activated ribonucleotides. They allowed readily available minerals to react with the organics, in this case the key feature was inorganic phosphorus added to the reaction. The key feature of Powner et al is that they used a more prebiotically natural mixture of organic and inorganic chemistry. This eliminates Aviezer's insistence that only living systems can produce nucleotides. (Actually, his "vitalism" idea was dispensed with by Wöhler in 1828).
Creationists also insist that RNAs must be "highly complex." This "complexity" notion is the core concept of the Intelligent Design creationist argument, and is operationalized as having an exact sequence that cannot have happened randomly. Just two papers are adequate to dismiss this argument; “Isolation of new ribozymes from a large pool of random sequences” and “Structurally complex and highly active RNA ligases derived from random RNA sequences." These papers also expose the foolishness of creationist’s calculations of “probabilities” for the origin of life such as used by Aviezer, and Intelligent Design creationists William Dembski, and Stephen Meyer. We are told by creationists that RNAs must be large to be active. This was known to be false over 13 years ago with the publication of, “A small catalytic RNA motif with Diels-Alderase activity.” It was further refuted two years ago by, “Multiple translational products from a five-nucleotide ribozyme.” We were told by creationists that many nucleotides, in complex patterns were necessary for the origin of life. This was debunked a decade ago by, "A ribozyme composed of only two different nucleotides." However, we can have spontaneous complexity too, as shown by Derr et al (2012).
Ribozymes, can be combined with equally natural lipid vesicles such as those studied by David Deamer of the University of California since the mid 1980s. He found meteoric amphipilic compounds which spontaneously form vesicles similar to phospholipid membranes. This research was reviewed in Deamer et al (2002), and Deamer (2011). Ribozymes, combined with equally natural lipid vesicles are extremely close to life, if in fact not "living" in the modern sense of complex cells. They would be "living" in the sense of a sustainable molecular system capable of Darwinian evolution. There are two major events necessary for the early evolution of modern cells; the shift to DNA as the principle cellular "memory," and the transition to amino acid enzymes rather than ribozymes. This goes well beyond the scope of this comment, but readers might be interested in Trifonov 2004, and Woese 2002.
For additional information on OOL research, see my "Short Outline of the Origin of Life.
Bartel, DP, JW Szostak,
1993 “Isolation of new ribozymes from a large pool of random sequences” Science 10 September 1993: Vol. 261 no. 5127 pp. 1411-1418
DOI: 10.1126/science.7690155
Burckhard Seelig and Andres Jgschke
1999 “A small catalytic RNA motif with Diels-Alderase activity” Chemistry & Biology Vol 6 No 3
Deamer, David W., JASON P. DWORKIN, SCOTT A. SANDFORD, MAX P. BERNSTEIN, and LOUIS J. ALLAMANDOLA
2002 “The First Cell Membrane” ASTROBIOLOGY Volume 2, Number 4, 371-381
Derr, Julien, Michael L. Manapat, Sudha Rajamani, Kevin Leu, Ramon Xulvi-Brunet, Isaac Joseph, Martin A. Nowak, Irene A. Chen
2012 “Prebiotically plausible mechanisms increase compositional diversity of nucleic acid sequences” Nucl. Acids Res. (2012) doi: 10.1093/nar/gks065
Ekland, EH, JW Szostak, and DP Bartel
1995 "Structurally complex and highly active RNA ligases derived from random RNA sequences" Science 21 July 1995: Vol. 269. no. 5222, pp. 364 - 370
Lee DH, Severin K, Yokobayashi Y, and Ghadiri MR,
1997 “Emergence of symbiosis in peptide self-replication through a hypercyclic network.” Nature, 390: 591-4
Lincoln et al.
2009 Self-Sustained Replication of an RNA Enzyme. Science, Jan 8, 2009 Vol. 323 no. 5918 pp 1229-1232; DOI: 10.1126/science.1167856
Orgel LE.
2004 “Prebiotic chemistry and the origin of the RNA world” Crit Rev Biochem Mol Biol. Mar-Apr; 39(2):99-123. DOI: 10.1080/10409230490460765
Powner, Matthew W., Be´atrice Gerland & John D. Sutherland
2009 “Synthesis of activated pyrimidine ribonucleotides in prebiotically plausible conditions” Nature Vol; 459, 239-242 doi:10.1038/nature08013102.
Reader, J. S. and G. F. Joyce
2002 "A ribozyme composed of only two different nucleotides." Nature vol 420, pp 841-844.
Trifonov, Edward N.
2004 "The Triplet Code From First Principles" Journal of Biomolecular Structure &
Dynamics, ISSN 0739-1102 Volume 22, Issue Number 1, (2004)
Turk, Rebecca M., Natayliya V. Chumachenko, Michael Yarus
2010 “Multiple translational products from a five-nucleotide ribozyme” PNAS vol. 107 no. 10 4585-4589
Woese, Carl
2002 “On the evolution of Cells” PNAS Vol. 99 13:8742-8747, June 25
Wöhler, F.
1828 ON THE ARTIFICIAL PRODUCTION OF UREA
Annalen der Physik und Chemie, 88, Leipzig
Friday, July 27, 2012
Saturday, July 21, 2012
Rabbi Adam Jacobs, July 2012 in Algemeiner
As of Sunday the 22, Algemeiner has blocked the rest of my comments from appearing.
After about 16 hours, this post was finally seen. There was typically stupid reply which I appended below with my response.
I judge the quality of someone's thinking partly by how well they can handle the simple facts they use to build their argument. These minor features, rather than being trivial reflect the care and grounding of an argument. Adam Jacobs stumbles at the starting line.
With the title, Intelligent Design In Language," my BS detector was in high from the start. When Jacobs wrote, "Isaac Mozeson, a Ph.D. in linguistics from NYU," my first thought was, "If he was From NYY, Where did he go?" A simple Google check revealed that Dr. Mozeson A) never received a doctorate in linguistics, B) he never held an academic appointment in linguistics, C) he never published in a professional linguistics journal. He is a promoter of biblical literalism, and claims to have "discovered" that all human languages derive from what he has variously termed Hebrew, biblical Hebrew, proto-Hebrew, pre-Hebrew, and most recently "Edenic." For a direct example of his thinking see, "COULD PRE-HEBREW BE THE SAFA AHAT OF GENESIS 11:1 ?"
In that essay, the core failure of Mozeson's reasoning is exposed- he assumes from biblical arguments that all languages, and all humanity originated as presented in Genesis. Any counter evidence is to be disregarded as the result of magical intervention given in Gen. 11:6, 9.
But, lets return to Rabbi Jacobs. He wrote, "Ever wonder where the name gopher came from? No one seems to know, but we do know the quality of the creature – he’s a digger, and as it happens, the Edenic word for digging is “khofer.” This raised some serious issues about Jacobs' education. I should have thought a Rabbi should know that "khofer" does not mean "to dig." I had supposed that a Rabbi would know the Hebrew verb pronounced "ko fer" כפר in the Bible, eg the Leningrad Codex, meant "to cover" (see Gen. 6:14). But, let's leave Hebrew for the moment. The third gross error by Jacobs is that "No one seems to know (the origin of the name gopher given in North America to small burrowing rodents). This showed that Rabbi Jacobs was at best very lazy, too lazy to use the Oxford English Dictionary, or the Webster's Unabridged. (The origin of this particular use of the phoneme "go fer" comes from the French word for "honeycomb" first used in English for a fried bread now popularly called a "waffle." Early Francophone settlers called the intricate shallow burrows made by Geomys sp., and Thomomys sp. "gophers."
Three strikes. Yer out!
Added July 22, 2012
Aharon Ben David
July 22, 2012
12:09 am
I might suggest that you judge the quality of an argument, by the argument (and not by the relatively extraneous points you take issue with). Whatever Mozeson assumes and whatever his degree do not have any direct impact on the quality of the argument presented here.
You have, therefore, only offered one potentially valuable critique re: the word Gopher. “Khofer” does however mean dig (chet, pey, reish)as I just checked in the Reuben Alcalay dictionary. The French waffle connection seems like a stretch to me. Khofer/digger seems much more direct and accurate.
Reply, so far blocked by Algemeiner;
Aharon Ben David, Your comment is a perfect example of why those uneducated in linguistics should not attempt linguistic analysis. My point regarding the Isaac Mozeson's literature degree was that this Rabbi Adam Jacobs is incapable of correctly making even minor points of fact.
This was not your only error.
The Reuben Alcalay dictionary was intentionally limited to the modern Hebrew language decided upon by the Hebrew Language Academy, plus new words invented by the Hebrew language popular press principally from Israel in just the last 60 years. It is absurd to claim that this dictionary is of help understanding 3 to 4 thousand year old lexicons. It is this arrogant ignorance that is central to Isaac Mozeson's effort.
Read this out loud;
He was a janglere and a goliardeys,
And that was moost of synne and harlotries.
Wel koude he stelen corn, and tollen thries;
And yet he hadde a thombe of gold, pardee.
A whit cote and a blew hood wered he.
A baggepipe wel koude he blowe and sowne,
And therwithal he broghte us out of towne.
That is in English a mere 600 years ago. Mozeson claims to have reconstructed a proto-Hebrew he calls "Edenic" that is the mother tongue of all human language well over 10,000 years old. My specific example of this incompetence, "ko fer," was selected by Rabbi Jacobs. He made the error that an early biblical attested meaning of "כפר" was "digging" and that this was in anyway related to the modern English meaning of "Gopher" referring to members of the genus Thomomys. For the truthful derivation of this in English, I directed you to the Oxford English Dictionary, or Webster's Unabridged. You obviously ignored the obvious. As for the actual biblical meaning of "כפר" you should start with the older bits of the Torah. And if you do, you will find that "dig" isn't in the ancient biblical lexicon.
After about 16 hours, this post was finally seen. There was typically stupid reply which I appended below with my response.
I judge the quality of someone's thinking partly by how well they can handle the simple facts they use to build their argument. These minor features, rather than being trivial reflect the care and grounding of an argument. Adam Jacobs stumbles at the starting line.
With the title, Intelligent Design In Language," my BS detector was in high from the start. When Jacobs wrote, "Isaac Mozeson, a Ph.D. in linguistics from NYU," my first thought was, "If he was From NYY, Where did he go?" A simple Google check revealed that Dr. Mozeson A) never received a doctorate in linguistics, B) he never held an academic appointment in linguistics, C) he never published in a professional linguistics journal. He is a promoter of biblical literalism, and claims to have "discovered" that all human languages derive from what he has variously termed Hebrew, biblical Hebrew, proto-Hebrew, pre-Hebrew, and most recently "Edenic." For a direct example of his thinking see, "COULD PRE-HEBREW BE THE SAFA AHAT OF GENESIS 11:1 ?"
In that essay, the core failure of Mozeson's reasoning is exposed- he assumes from biblical arguments that all languages, and all humanity originated as presented in Genesis. Any counter evidence is to be disregarded as the result of magical intervention given in Gen. 11:6, 9.
But, lets return to Rabbi Jacobs. He wrote, "Ever wonder where the name gopher came from? No one seems to know, but we do know the quality of the creature – he’s a digger, and as it happens, the Edenic word for digging is “khofer.” This raised some serious issues about Jacobs' education. I should have thought a Rabbi should know that "khofer" does not mean "to dig." I had supposed that a Rabbi would know the Hebrew verb pronounced "ko fer" כפר in the Bible, eg the Leningrad Codex, meant "to cover" (see Gen. 6:14). But, let's leave Hebrew for the moment. The third gross error by Jacobs is that "No one seems to know (the origin of the name gopher given in North America to small burrowing rodents). This showed that Rabbi Jacobs was at best very lazy, too lazy to use the Oxford English Dictionary, or the Webster's Unabridged. (The origin of this particular use of the phoneme "go fer" comes from the French word for "honeycomb" first used in English for a fried bread now popularly called a "waffle." Early Francophone settlers called the intricate shallow burrows made by Geomys sp., and Thomomys sp. "gophers."
Three strikes. Yer out!
Added July 22, 2012
Aharon Ben David
July 22, 2012
12:09 am
I might suggest that you judge the quality of an argument, by the argument (and not by the relatively extraneous points you take issue with). Whatever Mozeson assumes and whatever his degree do not have any direct impact on the quality of the argument presented here.
You have, therefore, only offered one potentially valuable critique re: the word Gopher. “Khofer” does however mean dig (chet, pey, reish)as I just checked in the Reuben Alcalay dictionary. The French waffle connection seems like a stretch to me. Khofer/digger seems much more direct and accurate.
Reply, so far blocked by Algemeiner;
Aharon Ben David, Your comment is a perfect example of why those uneducated in linguistics should not attempt linguistic analysis. My point regarding the Isaac Mozeson's literature degree was that this Rabbi Adam Jacobs is incapable of correctly making even minor points of fact.
This was not your only error.
The Reuben Alcalay dictionary was intentionally limited to the modern Hebrew language decided upon by the Hebrew Language Academy, plus new words invented by the Hebrew language popular press principally from Israel in just the last 60 years. It is absurd to claim that this dictionary is of help understanding 3 to 4 thousand year old lexicons. It is this arrogant ignorance that is central to Isaac Mozeson's effort.
Read this out loud;
He was a janglere and a goliardeys,
And that was moost of synne and harlotries.
Wel koude he stelen corn, and tollen thries;
And yet he hadde a thombe of gold, pardee.
A whit cote and a blew hood wered he.
A baggepipe wel koude he blowe and sowne,
And therwithal he broghte us out of towne.
That is in English a mere 600 years ago. Mozeson claims to have reconstructed a proto-Hebrew he calls "Edenic" that is the mother tongue of all human language well over 10,000 years old. My specific example of this incompetence, "ko fer," was selected by Rabbi Jacobs. He made the error that an early biblical attested meaning of "כפר" was "digging" and that this was in anyway related to the modern English meaning of "Gopher" referring to members of the genus Thomomys. For the truthful derivation of this in English, I directed you to the Oxford English Dictionary, or Webster's Unabridged. You obviously ignored the obvious. As for the actual biblical meaning of "כפר" you should start with the older bits of the Torah. And if you do, you will find that "dig" isn't in the ancient biblical lexicon.
Sunday, July 15, 2012
I have rarely ever seen a worse mess
My news feeder came up with this the other day, "Darwin's Evolution theory obsolete?", hosted by "Allvoices" which calls itself, "the world's premier platform for citizen journalism."
It is such a crow's nest of paranoid right-wing fanaticism, and creationist twaddle that I won't even begin to try and untangle it. I know that clicking on the page feeds a fraction of a penny to the lunatic who wrote it, but it is such a freak show that I posted the link anyway. There is probably something I should say about the quality of "information" on the internet, but it seems inadequate.
In other news, local fishing remains slow, and my attempts to make anything clear to creationists on The Nation's Creationism and education thread have come to naught.
It is such a crow's nest of paranoid right-wing fanaticism, and creationist twaddle that I won't even begin to try and untangle it. I know that clicking on the page feeds a fraction of a penny to the lunatic who wrote it, but it is such a freak show that I posted the link anyway. There is probably something I should say about the quality of "information" on the internet, but it seems inadequate.
In other news, local fishing remains slow, and my attempts to make anything clear to creationists on The Nation's Creationism and education thread have come to naught.
Tuesday, July 10, 2012
I found an excellent pro-science site
"Letters to Creationists"
I was serching around for material to use in a debunking of some bullshit about the Grand Canyon by Andrew Snelling. This was as good, or better, than what I would have done.
Friday, June 29, 2012
Just a brief up date, June 29.
The local near-shore fishing has been very dependent on the prevailing winds. For example, 9 days ago I had easily caught over 10 legal (over 12 inch) calico bass, and 3, +28 inch barracuda on a 5 hour trip. However, that afternoon the northwest winds kicked up, and shifted to WNW by Friday. They blew at ~15 knots until Sunday. The water temperature dropped, and the fishing dropped with it. Yesterday the wind shifted to the South and the shallows ( <7 fathoms) warmed to ~65 F. I still had to work to scratch 3 legal bass. The Joker in the Pack is that there are some really good size (20-30 lb) yellowtail, and halibut that moved in, are still lurking in the kelp beds.
My article for the Baylor University Medical Center Proceedings intended to rebut the creationist stupidity of Joe Kuhn was a "go" on Friday May 25th, and killed on the following Monday. Somebody got to somebody over the weekend. One of the BS criticisms was I had posted a few early comments to this blog. But, never start a large project without a backup plan. The National Center for Science Education will carry the article in their Reports from the NCSE. There are some rather time wasting changes to the overall format. More significantly, I don't need to "play nice" with the Baylor editors any more about why they published Kuhn's piece of crap in the first place.
I have distracted myself with some newspaper rants against creationists. I have particularly had fun with the comments on a Nation article, "What's the Matter With Creationism," and more recently comments following a creationist Letter to the Editor. Each had some points of interest.
Mrs. Chatman has posted more cretocrap, but I cannot be bothered until the Kuhn article is reformatted, and revised.
Mrs. Chatman has posted more cretocrap, but I cannot be bothered until the Kuhn article is reformatted, and revised.
Sunday, June 24, 2012
I don't want to get sucked into the Global Warming issue
But, it could happen. I have read a lot about methane chemistry since it is realted to the origin of life in the late Hadean.
I just wrote what was to be a short comment on the marine retention, and recyling of carbon. It was kicked out by the Real Climate nannybot as "spam." While Real Climate seems to me to be one of the best climate blogs, their nannybot is a piece of shit.
I'll just post here, and use a link at Real Climate.
Several comments in this thread have been related to ocean retention of volatiles, and ocean mixing times. In coastal archaeology we have a problem radiocarbon dating materials derived from marine carbon. Marine upwelling brings sequestered carbon in the form of carbonate, and CO2 which is incorporated into littoral fish and especially mollusk shells. We can even see a difference in contemporaneous shells from brackish water and open shore habitats. For example, Mytilus and Chione can significantly vary. When contrasted with softwood charcoal, or collagen from terrestrial animals, upwelling carbon from southern California is about 450 RC years old.
Ocean/atmospheric equilibrium of carbon 14 generated in atmospheric atomic weapons tests demonstrated a rapid mixing of surface waters of just a few years. This gives an estimate of the mixing, and retention time for the Humboldt, and California currents. Marine releases of methane might leave sooner as CO2, and carbonate are obviously heavier, and could have even undergone repeated cycles of consumption and decay.
The potential significance of marine methane releases is obviously moderated by carbon retention times. A fairly simple experiment would be to measure the C14 in modern open-coast organisms (eg Mytilus sp.), and grasses, or non-riparian soft-wood species just slightly in-land.
I just wrote what was to be a short comment on the marine retention, and recyling of carbon. It was kicked out by the Real Climate nannybot as "spam." While Real Climate seems to me to be one of the best climate blogs, their nannybot is a piece of shit.
I'll just post here, and use a link at Real Climate.
Several comments in this thread have been related to ocean retention of volatiles, and ocean mixing times. In coastal archaeology we have a problem radiocarbon dating materials derived from marine carbon. Marine upwelling brings sequestered carbon in the form of carbonate, and CO2 which is incorporated into littoral fish and especially mollusk shells. We can even see a difference in contemporaneous shells from brackish water and open shore habitats. For example, Mytilus and Chione can significantly vary. When contrasted with softwood charcoal, or collagen from terrestrial animals, upwelling carbon from southern California is about 450 RC years old.
Ocean/atmospheric equilibrium of carbon 14 generated in atmospheric atomic weapons tests demonstrated a rapid mixing of surface waters of just a few years. This gives an estimate of the mixing, and retention time for the Humboldt, and California currents. Marine releases of methane might leave sooner as CO2, and carbonate are obviously heavier, and could have even undergone repeated cycles of consumption and decay.
The potential significance of marine methane releases is obviously moderated by carbon retention times. A fairly simple experiment would be to measure the C14 in modern open-coast organisms (eg Mytilus sp.), and grasses, or non-riparian soft-wood species just slightly in-land.
Friday, June 22, 2012
We're doomed- Doomed I say!!!111!!
Or so says Guy McPherson, professor emeritus in the Departments of Natural Resources, and Ecology & Evolutionary Biology at the University of Arizona. Actually, he said, We're Done.
For those not inclined to wander over to read his blog, he maintains that due to global climate change, humanity will be extinct. Soon. He predicts, " ... the near-term demise of Homo sapiens," adding that "I’d give us until 2020 at the latest." Personally, I cannot think of any professional biologist that I have had at least one beer with who thought we could sustain our current civilization for long. I am classically ambivalent. Is there an eminent breakthrough in nano-technology that will make energy "free," or chemosynthesis trivial? Will we soon design genes wholesale?
I doubt it. But, I'd like to be wrong.
While I agree the methane has hit the fan, I must point out that Prof. McPherson is wrong. And I am not being an optimist.
We are well and truly screwed. But, we have been here before. There have been several radical climate events in our human evolution as dire as the one we face. From genetic data, we know that humanity experienced at least one "recent" severe population bottleneck event about 70,000 years ago. Modern humans carry a small number of genes that were "salvaged"* from two Hominid populations, the Neanderthals, and the Denisovans which are now long extinct.
J. R. Stewart, B. Stringer
"Human Evolution Out of Africa: The Role of Refugia and Climate Change" Science 16 March 2012: Vol. 335 no. 6074 pp. 1317-1321
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/335/6074/1317.short
W. Amos, J. I. Hoffman
"Evidence that two main bottleneck events shaped modern human genetic diversity" Proc. R. Soc. B 7 January 2010 vol. 277 no. 1678 131-137
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/277/1678/131.full
There is the possibility that few species not currently domesticated will have a "favored" position on Earth. There will soon be hundreds of millions of humans in forced migration. They will encounter people already in place, and unwilling to share. There is an ethnographic study of how people behave under highly stressed conditions; Colin M. Turnbull's "The Mountain People." This is the advantage that an anthropologist, and archaeologist has over a biologist. We recognize that humans are very nasty, and tenacious.
PS: Someone missed my point. Hundreds of millions of people will be slamming into hundreds of millions of other people. They will slaughter each other. The chaos of war favors the spread of chaos, and disease. Additional hundreds of millions of more people will be killing each other just in reaction, plus hundreds of millions more will die from famine and disease. Humanity, in a genetic sense, will be just fine with a mere few hundred thousand survivors.
*Salvaged might mean kidnapped and raped.
"No evidence of Neandertal admixture in the mitochondrial genomes of early European modern humans and contemporary Europeans" AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY 146:242–252 (2011)
http://www2.webmatic.it/workO/s/113/pr-1539-file_it-Ghirotto%20AJPA.pdf
Post Script: One of Guy McPherson's blog fans wanted to know why I did not mention being a chemist in my blog profile. I was a paperboy, a janitor, and forklift driver too. I felt like focusing on my academic jobs for my blog profile.
Two good methane chemistry articles are;
R. J. Ciceron, R. S. Oreroland
1988 “BIOGEOCHEMICAL ASPECTS OF ATMOSPHERIC METHANE”
GLOBAL BIOGEOCHEMICAL CYCLES,VOL. 2, NO. 4, PAGES 299-327,
doi:10.1029/GB002i004p00299
http://www.agu.org/journals/gb/v002/i004/GB002i004p00299/GB002i004p00299.pdf
Donald J. Wuebbles, Katharine Hayhoe
2002 “Atmospheric methane and global change”
Earth-Science Reviews 57 177–210
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.173.3496&rep=rep1&type=pdf
For those not inclined to wander over to read his blog, he maintains that due to global climate change, humanity will be extinct. Soon. He predicts, " ... the near-term demise of Homo sapiens," adding that "I’d give us until 2020 at the latest." Personally, I cannot think of any professional biologist that I have had at least one beer with who thought we could sustain our current civilization for long. I am classically ambivalent. Is there an eminent breakthrough in nano-technology that will make energy "free," or chemosynthesis trivial? Will we soon design genes wholesale?
I doubt it. But, I'd like to be wrong.
While I agree the methane has hit the fan, I must point out that Prof. McPherson is wrong. And I am not being an optimist.
We are well and truly screwed. But, we have been here before. There have been several radical climate events in our human evolution as dire as the one we face. From genetic data, we know that humanity experienced at least one "recent" severe population bottleneck event about 70,000 years ago. Modern humans carry a small number of genes that were "salvaged"* from two Hominid populations, the Neanderthals, and the Denisovans which are now long extinct.
J. R. Stewart, B. Stringer
"Human Evolution Out of Africa: The Role of Refugia and Climate Change" Science 16 March 2012: Vol. 335 no. 6074 pp. 1317-1321
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/335/6074/1317.short
W. Amos, J. I. Hoffman
"Evidence that two main bottleneck events shaped modern human genetic diversity" Proc. R. Soc. B 7 January 2010 vol. 277 no. 1678 131-137
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/277/1678/131.full
There is the possibility that few species not currently domesticated will have a "favored" position on Earth. There will soon be hundreds of millions of humans in forced migration. They will encounter people already in place, and unwilling to share. There is an ethnographic study of how people behave under highly stressed conditions; Colin M. Turnbull's "The Mountain People." This is the advantage that an anthropologist, and archaeologist has over a biologist. We recognize that humans are very nasty, and tenacious.
PS: Someone missed my point. Hundreds of millions of people will be slamming into hundreds of millions of other people. They will slaughter each other. The chaos of war favors the spread of chaos, and disease. Additional hundreds of millions of more people will be killing each other just in reaction, plus hundreds of millions more will die from famine and disease. Humanity, in a genetic sense, will be just fine with a mere few hundred thousand survivors.
*Salvaged might mean kidnapped and raped.
"No evidence of Neandertal admixture in the mitochondrial genomes of early European modern humans and contemporary Europeans" AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY 146:242–252 (2011)
http://www2.webmatic.it/workO/s/113/pr-1539-file_it-Ghirotto%20AJPA.pdf
Post Script: One of Guy McPherson's blog fans wanted to know why I did not mention being a chemist in my blog profile. I was a paperboy, a janitor, and forklift driver too. I felt like focusing on my academic jobs for my blog profile.
Two good methane chemistry articles are;
R. J. Ciceron, R. S. Oreroland
1988 “BIOGEOCHEMICAL ASPECTS OF ATMOSPHERIC METHANE”
GLOBAL BIOGEOCHEMICAL CYCLES,VOL. 2, NO. 4, PAGES 299-327,
doi:10.1029/GB002i004p00299
http://www.agu.org/journals/gb/v002/i004/GB002i004p00299/GB002i004p00299.pdf
Donald J. Wuebbles, Katharine Hayhoe
2002 “Atmospheric methane and global change”
Earth-Science Reviews 57 177–210
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.173.3496&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Tuesday, June 12, 2012
On Reading a Graph
Long ago, I taught a course on statistics, and math modeling to medical students and faculty (the faculty refused to do their homework). One lecture set was on "how to read a graph." This is apparently still a mystery to many people.
In the Gallop poll data, the number of people who could be broadly called creationists were about 82% in 1982. This includes nearly anyone religious who thought that God either created Adam and Eve less than 10,000 years ago, or that God allowed/directed evolution to do the work. That year, only 9% accepted the fact of human evolution without any divine intervention. This left 9% undecided. The data are remarkably stable until 2000. Then, a trend lasting until today appeared. In 2001, about 3% of the "undecided" became acceptors of evolutionary biology regarding the origin of humanity. Was this a "post millennial" bounce for rationality? The number of creationists did not increase. From 2001 to 2006, the undecided fraction shifted another 1% to the evolution column. More significantly, from 2007 until today, there has been a decline in the percentage of creationists, and an increase in the number of Americans who agree that, "humans evolved, but that God had no part in the process." The number of "undecideds" dropped, but the deficit also went to the creationists, particularly those who believed that, "God created humans in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years." This was clarified in the 2008 data which showed a restoration of the "undecided" percentage, and continued decline in creationists.
In the most recent Gallop poll, 78% of respondents could be said to be creationists, at the extremely broad criteria used earlier, and 7% are undecided. A mere 1% (within polling error) of "evolutionists" has shifted to "undecided." The only striking observation is that the "creationists"- most loosely defined- have not increased! In fact, there is a 4% deficit from the ~82% which had been essentially stable from 1982 until 2007, and additional weakness since 2008. On the other hand, the ~6% increase in pro-science thinking seems stable.
The question then arises, "Should theistic evolutionists be lumped with the young earth creationists?" I'll argue the negative in a new post.
Sunday, June 10, 2012
Mrs. Chatman swings from the stars for a Big Bang.
Mrs. Chatman made a post asserting there were 6 "kinds" of evolution, and that the first 5 had no empirical support. Her exact words were, "It is all opinion, theory, and hypothesis from scientists who believe in evolution."
She has repeated a very common creationist lie. I have found it in Seventh Day Adventist tracts, creatocrap from the Institute for Creation Research, and in Jack Chick's "Big Daddy." So, I invested far too much effort writing a rebuttal.
Big Daddy Frame 10- Blackboard with 6 kinds of evolution
1. Cosmic Evolution - Big Bang makes hydrogen
2. Chemical Evolution - higher elements evolve
3. Planetary Evolution, i.e. evolution of stars and planets from gas
4. Organic Evolution - life from rocks
5. Macroevolution - changes between kinds of plants and animals
6. Microevolution - changes within kinds
1. Cosmic Evolution, which tries to explain the origin of time, space, and matter.
Creationists like to exploit the different meanings of the word “evolution” as seen in this “list of kinds of evolution.” And to be fair, there are scientists who use the word “evolution” to mean a process of transformation. Recently, Harvard University has used this sense of “evolution” to organize a brief science curriculum covering topics from the origin of the universe, to the origin of new biological species today. I find it amusing that they are unknowingly following a pattern laid down first by creationists. But, it does make it much easier to debunk the main lie told about these “kinds of evolution,” of course this is that there is a lack of evidence for these events to have occurred, and be still occurring today.
The first of Mrs. Chatman’s “kinds” was “Cosmic Evolution, which tries to explain the origin of time, space, and matter.” This is properly known as Cosmology. The Belgian priest, Monsignor Georges Henri Joseph Édouard Lemaître, was also an accomplished astronomer, and professor of physics. He proposed in 1927 that the Universe was expanding based on Einstein’s General Relativity, and then four years later that the Universe had had a discrete beginning. The direct observations by Edwin Hubble at the Mt. Wilson observatory lead to the discovery in 1929 that that Lemaître was in fact correct. So, the expanding universe and Big Bang origin of the universe has had direct observational support for over 80 years.
The data do not stop there. One implication of the Big Bang theory was that there must be a fading background “glow” which should be everywhere in the universe. Calculations by Ralph Alpher, Robert Herman, and George Gamow in 1948 indicated that this radiation should be in the microwave frequencies generated from an energy of about 3 degrees Kelvin. This was detected accidentally in 1965 by Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson of Bell Labs. A team of researchers at nearby Princeton University led by Robert Dicke realized what Penzias and Wilson had detected. The NASA Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) (launched in 2001) has completed a map of tiny temperature variations in this cosmic background which corresponds with the formation of the first galaxies in the universe. The project has also refined the age of the universe to 13.7 ± 0.13 billion years.
The third test of the Big Bang origin of the universe is the distribution, and abundances of atoms of different elements. I’ll leave this to a later comment. The trigger of the Big Bang is still under study. Two recent books which summarize our current understanding are;
Krauss, Lawrence
2012 “A Universe From Nothing” New York: Free Press
Susskind, Leonard
2005 "The Cosmic Landscape: String Theory and the Illusion of Intelligent Design" New York: Little and Brown Publishers
Helpful websites are;
https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/~ejchaisson/cosmic_evolution/docs/fr_1/fr_1_part.html
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/
2. Chemical evolution, which tries to explain the elements.
3. Stellar and planetary evolution, which tries to explain the universe.
Part 1.
The “kinds” of evolution under items 2, and 3 are convoluted in the minds of creationists everywhere. The questions, and answers are also complex because we have to refer back and forth between experimental laboratory results here on earth, and astronomical studies from the deepest reaches of space.
By knowing the age and background temperature of the Universe today, we can calculate the approximate temperature at the Big Bang. This was an extraordinary 10^30 degrees Kelvin. At that temperature normal matter, baryonic matter, cannot even exist and all the physical forces with the exception of gravity are mashed into a single unified force. As the universe expanded it cooled, and below 10^28 degrees Kelvin the first ordinary matter condensed, and the weak, strong, and electromagnetic forces began to separate. Atoms could not have existed yet, and didn’t emerge until the temperatures dropped to an average of around 10^6 degrees Kelvin, or about the temperature of the stars seen today. The cosmic microwave background radiation is a remnant of this era around 300 to 500 thousand years after the Big Bang. But long before this, neutrons and protons could exist, and to a limited extent interact forming nucleons.
So what were these first atomic nuclei, and how can we study them? In the 1920s, chemical elements were proven to be built from three subatomic particles, neutrons, protons and electrons. Mass is the main property of neutrons and protons, and electric charge is carried by protons (+) and electrons (-). The easiest of these particles to form, and therefore the first, is the neutron. Neutrons decay into a proton, an electron and a neutrino. The simplest atom is Hydrogen with just a proton and an electron. Adding a neutron generates Deuterium, an isotope of hydrogen. Smashing two protons together with a combined energy of about 10^7 degrees overcomes the electromagnetic force, and binds then together with the strong nuclear force creating Helium. This process, called nuclear fusion, is what powers nuclear bombs, and stars. It is easier to form helium by fusing two nuclei of deuterium than by bare protons, and makes helium isotopes with mass 3, and 4. Only tiny traces of Lithium (3 protons) could have been formed just after the Big Bang and before the first stars. The next heaviest nuclei are Beryllium (4 protons, with 3 to 6 neutrons). This could not form just by the addition of protons to existing nuclei because the extremely short half life of Be-8 blocks this route, and only extremely small amounts of Be-7, and Be-9 could have formed. So, the Big Bang theory predicts that about 75% of the early mass of the universe was hydrogen, just under 25% was helium, 0.01% deuterium, and less than a millionth of one percent lithium, and beryllium.
How have we tested all this? The nuclear physics is tested in accelerators. The next big results will be from the European CERN experiments since we Americans have dropped out of “big science.” The development of space telescopes coupled with spectrographs allows the direct measurement of the atomic composition of extremely distant stars, and interstellar gasses. We find that the proportion of atomic nuclei is exactly as predicted by Big Bang nucleosynthesis.
The CERN Large Hadron Collider will smash pairs of lead nucleons, each with an energy of 5.75 X 10^14 electron volts. The collision energies will be well over 10^20 eV. This is still well below the energies of the Big Bang, but it is expected to generate quark-gluon storms similar to the post-inflation period just before the emergence of the first neutrons.
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/bb_tests.html
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/bb_tests_ele.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_Hadron_Collider
2. Chemical evolution, which tries to explain the elements.
3. Stellar and planetary evolution, which tries to explain the universe.
Part 2.
The Big Bang creation of atoms was limited to 75% hydrogen, just under 25% helium, 0.01% deuterium, and tiny traces of lithium, and beryllium. The physical forces were all fixed, and the weakest and most profound force was gravity. It was gravity that controlled the next stage in atom building. As hydrogen, and helium were swept together by gravity the density, or pressure of the gas increased. This heats the gasses. The deeper the gravity well, the greater the pressure, and the greater the heating. Stars are masses of hydrogen and helium that have heated by gravitational collapse to temperatures high enough to trigger fusion. This starts at about 15 million degrees, or 1.3 thousand electron volts per nucleon resulting in the simplest fusion path of 3 hydrogen nuclei fusing into one helium. The larger the mass of gasses condensing, the faster the temperature raises and the sooner fusion begins. The heat released by hydrogen fusion is what powers a thermonuclear bomb. What keeps stars from exploding is their deep gravity well. But, the heat of fusion does act against gravity, stopping the increasing pressure from gravitational collapse.
The maximum temperature in the interior of a star depends on how much gas was available to collapse to build it. Basically, the larger the star the hotter the maximum core temperature. As the size and core temperature of a star increases, different fusion pathways from hydrogen to helium take over, and release even more energy as heat, and as neutrinos. But, there is no way to go simply from hydrogen to the heavy elements. I mentioned this earlier. What stops the reaction is the extreme instability of Berylium-8 which decays into helium in less than a trillionth of a second. This problem was solved theoretically by Fred Hoyle in the 1950s. He proposed that three helium nuclei (alpha particles) could fuse essentially instantly in the core of a large enough, and hot enough star to form the stable carbon-12 nucleon (6 protons and 6 neutrons). This “triple alpha” process was shown observationally/experimentally to occur in 1957 by William A. Fowler who received the 1983 Nobel Prize for this work. In spite of the fact that this reaction is rare even under the best of conditions, nearly all the carbon in the universe formed this way.
Once carbon is formed, other higher elements follow by the addition of more alpha particles, or protons. There are other pathways also opened once the Be-8 barrier is overcome, particularly the formation of elements by Beta decay which removes one proton from a heavier element converting it into a lighter one. As the concentration of heavier elements increased, they also undergo fusion reactions, for example two carbon-12 nuclei fuse to make either a Neon-20 + Helium, or a Sodium-23 + Hydrogen. These are called s-reactions because they are all slow.
But another roadblock appears due to the extreme stability of the iron nucleus. Elements formed with atomic mass higher than iron are less stable, and the end result is that iron cores begin to form in massive active stars. (There are still stars today a million times larger than the sun, and these were much more common in the early universe). There is no further nuclear synthesis in the iron core, and the star acquires a stratified structure with most of the active nuclear fusion happening away from the core. This is leading to the collapse of the star, and a Super Nova.
Experimental evidence:
C. W. Cook, W. A. Fowler, C. C. Lauritsen, and T. Lauritsen
1957 “B12, C12, and the Red Giants” Phys. Rev. 107, 508–515
I received my first Isotope Producer License when I was about 20 years old. I used thermal neutrons generated in a TRIGA Mark IV nuclear reactor to produce radioactive isotopes. Beta decay is accompanied by the emission of a gamma ray, and the energy of the radiation indicates the mass of the nucleus. This kind of research is called Neutron Activation Analysis. It was quite new back then.
Suggested reading;
Dickin, Alan P.
2000 “Radiogenic Isotope Geology” Cambridge University Press
Helpful websites;
http://www.astrophysicsspectator.com/topics/stars/FusionHydrogen.html
http://aether.lbl.gov/www/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Hoyle
http://www.onafarawayday.com/Radiogenic/Ch1/Ch1-1.htm
2. Chemical evolution, which tries to explain the elements.
3. Stellar and planetary evolution, which tries to explain the universe.
Part 3.
Rapid nucleosynthesis in Novas and Super Novas.
The origin of elements (nucleosynthesis) in Part 2 was limited by the stability of the iron nucleus which blocked the formation of heavier elements. The sequence of reactions in the s-process are hydrogen (H) transmutes (or evolves, if you insist) to helium (He), He to carbon (C), C to neon (Ne), Ne to oxygen (O), O to silicon (Si), and Si to iron (Fe). Each of these reactions released energy in the form of heat which keeps the star from totally collapsing. As this happens, the star is being organized into layers of nucleons, with the lighter ones towards the surface and iron at the center.
Without the radiated heat from nuclear fusion in the iron core, the star begins to collapse again. This gravitational collapse increases the core temperature. If the star was large enough, the core temperature gets high enough to force iron fusion. Because iron is so stable, this reaction absorbs energy without releasing any back. The result is even more gravitational collapse, and higher temperatures until the iron nucleons are broken down into He, H, and neutrons which stream out toward the surface. At the same time, the outer shells of the star are falling inward towards the core, increasing pressure and temperature. They cannot fall forever, and will “bounce” from the core back out to the surface again.
This process cannot last long. The neutrons streaming out from the core are absorbed by the in-falling nuclei raising them to higher atomic mass by Beta decay. The recoil from the collapse will blast the star, and the newly formed heavy elements into space. These are called Super Novas. Next, gravity eventually will collect them back into new stars where the entire sequences repeats. These next generation stars will start with an enriched chemistry of heavy nuclei. The consequence is that they generate even heavier elements in the next nova.
Experimental/Observational evidence; With the invention of space telescopes, and charge coupled detectors, we can now observe these events directly. Particularly important are the gamma ray studies showing us the existence of newly formed radioactive isotopes. A review of these discoveries as of 1997 is cited below.
David Arnett and Grant Bazan 1997 “Nucleosynthesis in Stars: Recent Developments” Science Vol. 276 no. 5317 pp. 1359-1362
DOI: 10.1126/science.276.5317.1359
Two specific examples are discussed here;
Roger A. Chevalier 1997 “Type II Supernovae SN 1987A and SN 1993J” Science Vol. 276 no. 5317 pp. 1374-1378
DOI: 10.1126/science.276.5317.1374
Helpful Websites;
http://aether.lbl.gov/www/tour/elements/element.html
“Kinds” of evolution 1,2,3 a summary and extension
The origin of the elements following the Big Bang origin of the universe is neither a mystery nor unsupported by direct scientific evidence. There is still much to be learned, but we can dispense with the lie that they are without clear and obvious evidence. The energy released in the Big Bang, regardless of source, cooled and this resulted in the formation of neutrons from a quark, and gluon storm of tremendous heat and pressure. The continued cooling provided conditions where neutrons decayed to protons, electrons, and neutrinos. Protons found electrons becoming hydrogen. Accelerated protons found each other becoming helium. Neutrons continued to add themselves forming the isotopes of deuterium, and helium 3, and 4. Traces of lithium were made, but the Big Bang nucleosynthesis process was blocked at beryllium-8 due to its nearly instant self destruction back into helium.
Gravity came to be the most important force in the next step, the formation of stars. The earliest stars were mostly huge things, millions of times larger than our sun. They quickly (in universal time scales) generated the elemental nuclei up to iron’s 26 protons via the “slow” process . Again the process was blocked, but this time by the stability of the iron nucleus. That very stability, ironically, lead to the greatest explosions observed in the universe today, the super nova. Those events generated the rest of the heavy elements to uranium (and maybe higher). Once there were ample amounts of heavy elements, other more interesting things do start to appear - planets.
This is, step by step, observed and verified scientific fact. Naturally creationists denied it could ever be true.
In the creationist’s freakish version of reality, planets just spring into existence by magic. For many decades, all leading creationist “thinkers” insisted that there were no planets other than those around the Earth. Henry Morris, founder of the Institute for Creation Research, was still trying to deny that science could discover extra-solar planets, or even the origin of the moon in the late 1990s. See for example his nonsense published as “The Stardust Trail.”
Duane Gish claiming that the non-existence of extra-solar planets was important to Christian faith wrote, “Our faith is based on the certainty of eyewitness accounts, not the uncertainty of the wobble of stars.”
http://www.icr.org/article/believing-what-cannot-be-seen/
"As far as distant stars and galaxies are concerned, there is no evidence either in science or Scripture, that any of them have planets." Henry Morris, The Biblical Basis for Modern Science (Grand Rapids: Bier Book House, 1984) p. 244.
Science knows, and every American should know that extra-solar planets are common. Science knows, and every American should know that the nebular hypothesis as proposed by Immanuel Kant in 1755 has been proven. (Somewhat to my surprise, the Wikipedia article in this is excellent, and I'll just refer readers there). This does not slow down the creationists who continue to deny reality, for example: "NASA Data Derail Nebular Hypothesis" by Brian Thomas of the ICR. http://www.icr.org/article/nasa-data-derail-nebular-hypothesis/
Two features of the modern nebular hypothesis are that there will be a circumstellar disk which will have remnants following the formation of inner planets. This is called the Kuiper Belt. It was recently decided by astronomers that Pluto was better described as a Kuiper Belt object. There should also be an even more distant, spherical distribution of matter around a star called the Oort Cloud. These two concentrations of matter also have the interesting feature of explaining the origin, and persistence of comets. And this is why creationists hate and deny their very existence. Young Earth Creationists insist that the rather short cometary lives (hundreds to thousands to millions of years) somehow "proves" that the Earth is merely 6,000 years old. This is why we can read such stupidity as, “This imaginary cloud is called the "Oort Cloud," named after the astronomer who proposed it. The problem is that there is no observational evidence such a cloud exists at all.” “The Stardust Trail” Henry Morris. http://www.icr.org/article/stardust-trail/
Unfortunately for creationists, we have all the data we need. Even better, every feature of the Nebular Hypothesis: circumstellar disks, Kuiper Belts, and Oort Clouds, have been directly observed around other stars. And, how do we know that our solar system was built from earlier generations of stars? The most obvious way is the analysis of extra-solar dust grains still found today. There have been hundreds of scientific publications on these observations in just the last few years. Just use the Google; "extrasolar dust" is a good one. Then, "extrasolar disks" will reveal space telescope images of planet formation recorded for over a decade.
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/spitzer/news/spitzer-20090812.html
4. Organic evolution, which tries to explain life springing from inanimate matter.
We do no know exactly how life originated on Earth. We do know that it happened at least once at the end of the Hadean era, or about 3.9 billion years ago.* But, recall that the creationists, like Mrs. Chatman or Jack Chick, insist that there is no evidence that this could have occurred at all. Here is just a glimpse at the available evidence.
There are bacteria which "spring from inanimate matter" all the time. At least in the sense that they require absolutely no organic form of nutrition. And we know that "organic" molecules have no particular magic. There was once the thought that the organic "stuff" of life was completely different from "inorganic" or mineral matter. This seems still to be the thought of the ignorant. Known as vitalism, this concept was shown to be false by F. Wöhler, in his 1828 synthesis of urea, a "live" compound, from inorganic stock chemicals ("ON THE ARTIFICIAL PRODUCTION OF UREA" Annalen der Physik und Chemie, 88, Leipzig).
Charles R. Darwin, in a letter to the botanist Joseph Hooker wrote, "It is mere rubbish thinking at present of the origin of life; one might as well think of the origin of matter." A few years later in 1871, he had observed, "It is often said that all the conditions for the first production of a living organism are present, which could ever have been present. But if (and Oh! what a big if!) we could conceive in some warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, light, heat, electricity, etc., present, that a protein compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes, at the present day such matter would be instantly devoured or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed. "
The study of the origin of life is actually called abiogenesis. It was, as Darwin noted, nothing but speculation until the 1950s. Then, in 1953 a short paper by Stanley Miller for Science magazine brought origin of life studies into actual experimental research (“A Production of Amino Acids Under Possible Primitive Earth Conditions” Science vol. 117:528-529). What Miller had shown was that a very simple set of starting conditions, common gasses, hot water, and an electric spark would produce many of the chemicals essential to the origin of life. There were many critics, especially creationists. Miller and others repeated his experiment with different gasses, and energy sources. It was so simple to set up even high school chemistry labs could manage. Miller's last paper was published posthumously 55 years later, "A Reassessment of Prebiotic Organic Synthesis in Neutral Planetary Atmospheres" (H. James Cleaves & John H. Chalmers & Antonio Lazcano & Stanley L. Miller & Jeffrey L. Bada 2008 Orig Life Evol Biosph 38:105-115). This group at the University of California's Scripp's Institute demonstrated that under a neutral atmosphere, or even with a trace of free oxygen, ample amino acids could form in the presence of common minerals such as borax, or calcite.
A recent book reviewing the last 58 years of abiogenesis research, and pointing out several still large gaps in our knowledge is;
Deamer, David W.
2011 “First Life: Discovering the Connections between Stars, Cells, and How Life Began” University of California Press
A bit more technical is;
Schopf, William (editor)
2002 "Life's Origin: The Beginnings of Biological Evolution" University of California Press
For some really up-to-the-minute research see;
NASA's Astrobiology Institute website
http://astrobiology.nasa.gov/
* 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 (online 6 December 03), Oleg Abramov, Stephen J. Mojzsis 2009 “Microbial habitability of the Hadean Earth during the late heavy bombardment” Nature 459, 419-422 (21 May) | doi:10.1038/nature08015;
5. Macro evolution, which tries to explain one specie evolving into things another specie.
6. Micro evolution, which explains variations within a specie.
I was planning to keep to a single 'kind' of evolution per day. But, the local fishing has really improved the last few days, and I want to get back out tomorrow. And, the notion that we have some sort of problem demonstrating 'macro' evolution is a joke. 'Macro' evolution is merely 'micro' evolution across long periods of time. Science professionals not actually specialists might read;
Carroll, Robert L.
1998 'Patterns and Processes of Vertebrate Evolution' New York: Cambridge University Press,
and,
Valentine, James W.
2005 On the Origin of Phyla University of Chicago Press (Professor Valentine's book is probably the best study of the pre-Cambrian, and Cambrian eras available in English).
For non-scientists I recommend;
Carroll, Sean B.
2005 'Endless Forms Most Beautiful' New York: Norton
or,
Shubin, Neal
2008 Your Inner Fish New York: Pantheon Books
One major problem is that few people, especially creationists, even know what a 'species' is. I recommend reading 'What is a Species, and What is Not' by Ernst Mayer
http://www.aaas.org/spp/dser/03_Areas/evolution/perspectives/Mayr_1996_june.shtml
We have obviously observed the emergence of new species, in nature, in experiments, and induced in laboratories. I have compiled a list of dozens of examples ranging from plants, insects, fish, reptiles, birds, and mammals. Some have been known for over a century. The central strategy used by creationists to deny this reality is to try and change the meaning of 'species,' and to even change the meaning of 'evolve.'
http://stonesnbones.blogspot.com/2009/03/emergence-of-new-species.html
She has repeated a very common creationist lie. I have found it in Seventh Day Adventist tracts, creatocrap from the Institute for Creation Research, and in Jack Chick's "Big Daddy." So, I invested far too much effort writing a rebuttal.
Big Daddy Frame 10- Blackboard with 6 kinds of evolution
1. Cosmic Evolution - Big Bang makes hydrogen
2. Chemical Evolution - higher elements evolve
3. Planetary Evolution, i.e. evolution of stars and planets from gas
4. Organic Evolution - life from rocks
5. Macroevolution - changes between kinds of plants and animals
6. Microevolution - changes within kinds
1. Cosmic Evolution, which tries to explain the origin of time, space, and matter.
Creationists like to exploit the different meanings of the word “evolution” as seen in this “list of kinds of evolution.” And to be fair, there are scientists who use the word “evolution” to mean a process of transformation. Recently, Harvard University has used this sense of “evolution” to organize a brief science curriculum covering topics from the origin of the universe, to the origin of new biological species today. I find it amusing that they are unknowingly following a pattern laid down first by creationists. But, it does make it much easier to debunk the main lie told about these “kinds of evolution,” of course this is that there is a lack of evidence for these events to have occurred, and be still occurring today.
The first of Mrs. Chatman’s “kinds” was “Cosmic Evolution, which tries to explain the origin of time, space, and matter.” This is properly known as Cosmology. The Belgian priest, Monsignor Georges Henri Joseph Édouard Lemaître, was also an accomplished astronomer, and professor of physics. He proposed in 1927 that the Universe was expanding based on Einstein’s General Relativity, and then four years later that the Universe had had a discrete beginning. The direct observations by Edwin Hubble at the Mt. Wilson observatory lead to the discovery in 1929 that that Lemaître was in fact correct. So, the expanding universe and Big Bang origin of the universe has had direct observational support for over 80 years.
The data do not stop there. One implication of the Big Bang theory was that there must be a fading background “glow” which should be everywhere in the universe. Calculations by Ralph Alpher, Robert Herman, and George Gamow in 1948 indicated that this radiation should be in the microwave frequencies generated from an energy of about 3 degrees Kelvin. This was detected accidentally in 1965 by Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson of Bell Labs. A team of researchers at nearby Princeton University led by Robert Dicke realized what Penzias and Wilson had detected. The NASA Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) (launched in 2001) has completed a map of tiny temperature variations in this cosmic background which corresponds with the formation of the first galaxies in the universe. The project has also refined the age of the universe to 13.7 ± 0.13 billion years.
The third test of the Big Bang origin of the universe is the distribution, and abundances of atoms of different elements. I’ll leave this to a later comment. The trigger of the Big Bang is still under study. Two recent books which summarize our current understanding are;
Krauss, Lawrence
2012 “A Universe From Nothing” New York: Free Press
Susskind, Leonard
2005 "The Cosmic Landscape: String Theory and the Illusion of Intelligent Design" New York: Little and Brown Publishers
Helpful websites are;
https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/~ejchaisson/cosmic_evolution/docs/fr_1/fr_1_part.html
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/
2. Chemical evolution, which tries to explain the elements.
3. Stellar and planetary evolution, which tries to explain the universe.
Part 1.
The “kinds” of evolution under items 2, and 3 are convoluted in the minds of creationists everywhere. The questions, and answers are also complex because we have to refer back and forth between experimental laboratory results here on earth, and astronomical studies from the deepest reaches of space.
By knowing the age and background temperature of the Universe today, we can calculate the approximate temperature at the Big Bang. This was an extraordinary 10^30 degrees Kelvin. At that temperature normal matter, baryonic matter, cannot even exist and all the physical forces with the exception of gravity are mashed into a single unified force. As the universe expanded it cooled, and below 10^28 degrees Kelvin the first ordinary matter condensed, and the weak, strong, and electromagnetic forces began to separate. Atoms could not have existed yet, and didn’t emerge until the temperatures dropped to an average of around 10^6 degrees Kelvin, or about the temperature of the stars seen today. The cosmic microwave background radiation is a remnant of this era around 300 to 500 thousand years after the Big Bang. But long before this, neutrons and protons could exist, and to a limited extent interact forming nucleons.
So what were these first atomic nuclei, and how can we study them? In the 1920s, chemical elements were proven to be built from three subatomic particles, neutrons, protons and electrons. Mass is the main property of neutrons and protons, and electric charge is carried by protons (+) and electrons (-). The easiest of these particles to form, and therefore the first, is the neutron. Neutrons decay into a proton, an electron and a neutrino. The simplest atom is Hydrogen with just a proton and an electron. Adding a neutron generates Deuterium, an isotope of hydrogen. Smashing two protons together with a combined energy of about 10^7 degrees overcomes the electromagnetic force, and binds then together with the strong nuclear force creating Helium. This process, called nuclear fusion, is what powers nuclear bombs, and stars. It is easier to form helium by fusing two nuclei of deuterium than by bare protons, and makes helium isotopes with mass 3, and 4. Only tiny traces of Lithium (3 protons) could have been formed just after the Big Bang and before the first stars. The next heaviest nuclei are Beryllium (4 protons, with 3 to 6 neutrons). This could not form just by the addition of protons to existing nuclei because the extremely short half life of Be-8 blocks this route, and only extremely small amounts of Be-7, and Be-9 could have formed. So, the Big Bang theory predicts that about 75% of the early mass of the universe was hydrogen, just under 25% was helium, 0.01% deuterium, and less than a millionth of one percent lithium, and beryllium.
How have we tested all this? The nuclear physics is tested in accelerators. The next big results will be from the European CERN experiments since we Americans have dropped out of “big science.” The development of space telescopes coupled with spectrographs allows the direct measurement of the atomic composition of extremely distant stars, and interstellar gasses. We find that the proportion of atomic nuclei is exactly as predicted by Big Bang nucleosynthesis.
The CERN Large Hadron Collider will smash pairs of lead nucleons, each with an energy of 5.75 X 10^14 electron volts. The collision energies will be well over 10^20 eV. This is still well below the energies of the Big Bang, but it is expected to generate quark-gluon storms similar to the post-inflation period just before the emergence of the first neutrons.
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/bb_tests.html
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/bb_tests_ele.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_Hadron_Collider
2. Chemical evolution, which tries to explain the elements.
3. Stellar and planetary evolution, which tries to explain the universe.
Part 2.
The Big Bang creation of atoms was limited to 75% hydrogen, just under 25% helium, 0.01% deuterium, and tiny traces of lithium, and beryllium. The physical forces were all fixed, and the weakest and most profound force was gravity. It was gravity that controlled the next stage in atom building. As hydrogen, and helium were swept together by gravity the density, or pressure of the gas increased. This heats the gasses. The deeper the gravity well, the greater the pressure, and the greater the heating. Stars are masses of hydrogen and helium that have heated by gravitational collapse to temperatures high enough to trigger fusion. This starts at about 15 million degrees, or 1.3 thousand electron volts per nucleon resulting in the simplest fusion path of 3 hydrogen nuclei fusing into one helium. The larger the mass of gasses condensing, the faster the temperature raises and the sooner fusion begins. The heat released by hydrogen fusion is what powers a thermonuclear bomb. What keeps stars from exploding is their deep gravity well. But, the heat of fusion does act against gravity, stopping the increasing pressure from gravitational collapse.
The maximum temperature in the interior of a star depends on how much gas was available to collapse to build it. Basically, the larger the star the hotter the maximum core temperature. As the size and core temperature of a star increases, different fusion pathways from hydrogen to helium take over, and release even more energy as heat, and as neutrinos. But, there is no way to go simply from hydrogen to the heavy elements. I mentioned this earlier. What stops the reaction is the extreme instability of Berylium-8 which decays into helium in less than a trillionth of a second. This problem was solved theoretically by Fred Hoyle in the 1950s. He proposed that three helium nuclei (alpha particles) could fuse essentially instantly in the core of a large enough, and hot enough star to form the stable carbon-12 nucleon (6 protons and 6 neutrons). This “triple alpha” process was shown observationally/experimentally to occur in 1957 by William A. Fowler who received the 1983 Nobel Prize for this work. In spite of the fact that this reaction is rare even under the best of conditions, nearly all the carbon in the universe formed this way.
Once carbon is formed, other higher elements follow by the addition of more alpha particles, or protons. There are other pathways also opened once the Be-8 barrier is overcome, particularly the formation of elements by Beta decay which removes one proton from a heavier element converting it into a lighter one. As the concentration of heavier elements increased, they also undergo fusion reactions, for example two carbon-12 nuclei fuse to make either a Neon-20 + Helium, or a Sodium-23 + Hydrogen. These are called s-reactions because they are all slow.
But another roadblock appears due to the extreme stability of the iron nucleus. Elements formed with atomic mass higher than iron are less stable, and the end result is that iron cores begin to form in massive active stars. (There are still stars today a million times larger than the sun, and these were much more common in the early universe). There is no further nuclear synthesis in the iron core, and the star acquires a stratified structure with most of the active nuclear fusion happening away from the core. This is leading to the collapse of the star, and a Super Nova.
Experimental evidence:
C. W. Cook, W. A. Fowler, C. C. Lauritsen, and T. Lauritsen
1957 “B12, C12, and the Red Giants” Phys. Rev. 107, 508–515
I received my first Isotope Producer License when I was about 20 years old. I used thermal neutrons generated in a TRIGA Mark IV nuclear reactor to produce radioactive isotopes. Beta decay is accompanied by the emission of a gamma ray, and the energy of the radiation indicates the mass of the nucleus. This kind of research is called Neutron Activation Analysis. It was quite new back then.
Suggested reading;
Dickin, Alan P.
2000 “Radiogenic Isotope Geology” Cambridge University Press
Helpful websites;
http://www.astrophysicsspectator.com/topics/stars/FusionHydrogen.html
http://aether.lbl.gov/www/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Hoyle
http://www.onafarawayday.com/Radiogenic/Ch1/Ch1-1.htm
2. Chemical evolution, which tries to explain the elements.
3. Stellar and planetary evolution, which tries to explain the universe.
Part 3.
Rapid nucleosynthesis in Novas and Super Novas.
The origin of elements (nucleosynthesis) in Part 2 was limited by the stability of the iron nucleus which blocked the formation of heavier elements. The sequence of reactions in the s-process are hydrogen (H) transmutes (or evolves, if you insist) to helium (He), He to carbon (C), C to neon (Ne), Ne to oxygen (O), O to silicon (Si), and Si to iron (Fe). Each of these reactions released energy in the form of heat which keeps the star from totally collapsing. As this happens, the star is being organized into layers of nucleons, with the lighter ones towards the surface and iron at the center.
Without the radiated heat from nuclear fusion in the iron core, the star begins to collapse again. This gravitational collapse increases the core temperature. If the star was large enough, the core temperature gets high enough to force iron fusion. Because iron is so stable, this reaction absorbs energy without releasing any back. The result is even more gravitational collapse, and higher temperatures until the iron nucleons are broken down into He, H, and neutrons which stream out toward the surface. At the same time, the outer shells of the star are falling inward towards the core, increasing pressure and temperature. They cannot fall forever, and will “bounce” from the core back out to the surface again.
This process cannot last long. The neutrons streaming out from the core are absorbed by the in-falling nuclei raising them to higher atomic mass by Beta decay. The recoil from the collapse will blast the star, and the newly formed heavy elements into space. These are called Super Novas. Next, gravity eventually will collect them back into new stars where the entire sequences repeats. These next generation stars will start with an enriched chemistry of heavy nuclei. The consequence is that they generate even heavier elements in the next nova.
Experimental/Observational evidence; With the invention of space telescopes, and charge coupled detectors, we can now observe these events directly. Particularly important are the gamma ray studies showing us the existence of newly formed radioactive isotopes. A review of these discoveries as of 1997 is cited below.
David Arnett and Grant Bazan 1997 “Nucleosynthesis in Stars: Recent Developments” Science Vol. 276 no. 5317 pp. 1359-1362
DOI: 10.1126/science.276.5317.1359
Two specific examples are discussed here;
Roger A. Chevalier 1997 “Type II Supernovae SN 1987A and SN 1993J” Science Vol. 276 no. 5317 pp. 1374-1378
DOI: 10.1126/science.276.5317.1374
Helpful Websites;
http://aether.lbl.gov/www/tour/elements/element.html
“Kinds” of evolution 1,2,3 a summary and extension
The origin of the elements following the Big Bang origin of the universe is neither a mystery nor unsupported by direct scientific evidence. There is still much to be learned, but we can dispense with the lie that they are without clear and obvious evidence. The energy released in the Big Bang, regardless of source, cooled and this resulted in the formation of neutrons from a quark, and gluon storm of tremendous heat and pressure. The continued cooling provided conditions where neutrons decayed to protons, electrons, and neutrinos. Protons found electrons becoming hydrogen. Accelerated protons found each other becoming helium. Neutrons continued to add themselves forming the isotopes of deuterium, and helium 3, and 4. Traces of lithium were made, but the Big Bang nucleosynthesis process was blocked at beryllium-8 due to its nearly instant self destruction back into helium.
Gravity came to be the most important force in the next step, the formation of stars. The earliest stars were mostly huge things, millions of times larger than our sun. They quickly (in universal time scales) generated the elemental nuclei up to iron’s 26 protons via the “slow” process . Again the process was blocked, but this time by the stability of the iron nucleus. That very stability, ironically, lead to the greatest explosions observed in the universe today, the super nova. Those events generated the rest of the heavy elements to uranium (and maybe higher). Once there were ample amounts of heavy elements, other more interesting things do start to appear - planets.
This is, step by step, observed and verified scientific fact. Naturally creationists denied it could ever be true.
In the creationist’s freakish version of reality, planets just spring into existence by magic. For many decades, all leading creationist “thinkers” insisted that there were no planets other than those around the Earth. Henry Morris, founder of the Institute for Creation Research, was still trying to deny that science could discover extra-solar planets, or even the origin of the moon in the late 1990s. See for example his nonsense published as “The Stardust Trail.”
Duane Gish claiming that the non-existence of extra-solar planets was important to Christian faith wrote, “Our faith is based on the certainty of eyewitness accounts, not the uncertainty of the wobble of stars.”
http://www.icr.org/article/believing-what-cannot-be-seen/
"As far as distant stars and galaxies are concerned, there is no evidence either in science or Scripture, that any of them have planets." Henry Morris, The Biblical Basis for Modern Science (Grand Rapids: Bier Book House, 1984) p. 244.
Science knows, and every American should know that extra-solar planets are common. Science knows, and every American should know that the nebular hypothesis as proposed by Immanuel Kant in 1755 has been proven. (Somewhat to my surprise, the Wikipedia article in this is excellent, and I'll just refer readers there). This does not slow down the creationists who continue to deny reality, for example: "NASA Data Derail Nebular Hypothesis" by Brian Thomas of the ICR. http://www.icr.org/article/nasa-data-derail-nebular-hypothesis/
Two features of the modern nebular hypothesis are that there will be a circumstellar disk which will have remnants following the formation of inner planets. This is called the Kuiper Belt. It was recently decided by astronomers that Pluto was better described as a Kuiper Belt object. There should also be an even more distant, spherical distribution of matter around a star called the Oort Cloud. These two concentrations of matter also have the interesting feature of explaining the origin, and persistence of comets. And this is why creationists hate and deny their very existence. Young Earth Creationists insist that the rather short cometary lives (hundreds to thousands to millions of years) somehow "proves" that the Earth is merely 6,000 years old. This is why we can read such stupidity as, “This imaginary cloud is called the "Oort Cloud," named after the astronomer who proposed it. The problem is that there is no observational evidence such a cloud exists at all.” “The Stardust Trail” Henry Morris. http://www.icr.org/article/stardust-trail/
Unfortunately for creationists, we have all the data we need. Even better, every feature of the Nebular Hypothesis: circumstellar disks, Kuiper Belts, and Oort Clouds, have been directly observed around other stars. And, how do we know that our solar system was built from earlier generations of stars? The most obvious way is the analysis of extra-solar dust grains still found today. There have been hundreds of scientific publications on these observations in just the last few years. Just use the Google; "extrasolar dust" is a good one. Then, "extrasolar disks" will reveal space telescope images of planet formation recorded for over a decade.
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/spitzer/news/spitzer-20090812.html
4. Organic evolution, which tries to explain life springing from inanimate matter.
We do no know exactly how life originated on Earth. We do know that it happened at least once at the end of the Hadean era, or about 3.9 billion years ago.* But, recall that the creationists, like Mrs. Chatman or Jack Chick, insist that there is no evidence that this could have occurred at all. Here is just a glimpse at the available evidence.
There are bacteria which "spring from inanimate matter" all the time. At least in the sense that they require absolutely no organic form of nutrition. And we know that "organic" molecules have no particular magic. There was once the thought that the organic "stuff" of life was completely different from "inorganic" or mineral matter. This seems still to be the thought of the ignorant. Known as vitalism, this concept was shown to be false by F. Wöhler, in his 1828 synthesis of urea, a "live" compound, from inorganic stock chemicals ("ON THE ARTIFICIAL PRODUCTION OF UREA" Annalen der Physik und Chemie, 88, Leipzig).
Charles R. Darwin, in a letter to the botanist Joseph Hooker wrote, "It is mere rubbish thinking at present of the origin of life; one might as well think of the origin of matter." A few years later in 1871, he had observed, "It is often said that all the conditions for the first production of a living organism are present, which could ever have been present. But if (and Oh! what a big if!) we could conceive in some warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, light, heat, electricity, etc., present, that a protein compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes, at the present day such matter would be instantly devoured or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed. "
The study of the origin of life is actually called abiogenesis. It was, as Darwin noted, nothing but speculation until the 1950s. Then, in 1953 a short paper by Stanley Miller for Science magazine brought origin of life studies into actual experimental research (“A Production of Amino Acids Under Possible Primitive Earth Conditions” Science vol. 117:528-529). What Miller had shown was that a very simple set of starting conditions, common gasses, hot water, and an electric spark would produce many of the chemicals essential to the origin of life. There were many critics, especially creationists. Miller and others repeated his experiment with different gasses, and energy sources. It was so simple to set up even high school chemistry labs could manage. Miller's last paper was published posthumously 55 years later, "A Reassessment of Prebiotic Organic Synthesis in Neutral Planetary Atmospheres" (H. James Cleaves & John H. Chalmers & Antonio Lazcano & Stanley L. Miller & Jeffrey L. Bada 2008 Orig Life Evol Biosph 38:105-115). This group at the University of California's Scripp's Institute demonstrated that under a neutral atmosphere, or even with a trace of free oxygen, ample amino acids could form in the presence of common minerals such as borax, or calcite.
A recent book reviewing the last 58 years of abiogenesis research, and pointing out several still large gaps in our knowledge is;
Deamer, David W.
2011 “First Life: Discovering the Connections between Stars, Cells, and How Life Began” University of California Press
A bit more technical is;
Schopf, William (editor)
2002 "Life's Origin: The Beginnings of Biological Evolution" University of California Press
For some really up-to-the-minute research see;
NASA's Astrobiology Institute website
http://astrobiology.nasa.gov/
* 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 (online 6 December 03), Oleg Abramov, Stephen J. Mojzsis 2009 “Microbial habitability of the Hadean Earth during the late heavy bombardment” Nature 459, 419-422 (21 May) | doi:10.1038/nature08015;
5. Macro evolution, which tries to explain one specie evolving into things another specie.
6. Micro evolution, which explains variations within a specie.
I was planning to keep to a single 'kind' of evolution per day. But, the local fishing has really improved the last few days, and I want to get back out tomorrow. And, the notion that we have some sort of problem demonstrating 'macro' evolution is a joke. 'Macro' evolution is merely 'micro' evolution across long periods of time. Science professionals not actually specialists might read;
Carroll, Robert L.
1998 'Patterns and Processes of Vertebrate Evolution' New York: Cambridge University Press,
and,
Valentine, James W.
2005 On the Origin of Phyla University of Chicago Press (Professor Valentine's book is probably the best study of the pre-Cambrian, and Cambrian eras available in English).
For non-scientists I recommend;
Carroll, Sean B.
2005 'Endless Forms Most Beautiful' New York: Norton
or,
Shubin, Neal
2008 Your Inner Fish New York: Pantheon Books
One major problem is that few people, especially creationists, even know what a 'species' is. I recommend reading 'What is a Species, and What is Not' by Ernst Mayer
http://www.aaas.org/spp/dser/03_Areas/evolution/perspectives/Mayr_1996_june.shtml
We have obviously observed the emergence of new species, in nature, in experiments, and induced in laboratories. I have compiled a list of dozens of examples ranging from plants, insects, fish, reptiles, birds, and mammals. Some have been known for over a century. The central strategy used by creationists to deny this reality is to try and change the meaning of 'species,' and to even change the meaning of 'evolve.'
http://stonesnbones.blogspot.com/2009/03/emergence-of-new-species.html
Wednesday, June 06, 2012
I am fairly pleased with my last hacks on Mrs. Chatman
The latest of her creationist posts to the Waynesville Guide, Pulaski County's only daily newspaper were basic steals from Jack Chick's notorious "Big Daddy." Her probable source was Frame 10, the Six Kinds of Evolution.
Of course, I have a backup copy.
Some of Mrs. Chatman's lies have been copied from the Institute for Creation Research, and others from the Answers in Genesis gang. The basic framework of my refutation of her creatocrap is the larger project to expose Jack Chick's "Big Daddy" as the fraud it is. I'll be creating a new blog for the Jack Chick rebuke since he has shown the propensity to claim copyright infringement against critics of his gross misrepresentations and lies about science.
Of course, I have a backup copy.
Some of Mrs. Chatman's lies have been copied from the Institute for Creation Research, and others from the Answers in Genesis gang. The basic framework of my refutation of her creatocrap is the larger project to expose Jack Chick's "Big Daddy" as the fraud it is. I'll be creating a new blog for the Jack Chick rebuke since he has shown the propensity to claim copyright infringement against critics of his gross misrepresentations and lies about science.
Thursday, May 31, 2012
How can we keep up?
Mrs. Chatman has posted another slew of creatocrap. This time she has plagiarized the Jack Chick cartoon tract "Big Daddy, Frame 10"- Blackboard with 6 kinds of evolution. She is nearly as quick as Duane Gish in his famous "Gish Gallop" of creationist lies.
This saves me a lot of time since I am working on a frame by frame rebuttal of this very same lump of creatocrap.
Why do fundamentalist creationists find it necessary to lie to support their cult? Do they know they are liars? Do they care?
This saves me a lot of time since I am working on a frame by frame rebuttal of this very same lump of creatocrap.
Why do fundamentalist creationists find it necessary to lie to support their cult? Do they know they are liars? Do they care?
"Signature in the Cell," A review
I posted this to the US Amazon.com site, and have echoed it here in its original. My review provoked a particularly amusing response from the Disco'tute attack gerbil, Casey Luskin.
Regarding the grossly false creationist claims in "Signature in the Cell," I would first point out one of the things that most irritated me.
From about page 223 to 226, we have a cut n' paste with only trivial alterations from an 1998 article Meyer wrote, "DNA by Design," published in the prestigious biological journal "Journal of Rhetoric & Public Affairs." (Yes, that was sarcasm). Text from "DNA by Design" appears quite often in "Signature." The most irritating feature is that in ten years between that early text and "Signature," Meyer had not even bothered to update critical references, let along his outdated thinking. Most obvious was that in both publications, a footnote (#21 in "DNA") appears with nearly identical citations as the 1998 article. I'll quote it below, because if illustrates another problem with Meyer's so-called scholarship.
(from Meyer 1998, which appeared with trivial alteration as footnote 10-15 in Meyer 2009) 21. L. C. Berkner and L. L. Marshall, "On the Origin and Rise in Concentration in the Earth's Atmosphere," Journal of Atmospheric Science 22 (1965): 225-61; R. T. Brinkman, "Dissociation of Water Vapor and Evolution of Oxygen in the Terrestrial Atmosphere," Journal of Geophysical Research 74 (1969): 5354-68; Erich Dimroth and Michael M. Kimberly, "Pre-Cambrian Atmospheric Oxygen: Evidence in Sedimentary Distribution of Carbon Sulfur, Uranium and Iron," Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences 13 (1976): 1161-85; J. H. Carver, "Prebiotic Atmospheric Oxygen Levels," Nature 292 (1981): 136-38; H. D. Holland, B. Lazar, and M. McCaffrey, "Evolution of Atmosphere and Oceans," Nature 320 (1986): 27-33; J. F. Kastings, S. C. Liu, and T. M. Donahue, "Oxygen Levels in the Prebiological Atmosphere," Journal of Geophysical Research 84 (1979): 3097-3102; Kerr, "Origin of Life: New Ingredients Suggested," 42-43; Thaxton et al., Mystery of Life's Origin, 73-94.
How did this vary in Meyer's "Signature?" Well, the publication dates, and journal data were all removed to a bibliography. But aside from formatting, Meyer added a two additional outdated references, Towe (1996), and Kasting (1993).
What did Meyer use this group of citations to support? That the late-Hadean, early-Archean had an oxygenated atmosphere, and that without "intelligent intervention," which in IDC speak means "goddidit," all chemical reactions on the primitive Earth result in "biologically irrelevant compounds-chemically insoluble sludge." (Meyer 2010, pg 226).
Meyer, in 1998, might have been justified in thinking that scientific opinion was divided among geochemists regarding the Earth's early redox state. After all he is not really a geologist, nor a chemist. But, even though his under-graduate geology degree was from a religious school, his continued ignorance was not justified in 2008-2009.
Publications, several by the very people Meyer has cited, since 1998 have conclusively made the case for a late-Hadean / early-Archean reduced atmosphere, or at most a neutral atmosphere with common, strongly reducing oasis. Even articles readily available prior to 2008 make this obvious, and subsequent research has "capped" the argument.
(For example, Catling, David C., Kevin J. Zahnle, Christopher P. McKay 2002 "Reply to Towe (2002)" Science letters v.295 (5559):1419a
Genda, Hidenori & Abe, Yutaka 2003 "Survival of a proto-atmosphere through the stage of giant impacts: the mechanical aspects" Icarus 164, 149-162 (2003).
Holland, Heinrich D. 1999 "When did the Earth's atmosphere become oxic? A Reply." The Geochemical News #100: 20-22
J. F. Kasting, J. L. Siefert,
2002 "Life and the Evolution of Earth's Atmosphere" Science 296:1066
Pavlov, Alexander, James K. Kasting, Jeninifer L. Eigenbrode, Katherine H. Freeman
2001 "Organic haze in Earth's early atmosphere: Source of low-13C Late Archean kerogens?" Geology v.29 no. 11:1003-1006
Ricardo, A., Carrigan, M. A., Olcott, A. N., Benner, S. A.
2004 "Borate Minerals Stabilize Ribose" Science January 9; 303: 196 (in Brevia)
Tian, Feng , Owen B. Toon, Alexander A. Pavlov, and H. De Sterck 2005 "A Hydrogen-Rich Early Earth Atmosphere" Science 13 May; 308: 1014-1017; published online 7 April 2005
And most recently,
E. T. Wolf and O. B. Toon 2010 "Fractal Organic Hazes Provided an Ultraviolet Shield for Early Earth" Science 4 June 328: 1266-1268 [DOI: 10.1126/science.1183260] (in Reports). Read their references for background.
Further, the late Stanley Miller's last posthumous publication, Cleaves, H. James, John H. Chalmers, Antonio Lazcano, Stanley L. Miller, Jeffrey L. Bada 2008 "A Reassessment of Prebiotic Organic Synthesis in Neutral Planetary Atmospheres" Orig Life Evol Biosph (2008) 38:105-115
makes the entire redox issue moot. The prolific natural production of complex biomolecules can take place in neutral to even slightly oxic atmospheres. And this was published in plenty of time to have been included in Meyer's thinking- if only he had been thinking.
Regarding the grossly false creationist claims in "Signature in the Cell," I would first point out one of the things that most irritated me.
From about page 223 to 226, we have a cut n' paste with only trivial alterations from an 1998 article Meyer wrote, "DNA by Design," published in the prestigious biological journal "Journal of Rhetoric & Public Affairs." (Yes, that was sarcasm). Text from "DNA by Design" appears quite often in "Signature." The most irritating feature is that in ten years between that early text and "Signature," Meyer had not even bothered to update critical references, let along his outdated thinking. Most obvious was that in both publications, a footnote (#21 in "DNA") appears with nearly identical citations as the 1998 article. I'll quote it below, because if illustrates another problem with Meyer's so-called scholarship.
(from Meyer 1998, which appeared with trivial alteration as footnote 10-15 in Meyer 2009) 21. L. C. Berkner and L. L. Marshall, "On the Origin and Rise in Concentration in the Earth's Atmosphere," Journal of Atmospheric Science 22 (1965): 225-61; R. T. Brinkman, "Dissociation of Water Vapor and Evolution of Oxygen in the Terrestrial Atmosphere," Journal of Geophysical Research 74 (1969): 5354-68; Erich Dimroth and Michael M. Kimberly, "Pre-Cambrian Atmospheric Oxygen: Evidence in Sedimentary Distribution of Carbon Sulfur, Uranium and Iron," Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences 13 (1976): 1161-85; J. H. Carver, "Prebiotic Atmospheric Oxygen Levels," Nature 292 (1981): 136-38; H. D. Holland, B. Lazar, and M. McCaffrey, "Evolution of Atmosphere and Oceans," Nature 320 (1986): 27-33; J. F. Kastings, S. C. Liu, and T. M. Donahue, "Oxygen Levels in the Prebiological Atmosphere," Journal of Geophysical Research 84 (1979): 3097-3102; Kerr, "Origin of Life: New Ingredients Suggested," 42-43; Thaxton et al., Mystery of Life's Origin, 73-94.
How did this vary in Meyer's "Signature?" Well, the publication dates, and journal data were all removed to a bibliography. But aside from formatting, Meyer added a two additional outdated references, Towe (1996), and Kasting (1993).
What did Meyer use this group of citations to support? That the late-Hadean, early-Archean had an oxygenated atmosphere, and that without "intelligent intervention," which in IDC speak means "goddidit," all chemical reactions on the primitive Earth result in "biologically irrelevant compounds-chemically insoluble sludge." (Meyer 2010, pg 226).
Meyer, in 1998, might have been justified in thinking that scientific opinion was divided among geochemists regarding the Earth's early redox state. After all he is not really a geologist, nor a chemist. But, even though his under-graduate geology degree was from a religious school, his continued ignorance was not justified in 2008-2009.
Publications, several by the very people Meyer has cited, since 1998 have conclusively made the case for a late-Hadean / early-Archean reduced atmosphere, or at most a neutral atmosphere with common, strongly reducing oasis. Even articles readily available prior to 2008 make this obvious, and subsequent research has "capped" the argument.
(For example, Catling, David C., Kevin J. Zahnle, Christopher P. McKay 2002 "Reply to Towe (2002)" Science letters v.295 (5559):1419a
Genda, Hidenori & Abe, Yutaka 2003 "Survival of a proto-atmosphere through the stage of giant impacts: the mechanical aspects" Icarus 164, 149-162 (2003).
Holland, Heinrich D. 1999 "When did the Earth's atmosphere become oxic? A Reply." The Geochemical News #100: 20-22
J. F. Kasting, J. L. Siefert,
2002 "Life and the Evolution of Earth's Atmosphere" Science 296:1066
Pavlov, Alexander, James K. Kasting, Jeninifer L. Eigenbrode, Katherine H. Freeman
2001 "Organic haze in Earth's early atmosphere: Source of low-13C Late Archean kerogens?" Geology v.29 no. 11:1003-1006
Ricardo, A., Carrigan, M. A., Olcott, A. N., Benner, S. A.
2004 "Borate Minerals Stabilize Ribose" Science January 9; 303: 196 (in Brevia)
Tian, Feng , Owen B. Toon, Alexander A. Pavlov, and H. De Sterck 2005 "A Hydrogen-Rich Early Earth Atmosphere" Science 13 May; 308: 1014-1017; published online 7 April 2005
And most recently,
E. T. Wolf and O. B. Toon 2010 "Fractal Organic Hazes Provided an Ultraviolet Shield for Early Earth" Science 4 June 328: 1266-1268 [DOI: 10.1126/science.1183260] (in Reports). Read their references for background.
Further, the late Stanley Miller's last posthumous publication, Cleaves, H. James, John H. Chalmers, Antonio Lazcano, Stanley L. Miller, Jeffrey L. Bada 2008 "A Reassessment of Prebiotic Organic Synthesis in Neutral Planetary Atmospheres" Orig Life Evol Biosph (2008) 38:105-115
makes the entire redox issue moot. The prolific natural production of complex biomolecules can take place in neutral to even slightly oxic atmospheres. And this was published in plenty of time to have been included in Meyer's thinking- if only he had been thinking.
Tuesday, May 29, 2012
Mrs. Chatman rides again
Mrs. Chatman has launched a new set of falsehoods against the public. Today she took aim at the fossil data demonstrating human evolution. I can only hope that one day she will try the same shenanigans with the genetic data for human evolution. She has maintained her near prefect score of zero correct claims. I will just enumerate the major falsehoods/lies in this post, and move on with details as time permits. Every one of the following is an error, or out-right falsehood found in Mrs. Chatman’s latest post.
1) “it is taught as a fact that human beings and apes evolved from a common primate ancestor about 50 million years ago.”
(It is neither fact, nor taught).
2) Humans and apes are a different specie (sic). How can they be from a common ancestor?
(“Apes” is not a species identification. The bigger falsehood is more subtle).
3) “Where are the missing links?”
(“Missing links” are a false assumption from the 1700s idea of a “great chain of being. There are deeper errors here, and we in fact have no lack of fossils supporting Human evolution).
4) “The textbooks can't mentioned the missing links anymore, because each one has been proven to be a hoax.”
(School textbooks, unlike the creationist trash Mrs. Chatman reads, try to be accurate and current with modern research. Much more to follow).
5) “the Nebraska man was made from the tooth of an extinct pig.”
(The “Nebraska Man” was largely the invention of an English journalist. It was an honest mistake soon corrected, and never a “hoax”).
6) “The Neanderthal man has been proven to be perfectly human, but just a little unusual looking.”
(Neanderthals were our last surviving “kissing cousins,” (exluding florensis, and Denisova Cave fossils) but it would be very easy to tell them from any modern).
7) “Lucy is still in the textbooks. That poor chimpanzee had her bones scattered miles apart,”
(The notion that an Australopithecus afarensis could be confused with a Chimp (genus Pan sp.) is a testament to monumental ignorance. The “Lucy” skeleton’s bones were found in close together. This particular lie about “miles apart” originated with Kent Hovind. My opinion of Mrs. Chatman has dropped even lower).
8) “Artists even put human feet on her, although no foot bones were found.”
(There are fossil foot bones from Australopithecus afarensis, the species that “Lucy” belonged to, which I’ll discuss later. There are not many “controversies” left for creationists to exaggerate, or lie about).
9) “Why can't there just be the factual study of the wonderful human body, without the theory of evolution?”
(As the devout Christian, and evolutionary biologist Theodosius Dobzhansky wrote, "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution" (title to his 1973 essay).
10) “Webster's New World Dictionary, the Third College Edition …”
(I have the same dictionary. We should not be surprised that Mrs. Chatman cannot use the dictionary competently).
11) “The theory that man evolved from apes slaps Christianity, and other God believing religions in the face.”
(The fact that Humans have evolved only “slaps” the false biblical traditions of creationists like Mrs. Chatman. Her repeated falsehoods are closer to spiting in the face of belief).
12) “Evolution is the faith based religion of the atheist in the public school system, and it indoctrinates young students.”
(The sciences, which Mrs. Chatman has distorted for some long time, are neither a “faith” nor a “religion.” They are “atheist” only in the same way that civil engineering, plumbing, or auto mechanics are atheist. Never drive across a bridge that depends on prayer to stay intact).
13) “A great multitude of parents object to the indoctrination of their children.”
(Sadly, a great many parents object to racial integration, or even allowing girls go to school at all).
14) “They want only scientific facts taught, not philosohies, theories, or ideas that insult their religion.”
(People who are insulted by the truth have a lot to worry about, and their “wants” are not the controlling factors. And, teaching science as merely a long list of facts is like teaching communication by forcing children to memorize phone books).
1) “it is taught as a fact that human beings and apes evolved from a common primate ancestor about 50 million years ago.”
(It is neither fact, nor taught).
2) Humans and apes are a different specie (sic). How can they be from a common ancestor?
(“Apes” is not a species identification. The bigger falsehood is more subtle).
3) “Where are the missing links?”
(“Missing links” are a false assumption from the 1700s idea of a “great chain of being. There are deeper errors here, and we in fact have no lack of fossils supporting Human evolution).
4) “The textbooks can't mentioned the missing links anymore, because each one has been proven to be a hoax.”
(School textbooks, unlike the creationist trash Mrs. Chatman reads, try to be accurate and current with modern research. Much more to follow).
5) “the Nebraska man was made from the tooth of an extinct pig.”
(The “Nebraska Man” was largely the invention of an English journalist. It was an honest mistake soon corrected, and never a “hoax”).
6) “The Neanderthal man has been proven to be perfectly human, but just a little unusual looking.”
(Neanderthals were our last surviving “kissing cousins,” (exluding florensis, and Denisova Cave fossils) but it would be very easy to tell them from any modern).
7) “Lucy is still in the textbooks. That poor chimpanzee had her bones scattered miles apart,”
(The notion that an Australopithecus afarensis could be confused with a Chimp (genus Pan sp.) is a testament to monumental ignorance. The “Lucy” skeleton’s bones were found in close together. This particular lie about “miles apart” originated with Kent Hovind. My opinion of Mrs. Chatman has dropped even lower).
8) “Artists even put human feet on her, although no foot bones were found.”
(There are fossil foot bones from Australopithecus afarensis, the species that “Lucy” belonged to, which I’ll discuss later. There are not many “controversies” left for creationists to exaggerate, or lie about).
9) “Why can't there just be the factual study of the wonderful human body, without the theory of evolution?”
(As the devout Christian, and evolutionary biologist Theodosius Dobzhansky wrote, "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution" (title to his 1973 essay).
10) “Webster's New World Dictionary, the Third College Edition …”
(I have the same dictionary. We should not be surprised that Mrs. Chatman cannot use the dictionary competently).
11) “The theory that man evolved from apes slaps Christianity, and other God believing religions in the face.”
(The fact that Humans have evolved only “slaps” the false biblical traditions of creationists like Mrs. Chatman. Her repeated falsehoods are closer to spiting in the face of belief).
12) “Evolution is the faith based religion of the atheist in the public school system, and it indoctrinates young students.”
(The sciences, which Mrs. Chatman has distorted for some long time, are neither a “faith” nor a “religion.” They are “atheist” only in the same way that civil engineering, plumbing, or auto mechanics are atheist. Never drive across a bridge that depends on prayer to stay intact).
13) “A great multitude of parents object to the indoctrination of their children.”
(Sadly, a great many parents object to racial integration, or even allowing girls go to school at all).
14) “They want only scientific facts taught, not philosohies, theories, or ideas that insult their religion.”
(People who are insulted by the truth have a lot to worry about, and their “wants” are not the controlling factors. And, teaching science as merely a long list of facts is like teaching communication by forcing children to memorize phone books).
Thursday, May 24, 2012
Well, I'll be Banned
Well, the NetNanny for Nature magazine informed me that my link to Professors Forest, and Gross, violated their "third party policy." I won't even buy books from Amazon- they are non-union. No word about how long I should be in the penalty box. Twits! The Rapture Ready psychos had a better reason.
I have only been banned twice. Once a decade ago by the psychotics at Rapture Ready, and just today, by Nature magazine.
What I had started to post was a reply to the pathetic mystic bullshit from Brian Josephson. He had commented,
My first installment that Nature magazine blocked was,
Second Installment, 31 May, 2012
There are a number of false assumptions, and assertions made by Brian Josephson. He asked rhetorically, "Has he (Hurd) actually studied work in this field...?" I suspect I have far more familiarity with the ID crowd than Josephson does. If he had the sense, or courtesy to Google my name, and "intelligent design" he would have learned if I was familiar with ID. There are pages of links just from my critics whining about how I attack ID. Moving past those, he might have found reviews of my chapter in "Why Intelligent Design Fails" (2005 Rutgers University Press). Or with a little more effort, he could have found how this was used in the Dover "pandas trial."
Josephson asked particularly if I was familiar with Steve Meyer's "Signature in the Cell." I'd recommend he read my review.
I have only been banned twice. Once a decade ago by the psychotics at Rapture Ready, and just today, by Nature magazine.
This account is banned · This account has been banned from commenting due to posting of comments classified as inappropriate or other violations of our Terms of Service.They originally gave no indication of what my terrible crime was, or how I might rectify it, or protest.
What I had started to post was a reply to the pathetic mystic bullshit from Brian Josephson. He had commented,
Brian Josephson said:
I do not recognise Gary Hurd's characterisation of Intelligent Design . Has he actually studied work in this field, such as that of Stephen Meyer (who has a Cambridge Ph.D. in philosophy, for what that is worth). Hurd seems typical of those who I suspect are scared of the possibility that there may really be a deeper intelligence at work in the natural, and are driven by these fears to avoid examining in a realistic way what experts such as Meyer are in fact doing.
I instigated the Mind-Matter Unification Project at the Cavendish Laboratory because, in my perception, orthodoxy fails in a number of ways. An example of our research is a collaboration with a musicologist arguing that conventional scientific attempts to explain music is are flawed, while alternatives that invoke deeper aspects of nature can account for a number of key facts. We are currently following up ideas of the quantum physicist John Wheeler to the effect that participating observers are the source of natural laws, and hope to gain a systematic account of how his 'observer-participation' operates (for a preliminary account, see this conference report ). I believe science has been seduced by a certain view of nature, and that the next great advance in science will follow when certain destructive influences on progress are superseded by the ideas of those who do not adhere to such tenets.
My first installment that Nature magazine blocked was,
Unlike Dr. Josephson, I use my experience and Google together before spouting off about others. I earlier referenced the excellent 2004 book by Professors Forest, and Gross, as well as the Federal Court’s decision in the 2005 Kitzmiller v Dover trial.
It was significant to me and others at the time that Professor Forest was the only plaintiff’s expert witness the creationists took the (unsuccessful) strenuous effort to block from testifying. They showed more intelligence than I had expected. Prof. Forest demonstrated categorically that the Intelligent Design Creationism movement owed its origin to the defeat of Scientific Creationism at the hands of the US Supreme Court in their 1987 Edwards v. Aguillard decision. That testimony is found in the trial transcripts, and the Court’s Decision. Judge Jones commented that the plea to ignore the evidence "lacks merit legally and logically."
That is the position that Josephson finds himself, without merit legally or logically.
Second Installment, 31 May, 2012
There are a number of false assumptions, and assertions made by Brian Josephson. He asked rhetorically, "Has he (Hurd) actually studied work in this field...?" I suspect I have far more familiarity with the ID crowd than Josephson does. If he had the sense, or courtesy to Google my name, and "intelligent design" he would have learned if I was familiar with ID. There are pages of links just from my critics whining about how I attack ID. Moving past those, he might have found reviews of my chapter in "Why Intelligent Design Fails" (2005 Rutgers University Press). Or with a little more effort, he could have found how this was used in the Dover "pandas trial."
Josephson asked particularly if I was familiar with Steve Meyer's "Signature in the Cell." I'd recommend he read my review.
It's always something
I have been wanting to work on the Jack Chick debunking. There are several good ones I have come across that were helpful. But, Tuesday Mrs. Chatman posted some more regurgitated cretocrap about dinosaurs. It is obvious she is just plagiarizing Answers in Genesis. I have identified several of her specific sources, and hope to post here and to the Wanesville Daily Guide later. And there is still some 'touch-up' work to do on the new living room paint, and my article debunking Joe the surgeon Kuhn.
Instead, I spent 5 1/2 hours in the dentist's chair yesterday. My dentist, Dr. Shabnam Taherian, and her whole support team at Laguna Niguel Dental Group, are excellent.
And, then last night I came across in the Nature magazine discussion section,
Dr. Josephson received the 1973 Noble Prize in physics, and has been crazy for a long time. So, I think that my reply to him takes precedence over those other chores.
Instead, I spent 5 1/2 hours in the dentist's chair yesterday. My dentist, Dr. Shabnam Taherian, and her whole support team at Laguna Niguel Dental Group, are excellent.
And, then last night I came across in the Nature magazine discussion section,
I do not recognise Gary Hurd's characterisation of Intelligent Design . Has he actually studied work in this field, such as that of Stephen Meyer (who has a Cambridge Ph.D. in philosophy, for what that is worth). Hurd seems typical of those who I suspect are scared of the possibility that there may really be a deeper intelligence at work in the natural, and are driven by these fears to avoid examining in a realistic way what experts such as Meyer are in fact doing." Brian Josephson
Dr. Josephson received the 1973 Noble Prize in physics, and has been crazy for a long time. So, I think that my reply to him takes precedence over those other chores.
Monday, May 21, 2012
Big Daddy, Take Two
I read the other day several accounts of how Jack Chick Publications filed harassment copyright infringement claims against critics. And sadly, Google totally rolls-over-and-plays-dead.
So, rather than have the entire Stones and Bones blog at risk, I plan to create a blog just for my take down of "Big Daddy." I'll post more later this week.
So, rather than have the entire Stones and Bones blog at risk, I plan to create a blog just for my take down of "Big Daddy." I'll post more later this week.
Saturday, May 19, 2012
Jack Chick tract salvation
I received a note from Mr. Billy R. Caughron the other day. He mentioned that he enjoyed my letter to the Mountain Press, and he enclosed two of Jack Chick's cartoon apologetics, "Why Should I?" and "The Choice." His objective was my salvation, which I appreciate.
My all time favorite Chick tract is the infamous "Big Daddy."
My all time favorite Chick tract is the infamous "Big Daddy."
Sunday, May 13, 2012
Some days I wonder if we can ever counter all the creatocrap
(Several additional people have joined in commenting to Mrs. Chatman's nonsense).
What has me somewhat dispirited today is this great steaming pile of lies and ignorance by Mrs. Jeannie Chatman. I'll pick this apart over the next few days, and add updates as I go. For those interested in the Baylor University Medical Center article, there have been some weird developments. Over the last weekend the editors shifted from "publish" to "reject." Their reasons were weak, to say the least. For example, one "reason" was that this blog had a portion of the text I used in the first two pages of the BUMC Proceedings text. But, I have always had the National Center for Science Education in mind as a reserve, and with them I don't need to be kind to either Joe the Surgeon or Baylor. A re-write is in progress.
Well, the number of gross errors and misrepresentations Mrs. Chatman makes is impressive, particularly when we added in her prior bloviations. But they are not original in any way. I posted two clips; one on Darwin and Nazis from More about Nazi Darwinists, and one on the geological column from Glenn Morton's excellent piece "The Geologic Column and its Implications for the Flood."
The only bit not already familiar to me was the creationist genetics by Jeffery Tomkin, Ph. D. currently working for the Institute for Creation Research. I have pulled a load of papers, and will plug away at them later today. First I need to finish painting the living room.
What has me somewhat dispirited today is this great steaming pile of lies and ignorance by Mrs. Jeannie Chatman. I'll pick this apart over the next few days, and add updates as I go. For those interested in the Baylor University Medical Center article, there have been some weird developments. Over the last weekend the editors shifted from "publish" to "reject." Their reasons were weak, to say the least. For example, one "reason" was that this blog had a portion of the text I used in the first two pages of the BUMC Proceedings text. But, I have always had the National Center for Science Education in mind as a reserve, and with them I don't need to be kind to either Joe the Surgeon or Baylor. A re-write is in progress.
Well, the number of gross errors and misrepresentations Mrs. Chatman makes is impressive, particularly when we added in her prior bloviations. But they are not original in any way. I posted two clips; one on Darwin and Nazis from More about Nazi Darwinists, and one on the geological column from Glenn Morton's excellent piece "The Geologic Column and its Implications for the Flood."
The only bit not already familiar to me was the creationist genetics by Jeffery Tomkin, Ph. D. currently working for the Institute for Creation Research. I have pulled a load of papers, and will plug away at them later today. First I need to finish painting the living room.
Tuesday, May 08, 2012
I was fishing the other day
I was fishing at Catalina Island yesterday aboard the Fury out of Dana Warf. The crew were, as always, exemplary; friendly, and actively helpful. We had the first day this year of a solid calico bass bite with water temperatures around 63 F. I kept five bass for the table, and released the rest. I also won the ‘big fish’ jackpot with a sheephead, which we released as well. (We put him directly into the bait tank from the hook. I promised to let him go if he won, but eat him if he lost).
But, that isn’t what is on my mind. The trip from Dana Point Harbor to the island takes about 3 hours. I usually sleep on the way out, and sit in the galley on the ride home. There are a clutch of regulars who are in their 70&80s who are rabidly far-right. They loudly proclaim their love for Jesus, and literal adherence of the Bible, when a moment's conversation reveals they know next to nothing about it. Their galley conversations are always about the evils of communist-Muslim-Atheist-tree hugger Democrats. In support of their various paranoid insanities, they spout “facts” that only exist in their fevered imaginations, and the ozone clouds of Faux News. Yesterday the theme was how Obama’s deficit will destroy the lives of their grandchildren.
Yes, pity the po’ po’ wee kiddies who will forever be slaves paying off Obama’s Federal Debt.
But, when I asked them if they shouldn’t also be worried that their grand kids will face a ruined planet due to Republican efforts to gut the environment, they were outraged. “Everyone KNOWS” that global warming, over fishing, clear cutting, water and air pollution are nothing but LIES invented by the Liberals to destroy America.”
And that ends the lesson. These nitwits have nothing between their ears but slogans, and blatant lies they have memorized. It is an impenetrable shield.
But, that isn’t what is on my mind. The trip from Dana Point Harbor to the island takes about 3 hours. I usually sleep on the way out, and sit in the galley on the ride home. There are a clutch of regulars who are in their 70&80s who are rabidly far-right. They loudly proclaim their love for Jesus, and literal adherence of the Bible, when a moment's conversation reveals they know next to nothing about it. Their galley conversations are always about the evils of communist-Muslim-Atheist-tree hugger Democrats. In support of their various paranoid insanities, they spout “facts” that only exist in their fevered imaginations, and the ozone clouds of Faux News. Yesterday the theme was how Obama’s deficit will destroy the lives of their grandchildren.
Yes, pity the po’ po’ wee kiddies who will forever be slaves paying off Obama’s Federal Debt.
But, when I asked them if they shouldn’t also be worried that their grand kids will face a ruined planet due to Republican efforts to gut the environment, they were outraged. “Everyone KNOWS” that global warming, over fishing, clear cutting, water and air pollution are nothing but LIES invented by the Liberals to destroy America.”
And that ends the lesson. These nitwits have nothing between their ears but slogans, and blatant lies they have memorized. It is an impenetrable shield.
Sunday, May 06, 2012
I have had a stinging rebuke from a young protégée of Padre Shipe.
Edited late Sunday evening: The Mountain Press deleted my comment posted below
Well, I have had a stinging rebuke from a young protégée of Padre Shipe.
I must first thank “BryanCollegeStudent” for making my point of deeply ingrained ignorance for me better than I could have. This anonymous internet bravo attributes his(?) determination to become a teacher to Mr. Shipe. I will caution him with James 3:1. "Let not many of you become teachers, my brethren, knowing that as such we will incur a stricter judgment." I personally am OK with that.
Bryan College was founded in 1930 following the 1925 Scopes Trial. Their mission statement is, "Educating Students to become Servants of Christ to make a Difference in Today's World." It was named after William Jennings Bryan, the anti-evolution prosecutor who won the trial, only to be overturned due to the trial judge’s legal errors. A similar fate befell creationism; the anti-science fundamentalists had won in court, but lost in public opinion. Lately, science is winning in court as well.
True to that tradition, “BryanCollegeBoy” charges at shadows. I will address his many errors; factual, historical, and scriptural. I will also caution him to not continue the obvious gross errors of fact (AKA “lies”) of his mentor Mr. Shipe and blame them on Jesus.
I will let his many ludicrous neologisms, grammatical and spelling errors stand for themselves. Mr. Shipes did not teach English, and is not culpable for this student's English language incompetence. One can only hope that “BryanCollegeStudent” will not try to teach either science, or English.
I do not think that “BryanCollegeStudent” was prepared by his science teacher Mr. Shipe to follow the scientific errors of his position. So, I’ll first present his biblical failures as best I can in this limited newspaper chat format. Mr. Anonymous Bryan Boy “proof quoted" Psalm 19. This is fascinating because if, "The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky proclaims the work of His hands,” his anti-science position has lost. We will stipulate Ps. 19:1-2, and if so, then Heaven and Earth declare that they (the universe) are ancient. This is easily reconciled with Scripture by, "… in the sight of God, a thousand years are like yesterday when it passes by, or as a watch in the night" (Psalms 90: 4). A grown-up believer secure in their faith does not fear, or reject the results of scientific progress. After all, "Great are the works of the Lord, studied by all who delight in them" (Psalm 111:2). And Psalm 85:11 reads, “Truth springs from the earth; and righteousness looks down from heaven” (NASB). The Hebrew word weakly translated as “truth,” emet, basically means “certainty and dependability.” In fact, reading Psalm 119:160, Isaiah 45; 19, Titus 1:2, Hebrews 6:18 and 11:6, and I John 5:6, show us the obvious. For God to create things with a deceptive “appearance” of age would violate His own stated character.
If God were to create a Universe that falsely appeared ancient, and perversely appeared to have life which resulted from evolution, then it would violate James 1: 13. Let no one say when he is tempted, "I am being tempted by God"; for God cannot be tempted by evil, and He Himself does not tempt anyone.”
Mr. Anonymous, stop making a fool of yourself, and of Christians.
Well, I have had a stinging rebuke from a young protégée of Padre Shipe.
I must first thank “BryanCollegeStudent” for making my point of deeply ingrained ignorance for me better than I could have. This anonymous internet bravo attributes his(?) determination to become a teacher to Mr. Shipe. I will caution him with James 3:1. "Let not many of you become teachers, my brethren, knowing that as such we will incur a stricter judgment." I personally am OK with that.
Bryan College was founded in 1930 following the 1925 Scopes Trial. Their mission statement is, "Educating Students to become Servants of Christ to make a Difference in Today's World." It was named after William Jennings Bryan, the anti-evolution prosecutor who won the trial, only to be overturned due to the trial judge’s legal errors. A similar fate befell creationism; the anti-science fundamentalists had won in court, but lost in public opinion. Lately, science is winning in court as well.
True to that tradition, “BryanCollegeBoy” charges at shadows. I will address his many errors; factual, historical, and scriptural. I will also caution him to not continue the obvious gross errors of fact (AKA “lies”) of his mentor Mr. Shipe and blame them on Jesus.
I will let his many ludicrous neologisms, grammatical and spelling errors stand for themselves. Mr. Shipes did not teach English, and is not culpable for this student's English language incompetence. One can only hope that “BryanCollegeStudent” will not try to teach either science, or English.
I do not think that “BryanCollegeStudent” was prepared by his science teacher Mr. Shipe to follow the scientific errors of his position. So, I’ll first present his biblical failures as best I can in this limited newspaper chat format. Mr. Anonymous Bryan Boy “proof quoted" Psalm 19. This is fascinating because if, "The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky proclaims the work of His hands,” his anti-science position has lost. We will stipulate Ps. 19:1-2, and if so, then Heaven and Earth declare that they (the universe) are ancient. This is easily reconciled with Scripture by, "… in the sight of God, a thousand years are like yesterday when it passes by, or as a watch in the night" (Psalms 90: 4). A grown-up believer secure in their faith does not fear, or reject the results of scientific progress. After all, "Great are the works of the Lord, studied by all who delight in them" (Psalm 111:2). And Psalm 85:11 reads, “Truth springs from the earth; and righteousness looks down from heaven” (NASB). The Hebrew word weakly translated as “truth,” emet, basically means “certainty and dependability.” In fact, reading Psalm 119:160, Isaiah 45; 19, Titus 1:2, Hebrews 6:18 and 11:6, and I John 5:6, show us the obvious. For God to create things with a deceptive “appearance” of age would violate His own stated character.
If God were to create a Universe that falsely appeared ancient, and perversely appeared to have life which resulted from evolution, then it would violate James 1: 13. Let no one say when he is tempted, "I am being tempted by God"; for God cannot be tempted by evil, and He Himself does not tempt anyone.”
Mr. Anonymous, stop making a fool of yourself, and of Christians.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)