Extinctions paper: Why grad school is cool, and what creationists don't get about evolutionary biology

Posted 2 March 2011 by Nick Matzke

This isn't exactly about creationism/evolution, but it's still pretty cool. And I will find a way to tie it in, since I haven't blogged on PT in, I think, months. Contrary to what creationists believe, evolutionary biologists don't sit around in biology departments plotting to overthrow God and morality. We spend our time doing things like statistics and programming and specimen preparation and experimental manipulation and DNA sequencing and field observation, and then give and hear talks and discussions about this research. The main thing we are interested in is not "proving evolution", it is discovering cool facts and devising hypotheses to explain them, and then devising tests of those hypotheses (typically, statistical tests, something which creationists almost always ignore). In short, it's like any other science. This paper is a case in point:

NATURE | REVIEW

Barnosky, Anthony D.; Matzke, Nicholas; Tomiya, Susumu; Wogan, Guinevere O. U.; Swartz, Brian; Quental, Tiago B.; Marshall, Charles; McGuire, Jenny L.; Lindsey, Emily L.; Maguire, Kaitlin C.; Mersey, Ben; Ferrer, Elizabeth A. (2011). "Has the Earth's sixth mass extinction already arrived?" Nature 471(7336), 51-57. (DOI - Link)

Abstract Palaeontologists characterize mass extinctions as times when the Earth loses more than three-quarters of its species in a geologically short interval, as has happened only five times in the past 540 million years or so. Biologists now suggest that a sixth mass extinction may be under way, given the known species losses over the past few centuries and millennia. Here we review how differences between fossil and modern data and the addition of recently available palaeontological information influence our understanding of the current extinction crisis. Our results confirm that current extinction rates are higher than would be expected from the fossil record, highlighting the need for effective conservation measures.

It emerged from a seminar course on mass extinctions, taught by Berkeley paleontologist Tony Barnosky. The graduate students included zoologists, anthropologists, computer/modeling types (that's me), and paleontologists. While reviewing the literature on mass extinction, we got to discussing what it means to say that we are currently "in the Sixth Mass Extinction". There are different ways to measure extinctions, e.g. by absolute magnitude (mass extinctions have typically been defined as situations where 75% of species go extinct) or by rates of extinction far above the typical background rate. The difficulty with comparing mass extinctions in the paleontological record to the current extinction crisis is that the paleontological record has very coarse resolution compared to human time scales. You are doing very well in paleontology if you can date an extinction event to +/-300,000 years -- but this uncertainty in dating an event is much larger than all of recorded human history! In addition, for various reasons it is common in geology, paleontology, and evolution, that the shorter the period of time over which you measure something, the more variability in rate you tend to see, and this variability gets smoothed out when you average over longer time intervals. Thus, extinction events in the fossil record can be "smoothed" by the coarse-resolution data than they may have been in real life. Similarly, the current rate of extinction might, hypothetically, fall within the range of extinction rates that happen in "regular" background extinction, when background extinction is measured at short time intervals. Since it is pretty important for us to know whether or not our current extinction crisis compares to mass extinction events, we proposed some ways of turning the "apples and oranges" comparison of the fossil and modern data into something more like an "apples and apples" comparison. Basically this can be attempted by looking at both the fossil record and the modern record at a variety of time-resolutions. We can also examine what the future might look like under different scenarios: e.g. what is the extinction rate if all currently endangered species were to go extinct; what is it if all endangered + threatened species go extinct, etc., and how long does it take us to get to a mass extinction under each of these scenarios? Basically our conclusion was that even under the most conservative assumptions, we are still at an extinction rate that is very elevated compared to the fossil background extinction rate. Depending on the scenario, we reach a 75% "mass extinction" (for certain well-studied groups) within a few hundred to a few thousand years, if, as people say, "current rates continue." This is a geological eyeblink. Obviously, given the study we made of how extinction rates can be variable, we are not so naive as to predict that a mass extinction will come for sure in a few hundred or a few thousand years. This would be fatalistic and unscientific. Rather, what we say is that we are currently on that path. Taking a different course will require that humans recognize the problem and make decisions to avoid it. Anyway: this is one small example of the kind of evolution-related research that happens in one department on one campus. It is one of hundreds of evolution articles published by Berkeley researchers each year, and one of tens or hundreds of thousands of such articles published each year around the world. It's routine. It may seem strange to creationists and other wildly amateur commentators on the field of evolutionary biology, but this is the kind of thing that is going on every day of every week in biology departments. It's about the furthest possible thing from being some kind of conspiracy or plot against creationism, God, the Bible, morality, etc. It's just us doing our day jobs, just like all of the other scientists on campus. References and press Barnosky, Anthony D.; Matzke, Nicholas; Tomiya, Susumu; Wogan, Guinevere O. U.; Swartz, Brian; Quental, Tiago B.; Marshall, Charles; McGuire, Jenny L.; Lindsey, Emily L.; Maguire, Kaitlin C.; Mersey, Ben; Ferrer, Elizabeth A. (2011). "Has the Earth's sixth mass extinction already arrived?" Nature 471(7336), 51-57. (DOI | Link) Drake, Nadia (2011). Scientists try to determine whether life on Earth is quickly heading toward extinction. San Jose Mercury News. San Jose, CA. (Link) Gibbons, Ann (2011). "Are We in the Middle of a Sixth Mass Extinction?" ScienceNOW. (Link) Sanders, Robert. (2011). "Has the Earth's sixth mass extinction already arrived?" Retrieved March 2, 2011, from http://newscenter.berkeley.edu/2011/03/02/has-the-sixth-mass-extinction-already-arrived/. Pappas, Stephanie (2011). 6th mass extinction looms but preventable, study says. LiveScience, MSNBC. (Link) NSF. (2011). "Earth's Sixth Mass Extinction: Is It Almost Here?" Retrieved March 2, 2011, 2011, from http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=118804&WT.mc_id=USNSF_51&WT.mc_ev=click.

92 Comments

Wheels · 2 March 2011

I would be very depressing to have to tell the next generation that we're the dino-killing comet of our time.

Mike Elzinga · 3 March 2011

I would be curious about comparisons within recorded human history of how human populations stressed their environments and what the socio/political responses and consequences were.

We have records of societies going extinct (e.g., Easter Islanders, Mayans) and even data on what these societies were doing at the time.

Now we are dealing with a situation in which the human footprint is global and is affecting climate as well as thousands of other species. What kind of responses are we seeing from our socio/political systems, and how do these compare with what we know of the past?

Since the human impact on the planet is so large, that might give some idea of where we are headed.

From the physicist’s perspective, we life forms are starting to push the limits of the tiny energy window in which we all survive.

Terenzio the Troll · 3 March 2011

Taking a different course will require that humans recognize the problem and make decisions to avoid it.

My question is slightly off topic, but I find it intriguing. Do we have any right to avoid the problem, in the first place? I can well imagine what kind of a hellish place a planet in the midst of a mass extinction could be for our descendants, yet trying to avoid such extinction could mean to effectively stop "the next big thing" from happening (whatever it could be). Nature does not care for the future and does not make plans, but we do and we have moral responsibilities and concerns. Besides: although we are likely going to be the last nail in the coffin for a wealth of species, the extinction trend probably has begun before humanity could make a significant contribution. After all, the primate branch of the tree of life has already been extensively pruned before modern humanity emerged. Of course, all of this does not mean that we have any right to ignore environmental concers either: there is a difference between avoiding to fight a wood fire and going to it with a flamethrower.

John Kwok · 3 March 2011

Mike Elzinga said: I would be curious about comparisons within recorded human history of how human populations stressed their environments and what the socio/political responses and consequences were. We have records of societies going extinct (e.g., Easter Islanders, Mayans) and even data on what these societies were doing at the time. Now we are dealing with a situation in which the human footprint is global and is affecting climate as well as thousands of other species. What kind of responses are we seeing from our socio/political systems, and how do these compare with what we know of the past? Since the human impact on the planet is so large, that might give some idea of where we are headed. From the physicist’s perspective, we life forms are starting to push the limits of the tiny energy window in which we all survive.

Mike, just a correction. While Mayan and Aztec civilization prospered and then went "extinct" for a variety of reasons, Mayan culture (and, if I'm not mistaken, Aztec too) is still alive and well, practiced by modern Mayans who live in Mexico and surrounding coutnries in Central America.

John Kwok · 3 March 2011

Nick,

Congratulations on colloborating on what looks like is an important contribution to our understanding of mass extinctions as seen from both the fossil record as well as the Recent (Holocene) Epoch. Hope you have a .pdf since I'm going to contact you in private about getting a copy.

Appreciatively,

John

D. P. Robin · 3 March 2011

Nick, that looks hugely interesting and exciting, but does that mean you've raised the curtain on the debate concerning the existence of AME (Anthropogenic Mass Extinction)?

dpr

fnxtr · 3 March 2011

it is common in geology, paleontology, and evolution, that the shorter the period of time over which you measure something, the more variability in rate you tend to see

Heisenberg.

DS · 3 March 2011

Well if global climate change is real, what else would you expect to happen?

It has always amazed me how the average creationist can ignore all of the ecological implications of a young earth. If you start with that as a non negotiable presupposition, analyses such as this are impossible. Of course, that just makes it that much easier to ignore the ecological consequences of your actions.

It also amazes me that creationists typically cannot understand the role of death in evolution. It's almost as if the fact that other organisms die and other species go extinct is a dirty little secret that no one can talk about. EIther they are just afraid to face their own mortality, or they realize on some level that nature is just the way it is whether they like it or not.

Paul Burnett · 3 March 2011

Long article about this in this morning's San Jose (CA) Mercury News at http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_17523672?source=most_viewed

eric · 3 March 2011

Nick, Question: why "minus bats and endemics?"

Terenzio the Troll said: My question is slightly off topic, but I find it intriguing. Do we have any right to avoid the problem, in the first place?

Doing nothing is as much a course of action as doing something (conservation-wise). So we ARE making decisions about this. The option to not-make-a-decision does not exist in the real world. Instead, our two options are to (i) make conservation decisions consciously and in an informed manner, or (ii) subconsciously/in an uninformed manner.

harold · 3 March 2011

Terenzio - To me this paper raises some interesting methodological and definition issues, but let's just take it for granted that humans are directly responsible for a high extinction rate of other species.

My question is slightly off topic, but I find it intriguing. Do we have any right to avoid the problem, in the first place?

I am a huge proponent of human rights and civil rights, but "rights" are a human invention. We have any rights we choose to give ourselves. To me it's a no-brainer that if we respect one another as individuals with worth and dignity, we should make some effort not to damage the common environment that we all share.

I can well imagine what kind of a hellish place a planet in the midst of a mass extinction could be for our descendants, yet trying to avoid such extinction could mean to effectively stop “the next big thing” from happening (whatever it could be). Nature does not care for the future and does not make plans, but we do and we have moral responsibilities and concerns.

I would differentiate between two different types of conservation activity - 1) This rarely actually occurs, but - human efforts to preserve a species which is endangered for reasons other than human activity. A rare example might be cheetah preservation efforts. This type of activity is likely to be unusual, be confined to large, attractive species which are already rare, and probably, be harmless. 2) This is also currently out of style, but - cooperative efforts to modify human behavior in order to reduce potentially harmful changes to the environment which ARE unequivocally driven by human activity. Unfortunately, the current social/political climate in the United States is such that if anything, scorn for the idea of respecting humanity's common environment and actual deliberate efforts to live in a harmful way, are aspects of a large and popular political movement. Number "1)", if it occurs at all, can be seen as aesthetically driven. Number "2)", which is not happening, would be very desirable.

Besides: although we are likely going to be the last nail in the coffin for a wealth of species, the extinction trend probably has begun before humanity could make a significant contribution.

Do you have a citation for that rather surprising statement? There is some debate whether the Pleistocene widespread extinction of mammalian megafauna was largely due to humans. In the last few centuries, I can't think of many recorded major extinction or endangerment events that weren't directly or indirectly due to humans.

After all, the primate branch of the tree of life has already been extensively pruned before modern humanity emerged.

Extinctions will occur with or without humans, yet contributing to an excess number of extinctions is potentially a self-destructive aspect of human behavior that might best be modified.

Of course, all of this does not mean that we have any right to ignore environmental concers either: there is a difference between avoiding to fight a wood fire and going to it with a flamethrower.

Yes, to elaborate on what I said above, traditional "conservation" was sometimes informally grounded in an assumption that the biosphere is relatively unchanging without human intervention. Having said that, even since the days of Teddy Roosevelt, the vast majority of environmental policies have, in fact, protected the common environment all humans live in from extensive damage done to benefit small groups of humans.

harold · 3 March 2011

Nick Matzke -

Forgive me if some of this is dealt with in the paper, but here are a few interesting issues -

1) Common definition of extinction for field biology and paleontology. For example, let's say a finely resolved big cat species were to go extinct; Bengal Tiger, for example. That would be noticed as an extinction by field biology. But there would be other tigers, which might not be differentiable as different species by paleontology (putting aside species definition debates). There would be other very closely related big cats that we don't even recognize as "tigers". Obviously, just looking at percentage of recognized species is one pretty good way of handling this - arguably that should correct the "more extinctions if you can detect more species" bias. But I wonder if real time observation biases in favor of observing extinctions. This comment does NOT IN ANY WAY reflect any doubt in my mind that humans are provoking an unfavorable decrease in biodiversity with their current behavior. It's just a technical thought.

2) Proportion of overall multicellular biomass the goes extinct. Although both are likely to be undesirable, replacement of multiple species by a few species, but with no overall decrease of biomass, versus massive short term reduction in multicellular biomass, are different things.

Obviously, I think that your research advances understanding of and further clarifies human impact on the rest of the biosphere.

The Founding Mothers · 3 March 2011

Nick, looks like an interesting read. Thanks for the tip.

Terenzio the Troll said: I can well imagine what kind of a hellish place a planet in the midst of a mass extinction could be for our descendants, yet trying to avoid such extinction could mean to effectively stop "the next big thing" from happening (whatever it could be).

Well, fossil fuels are finite, so expending increasing sums of money on extracting what little is left is fast becoming a redundant investment. The "next big thing" could (and hopefully will) easily arise from exploration into alternative, sustainable/renewable energy sources. We're generally terrible at predicting the future above certain very short time-scales, but it's pretty safe to say that some research always brings us unexpected benefits.

Nature does not care for the future and does not make plans, but we do and we have moral responsibilities and concerns.

I think we have documented plenty of examples of "Nature" planning for the future. Birds build nests before they lay eggs. Termites build complex air-conditioned structures and farm fungi. Plants invest in seed-banks. Many species (check out 'semelparous') exhibit life-history trade-offs that suggest they won't invest all their energy reserves in a current reproductive event at the expense of future reproductive success. All these traits and behaviours have been selected for over and over again across multiple taxa. And all seem like planning for the future to me.

The Founding Mothers · 3 March 2011

Hmmmm, I guess I assumed that Global Climate Change driven largely by fossil fuel consumption was the most important driver of the next Mass Extinction. This might not be true. There are a range of other human actions that drive species loss - habitat loss, poisoning and fragmentation, unsustainable harvesting and so on.

But the message remains - it's worth investing in research that explores alternatives to the way we've been doing things, especially when we are confident that past practice was harmful.

Paul Burnett · 3 March 2011

harold said: ...replacement of multiple species by a few species, but with no overall decrease of biomass, versus massive short term reduction in multicellular biomass, are different things.

I recall a factoid that the biomass of ants, termites, krill and squid are each greater than the biomass of humans. I wouldn't predict any of those groups going extinct any time soon.

Mike Elzinga · 3 March 2011

John Kwok said: Mike, just a correction. While Mayan and Aztec civilization prospered and then went "extinct" for a variety of reasons, Mayan culture (and, if I'm not mistaken, Aztec too) is still alive and well, practiced by modern Mayans who live in Mexico and surrounding coutnries in Central America.

Yeah; understood. Similar remarks could be said about the fall of Rome and the plunge into the “Dark Ages.” But the laws of physics and chemistry will not be violated by humans any time soon. Whenever any population outruns the nutrients in the Petri dish, the population dies. Historically we see a few escaping and finding new niches to fill. But when the Petri dish is the entire planet, this becomes more problematic. The net influx of energy from the Sun gives hope. The stupidity of our educational and socio/political systems mitigates that hope. And maybe we aren’t the next best thing anyway.

John Kwok · 3 March 2011

D. P. Robin said: Nick, that looks hugely interesting and exciting, but does that mean you've raised the curtain on the debate concerning the existence of AME (Anthropogenic Mass Extinction)? dpr

Exactly, D. P., that's what Nick and his co-authors have done. At the very least theirs is an excellent initial attempt at trying to quantitfy the current accelerated extinction rate and comparing and contrasting it with what we know for mass extinctions from the fossil record.

Terry Maxwell · 3 March 2011

Getting the populace at large to respond appropriately to the global implications of articles like Barnosky et al. requires that they pay attention, and that may be insurmountable. As a 35 year biology professor, it seems clear that the major impediment to learning in classrooms is just paying attention. The businessmen who frequent the deli where I breakfst consider all concerns about subjects like extinction rate to be of importance only to a certain core of intellectuals who find that subject personally interesting. Everyone else then is free to ignore it. They pay no attention to protestations about their lack of attention. It's maddening.

harold · 3 March 2011

Paul Burnett -

1) The relationship between the size range in which an individual organism is found and the proportion of the biomass made up of that size range of organisms is interesting.

I won't bother to calculate the mass of an individual here, but it will, of course, tend to be a function of the cube of a single dimension.

A "typical" prokaryotic cell has a diameter of about a few micrometers, with many variable examples http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2001/JoyceWong.shtml. Prokaryotes make up a huge proportion of the biomass. Exempting viruses, I'm not aware of the concept of extinction even being applied to prokaryotic lineages. Study of prokaryotes is overwhelmingly driven by applications, mainly medical, also industrial. "Pure" study of incidental prokaryotes is potentially fascinating but only a tiny fraction of microbiology, although study of extremophiles has had profound impact on biology.

A "typical" unicellular eukaryote is hard to describe, as many plankton species are almost as small as bacteria, for example, whereas many familiar examples like yeast and amoebae are more in the 10 micrometer diameter range, with much variation (very small eukaryotes probably evolved their smaller size). It could be crudely approximated that an "average" unicellular eukaryote has about 100 or so times the mass of an "average" prokaryote, and that's probably within an order of magnitude. I haven't heard much use of the concept of extinction applied to unicellular eukaryote lineages, either, even though some of them use sexual reproduction.

I assume there is a greater biomass of prokaryotes than of unicellular eukaryotes, although I am not sure.

Multicellular animals obviously range from not much bigger than a few large unicellular eukaryotes (dust mites have a diameter of about 500 microns) to vast. There is a clear tendency for lineages with smaller individual size to actually make up a greater percentage of the biomass. For example, an individual adult bear of any species is much larger than an individual adult ant of any species, but ant-sized organisms make up a vastly higher proportion of the biomass than bear- sized organisms. Indeed, this relationship appears to be non-linear, proportion of the biomass seems to drop off sharply in animals, as individual size increases. A major outlier is the fairly large biomass of humans.

I'm not sure if it works the same way with plants. The large biomass of trees would seem to argue otherwise.

Clearly, the concept of extinction is mainly applied to large animals, especially mammals and birds, and to a lesser degree to large plants. It's much harder to define species at all when dealing with microbes (not that's it's easy otherwise).

Getting back to the extinction-due-to-replacement versus extinction-due-to-overall-decrease-in-biomass distinction, I will note that any event that had a global effect of markedly reducing availability of solar energy would affect ALL levels of the biomass, except in a few very weird, isolated environments.

Nick (Matzke) · 3 March 2011

Barnosky has done some really interesting work on how much of the global Net Primary Productivity humans have taken over from the rest of life. It's pretty huge, e.g. most large animals have been made extinct or restricted to parks, and human crops and livestock have taken over that entire ecological space.

He notes that part of what keeps us going well above the natural biomass carrying capacity, based on natural NPP, is fossil fuel input. But that has it's own problems, and a time limit as well...

Mike Elzinga · 3 March 2011

Some of you may remember Al Bartlett and his Forgotten Fundamentals of the Energy Crisis.

For those who don’t have the back-of-the-envelope math, it’s worth spending some time with.

Bartlett has also written a paperback book entitled The Essential Exponential! put out by the Center for Science, Mathematics & Computer Education, University of Nebraska, Lincoln.

I don’t know if it is still available in print.

Paul Burnett · 3 March 2011

Mike Elzinga said: Bartlett has also written a paperback book entitled The Essential Exponential! ... I don’t know if it is still available in print.

Amazon has 4 new and 4 used - http://www.amazon.com/Essential-Exponential-Future-Our-Planet/dp/0975897306/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1299177791&sr=8-5 (Why would the used ones cost 3 times what the new ones cost?)

Mike Elzinga · 3 March 2011

Paul Burnett said:
Mike Elzinga said: Bartlett has also written a paperback book entitled The Essential Exponential! ... I don’t know if it is still available in print.
Amazon has 4 new and 4 used - http://www.amazon.com/Essential-Exponential-Future-Our-Planet/dp/0975897306/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1299177791&sr=8-5 (Why would the used ones cost 3 times what the new ones cost?)

Bartlett also lists it as being available at the University of Colorado Bookstore. This is a pretty decent introduction to the math for high school and undergraduate students.

poe · 3 March 2011

Wait a minute! 5 mass extinctions? Are you trying to say there were 5 global floods? And, of course, they all occurred in the last 6000 years.

There I win! I beat FL et al in making the first intelligence-free comment!

And we all know that evolutionary biologists may not sit around in biology departments plotting to overthrow God and morality -- it's standing room only.

;)

Terenzio the Troll · 3 March 2011

The Founding Mothers said: The "next big thing" could (and hopefully will) easily arise from exploration into alternative, sustainable/renewable energy sources [...] I think we have documented plenty of examples of "Nature" planning for the future. Birds build nests before they lay eggs.

Uhmmm, in hindsight I must reckon my previous comment was ill-phrased and prone to be misunderstood. With "the next big thing" I was referring to some sort of replacement, well, for us. Also, with planning for the future I meant that evolution has no goal. I was trying to say that there is no species destined to become our prefigured replacement in the number of sentient creatures, and something "suitable" will eventually evolve after our demise, if chances are right. Even so, our actions might postpone or altogether stop this replacement from happening (think of the dinosaurs stubbornly refusing to become extinct: ok, I know, it's stupid). Or, at the very least, leave our distant successors a depleted planet to live on.

Terenzio the Troll · 3 March 2011

Well, first of all thank you for your lengthy reply.

Do you have a citation for that rather surprising statement?

Well, I can easily see why you find my assertion startling. I was not assuming or suggesting that humans did not have an hand in the pleistocene/holocene extinctions. Following the trail of my "nail in the coffin" metaphor, I was rather wondering if humans have perchance precipitated an event that was already waiting for the right conditions to happen. After all, at least for Australia, is still matter of debate if the extinctions were already started when the first men landed there. Sure as hell, they helped a lot afterwards (and they still are). Africa fared better than the rest of the world till historic times as for extinction rates (ok, this might not count: humans and other megafauna co-evolved there). As for North America, I was thinking of horses and their relatives: equidae saw a shrink in their diversity well before humans reached America: by that time only the genus equus was left. Which is the same that happened to our lineage: humans are the only bipedal primates left of a formerly numerous family.

Jim Thomerson · 3 March 2011

We recognize past mass extinctions because dominant plants and animals were extirpated or greatly reduced in diversity. As a species which thinks itself dominant, isn't the lesson of earth history that, as the present mass extinction runs its course, we are likely to be in deep trouble?

Robert Byers · 3 March 2011

This yEC says this paper is not doiung any science. In fact its not doing biology.
All your info is based on geology presumptions and then you draw some biological conclusions.
Biology is about living things and studying them and to study them one must be dealing with a living/or recently living thing.
Casts of former living things is not biology.
This thread makes a good point for creationism.
Further i question that there is anything of the prestige of "science" going on here.
This subject can not draw forth much data to work with in order to draw conclusions.
It all looks like just more green "science" making speculations .
They get paid for this?
Are they aware some diseases are still not cured?

Mike Elzinga · 3 March 2011

Robert Byers said: Are they aware some diseases are still not cured?

Indeed they are. These diseases are called ignorance and stupidity.

John Harshman · 3 March 2011

Nick, your paper made the San Jose Mercury News, and in a form that wasn't so garbled that I couldn't figure out what it was about. Big science!

Stanton · 3 March 2011

So, Robert Byers, what diseases has Creationism cured?

Hercules Grytpype-Thynne · 3 March 2011

Robert Byers said: This yEC says this paper is not doiung any science. In fact its not doing biology.

I always look to a YEC when I want a fair assessment of what is science and what is not.

Dale Husband · 4 March 2011

Robert Byers said: This yEC says this paper is not doiung any science. In fact its not doing biology. All your info is based on geology presumptions and then you draw some biological conclusions. Biology is about living things and studying them and to study them one must be dealing with a living/or recently living thing. Casts of former living things is not biology. This thread makes a good point for creationism. Further i question that there is anything of the prestige of "science" going on here. This subject can not draw forth much data to work with in order to draw conclusions. It all looks like just more green "science" making speculations . They get paid for this? Are they aware some diseases are still not cured?

Boy, you are clueless, aren't you? How do you think detectives and forensic scientists work to solve crimes like murder that have not been directly observed? They can work with skeletons of people that have been dead for years to build a case against the killer of the skeleton's owner. And you need knowledge of biology to do that. One disease that needs to be cured is your mental illness.

Terenzio the Troll · 4 March 2011

Robert Byers said: They get paid for this? Are they aware some diseases are still not cured?

Once upon a time, I got paid to count photons that hit a ccd plate. A substantial part of the work consisted in finding a good way to produce noise: noise of the best possible quality, of course. The noisier, the better. Now, pay someone to make noise: would you believe that?

Rolf Aalberg · 4 March 2011

Do our funny visitor have any clue about how much time and effort scientists spend in both fruitful and fruitless (hopefully some of those too) efforts at finding faults,errors or mistakes, or anything else that might be less than optimally possible in the results of their own work as well as that of other scientists?

I bet Robert doesn't even have any clue about what great scientific effort lie behind the development of things like the computers he probably 'mingle' with every day? Does he think physics or computer scientists are some superior breed compared with their biology peers?

eric · 4 March 2011

Robert Byers said: They get paid for this? Are they aware some diseases are still not cured?

Unfortunately Beyers' attitude is not limited to YECs, but is (IMO) shared by a lot of Americans...including many of our politicians who have control of science funding. So I don't think we can dismiss this complaint (despite the speaker). Rather, I think there's a real need to educate the general public on the value of basic, "I can't see what it gets me" science. There's the basic science = seed corn argument. There's the marketplace argument (sucessful biotech and silicon valley firms invest a higher % of their profits in basic research than the government). I'd be interested to know what other arguments people use.

Nick Matzke · 4 March 2011

Nick, Question: why “minus bats and endemics?”

This was done (for some of the dots) to increase comparability between the modern data and the fossil data. Fossil data tend to not preserve things like bats (which are 1/4 of mammal species) and e.g. island endemics or other species with narrow geographic ranges.

eric · 4 March 2011

Thanks for the answer!

OT question - I thought you had published a journal article specifically on the cdesign proponentists phenomena. But I can't find it. I found your Biochem J. (2009) review article but that wasn't what I was thinking of. Can you point me to the reference, or am I imagining something that doesn't exist?

Nick Matzke · 4 March 2011

There was the article in Evolution Education & Outreach last year, May 15 or so...

Nick Matzke · 4 March 2011

Heh so I'm totally on TV right now and typing so it looks like I'm working....

type type type type

....

123456789

Glenn Branch · 4 March 2011

Nick, you're live-blogging your B-roll?

sparc · 4 March 2011

You will find an article on your publication in the German magazine Der Spiegel

Richard Hendricks · 4 March 2011

Nick,
It's too bad we can't compare present populations of bats vs fossil populations. It would be good to know if WNS or similar epidemics had occurred before.

http://www.batcon.org/index.php/what-we-do/white-nose-syndrome.html

nmgirl · 4 March 2011

Stanton said: So, Robert Byers, what diseases has Creationism cured?

sure hasn't cured stupidity.

nmgirl · 4 March 2011

Terenzio the Troll said:
Robert Byers said: They get paid for this? Are they aware some diseases are still not cured?
Once upon a time, I got paid to count photons that hit a ccd plate. A substantial part of the work consisted in finding a good way to produce noise: noise of the best possible quality, of course. The noisier, the better. Now, pay someone to make noise: would you believe that?

i got paid to weigh truck loads of cow manure sold for fertilizer. I also became a master fly swatter.

The Founding Mothers · 4 March 2011

Terenzio the Troll said: Uhmmm, in hindsight I must reckon my previous comment was ill-phrased and prone to be misunderstood. With "the next big thing" I was referring to some sort of replacement, well, for us. Also, with planning for the future I meant that evolution has no goal. I was trying to say that there is no species destined to become our prefigured replacement in the number of sentient creatures, and something "suitable" will eventually evolve after our demise, if chances are right.

Ahhh, I getcha, and agree, mostly. Thanks for clearing that up. Where I might disagree is the assumption that humans are the dominant species on earth. Nematodes are pretty impressive, and our gut fauna has to be considered pretty successful. Then there's the mice... But as a population biologist also studying noise (through different patterns of environmental variability), I hate to think what use I have in the great YEC scheme of things.

Frank J · 4 March 2011

It has always amazed me how the average creationist can ignore all of the ecological implications of a young earth.
— DS

Not sure what you mean by "average creationist," but most of the rank-and-file just don't understand it, so technically they are not ignoring it. Many (most?) of the rank-and-file are not necessarily YECs anyway but just think that it all happened "a long time ago." As for the professionals, YEC activists surely have some bogus rationalization that will impress the rank and file. OEC and most ID activists admit the problem and just concede that the Earth (& sometimes its life) is as old as science says it is.

John Kwok · 4 March 2011

Dale Husband said: One disease that needs to be cured is your mental illness.

Thanks Dale, you get a ringing endorsement from me. Byers is suffering from some acutely delusional and psychotic mental trauma.

John Kwok · 4 March 2011

Glenn Branch said: Nick, you're live-blogging your B-roll?

I hope you've posted this at the NCSE website Glenn. IMHO this is a very important paper simply for being the first successful effort in comparing the elevated extinction rates of the present with the great mass extinctions of the Phanerozoic Eon.

John Kwok · 4 March 2011

nmgirl said:
Stanton said: So, Robert Byers, what diseases has Creationism cured?
sure hasn't cured stupidity.

He's afflicted with some queer Canadian variant of that most risible mental disorder, YEC cretinism. In his case the prognosis isn't too promising.

Mary Anne Erwin · 5 March 2011

I noticed this study didn't include the inputs of either a climatologist or an oceanographer and I'm wondering if this would've had any impact on the results. I think even 300 years is way too optimistic especially considering the idea that my lifetime is a mere blip in geological time and I can see these changes taking place with my own eyes.

I think many people think of extinction events as happening very quickly, as in the asteroid scenario, where one minute everything is fine and the next entire species are extinct. This one won't happen like that, and if we keep it up it's not going to take 300 years to drive 75% of all earth species into extinction. This event is already underway.

John Kwok · 5 March 2011

Mary Anne Erwin said: I noticed this study didn't include the inputs of either a climatologist or an oceanographer and I'm wondering if this would've had any impact on the results. I think even 300 years is way too optimistic especially considering the idea that my lifetime is a mere blip in geological time and I can see these changes taking place with my own eyes. I think many people think of extinction events as happening very quickly, as in the asteroid scenario, where one minute everything is fine and the next entire species are extinct. This one won't happen like that, and if we keep it up it's not going to take 300 years to drive 75% of all earth species into extinction. This event is already underway.

Mary it isn't relevant since the authors were interested in looking at elevated extinction rates and comparing and contrasting those in the Recent (Holocene) Epoch - especially now - with those of the great five mass extinctions in the Phanerozoic Eon (the interval time that begins at the beginning of the Cambrian Period to the present).

Frank J · 5 March 2011

Hercules Grytpype-Thynne said:
Robert Byers said: This yEC says this paper is not doiung any science. In fact its not doing biology.
I always look to a YEC when I want a fair assessment of what is science and what is not.

Bad idea. YECs often make testable hypotheses of "what happened when," if not of how. If you want a perfect example of what science is not, check the slippery word games of an IDer.

harold · 5 March 2011

Terenzio -

Do you have a citation for that rather surprising statement?
Well, I can easily see why you find my assertion startling. I was not assuming or suggesting that humans did not have an hand in the pleistocene/holocene extinctions. Following the trail of my “nail in the coffin” metaphor, I was rather wondering if humans have perchance precipitated an event that was already waiting for the right conditions to happen. After all, at least for Australia, is still matter of debate if the extinctions were already started when the first men landed there. Sure as hell, they helped a lot afterwards (and they still are). Africa fared better than the rest of the world till historic times as for extinction rates (ok, this might not count: humans and other megafauna co-evolved there). As for North America, I was thinking of horses and their relatives: equidae saw a shrink in their diversity well before humans reached America: by that time only the genus equus was left. Which is the same that happened to our lineage: humans are the only bipedal primates left of a formerly numerous family.

While I agree with your examples, I must note for purely technical reasons that your reply does not contain a "citation". At any rate, it doesn't matter. I think we actually agree. It's simply a matter of noting that the following things are different issues - 1) Extinctions have been going on for as long as there has been multicellular life that humans apply the concept of "extinction" too. 2) The relationship between low technology human societies and extinctions in other species is unclear. This is especially true of paleolithic societies. Even technologically advanced pre-industrial societies like China throughout much of its history, or late Medieval Europe, had perhaps unknown permanent effects on the overall environment. There is room for much scholarly debate. 3) On the other hand, the relationship between modern humans and overall reduction of biodiversity, especially within the large, multicellular proportion of the biosphere, is pretty obvious. The point of Nick's article here is to try to improve quantification of extinctions secondary to extinction-provoking events. Even someone who is absolutely convinced that the woolly mammoth would have gone extinct with or without the presence of humans isn't going to deny that modern humans are reducing biodiversity. The Pleistocene megafauna were very interesting. Based on the relationship between body size, life span, and reproductive rates, they probably tended to be very long lived and very slow reproducers. That pattern - big, long-lived, slow reproduction - occurs over and over again in the history of life, but always leads to a high risk of extinction for the individual lineages who end up there. Of course, some megafauna did survive, arguably including us, as the second most giant primates after gorillas (who also survived). All surviving apes are pretty big compared to all other primates, for that matter. It's also worth noting that we don't know the genetics of most megafauna. Unique morphology doesn't necessarily mean genetic isolate.

harold · 5 March 2011

Frank J. -

YECs often make testable hypotheses of “what happened when,” if not of how.

This is technically true, and I used to have a shade more respect for some of the old YEC types than for the likes of Behe and Dembski. However, my respect for the two groups has equalized over the years, and that happened without any increase in my respect for Behe or Dembski. The ID process goes like this - 1) Spin some slippery BS that you think is too weaselly to be refuted 2) Have it refuted due to its own incoherence and false internal logic 3) Ignore the refutation and keep promoting the same BS, while misrepresenting and grotesquely smearing those who are right, and trying to use authoritarian politics to impose your false ideas on the general population. The YEC process goes like this - 1) Make a testable claim 2) Learn that the tests have been done and that the claim you made has in fact been rule out. 3) Ignore the refutation and keep promoting the same BS, while misrepresenting and grotesquely smearing those who are right, and trying to use authoritarian politics to impose your false ideas on the general population. Unfortunately, step 3) is the same for both.

mrg · 5 March 2011

harold said: Unfortunately, step 3) is the same for both.

There is only one argument in ID that is not readily used by YEC: "This has nothing to do with religion / we won't identify the Designer." And some YECs will even try to play that particular card, if in an absurdly inconsistent fashion.

John_S · 5 March 2011

The YEC process goes like this - 1) Make a testable claim 2) Learn that the tests have been done and that the claim you made has in fact been rule out. 3) Ignore the refutation and keep promoting the same BS, while misrepresenting and grotesquely smearing those who are right, and trying to use authoritarian politics to impose your false ideas on the general population.

I think (3) should be "Come up with some unsupported ad-hoc hypothesis invented out of thin air to explain away the refutation; e.g., what if God changed the speed of light? What if the magnetic reversals recorded in the geological record happened rapidly during Noah's Flood (and besides, the reversal calculations may be based on bad samples)? What if radiometric dating is wrong? What if Noah's Flood created the mountains so we really didn't need much water to cover the earth? What if the earth was previously surrounded by a shell of floating ice? etc., etc.

mrg · 5 March 2011

John_S said: What if Noah's Flood created the mountains so we really didn't need much water to cover the earth?

Or, as Steve Wright put it: "You know sponges grow on the bottom of the ocean? ... ever wonder how much deeper it would be if they didn't?" Ah, so that's where all the water went. "That's silly." "You started it."

mrg · 5 March 2011

Alas, it is vastly easier to cook up baloney than it is to refute it ... much easier to spray graffiti over a wall than clean it up. The good thing is that anyone with sense generally sees the baloney for what it is. The bad thing is that the baloney isn't targeted at people with sense.

harold · 5 March 2011

John_S - I agree that step 3 should also include what you have added. mrg -

Alas, it is vastly easier to cook up baloney than it is to refute it

As a former Maritime Canadian, I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that this is NOT an insult to fried baloney. (Not a former Newfoundlander, but in this regard - perhaps in this regard only - there is cultural overlap).

mrg · 5 March 2011

harold said: As a former Maritime Canadian, I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that this is NOT an insult to fried baloney.

Hey, I'm not into Newfie jokes. It's just that it sounds more appetizing to cook up baloney than it does to cook up cowflops.

Mike Elzinga · 5 March 2011

John_S said: What if the magnetic reversals recorded in the geological record happened rapidly during Noah's Flood (and besides, the reversal calculations may be based on bad samples)?

Man; think of what you can do with those alternating magnetic fields. The induced alternating currents would flow through anything that could conduct electricity and melt it or cook it. And there would be these alternating blasts of energetic charged particles from outer space coming through during the low points in the alternations. The aurora must have been spectacular and everywhere. And nobody on the ark died of cancer or got cooked.

Frank J · 6 March 2011

harold said: Frank J. -
YECs often make testable hypotheses of “what happened when,” if not of how.
This is technically true, and I used to have a shade more respect for some of the old YEC types than for the likes of Behe and Dembski. However, my respect for the two groups has equalized over the years, and that happened without any increase in my respect for Behe or Dembski. The ID process goes like this - 1) Spin some slippery BS that you think is too weaselly to be refuted 2) Have it refuted due to its own incoherence and false internal logic 3) Ignore the refutation and keep promoting the same BS, while misrepresenting and grotesquely smearing those who are right, and trying to use authoritarian politics to impose your false ideas on the general population. The YEC process goes like this - 1) Make a testable claim 2) Learn that the tests have been done and that the claim you made has in fact been rule out. 3) Ignore the refutation and keep promoting the same BS, while misrepresenting and grotesquely smearing those who are right, and trying to use authoritarian politics to impose your false ideas on the general population. Unfortunately, step 3) is the same for both.

I too see the YEC activists as "closing in" on the ID activists. They also seem to be learning the tactic of being as vague as possible about #1. OEC activists are a bit higher on the respect scale, particularly since RTB criticized "Expelled." Though even they found it necessary to do some pathetic backpedaling.

Frank J · 6 March 2011

mrg said: Alas, it is vastly easier to cook up baloney than it is to refute it ... much easier to spray graffiti over a wall than clean it up. The good thing is that anyone with sense generally sees the baloney for what it is. The bad thing is that the baloney isn't targeted at people with sense.

The problem is that there's so much baloney that most people with sense fall for at least some of it. As much as 75% of the public thinks it's fair to "teach the controversy" in science class. That % would go down to ~50% (those who doubt evolution) if they only knew that "teach the controversy" is all about promoting unreasonable doubt of evolution, while the pseudoscientific alternatives get a free pass. And it would go down to ~25% (Biblical literalists who would not part with their myths under any circumstances) if they had the time or interest to see that the evidence simply does not support any of the mutually contradictory creationist "theories."

Flint · 6 March 2011

I think the appeal of teaching the controversy is to peoples' sense of fairness. But fairness applies to legitimate differences of viewpoint or opinion, not to whether apples fall up or down.

And the underlying subtext, therefore, is that scientific findings and religious faith are BOTH legitimate viewpoints or opinions. The notion that there exists an objective universe which is the object of scientific inquiry is simply not understood. By probably a majority of Americans.

I suspect much of the world is more immune to this appeal to fairness, not because they're unfair, but because they are not predisposed from early childhood to "adjust" reality to fit religious preconceptions.

I think it's human nature to decide what you wish were true, and then try to interpret reality accordingly. Even in science, a hypothesis must be carefully constructed to avoid confirmation bias. Gould was always complaining that when paleontology students sampled fossils of some critter over long periods of time and found no changes, they discarded that line of investigation because they found "no evolution", and couldn't get published. The model SAID that organisms undergo constant slow change over time. Therefore that's what they DO. Evidence to the contrary simply was not evidence, and was ignored. Sound familiar?

Mike Elzinga · 6 March 2011

National Geographic’s March 6, 2011 Picture of the Day shows Australia’s “Paluxy Riverbed” version of “giants walking the Earth.”

Thus, there is “proof” in Australia that there is no such thing as mass extinctions; there is only genetic entropy making things worse since the fall. Everything was bigger and better back then.

Since these weren’t wiped out by the Flood, there must have been giants on the ark, because giants are bigger and better.
[/AiGICRthinkingmode]

John Kwok · 6 March 2011

Flint said: I think the appeal of teaching the controversy is to peoples' sense of fairness. But fairness applies to legitimate differences of viewpoint or opinion, not to whether apples fall up or down.

But there is a serious problem with regards to whether we reject evidence acquired via the scientific method in lieu of faith, as it pertains to science. Ken Miller makes this very compelling point in this video clip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aO5us0qHcwc&feature=player_embedded

Mike Elzinga · 6 March 2011

John Kwok said: But there is a serious problem with regards to whether we reject evidence acquired via the scientific method in lieu of faith, as it pertains to science. Ken Miller makes this very compelling point in this video clip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aO5us0qHcwc&feature=player_embedded

It is not simply the ID/creationists’ attempts to do an end run around the process of science. The very concepts put forward by the ID/creationists have nothing to do with how the universe works. ID/creationists never take these concepts into the lab or field and try to do anything with them; and even if they did try, they would discover they don’t work and they would be blowing up things in the lab. So it is also matter of safety.

John Kwok · 6 March 2011

Mike Elzinga said:
John Kwok said: But there is a serious problem with regards to whether we reject evidence acquired via the scientific method in lieu of faith, as it pertains to science. Ken Miller makes this very compelling point in this video clip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aO5us0qHcwc&feature=player_embedded
It is not simply the ID/creationists’ attempts to do an end run around the process of science. The very concepts put forward by the ID/creationists have nothing to do with how the universe works. ID/creationists never take these concepts into the lab or field and try to do anything with them; and even if they did try, they would discover they don’t work and they would be blowing up things in the lab. So it is also matter of safety.

You have no disagreement from me, but Ken's points are well worth noting IMHO.

Just Bob · 6 March 2011

Mike Elzinga said: ID/creationists never take these concepts into the lab or field and try to do anything with them...

Well, they do try to find the Ark now and then. Let's see... how many times has it been "found" now? In how many different places? How many "christian" conmen have made how much money on books, videos, and lectures on how they "found the Ark!"?

Frank J · 6 March 2011

I think the appeal of teaching the controversy is to peoples’ sense of fairness. But fairness applies to legitimate differences of viewpoint or opinion, not to whether apples fall up or down.
— Flint

Right, but how many people know that creationism claims everything from "apples fall up" to "They might fall down, but I won't concede that until you show me where they are at every nansecond of the 'fall'?" Or that it has been "evolving" from the former to the latter, which is essentially a "heads I win, tails you lose" strategy? My personal example may not be the most common one among "fairness" advocates, but in the '90s I briefly thought that comparing "apples fall up" creationism to "apples fall down with a constant acceleration rate" evolution in a science class would convince all but the most seriously brainwashed students of evolution. Then I learned how hell-bent anti-evolution activists were on misrepresenting evolution and the nature of science, and concluded that what they wanted was anything but fair - with or without any church state issues.

Flint · 6 March 2011

What you need to account for (or at least account for it more clearly) is that creationist distortions are far from uniform. They twist ONLY those aspects of reality they think conflict with indoctrinated beliefs, which are fairly limited. They have no problem with genetic change over time EXCEPT where the ramifications refute their scriptures. They have no problem with the speed of light EXCEPT where the ramifications refute their scriptures. Same with radioactive decay, erosion of riverbeds, and so on.

In fact, creationists seem to understand and accept nearly everything science determines, with that one glaring exception that where science and scripture come into perceived conflict, scripture wins. I think the notion that science must be internally consistent if reality is, is a bit too abstract - creationist live with two realities - REAL reality, which is where they live nearly all day every day, and creationist reality, which is the list of necessary paradoxes required by intractable misunderstandings.

The appeal to "fairness" is of course nothing of the kind, it is simply a way to force the camel's nose into the tent by claiming it's not a tent, not a nose, and not a camel. They just noticed that people like "fairness" and used that leverage to phrase their nonsense, just as they noticed that people root for the underdog and used THAT leverage to become "persecuted" (by the small minority, but who's counting?)

Frank J · 6 March 2011

What you need to account for (or at least account for it more clearly) is that creationist distortions are far from uniform. They twist ONLY those aspects of reality they think conflict with indoctrinated beliefs, which are fairly limited. They have no problem with genetic change over time EXCEPT where the ramifications refute their scriptures. They have no problem with the speed of light EXCEPT where the ramifications refute their scriptures. Same with radioactive decay, erosion of riverbeds, and so on.
— Flint

It's even less uniform than that, as they have all sorts of conflicting opinions as to what their scripture says. E.g. Ray Martinez denies even "microevolution" (which ironically makes him more consistent than those who try to draw an arbitrary line between "micro" and "macro"). OECs have no problem with radioactive decay, erosion rates, but all sorts of problems with "RM + NS" and common descent. Then you have the IDers who disregard scripture altogether, and occasionally even discourage the rubes from using it to overrule evidence, as Behe did when he called reading the Bible as a science text "silly." The one consistent thing about anti-evolution activists is to promote unreasonable doubt of evolution by any means possible. So we keep hearing less and less about what they think fits the evidence better, and more and more about how they are "expelled" and how acceptance of "Darwinism" leads to all sorts of evil behavior.

Michael J · 6 March 2011

I've read somewhere that 3/4 of young people are leaving the various fundie churches. While this is probably due to factors other than seeing through the creationism scam, it would be interesting to see peoples thoughts about evolution broken down by age.

Mike Elzinga · 6 March 2011

Frank J said: It's even less uniform than that, as they have all sorts of conflicting opinions as to what their scripture says. E.g. Ray Martinez denies even "microevolution" (which ironically makes him more consistent than those who try to draw an arbitrary line between "micro" and "macro"). OECs have no problem with radioactive decay, erosion rates, but all sorts of problems with "RM + NS" and common descent. Then you have the IDers who disregard scripture altogether, and occasionally even discourage the rubes from using it to overrule evidence, as Behe did when he called reading the Bible as a science text "silly."

The process seems to have many of the same elements that go into the splintering of denominations into mutually suspicious sectarian dogmas and hundreds of “one-true” churches. In every case there are also domineering, authoritarian personalities and marketing concerns in the picture.

Mike Elzinga · 6 March 2011

Just Bob said:
Mike Elzinga said: ID/creationists never take these concepts into the lab or field and try to do anything with them...
Well, they do try to find the Ark now and then. Let's see... how many times has it been "found" now? In how many different places? How many "christian" conmen have made how much money on books, videos, and lectures on how they "found the Ark!"?

Hence the Ark Encounter; if you can’t produce the evidence for it, fabricate it.

Flint · 6 March 2011

Hey, fieldwork is what found the Paluxy River footprints, and what determined that the Grand Canyon was carved overnight in magic mud, and how they discovered the polonium halos. Dembski and Marks are in the lab even now discovering any number of assumptions according to which evolution can't happen and then demonstrating it.

Dale Husband · 6 March 2011

Michael J said: I've read somewhere that 3/4 of young people are leaving the various fundie churches. While this is probably due to factors other than seeing through the creationism scam, it would be interesting to see peoples thoughts about evolution broken down by age.

There were a lot of attempts to keep young people from leaving the fundamentalist churches. Christian apologetics, Christian rock music, and "scientific" Creationist ministries, among other efforts. All of them are gradually failing because while truth may be subject to distortion and censorship, it cannot be hidden forever. The more young people are exposed to various religions and philosophies, the more they realize how limited and prone to failure their own assumptions are. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Rqw4krMOug

Michael J · 7 March 2011

I found this interesting (2009) http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=100324 . Part of the study found that kids who went to Sunday School were more likely to leave. Ken Ham of course thinks it is because there is not enough creationism taught.
I think that it would be the opposite - my kids ask enough awkward questions and I have no reason to lie to them, I could image what a precocious child could ask about the ark etc.

raven · 7 March 2011

Well, they do try to find the Ark now and then. Let’s see… how many times has it been “found” now?

I think the Ark has been found 6 different times in the last century alone. The last group is known to have planted wood from the Black sea area to enhance their "evidence". During the middle ages, there were 17 known foreskins of jesus and three different tombs. And whole forests worth of the True Cross. The Holy Grail is still up for grabs though. Religious proof uses "other ways of knowing".

Frank J · 7 March 2011

Michael J said: I found this interesting (2009) http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=100324 . Part of the study found that kids who went to Sunday School were more likely to leave. Ken Ham of course thinks it is because there is not enough creationism taught. I think that it would be the opposite - my kids ask enough awkward questions and I have no reason to lie to them, I could image what a precocious child could ask about the ark etc.

That's exactly why I would put much more effort into thwarting anti-evolution activists who don't talk about the Ark, or how the Earth is only 1000s of years old. They are the ones who just peddle phony "weaknesses" of "Darwinism," and neatly avoid proposing anything else that they know is nothing but weaknesses. Students who will not buy Ark stories will still parrot lines like "I hear the jury's still out about evolution."

Just Bob · 7 March 2011

raven said: During the middle ages, there were 17 known foreskins of jesus and three different tombs. And whole forests worth of the True Cross. The Holy Grail is still up for grabs though.

An old (ancient) joke recently told to us by our Egyptian tour guide: Why are there no longer cedars in Lebanon? Because every Frank (Christian) has a piece of the True Cross.

Stuart Weinstein · 7 March 2011

Just Bob said:
Mike Elzinga said: ID/creationists never take these concepts into the lab or field and try to do anything with them...
Well, they do try to find the Ark now and then. Let's see... how many times has it been "found" now? In how many different places? How many "christian" conmen have made how much money on books, videos, and lectures on how they "found the Ark!"?

Now the deal seems to be if you can't find the ark, build one.

Henry J · 7 March 2011

Like in Evan Almighty?

Robert Byers · 9 March 2011

Rolf Aalberg said: Do our funny visitor have any clue about how much time and effort scientists spend in both fruitful and fruitless (hopefully some of those too) efforts at finding faults,errors or mistakes, or anything else that might be less than optimally possible in the results of their own work as well as that of other scientists? I bet Robert doesn't even have any clue about what great scientific effort lie behind the development of things like the computers he probably 'mingle' with every day? Does he think physics or computer scientists are some superior breed compared with their biology peers?

i'm only questioning this in particular. In fact I don't believe there is such a thing as science. Theres just people thinking about things in nature. There are no such people as scientists. There are just investigators in matters. So results matter. The computer people bring results. The evolutionary people bring speculation about unobserved ancient matters. not the same thing. Creationists bring correction to wrong ideas from evolution and so can lead to gains for mankind in many ways since biology touches on healing potential.

Just Bob · 10 March 2011

Robbie, seriously, is English your native language?

Henry J · 10 March 2011

If he's Canadian, maybe he's from the French speaking part?

Atwood Viking Refrigerator Repair · 10 March 2011

Parece post muy informativo en este blog, va a marcar esta uno para no perder nada en el futuro.

Irvine Dryer Repair · 11 March 2011

Me gusta este blog mucho, uno realmente muy interesante y me gustaría darles las gracias por el modo de dar estas instrucciones,

Newport Beach Dishwasher repair · 11 March 2011

Yo también soy un buen aficionado de este equipo. También me sentí muy feliz cuando Madden 10 trajo la serie de vuelta. Fue un momento memorable para ellos.

Terrell Bernabo · 17 March 2011

We are getting ready to go to El Salvador in 2011, I really enjoy reading about it, I want to know more about the people of El Salvador how they live and where they live

Accomodation Novalja · 5 April 2011

like this blog