ROI Science: Evolution vs Creationism
Facts on the Fossil Record, Geologic Column, Transitional Fossils and other Evolution Facts
Evolution Facts
Evolution Facts for Fence-sitters
Previous Blogs on Evolution Facts
Transitional
Fossils: Archaeopteryx, Dinosaur-Bird Evolution and Creationism
(view more)
-Explains the transition from feathered dinosaurs to modern day birds.
Also addresses most creationist arguments.
My
Debate with Creation Scientist Dr. Jackson (view more)
-A debate I had with creation scientist Dr. Jackson. Contains the converging
lines of evidence for evolution, common creationist rebuttals to them,
and responses to those rebuttals.
The
First Americans and the Extinction of the Mammoths (and other Megafauna)
(view more)
-Explores the correlation between the arrival of humans into the Americas
and extinction of mammoths and other megafauna in the Americas.
Anti-evolution arguments are hardly a problem for evolution. If you feel differently, feel free to spend some time on these websites, as they are full of evolution facts.
Talk
Origins - an impressive archive of responses to creationist claims, evidence
for evolution, and the exposure of creationist hackery.
Talk
Origins - Index to Creationist Claims - responses to most anti-evolution
arguments and provides evolution facts.
Ken
Miller - Professor at Brown University
The
Ancient Life History of the Earth
Talk
Origins Quote-mine project - Creationsists are fond of quoting scientists
out of context. This site shows the contexts.
How
Good Are Those Young-Earth Arguments?
Creationism
vs Evolution
No
Answers in Genesis
Pandas
Thumb
Talk Design
29+
Evidences for Macro evolution: the Scientific Case for Common Descent
The
Logical Fallacies of Creationist Arguments
Evo
Wiki
Science Publications/Websites
Scientific
American
Live
Science
Science
Daily
National
Geographic
New
Scientist
Science
Magazine
Biology
Online
PBS Evolution Library - an EXCELLENT FAQ!
Evolution 101
Evolution Happens
Understanding Evolution
Action
Bioscience: Issues in Evolution
The Evolutionary Tree/Bush (both metaphors will work)
Evolution is not a linear event nor is it a ladder. It does not mean upgrade
and evolution does not "lead up to humans." Humans are simply a variation of
the plethora of life that evolution has resulted in. Much of the creationist
propaganda presupposes that humans are the end sum of existence and therefore
we can't possibly be animals. "I find a nebula beautiful therefore it was designed"
and "how can you possibly think we are animals" only shows the egocentric nature
of creationist thought.
Evolution Facts: Evolution Fact Tree
Evolution Facts: Evolution Books - Evolution vs Creationism
Creationism vs Evolution
What Evolution IS, why it's a fact, and why Creationism is a farce
To oversimplify, Evolution is the gradual change in species over time.
Evolution explain how life as we know it came to be, and this was accomplished
via genetic changes (the successive change in alleles)
that occur each reproductive cycle (we know this happens, because none
of us are identical to our parents nor our siblings. We can observe
evolution in real time when we see speciation
in effect, not to mention what we've learned through the study of
DNA).
In nature, where species must compete with each other for food and mating
rights, only so many of them will be successful. In a given environment,
species with certain traits will have certain advantages over others
and therefore have much higher likelihood to survive and reproduce,
thereby passing on the genetic traits that made them successful, while
those without these traits will be less likely to survive and reproduce
and therefore those traits that proved to be disadvantageous will be
less likely to continually exist in a species.
Read more about the various causes of evolution.
Sometimes species will spread out become isolated from each other, and
the same species will exist in completely different environments. Sometimes
the local ecology will change. This will result in a different set of
traits to be naturally selected (in real time, these small changes are
known as micro
evolution) and over millions of years, will result in gradual large-scale
changes (macro
evolution).
So then, why do creationists claim that "evolution says everything is
getting better" or "things
are not evolving they are devolving?" Simply put, these are straw
man arguments (building up a weak version of an opponent's viewpoint
and attacking it). Likewise with their attack on the phrase "survival
of the fittest." This is not how evolutionary scientists generally
describe evolution, and the term was actually coined not by Charles
Darwin, but by Herbert Spencer who was writing about his ideas of economics
and likening them to Darwin's Natural Selection. "Fittest" in this manner
is a misnomer because what's considered 'fit' in one environment may
prove to be a serious disadvantage in another.
Creation Science as Pseudo Science - Rather than explaining
why each Creation science arguments are pseudo science I will provide
links to rebuttals for some of the more common garden variety arguments
that Creationists seem bent on repeating.
Typical Creationist Claims
The
Law of Thermodynamics prevents evolution
There
are no beneficial mutations
The Universe must be young because of the rate of the; 1- Receding
Moon 2- Earth's
Magnetic Field 3- Depletion
of the Sun 4- Slowing
of the Earth's Rotation
X
amount of scientists reject evolution
Evolution cannot explain; 1-right
and wrong, 2-emotions,
3-the
eye, 4-the
Bomardier beetle, 5-Irreducible
Complexity, 6- the
development of lungs
Evolution contradicts what the Bible tells us (the real 'problem').
There are plenty of Christians
who accept Evolution
In other words, Creationism's only real purpose is to distort evolution
facts due to perceived conflicts with their religious beliefs. Real
science gathers and investigates facts, produces hypotheses and theories
which it continually tests with falsifiable means. This methodology
has led to the theory of evolution, which is universally accepted as
a fact in the science community (minus a few religious scientists who
can easily gain a large following in a nation with a religious majority).
Creation science does not follow such an objective methodology. Rather,
it collects whatever convenient information it can find in order argue
for the belief in creation while using straw man arguments, quote mines,
and in some case, outright lies to discredit evolution. Few creationists
understand this because they in fact see it as a debate; one side says
this, the other side says that. They generally fail to see that the
'evolution side' is virtually the entire science community, and that
Creationist rebuttals are little more than semantic distortion of evolution
facts.
Evolution
is a Theory AND a Fact
Entrusting your understanding of evolution to Creationist sources is
like entrusting your understanding of smoking's effects on your health
to Tobacco Industry scientists. Many people do not realize that the
word theory has a different application in science than it does in every
day usage, where we use it interchangeably with words like 'hunch' or
'conjecture.' This is simply not the way the word theory is used in
science, where the word theory and fact are not mutually exclusive.
Below are snippets of and links to articles that further illustrate
this fact.
Evolution: Fact and Theory by Richard E. LenskiIf you are going to insist on simply accepting what creation science has to say about Evolution, at least read the 'other side' of the story from sources like TalkOrigins, then do some of your own independent research and decide what to believe. Sadly, few literalist Christians will do this because generally speaking, their idea of research is limited to looking for more reasons to continue believing what they are already desperately trying to continue believing.
"Scientific understanding requires both facts and theories that can explain those facts in a coherent manner. Evolution, in this context, is both a fact and a theory. It is an incontrovertible fact that organisms have changed, or evolved, during the history of life on Earth. And biologists have identified and investigated mechanisms that can explain the major patterns of change." Read Full Article
Evolution as Fact and Theory by Stephen Jay Gould
"In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact"—part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess...Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. " Read Full Article
Transitional fossils
If Evolution is true, we should of course, find at least some intermediates between older and newer fauna (fossilization is rare so there is no point in expecting to find every 'step' between them). If birds evolved from reptiles, we should find reptile-birds, and if whales evolved from land mammals, we should find semi-aquatic mammals as well as whales with leg remnants. Furthermore, we should find these transitions in the layers connecting the appearance of these creatures. Because Darwin predicted we would find such transitional forms in the fossil record, and because the Bible (Genesis 1:21) claims that God created each animals according a specific "kind," Creationists are weary of admitting that these transitional fossils exist, and have devised a number arguments to negate these findings. Superficially, some of these arguments are sound, especially to creationists who refuse to read 'evolutionist' material and obtain all of their information on evolution from creationist sources. Note, if you are confused as to the use of the word "kind," It is no clear hat Creationists have ever come up with a consistent definition. It appears to lie somewhere in between "Class" and "Family," moving back and forth within this range, depending on what it is creationists are asserting or denying at the moment.
Evolution Facts: Transitional Fossils
In
1860, a bird with reptilian qualities was discovered in Jurassic deposits
(the layer we'd expect to connect dinosaurs and birds). Known as Archaeopteryx,
this bird has become the classic example of a the transitions Darwin
expected to be found. Nearly 150 years later, Creationists continue
to claim that "Archaeopteryx is just a bird" and then start listing
its birdlike qualities while completely leaving out the numerous
reptilian features that no modern birds possess (long bony tail,
teeth, pneumatic bones, free vertebrae, reptilian mouth as opposed to
a bill/beak, etc). The fact that it's classified as a bird (it is) comes
from a blatant misunderstanding of taxonomy. Archaeopteryx has to be
classified in one group or another. If it were classified as a dinosaur,
Creationists would use the same argument, only substituting the word
'dinosaur' for 'bird.' Dinosaurs and birds are so closely related that
they are often regarded as the same (birds
are sometimes regarded as avian dinosaurs, while other dinosaurs are
considered non-avian dinosaurs, and birds are in essence, a type of
reptile). In this sense, it is almost pointless to say that dinosaurs
are extinct, given that we may regard birds as modern dinosaurs.
This is no different than with what see with fish. There are numerous Devonian
era fish that are now extinct. Even though THOSE fish are extinct, modern day
fish are simply their modern day relatives. So it would make no sense to say
that fish are extinct, even though modern fish are not identical to Devonian
era fish.
There is also the straw man arguments that ignore the very basic understanding
of evolution as sort of a tree and make it out to be this linear event, whereby
one species cannot lead to another without going extinct. The Institute for
Creation Research is very well known for using arguments like these, which work
like this; Evolutionists claim that Species Y evolved from Species X, yet they
are often found in the same strata of the fossil record. This argument implies
that EVERY member of Species X must evolve into Species Y if evolution is true.
This is a blatant and, I have to assume, intentional skewing of speciation.
Species give rise to other species for various reasons, including changing ecological
conditions or isolation. There is nothing about speciation that would lead one
to believe that Species Y and Species X can't possibly be contemporaries. This
is simply one of the many straw man arguments in the Creationist arsenal.
Then of course there is the faulty claim that Archaeopteryx is a fraud. This
is one of the urban legends that Answers in Genesis advises Creationists not to use. There
is also the "fall back" argument that there should be transitions in between
Archaeopteryx and other reptiles of birds. Like virtually all other Creationist
arguments, this is based on an assumption, and it completely ignores the study
of taphonomy
and what it says about the rarity of and requirements for fossil preservation.
Aside from the backtracking argument that claims "there aren't ENOUGH transitional
forms," there is an equally disturbing and even more dishonest attack; quote mines. While there is no debate among Paleontologists
as to whether or not transitional fossils exist, sometimes they will debate
as to whether or not it is a direct precursor to the succeeding fauna. For example,
Archaeopteryx could very well have been an evolutionary 'dead end,' and modern
day birds are the descendants of a close relative of Archaeopteryx (as opposed
to Archaeopteryx itself). What these Paleontologists are questioning is whether
or not Archaeopteryx is in fact an ancestor to modern-day birds as opposed to
simply being closely related to such. Creationists love discussions like these,
as it gives them quote mines to use in their attempt to perpetuate the illusion
that evolutionists themselves deny that Archaeopteryx is really a transitional
fossil. This type of dishonest hackery is really the heart of 'Creationism.'
Creationists sources try and use Alan Feduccia as a source for rebuttal (because
he disagrees with mainstream Paleontology in its assertion that birds evolved
from Theropod dinosaurs), while omitting the inconvenient truth that he makes
a good case for the idea that birds evolved from another line of reptiles. Oddly
enough, Creationists seem to think that this somehow negates the fact that Archaeopteryx
has reptilian features, and is found in layers below modern birds. They don't
even appear to know that he has a book;
The Origin and Evolution of Birds - Alan Feduccia
Typical Creationist Contradiction:
Creationists claim that there are no living intermediates AND use living living intermediates to support their argument that transitional fossils don't exist. The Hoatzin is a perfect example of this. Creationists often claim that the claws on Archeaopteryx hardly make it a dinosaur, considering the fact that the Hoatzin, a modern bird, has claws.
'Dino-Birds'
Archaeopteryx
Confuciusornis
Feathered Dinosaurs
Among 'Land-Whales' we have some impressive creatures like Ambulocetus, Basilosaurus, Pakicetus inachus, and others.
The amount of transitions we find are enormous and constantly growing. I suggest visiting TalkOrigin's list of Transitional Fossils and doing further research on the transitions of your choosing.
These sites list Transitional Fossils
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil
http://www.holysmoke.org/tran-icr.htm
Hominids aka 'Ape-Men'
My
favorite Transitional of all however, would have to be our extinct cousins
and ancestors, the Hominids. Most creationists seem to blow off the
entire hominid line and bring up Nebraska Man and Piltdown Man, along
with urban legends of Lucy's (Australopithecus Afarensis--and they appear
to think that "Lucy" is the only afarensis ever found) skull or knee
cap being found far away from the rest of her body. They appear to ignore
the rest of the Hominid line most of the time. Creationists generally
have no idea just how extensive these findings were.
We see a clear gradation from 'ape to human' in the study of Hominid
anatomy. Apes have large defined sagittal crests and jaws, small brains,
and a spine and pelvis that clearly make them knuckle-walkers. Humans
have smaller jaws, much larger brains, and a pelvis and spine that's
useful for walking. Within the various hominids, we clearly see several
levels of transitions, not only in their anatomy, but in their abilities
to use stone tools, fire, even rudimentary forms of art and we make
our way to the anatomically modern homo sapiens. Hominid fossils are
not limited to 'a few monkey skulls' as Creationists would have you
believe. Numerous species have been identified.
Understanding the Hominid Line
I suggest watching these 2 documentaries for a basic understanding of the Hominid line. Then read the following links for more details on the various Hominids.
Ape to Human - History Channel Documentary explaining the various Hominid findings!
Becoming Human - Excellent interactive Documentary about the various Hominids!
Journey of Man: A Genetic Odyssey
Creation Scientist Confusion on Hominids - Creation 'scientists' are adamant that Hominids are not 'ape-men,' but they can't agree in which are ape and which are human!
Hall of Human Origins
Various Hominid Skulls
Discovery of Early Hominins
The truth about Piltdown Man
The truth about Nebraska Man
Fossil Hominids - Excellent FAQ AND responses to Creationist arguments
Read More
The Geologic Column and Fossil Record: The Law of Faunal Succession
The Law of superposition explains how lower strata tend to be older than the strata above them. The existence of successive rock layers is caused by the deposition that takes place over the different Geological eras. Erosion takes away from these sediment layers. So while the order of successive layers are consistent, the layers for each Geological era do not exist in uniform sediment thickness, because deposition and erosion do not happen uniformly throughout the world, nor at the same time. Hence, the Creationist argument that the column must be more 'universally' present in order to be valid is simply untrue and ignores basic Geology.
Simple physics (ie. gravity) and common sense makes it apparent that the lower strata are older as they have to be formed in order for more sediment to be deposited above them. There are a few exceptions to this of course; thrust faults and folds for examples can cause contortions in the layers. The existence of folds and thrust fault have are well understood and can be checked for, and they are by and far the exception to the rule. Things like trees cutting through stratigraphic layers' can easily be explained by simple Geology 101 concepts like cross-cutting (the cutting of older, but still-soft sediments by newer, objects).
The above statements are by no means ad hoc
explanations. These Geophysics principles were known before Darwin's
voyage on the Beagle, and were therefore not created for the sake of
arguing evolution. Rather Evolution is in fact, largely born of the
Geological history and the order of the fauna within. The men who
founded modern Geology were in fact Christian, which is why Old Earth
Creationism (known today as Progressive Creationism, and is sometimes
mixed and matched with Theistic Evolution) predates the theory of
Evolution. The geologic column and the law of faunal succession show us that the Earth's fauna have appeared in a
certain order, and Evolution simply explains the cause of
this reality.The fact that Christian scientists were already modifying
their view of Creation to accommodate this fact should serve as a wake
up call to creationists.
To oversimplify what we find in these successive layers; we
find fish before we find amphibians, which we find before we find
reptiles, which we find before we find birds. A similar succession of
fauna can be applied to the faunal succession leading to humans and
whales. Furthermore, we find representations of transitional fossils ("in betweens") in
the layers we'd expect them to if certain orders of animals evolved
from others.
Understanding of the
Geologic/Stratigraphic Column is also used in commercial enterprises
like Petroleum Geology. I would venture to say that in modern western
society, one of the biggest 'validators' of a scientific theory is when
we see it successfully used commercially--especially in the petroleum
industry. Successful corporations do not throw money away on 2nd rate
science.
In
Sum
Creationists are essentially stuck with having to call 200 years of Geology
a big mistake or even a lie. Arguments about human artifacts and/or
footprints being found alongside dinosaur tracks or inside fossilized
coal always turn out to be urban legends.
Young Earth Creationist arguments generally fall within 2 categories
1-Basic ignorance of sedimentation: This generally involves the belief
that deposition is measured in mere 'height' of layers (as opposed to
the time it takes to harden into different types of rock). In other
words, if 10 feet of soft sediment can be rapidly deposited, than then
existence of 10 feet of sandstone or granite can very well have been
deposited yesterday.
2-Ad Hoc explanations: Some creationists will use everything from hydrodynamic
sorting to "pre-flood habits" to try and explain the order in which
we find these fossils, and argue that this is consistent with a global
flood depositing the layers we find. The more you know about this order
however, the more blatantly false these explanations become. Animals
of similar niches (like large elephants and sauropods, crocodiles and
semi-aquatic mammals, fish and whales) show up in completely different
layers of the strata. Not one whale is found with the ancient Devonian
fish, and semi-aquatic mammals like Ambulocetus
(in many ways a "a mammalian crocodile") and Basilosaurus
(an early whales with small remnant legs), show up in succession, and
well before modern whales.
This Correlated
History of the Earth poster provides an a more in depth look at
this order or animals, plants, tracks, etc found throughout the Geological
layers.
Learn about the Geologic
Column
http://www.nature.nps.gov/GEOLOGY/usgsnps/gtime/gtime1.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_timescale
http://www.priweb.org/ed/pgws/geology/strat_column_how_to.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_faunal_succession
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/geocolumn/
http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/~rcb7/verde.html
(includes pictures of the column).
http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/fossils/succession.html
http://geology.utah.gov/surveynotes/gladasked/gladage.htm
The Geologic Column
as it's used in Petroleum Geology
http://www.searchanddiscovery.net/documents/gong03/index.htm
http://bcn.boulder.co.us/basin/natural/geology/historic.html
Responses to Creationist Arguments
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/geocolumn/
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/geo.htm
http://gondwanaresearch.com/hp/paleosol.htm
http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/benton.html
Response to creationist claims about human artifacts being found in older strata
(all false)
http://paleo.cc/paluxy/mantrack.htm
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_anomaly.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy.html
Creationists want you to believe that the biblical flood created meandering canyons like this, meaning that a body of water both cut through so much sediment in such a vertical manner AND did so in this meandering fashion.
Homologous & Vestigial Structures
Homologous structures are displayed throughout the animal kingdom. Not only do we see this among the world's existing fauna, we see its development in the geological record as we see more and more modern animals branching off of the lower orders. This makes perfect sense in light of Darwinian evolution, which is limited to modifying structures that are already in place. On the other hand, a creator isn't limited to following the same basic tetrapod pattern over and over. Hence, homologous structures is what Evolutionary theory would predict, whereas the "common creator/designer" argument represents nothing more than an ad hoc explanation for Creationists.
*When I debated Dr. Jackson, he stated "And there is no model for how nostrils could move gradually through the brain, to the back of the head to make the whale blowhole. Think about it."
Of course, he retracted the statement when I explained to him that the blow hole is not "behind the brain."
Radiometric Dating
Isotope DatingCertain Isotopes have stable decay rates, each of which can be used to date the strata they are found in. The different decay rates would not match up when dating both 50 MYO and 500MYO rocks if these decay rates were not stable. Geochronologists test and cross-test these results over and over. Creationists sources try and argue that the historical stability of isotopes is only assumed. The problem with this argument is that it avoids the fact that the "assumption" is proven by the constant cross-referencing of isotopes of different decay rates, as well as other dating methods (ie. tree ring and carbon dating). Furthermore, the effect of so many isotopes decaying at a rate fast enough to have decayed to such a rate within 6,000 years (the Young Earth Creationist Time Scale), the build up of heat would make life on Earth impossible. Not all isotopes can be dated.
Learn about Radiometric Dating
http://www.asa3.org/aSA/resources/Wiens.html
http://www.gpc.edu/~pgore/geology/geo102/radio.htm
http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/contents.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating
Responses to Creationist Arguments
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dating.html
http://gondwanaresearch.com/hp/paleosol.htm
Polonium Halos
Polonium Halos
Carbon Dating
This can date most once living things (assuming they weren't exposed to factors that affected it's carbon levels, like petroleum) that lived between 150YA to 50,000YA. Anything that's lived within the last 150 years is subject to the levels of carbon produced by the Industrial Revolution and Nuclear Testing. Also, anything that's touched Petroleum (like Hovind's infamous snail example) will also have an affected carbon rate. Things that can be cross-checked historically always check out just fine; the dead sea scrolls and mummified people and bulls for example. There is no reason to doubt the validity of Carbon Dating. The 'examples' creation 'scientists' love to use are generally samples that can't be reasonable dated for one of the above reasons. In fact, once you read about and understand radiometric isotope dating, then read creationist arguments, it becomes clear that many if not most creationists confuse the two and don't understand the difference (that's a polite way of saying "they don't know what they're talking about").
Learn about Carbon Dating
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD011.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating
http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/earth/geology/carbon-14.htm
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/tech/radiocarbon-dating.html
http://www.sciencecourseware.com/virtualdating/files/RC0/RC_0.html
Egyptian History
Perhaps
the biggest Young Earth Creationism blunder lies in is the fact that
written
communication has existed for some 5,000 years now and Archaeologists
have developed an overall chronology of earlier civilizations. Egyptologists
can trace Egyptian history as far back as 7,000 years ago, which is
not only further back than Adam and Eve, but incompatible with the
idea of civilization being wiped out by a flood 4,500 years ago.
Because human settlements tend to lie in coastal areas, these early
civilizations no doubt experienced floods, which to them, may have
appeared to encompass the entire world. While Creationists tend to
view the multiple flood stories as evidence for the Biblical flood,
they appear to automatically discount the possibility that Genesis
story is actually borrowed from older flood stories. Furthermore I
have always found it culturally ethnocentric that the multiple instances
of these flood stories must somehow exist as evidence for Noah's flood,
while the characters in the ancient Sumerian
and Greek
floods are no doubt fictional.
BBC - History - Egyptians
Ancient Egypt
Discovering Egypt
The Evolution of Creationists
Not to be outdone by the comparatively intellectually honest creationists who
have evolved into Intelligent Designists (which more or less makes them Theistic
Evolutionists depending where they individually draw the line), the stubborn
Creationists are simply denying the validity of certain fossils by claiming
we've only found a fraction of what's actually been recovered. This seems especially
true in whale evolution. They want you to believe that Pakicetus is represented by nothing more than a partial skull
and Ambulocetus is fragmentary.
