Last night, I asked for a copy of an article (I have plenty now, thanks!) that was getting a lot of press. The reason I was looking for it is two-fold: the PR looked awful, expressing some annoying cliches about evolution, but the data looked interesting, good stuff that I was glad to see done. Awful and interesting — I'm a sucker for those jarring combinations. My favorite pizza is jalapeno and pineapple, too.
I'm going to split my discussion of this article in two, just to simplify dealing with it. This is the awful part. I'll do the interesting part a little later.
The paper is about the appendix, that tiny little organ in your gut that doesn't have a whole lot of obvious function. The point of the work is to try and show that yes, it does something — which is fine and interesting, although I will quibble a bit with their interpretation. Where they go awry, though, is in trying to pick a fight with a dead man, and making that the focus of their public relations.
Now, some of those same researchers are back, reporting on the first-ever study of the appendix through the ages. Writing in the Journal of Evolutionary Biology, Duke scientists and collaborators from the University of Arizona and Arizona State University conclude that Charles Darwin was wrong: The appendix is a whole lot more than an evolutionary remnant. Not only does it appear in nature much more frequently than previously acknowledged, but it has been around much longer than anyone had suspected.
"Maybe it's time to correct the textbooks," says William Parker, Ph.D., assistant professor of surgical sciences at Duke and the senior author of the study. "Many biology texts today still refer to the appendix as a 'vestigial organ.'"
Charles Darwin is dead. Your research can't be very cogent if your approach to drum up interest is to dig up a 120-year-old corpse and kick it around; is there anyone alive who disagrees with you who can put up a more informative and entertaining struggle? What this does is pick this one fellow as a symbol of the whole edifice of evolutionary theory, which has the advantage of making one's work seem very, very important (even if one is stacking the deck to do it), but has the disadvantage of giving every creationist on the planet something to masturbate over, and they're icky enough without your help.
It's also annoying. Charles Darwin was wrong about many things — I'll even give an example at the end of this article — and it's part of the nature of science that everyone's work will be revised and refined over time, and some of us will even be shown to be completely wrong. It's rather unseemly to collect a lot of data that Darwin did not have, run it through PAUP 4.0 on a fast computer, map the data onto a molecular consensus phylogeny, and cackle gleefully over discovering something Darwin did not know. Really, it doesn't make you a better scientist than Darwin.
To make it even worse, people who do this can't even make the corpse-fight a fair fight — they have to stuff the pathetic dead body with straw. In this case, they're padding Darwin's investment in the appendix a fair amount. They cite one work by Darwin, The Descent of Man, which mentions this issue. He wrote one whole paragraph on the topic, and here it is, in its entirety; it was presented briefly as part of a long list of human rudimentary structures, such as wisdom teeth, muscles of the ear, and the semilunar fold of the eye.
With respect to the alimentary canal, I have met with an account of only a single rudiment, namely the vermiform appendage of the caecum. The caecum is a branch or diverticulum of the intestine, ending in a cul-de-sac, and is extremely long in many of the lower vegetable-feeding mammals. In the marsupial koala it is actually more than thrice as long as the whole body. (46. Owen, 'Anatomy of Vertebrates,' vol. iii. pp. 416, 434, 441.) It is sometimes produced into a long gradually-tapering point, and is sometimes constricted in parts. It appears as if, in consequence of changed diet or habits, the caecum had become much shortened in various animals, the vermiform appendage being left as a rudiment of the shortened part. That this appendage is a rudiment, we may infer from its small size, and from the evidence which Prof. Canestrini (47. 'Annuario della Soc. d. Nat.' Modena, 1867, p. 94.) has collected of its variability in man. It is occasionally quite absent, or again is largely developed. The passage is sometimes completely closed for half or two-thirds of its length, with the terminal part consisting of a flattened solid expansion. In the orang this appendage is long and convoluted: in man it arises from the end of the short caecum, and is commonly from four to five inches in length, being only about the third of an inch in diameter. Not only is it useless, but it is sometimes the cause of death, of which fact I have lately heard two instances: this is due to small hard bodies, such as seeds, entering the passage, and causing inflammation. (48. M. C. Martins ("De l'Unite Organique," in 'Revue des Deux Mondes,' June 15, 1862, p. 16) and Haeckel ('Generelle Morphologie,' B. ii. s. 278), have both remarked on the singular fact of this rudiment sometimes causing death.)
Note why Darwin classed this appendage as vestigial: because it is greatly reduced compared to the homologous organs in non-human relatives, and because it currently exhibits a great range of variation, which is apparently non-functional. These are criteria which the paper in question does not refute at all. Darwin does say that the appendix is "useless", and the paper will show some evidence that that is wrong. It's also irrelevant.
The reason why it is irrelevant is that the presence of some function is not part of the definition of a vestigial or rudimentary organ — Darwin obligingly concedes that evolution will salvage some utility out of organs with little retention of their original function, but which are present as a consequence of contingency. He discusses this at greater length in On the Origin of Species, and here is a significant chunk of the relevant writing.
Organs or parts in this strange condition, bearing the plain stamp of inutility, are extremely common, or even general, throughout nature. It would be impossible to name one of the higher animals in which some part or other is not in a rudimentary condition. In the mammalia, for instance, the males possess rudimentary mammae; in snakes one lobe of the lungs is rudimentary; in birds the "bastardwing" may safely be considered as a rudimentary digit, and in some species the whole wing is so far rudimentary that it cannot be used for flight. What can be more curious than the presence of teeth in foetal whales, which when grown up have not a tooth in their heads; or the teeth, which never cut through the gums, in the upper jaws of unborn calves?
Rudimentary organs plainly declare their origin and meaning in various ways. There are beetles belonging to closely allied species, or even to the same identical species, which have either full-sized and perfect wings, or mere rudiments of membrane, which not rarely lie under wing-covers firmly soldered together; and in these cases it is impossible to doubt, that the rudiments represent wings. Rudimentary organs sometimes retain their potentiality: this occasionally occurs with the mammae of male mammals, which have been known to become well developed and to secrete milk. So again in the udders in the genus Bos, there are normally four developed and two rudimentary teats; but the latter in our domestic cows sometimes become well developed and yield milk. In regard to plants the petals are sometimes rudimentary, and sometimes well-developed in the individuals of the same species. In certain plants having separated sexes Kolreuter found that by crossing a species, in which the male flowers included a rudiment of a pistil, with an hermaphrodite species, having of course a well-developed pistil, the rudiment in the hybrid offspring was much increased in size; and this clearly shows that the rudimentary and perfect pistils are essentially alike in nature. An animal may possess various parts in a perfect state, and yet they may in one sense be rudimentary, for they are useless: thus the tadpole of the common salamander or water-newt, as Mr. G. H. Lewes remarks, "has gills, and passes its existence in the water; but the Salamandra atra, which lives high up among the mountains, brings forth its young full-formed. This animal never lives in the water. Yet if we open a gravid female, we find tadpoles inside her with exquisitely feathered gills; and when placed in water they swim about like the tadpoles of the water-newt. Obviously this aquatic organisation has no reference to the future life of the animal, nor has it any adaptation to its embryonic condition; it has solely reference to ancestral adaptations, it repeats a phase in the development of its progenitors."
An organ, serving for two purposes, may become rudimentary or utterly aborted for one, even the more important purpose, and remain perfectly efficient for the other. Thus in plants, the office of the pistil is to allow the pollen-tubes to reach the ovules within the ovarium. The pistil consists of a stigma supported on a style; but in some Compositae, the male florets, which of course cannot be fecundated, have a rudimentary pistil, for it is not crowned with a stigma; but the style remains well developed and is clothed in the usual manner with hairs, which serve to brush the pollen out of the surrounding and conjoined anthers. Again, an organ may become rudimentary for its proper purpose, and be used for a distinct one: in certain fishes the swimbladder seems to be rudimentary for its proper function of giving buoyancy, but has become converted into a nascent breathing organ or lung. Many similar instances could be given.
I've highlighted the part most important for this discussion. Darwin did not discuss the appendix or caecum at all in the Origin, but this description does apply. If a portion of the gut, a digestive organ, is diminished in size such that it no longer contributes to the primary function of the organ, but does retain a secondary function, such as assisting in immunity, or as the authors of the recent paper will argue, in acting as a reservoir of bacteria for recolonizing the gut, then it is still a vestigial organ. It has lost much of its ancestral function.
I do not understand why this is so hard for so many people to comprehend. Biology is plastic and opportunistic. Accidents of history will always still be incorporated into the whole of the organism; we make do, or we die. Just because something is does not mean that the entirety of its nature is the product of selection.
I mentioned that I'd point out errors in Darwin's understanding. They're there, but note that seeing them now 150 years after he wrote his big book does not make me smarter than Darwin, nor does it invalidate the overall picture of his theory. You can see one 'error' in the quote above: we are now pretty certain that the original function of the swimbladder in fish was respiratory. It evolved first as a supplement to the gills, providing access to the rich oxygen content of the atmosphere, and was secondarily adapted to function for bouyancy. Hah, silly Darwin, that he did not know a detail of paleontology and phylogeny that would be worked out a century after his death!
He also made a more substantial error. He wondered how organs became smaller over time, and his answer was, unfortunately, a bit Lamarckian and also a bit muddled.
It appears probable that disuse has been the main agent in rendering organs rudimentary. It would at first lead by slow steps to the more and more complete reduction of a part, until at last it became rudimentary,- as in the case of the eyes of animals inhabiting dark caverns, and of the wings of birds inhabiting oceanic islands, which have seldom been forced by beasts of prey to take flight, and have ultimately lost the power of flying. Again, an organ, useful under certain conditions, might become injurious under others, as with the wings of beetles living on small and exposed islands; and in this case natural selection will have aided in reducing the organ, until it was rendered harmless and rudimentary.
"Disuse" is the magic word there: if a cavefish lived in the dark and never used its eyes, the idea was that its progeny would then have smaller eyes. This is not correct, but it was a central part of Darwin's invalid theory of heredity. This is a much more substantial failing of Darwin's work, but again, I can't claim credit for figuring this out; it took the work of Mendel to get the core of genetics puzzled out, and then it took a whole generation of scientists to work out how genetics and evolution fit together. We can say "DARWIN WAS WRONG!" about that, but we can't really say that about his treatment of vestigial organs in general, which seems to hold up fairly well…perhaps because Darwin himself was not so fervently committed to the absolute adaptedness of every single feature of every single organism as some of his later followers.
That said, I'll move along to the substance of the paper next, which really does have some good stuff in it. Most of my complaints here are with the abysmal presentation of the ideas in it by the popular press, aided and abetted by the scientists themselves. Just keep in mind that whenever these press releases that declare "Darwin was wrong" appear, it's usually an example of grandstanding and the regrettable tendency of competitive scientists to think the way to impress people with the importance of their work is to get into a penis-measuring contest with poor dead Chuck.
Smith HF, Fisher RE, Everett ML, Thomas AD, Randal Bollinger R, Parker W (2009) Comparative anatomy and phylogenetic distribution of the mammalian cecal appendix. J Evol Biol. 2009 Aug 12. [Epub ahead of print]
113 Comments
Toni · 22 August 2009
If this was the "awful" part (NOT!), I'm really looking forward to reading the interesting part.
Gary Hurd · 22 August 2009
First rate, PZ.
Matt G · 23 August 2009
Scientists unintentionally give creationists ammunition all the time. Heck, sometimes they don't even NEED to quote mine - we do the work for them. I remember cringing when Steven Pinker talked about evolution "orthodoxy" while attacking fellow scientists with whom he disagreed in his book "How the Mind Works."
KP · 23 August 2009
Let's also remind the authors of that paper that whatever function may be assignable to the appendix, it is not an essential one. The appendix can be removed without any effect other than eliminating the risk of appendicitis.
Henry J · 23 August 2009
henry · 24 August 2009
Benjamin Carson:The Pediatric Neurosurgeon with Gifted Hands
ACTS&FACTS • J A N U A RY 2 0 0 9
J e r r y B e r gma n , P h . D .
He added that 150 years after Darwin, there
is still no evidence for evolution.
It’s just not there. But when you bring that
up to the proponents of Darwinism, the
best explanation they can come up with is
“Well…uh…it’s lost!”…I find it requires
too much faith for me to believe that explanation
given all the fossils we have
found without any fossilized evidence of
the direct, step-by-step evolutionary progression
from simple to complex organisms
or from one species to another species.
Shrugging and saying, “Well, it was
mysteriously lost, and we’ll probably never
find it,” doesn’t seem like a particularly satisfying,
objective, or scientific response.10
Carson concluded that the “plausibility of
evolution is further strained by Darwin’s assertion
that within fifty to one hundred years of his
time, scientists would become geologically sophisticated
enough to find the fossil remains of
the entire evolutionary tree in an unequivocal
step-by-step progression of life from amoeba to
man.”11
References
9. Carson, B. S. 2008. Take the Risk. Grand Rapids, MI:
Zondervan, 126.
10. Ibid, 130.
11. Ibid, 129.
Dr. Bergman is an Adjunct
Associate Professor at the
University of Toledo Medical
School in Ohio.
Stanton · 24 August 2009
henry, you are a quote mining moron. No one here with even a shred of decency, integrity or honesty believes any of the lies you copy and paste, so please go away.
DS · 24 August 2009
Henry,
When you can quote from a scientific journal instead of Act Like You Have the Facts then maybe someone will listen. Until then keep your flatulance to yourself.
fnxtr · 24 August 2009
Still Trolling For Grades, I see.
Sad, really.
stevaroni · 24 August 2009
Sigh, Monday and Henry's once again setting up for another week of trolling.
OK, Henry, so what does "Benjamin Carson:The Pediatric Neurosurgeon with Gifted Hands" say about the
nylon bug, or lenski's long-term e-coli experiments ?
Oh, that's right, Carson says nothing about some of the most significant research in the field.
Hmm. now I wonder why that is?
Carson does take time to say Darrwin is shot down by his prediction that a step-by-step progression would be found, but then totally glosses over the fact that most of it has been found already.
In short, your expert with the magic hands is a classic creationist. He's got an impressive day job but he knows jack shit about what he's talking about when it comes to science.
He waves his hands and ignores not only the elephant in the room, but the fact that there are many people in the room jumping up and down saying "Hey! Look! there's a freakin' elephant in here with us, moron!. Big gray thing! Over here!".
Am I wrong? Then point me to where he discusses the implications of the known homonid fossils.
(Que the sound of chirping crickits while we await a change of subject form Henry).
KP · 24 August 2009
henry, please answer for the LIES I pointed out in your ICR propaganda from 2.5 months ago before posting any more of that garbage.
And by the way, asking a medical doctor about evolution is like asking an astronaut about relativity.
KP · 24 August 2009
Having had a chance to skim the paper now, I think that the press comments PZ cites are the real problem. The paragraph about Darwin in the actual paper is relatively benign. Also the paper is well-entrenched in the evolution of cecae and the appendix, so I don't think creationists could get away with much here. Nevertheless, I await the lying and omission from ICR...
henry · 26 August 2009
DS · 26 August 2009
Henry wrote:
"Dr. Carson is a leading research scientist. A “voracious reader of the medical and scientific literature” from his graduate school days, he has long been very interested in scientific research and has been very active in this area for his entire career,5, 6 with over 120 major scientific publications in peer reviewed journals,..."
Great, so why don't you quote from one of those articles? Act Like You Have the Facts is definately not one of them. Here is a hint Henry, no one is interested on his musing about life on Mars either.
Dan · 26 August 2009
Stanton · 26 August 2009
So, henry, our quote-mining moron, please explain why Dr Carson has not received the Nobel Prize in Biology for disproving Evolutionary and General Biology?
Oh, wait, that's because Dr Carson and you are nothing but Liars for Jesus.
henry · 7 September 2009
fnxtr · 7 September 2009
"We're closed." -- henry's mind.
Dave Luckett · 7 September 2009
Dr Carson deserves my unqualified respect, and has it. He is a particularly distinguished neurosurgeon, and by all accounts a fine human being.
But he is not a geneticist, nor a molecular biologist, nor a physicist, nor a biochemist, nor a paleontologist. His many peer-reviewed publications are, rightly, significant contributions to his field, outside of which he is a layman. A well-informed layman, and an intelligent one, certainly, but still a layman. He is entitled to his opinion, as are we all, but it is no more than opinion.
I know of no peer-reviewed publication in which he produces evidence challenging the Theory of Evolution, or rebuts the evidence for it. I very much doubt that he would be able to, notwithstanding his eminence in his field. His remarks on the subject were given informally, and consist essentially of saying that no evidence for the theory satisfies him, although he unreasonably hyperbolises this to the point of saying that there is no evidence.
He is wrong. There is evidence. At least five main heads converge on the Theory of Evolution: perfect nesting of living things; genetics; biochemistry and molecular biology; the fossil record; and actual observation of speciation in the laboratory and the field. This evidence has been presented in enormous detail and depth in peer-reviewed journals, specifically so that it can be verified and tested exhaustively. It is powerful. It is compelling. It is consistent.
If Dr Carson, or anyone, thinks that they can challenge that evidence, then let them. Dr Carson, for all his eminence, has not done it. I'm sure he would like to add a Nobel Prize to his various other honours. Striking a fatal blow against the Theory of Evolution would be the best way to win one. But he hasn't done it yet.
Dan · 7 September 2009
DS · 7 September 2009
Henry wrote:
"After 40,000 generations of e-coli, you still have e-coli. That wouldn’t change after 40 million or 40 billion or 40 trillion generations. They are still e-coli."
Wrong again Henry. Here is a reference from Lenski's work that documents speciation in action after just 20,000 generations:
PNAS 96(13):7348-7351 (1999)
Now just in case you don't happen to read the reference, allow me to summarize for you. Mutations were discoverd that allow for increased genetic divergence leading to the production of new species. The mutations are documented and their ability to produce new species is demonstrated.
Perhaps Dr. Carson would like to publish a rebuttal of Lenski's nearly two hundred articles in peer reviewed journals regarding his E. coli experiments. Perhaps he can describe in detail a mechanism that can somehow limit genetic divergence. Perhaps he can explain exactly how such a mechanism operates. Or perhaps his opinions are just worthless.
Look Henry, if you really believed that 40 trillion generations would not produce anything different then you would be performing the experiment. Are you doing this Henry? We eagerly await the publication of your results.
Stanton · 7 September 2009
Escherichia coli"e-coli" (sic) are no good because they're "still bacteria"? Oh, wait, the sort of moron who piths himself to make God happy, and has intellectual integrity inferior to even a used car salesman.stevaroni · 7 September 2009
Mike Elzinga · 7 September 2009
Wheels · 7 September 2009
Isn't the lack of ability to utilize citrate one of the defining characteristics of E. coli in the first place? As in, one of the features that helps you differentiate it from similar but different species of bacteria?
Mike Elzinga · 7 September 2009
stevaroni · 7 September 2009
henry · 9 September 2009
henry · 9 September 2009
Dave Lovell · 9 September 2009
Dave Luckett · 9 September 2009
henry, no scientist would give a "proof of macroevolution", for two reasons.
First, because empirical science, unlike mathematics, does not deal in conceptual proof from axioms. It deals in evidential support for propositions, derived from observation. As this support increases, propositions become a hypotheses, and a hypothesis (if overarching and extremely well supported) may become a theory. You've been told this lots of times, henry. It's not a really difficult concept. How come you just don't get it? Could it be that you just don't want to know?
Second, because "macroevolution" is a nonsense term invented by creationists to hide from the undeniable fact that species change allele over generational time. It was coined so that every time an evolutionary change is observed and documented, creationists can say (as you said with E. coli), that this isn't a "macroevolutionary change", meaning that they aren't going to recognise it, on account of, well, they're not going to, so there.
But it's a word, henry, only a word, and it's purposely misleading. It's an attempt at a verbal palm-the-card trick, only not so slick. It's saying that a step and a journey are two different things and the one can't lead to the other. In other words, henry, it's idiotic.
Stephen Gould and Ernst Mayr weren't idiots, and they didn't deal in nonsense. They were biologists, and they dealt in evidence. Henry Morris (b. 1918) was a hydraulics engineer who resigned from academic work under a cloud in 1969 and then spent nearly forty years attempting to push ideas that grew steadily stranger as he got older. (For example, in 1972 he published a book arguing that the craters of the moon were caused by a battle between Satan and the Archangel Michael.) He doesn't seem to have been, like Hovind, a con-artist who was in it for the money; most likely he was simply a fruit loop who'd forsaken reality. But whatever he was, he was dead, flat, motherless wrong.
And so, henry, are you.
Dan · 9 September 2009
ben · 9 September 2009
Dave Luckett · 9 September 2009
henry · 11 September 2009
Dave Luckett · 11 September 2009
What nonsense, henry. Much of the sedimentary rocks are in fact the remains of living creatures - the shells of billions upon billions of small animals, laid down over millions of years when those layers were seabed. Far from "destroying" sedimentary rocks - how, one wonders? - they have built them.
For evidence for this statement, use your eyes and look at the strata. All over the world, sediments hundreds of feet thick are plainly made up of tiny shells, compressed and crushed down by the weight of other layers above them, but still recogniseable - sometimes complete. These deposits are not pockets of matter swept into holes by floods, but flat, even strata hundreds or thousands of miles square. There are more shells of more seacreatures in them than could ever exist in one year - or in a million years - on Earth. The only explanation for this fact is that they were built up slowly over countless generations.
And how can there have been one enormous flood, when by your own account the strata are "layer after layer". That's a correct description, but it can only point to multiple inundations, multiple periods of millions of years when these strata lay as seabed.
For God's sake, henry - and oddly enough, I mean that quite literally - use your eyes and your brain. If you believe God works with a purpose, you must believe He gave you them to you to use.
Dan · 11 September 2009
wile coyote · 11 September 2009
Stanton · 11 September 2009
fnxtr · 11 September 2009
It was a miracle. Duh.
"Nothing to see here, folks. Move on."
stevaroni · 11 September 2009
DS · 11 September 2009
Henry wrote:
... the fossil record shows a massive graveyard in which billions of creatures were buried rapidly, not slowly over millions of years, on a global scale."
Really henry? So in this massive graveyard, there are fossils of the thousands of trilobite species? There are fossils of all of the thousands of dinosaur species? There are fossils of all of the hominid species? Ya right. Got a reference for that? Could you please explain the term faunal succession for us Henry?
Ignoring all of the evidence isn't as bad as making up lies about it. You did both Henry.
Stanton · 11 September 2009
There are "graveyards" in the fossil record, but none of them suggest that their inhabitants were put there by a global flood.
If the fossil record were to suggest that all fossil organisms were to have died in a global flood, then all fossil animals, marine and terrestrial would have been mixed together, posed in positions suggesting that they all were killed by drowning and or water turbulence, and, among other things, there would be no intact fossil shells, let alone fossil beds literally chock full of complete bivalve shells, often buried in life position.
That, and it seems strange that the nummulites that compose the limestone that the Pyramids of Giza are built out of would have been killed and be ready to be carved into giant blocks within the same year, if we assume that Young Earth Creationist timelines are correct in that both the Flood and the construction of the Pyramids both occured 4000 years ago.
Dave Lovell · 15 September 2009
wile coyote · 15 September 2009
"Well, you have a choice between believing the evidence or believing the evidence was all faked."
"But if the evidence was faked, that means it wasn't faked at all."
"Huh?! Wot? -- But that's completely STOOPID!"
"Well -- yes it is, but didn't you think it for a second that I was a genius? Just for a second?"
henry · 26 September 2009
henry · 26 September 2009
stevaroni · 26 September 2009
henry · 27 September 2009
DS · 27 September 2009
Henry,
What Mayr provided was evidence not proof. Morris is the only one that used that word, it was inappropriate. Now, what about the evidence Mayr presented? Are you willing to admit that Morris was wrong, or are you going to demand an unreasonable burden of proof and thus reveal your own double standard?
Now, there are virtually tons of evidence in the thousands of papers on evolution that are published in the peer reviewed scientific literature every day. Can you refute any of this evidence? Can you offer a better explanation for the evidence? Do you have any evidence for any alternative hypothesis? Thought not.
I would direct you to the talkorigins web page that provides 29 different types of evidence for macroevolution. However, you have proven that you have no interest in evidence or learning, so I'm not even going to try.
Henry J · 27 September 2009
I just wish this guy didn't have the same first name as me...
Stanton · 27 September 2009
henry · 27 September 2009
Stanton · 27 September 2009
Dave Luckett · 28 September 2009
This is what Dave Luckett would say (observe the spelling, henry):
Dan misspoke a little. He called solid, firm, unimpeachable evidence "proof". That indeed is the sense in which an ordinary rational person would use that word, but epistemologists would not. Evidence, no matter how solid, firm and unimpeachable, could conceivably be controverted by other evidence. Someone might yet find a genuine Precambrian rabbit.
Thus, evidence, no matter how impressive, is not "proof", meaning a rigorous demonstration of a proposition from axioms. There are no axioms in science.
But if evidence is not proof, henry, it is still evidence. Dan has cited some excellent evidence for the Theory of Evolution. Now let's see yours for special creation. Go on, henry, what are you waiting for?
Stanton · 28 September 2009
henry · 30 September 2009
henry · 30 September 2009
wile coyote · 30 September 2009
DS · 30 September 2009
Henry,
Check out this web site:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH581.html
It contains a detailed refutation of all of the flood nonsense regarding the Grand Canyon. And by the way, we now understand the geology that created the canyon over millions of years quite well. Science is a wonderful thing, you should try it sometime.
As for your St. Helens calim, this site pretty much puts the lie to that as well:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH581_1.html
Now Henry, how do you think it is that detailed refutations, (complete with references), already exist for every claim you make? Could it be that you are just spouting nonsense spoon fed to you be creationist nut jobs? Could it be that you have swallowed their crap hook line and sinker? Could it be that you have never done any real research for yourself? Could it be that you just trust wahtever these guy throw out without questioning it? Could it be that you have no evidence at all to support any of your claims?
Now Henry, you can ignore all of this evidence if you want. That has been your pattern in the past. However, if you choose to ignore the evidence, the only one you will fool will be yourself. And no one cares what you think.
ben · 30 September 2009
henry · 1 October 2009
Stanton · 1 October 2009
wile coyote · 1 October 2009
stevaroni · 1 October 2009
DS · 1 October 2009
Henry wrote:
"Great imagination. It must be a trait of real scientists."
Yes of course, courosity and imagination are the hallmarks of all great scientists. For example, which takes more imagination:
"God said it, I believe it and that's that."
or
From a single origin, millions of species evolved in response to changing environmental conditions by a process of slow change mediated by random mutations as natural selection. Novel moirphological features evolved through realtively minor genetic changes in critical genetic toolkit genes through processes involving gene duplication and changes in regualtory sequences.
Then again. there is lots of evidence for one alternative and absolutely nome for the other. So, science doesn't just stop at imagination. Real scientists actually do the work to find the evidence for all of the wonderful things that they imagine. It's a lot more work that GODDIDIT but it's a lot more interesting and rewarding as well.
Imagination is wonderful. Science is wonderful. You should try them some time Henry.
eric · 1 October 2009
stevaroni · 1 October 2009
henry · 4 October 2009
Stanton · 4 October 2009
Thanks for that useless copy and paste job, henry.
BTW, how can we have bioturbation in marine sediments when literally all macroscopic life, along with a great deal of microscopic life in the ocean, as well as all bodies of freshwater, would have been killed by a global flood?
fnxtr · 5 October 2009
So, did all the fish get killed by the 'bioturbation' (sounds naughty) too? If not, why not? If so, why? What did the fish ever do to piss off YHWH?
fnxtr · 5 October 2009
"We're doing science!" - henry and his paklid friends.
Henry J · 5 October 2009
fnxtr · 5 October 2009
You're a little pun gent this evening, aren't you, Henry J.
henry · 20 October 2009
wile coyote · 20 October 2009
henry · 20 October 2009
DS · 20 October 2009
Henry wrote:
"7 And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them."
Yea, so how did that work out for him? Was he successful? Doesn't seem like very intelligent design to me. Let's see, man, who I created, is so wicked I must destroy him. I know, why don't I wipe out the birds as well. Yea, that's it, man is wicked so I'll wipe out the birds. Perfect.
What about the dinosaurs, did they build their own ark? If so, did Noah sink them? Is that what happened to the dinosaurs? Enquiring minds want to know.
eric · 20 October 2009
Henry J · 20 October 2009
A global flood wouldn't kill all sea creatures? What about those that feed off the bottom and couldn't reach the bottom any more? What about those that require a limited range of salinity in their environment? What about the lack of oxygen in the newly dumped water? What about those that require a limited range of temperatures? What about anything that requires shallow water? What about those that feed on those affected by all these factors?
Henry J
fnxtr · 20 October 2009
Henry J, you really don't get the concept of miracle, do you?
It just all worked out, that's all. Stop asking questions, or you'll go to Hell.
Henry J · 21 October 2009
henry · 22 October 2009
henry · 22 October 2009
Rilke's Granddaughter · 22 October 2009
Mike Elzinga · 22 October 2009
Two copy/paste trolls using the same shtick. I wonder if they go to the same trolling-for-grades class together.
We're probably going to have a run of these now.
Oh boy; trolls gettin' a ejakayshun!
stevaroni · 22 October 2009
Stanton · 22 October 2009
So, then, are we to believe that henry is stupid enough to trust the Bible when it says that bats are birds, that rabbits and or hyraxes can chew cud despite having no rumen, and that one can breed striped goats by showing a pair of copulating goats a striped stick?
stevaroni · 22 October 2009
Henry J · 22 October 2009
Henry J · 22 October 2009
henry · 24 October 2009
Dave Luckett · 24 October 2009
I read that, and now I've got the stupid all over me. I swear, if this goes on, we're going to need to increase the units. It's like computing, for pete's sake. We started in kilobits, now we're into gigabites. But henry's last post (oh, how I wish it would sound!) is calibrated in terastupids.
Stanton · 24 October 2009
henry · 30 October 2009
Dave Luckett · 30 October 2009
henry, nobody ever said that the Bible is totally wrong in everything. In fact, there's a lot of good stuff therein. What we are saying (are you listening, henry?) is that it ain't necessarily so. You got that? If not, what part of it don't you understand?
Stanton · 31 October 2009
henry, you fail to explain why we should trust the Bible as a scientific authority based on your claims that it is historically accurate.Stanton · 31 October 2009
henryrefuses to understand is the part where we aren't grovelling in agreement to his allegedly sage-like proclamations.henry · 7 November 2009
henry · 7 November 2009
Dave Luckett · 7 November 2009
DS · 7 November 2009
Henry wrote:
"The talkorigins website lists 10 points.
Each point is countered in the creation wiki website and none of them mentioned GODDIDIT."
Each point may be "countered", but none of the points is refuted and none of the counter arguments contains anything from the scientific literature. Arguing is not evidence. Refusing to believe something is not evidence. Made up crap is not evidence.
The Grand Canyon was formed over millions of years. We understand the hydrology involved. We can date the rock layers and the fossils in the Grand Canyon bit in aboslute and in relative terms. If you can't understand it or don't want to believe it, that's too bad.
Exactly how deep do you think that the Grand Canyon is? Exactly how many different layers are found in it? Exactly where are fossils found in it? Exactly why are there fossils of marine organisms in it? Exactly why are the rock layers and the fossils in the same relative order as everywhere else in the world? Exactly how could hydrologic sorting produce this pattern? Exactly why do the relative and absolute ages agree with each other so precisely? Exacly how were the layers formed and cut through all at once by the magic flood? Exaclty how do you explain the lava layers from the volcanic eruptions that occured later? Exactly why haven't you published your evidence for everyone to see? Exactly why are your conclusions rejected by the entire scientific community? Exactly why should anyone care what you think?
Here is a hint for you Henry, almost everything on every creationist web site is a lie. That's why they have web sites, they don't publish anything in the scoientific literature. That's why they don't have any references. That's why they need to lie to people. The only question Henry is, why did you fall for it?
Oh, and as far as not explicitly saying GODDIDIT, exactly what explanation did they give? Exactly what does "creation" mean? Exactly why did they omit thier main point? You really should ask thyem that.
Stanton · 7 November 2009
henry · 8 November 2009
DS · 8 November 2009
Henry,
You are definately making progress. Now all you have to do is stop reading Wikipedia and ICR and start reading the scientific literature. Then maybe you will really learn something. Now if you are unable to read the scientific literature or you are unwilling to do so, then you will never learn anything.
By the way, do you have an answer for any of the eleven questions I asked you?
Dave Luckett · 8 November 2009
henry,
You are proposing that the earth's limestones, which consist mainly of the hard body parts of tiny sea creatures, took a few thousand years to precipitate, compact, undergo the observed processes of uplift, folding, faulting and erosion, and then (in many cases) have other sediments deposited on top of them, often multiple times.
Just for starters, henry, this would take precipitation rates tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of times faster than any known. That, in turn, would require far more living creatures than the Earth's oceans could possibly support. But that is only the start of the compounded impossibilities that your idea demands.
And all this in order to warp reality enough to fit God into a picayune time frame where He has to perform miracles to order, or else your faith is broken. That's a pretty fragile faith, henry.
Stanton · 8 November 2009
stevaroni · 8 November 2009
DS · 8 November 2009
Henry,
If you want a good Wikipedia article on the geology of the Grand Canyon, try this one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geology_of_the_Grand_Canyon_area
It describes the layers, the fossils, the volanic eruptions, the excavation by the Colorado River and the dating of the layers. It also has eighty references form the scientific literature. Guess what, it doesn't agree with your idea of a young earth. Oh well, live and learn. Or you could just keep on denying the real science. No one really cares.
henry · 19 November 2009
stevaroni · 19 November 2009
DS · 19 November 2009
Henry,
Learned anything about the Grand Canyon yet? Willing to admit you were wrong yet?
As far as the Scopes trial is concerned, that was the last trial lost by the pro-science side. How are you going to spin that as a positive thing for YEC? Now what do you think it was that convinced all of those scientists, including the Christians?
henry · 30 December 2009