Last night, as my family settled into a three-hour drive home, I began scanning the AM radio dial. The tuner stopped at on a well-produced segment in which the announcer was talking about recent evolution of pigmentation genes and lactose-digestion genes in humans. This is a surprise, I thought, and I settled in for a listen. It took about twenty seconds for me to realize that this was the work of creationists. I spent the next fifteen minutes listening to the piece with jaw aslack, making sure I didn't get so distracted I missed my exit. There is something so absorbing about the elaborate rhetorical gymnastics that creationists engage in order to square their views with new scientific evidence.
This morning I did a little research online and discovered that what I had heard was part of a weekly radio program from the Institute for Creation Research. It claims that all of the new research on recent evolution in humans does not actually serve as evidence of evolution, but rather of man's recent creation and fall. They dismiss the examples of recent evolution in various ways. They are just minor changes, for starters, not the sort that produce "fish-to-philosopher" evolution, as the announcer put it. They just tweak the human form. Or these mutations consist of losses, rather than gains, through mutation. Humans have lost olfactory receptor genes, for example.
The radio show then explains the real origin of all these patterns in our genome. The Institute for Creation Research was founded to promote Young Earth Creationism--the claim that the Earth is only a few thousand years old. The announcer explained that the minor variations in the human genome originated at the time of the flood, or at the creation of man at the earliest. Mankind was created with a perfect genome, we are told, and once we turned away from God through sin, our genome has been degrading ever since. All mutations that have accumulated since the fall of man have led to the loss of genes and to disease.
I have to say that the "Genomic Degradation as Original Sin" line was new to me. But in order to make this case, the radio show engages in the three classic creationist errors.
Error #1: Get the science wrong.
In order to portray recent mutations as nothing but loss and suffering, ICR must distort the facts. Take their discussion of mutations that provide protection for malaria but can also cause sickle-cell anemia. An ICR "scientist" tells us that all this mutation does let people die of sickle-cell anemia at age 15 instead of dying of malaria at age 10.
Earth to ICR: if what you say is true, then why do so many people have these mutations? Why didn't they all die before they could pass that awful gene down to children? Because people only get sickle-cell anemia when they inherit two copies of this gene. One copy gives protection to malaria. On balance, natural selection thus favors the gene in regions with high rates of malaria.
The radio piece also makes a big deal about the digestion of lactose, a sugar in milk. It describes some populations as producing lactase, the enzyme for digesting lactose, and others as not producing it. Thus, this is just another case of a mutation destroying "genetic information" rather than creating it.
Second transmission from Earth to ICR: if what you say is true, then babies in those populations that cannot digest lactose should all die. After all, they cannot digest the lactose in the milk they get from their mothers. Here's the real story: all mammals produce lactase as babies, in order to break down lactose in milk. Then, after weaning, the mammal's cells stop reading the lactase gene. Since adult mammals don't drink milk, making an enzyme to break down lactose is a waste of energy. The timing of this switch is under genetic control, and mutations can delay it until later in life. In human populations where cattle-herding became important, mutations that allowed humans to continue making lactase as adults were favored by natural selection. So nothing was lost. In fact, dare I say it, these human populations gained an adaptation that their ancestors lacked.
Error #2: Skip over inconvenient facts.
The ICR molecular biologists and science professor from Liberty University throw out lots of details, which may give the impression that they're telling you everything there is to know about the evidence of recent evolution. But they skip over major things that would knock out the basis for their claims. For example, they claim that all the genetic changes that scientists have identified have nothing to do with the major changes that would have arisen on the way from ape-like ancestors to humans--such as an increase in cranial capacity. They conveniently skip over the genes that have been identified as having experienced natural selection in our ancestors that play a role in language, brain size, and brain development.
Error #3: Contradict yourself.
You can only conclude from this radio piece that the folks at ICR accept the evidence that humans have recently acquired mutations. But in many cases, scientists can only determine recent changes in humans by comparing our genomes to our relatives--chimpanzees, for example, and mice. By studying their genomes, scientists discover what our ancestral genome was like, and can then pinpoint the changes that arose in our genome after our ancestors split off from other species. If the ICR accepts these examples of recent human genetic change, then they must accept our common ancestry with chimpanzees and mice.
I am not a theologian, and so I won't try to dive too deeply into the religious implications of thinking of our genomes as the result of original sin. But I do wonder how one makes that sort of idea work. The ICR radio show claims we lost our olfactory receptor genes since the flood. We have 388 working olfactory receptor genes and 414 broken ones (called pseudogenes). Mice, on the other hand, have 1037 working receptor genes and 354 psuedogenes. Many of their working genes have counterparts among our pseudogenes, which is some of the main evidence that our ancestors lost many genes involved in smell. So does that mean that mice enjoy an Edenic perfection that we have lost?
Anyway, let you own mind roam free: here's the show in mp3 and real audio. And if you are hungry for more, here's the radio show archive. It's a fact-checker's paradise.
Comments
I've seen the argument about the Fall being responsible for the "corruption" of the genome numerous times in my experiences on the Beliefnet Evolution/creationism board. The lack of biological knowledge and the attempts at apologetics by the creationist camp are thoroughly exposed.
Posted by: natural cynic | August 7, 2006 11:54 AM
Carl,
that should teach you! ... venturing recklessly like that into the depths of the AM band... ;)
Posted by: Hans | August 7, 2006 2:21 PM
I've been engaged in a letter to the editor debate with a woman who believes that evolutionary biology is an impediment to science and should be removed from classroom. All of her talking points have come from the Institute for Creation Research. One of the funnier ones included an argument that samples from Mt. Saint Helen's falsifies radiometric dating of rocks. What's not so funny is how many people take the ICR seriously.
Posted by: Cameron | August 7, 2006 7:35 PM
When it comes to refuting creationists who claim that all mutations are harmful, you can't do better than apolipoprotein AI-Milano. It's a mutant blood protein possessed by a very fortunate group of people in Italy which confers on its possessors major protection against heart attacks and arteriosclerosis, with no observed negative effects.
Posted by: Ebonmuse | August 7, 2006 11:14 PM
I have to agree with Hans. Were you very tired as you scanned the AM dial? What made you even consider the possibility that you were going to hear a scientific program? :-)
Sorry, I know I've just exposed a form of bigotry; perhaps it's the heat and late hour.
And with Cameron, I refrain that what's not funny (I would add scary) is how popular this stuff is with so many people.
Posted by: catherine | August 7, 2006 11:23 PM
I am really surprised that you are previously unaware of the "Genomic Degradation as Original Sin" rhetoric of the YECs. It is a rather fundamental talking point used to support their dogma since the "scientific creationism" movement began.
Admittedly they did not use "genomic" before it became a buzz word though. But the basic concept that bad genes are a result of sin is a universal claim of YECism. This why, they claim, that Adam's children could marry each other without the genetic problems that would result today. And of course, they "explain" the diversity of life as "microevolution" from a perfect original created kind.
Yeah, there are thousands of thing wrong with this. Grab a few used YEC books. (Used so the authors don't get a cent.) It would provide enough things to correct and general implications to point out to fill a thousand blog entries.
Posted by: Michael Hopkins | August 8, 2006 8:43 AM
This why, they claim, that Adam's children could marry each other without the genetic problems that would result today. And of course, they "explain" the diversity of life as "microevolution" from a perfect original created kind.
Wow. I think we're seeing an example of the sort of revisionism that went into writing the Bible. "Word of God" doesn't suit your purposes? Hey, just tweak it a little!
I enjoy reading biblical scholars like Elaine Pagels because their studies show that convolutions in the bible are anchored to and explained by historical events. In "The Rise of Magic in Early Medieval Europe," Valerie Flint documents how Christianity appropriated demons from paganism to get more people to adopt the religion. "Demons" gave people an out -- if something bad happened, they could blame it on a demon and ask a priest to help them get rid of it instead of taking responsibility for their "sins."
There was apparently quite the debate at the time among church fathers as to whether they should allow religion to be diluted in such a way.
One of the ways creationism can be countered is to teach biblical exegesis. It's pretty difficult to keep on accepting the validity of a concept like the "unchanging word of God" when there's proof on paper of how many times man has reworked the "word" for his own purposes.
Posted by: meridian | August 8, 2006 3:09 PM
Here's an explanation of the "witch" vs. "poisoner" mistranslation.
Posted by: Monado | August 9, 2006 7:57 PM
Don't know about Creationism, but Evolutionism definitely needs to go as a mandatory.
The only real reasons I've ever seen for retaining it despite a constant stream of broken and far-fetched ideas is that there are no ideologically-safe genuine alternatives at all.
Then Evolutionism's supporters turn around and sling off at Creationists for "introducing religion to science" -- as if they're not already doing it majorly themselves!
The result is that "science" blockades itself with philosophy -- against real observations which are ideologically, um, interesting.
Lots that we're deducing about astronomy, for example, fits reality (observations) very poorly because it's been chained to philosophies, with other theories & data discarded for being alien to those philosophies (ie for "religious reasons"), rather than for any intrinsic shortcomings.
That philosophical dichotomy by itself is a direct hobble around the leg of science, to say nothing of the social losses consequent on the squabbling behind it.
It's like watching team sports, where each team gets barracked for based on who they represent rather than any real sports skills they might (not) possess, and for fitting the "team character" rather than for playing excellent sport, as such.
Or race riots, where people get beaten up for something esoteric like skin colour rather than who they are or what they've done.
Posted by: Leon Brooks | August 9, 2006 8:52 PM
Leon,
The reason people are passionate about science and do science is because they want to know and understand more about the way the world really is. I'm sorry, but that's not why people are religious. The two approaches to understanding the world are extremely different, and it's obvious that science is the best, and realisically, the only way to try to get an objective handle on nature.
Your analogies and observations on science seem rather silly. The Big Bang has religious implications for many people, yet is textbook science; this seems to contradict your naive hypothesis. It's in the textbooks because science is trying to discover what's real about the world, and the Big Bang is real. Who cares whatever religious or philisophical implications people derive from it? Scientists care about reality. Otherwise, what's the point?
And how is it that you make such ridiculous judgments on evolutionary theory, when you claim you have no idea why scientists still hold onto that position? Have you ever asked a biologist or read a biology book? You don't have to look too hard to find why biologists find it so compelling. And if you really have no idea why it's compelling to them, then you should probably assume you don't know enough to talk competently about it.
Posted by: Nick | August 10, 2006 1:03 AM
Carl,
This seems likely to be a line that the YECs are going to be pushing over the coming years. A chap called John Sanford (a courtesy associate Professor at Cornell) has written a book about our apparently deteriorating genome:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1599190028/sr=8-1/qid=1155333876/ref=pd_bbs_1/103-6763462-2867017?ie=UTF8
http://www.nysaes.cornell.edu/hort/faculty/sanford/
Posted by: SteveF | August 11, 2006 6:08 PM
The young earth creationist argument that "Evolution can't be right according to the Bible, because there was no death before Adam and Eve sinned," is actually a very old religious argument that has been around since at least the early 19th century. According to the Adam and Eve story in Genesis, death came as a result of The Fall, when Adam and Eve ate of the forbidden fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Enter the words
no death before Adam
in Google (no quotes around them), and observe how many hits you get.
I always point out to (modern) young earth creationists that they've screwed up, attacking the wrong enemy. Their enemy is geology, because totally regardless of evolution, it is the fossils in the geologic record that prove that organisms have been living - and dying - for hundreds of millions of years before humans ever set foot on the planet.
Posted by: Steve Greene | August 12, 2006 9:17 PM
Earth to Zimmer: You told me that you were satisfied with what you had posted on your blog. That is unfortunate, since your reasoning about sickle-cell anemia illustrates a glaring and typical flaw in your thinking. You completely failed to understand my arguments on the radio program. You seem to assume that any positively selected mutation is beneficial, and all beneficial mutations serve evolution. This is only true if you refuse to acknowledge that evolution is actually common descent, and not just merely any change. Unlike “any change,” common descent has very specific genetic requirements, and it must account for the origin of biological systems and functions, not their demise. There are many examples of mutations that have a positively selected transient benefit, but they are at the expense of pre-existing biological systems (many antibiotic resistances fit into this category). The sickle cell trait (only one gene) can still cause a deformity of the red blood cell, and often causes microscopic tissue damage and reduced ability of kidneys to fully concentrate urine. So, even when it in a subclinical state it can be degenerative, regardless of any beneficial resistance to malaria. Does this really provide a genetic example of how organisms commonly “descended” through time? Is such a deteriorative process truly an example of the genetic mechanism for common descent or how humans are continuing to evolve? No, it's just the opposite.
Posted by: Kevin Anderson | August 31, 2006 7:20 PM
Readers may be confused by Dr. Anderson's comment. I can shed a little light.
Dr. Anderson is editor-in-chief of the Creation Research Society Quarterly. He spoke on the program I wrote about, talking about how sickle-cell anemia, lactose tolerance, and other genetic changes in human populations have nothing to do with evolution but are degradations that are the result of original sin.
What is the Creation Research Society all about? Here's part of their statement of belief:
1. The Bible is the written Word of God, and because it is inspired throughout, all its assertions are historically and scientifically true in the original autographs. To the student of nature this means that the account of origins in Genesis is a factual presentation of simple historical truths.
2. All basic types of living things, including man, were made by direct creative acts of God during the Creation Week described in Genesis. Whatever biological changes have occurred since Creation Week have accomplished only changes within the original created kinds.
3. The great flood described in Genesis, commonly referred to as the Noachian Flood, was an historic event worldwide in its extent and effect.
Two weeks after I wrote my post, I got an email from Dr. Anderson with the subject line, "Nice Sarcasm..."
I replied:
To which I received another message from Dr. Anderson:
I did not respond, considering this odd exchange over. (I don't think thunder can fit in my inbox.) But then, after another long lull, Dr. Anderson posted his comment on this post.
While I don't think it's my job to fill the pages of Dr. Anderson's magazine, I do think it's common courtesy to try to respond to comments when I can find the time.
Dr. Anderson's comments have very little to do with the evidence for natural selection. He has put together catchwords, rather than actually making any coherent argument.
Dr. Anderson claims, for example, that carrying a single sickle cell gene causes harmful effects. He offers no evidence. A sickle cell information site maintained by Harvard Medical School declares, "With a few rare exceptions, people with sickle cell trait are completely normal."
Even if carrying a single copy of the sickle cell gene does have some harmful effect on people, that would not in itself have any relevance to how it might be driven by natural selection. Natural selection favors genes that increase average reproductive success in an entire population. It does not favor mutations that produce a long happy life for everyone. Someone who lives to adulthood with a slight chance of some kidney trouble can have many more children than someone who dies at age five of malaria.
Now, somehow, Dr. Anderson believes that the sickle cell gene does not "provide a genetic example of how organisms commonly descended through time." I can try to guess what he actually means...when he says organisms, does he actually mean species? Or does he mean individuals within a species?
Let's assume he means the latter. If he does, then he's wrong. The sickle cell trait is an inherited trait. Scientists know the mutation to the gene that creates it. And they know it's a mutation because other people have a different version of the gene. In other words, the people with the sickle cell trait ultimately inherited the gene from someone in whom the common version mutated. In other words, it's a sign of common descent. If it wasn't, how would we know that it was a mutation in the first place?
Or perhaps Dr. Anderson means that sickle-cell anemia must have produced some entire biological system in order to be considered part of the evolutionary process. If so, then he's working with his very own special definition of evolution. Mutations are the raw material for evolution, and they may be favored by natural selection, genetic drift, or other factors. In some cases, this process may produce a trade-off such as we see in sickle cell anemia versus malaria protection. But sometimes evolution pushes beyond a trade-off. Antibiotic resistance may slow down the growth of bacteria when they're not faced with antibiotics. But other mutations can compensate, lowering the cost of resistance.
There's also plenty of evidence supporting the idea that mutations can also give rise to biological systems and change them into new forms. More comes in every week. Here's one showing how "junk" DNA can get shuffled into genes, producing new ones.
But let's not forget, of course, that Dr. Anderson belongs to an organization that says the world is a few thousand years old. See this article in his magazine if you think I'm joking. When I try to figure out this whole "genome degradation as original sin" thing, I can't get past the fact that all of the mutations that are found in humans must have arisen in a few hundred generations--and we're talking several million mutations, each found in millions of people. That means an amazing mutation rate--you'd think that every generation of children would be riddled with new ones. Of course the actual mutation rate is far lower.
But I guess I'll let Dr. Anderson work out these mysteries.
Posted by: Carl Zimmer | September 1, 2006 3:05 AM
Carl writes:
Which is related to the rapid variation (not evolution!) after all the animals left the Ark. Apparently, those animals exhibited absolutely astonishing speeds of variation in order to go from the hand-full of created 'kinds' on the Ark to the diversity of faunal abundance we see today. For some reason however, this breakneck variation never crosses the kind barrier, and has coincidentally ceased today. Makes one wonder why the cattle and fish carved on ancient Egyptian stone can look so much like they do now. Probably more coincidence.
I've asked, but it's also never been made clear to me exactly how biologically a pair of "canine" kinds gave birth to all the different canines we have today. And all without gaining "information". Quite a trick.
Posted by: Dave S. | September 1, 2006 9:06 AM
.....Makes one wonder why the cattle and fish carved on ancient Egyptian stone can look so much like they do now.
Hell with cattle and fish. Look at ancient sculptures of humans. Europeans look European. Chinese look Chinese. Amerinds look Amerind. Etc.
This means that all variation in humans descended from Noah must have been completed by at least 2,000 years ago, leaving only half of the generations mentioned above in which to generate our diversity.
There's no question about it. The most radical evolutionists on the planet are young earth creationists.
.
Posted by: Ick of the East | September 1, 2006 9:25 AM
From Carl Zimmer "Original Sin Genomics":
Rather than splitting comments between two posts and dispersing the conversation, could people leave all their comments on the original post? Thanks.
Copying my question[s] over, with some additional ones added:
I have a question for him [Dr. Andersen], I haven't received any responses from skeptics elaborating as of yet, and it would be a first for a Creationist, if they'd answer. Just how "physical" was the so-called immortality of Genesis? No death before the fall?
Did man and all the creatures in the Garden (extend that to all creatures, great and small across the earth, including whales, dinosaurs and bacteria that live in the depths of the earth), did all living creatures partake in the tree of life?
I've heard from one skeptic, how to the recent day some still search for the Fountain of Youth, and a lot of ancient cultures believed the human could take a bite of magic fruit and live forever (rephrase that to, live a little while, but they must take another bite in due season).
THE TREE OF LIFE MUST BE PARTAKEN OF ON A MONTHLY BASIS... LIKE A PILL
(God told Adam to partake freely of the tree of life, so its safe to presume he did) - but, he was cut off from the tree of life, and driven from the garden, preventing him from living forever.
Revelation:2:7: He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God.
Revelation:22:2: In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.
Revelation:22:14: Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.(KJV)
... another question. if a person should partake and "live forever", what becomes of them, when they decide to break God's commandments? Do they live forever, now having partaken of the tree of life, ... like the devil, knowing good and evil as Adam did, but a lisence on eternal life, and free to act the part of a devil!
This tree of life sounds very much like a physical immortality for imperfect bodies requiring monthly maintenance. I mean, if Adam were built immortal and perfect to begin with, what need would he have of any "tree of life" to sustain his body?
According to the scripture, after the curses were handed out to snake, woman and man, Adam still had the potential for eternal life. It was only a matter of getting his hands on the magic fruit.
Gn:3:22: And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: (KJV)
So, man (and animal) were cut off from the lifeline of immortality when driven from Eden? For all we know, Adam may have been lactose intolerant.
MORE QUESTIONS
Indeed, as skeptics have pointed out, the snake spoke the truth, because the day Adam ate of the forbidden fruit, he did not "surely die". He supposedly lived, yet hundreds of years, 930 years [Gen. 5:5], which is better longevity than modern humans, (though Kathleen Kenyon, the archaeologist pointed out the outlook was actually much worse).
God genetically engineers man to live 120 years.
Google Jeanne Louise Calment 121 years old.
Born in Arles, France on February 21, 1875.
Died August 4, 1997.
According to Yahoo Answers, "A Japanese man lived to 121 a couple of years ago." And, there may be others who've defied this curse in Genesis.
But the serpent was not genetically engineered to "eat dust" in Genesis, (like an earthworm??), this curse obviously failed, because in Isaiah, the prophecy tells of a "coming kingdom" in which the snake will futuristically "eat dust".*Due to oversight of what was written in Genesis, Sarah and Abraham themselves are recorded as having lived beyond the threshold of 120 years of age. God himself doesn't seem to have any regard for his own curses and prophecies in Genesis. I've asked Creationists to explain this also, but none have.
A failed curse on the serpent, or did God simply change his mind?
Posted by: sharon | September 1, 2006 11:20 AM
to completely butcher something Carl said earlier (I won't even try to find the post, there's no way I'd find it), evolution isn't always about adding better, new organs and functions without any tradeoffs whatsoever, evoluton almost always involves big tradeoffs. Organisms evolve to be able to survive better and not to reach some optimal state of being superior to all the rest.
One example are birds. Having wings helps them survive better, but they had to give up their front legs to have wings (ie: griffins don't exist).
Posted by: TAW | September 1, 2006 12:49 PM
This is exactly the kind of question that one would expect creation scientists to investigate, yet they never seem to. Given the millions of mutations we know about, what mutation rate is necessary for them to have arisen since the Noachian bottleneck? It doesn't seem to be an especially difficult question.
Posted by: jackd | September 1, 2006 1:25 PM
But at least birds can still type okay, even if they have to hunt and peck....!
Posted by: Steviepinhead | September 1, 2006 1:27 PM
Jackd: I don't know if we'll hear from Dr. Anderson on how so many mutations surged into the human genome in so little time, with no evidence of such a high rate today. But I now think I can guess what the answer would be. Look at the article I linked to in my earlier post. It claims that geological clocks do not show the Earth is billions of years old, because the rate of radioactive decay has changed:
You can see where I'm going, right? Swap decay rate with mutation rate, and you're all set.
Posted by: Carl Zimmer | September 1, 2006 1:45 PM
What kind of "scientist" explains human origins by sudden, supernatural creation rather than the modification of previous organisms? Of course these people love the bible much more than they love fossils. You have to be blind to really belive it, when you quetsion the veracity or relevance of ALL transitional fossils ever dug up. And, ultimately, you have to really don't give a crap about fossils. Thats why all these "geniuses" like in the discovery institute invariably know about as much paleontology as a hairdresser does.
The commitment of these poeple to the bible comes in first place, before their commitment to science.
Posted by: Clastito | September 1, 2006 4:40 PM
I'll repost this comment in this thread, per Carl's request:
What I can't get past is the fact that I just don't understand the psychology behind creating a creationist organization in the first place. If there is an omnipotent creator God, surely he doesn't need our help in defending his own existence. If a) the goal is to "win over sinners and unbelievers," and b) there really is a shaky foundation under evolutionary biology, wouldn't a more effective tactic be to quietly work within the academic and peer review system without revealing your agenda, and let the facts of the universe (and, if you're right, God) speak for themselves?
Posted by: Matt Bull | September 1, 2006 4:43 PM
"I've asked, but it's also never been made clear to me exactly how biologically a pair of "canine" kinds gave birth to all the different canines we have today. And all without gaining "information". Quite a trick."
It seem to me our domestic breeding programs, and especially with dogs, are one of the most obviously compelling examples of evolution. Creationists always claim you cannot see a species change. Well you could not have much clearer evidence right before your eyes in just a few thousand years. If in that time you can get from a wolf to a pug or fox terrier, it is easy to see how change in more time would lead to speciation.
Posted by: oldhippie | September 1, 2006 7:09 PM
Digging through the talkorigins site for rebuttals for the claim:
Constancy of Radioactive Decay Rates
Cosmic rays and radiometric decay rates
I suppose a religious fanatic would argue that not only did God change the rate of radioactive decay, he also made sure that this change would leave no detectable evidence. After all, when you have faith, you don't need evidence...
Oh, and here's an ironic one (based the presumptive argument of a God-ordained high mutation rate):
Evolution requires mutations, but mutations are rare.
Posted by: Owlmirror | September 1, 2006 7:16 PM
It claims that geological clocks do not show the Earth is billions of years old, because the rate of radioactive decay has changed ... rebuttals for the claim...
Here is a question I am curious about.
Paraphrasing, Paleobotany and the Evolution of Plants, Stewart and Rothwell, 1993; DiMichele & Wing, 1987:
QUESTION: How many examples exist in strata, the fossil record of (hypothetically speaking) a region which was once a freezing icy environment, turned warm and wet, turned hot, dry desert, with fossil remains that represent whole eco-systems of species adapted to each special climate? Has any thing been written on this?
I understand only a little about the extreme shift the continents underwent, i.e., Africa in the South Pole!....
...shifting land masses throughout the geological periods, which in itself would contribute to the downfall and rise of new species.
But God created them all in six days, putting freezing polar-adapted animals in Mesopotamia with creatures only suited for blazing hot desert conditions... others only suited to tropical conditions... :o/
- With those ecosystems rising and falling, and species suited to them, just imagine, it was all stuffed within a time frame of merely 6,000-10,000 years. (i.e., deserts today containing species with desert creepy crawlies, were once seas teeming with legged whales. Both species (or possibly more in the fossil record) could not share the same environment, could they? at least I wouldn't assume... a Creator... creates entire ecosystems, break them down, only to re-create all new species and replace them all in the next thousand years... we should be in for another ice age, any day now. That's exactly what YEC implies if it claims their teachings concur with the fossils. Five major extinctions cramped into 10,000 years max. That is a miracle in itself.
- Imagine how likely would it be that Penguins and Polar Bears were "created" in Mesopotamia just for Adam to name them? Any fossil remains of Polar Bears in that region?
I know, they are ridiculous but necessary questions. Sadly, I was a young earth creationist over half my life, and I still hear people in my local area, who wholeheartedly believe in the young earth biblical account, never questioned it, and take it for granted as literal, even scientific truth.
Posted by: sharon | September 2, 2006 11:32 AM
Carl Zimmer:
They also skip other major topics like regulatory RNA and epigenetics... Almost as if they dont even know those topics exist...
Ouch. Nice catch, Owlmirror.Owlmirror:
Posted by: ERV | September 2, 2006 9:45 PM
Of course Adam was lactose-intolerant - if his body was "perfect", then why would it waste energy on creating enzymes to digest milk for which he had no supply?
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | September 5, 2006 1:10 PM
I don't know a whole lot about the mutation rate issue. Creationists rely on a vast amount of variability programmed into the created kinds. Most of the variation and adaptability within a "kind' (which is not necessarily equal to a species) is due to this and not mutations in the creationist methodology. As for those that can be positively identified as mutations, I can't answer whether it amasses a quantity that is a problem for creation scientists.
I do know it's a problem for evolutionists. Evolutionists must assume all variation is due to mutation. The problem for Evolutionists is multi-faceted.
First of all determining a "mutation rate" itself is shaky. It's determined by first assuming evolution. Then take Species A and Species B, determine the genetic difference. Then, based on various assumptions, you determine when they shared a common ancestor. Simple division gives you the mutation rate (half the genetic difference divided by years since the common ancestor). I'm sure I'll receive a number of heady derogatory replies but none will really point to a dramatically different method.
Second the mutation rate is too slow for evolutionists, which is the basis for shock at rapid speciation. Also do a search on Haldane's dilemma and after reading talkorigins weak rebuttal critically analyze it with your own brain and determine if it's ever been resolved.
Third the accumulation of "bad" mutations that "drift" in under the radar of "natural selection" is too great, creating a genetic load that may eventually crush the human race (if "evolution" is true).
Regarding fossils: Creationists love fossils. Fossils might be the greatest argument against evolution (or maybe molecular biology or maybe genetics). This argument, and in fact this entire blog entry, exposes the fact that virtually everyone that argues against creation science knows nothing about it. I've read numerous attacks, criticisms and not-so-subtle jabs by Carl Zimmer against creation science but very seldom has he exhibited any evidence that he knows his opposition's theories. His criticism of the short radio program that began this blog entry is a case in point. The program cannot possibly be exhaustive in everything it touches but they are not "new" arguments.
Regarding an "old earth". Some radiometric dating points to an earth of billions of years or so you are led to believe. Radiometric dating is based on a number of assumptions beyond that of a constant decay rate. One must assume the beginning quantity of parent and daughter isotopes. That nothing interfered with the values of either. Temperature, moisture, surrounding chemicals, pressure etc. all effect the reliability of the result. The assumptions become rather ridiculous when they are applied over the supposed millions or billions of years of the sample. Radiometric dating is a highly subjective process.
Before you launch into long or short rebuttals, insults and comparisons to the mythical flat-earthers, please, I beg of you, take some time to learn what creation scientists and enthusiasts actually suggest. We all share the same evidence but our respective worldviews dictate the interpretation of that evidence. I guarantee we've taken a lot of time to learn your interpretations of the evidence.
PS: Creationists believe in a global flood. Close your eyes for a moment and picture the earth you've seen from space. Now picture it covered in water. No visible land. Try to envision the water pouring from the sky and breaking through the crust of the Earth. Picture Katrina on a global scale for more than a month. Imagine forces powerful enough to push up the mountains. Picture every "end of days" movie you've seen in the last few years. See you're still not even close. So just imagine the effect such a cataclysmic event would have on the Earth - immediately and for years to come. Now I'm not asking you to believe that it actually happened but you must understand that it is an integral part of the creation science ideology. Just as billions of years is an absolute must for an evolutionary philosophy.
Posted by: Dougman | September 8, 2006 3:45 AM
Let's take a walking tour through the words of Dougman...
I don't know a whole lot about the mutation rate issue.
Okay, so he doesn't know a lot about mutation rates. So I shouldn't expect him to go on at length about the mutation rate, right? Wrong.
Creationists
Dougman refers to creationists mainly in the third person here, as if he was just an anthropologist observing them. In case there's any confusion, follow the link he provided to the Southern Arizona Origin Science Association, which declares, among other things, that " All basic kinds of living things, including humans, were recently made (not millions or billions of years ago) by direct creative acts of God during the creation week of 6 consecutive literal approximate 24 hour days as described in Genesis. Whatever biological changes have occurred since creation week have accomplished only changes within the original created kinds where no new genetic information has spontaneously arisen or evolved. "
Creationists rely on a vast amount of variability programmed into the created kinds. Most of the variation and adaptability within a "kind' (which is not necessarily equal to a species) is due to this and not mutations in the creationist methodology. As for those that can be positively identified as mutations, I can't answer whether it amasses a quantity that is a problem for creation scientists.
What exactly is this vast amount of variability that can produce things as different as wolves and poodles, but which is not mutations? Dougman doesn't say. Dougman claims that he can't say whether mutations are a problem for creationists, but the people of the Southern Arizona Origin Science Association clearly don't think it is, given their unqualified statement I just quoted above. So we've got a contradiction here between what Dougman's saying and the organization he links to.
I do know it's a problem for evolutionists. Evolutionists must assume all variation is due to mutation. The problem for Evolutionists is multi-faceted.
So, Dougman's expertise is in evolutionary biology, not creationism? I doubt it. For one thing, his statement about variation in evolution is flat-out wrong. Evolutionary biologists recognize and study variation that is not due to genetic differences. Here's just one of the many labs where scientists study it, with papers you can download.
First of all determining a "mutation rate" itself is shaky. It's determined by first assuming evolution. Then take Species A and Species B, determine the genetic difference. Then, based on various assumptions, you determine when they shared a common ancestor. Simple division gives you the mutation rate (half the genetic difference divided by years since the common ancestor). I'm sure I'll receive a number of heady derogatory replies but none will really point to a dramatically different method.
Mutations happen. That's a fact. You can see mutations arise in a dish of bacteria. The same process generates variations in a human population, or in any other species. From these observations, scientists can estimate mutation rates. They can test their hypotheses by looking at different genes, or at different species. Mutation rate estimates have gotten more statistical support over the years, in part because the statistics used have become more effective. Apparently, Dougman cannot tell the difference between simple division and Bayesian probability. That's not a heady derogatory reply, just a straightforward observation of what Dougman doesn't seem to grasp.
Second the mutation rate is too slow for evolutionists, which is the basis for shock at rapid speciation. Also do a search on Haldane's dilemma and after reading talkorigins weak rebuttal critically analyze it with your own brain and determine if it's ever been resolved.
Haldane came up with a model in the 1950s which suggested that there's a cost to natural selection which slows down the spread of new genes. This model turned out to have incorrect assumptions. When scientists built new models that reflected the improved understanding of population genetics, the dilemma disappeared. Rather than explain scientific results that might support Haldane's dilemma or otherwise question research on mutation rates, Dougman just promises us that we will come to his own conclusion.
Third the accumulation of "bad" mutations that "drift" in under the radar of "natural selection" is too great, creating a genetic load that may eventually crush the human race (if "evolution" is true).
It's hard to figure out the point of this statement. If deleterious mutations did build up in our species, and if they did drive humans extinct, how would that challenge our understanding of mutation rates in the past? If humans became extinct, they would hardly be the first species to do so. But this thought experiment is really besides the point--current research shows that Dougman is wrong.
Regarding fossils: Creationists love fossils. Fossils might be the greatest argument against evolution (or maybe molecular biology or maybe genetics).
And that is because why...? Dougman does not tell us. I will not hazard to speculate why he believes this is the case. Perhaps he will share his insight with us...or not.
This argument, and in fact this entire blog entry, exposes the fact that virtually everyone that argues against creation science knows nothing about it. I've read numerous attacks, criticisms and not-so-subtle jabs by Carl Zimmer against creation science but very seldom has he exhibited any evidence that he knows his opposition's theories. His criticism of the short radio program that began this blog entry is a case in point. The program cannot possibly be exhaustive in everything it touches but they are not "new" arguments.
Oh, if only it were true that I had not become familiar with creationist theories...think of all the great literature I might have read instead. I have indeed read a fair amount of this stuff. As for the radio show, it is chock full of misleading information, which is quite in keeping with other stuff I've read. But perhaps Dougman can share with us the hidden truth that the radio show had no room for...
Regarding an "old earth". Some radiometric dating points to an earth of billions of years or so you are led to believe. Radiometric dating is based on a number of assumptions beyond that of a constant decay rate. One must assume the beginning quantity of parent and daughter isotopes. That nothing interfered with the values of either. Temperature, moisture, surrounding chemicals, pressure etc. all effect the reliability of the result. The assumptions become rather ridiculous when they are applied over the supposed millions or billions of years of the sample. Radiometric dating is a highly subjective process.
Funny how all these ridiculous assumptions lead to the same estimates for the origin of the solar system, whether you look at rocks from the moon or Mars, or meteorites.
Before you launch into long or short rebuttals, insults and comparisons to the mythical flat-earthers, please, I beg of you, take some time to learn what creation scientists and enthusiasts actually suggest. We all share the same evidence but our respective worldviews dictate the interpretation of that evidence. I guarantee we've taken a lot of time to learn your interpretations of the evidence.
Let's recall for a moment that Dougman started out this whole comment on mutation rates, a subject on which he said he knew little, and said that he didn't actually know whether mutation rates posed a problem for creationists. Now he's tell us to get to know what "we"--i.e., he and other creationists--suggest. How can we, when Dougman isn't suggesting anything at all?
PS: Creationists believe in a global flood. Close your eyes for a moment and picture the earth you've seen from space. Now picture it covered in water. No visible land. Try to envision the water pouring from the sky and breaking through the crust of the Earth. Picture Katrina on a global scale for more than a month. Imagine forces powerful enough to push up the mountains. Picture every "end of days" movie you've seen in the last few years. See you're still not even close. So just imagine the effect such a cataclysmic event would have on the Earth - immediately and for years to come. Now I'm not asking you to believe that it actually happened but you must understand that it is an integral part of the creation science ideology. Just as billions of years is an absolute must for an evolutionary philosophy.
Flood. Lots of water. Got it. Now if only I could figure out how Galapagos tortoises got halfway around the world into the ark and then back to the Galapagos again...
Posted by: Carl Zimmer | September 8, 2006 11:19 AM
Speedboats.
Posted by: steve s | September 8, 2006 11:56 AM
Rock on steve s for the witty answer. And Carl too for the witty question.
Posted by: Garrett | September 8, 2006 12:35 PM
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | September 8, 2006 12:38 PM
Snakes on an ark!
Posted by: Mike Jones | September 8, 2006 12:45 PM
Steve S.: Speedboats.
Just me ... and my shadow:
Did you ever see the special on those huge circles out west -- mysterious circles in the geology record. Scientists thought it was nuts, a flood of *biblical proportions* - actually much worse - and underwater tornado-like formations carved the round holes in the desert ground. It's proposed that during the Ice Age, a wall of ice broke and water that had been dammed up came flooding through -- so powerful --several hundred miles -- and reached the Pacific Ocean, anything in its path was destroyed ... it can happen. That's what they said, the flood went on for several hundred miles -- and at unbelievable speeds (I saw the documentary months ago, so my memory is foggy --but it was like a scientifically-feasible noah's flood without the ark) here, in North America.
Speaking of Biblical flood geology: Penguins float don't they? At least one should have been unearthed in Texas by now, -- afterall, didn't God create all the animals in one little spot on earth. There ought to be some polar bear bones in Mesopotamia, at least one bone?
Ed B: You're right about the huge local flood in North America. But it was quick, superficial, and anything in its frantic powerful path would have been destroyed, including an ark. *smile*
You're also right about the way specific fossilized bones of specific species are distributed on specific continents and in specific geological layers. No flood could sort bones and even bone fragments and microfossils so well without God miraculously directing the movement underwater of every miniscule piece of every species carried along by the so-called "world-wide flood." Show me rabbit bones or tiny rabbit teeth in the Cambrian.
Posted by: sharon | September 8, 2006 12:49 PM
I find interesting how creationists sometimes, when referring to scientists that deal with evolution, infer they are working under some kind of agenda whose sole purpose is to defend the theory. The truth of the matter is that evolutionary theory and the current is the product of many minds working independently and the cross-validation from many different disciplines. Creationists on the other hand, are the ones working under the agenda of dispelling evolution because it does not agree well with the wording in a book of the bible written several thousand years ago.
Posted by: Manuel Parrado | September 8, 2006 1:31 PM
Carried by the finches!
Now, what I was wondering was where the water came from. And where it went afterwards. No, don't tell me, let me guess...
OK, God made water all over the Earth. And afterwards, he used the moon to sponge up the excess. Remember that little patch of ice they found on the moon? Leftover Floodwater. QED.
Isn't imagination great?
Posted by: Owlmirror | September 8, 2006 1:43 PM
"Snakes on the ark!" Thanks, Mike!
No matter how over-the-top the movie was, Mike's comment makes a serious point: crowding even a reduced number of ancestors of the modern kinds onto a single vehicle--however large and imaginatively appointed--inevitably leads to ridiculous scenarios in almost any dimension you can think of.
Imagine all the (very limited) number of "kinds" of animals in a modern, mid-sized zoo forced closer together. And closer. And closer... Waste disposal. Feed (feed after they get out, in Dougman's cataclysmically-devastated world). Interactions between prey and predator species. Animal sex. Animal birth. Animal illness (this was all after the Fall, remember, so death and viruses and bacteris and wounds and infection would all have been present). Those few humans with their neolithic skills and knowledge of veterinary science must have been extraordinarily lucky at recognizing and managing the healthiest, most fertile of the animal "kinds" (more management problems, because healthiest and most fertile doesn't exactly translate into "most docile").
Snakes on the ark, indeed. Mike's one simple four-word snark lays bare the utter idiocy of the entire ark story, as sweet a metaphor for interspecies empathy as it is...
Posted by: Steviepinhead | September 8, 2006 2:36 PM
I suggest ignoring creationists. Allow Science to be optional in schools. Let them subscribe to whatever theory they please provided that they do not attempt to impose their backwards ideas on other people's education. Keep them busy finding someone to discuss a controversy that does not exist. Have them continue to believe that the moral teachings of their religion require evolution theory to be wrong. One of the main tenants of Christianity is that all suffering of man is caused by man itself. Let them and their descendants ride the personal consequences of blind faith. They may never prove evolution wrong, but they will certainly prove the aforementioned tenant right.
On a more pleasant note, I enjoy The Loom immensely.
Posted by: Sal | September 8, 2006 3:01 PM
"Flood. Lots of water. Got it. Now if only I could figure out how Galapagos tortoises got halfway around the world into the ark and then back to the Galapagos again..."
I'd add another complicator to this; how about all the marine life, so fresh and salt water just mixed, and how did they survive for over a month on this? Or did Noah also built huge acquariums and manage to retrieve all the acquatic life from rivers, lakes, ponds accross the globe, before the salinization of them by the flood? Or even better, did he retireve the marine life? A blue whale in the Ark!
Posted by: Charade | September 8, 2006 3:25 PM
"One of the main tenants of Christianity . . ." It's actually tenets, not tenants.
Posted by: cat | September 8, 2006 4:11 PM
Dougman:
It's funny how you refute your first point (variation built-in) with your last...the global flood in which every human but eight, every clean animal but six (one for the sacrifice), and every dirty (?) animal but two, was obliterated.
Count the maximum number of alleles per gene per kind and compare that with actual results and then claim that high mutation rates are not a consequence of creationist thinking.
BTW Every point you raised has been refuted many times by many people and the refutations are available from a number of sources. Pick up Mark Isaak's book "The Counter-Creationism Handbook" and check out each point you made...and follow Isaak's references for more details.
Posted by: MartinDH | September 8, 2006 4:33 PM
As Frederick Crews writes in his new book Follies of the Wise, Creationists have a cognitive problem:
"Intelligent design awkwardly embraces two clashing deities – one a glutton for praise and a dispenser of wrath, absolution, and grace, the other a curiously inept cobbler of species that need to be periodically revised and that keep getting snuffed out by the very conditions he provided for them. Why, we must wonder, would the shaper of the universe have frittered away some fourteen billion years, turning out quadrillions of useless stars, before getting around to the one thing he really cared about, seeing to it that a minuscule minority of earthling vertebrates are washed clean of sin and guaranteed an eternal place in his company?"
Posted by: joseph duemer | September 8, 2006 6:58 PM
"Carried by the finches!"
"An African Swallow or a European Swallow?"
"It's a simple matter of weight ratios!"
Posted by: MikeQ | September 8, 2006 8:05 PM
Joseph Duemer:
I won't pick on you since your comment was a quote from another person, Frederick Crews, but I'll have to demonstrate how it actively confuses the difference between creationists and Intelligent Design theorists, a popular sport these days. Not all people who ascribe to ID are Christians or creationists. You can believe in ID and be a Muslim, a Buddhist, or an atheist (how so? believe in panspermia--aliens did it). In its current state, ID makes no inferences about the creator, it only proposes that life is at least partially a product of design.
Us creationists believe in intelligent design, but we go further in that we identify the designer as Jesus Christ. We also believe the ancient texts that have become the Bible are true and reliable. Nothing scary there; people have been doing it for a couple thousand years.
As to the species that keep getting "snuffed out," the Christian doctrine of the Fall explains why that is so. Of course, the Darwinian doctrine of common descent teaches that life must be "snuffed out," if life is ever to succeed.
Who said stars were useless? And who said God spent 14 billion years making them? According to Genesis one, God created them in a single day, for "signs to mark seasons and days and years." Whether you think this was deceitful of God to do is not a weighty argument against his doing it. The fact is, there's a lot about the stars we still haven't figured out. Either 96% of the universe is composed of dark matter and dark energy, or space is filled with ether after all, as some prominent scientists have suggested this week.
Hey, were those American quadrillions or British quadrillions?
Posted by: Daniel James Devine | September 8, 2006 8:43 PM
And to paraphrase the stupid, "why are their [sic] still monkeys," argument;
"If Noah's Flood came to wipe out evil in mankind (and baby ducks)...why are men still evil?"
Incompetence; thy name is God.
.
Posted by: Ick lof the East | September 8, 2006 9:03 PM
I really enjoy this blog. However, I was a little disappointed by Mr. Zimmer's response to dougman. The tone of the response seemed sarcastic and derogatory, an unwelcome contrast to the enthusiastic intelligence that usually animates Mr. Zimmer's writing. I can appreciate that Mr. Zimmer's patience may have been worn thinner than mine given his line of work, but I think that simple, matter-of-fact responses are the best way to reveal what is preposterous in creationist and ID claims. I think that such answers are more effective in encouraging critical thinking on the part of say, students trying to understand the issue, and ultimately more effective in persuading them that divine creation is not a reasonable explanation for the origin of species.
Posted by: fmk | September 8, 2006 9:41 PM
DJD sez:
As to the species that keep getting "snuffed out," the Christian doctrine of the Fall explains why that is so.
Brilliant! I bet everybody here was thinking it was a big ol' rock from space wot snuffed out the dinosaurs. Nope. All this time it was really the sin of Adam and Eve. Who woulda thunk it? Suck it, Chicxulub!
Posted by: Teh L0raX | September 8, 2006 10:01 PM