From: lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: 17 Supposed Evidences against Evolution
Keywords: evolution, creationism
Date: 15 Aug 92 05:32:00 GMT
Followup-To: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
Distribution: world,local
Organization: University of Arizona
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

I meant to crosspost this, but forgot.  This was posted to sci.skeptic.

In article <14AUG199222285019@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu>, lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard) writes...
>In article <1992Aug14.181226.9696@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu>, bourd@jellyfish.cps.msu.edu (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              Lippard@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
>Dept. of Philosophy      Lippard@ARIZVMS.BITNET
>University of Arizona
>Tucson, AZ 85721
Jim Lippard              Lippard@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
Dept. of Philosophy      Lippard@ARIZVMS.BITNET
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721