Young-earth theories

Hi all,I stumbled upon this site recently: http://www.ridgenet.net/~do_while/sage/Which is the site for "Scientists Against Evolution." They make the claim that the earth is in fact not billions of years old, and base it off reasoning such as:Continental erosion
Sea floor sediments
Salinity of the oceans
Helium in the atmosphere
Carbon 14 in the atmosphere
Decay of the Earth's magnetic fieldNow, I have nothing more than surface-level of knowledge of evolution, so I would like to hear some thoughts and opposing arugments for these theories so I can see two perspectives.thanks!

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.I've promoted this to allow for others to comment.This message has been edited by AdminNosy, 02-25-2005 01:36 AM

You'll probably find answers hereAn Index to Creationist ClaimsRather than just posting a bare link I decided to look into the (less common) atmospheric C14 claim.This is what I found:
http://www.ridgenet.net/~do_while/sage/v4i10f.htm

quote:

---

We have to assume that the average amount of radiation striking the atmosphere is constant, at least over a period of thousands of years. Our justification for that assumption is that most
of the radiation comes from the sun, and the sun has been shining with apparently constant brightness for the last few thousand years of human history.

---

Wrong, wrong, wrong. C14 is created by cosmic rays which do not come from the sun. We do not have to assume that the rate of creation is constant because we can test samples of known age (as has been done - and the article later admits). Worse, from the industrial revolution we have been pumping increasing amounts of old carbon into the atmosphere (Significant effects start to appear ~1890) by burning fossil fuels - but against that nuclear detonations have since created extra C14.See radiocarbon WEB-infoUnfortunately there is no explanation of how the C14 ratio "proves" that the Earth is young. We do however find this:

quote:

---

Suppose there had been a major atmospheric disturbance, such as the one described in the flood myths of many diverse cultures about 4,000 years ago. That’s roughly one-half of the 8,267 year 14C decay time constant, so the ratio of 14C to 12C would still be changing today.

---

How exactly a Flood would change the atmosphere in this respect is not explained. It is hardly an obvious effect - and we would want the existence of the effect confirmed by "before" and "after" samples. Except there are no such samples and therefore no direct evidence of the supposed effect at all. Moreover the absence of clear evidence for such a flood and the major problems such an idea faces make it a less than pluasible explanation even if there was a clear link. Especially where there are other reasons why the ratio could be changing (ongoing industrial activity, changes cosmic ray flux and the fading after-effects of nuclear detonations)Yet they call actual scientific explanations based on real measurements and known mechanisms "fanciful and imaginative"The author, by the way, is not a scientist - having a degree in Electrical Engineering with experience in circuit design and programming. http://www.ridgenet.net/~do_while/index.htm

Does this sound like the words of a scientist to you, even if we ignore the fact that abiogenesis is a completely different discipline than the theory of evolution?ABEAll 4 of my brothers and sisters are engineers and I can tell you that they make lousy biologists.ABEOk, a more thorough analysis is in order. Where the hell does it say in the theory of evolution that dead things can come to life? This post made by Pinky a long time ago in a thread far far away.

quote:

---

WK- My favorite example, in part because speciation was essentially observed by the researchers, and thus serves as a counter to the "no one has ever seen a new species form" argument:

​

Evolution: single-gene speciation by left-right reversal.
Ueshima R, Asami T. Nature. 2003 Oct 16;425(6959):679.

​

The researchers witnessed a speciation event in a closed population they were studying, a single gene mutation changed the shell pattern of a snail, and the constraints of the new shell shape prevent the snails with the two types of shells from aligning their genitals to mate. But, the old-shelled snails could mate with the old-shelled, and the new-shelled could mate with other new-shelled snails. Thus snails with the shell-changing mutation are incapable of "interbreeding" with the ones without the mutation - even if they are sitting next to each other in the same pond - thus reproductive isolation.

​

Truthfully I'm not sure if the snail species' sex determination includes hermaphroditism, but I'm quite sure it does not include self-fertilization.

​

In any case, the reproductive isolation here did not proceed by changes in sex determination, but rather by pre-mating-based isolation.

​

There was also the Drosophilia work from a year or two ago that showed a single gene can be responsible for reproductive isolation - thus it logically follows that changes to a single gene can result in reproductive isolation (changes and isolation which could potentially occur acutely and sympatrically as opposed to mechanisms involving chronic geographic isolation...)

---

Pinky gave a specific reference. Did that guy give any reference at all?Another thing is that this guy has a gross misconception of the theory of evolution. Individuals don't evolve. The smallest unit that can evolve is a population. In fact, this well known fact is written in just about every biology text book for middle school, high school, and college students. Even my electrical engineer sister knows that, and she has admitted many times that she's a biology dummy. This paragraph makes me want to punch someone. If there is a hell and liars go to hell, this guy will undoubtedly go to hell.If you want to compare evolution with coin tossing, you have to put natural selection into account. If you want 100 heads in a row, all you have to do is ignore the tails. This is how natural selection work. It ensures that only advantageous mutations are passed on.This guy has an evolutionary knowledge of a 10 year old. I know that my post sounds childish, but so is the author of that site.ABE againhttp://www.ridgenet.net/~do_while/sage/v2i2f.htmThat link leads to an article about the moon escaping. It says:

quote:

---

The model shows that 60 million years ago, the distance between the Earth and the Moon would have been 99.4% of what it is now. For ages older than 1 billion years, the uncertainty in the model increases, but about 2 billion years ago, the Moon would have been 24,000 miles away from the Earth, orbiting the Earth 3.7 times per day, causing tides 1 million times higher than those we see today.

---

Does this guy actually know how the moon causes the tides? Who wants to take a jab at this? If you already know, chances are you are wrong. If you really really know, then please refrain from telling. Let see how many people who thinks this guy is legit actually know how the moon causes the tides.This message has been edited by Resurrected Hector, 02-25-2005 04:18 AM

So this might sound like a dumb question, but the 'even if they are sitting next to each other' statment makes me wonder if the the snails are 'incapable' of interbreeding because of some physical or preferential impediment; and if they could still interbreed if snail A was artificially inseminated by genetic material from snail B.The distinction might seem trivial, but here's my point: is inability to breed due to some physical mutation - say the snail ejaculates in the wrong spot, whatever- really speciation if the two organisms could reproduce with help - i.e. the sperm from snail A can still create a viable zygote when introduced to the egg of snail B?

Not a dumb question at all. The reproductive isolation in this instance is solelt 'pre-mating'. The differing chirality of the shells leads to the inability to breed, but is not actually dependent on the snail's genotype but that of its mother. Artificial insemination would certainly allow successful fertilisation, as both genotypes can be seen to be interfertile when they share the same shell chirality. Indeed the cited paper suggest that there have been reversions where a left handed population has switched back to right handedness and rejoined its parental population.This is actually a very bad example to give as the subsequent discussion in that thread raised the point that the paper cited does not show speciation being observed (in the interests of frankness I suppose I should say that the discussion was between me and Pink). It certainly shows that the conditions exist that would allow speciation to occur based solely on a single gene locus and provides some strong evidence that this has happened in the case of shell chirality among the water snails, but they do not actually show two distinct non-interbreeding populations arising from a single interbreeding population in their experiments.TTFN,WKThis message has been edited by Wounded King, 02-25-2005 06:44 AMThis message has been edited by Wounded King, 02-25-2005 06:50 AM

Cool. Thanks WK. I agree that conditions exist that allow speciation to occur, but something about this example didn't sit right with me.So which of the following would meet your definition of speciation?1-Sperm from organism A could not create a viable zygote when introduced to an egg from organism B.2- A could create a viable zygote with B, but the resulting offspring would be sterile (e.g. mule).3-A could create a viable zygote with B, but the fertilization success rate between A-B is significantly (noticeably) less than A-A or B-B.This message has been edited by custard, 02-25-2005 06:48 AM

I would say that 1 and 2 would classify as distinct species. Number three might be seen as a sign of incipient speciation, I would alos add the category we previously touched on where the organisms are physiologically compatible but do not mate due to morphological differences or differences in timing, location, behaviour etc... All of which might be seen as examples of, or a basis for, incipient speciation, by which I mean that they might well be on the way to becoming distinct species but are not yet and may never be depending on the potential for gene flow between the populations.TTFN,WK

Yes, that makes a great deal of sense.

quote:

---

So which of the following would meet your definition of speciation?

---

The correct definition is: "Organism A and Organism B, in the wild, do not have offspring that have offspring of their own, therefore they are different species." Speciation is about genetic isolation which the change in chirality creates.This message has been edited by Loudmouth, 02-25-2005 15:33 AM

quote:

---

Which is the site for "Scientists Against Evolution." They make the claim that the earth is in fact not billions of years old, and base it off reasoning such as:

​

[1] Continental erosion
[2] Sea floor sediments
[3] Salinity of the oceans
[4] Helium in the atmosphere
[5] Carbon 14 in the atmosphere
[6] Decay of the Earth's magnetic field

---

hm...lets check[1] No
[2] Nope
[3] Nu-uh
[4] erm.. nope
[5] uh. no
[6] mmmmk... that'd be a no.

---

"...research [is] a strenuous and devoted attempt to force nature into the conceptual boxes supplied by professional education. Simultaneously, we shall wonder whether research could proceed without such boxes, whatever the element of arbitrariness in their historic origins and, occasionally, in their subsequent development." Kuhn, T. S.; The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, pp. 5, 1996.

I thought this idea included the idea of "normally, in the wild". In which case anything which causes two populations to not "normally" interbreed makes them separate species.There is always the problem that species have some fuzz around the edges.

I see what you mean, but I don't think there really is a 'correct' version - the definition of speciation seems to depend on what type of scientist you are.The strictest definition of BCS does not incorporate the 'in the wild caveat'(from Observed Instances of Speciation): seems to be held by mainly by 'vertebrate zoologists and entomologists.'Then you have phenetic/morphologic species concept, and I still don't really understand which definition botanists prefer.I think the least fuzzy, albeit most restrictive, definition of speciation is the strictest interpretation of BCS.Sure organism A and B may no longer have any 'interest' in breeding (say Canis Lupus and Canis Domesticus - not the greatest example though), and probably wouldn't or couldn't do so in the wild, but under controlled conditions (artificial insemination say) A-B could still produce viable, reproductive offspring.I think this strict interpretation is necessary when debating very literal minded creationists who would simply argue that even though organisms A & B don't reproduce in nature, the still COULD reproduce and thus aren't really seperate species.This message has been edited by custard, 02-26-2005 00:47 AM

Well put Ned. That was the succinct version of the explanation I was striving for.The problem (I believe) for creationists is the fuzziness that TOE advocates have no trouble accepting; AND I think that is why we keep seeing these 'but you have to have faith to believe in TOE' declarations by them because they get frustrated with the haziness of the definitions of things like species and speciation.This message has been edited by custard, 02-26-2005 02:28 AM

quote:

---

hm...lets check

​

[1] No
[2] Nope
[3] Nu-uh
[4] erm.. nope
[5] uh. no
[6] mmmmk... that'd be a no.
  —TrueCreation

---

Thanks for your answers, very helpful.