Answers to Creationist Nonsense*

[Avatar]

Right. Afterall, if you have a sequence of ten numbers, and then change one number every ten years, in a hundred years, all the numbers will be different.

Excellent posts folks, really excellent.

And here is a link for Edge on the concept of "Intelligent Design", and our increasing understanding of the physics of how "everything" could have come from "nothing".

www.talkorigins.org/faqs/cosmo.html

--Avatar

[Plissken]

You know, I chose to read cybrweez' link on the Eohippus (www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v21/i3/horse.asp).
Here is a quote from that particular article:

The fossils

The fossils do not carry signs saying how old they are. Their age is generally assigned to them, depending on their relative depth of burial. Those in the deepest rock layers have the greatest ages assigned to them. Based on the biblical framework, we should expect many, but not all, fossils to have been buried during the Flood, so the oldest would really be only about 4,500 years old. Fossils higher up may have been buried by local catastrophes since the Flood.

Now, the interesting thing is that the author is wrong here. Ages are not "generally assigned" based on depth of fossil burial. The depth is certainly a clue, but the author fails to mention that the surrounding rock is dated and an estimate of the fossil's age is determined based on the rock. The dating procedure is based on known halflives of certain radioactive isotopes. Proven that the degenerative process produces a direct ratio between the mother and daughter isotopes.
How can the author then claim that these fossils are no more than 4500 years old, when the dating methods show these fossils to be tens of thousands of years older?

The dating techniques that are used to verify authenticity of original bible manuscripts are acceptable, because they fit the creationist argument, but those same techniques are simply "thrown out the window" when it comes to fossil records? Amazing how that works, no?

Well, I played Devil's advocate in a biology class when I was a kid on this very subject -- Carbon Dating can easily be bolluxed by a simple solution of sulfur and water. Suddenly, last week's soup bones become millions of years old!

Now, when I brought thios up to the Biology professor, I was asking how carbon dating's baseline was found. But he decided that I was one of "those Creationists," and went on a diatribe that ended with him asking me if I was going to cover the entire planet in a sulfur water solution...

Of course I had no choice but to quote a bit of Genesis at him - something about how the waters beneath the earth broke forth... and covered the whole world.

[Avatar]

IIRC, (and no doubt Kin will be able to verify or correct), Carbon-14 Dating is no longer the standard used.

--Avatar

[ur-bane]

Accuracy of Fossils and Dating Methods

[Avatar]

Aah, thanks Ur-Bane. So it's not that it's no longer used, but that methods such as Radiometric Dating are more comprehensive, and used in conjunction with it?

Interesting article.

--A

[ur-bane]

Not necessarily in conjunction, but often instead of.
Because the halflife of C-14 is only about 5700 years (5730?), it can only be used to date back b/w 50,000-60,000 years.
Uranium-235 has a much longer halflife (something around 700 million years) and can be used to date back much farther.

These methods are tested and accepted as reliable means to date the strata sandwiching the fossils, thereby placing the fossil's age with relative accuracy, although no doubt not precisely.

[Avatar]

Aah, thanks for the clarification. So essentially, C-14 is actually no longer the standard. (thought so. )

--A

[Kinslaughterer]

Thermoluminescence, Potassium-Argon, Argon-Argon, Electron Spin Resonance, Fission Track, Obsidian-hydration, Archaeomagnetic dating, amino acid dating, varve analysis, and ur-bane's previously mentioned thermal ionization mass spectrometry are all means of absolute dating techniques. Archaeologists in particular are very interested in developing the most accurate dates possible for artifacts and sites.

[Loredoctor]

What was the story about a shoe being carbon-dated with an age of several million years? A Christian some years back said that it undermined the earth being very old.

[Fist and Faith]

That must be one damned smelly shoe!!!!

[Kinslaughterer]

Oh, young earthers have no argument whatsoever...Just like the Flat-earthers but at least they are amusing.

[Nathan]

And here is a link for Edge on the concept of "Intelligent Design", and our increasing understanding of the physics of how "everything" could have come from "nothing".

www.talkorigins.org/faqs/cosmo.html

Thanks Avatar, a very enjoyable read.

[Kinslaughterer]

home.austarnet.com.au/stear/default.htm

This is also a great website. Not as good as talk.origins but with a little more humor.

New Evidence from Molecular Biology
The unifying principle of common descent that emerges from all the foregoing lines of evidence is being reinforced by the discoveries of modern biochemistry and molecular biology.

The code used to translate nucleotide sequences into amino acid sequences is essentially the same in all organisms. Moreover, proteins in all organisms are invariably composed of the same set of 20 amino acids. This unity of composition and function is a powerful argument in favor of the common descent of the most diverse organisms.

In 1959, scientists at Cambridge University in the United Kingdom determined the three-dimensional structures of two proteins that are found in almost every multicelled animal: hemoglobin and myoglobin. Hemoglobin is the protein that carries oxygen in the blood. Myoglobin receives oxygen from hemoglobin and stores it in the tissues until needed. These were the first three-dimensional protein structures to be solved, and they yielded some key insights. Myoglobin has a single chain of 153 amino acids wrapped around a group of iron and other atoms (called "heme") to which oxygen binds. Hemoglobin, in contrast, is made of up four chains: two identical chains consisting of 141 amino acids, and two other identical chains consisting of 146 amino acids. However, each chain has a heme exactly like that of myoglobin, and each of the four chains in the hemoglobin molecule is folded exactly like myoglobin. It was immediately obvious in 1959 that the two molecules are very closely related.

During the next two decades, myoglobin and hemoglobin sequences were determined for dozens of mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, fish, worms, and molluscs. All of these sequences were so obviously related that they could be compared with confidence with the three-dimensional structures of two selected standards--whale myoglobin and horse hemoglobin. Even more significantly, the differences between sequences from different organisms could be used to construct a family tree of hemoglobin and myoglobin variation among organisms. This tree agreed completely with observations derived from paleontology and anatomy about the common descent of the corresponding organisms.

Similar family histories have been obtained from the three-dimensional structures and amino acid sequences of other proteins, such as cytochrome c (a protein engaged in energy transfer) and the digestive proteins trypsin and chymotrypsin. The examination of molecular structure offers a new and extremely powerful tool for studying evolutionary relationships. The quantity of information is potentially huge--as large as the thousands of different proteins contained in living organisms, and limited only by the time and resources of molecular biologists.

As the ability to sequence the nucleotides making up DNA has improved, it also has become possible to use genes to reconstruct the evolutionary history of organisms. Because of mutations, the sequence of nucleotides in a gene gradually changes over time. The more closely related two organisms are, the less different their DNA will be. Because there are tens of thousands of genes in humans and other organisms, DNA contains a tremendous amount of information about the evolutionary history of each organism.

Genes evolve at different rates because, although mutation is a random event, some proteins are much more tolerant of changes in their amino acid sequence than are other proteins. For this reason, the genes that encode these more tolerant, less constrained proteins evolve faster. The average rate at which a particular kind of gene or protein evolves gives rise to the concept of a "molecular clock." Molecular clocks run rapidly for less constrained proteins and slowly for more constrained proteins, though they all time the same evolutionary events.

The figure on this page compares three molecular clocks: for cytochrome c proteins, which interact intimately with other macromolecules and are quite constrained in their amino acid sequences; for the less rigidly constrained hemoglobins, which interact mainly with oxygen and other small molecules; and for fibrinopeptides, which are protein fragments that are cut from larger proteins (fibrinogens) when blood clots. The clock for fibrinopeptides runs rapidly; 1 percent of the amino acids change in a little longer than 1 million years. At the other extreme, the molecular clock runs slowly for cytochrome c; a 1 percent change in amino acid sequence requires 20 million years. The hemoglobin clock is intermediate.

The concept of a molecular clock is useful for two purposes. It determines evolutionary relationships among organisms, and it indicates the time in the past when species started to diverge from one another. Once the clock for a particular gene or protein has been calibrated by reference to some event whose time is known, the actual chronological time when all other events occurred can be determined by examining the protein or gene tree.

An interesting additional line of evidence supporting evolution involves sequences of DNA known as "pseudogenes." Pseudogenes are remnants of genes that no longer function but continue to be carried along in DNA as excess baggage. Pseudogenes also change through time, as they are passed on from ancestors to descendants, and they offer an especially useful way of reconstructing evolutionary relationships.

With functioning genes, one possible explanation for the relative similarity between genes from different organisms is that their ways of life are similar--for example, the genes from a horse and a zebra could be more similar because of their similar habitats and behaviors than the genes from a horse and a tiger. But this possible explanation does not work for pseudogenes, since they perform no function. Rather, the degree of similarity between pseudogenes must simply reflect their evolutionary relatedness. The more remote the last common ancestor of two organisms, the more dissimilar their pseudogenes will be.

The evidence for evolution from molecular biology is overwhelming and is growing quickly. In some cases, this molecular evidence makes it possible to go beyond the paleontological evidence. For example, it has long been postulated that whales descended from land mammals that had returned to the sea. From anatomical and paleontological evidence, the whales' closest living land relatives seemed to be the even-toed hoofed mammals (modern cattle, sheep, camels, goats, etc.). Recent comparisons of some milk protein genes (beta-casein and kappa-casein) have confirmed this relationship and have suggested that the closest land-bound living relative of whales may be the hippopotamus. In this case, molecular biology has augmented the fossil record.

[Fist and Faith]

It's been a few years since I went to talk.origins, because, at the time, the only people participating were quite Zeph-like (Zephers?), but on the other side of the fence. Is it otherwise there now?

(btw, I stopped going to the taoism newsgroup for the same reason. I was shocked to find such a crowd there! )

[Gadget nee Jemcheeta]

?! The taoism newsgroooop....an....ZEPH....Wha...I donnodnodnd*boom*

[Avatar]

It's been a few years since I went to talk.origins, because, at the time, the only people participating were quite Zeph-like (Zephers?), but on the other side of the fence. Is it otherwise there now?

Dunno. I didn't check out the site, let alone the forum (didn't even know there was one), it was just a link that came up when I was looking for something on the subject, and I thought the article was interesting.

--A