South Korea surrenders to creationist demands
Publishers set to remove examples of evolution from high-school textbooks.
Soo Bin Park
05 June 2012
The evolution of Archaeopteryx will be excluded from some South Korean high-school textbooks after a creationist campaign.
KLAUS HONAL/NATURFOTO HONAL/CORBIS
rights and permissions
Mention creationism, and many scientists think of the United States, where efforts to limit the teaching of evolution have made headway in a couple of states1. But the successes are modest compared with those in South Korea, where the anti-evolution sentiment seems to be winning its battle with mainstream science.
A petition to remove references to evolution from high-school textbooks claimed victory last month after the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology (MEST) revealed that many of the publishers would produce revised editions that exclude examples of the evolution of the horse or of avian ancestor Archaeopteryx. The move has alarmed biologists, who say that they were not consulted. “The ministry just sent the petition out to the publishing companies and let them judge,” says Dayk Jang, an evolutionary scientist at Seoul National University.
The campaign was led by the Society for Textbook Revise (STR), which aims to delete the “error” of evolution from textbooks to “correct” students’ views of the world, according to the society’s website. The society says that its members include professors of biology and high-school science teachers.
The STR is also campaigning to remove content about “the evolution of humans” and “the adaptation of finch beaks based on habitat and mode of sustenance”, a reference to one of the most famous observations in Charles Darwin’s On the Origin of Species. To back its campaign, the group highlights recent discoveries that Archaeopteryx is one of many feathered dinosaurs, and not necessarily an ancestor of all birds2. Exploiting such debates over the lineage of species “is a typical strategy of creation scientists to attack the teaching of evolution itself”, says Joonghwan Jeon, an evolutionary psychologist at Kyung Hee University in Yongin.
Tennessee ‘monkey bill’ becomes law
If you want to win the game, you must join in
Science and society: A Pacific divide
More related stories
The STR is an independent offshoot of the Korea Association for Creation Research (KACR), according to KACR spokesman Jungyeol Han. Thanks in part to the KACR’s efforts, creation science — which seeks to provide evidence in support of the creation myth described in the Book of Genesis — has had a growing influence in South Korea, although the STR itself has distanced itself from such doctrines. In early 2008, the KACR scored a hit with a successful exhibition at Seoul Land, one of the country’s leading amusement parks. According to the group, the exhibition attracted more than 116,000 visitors in three months, and the park is now in talks to create a year-long exhibition.
Even the nation’s leading science institute — the Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology — has a creation science display on campus. “The exhibition was set up by scientists who believed in creation science back in 1993,” says Gab-duk Jang, a pastor of the campus church. The institute also has a thriving Research Association for Creation Science, run by professors and students, he adds.
Antipathy to evolution
In a 2009 survey conducted for the South Korean documentary The Era of God and Darwin, almost one-third of the respondents didn’t believe in evolution. Of those, 41% said that there was insufficient scientific evidence to support it; 39% said that it contradicted their religious beliefs; and 17% did not understand the theory. The numbers approach those in the United States, where a survey by the research firm Gallup has shown that around 40% of Americans do not believe that humans evolved from less advanced forms of life.
“The ministry just sent the petition out to the publishing companies and let them judge.”
The roots of the South Korean antipathy to evolution are unclear, although Jeon suggests that they are partly “due to strong Christianity in the country”. About half of South Korea’s citizens practice a religion, mostly split between Christianity and Buddhism.
However, a survey of trainee teachers in the country concluded that religious belief was not a strong determinant of their acceptance of evolution3. It also found that 40% of biology teachers agreed with the statement that “much of the scientific community doubts if evolution occurs”; and half disagreed that “modern humans are the product of evolutionary processes”.
Until now, says Dayk Jang, the scientific community has done little to combat the anti-evolution sentiment. “The biggest problem is that there are only 5–10 evolutionary scientists in the country who teach the theory of evolution in undergraduate and graduate schools,” he says. Having seen the fierce debates over evolution in the United States, he adds, some scientists also worry that engaging with creationists might give creationist views more credibility among the public.
Silence is not the answer, says Dayk Jang. He is now organizing a group of experts, including evolutionary scientists and theologians who believe in evolution, to counter the STR’s campaign by working to improve the teaching of evolution in the classroom, and in broader public life.
Nature 486, 14 (07 June 2012) doi:10.1038/486014a
1 名前：依頼＠水道水φ ★ 投稿日：2012/06/09(土) 14:05:15.80 ID:???
2012-06-05 08:50 AMReport this comment | #43599
Javier González said:
It is so sad that communities deny to accept the evidence. If KACR wants to deny evolution, make evidence of it by research, as all other researchers.
2012-06-05 08:54 AMReport this comment | #43600
Joshua Zambrano said:
Hmm... Actually, that Gallup poll result is outdated. It was 40% in 2010. But the latest May 3-6, 2012 result shows 46% believe God created humans in present form to 32% which believe humans evolved with God guiding and 15% which believed humans evolved but God played no role in the process.
A 2007 poll shown on the page is still more specific, showing that 39% of Americans believe Young Earth Creationism (God creating humans in the past 10,000 years) is 'Definitely true' and another 27% believe that it's 'Probably true' for a combined 66%. By comparison, 18% believe Evolution is 'Definitely true' and 35% that it's 'Probably true', for a total of 53%.
2012-06-05 02:06 AMReport this comment | #43649
John Meagher said:
To say you "believe in evolution" is not really correct. That is like saying I believe the earth round, when I really mean that I accept the evidence that the earth is round and that I accept the evidence that creatures of the earth evolve.
If you think something is true, base on evidence, it's not really a belief. If you believe something is true despite lack of evidence or evidence to the contrary, then it's a belief.
2012-06-05 02:38 AMReport this comment | #43650
Lee Bowman said:
"A petition to remove references to evolution from high-school textbooks claimed victory" is a false statement. Revisions of texts, like tempering certain assertions such as finch beaks correlating to evolution rather than a minor adaptive variation, and discounting Archaeopteryx as an avian ancestor are possible, but removing evolution from course study is absurd.
This could never occur in a country rated 3rd in scientific education. Revisions is texts, however, are possible, and have even ocurred in Texas recently. But the wording of the article is plainly misleading.
2012-06-05 02:49 AMReport this comment | #43652
Leon Snow said:
John Meagher, you're using a curious and nonstandard definition of "belief." See http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/belief/ and http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/belief. Belief can be true or false, well or poorly evidenced. I believe in evolution and I believe I'm sitting at my desk. Perhaps you meant faith-based-belief.
2012-06-05 04:08 AMReport this comment | #43655
Mel M said:
This article is full of lies.
Stop distorting the facts.
2012-06-05 07:55 AMReport this comment | #43665
Joonghwan Jeon said:
As an evolution expert in South Korea, I'd like to make this clear: It's an overstatement to say that creationism achieved a greater success in South Korea than US.
The petition from the STR only requested to delete a few "wrong" evidence of evolution from textbooks. It did NOT claim that evolution should be taught with great caution nor creationism should also be taught in high schools. In other words, South Korean high-school textbooks have taught, and will surely teach even after the decision of the Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology, that evolution is both a historical fact and the only well-founded scientific theory that explains the life on earth tremendously well.
Of course, it is stupid for Korean government not to carefully review the STPâ€™s petition by consulting evolutionary biologists. But I want to stress that the hasty decision of Korean government is not so much because the mainstream science in Korea was defeated in the battle with creationism â€“ Itâ€™s just because Korean government perhaps wanted to avoid a big trouble (lazy and irresponsible, obviously) and just chose to delete a few â€œcontroversialâ€ examples of evolution from the textbooks.
I applaud Natureâ€™s intention to purge pseudo-science from science education all over the world. Yet the headline â€œSouth Korea surrenders to creationist demandsâ€ is too sensational. Iâ€™m afraid that many people would get the wrong impression that Creationism (finally?) beat evolution science in Korea.
2012-06-05 07:58 AMReport this comment | #43666
Jared Jammer said:
Nature is twisting reality to suit their agenda, per the usual (see: Their distortions regarding the Tennessee Academic Freedom bill).
From the final paragraph of the article:
"The experts blame the passive and reactive approaches by the scientific community. The professor of genomics at Seoul National University Jang Dae-ik said â€˜the problem is that the writers of the science textbooks have neglected the new materials on the theory of evolution over the several decades. It even contains the references to Ernst Haeckelâ€™s recapitulation theory (ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny, get it?) which has been disproven a long time ago. This kind of lapse in up-to-date knowledge invites such an attack [from the CREIT].â€™"
So, the real issue here isn't some evil creationist conspiracy theory. The real issue is that South Korean textbooks — much like American textbooks, unfortunately — contain outdated, unscientific evidence to prop up Darwinian evolution.
The South Koreans have removed this nonsense, and it's created an uproar amongst Darwinists. That, in itself, is incredibly telling. Why is it that Darwinists demand that now-discredited evidence be taught in support of their theory?
I'll finish by saying this: The dishonesty and hostility shown by Nature and Darwinists, worldwide, is doing nothing to help society embrace evolution. If you'll lie about the fairly minor things, like the issues in Tennessee and South Korea, why wouldn't you lie about the big things, like the validity of your alleged theory?
2012-06-05 09:33 AMReport this comment | #43667
Gregory Lewis said:
In response to some of the creationist-sponsored posters here making specious claims like "Darwin was wrong" and "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny has been disproven a long time ago" and other similar misinformation, here is a great article that recapitulates Darwin's work, and why Darwin's natural selection of species continues to be proven the correct theory:
Was Darwin Wrong?
2012-06-06 02:35 AMReport this comment | #43677
KASS Yoon said:
@Ben Cohen, I'll debate you. Let me know when you'd like to start.
@Mel M, My rebuttal to the counterattack on Uncommon Descent that probably won't be posted. It's 'awaiting moderation'. https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B4vQ_dhWG9LWSU5Ea1hiRDM2UEU
2012-06-06 05:50 AMReport this comment | #43682
KASS Yoon said:
[Jared Jammer]: Nature is twisting reality to suit their agenda, per the usual (see: Their distortions regarding the Tennessee Academic Freedom bill).
[Response]: Please support this with specific quotes from Nature's article. Your claim is insufficient without this.
[Jared Jammer]: So, the real issue here isn't some evil creationist conspiracy theory.
[Response]: No, it's not a conspiracy theory. Creationists have made it quite plain and clear that they would like to remove references to evolution from textbooks. They've been quite vocal about this. They aren't hiding what they're attempting to do:
[Koreabang]: The CREIT also plan to submit petition to remove other references to the theory of evolution such as â€˜the evolution of humanâ€™ and â€˜the adaptation of finch beaks based on habitat and mode of sustenanceâ€™, admitting that their end-goal is to change the educational structure that teaches the Darwinian evolution as the orthodox.
[Jared Jammer]: The real issue is that South Korean textbooks â€”...â€” contain outdated, unscientific evidence to prop up Darwinian evolution. The South Koreans have removed this nonsense, and it's created an uproar amongst Darwinists. That, in itself, is incredibly telling.
(Koreanbang): The experts blame the passive and reactive approaches by the scientific community. The professor of genomics at Seoul National University Jang Dae-ik said â€˜the problem is that the writers of the science textbooks have neglected the new materials on the theory of evolution over the several decades. It even contains the references to Ernst Haeckelâ€™s recapitulation theory (ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny, get it?) which has been disproven a long time ago.
(Nature): ...many of the publishers would produce revised editions that exclude examples of the evolution of the horse or of avian ancestor Archaeopteryx. The move has alarmed biologists, who say that they were not consulted. â€œThe ministry just sent the petition out to the publishing companies and let them judge,â€ says Dayk Jang, an evolutionary scientist at Seoul National University.
(Response): There are publishers of science textbooks and biologists who are not publishers including Dayk Jang (aka Jang Dae-ik). The latter group, the actual biology experts, were not informed of the changes being made by the Ministry. They were left out of the decisionmaking. The publishers left out-of-date information on recapitulation theory in their textbooks. Koreanbang quotes Dayk Jang saying this was a problem. Although the article says at the end that this "lapse" by textbook companies "invites an attack by CREIT", it does not say that CREIT used this as a reason to remove references to the evolution of the horse and archaeopteryx from textbooks.
[Jared Jammer]: Why is it that Darwinists demand that now-discredited evidence be taught in support of their theory?
[Koreabang]: . The professor of genomics at Seoul National University Jang Dae-ik said â€˜the problem is that the writers of the science textbooks have neglected the new materials on the theory of evolution over the several decades. It even contains the references to Ernst Haeckelâ€™s recapitulation theory (ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny, get it?) which has been disproven a long time ago.
[Response]: Please read this section again. Evolutionists see a problem with this out-of-date theory being kept in by publishers.
[Jared Jammer]: I'll finish by saying this: The dishonesty and hostility shown by Nature and Darwinists, worldwide, is doing nothing to help society embrace evolution.
[Response]: Please provide evidence for the 'dishonesty' coming from Nature. The quote you gave was from Koreabang. You have not shown evidence that you've examined what Nature wrote in their article.
[Jared Jammer]: If you'll lie about the fairly minor things, like the issues in Tennessee and South Korea, why wouldn't you lie about the big things, like the validity of your alleged theory?
[Response]: Again, give us specific evidence to provide support for your claim that Nature has lied.
2012-06-06 08:12 AMReport this comment | #43685
Joshua Zambrano said:
Gregory Lewis, your article, 'Was Darwin Wrong?', doesn't address some basic concerns about Evolution, namely:
(1) On pg. 5, it says that paleontology shows closely-allied fossils layered above one another. What it doesn't address is that the fossil record does not show them becoming entirely different species, rather, it shows stasis, where they remain largely congruent within their types, without apparent major transitions, and then suddenly you see a burst of sudden complexity and new types. This led to the theory of Pucntuated Equilibrium by Gould and Eldredge proposing that evolution goes very rapidly during periods of time too short to show up in the fossil record. But basically, the fossil record itself is a strong evidence against Macroevolution, and only supports Microevolution.
(2) On pg. 5, the article claims that living creatures can be easily sorted into a hierarchy of categories. However, this is to large degree the result of interpretation and speculation, which is why there's so much debate over what defines a species, and how to categorize species. Furthermore, the farther you go back, the more apparent it becomes that many ancient species were similar to those we see today, often just larger versions. Again, this supports Microevolution, but not Macroevolution. There were giant sloths, giant elephants, giant insects. Indeed, if all species had a common ancestor, one would expect to see more transitions between species. Darwin himself puzzled over why all nature is not in chaos, stating on pg. 462, "As on the theory of natural selection an interminable number of intermediate forms must have existed, linking together all the species in each group by gradations as fine as our present varieties, it may be asked, Why do we not see these linking forms all around us? Why are not all organic beings blended together in an inextricable chaos?... Why does not every collection of fossil remains afford plain evidence of the gradation and mutation of the forms of life? We meet with no such evidence, and this is the most obvious and forcible of the many objections which may be urged against my theory. Why, again, do whole groups of allied species appear, though certainly they often falsely appear, to have come in suddenly on the several geological stages? Why do we not find great piles of strata beneath the Silurian system, stored with the remains of the progenitors of the Silurian groups of fossils? For certainly on my theory such strata must somewhere have been deposited at these ancient and utterly unknown epochs in the world's history." (Source below)
(3) The article mentions four categories of evidence applied by Darwin, but not the four weaknesses he acknowledged in his theory. Darwin recognized four weaknesses in his theory, two of which form the modern Intelligent Design movement, unusual complexity in life, and instinct suggestive of design. The other two are the lack of transitional forms in the fossil record (which contributed to the origination of Punctuated Equilibrium) and sterility in interspeciary breeding. This last is the least addressed of all four after nearly a century. Why do we see sterility when attempting to breed between species if all had a common ancestor? We breed donkeys with horses and get sterile mules. We breed lions and tigers to get sterile Ligers. This element of sterility proves difficult to explain as it suggests a Creator keeping core species from breeding outside designed boundaries.
(4) On pg. 6 the article calls to attention what it terms vestigial characteristics. What it doesn't mention are cases where Evolutionists have called organs vestigial and been proved wrong. They used to claim the Appendix was a useless organ, and thus vestigial, but we then found it had a role in the immune system preventing disease. They have also claimed the tailbone is vestigial, except that it plays a role in human's ability to sit down, and causes issues when removed or damaged, and thus has a purpose. Cases such as these illustrate how interpretive vestigial organs are, and that they are simply an argument from ignorance – if there is no known use for an organ, Evolutionists speculate that it is evidence of a past ancestor. They speculate human tails are vestigial, yet they do not do so of humans being born with extra limbs. Why is one suggestive of a genetic abnormality or pesticides/chemicals affecting humans, and the other vestigial? This appears to be a case of arbitrary speculation rather than definitive evidence; circumstantial evidence, which is open to interpretation.
(5) On pg. 8, the article mentions bacterial evolution. The trouble is as has been noted by The Brothers Winn: "They also like to point at bacterial mutation as evidence of evolution, but I have an issue with that, too. Weâ€™ve been watching those little guys since the invention of the microscope over 300 years ago, and while theyâ€™ve changed genetically and adapted as bacteria, theyâ€™ve never evolved into a new, higher form of life. Think about this: if a bacterial generation is 20 minutes, and a human generation is 20 years, then they should be evolving 525,000 times faster than we are. And if it took 3.2 million years for Lucy, the alleged missing linke, to become modern man, we should expect to see similar evolutionary advancements in bacteria in a period of just six years. [Whistles]. Wow. And Iâ€™m talking about real evolution. Not just slight alterations to DNA, or building up immunities to this or that, but transforming, actually evolving into something more complex â€“ a brand new form of life. A higher form of life." (Source Below) While we see bacteria building up immunities and adapting, microevolving, they have never stopped being bacteria. Thus, we continue to see no evidence of the major transformation necessary to prove macroevolution.
(6) On pg. 9, the article claims that "Among most forms of living creatures, evolution proceeds slowlyâ€”too slowly to be observed by a single scientist within a research lifetime." This is what indeed should happen if Evolutionary theory is correct that life on earth is millions and billions of years old. And it would provide a convenient escape route for evolutionists in explaining why we can't see evidence of major macroevolution, a taxonomic family or genera becoming something entirely different. The trouble is that microevolution goes much faster, far faster than it should if radiometric dating results are correct, and the assumptions of Uniformitarianism prove true about constant Gradualism. I've provided detail and sourcing for 6 major evidences of microevolutionary rates being far faster than is commonly accepted, contrary to conventional theory, at CreationWiki (Source below).
(7) On pg. 9, the article claims Evolution can be witnessed and observed. The trouble is that all those instances are of Micro, not Macro, evolution. While finches adapt to their environments, they remain finches. While moths change colors, they remain moths. Much as fruit flies adapt given their rapid lifespans, they remain fruit flies. Despite all of science's tinkering with life, they haven't been able to get species outside their core designed boundaries. All of this is evidence for the Microevolution and Natural Selection, adaptation to the environment, that we can witness and acknowledge as undeniable fact. None of it proves in any way the still un-evidenced claim that species had a common ancestor. Can we really see the macroevolution that the University of California speaks of, "evolution above the species level... evolution on a grand scale â€” what we see when we look at the over-arching history of life: stability, change, lineages arising, and extinction"? (Source below)
(8) On pg. 11, the article refers to a whale discovery, concluding "This is how science is supposed to work." The trouble is that over the past decade, the vast majority of discoveries have not been working the way science, at least to the minds of Evolutionists, is 'supposed to work'. Instead, the discoveries of Orrorin tugenensis, Sahelanthropus tchadensis, and Ardipithecus ramidus have shown unusual complexity and bipedality in the oldest hominins we have, forcing a rethink of species half their ages which scientists had been claiming showed the ape-human lineage. Scientists got caught with their pants down, so to speak – they'd been claiming humans were just becoming bipedal around 3 million years per the famous Lucy, only to find three hominins dated 5.5-7 million years which showed clear evidence of bipedalism and early complexity – including human-like faces. Furthermore, numerous finds have proved problematic for evolutionary theory since the year 2000; some showing major 'links' like Erectus and Habilis or Afarensis and Ramidus coexisted and couldn't have been evolved from one another. I've documented 15 controversies here on CreationWiki, providing numerous sources:
2012-06-06 12:53 PMReport this comment | #43789
alan gottesman said:
South Korea has become an economic powerhouse over the past half century, and a formidable competitor. This piece of silliness might be a signal that this remarkable nation is willing to dull its edge, and should be encouraging to nations that must duke it out with South Korea in the global marketplace.
2012-06-06 01:47 AMReport this comment | #43809
fwefweafew gafeawefaewwef said:
Unbelievable how such ideas can actually take hold in the education system
2012-06-06 02:01 AMReport this comment | #43810
Ricardo Santos said:
IÂ´m spiritualist, and i believe in evolution. Is a fact that exist nature laws. The universe is organized, because there are constant rules that govern it.
Science is the conception of approximated theoretical models of the nature laws that can describe well the reality, between particular limits of the model variables.
So, God is the author of nature laws. God is the Supreme Intelligence, Primary Cause of all things. The universe evolution is the evolution predicted by science, but the universe(s) began by GodÂ´s will, that defined previously the laws that conducted the evolution process, and became the nature laws discovered by science, and most others still unknown of scientists.
The nature laws includes the material world laws and the spiritual world laws, that produce the named spiritual phenomena, like mediumship, NDE, and so on.
I believe that man is an immortal and individual spirit, provisionally associated with a flesh mortal body. Science knows a lot about flesh, and some day in future, will know about spirit, when the investors find motivation to research about that matter.
2012-06-06 02:24 AMReport this comment | #43812
M Henri Day said:
Something to keep in mind for all those who support missionary activity by so-called Â«ChristianÂ» churches in non-European cultures ; they would do well to ask themselves just which versions of Â«ChristianityÂ» they are promoting and what are the forces behind this activity. It's sad – but hardly surprising – to see South Korea emulating Texas....
2012-06-06 03:25 AMReport this comment | #43814
Ritchie Annand said:
Ugh, Joshua, same old creationist talking points?
I wouldn't expect anoxic mud burials like those that lead to famous shales on a continuous basis, nor does mere "microevolution" explain the time-ordered taxonomic diversity in those strata. Note the spectacular lack of mammals in Ordovician layers
Naughty quote-miner. We already know that if an "objection to evolution" by Darwin is quoted by a creationist, that they've just gone and snipped out the bit before Charlie launches into an explanation
Inter-species sterility as evidence against evolution, really? Pray tell what "On The Origin Of Species" refers to?
How many times does it need to be said that vestigal does not mean useless?
Bacteria are largely asexual, reined in tighter on their DNA (vs eukaryotes) and non-migratory – rates are lower than you might expect, c.f. http://www.pnas.org/content/96/22/12638.full
Not nearly as fast as would be required for many creationist baramin constructions or the genetic front-loading for which there is no evidence – and human rates have been run for older and newer substitutions (ibid. 104/52/20753.full.pdf)
You ever run a BLAST search on the proteomic or genomic data we have? It's available to the public, you know, and proteins and genes match taxonomic trees rather well – just throw in Cytochrome C or Hemoglobin Alpha Chain for fun
Most fossils are cousins, not ancestors – we infer ancestral traits until we find plausibly closer cousins
Not to mention that if creationism were true, we should not have found all the things that we have. They don't make any sense in that context unless patterns are handwaved away, evidence is ignored and known scientific exceptions are held onto like a pit bull on a T-bone.
Going to throw 2LOT or carbon dating failures on marine invertebrates just to be thorough? :)
2012-06-06 03:37 AMReport this comment | #43815
fwefweafew gafeawefaewwef said:
Well said, Ritchie.
2012-06-06 03:41 AMReport this comment | #43816
fwefweafew gafeawefaewwef said:
And to Adam Park and mohammed: GFY.
2012-06-06 04:42 AMReport this comment | #43817
Ritchie Annand said:
Invalid modes of argument:
A scientist notes a mystery; declare victory
Ask a question, presume nobody has investigated it, or don't care if they did; declare victory
Thanks, fwe. Also, I'm having a tough time pronouncing your name :)
2012-06-06 05:14 AMReport this comment | #43818
Joshua Zambrano said:
Ritchie Annand, on the contrary, brand new points that aren't made elsewhere. I've compiled sources from the past 12 years and am making points not made elsewhere. In response:
1. The mere act of fossilization itself is unusual given conventional theory on depositional rates, as noted by McDowell and Stewart in their 1981 book, 'Reasons Skeptics Should Consider Christianity', ch. 3. Depositional rates of .024 inches a year are far too minimal to fossilize anything effectively, to cover it from bacteria/scavengers and naturally erosive forces quickly enough to prevent decay. In some cases like the Eocene Green River beds fish were preserved en masse with the flesh outline still visible. Starfish were fossilized in the act of devouring clams. We've even found trilobites buried in life position. Clearly, fossilization in at least some instances had to occur very rapidly, per the mass catastrophes we now know occurred, and could not have occurred gradually over millions of years. Conventional theory does not explain how so much fossilization could have occurred given slow depositional rates, just like it does not explain fossilized footprints and raindrop imprints in some of them, which must have required instantaneous fossilization to be preserved – especially in substances like sand/sandstone.
2. Darwin's explanation was that the fossil record was incomplete and would be borne out by further research within a few decades. Clearly that has not happened. Stasis and lack of transitional forms has continued to be so problematic that Punctuated Equilibrium was proposed to try and reconcile Darwinistic Evolution with the fossil record.
3. Darwin twice stated that four chapters would be devoted to addressing Evolution's most serious weaknesses in "On the Origin of Species" and said interspeciary breeding's sterility was one of these: "LONG before having arrived at this part of my work, a crowd of difficulties will have occurred to the reader. Some of them are so grave that to this day I can never reflect on them without being staggered; but, to the best of my judgment, the greater number are only apparent, and those that are real are not, I think, fatal to my theory. These difficulties and objections may be classed under the following heads:â€” Firstly, why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined? Secondly, is it possible that an animal having, for instance, the structure and habits of a bat, could have been formed by the modification of some animal with wholly different habits? Can we believe that natural selection could produce, on the one hand, organs of trifling importance, such as the tail of a giraffe, which serves as a fly-flapper, and, on the other hand, organs of such wonderful structure, as the eye, of which we hardly as yet fully understand the inimitable perfection? Thirdly, can instincts be acquired and modified through natural selection? What shall we say to so marvellous an instinct as that which leads the bee to make cells, which have practically anticipated the discoveries of profound mathematicians? Fourthly, how can we account for species, when crossed, being sterile and producing sterile offspring, whereas, when varieties are crossed, their fertility is unimpaired?" (pp. 171-172)
All of chapter 8, Hybridism, was devoted to tackling this difficult issue.
4. If vestigial doesn't mean useless, then why does the University of California, Berkeley's website say otherwise? "So whatâ€™s not an adaptation? The answer: a lot of things. One example is vestigial structures. A vestigial structure is a feature that was an adaptation for the organismâ€™s ancestor, but that evolved to be non-functional because the organismâ€™s environment changed."
Will reply to others when I have more time.
2012-06-06 06:57 AMReport this comment | #43824
Judong Lee said:
"Even the nationÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s leading science institute Ã¢â‚¬â€ the Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology Ã¢â‚¬â€ has a creation science display on campus. Ã¢â‚¬Å“The exhibition was set up by scientists who believed in creation science back in 1993,Ã¢â‚¬Â says Gab-duk Jang, a pastor of the campus church. The institute also has a thriving Research Association for Creation Science, run by professors and students, he adds."
this is entirely not true. if you read the article carefully, that statement is from "a pastor" not from "a official of the institute". the exhibition is not official exhibition by the institute, but a private exhibition run by the campus church. They pretend as if it is an official exhibition of the institute to deceive people that "Even the nationÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s leading science institute endorses creation science". the truth is, however, none of the academic research on creation science is conducted by professors or graduate students (of course. because it is not science). as far as I know, none of the professors in the biological sciences is involved in the exhibition.
I do understand church's advertising what they believe, called creationism, and amateur's setting up an exhibition, which are entirely matter of their right of the freedom of speech. But I do not accept their deceiving people by falsely using the name of the nation's leading science institute on purpose. That is a bloody liar, exactly opposite from teachings of Jesus.
2012-06-07 02:30 AMReport this comment | #43831
Tan Sa said:
To fwefweafew gafeawefaewwef:
Now I am Sa Tan. Are you a Mok Sa?
2012-06-07 07:35 AMReport this comment | #43848
Joshua Zambrano said:
Continued from my previous post:
5. Well, your 1999 article is a bit dated. A 2010 study actually found the reverse, that bacterial evolution can occur faster than anticipated. "In the ocean, genes can hop between bacteria with unexpected ease, thanks to strange virus-like particles that shuttle genes from one species to another. These particles, called gene-transfer agents (GTAs), insert DNA into bacterial genomes so frequently that gene transfer in the ocean may occur 1,000 to 100 million times more often than previously thought. This suggests that GTAs have had a powerful role in evolution."
By looking into this further, I am discovering yet another possibility for my "rapid microevolutionary rates" section, bacterial evolution. Apparently scientists are reluctant to admit the rates they see today were always this rapid, and are thus considering whether they might be speeding up.
I also found an interesting article on rapid finch microevolution that I'm strongly considering for inclusion in the CreationWiki section on rapid microevolutionary rates:
6. I don't actually pay attention to Baraminology and what Creationists hypothesize about Created Kinds. I have a discussion comment on CreationWiki about Created Kinds and Baraminology as follows:
"Okay, thanks. I guess the thing is, I am a Creationist because I believe what the Bible says, not because I'm associated with the Creationist movement. I've never really followed too closely what Creationists said, which is why all of my points are so unique. I defend what the Bible says and the concept of core created species and young life on earth, but if there are technical terms for this I am not familiar with them, that's all. I don't know what typical Creationist theory is on this, and have kind of done my own research rather than looking at what other Creationists were doing."
So I don't know what time scales they are using for their Baraminology constructs. Nonetheless, we are talking about sweeping evolutionary rates that are, to quote David Skelly of Yale University, "on the scale of decades and tens of meters." The exact quote is, "Ecology is being transformed by the recognition that ecological and evolutionary timescales are not easily differentiated. A 1999 review of evolutionary rates by Andrew Hendry and Mike Kinnison provided the striking conclusion that rates of contemporary evolution are much faster than generally appreciated... Our work reveals that a number of traits including critical thermal maximum, embryonic development rate, and thermal preference behavior all show variation consistent with local adaptation that occurs on the scale of decades and tens of meters. These findings offer a startlingly different picture of interactions between organisms and their environment prompting us to rethink, in larger sense, how we should conceive of ecological assemblages."
The examples I cited for CreationWiki include the Australian Toxic Toad, which evolved longer legs and heat tolerance within decades, and overran the continent, and the Italian Wall Lizard, which evolved cecal valves, a larger gut, and a harder bite within a few decades. When whole new organs and body structures can be changed within decades in adaptation to environmental changes, then I would say that's more compatible with theories proposing a young age to life on earth, than those proposing millions and billions of years at work.
7. No – I had not run a BLAST search before – thank you for recommending this! I will have to work on figuring out how to search this. I don't understand why you think such data will in any way validate Evolution, however, since correlation does not imply causation. Furthermore, I also question whether the genomes have been double-checked, given the recent discovery that RNA systematically alters itself. If so, is it possible the genomes could have been improperly compiled?
8. Still, the discoveries over the past decade that major parts of the proposed human-ape chain coexisted, like A. ramidus and A. afarensis (2001) and H. habilis and H. erectus (2007) not only makes the conventional linear charts shown to students in the past much weaker, but also creates more questions – where are the ancestors these offshoots had, came from? The more offshoots or cousins that are acknowledged, the more necessity for explaining their lineages as well. Finding new offshoots lived until recent times with modern humans like Neanderthals, Homo floresiensis, and the Denisovans, also requires explaining what their lineages were. And for some like Sharon Begley of Newsweek, a yet more pressing question remains: "Which leads to perhaps the greatest puzzle of all. Throughout human evolution, several species of ancestors lived at the same time. The most recent, of course, were Neanderthals, which made their last stand in the Iberian peninsula about 35,000 years ago. Then why is Homo sapiens the one and only species of human on the planet today?"
2012-06-07 12:28 PMReport this comment | #43905
Rodrigo Fernandez-Vasquez said:
Joshua and others, I am going to refer to point 1) which is within my field of expertise and that has implications for some of the other points.
There are several misconceptions regarding the sedimentary record and how to interpret it. First of all let clarify a couple of concepts. Accumulation rates is not the same as deposition rates. Accumulation rates refers to the thickness of sediments preserved in a sedimentary section and representing certain interval of time. During that time there was deposition, non-deposition and erosion, resulting in an incomplete record of time. It has been observed and theorized that the longer the timescale (or time interval we are looking at) the longer is the time not represented in the sedimentary section, i.e. hiatus, something some of us like to call "Saddler effect", in reference to a couple of papers by Saddler where this is better explained. This means that in most cases sedimentation is punctuated by period of high rates, low rates and no sedimentation. This imply that taking an average "accumulation rate" to make inferences about past "deposition rates" is plain wrong. Deposition rates are in general difficult to estimate and modern observation is the best way to figure out their magnitude, which is more often than not, often orders of magnitude higher than average accumulation rates.
This has many implications in the interpretation of the fossil record. This is in essence incomplete and that is why for many environments we won't find a "continuous" record of transitional species as the creationist normally ask for when trying to debunk evolutionary theories...well, unless someday we invent a time machine and film a millions of years long documentary on the evolution of earth.
2012-06-07 01:36 AMReport this comment | #43914
Ritchie Annand said:
The Eocene Green River beds are not uniformly bedecked with fossils; there are two varved lime muds for which they are famous. You may also note if you see pictures or buy fossils around Wyoming or Banff that they are flattened out – that's part of the deposition and lithification process
Positing punctuated equilibrium was borne out by modern studies of fixating mutations versus population size, c.f. Kimura. As to transitional fossils, we keep discovering them – the older bipeds you note, Tiktaalik, Xiaotingia, what have you. They're more interesting when they push back times-of-splits, but we haven't pulled out anything truly surprising out of the ground. What's the creationist explanation for the fact that we haven't pulled a whale fossil – or a Pakicetus – out of Cambrian rocks?
At least you didn't leave off the "but, to the best of my judgment, the greater number are only apparent, and those that are real are not, I think, fatal to my theory." part, but you are quoting Darwin's setup before the explanation. Chapter 8 is pretty interesting, anyhow – at the time, hybridizing was mostly plant-based when experimenting, but even for animals, the correlation between first cross difficulty and the sterility of the hybrids was noted, sterility varies even by individual, and ranking as species generally but not always indicates the hybrids will be sterile.
For the same reason some people will say evolution "just means change over time" - it's okay to a first approximation. Vestigal means that it has none-to-little of the function of a homolog. Finding lymphatic tissue in the appendix does not means that we can ferment cellulose in the caecum, for example.
They stressed the antibiotic-resistant alpha-proteobacteria into producing the GTAs, purified the GTAs, then mixed them with a bag of water from the sea to find 47% of the survivors had incorporated the GTAs. But... GTAs are only produced under that stress. So, very interesting, but sensationalized.
Caecal modifications are fairly common – witness their function changes amongst the primates. As for cane toads, that's a primary example of selection criteria changing; it's not the sort of thing that's going to generate a new Order in 6,000 years.
BLAST searches can be fun, especially with some of the links and tables they put out these days. Searches will often bring up lists of discovered mutations and what they do – or don't do. You can go for the encoded proteins or the genes, and you can line those up between creatures to see what's different. 'Correlation vs causation' aside, this data stood a chance of completely upending the theory, but this is strong enough that we wouldn't have needed fossils. You can disagree, but if you spelunk, you might at least be able to see why folks think common ancestry is the most parsimonious explanation. (The article you list is very interesting and might help with the DNA->RNA->protein map, but it doesn't affect the DNA or protein sequencing that we've done. Maybe the SSU and LSU RNA databases...?)
Sure, so we keep digging. It's a bit annoying for paleontology that we didn't cover the plains like some other creatures did, but we've found quite a bit since the Leakeys. H. floresiensis lasted until about 12,000 years ago when it looks like a volcano took them out. The Neanderthal die-out corresponds to some degree with the H. sapiens population squeeze, but there are other hypotheses. It would have been neat if they survived to modern day... though we'd probably have proceeded to kill them all :)
2012-06-07 04:24 AMReport this comment | #43924
Joshua Zambrano said:
Rodrigo Fernandez-Vazquez, still though, even if one year were to vary drastically in sediment accumulation from the 24 thousands of an inch estimated by J.B. Birdsell (Human Evolution, 1971, pg. 141), with extreme highs and lows, would that still be sufficient to effectively fossilize anything? There would be some possibilities I suppose, animals in caves might be more easily fossilized, or those falling into tar pits, but otherwise? You just don't have sediment levels rapid enough to fossilize anything – certainly not to fossilize fish with the flesh outlines still intact, or trilobites in the acts of mating and migrating. Or to fossilize footprints with raindrop imprints in them. You'd have to cover something instantaneously to preserve those kinds of details.
Darwin himself made this point in "On the Origin of Species" I just noticed:
"I believe we are continually taking a most erroneous view, when we tacitly admit to ourselves that sediment is being deposited over nearly the whole bed of the sea, at a rate sufficiently quick to embed and preserve fossil remains... We may, I think, safely conclude that sediment must be accumulated in extremely thick, solid, or extensive masses, in order to withstand the incessant action of the waves, when first upraised and during subsequent oscillations of level. Such thick and extensive accumulations of sediment may be formed in two ways; either, in profound depths of the sea, in which case, judging from the researches of E. Forbes, we may conclude that the bottom will be inhabited by extremely few animals, and the mass when upraised will give a most imperfect record of the forms of life which then existed; or, sediment may be accumulated to any thickness and extent over a shallow bottom, if it continue slowly to subside. In this latter case, as long as the rate of subsidence and supply of sediment nearly balance each other, the sea will remain shallow and favourable for life, and thus a fossiliferous formation thick enough, when upraised, to resist any amount of degradation, may be formed." (pp. 288)
Still, such rapid sediment deposition is something you see after a flood – an effect that might explain mass fossilization, whereas slow sinking down into swamps or gradual deposition will not.
I understand the claim the fossil record is incomplete. But at the same time though, how then can one consider the theory of Evolution falsifiable, if this excuse can be used whenever the fossil record suggests microevolution occurred and macro did not? Darwin used this claim that the fossil record didn't support evolution because of its incompleteness a full century ago:
"Lastly, looking not to any one time, but to all time, if my theory be true, numberless intermediate varieties, linking most closely all the species of the same group together, must assuredly have existed; but the very process of natural selection constantly tends, as has been so often remarked, to exterminate the parent forms and the intermediate links. Consequently evidence of their former existence could be found only amongst fossil remains, which are preserved, as we shall in a future chapter attempt to show, in an extremely imperfect and intermittent record." (pg. 179)
He still found it extremely puzzling why the fossil record did not support gradual macroevolution (see pages 293-302 for his thoughts on why this occurred, which appear to include migration of species and consistency of fossilization):
"From the foregoing considerations it cannot be doubted that the geological record, viewed as a whole, is extremely imperfect; but if we confine our attention to any one formation, it becomes more difficult to understand, why we do not therein find closely graduated varieties between the allied species which lived at its commencement and at its close." (pg. 293)
Darwinian Macroevolution, to be claimed as science, must be falsifiable. Darwin gave one example of falsifiability at the time, the fossil record during the Silurian stratum:
"Consequently, if my theory be true, it is indisputable that before the lowest Silurian stratum was deposited, long periods elapsed, as long as, or probably far longer than, the whole interval from the Silurian age to the present day; and that during these vast, yet quite unknown, periods of time, the world swarmed with living creatures. To the question why we do not find records of these vast primordial periods, I can give no satisfactory answer... But the difficulty of understanding the absence of vast piles of fossiliferous strata, which on my theory no doubt were somewhere accumulated before the Silurian epoch, is very great... The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained. " (pg. 307-308)
Still, we've accumulated enough evidence of what the fossil record is like to recognize that while it often shows microevolutionary stasis, species evolving minimally for long periods largely unchanged, and then sudden appearance of complexity, it does not show major transitions between species. And this led to the proposal of Punctuated Equilibrium by Gould and Eldredge.
2012-06-07 05:04 AMReport this comment | #43926
Joshua Zambrano said:
1. Yes, the varves are mentioned by McDowell and Stewart in "Reasons Skeptics Should Consider Christianity, pages 214-215 here:
As noted there, "Several features of the Green River tend to contradict the usual interpretation of slow deposition at the rate of one band per year. First, the fossil fish are pressed flat between the bands. Second, one can see the outline of the entire fish, not just the bones. That means the flesh hadn't rotted at the time the fish was buried. Finallly, the thickness of each band is such that it would be difficult to be preserved. The average thickness of a band is about five thousandths of an inch.... What do these facts mean? Well, it is practically impossible for the dead fish to have been preserved if it had been covered by only one millimeter of mud. If one places a dead fish on the bottom of an aquarium and covers him with one millimeter of mud, the fish will rot and float to the surface. Very little decay is seen in the fossil fish of the Green River beds. Secondly, one millimeter of mud would not provide enough weight to press the fish as flat as they are seen. Thus the only logical explanation for the appearance of the Green River beds is that the entire weight of the formation was laid down rapidly. Only in this fashion could the fish be buried deeply enough to preserve them while also flattening them.
2. Still, doesn't Punctuated Equilibrium go against this concept of Uniformitarianism and "the present is the key to the past" that is used to assume radiometric decay was constant? If you say, in other words, that one can suddenly accelerate over a short period, why the insistence that radiometric decay cannot – especially during the massive catastrophes destroying life we now recognize occurred (e.g. Pre-Cambrian Mass Extinction). The trouble is the transitional forms we've discovered for humans don't fit into a nice neat picture of evolution, especially S. tchadensis, O. tugenensis, and A. ramidus. They show early complexity and bipedality at the very beginning in those 3, rather than a gradual transition to human-like forms. What they were supposed to evolve into was less similar to modern humans than they are! As for Pakicetus, the interpretation it was related to whales appears very questionable, with recent debate over whether it had any marine characteristics at all:
3. Yes, chapter 8 is pretty interesting. However, it's frustrating that the subject of animal interspeciary breeding was less addressed than hybridism in plants. Yet Genesis 1:12 gives just 2 or 3 core species of plants, so that hybridism should be easier to perform in them. Hybridism in animals is what should prove most controversial. Today, we continue to see sterility occur when cross-breeding animals like donkeys and horses or lions and tigers. If core created species were designed originally per the book of Genesis, we would expect to see boundaries between these core species that prevent their inter-crossing, and sterility to my mind might be such an evidence.
4. Alright, good point. The terms can vary given who's using them. Another term seems to be somewhat arbitrary as well, 'species'. As Darwin noted, "It is all-important to remember that naturalists have no golden rule by which to distinguish species and varieties; they grant some little variability to each species, but when they meet with a somewhat greater amount of difference between any two forms, they rank both as species, unless they are enabled to connect them together by close intermediate gradations. And this from the reasons just assigned we can seldom hope to effect in any one geological section. Supposing B and C to be two species, and a third, A, to be found in an underlying bed; even if A were strictly intermediate between B and C, it would simply be ranked as a third and distinct species, unless at the same time it could be most closely connected with either one or both forms by intermediate varieties." (pp. 297-298)
This is one of my concerns, that transitions are in themselves somewhat speculative, concerning not only vestigial organs but transitional forms, because taxonomy lacks the "golden rule" Darwin referred to, and is rather arbitrary and interpretive. Recently we discovered a South American creature that is the spitting image of a giant earthworm, for example, yet it was classified as something else entirely. The classification itself can in my mind be used to base a framework that attempts to support evolution based on personal interpretation.
Will reply to others when I have more time.
2012-06-07 06:41 AMReport this comment | #43934
Rodrigo Fernandez-Vasquez said:
Well Joshua, unfortunately I don't have much time right now but...respect to sedimentation rates and other matters, Darwin was a remarkable scientist but we have advanced in the understanding of sedimentary and fossilization processes quite a lot over the last 100 years. Data on the frequency, magnitude, and sediment yields associated with flooding events exists (refer, for instance, to Milliman, Syvitski and Mulder papers). During high flux events, the sediment load can increase several times even orders of magnitude. In this way you have more than enough sediment in river valleys, deltas and flood plains to bury remains of living organisms or their traces. In other environments the process works differently. Small shells are buried by mud transported along continental shelves, deeper in oceans turbidites do the work, in fjords high accumulation rates associated to glaciers sediment outflux do the same etc...If you observe nature with a sense of how these processes work at different environments and different timescales it won't be difficult to understand that it occurs. Go to places where deposition is occurring and check....ok, I have to go back to work...
2012-06-07 07:03 AMReport this comment | #43936
Jung-Mo Lee said:
Please hava a look at : 'The first Korean responses'
( http://blog.naver.com/metapsy/40160831824 ) (text : Korean and English mixed)
Nature ì§€ì˜ â€˜ì°½ì¡°ë¡ ì— í•œêµì‚¬íšŒ êµ´ë³µâ€™ ê¸°ì‚¬ ê´€ë ¨ ìžë£Œë“¤
1. Nature reports (News)
ì €ëª…í•œ ê³¼í•™ì§€ â€˜Nature'ì§€ ì¸í„°ë„·íŒ ê¸°ì‚¬ì— ì§€ë‚œ 2012ë…„ 6ì›” 5ì¼ì— ë‹¤ìŒì˜ ê¸°ì‚¬ê°€ ì‹¤ë ¸ë‹¤. ê³§ ì´ Nature ì§€ í•˜ë“œì¹´ë²„ íŒì—ë„ ê°™ì€ ê¸°ì‚¬ê°€ ì‹¤ë¦°ë‹¤ê³ í•œë‹¤.
â€œSouth Korea surrenders to creationist demands:
Publishers set to remove examples of evolution from high-school textbooks.â€œ
by Soo Bin Park
-05 June 2012
2. êµë‚´ ë§¤ìŠ¤ì»´ì˜ 1ì°¨ì ë°˜ì‘ (1st resonses of Korean Newspapers)
- / (text in Korean)
ã„±. í•œê²¨ë ˆì‹ ë¬¸ ì¸í„°ë„·íŒ ê¸°ì‚¬
ì œëª©: ë„¤ì´ì²˜ â€œí•œêµ, ì°½ì¡°ë¡ ìžë“¤ ìš”êµ¬ì— í•ë³µâ€
ë“±ë¡ : 2012.06.06 21:37
ì¼ë¶€ êµê³¼ì„œ â€˜ì§„í™”ë¡ ì¦ê±° ì‚ì œâ€™ ì²ì› ë°›ì•„ë“¤ì—¬â€¦ê¸°ì‚¬ ê²Œìž¬
ì´ê·¼ì˜ ì„ ìž„ê¸°ìž email@example.com
ã„´. ì¡°ì„ ì¼ë³´ ì¸í„°ë„· íŒì˜ 1ì°¨ì ë°˜ì‘
ë„¤ì´ì²˜ "éŸ“, ì°½ì¡°ë¡ ì— í•ë³µ" ê¸°ì‚¬ì— ç¾Ž ë„¤í‹°ì¦Œ ì¡°ë¡± ì´ì–´ì ¸
ìµœì—°ì§„ ê¸°ìž - ê¸°ì‚¬100ìží‰(134)
- ìž…ë ¥ : 2012.06.07 16:55 | ìˆ˜ì • : 2012.06.07 17:41
3 í•œêµ ê³¼í•™ê³„ì˜ 1ì°¨ì ë°˜ì‘ (the 1st responses of the Korean Science community) / (text in Korean)
- ê³ êµ ê³¼í•™ êµê³¼ì„œ ê´€ë ¨í•˜ì—¬ ì´ëŸ¬í•œ ìƒí™©ê³¼ ë³´ìˆ˜ êµì§„ì¶”ì˜ í™œë™ì— ëŒ€í•˜ì—¬ ìµœê·¼ì— ì•Œê²Œ ëœ ê³¼í•™ê³„ëŠ” ê³¼í•™ê³¼ ì¢…êµ ê´€ë ¨ í•™íšŒ, ìƒë¬¼êµìœ¡ ê´€ë ¨ í•™íšŒ ë“±ì„ ì¤‘ì‹¬ìœ¼ë¡œ í•˜ì—¬ ì´ì— ëŒ€í•œ ì´ì„±ì , ê³¼í•™ê¸°ë°˜ì ëŒ€ì±…ì„ 5ì›”ë¶€í„° ê°•êµ¬í•˜ê³ ìžˆì—ˆë‹¤. ë‹¤ë¥¸ ê³¼í•™ ì¡°ì§ë“¤ë„ ì ì°¨ ê°€ë‹´í•˜ëŠ” ê²ƒ ê°™ë‹¤.
4. ì´ì •ëª¨ì˜ ìƒê° ì²¨ì–¸ (Comments by Jung-Mo Lee; a Korean cognitive psychologist) (text in Korean)
챘쨀쨈챙�� 챙짙쩌챙??�챙탑??챘�쑣ㅓ�??� 챘째�챙짠�왗�꽓�씳ヂ� 챙 ?? 챗째�▣�◑� 챙짙쩌챙탑짜챗쨀쩌 , 챙�??챘흸��ヂ걔㈒р�?? 챘흸���◑� 챘짠짚챘??�왗ヅ졻�,
챘�┑맡ヂ꼲㉲ぢ꼲시� 흹챠�™꽓챙�?? 챙��챙�??챙탑?? 챘�뮤ㅓモ믓녍р붘� Kahneman 챙??쨈 챙??쨈챘짱쨍 80챘�╈왗ヅ믠궗챙��?? 챗짼쩍챠�붘쑦ぢ냈셌�™꽓챙 ?? 챙탑??챘짙흸챘짜쩌 챗쨌쩌챗짹째챘징흹 챙쨉흹챗쨌쩌챙��?? 챙짠��� ??챠�◑� 챘째�씳�??쨍,
창��쑦�??쨍챗째�왗�??�� 챙짙쩌챘짢쨔챗쨉짭챗쨉짭챙��??챙흹쩌챘징흹 챙�??챗째??챠�◑벭モ뮤ㅓ™궗��, 창��쑦�??쨍챗째�왗�??� 챙??쨈챙�왖궁� ?? 챙�슿�ぢ� 챘??쩌챘힋�� 챗짼�챙??�� 챠탐쨍챠�벬Γ�??흹(biased) 챠흹쨈챘짝짭챙힋짚챠�뮤궁�졖ㅓ� ?? 챙�슿�ぢ� 챗째�� 챗쨌쨍 챗쨍째챘쨀쨍챙??쨈챘�뮤ㅓ™궗��, 창��쑦�??쨍챗째�왗�??�� 챙탑??챙�� 챙??쨈 챠탐쨍챠�벬Γ� ??챙흹쩌챘징흹 챙짠??챗쨈��� ??챙흹쩌챘징흹 챘짱쩔챘힋�� 챗짼�챙??�� 챘�┑셌ヂ┑�� ??-챙??쨈챙�왖궁� ??챙흹쩌챘징흹챘??�� 챠���モ뮤뮨�▦쑦モ뮤� - 챘짠탑챘힋�씳モ뮤ㅓぢ� 챙�??챗째??챠�◑벭モ뮤ㅓ™궗��, 창��쑦�??쨍챙짠��� ?? 챙째짤챗째??(Cognitive Illusions)창�р꽓, 창��쑦�??쨍챗째�왗�??� 챙�슿�ぢ� 챙�뮴벭�졖ㅓ�┖벭р�??챘힋�� Fast챙�뮴벭�졖ㅓ�┖벭ぢ냈�, Slow 챙�뮴벭�졖ㅓ�┖벭�??쨈 챙탑�챘힋�씳�??째, 챙�슿�ヅ씽뮼モ쑣ㅓ�??�� 챙짠??챗쨈��� ??챙??쨈챘짤째 챙짙쩌챘짢쨔챗쨉짭챗쨉짭챙��??챙흹쩌챘징흹 챙�??챗째??챠�◑� 챗짼�챙??�� Slow 챙�뮴벭�졖ㅓ�┖벭р�?? 챙??�챠�▦쑦р붋� 챗쨌쨍 챘�┑셌ヂ┑�� ?? 챠���モ뮤뮨р왖궁�??�� 챙 ??챗짼���▦쑦�㎮궗챘??�� 챙�◑졗�??�� 챙짹��, 챙탑??챗쨍째챙탑??챙�� 챙??쨈 챘�┑셌ヂ┑�� ??챙흹쩌챘징흹 챙??쨈챙�왖궁� ??챙흹쩌챘징흹 챙�슿�ぢ� 챠�▦쑦ぢ� 챙탑�챘�뮤ㅓぢ� 챘짱쩔챘힋�씳モ뮤�.창�р꽓
챘�쑣궁�??� 챙�벬맡ぢ멤걘р�??챙�왙� 챙탑??챙흹 챘징짯챙짠�� 챙�◑졗モ뮤�
(챙??쨈챘타짭챠�◑� 챙??쨍챗째�왗�??� 챙째짤챗째??챙 ?? 챙�슿�ぢ� 챙��?? 챘흸���▦쑦р붋�ヅ졻� 챘�┑맡ヂ꼲㉲��??챙��챙�??챙탑?? 챙쨔쨈챘�왢녍ヂ㎶뮼�??� 챙쨉흹챗쨌쩌 챙 ��р왙�. [챙�??챗째??챙��?? 챗쨈���◑� 챙�??챗째??] -챗쨔����??챙�슿�, 2012 -챙??쨈챘�싈�, 챗쨀 챘 짚챘흸�� 챙�뮤�ヂ┑��™꽓챗쨀쩌 챠�붘녍�뮾벭ぢ� 챗쨉??챙��챙??� [챗째���??�씳�??�� 챙 흹챙 �▣р� : 챙큄째챘짝짭챘힋�� 챘힋� 챙째짤챗째?? 챙��??챙��?? 챙�슿걘モ뮤�.] 챙��챙�◈ㅓ�뮾뮼�뼘ㅓ�졖�, 2012 챘�쑣궁�??� 챙짹�┚р�?? 챙탑� 챘�쑩벭ヅ맞�モ싈� 챙탑�챘�뮤�.)
-챙??쨍챗째�왗�??�� 챙탑??챗쨍째챗째�� (챙짠??챗쨈��� ??챙흹쩌챘징흹, 챗째??챙 �▣� ??챙흹쩌챘징흹) 챘짱쩔챘힋�� 챘째�씳ヂΒ� 챗쨌쨍챙 쨍 챙�쨀챘�뮤ㅓぢ� 챙�??챗째??챠�▦쑦ヂ㈑늘р왙�, 챙탑??챙�� 챙??쨈 챘�┑셌ヂ┑�� ??챙흹쩌챘징흹 챠���モ뮤뮨�◑�, 챙�™왗�Ｂ� 챙??쨈챙�왖궁� ??챙흹쩌챘징흹 챙�??챗째??챠�▦쑦ぢ� 챙탑�챘�뮤ㅓぢ� 챘짱쩔챘힋�� 창��쑦�??쨍챙짠��� ?? 챙째짤챗째??창�р꽓 챙��??챙��??챙�왙벭р�?? 챙�슿�ヅ졻� 챙��▣ヂも┚� ??챙??쨍 챠탐쨍챠�벬�(챙??쨈챗짼�챙??쨈 챠�◑벭ぢ돠�� ?? 챙 �▣�믓�, 챙짖�┚ぢ�?? 챙�??챠�◈�р�??챘??�� 챗쨌쨍챘흸��ヂ∴� 챙 ??챙큄짤챘??흹챘�뮤�)챙??� 창��쑦ヂ똥녍��??챠�◑�(챗째��� 짢챠�◑�) 챙징쨈챙탑짭창�р꽓챘�쑣ㅓ�??쨈챘�뮤�. (챙??쨈챘타째 챙�??챗째??챙??�� 챘쨋�챗쨉??챙 ?? 챗쨔짢챘�뮤��??흸챗쨀쩌챘??�� 챙�붋걘ぢ꼲걘�??흹챘�뮤�.)
-챙짖�┚ぢ�??챙�™궗 챗쨀쩌챠�™꽓챙??�� 챙�붋걘ぢ꼲걘�㎮궗챙�벬� 챠�??챗쨉짭챠�▦쑦ヅ졻� 챘짠탐챙??�� 챙 ��ヂも┚�◑� 챙�◈맡ぢ돠� 챙�� 챠�™꽓챘흸����??챘�쑣�, 챙�� 챠�™꽓챘흸���™꽓챘�쑣ㅓ�??��, 챙째쩍챙징째챘징 챙��?? 챙탑�┚ぢ�??챠�◑� 창��쑦ヂ검쑦�㎮왗�꽓�씳ヂ� 챙탑??창�р꽓챘�쑣ㅓ�??� 챘�┑셌�㎮궗챗째�� 챙??쨈챘타짭챠�◑� 챙??쨍챗째�� 챘쨀쨍챘탑�챙??� 창��쑦�??쨍챙짠��� ?? 챙째짤챗째??창�р꽓챙��?? 챙�슿�ヂ∴� 챙탑징챠��� 챙탑�챙??흸챙??�� 챙??쨈챘짱쨍 챙�◑뮼ぢ� 챙탑�챘�뮤�.
- 챙??쨍챗째�왗�??� 챘짠�챙??흸챙??�� 챗째??챙짖�� 챙??쨈챙�◈셌ぢ맞걘ヂΒ� 챘짠흸챘�쑣ㅓр벬� 챘�슿늘ヅ졻� 챗쨀쨉챙탑짜챙??쨈챗쨍째챙��??, 챙탑??챙�� 챙??쨈 챙�쨀챘�뮤ㅓぢ� 챙�??챗째??챠�▦쑦ヅ졻� 챘째�씳ぢ겸궗, 챠탐쨍챠�벬Γ�??�챗쨀 , 챙�짚챘짜�챙�™궗, 챙짙쩌챘짢쨔챗쨉짭챗쨉짭챙��?? 챙�??챗째??챙��?? 챗째��モ�??챙째짭 챗짼�챙??쨈챗쨀 챙??쨍챗째�왗�??�� 창��쑦�걔㈒ぢ�??창�р꽓 챙��??챙��?? 챙�슿늘モ뮤� 챗째��ヅ졻� 챙징쨈챙탑짭챙탑�왗�??�� 챘짠??챗째??챠�◑벭モ뮤�.
- 챠??�걘��??챘??�▣р▦�, 챘�싈쑦�??� 챙??쨈챙�왖궁� ??, 챘�┑셌ヂ┑�� ?? 챙�??챗째??챙??쨈 챙�짚챘짜�챙�™궗 챠탐쨍챠�벬Γ�벬셌ヂ∴벭ヂ뜯궗챠�왖� 챙탑??챙흹 챘징흹챙큄쨍 챙�� 챙�붴졗ヅ졻� 챙��▣ヂも┚�??��(챙�붴┚ヂ냈늘ヂΒ�) 챙큄째챘짝짭 챙??쨍챗째�� 챘짧짢챘��??챗째�� 챠���ぢ� 챘�싂� 챗쨌쨍챘타째 챙징쨈챙탑짭챙탑�왗�??�� 챘짠??챗째??챠�▦쑦ぢ� 챙�슿�ヅ졻� 챗짼�챙??쨈챘�뮤�.
챙??쨈챘짱쨍 (http://blog.naver.com/metapsy/40153510910) 챙��??챙�왙� 챗짹째챘징 챠�◑� 챘째�씳р꽓�� 챗째�▣�??쨈 챙큄째챘짝짭 챙??쨍챗째�왗�??�� 75챗째흹챙??� 챠탐쨍챠�벬�, 21챗째흹챙??� 챙�슿��∴뮼� ?? 챠탐쨍챠�벬�, 49챗째흹챙??� 챗쨍째챙�벬돤�쑣ㅓヂΛ쑦�??� 챘??�왗�◈� 145챗째흹 챙??� 챙�슿�ぢ� 챙�짚챘짜� 챙��??챙��??챙�왙� 챙�슿늘ヂ㈑늘р왙� 챙탑??챙�� 챙??� 챙�??챗째??챘짠흸챙??쨈 챙�쨀챘�뮤ㅓぢ� 챙�??챗째??챠�◑벭モ뮤�.
- 챘째�챙짠�왗�꽓�씳ヂ� 챙??�� 챗째�▣ヂ년궗챠�▦쑦ヅ졻� 챙�슿�ヅ씽뮼モ쑣ㅓ�??� 챘�┑셌ヂ년궗챙??�� 챘쨀쨈챘짤쨈 챗쨀쨀챗쨀쨀챙��?? 챙??쨈챘타짭챠�◑� 챙�슿�ぢ� 챙�짚챘짜�챗째�� 챗쨀쨀챗쨀쨀챙��?? 챘�싈쑦�믠궗챘�싂벭モ뮤�. 챗쨌쨍챘짝짭챗쨀 챗쨌쨍챘�쑣ㅓ�??�� 챙탑??챙�� 챘�쑣ㅓヂ㎶뮼�??쨈 챙�쨀챗쨀 챙�??챘흸��ヂ걔㈒�??�� 챠�밟궗챘짝짭챘�뮤ㅓぢ� 챠�™▣р� 챠�◑벭モ뮤�.
창��쑦�??쨍챙짠��� ?? 챙째짤챗째??창�р꽓 챙��??챙��?? 챙�슿늘モ뮤� 챗째��ヅ졻� 챗쨌쨍 챙�슿�ヅ씽뮼モ쑣� .. ...,
챘쨋�챙흸??챠�▦쑦モ뮤ㅓヅ졻� 챙�??챗째??챙??쨈 챘�쑣ㅓヂ㈑� 챙�붋걘ヂ�셌р�?? 챙탑 챗쨍쨈챘�뮤�.
창��쑦р슿걘�??�� 챙�슿걘�??쨈챙큄��, 챘짭쩌챙??�� 챘짭쩌챙??쨈챙큄�씳™궗��
챠??�걘��??챠�� 챘징?? 챙�™왗� �왗�??쨍챙��챗짼짤챙흹쩌챘징흹 챘짧짢챘�� 챗짼�챙??�� 챠�◈늘р�??챠�▦쑦р붋� 챙탑짭챗쨉짭챙�왖궁�▦쑦р붋� 챙??쨈챙�◈셌ぢ맞걘ヂΒ� 챙짠��р벬늘モ슿늘ヅ졻� 창��쑦ヂ㎂녍�??흸창�р꽓
챗쨌쨍챘타째 챙짠??챙??�� 챙짠��ぢ� 챠??�걘��?? 챙�슿늘р™� 챗째��р◈� 챠�▦쑦ヅ졻� 챘�싈�,
챗쨌쨍챘짝짭챗쨀 챙큄째챘짝짭챘�쑣� (챗쨌쨍챘�쑣� 챠??짭챠�◈�).
... 챙�붋걘ヂ�� ...
by Jung-Mo Lee (Dr. in Cognitive Psychologist) ; (https://www.facebook.com/metapsy)
2012-06-08 02:33 AMReport this comment | #43945
Ritchie Annand said:
Joshua -> You're asking some pretty good questions here; thanks.
There are definite "preferences" when it comes to where fossils are found. Basically, any anoxic (oxygen-deprived) environments that stay relatively undisturbed, with an influx of fine material, a hardening material and/or a burial event.
Shales are the best; they come from silt/mudslides. Tar sands are relatively rare, but there's the famous La Brea (lit. "the tar") and some fossils being found in the Canadian oil sands.
Varves are pretty good as well – they come in large part from meltwater sediment and the lack of characteristic lake bed churning often indicates the other ideal: an anoxic environment. That's the situation with those two main fossil beds in the Eocene Green River.
I understand how "the fossil record is incomplete" sounds like something that could be used to cover all tracks, but even with incomplete sets, evolutionary theory is limited in taxonomic ways. Haldane's "rabbit in the Precambrian" quip might sound flippant, but it's representative. Mammals that aren't Synapsida or Eutheriodontia using anatomical criteria only a paleontologist would love (what care we layfolk for temporal fenestrae or sagittal crests?) would put serious dents in the edifice.
Genetic analysis in modern times would have some similar falsifications. If whales shared genetic "modules" with teleost fish that it didn't share with, say, other members of Artiodactyla, that would be a red flag.
Uniformity is a working hypothesis. If we noticed that rocks started indicating higher and higher temperatures of formation – say that even exposed old-formation sandstone was instead quartzite – or any number of similar things, including but not limited to a modern inexplicable decrease in decay rates, then we would be looking at higher decay rates in the past as a better explanation.
I understand that creationism has to limit radiometric dating to either being faster in the past or "created with an appearance of age". The same bifurcation is applied to distant starlight: either the speed of light was insanely fast 10,000 years ago or it was created in-flight with an appearance of age. So there is going to be a fight against uniformity to pin down that 6,000 or 10,000 year old date. It has been pretty poor pickings, though, and hasn't improved since Woodmorappe.
I would have posited that all creations being equal, why have mules and hinneys instead of tigonkeys? Why would the species barrier be any closer in "closer-looking" creatures? I would note that some baraminologists use the "evolution alternative" word holobaramin (instead of clade) to group all felids or equines together to get around the hybrid and trait issues.
Will reply later when time permits – off to the hospital to welcome child number three to the world.
2012-06-08 07:03 AMReport this comment | #43964
Leo Polishchuk said:
The so-called "theory of evolution from the primary replicators to Homo-sapiens-sapiens-super-sapiens" - is, in fact, not science, but religion, tells the story of the miraculous origin of the new evil god – the super-sapiens man. Evil, because each successive generation, the logic of this religion is intended to destroy - to oust the previous generation. This religion imposed on Science and Education of the imperial policies of different countries and colors to create conflict confrontations based on derivatives of this religion – racism and Nazism. Science, however, does not leave these questions unanswered. In the interests of science, it needs to evolve, so all this crap to her imperial – ignored. Here, for example, a different point of view: http://spacenoology.agro.name/ (site Spacenoology). I personally made Ã¢â‚¬â€¹Ã¢â‚¬â€¹a presentation at a conference of creationists in Kiev April 6 this year, which showed that the so-called "theory of evolution from the primary replicators ..." is by no means the only alternative to creationism. The article should go in the proceedings of the conference.
2012-06-08 07:32 AMReport this comment | #43965
Joshua Zambrano said:
Rodrigo Fernandez-Vasque, I did take a quick look at the following paper by Milliman and Syvitski (thanks for the citations), which does appear to show sediment in rivers was previously underestimated:
I noticed another interesting mention by G. Brent Dalrymple in "The Age of the Earth" on pg. 68 (I'd read some of it before – still need to finish it though – and thought I recalled a section on sedimentary dating attempts, so re-read it):
"Probably the most serious flaw in the method, however, was the one about which Reade had no qualms: the assumption of uniform rates of erosion and deposition. These factors are now known to vary so much, because of the high degree of variation in the conditions on which they depend, that it is simply impossible to determine an accurate average rate for virtually any period of geologic time. Calculations based on such rates, therefore, are little more than educated guesses – better than nothing perhaps, but subject to a high degree of uncertainty. Moreover, the Precambrian, for which the record is both highly incomplete and nearly intractable to detailed stratigraphic analysis, constitutes the bulk of geologic time. Thus, ages based on sedimentation are, at the very most, useful in dealing primarily with the Phanerozoic, or only the last 10-15% of the history of the Earth. Sediment accumulation as a method of determining the age of the Earth was no better than the other contemporary methods. But in the end, it didn't matter, for waiting in the wings was a family of methods [radiometric dating] that would eventually stretch geologic time to its true proportions and yield an answer beyond the imagination of most nineteenth-century scientists."
So in short, I'll agree with you that sediment deposition does appear to potentially be faster and more unpredictable than a strict 24 thousands of an inch per year. I suppose depending upon the area there might feasibly be enough sediment to fossilize something. Still, some instances of mass fossilization like the Eocene Green River beds or the trilobites still strongly indicate very rapid fossilization indicative of a catastrophe and instantaneous fossilization. Otherwise, you wouldn't (A) see so many similar creatures fossilized at once, and (B) see them fossilized in life position indicating they died no ordinary deaths.
2012-06-08 08:32 AMReport this comment | #43972
Joshua Zambrano said:
Ritchie Annand, thanks. I always enjoy learning and hearing what the other side believes – you and Rodrigo both know quite a bit on these subjects, and I appreciate you challenging my thought processes.
Concerning "rabbits in the Precambrian", we actually did find the oldest fossil rabbit in 2005. It was surprisingly similar to modern rabbits – that so many ancient species were similar to today's is in itself a strong evidence for core created kinds to me.
What's more, new research in 2011 showed what had been considered early lifeforms in the Precambrian are not actually bacteria. What exactly they are is uncertain.
Ironically, these were proudly presented in this 2000 article by J. William Schopf claiming there is now clear evidence of life in the Precambrian showing Darwin was correct. The article reveals how fervently the scientific community has been seeking such proof to validate Darwin's claims.
My point though is that it's questionable whether much life at all was around in the Precambrian, especially given this latest discovery. If the Precambrian were before the Genesis creation point of animal life, then not only would rabbits not yet be expected, neither would other animal life. And the 2nd link above shows yet another example of the scientific community jumping the gun in declaring life in the Precambrian prematurely.
I will have to look into that concerning falsification of genetic analysis. Much of my focus until now has been primarily on paleontology. I'm curious what a BLAST search might turn up since I suspect such analysis has not yet actually been performed.
Concerning Uniformity, I actually did find some recent evidence of just such a spike as you refer to, and posted on the article's comments just yesterday. This is brand new news posted less than a week ago:
So we now know that high-intensity radiation caused a severe spike in Carbon-14 levels about 1,200 years ago. So the question is, will they more seriously reconsider radiometric dating's assumptions of uniform decay rates now, or just try to pass this off as a need for more 'calibration'?
The starlight I'm not going to try and contradict. I've looked into that in the past and it seems pretty much irrefutable. It's just basic triangulation based on the speed of light that can't really be denied, and claims the universe was created with an appearance of age just don't make much sense. However, while the Bible says life on earth is young, it gets a bit more iffy with those first few days. Since the sun, moon, and stars weren't created until the 4th day, anything before (or perhaps during) might not have been a solar 24-hour day necessarily, although for the 4th one must then explain how the plants created the 3rd day could've survived if not a 24-hour day. And Genesis 1:2 says the earth was empty and void, so whether the Earth or other planetary bodies existed originally is questionable given the Hebrew words used there.
Anyway though, that's definitely one of the few riddles I'm not sure Creationism has a good answer for right now. I once thought Rhiemannian Light Speed might be a possible alternative explanation, with light traveling faster due to less refraction, but that appears resolved now. So I really don't know what the answer might be for such an issue.
Concerning why mules and hinneys are possible, I would think it's because they are members of an original horse created kind. Therefore, horses and donkeys are able to breed, along with zebras – they are members of the original core created kind. However, tigers appear something else entirely, of an original feline created kind. If Macroevolution is true, I would expect to see possible interbreeding between clearly different kinds resulting in such things as "tigonkeys" but this I do not see. We can see different kinds of bears, such as Grizzlies and Polar Bears interbreed because they are obviously members of the same core kind. I expect sterility is a way of further maintaining specific varieties of the kinds that God wants preserved, simply an additional boundary that can be surpassed. However, the mechanism appears to be that interbreeding is entirely impossible apart from the core kinds, and sterility is used to define varieties within a given kind for further definition.
Congratulations on your child by the way!
2012-06-08 02:36 AMReport this comment | #43988
Jun Lee said:
Sadly, this does not surprise me. Korea is slowly being overtaken by radial Christian sects and you will find evidence of their influence in everyday culture. Even in my close circle of friends :-(
2012-06-09 02:53 AMReport this comment | #44026
TM Zanardm said:
Change, and the study of change
The earth has experienced ~4.6 billion years of geological change. For example, from Bryce Canyon to lower level of Grand Canyon in Arizona, about 2 billion years of geological change is revealed in the various strata (levels). Found in such ancient strata, are various fossils of species that no longer exist, like dinosaurs. So there appears to be evidence of biological change over long periods of time.