NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #18/NN_1992_18.iso/spool/sci/skeptic/14379

Internet Message Format | 1992-08-14 | 20.5 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!gatech!ncar!noao!arizona!arizona.edu!skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu!lippard
From: [e-mail] (James J. Lippard)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: 17 Supposed Evidences against Evolution
Keywords: evolution, creationism
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 15 Aug 92 05:28:00 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Followup-To: sci.skeptic
Distribution: world,local
Organization: University of Arizona
Lines: 416
Nntp-Posting-Host: skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Robert Bourdeau) writes...
>                    17 EVIDENCES AGAINST EVOLUTION
>                    ------------------------------
>                           By Kevin Martin
>
>   1. MOON DUST
>    Meteoritic dust falls on the earth continuously, adding up to
>thousands,  if not millions, of tons of dust per year.

Thousands of tons (11,000-18,000) per year, not millions.  A figure
in the millions of tons was used by creationist Harold Slusher based
on a 1960 estimate calculated from mountain-top level.  More recent
and more accurate measurements are space-based.  (See Strahler 1987,
p. 144 for details and references.)

>    Meteoritic material contributes nickel to the oceans.  Taking
>the amount of nickel in the oceans and the supply from meteoritic
>dust yields an age figure for the earth of just several  thousand
>years, not the millions (or billions) expressed by evolutionists.

Taking the amount of nickel in the oceans and the supply from meteoritic
dust gives no age at all, since there are processes removing nickel
from the oceans as well as adding them.  (See Strahler 1987, pp. 144,
149-150.)

>   2. MAGNETIC FIELD
>    The earth's magnetic field is decaying rapidly, at a constant
>(if  not  decreasing)  rate. At this rate,  8000  years  ago  the
>earth's  magnetism would have equaled that of a magnetic star,  a
>highly  unlikely occurrence.  Also, if electric currents  in  the
>earth's core are responsible for the earth's magnetism, the  heat
>generated by these currents 20,000 years ago would have dissolved
>the earth.

This argument is promoted by creationist Thomas Barnes.  He ignores
two things which destroy his argument:  1.  The decrease in the dipole
component of the earth's magnetic field is accompanied by an increase
in the nondipole component.  2.  Numerous magnetic reversals are known
to have occurred in earth's history.

>   3. FOSSIL RECORD
>contributing  to the fact of special creation. Let's take a  look
>at  Archeopteryx,  a fossil that some evolutionists claim  to  be
>transitional between reptile and bird.

Creationists have made two responses to Archaeopteryx:  1.  It is
100% bird (the most common response).  2.  It is a dinosaur which
had feather impressions added to it (the Hoyle/Wickramasinghe hoax
charge).  The fact that creationists find both views plausible goes
to show the transitional nature of the fossils.

>    Archeopteryx is discussed in evolutionist Francis  Hitching's
>book, The Neck of the Giraffe - Where Darwin Went Wrong.   Hitch-
>ing speaks on six aspects of Archeopteryx, following here.
>    (The  following  six  points are quoted from  Luther  Sunder-
>land's  book,  Darwin's Enigma: Fossils and Other  Problems,  pp.
>74-75,  the  facts of which points he  gathered  from  Hitching's
>book.)
>
>     1. It had a long bony tail, like a reptile's.
>
>          In  the  embryonic stage, some living  birds  have
>     more tail vertebrae than Archeopteryx. They later  fuse
>     to become an upstanding bone called the pygostyle.  The
>     tail  bone  and feather arrangement on swans  are  very
>     similar to those of Archeopteryx. One authority  claims
>     that  there is no basic difference between the  ancient
>     and modern forms: the difference lies only in the  fact
>     that  the caudal vertebrae are greatly  prolonged.  But
>     this does not make a reptile.
>
>     2. It had claws on its feet and on its feathered  fore-
>     limbs.
>
>        However,  many living birds such as the  hoatzin  in
>     South  America, the touraco in Africa and  the  ostrich
>     also have claws. In 1983, the British Museum of Natural
>     History displayed numerous species within nine families
>     of birds with claws on the wings.
>
>     3. It had teeth.
>
>        Modern  birds  do not have teeth  but  many  ancient
>     birds did, particularly those in the Mesozoic. There is
>     no  suggestion that these birds were transitional.  The
>     teeth  do not show the connection of Archeopteryx  with
>     any  other animal since every subclass  of  vertebrates
>     has some with teeth and some without.
>
>     4. It had a shallow breastbone.
>
>        Various modern flying birds such as the hoatzin have
>     similarly  shallow breastbones, and this does not  dis-
>     qualify them from being classified as birds. And  there
>     are,  of course, many species of nonflying birds,  both
>     living and extinct.
>        Recent  examination of Archeopteryx's  feathers  has
>     shown that they are the same as the feathers of  modern
>     birds  that are excellent fliers. Dr. Ostrom says  that
>     there  is  no question that they are the  same  as  the
>     feathers of modern birds. They are asymmetrical with  a
>     center  shaft and parallel barbs like those of  today's
>     flying birds.
>
>     5. Its bones were solid, not hollow, like a bird's.
>
>        This idea has been refuted because the long bones of
>     Archeopteryx are now known to be hollow.

There are many more reptilian features of _Archaeopteryx_ than these
(see McGowan, 1984, pp. 116-117 for a list).  The fact that creationists
can find some birds which have one or two of these features does not
make their case.

>     6. It predates the general arrival of birds by millions
>     of years.
>
>        This also has been refuted by recent paleontological
>     discoveries.  In  1977 a geologist from  Brigham  Young
>     University, James A. Jensen, discovered in the Dry Mesa
>     quarry of the Morrison formation in western Colorado  a
>     fossil  of an unequivocal bird in Lower Jurassic  rock.
>     This  deposit is dated as 60-million years  older  than
>     the  Upper  Jurassic  rock in  which  Archeopteryx  was
>     found.  He first found the rear-leg femur  and,  later,
>     the  remainder  of the skeleton. This was  reported  in
>     Science  News 24 September 1977. Professor John  Ostrom
>     commented,  "It  is obvious we must now  look  for  the
>     ancestors  of  flying birds in a period  of  time  much
>     older than that in which Archeopteryx lived."

I don't know much about this.  Creationists usually use Protoavis
as the earlier bird example now, even though there is much dispute
about whether the fossil is really a bird.

>   And  so it goes with the fossil that many textbooks set  forth
>as the best example of a transitional form. No true  intermediate
>fossils have been found.

Totally false.  For a list of many transitional forms, see Cuffey, 1984.

>   In  a letter to Luther Sunderland, dated April 10,  1979,  Dr.
>Colin Patterson, of the British Museum of Natural History, wrote:
>
>   "...I  fully agree with your comments on the lack of  di-
>    rect illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book.
>    If  I  knew of any, fossil or living, I  would  certainly
>    have included them. You suggest that an artist should  be
>    used  to visualise such transformations, but where  would
>    he get the information from? I could not, honestly,  pro-
>    vide  it, and if I were to leave it to artistic  licence,
>    would that not mislead the reader?"
>
>   Just  think  of it! Here is a man sitting amidst  one  of  the
>greatest  fossil collections ever and he knows of  absolutely  NO
>transitional  fossils. So convincing I believe this quote  to  be
>that it will sum up this discussion on fossil evidence.

Patterson has complained about Sunderland misrepresenting his views.
He has some minority views about how taxonomy is to be done which
underly the above remarks, but he is a firm believer in evolution.

>   6. SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS
>    The  second  law of thermodynamics states that  although  the
>total  amount  of energy remains constant, the amount  of  usable
>energy is constantly decreasing.  This law can be  seen  in  most
>everything.  Where work is done, energy is expelled. That  energy
>can  never again be used. As usable energy decreases,  decay  in-
>creases.  Herein lies the problem for evolution. If  the  natural
>trend  is toward degeneration, then evolution is impossible,  for
>it demands the betterment of organisms through mutation.
>    Some try to sidestep this law by saying that it applies  only
>to  closed environments. They say the earth is an  open  environ-
>ment, collecting energy from the sun. However, Dr. Duane Gish has
>put forth four conditions that must be met in order for  complex-
>ity to be generated in an environment.
>
>      1. The system must be an open system.
>      2. An adequate external energy force must  be  avail-
>         able.
>      3. The system must possess energy  conversion  mecha-
>         nisms.
>      4. A control mechanism must exist within  the  system
>         for directing,  maintaining and  replicating these
>         energy conversion mechanisms.
>
>   The second law clearly presents another insurmountable barrier
>to evolutionary idealism.

Dr. Duane Gish was challenged in a debate on June 27, 1989 by Edward
Max to precisely specify how evolution violates the Second Law of
Thermodynamics.  Gish verbally accepted the challenge; he accepted
it in writing on August 28, 1989.  He has yet to come up with his
answer to the challenge.  (See "Announcing a Possible New Debate,"
_Creation/Evolution_ XXVII(Summer 1990):53-55.)

>   9. PUNCTUATED EQUILIBRIA
>    Seeing  the problem of gradual evolution with the fossil  re-
>cord, and the obvious abrupt appearances of species, Drs. Stephen
>Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge have formed the theory of punctuated
>equilibria. Punctuated equilibria, is, by example, a bird  giving
>birth  to a mammal, thus leaving no transitional fossils  in  the
>geological record.

This is, of course, gross misrepresentation of punctuated equilibria.

>   10. HOMOLOGY/MOLECULAR BIOLOGY
>    Homology  is the similarity of structures  between  different
>types of organisms. Some have argued that these similarities  are
>evidence  of one common ancestor. However, as  Sunderland  points
>out,  when the concentration  of red blood cells is used, utiliz-
>ing the ideas of homology, man is more closely related to  frogs,
>fish, and birds than to sheep.

Concentration of red blood cells?  What kind of measurement of
genetic similarity is that?  That makes about as much sense as
comparing on the basis of weight, and claiming that humans are
more similar to large fish than to small primates.

>    But  now,  with the development of molecular biology  we  are
>able to make a comparison of the same cells in different species,
>which adds a whole new dimension to homology. Unfortunately,  for
>the evolutionists, molecular biology does as all other  evidences
>do: presents greater argument against evolution theory.
>    In molecular biology, proteins of the same type in  different
>organisms can be tested for difference in amino acid makeup.  The
>figure  resulting is converted into a percentage. The  lower  the
>percentage,  the less difference there is between  the  proteins.
>Dr. Michael Denton,  in experiments with Cytochrome C, a  protein
>that converts food into energy, and hemoglobin, found the follow-
>ing.
>
>       Cytochrome C Differences       Cytochrome C Differences
>
>      Bacterium to Six Organisms       Silkmoth to Vertebrates
>      to yeast . . . . . . . 69%       to lamprey . . . . .27%
>      to wheat . . . . . . . 66%       to carp. . . . . . .25%
>      to silkmoth. . . . . . 65%       to pigeon. . . . . .26%
>      to tuna. . . . . . . . 65%       to turtle. . . . . .25%
>      to pigeon. . . . . . . 64%       to horse . . . . . .30%
>      to horse . . . . . . . 64%
>
>       Cytochrome C Differences        Hemoglobin Differences
>
>   Carp to Terrestrial Vertebrates  Lamprey to Other Vertebrates
>      to bullfrog. . . . . . 13%       to human . . . . . .73%
>      to turtle. . . . . . . 13%       to kangaroo. . . . .76%
>      to chicken . . . . . . 14%       to chicken . . . . .78%
>      to rabbit. . . . . . . 13%       to frog. . . . . . .76%
>      to horse . . . . . . . 13%       to carp. . . . . . .75%
>
>   Dr. Denton states, "There is not a trace at a molecular  level
>of  the  traditional evolutionary series: fish  to  amphibian  to
>reptile  to mammal. Incredibly man is closer to lamprey than  are
>fish."  The evidence is clear;  evolution is struck another  hard
>blow!

Denton doesn't understand his own data.  Percentage difference of these
proteins alone doesn't give you enough information to construct a tree.
You need to look at the actual structures of the proteins.  (See Landau,
1989 and Max, 1986 and 1990.)

>   11. DATING METHODS
>    Many  of the radiometric dating methods used for  determining
>the  age  of fossils are quite unreliable.  Carbon-14  dating  is
>usually sound within a few hundred years span of time. But  there
>are  exceptions to this. For example, a living mollusk was  dated
>using  the carbon-14 method. The readings said it had  been  dead
>for 3000 years.

Even the Institute for Creation Research has argued that C14 dating is
accurate for thousands of years, and debunked the mollusk myth.  (It's
true that a living mollusk was dated to be older than 1600 years, but
this is because it was in water known to be contaminated by carbon
atoms from dissolved limestone.  See Aardsma, 1989.)

>    Lava  rocks  from a volcano in Hawaii which erupted  in  1801
>were  tested,  using  the potassium-argon  method.  The  readings
>showed  them to be  nearly 3 billion years old.  Moon rocks  were
>tested  by  various radiometric methods, yielding  dates  ranging
>from 700 million to 28 billion years.

Again, there are known sources of contamination in these instances.
See Brush, 1983.

>    Dating  methods  such as potassium-argon,  uranium-lead,  and
>rubidium-strontium,  are based on assumptions. These methods  are
>based on chemical change (uranium to lead, etc.) where the parent
>material  (ie.,  uranium) is converted to the  daughter  material
>(ie.,  lead) at a known rate, called a half-life.  These  methods
>cannot be trusted on the basis that too little is known. In order
>to come up with a correct date, you must know:
>
>   1. how much of the parent material was in it at the start,
>   2. how much of the daughter material was in it at the start, &
>   3. if there has been some type of contamination since.
>
>   In  obtaining dates now, scientists assume the answers  to  or
>ignore these questions. The fact is that we cannot know how old a
>specimen is unless we were there when it was formed.

This is false.  Isochron dating methods provide a check on these
assumptions.  See the isochron dating FAQ from talk.origins.

>   12. DINOSAURS
>    Evolutionists  insist  that dinosaurs died  out  millions  of
>years  before  man appeared. However, there are many  reasons  to
>disbelieve this. There are the stories of animals much like dino-
>saurs  in the legends of many lands. These creatures were  called
>dragons.  Many times in the recent past, explorers have  recorded
>sightings  of  flying reptiles much like the  pterodactyl.  Human
>footprints were found along with those of a dinosaur in limestone
>near the Paluxy River in Texas.

This is false, and creationists such as John Morris of the ICR and
Paul Taylor of Films for Christ who have promoted these claims
no longer support them.  (See the _Creation/Evolution_ special issue
on the Paluxy tracks, XV (1985).)

>    Also  not to be tossed aside is the possibility of  dinosaurs
>living today. Consider the stories such as the Loch Ness  monster
>(of which many convincing photographs have been taken). Some have
>claimed  to see dinosaur-like creatures in isolated areas of  the
>world. Recently, a Japanese fishing boat pulled up a carcass of a
>huge  animal  that  intensely resembled a dinosaur.  A  group  of

1977.  It proved to be a basking shark.

>scientists  on an expedition into a jungle looking  for  dinosaur
>evidence  claims  that they witnessed one, but their  camera  was
>damaged. However, they tape recorded the roar of the beast.  This
>recording was checked. The voice patterns on it did not  resemble
>those of any other roaring. You decide. At any rate, the evidence
>that man and dinosaur did live together at one time poses another
>problem for the evolutionists.
>    "But  if  the dinosaurs lived at the same time as  man,  they
>would  have had to have been on the Ark, and that's  impossible!"
>Is  it? The ark was about one and one-half football fields  long,
>75  feet  wide,  and  45 feet tall. It had  a  cubic  footage  of
>1,518,750.  There would have been plenty of room on the  Ark  for
>the dinosaurs (especially considering that only a few were of the
>enormous  size  of Tyrannosaurus or  "Brontosaurus.")  Also,  the
>Bible  states  that Noah was to take two of every kind  onto  the
>Ark. Many dinosaurs and reptiles were of the same kind, but  much
>smaller. Dinosaurs pose no problem for creation science.
>
>   13. SUN'S DIAMETER
>    The sun's diameter is shrinking at the rate of five feet  per
>hour.  At  this rate, life could not have existed  on  the  earth
>100,000 years ago.

This figure comes from an inaccurate analysis of data from the
Royal Greenwich Observatory by John Eddy and Aram Boornazian in 1979.
There have been numerous measurements since then which do *not*
confirm this rate, and the creationists themselves have admitted this
in their literature (see DeYoung and Rush, 1989).  The diameter of the
sun is *not* an age indicator.

>   15. EARTH'S ROTATION
>    The spin rate of the earth is slowing one second per year. If
>the  earth were the billions of years old that the  evolutionists
>say it is, the centrifugal force would have notably deformed  the
>earth.

This rate of slowing is inaccurate.  Its source is Phoenix creationist
Walter Brown, who assumed that because a leap second is added to atomic
clocks every year or so, that this must be because of slowing in the
earth's rotation.  (This was recently discussed in talk.origins, and
is also discussed in Strahler, 1987, pp. 146-148.)
   Brown has admitted that he was wrong, and removed this point from
his book of alleged evidence against evolution.

I did not address all of the above points, but not because they
are unanswerable.  The last two points are too weak to deserve
response.  The river sediment argument is addressed by Strahler.
The probability argument has been addressed by numerous people,
including Russell Doolittle's contribution to _Scientists Confront
Creationism_, edited by Laurie Godfrey.
   The person who assembled this list has obviously not bothered to
research in primary sources or even the creationist literature (which
itself refutes some of them, as I've noted above).

References
Aardsma, Gerald E. (1989) "Myths Regarding Radiocarbon Dating," _Impact_
   No. 189 (March).
Brush, Stephen G.  (1983) "Finding the Age of the Earth: By Physics or
   By Faith?" In J. Peter Zetterberg, editor, _Evolution versus
   Creationism: The Public Education Controversy_.  Phoenix, Ariz.:
   Oryx Press.  (Brush's article was originally published in the
   _Journal of Geological Education_, January 1982.)
Cuffey, Roger (1984) "Paleontologic Evidence and Organic Evolution" In
   Ashley Montagu, editor, _Science and Creationism_.  Oxford: Oxford
   University Press.
DeYoung, Don B. and Rush, David E. (1989) "Is the Sun an Age Indicator?"
   _Creation Research Society Quarterly_ 26(September):49-53.
Landau, Matthew (1989) "Protein Sequences and Denton's Error," _Creation/
   Evolution_ XXVI(Winter 1989-1990):1-7.
Max, Edward E. (1986) "Plagiarized Errors and Molecular Genetics:
   Another Argument in the Evolution-Creation Controversy," _Creation/
   Evolution_ XIX:34-46.
--- (1990) Letter to the editor.  _Creation/Evolution_ XXVII(Summer
   1990):45-49.
McGowan, Chris (1984) _In the Beginning... A Scientist Shows Why
   the Creationists Are Wrong_.  Buffalo, N.Y.: Prometheus Books.
Strahler, Arthur N.  (1979) _Science and Earth History_.
   Buffalo, N.Y.: Prometheus Books.

>Kevin Martin
>4090 Ranchero Dr.
>Dorr, MI 49323
>February, 1990

Jim Lippard              [e-mail]
Dept. of Philosophy      [e-mail]
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721