Perspectives : Resolving Genesis - Partus Septem

This was the final session in a very illuminating series on creationism and evolution. The speaker wrapped up his section on the dinosaurs and quickly breezed through several other topics which he included in the appendices.

I. Dinosaurs and Deluge

II. Docile Dinosaurs

III. Defunct Dinosaurs

IIII. Dragons Defined

V. More on the Ice Age

VI. Racial Characteristics and Racism in Evolution

I felt some of the final topics he shared, some of which I have not included in the list above, were more speculative in their nature than most of the topics dealt with earlier in the course material. Among which, the canopy theory was mentioned; this was an idea that I examined in an earlier post and am not eager to discuss again.

I. Dinosaurs and Deluge

If fossils are simply a reflection of the action of the flood, then the position of dinosaurs in a creationist timeline is quite simple. They lived just like any other reptiles in antediluvian times, and would also have been present in Noah's great vessel. The speaker also points out that the dimensions of the ark would be sufficient for all kinds of land dinosaurs to board, based on a few key points. First, it would make logical sense to bring the young of dinosaurs onto the ark, as they would be logical candidates for the subsequent repopulation. This also implies that the gargantuan kinds of sauropods and other similarly proportioned lizards could be represented by far more manageable and miniature adolescent specimens. Second, the speaker estimates that there are only about fifty or so kinds of dinosaurs, which does challenge the number of species of dinosaurs that are supposed to have existed. It is worth noting however, that a genesis kind may not accurately reflect a single species by a modern definition, and variety within a species may be so great that their skeletal remains may induce too fine a subdivision upon examination. Third, the speaker points out that the nutritional demands of reptiles, even large reptiles, are much lower that that of comparably sized endotherms. If food supply was an issue, Noah would have had a harder time stockpiling for mammals than for dinosaurs.

The speaker points out that there is really an assumption that man and dinosaurs could not have lived contemporaneously. I remember my young self looking down with disdain on comics which featured dinosaurs masticating hominids or on friends who had the apparently mistaken impression that the terrible lizards and the wise men could have looked each other in the eye. Yet, I have no good reason for such a belief apart from evolutionary indoctrination. If one would consider the dinosaurs simply to be another sort of reptile, which has unfortunately gone extinct, there would really be far less of an unease accepting this point. There are plenty of other species which have gone extinct, so is it so hard to suppose it could have happened to these beasts? I'll save more of this for part III.

II. Docile Dinosaurs

The speaker points out that the majority of dinosaurs were not fearsome, towering behemoths, but rather, small and herbivorous. He also notes that many of the carnivorous dinosaurs were probably scavengers rather than active hunters, and this category includes the tyrannical-lizard king. Another point submitted was that not all animals with sharp teeth are carnivorous. As examples, he provides the giant panda and the fruit bat, both of which have pointed teeth, and yet one munches contentedly on bamboo while the other flits about from fruit to fruit.

All this contributes to the speakers point that dinosaurs could have existed at the same time as our rather naturally unarmed ancestors. There is no reason to suppose that man could not have subjugated and driven out dinosaurs just as we have practically done away modern predators. There is an attention bias towards the plausibly magnificent and terrifying members of this extinct class of reptiles simply because they make for better publicity.

III. Defunct Dinosaurs

Now, to address the obvious query, if the dinosaurs were ensconced in the ark, where are they now? The speaker draws in more flood geology at this point. Most flood geologists agree that after the flood, conditions would have been vastly different to the climate before the earth shaking cataclysm. Chief among these changes is the precipitation of an ice age. Altered wind and ocean currents, the high humidity and volcanic ash would have contributed to a runaway temperature drop, and the resulting ice age could have lasted several centuries.

Proceeding logically, with a frigid conditions descending worldwide, ectotherms would be more adversely affected than their thermally homeostatic counterparts. In addition to the climate, the survivors of the flood would face food scarcity as there would be a lack of mature vegetation to support their appetites. So it would seem that many of the kinds of dinosaurs, particularly the larger ones, or k-strategists, would have perished in the hostile new world they found themselves in.

IIII. Dragons Defined

The speaker now moves on to discuss whether there are any records of dinosaurs by the ancients, ore recent evidence of dinosaurs in general. He quotes several unusual finds of preserved soft dinosaur tissue, which would have long deteriorated by evolutionist eons. Unfortunately, he once again does not provide much needed citations for these discoveries.

There are apparently many examples of dinosaurs found in the art of antiquity. Cave paintings of creatures that look remarkably like modern visualisations of dinosaurs have been found in Native American and Rhodesian sites. From what we know about early prehistoric art, people were not inclined to imaginative depictions of fantastical monsters, but painted what they saw. There are also ancient Chinese sculptures, Roman mosaics and Mesopotamian artefacts which could easily be representations of dinosaurs.

Of course, as you would have noticed from this section's header, the ubiquity of draconic legends could easily be attributed to a hazy memory of what we now dub dinosaurs. The speaker notes many similarities between dinosaurs and dinosaurs :

1. They are reptilian in nature.
2. They reproduce with eggs
3. There are varieties of both, in the air, in the oceans and on land
4. They are scaled, armoured or smooth skinned beings.
5. Many have horns or spines

There are many mentions of dragons or reptilian beasts in world legends, from Gilgamesh from St. George. Finally, the bible itself mentions dragons many times, though this is sometimes obscured by translation. Most notably, descriptions of the Leviathan and the Behemoth in Job, which some scholars suggest may have been written in antediluvian times. Other references include Deut 32:33, Psalm 74:13, Isaiah 27:1, Jeremiah 51:37, Ezekiel 29:3 and Micah 1:8. The speaker also notes that in Genesis 1:21, the hebrew word 'tannim', usually translated as 'sea monsters', could easily encompass aquatic dinosaurs.

V. More on the Ice Age

The speaker quotes 'Willmington's Guide to the Bible' and explains that extremely high humidity would have been the primary driving force behind the ice age. If the flood was global, then all the areas which would have become our modern day deserts would have been utterly waterlogged. For a long while, these waterlogged areas, which would otherwise be dry, would have served as vast reserves of water that would be evaporated. Evaporation itself has a cooling effect, and increased cloud cover would have affected albedo. The great clouds would have been carried north and south, and precipitated as rain or snow for extended periods of time. The buildup of ice led to the formation of great glaciers, which shaped the geography of the continents in the ways that are still evident today.

VI. Racial Characteristics and Racism in Evolution's Past

In one of the final points that the speaker makes, he recalls evolutions darker associations with eugenics, racism and genocide. During an age of empires and colonial subjugation, it was easy for evolutionists to suppose that aboriginal peoples of various lands represented missing links in the chain between apes and the white man. Evolutionary beliefs carried to an unsavoury extreme were what justified wholesale murder and experimentation on subjugated peoples, in the belief that such processes would benefit humankind by accelerating our evolutionary processes, enforcing the natural law of 'conflict' and victory.

Racial characteristics could easily have arisen in the reproductively isolated populations of humans after the tower of Babel incident. But it is worth noting that evolution in the full sense of the word has not happened,all humans, everywhere, are still human beings.

Perspectives : Resolving Genesis - Partus Sex

This past Saturday was the penultimate FBI - Creationism session, and the speaker went through :

I. Fossil Evidence for the Flood

II. Geological Evidence for the Flood

III. A Diluvian Explanation for the General Characteristics of the Fossil Record

IIII. The Cambrian Explosion

V. Fossil Fuels

VI. A Mechanism for the Flood

VII. Introducing Dinosaurs

I'm rather conflicted about where I should take Eldwan now, given that I had an alternate inclusion of issues like continental drift and catastrophism, and a local flood rather than a global one. I wonder if I should alter my mythos or just remain with it to postulate a different universe instead of one with many parallels. Anyway, moving on to the material presented:

I. Fossil Evidence for the Flood

Now that it has been highlighted, it does seem very odd, that there should be intact fossils of fish in a scavenger laden environment like the ocean. Instead we observe many fossils, buried rapidly and intact, some in the process of consuming other fish. This implies a catastrophic event which was responsible for such burials in a swift and interruptive manner.

Additionally, animal fossils are also found in massive fossil beds, the remains of creatures piled up on one another, implying a large catastrophic event, rather than gradual accumulation.

Trees are also found buried in geological strata, cutting through many layers at once. These polystrate trees do away with the idea that the strata in between could have been formed gradually over millions of years. Some of these trees trunks are even found slanting or upside down, which defies any explanation that they were gradually buried while they were still alive.

II. Geological Evidence for the Flood

The speaker notes unusual geological formations, such as submarine river canyons, such as the Hudson river valley. This canyon extends far beyond the modern sea coast. If there was a flood where water covered all the earth, we would expect to see large canyons formed as the water drained back from continental land. Other canyons such as the Grand Canyon would also have been formed from similar massive runoffs, with concomitant erosion carving huge structures. The present day rivers are rather out or proportion with the canyons they are found in. The same evidence, viewed from a different perspective. 

Furthermore, how does one really expect that layers upon layers of rock can be added on dry land, without rain or wind eroding each layer. The ground does not remain undisturbed for fossils and dirt to accumulate in the natural world. Are we to accept that it did happen simply because the time scales claimed boggle the imagination?

The types of rocks found, sedimentary, turbidite or conglomerate rock, all suggest movement of 

III. A Diluvian Explanation for the General Characteristics of the Fossil Record

This section was a little contradictory for me, as the speaker had spent a long time discussing the incompleteness of the evolutionary history as presented by the geological column. Now he states that there is a general order of fossils found higher or lower than others, though there are plenty of exceptions. His point was, if the implications of a flood are considered, there would be a semblance of progression. The immobile, simple sea organisms would be buried first, since they would be quite helpless in the face of the great movements of soil and silt brought on by the flood. Second, other sea life would be trapped. He points out that the vast majority of fossils are corals and shellfish, followed by sea plants and marine invertebrates. Next amphibians, which are found in low lying, water rich areas, would be buried next, then slow moving reptiles and animals. Animals that could move quickly would have been able to avoid disaster for longer. Finally of course, human beings, who would have understood what was happening and known their local topography, would have headed for higher ground as much as they could help it, avoiding mudflows and burial, eventually drowning. Their bodies, though, would be floating above the sediments churning in the waters below, and would likely be decomposed instead of fossilised.

If this explanation is true, there would also be room for some exceptions, as there might be poor unfortunates buried much earlier than their peers or vice versa. Evolution is unable to counter these apparent anachronistic anomalies.

IIII. The Cambrian Explosion

The Cambrian Explosion is easily explained by the flood, mudflows trapping a vast numbers and varieties of sea organisms to produce an abundance of fossils. Evolutionists can only state that it was a period of unusually fast evolutionary action and mutation, which sounds rather unconvincing, harkening back to punctuated equilibrium.

V. Fossil Fuels

The speaker submits that there is a lack of evidence that naturalistic processes can form coal or oil. Experiments have been done that show that fossil fuels can be formed rapidly under the right conditions. Once again, I wish the speaker would give footnotes for these facts which are seemingly pulled from the nether. The speaker also references the pressures that oil is found under, when it is tapped. He states that such high pressure would not have lasted for so many years, rather the oil would have dissipated into the surrounding rocks.

VI. A Mechanism for the Flood

We now move to a possible way by which the flood was enacted. Genesis 7 notes fountains of the deep, which are hypothesised to refer to vast subterranean vaults of water, which could have been released by a cataclysmic event through the earth's crust, blasted into the earth's atmosphere along with dust, which would lead to massive amounts of precipitation. There is a view that holds the mid-atlantic ridge as the site of such a fracture. The uplift of the seafloor would have pushed the continental shelves far apart, and this would also have had the effect of triggering tsunamis. This would have pushed the continents apart, including an explanation for continental drift. The ark could have survived all this tumult by floating over the waves, as tsunamis are not dangerous in open water, but only when their kinetic energy is destructively dissipated along the coast. Eventually, the tectonic movements would have slowed and the new seafloor would have cooled, sinking as it did. This would allow water to drain back into the oceans, creating the river canyons as they did so.

VII. Introducing Dinosaurs

The speaker simply begins with the fact that dinosaurs are also a part of creation, and were made to reflect the glory of the Creator. There is no reason why they cannot be fit into the biblical narrative like any other extinct species. It could be noted that dinosaurs may have survived and thrived in an antediluvian environment, but after the flood, the climate was too adverse for them and they died out. He stops about here, leaving the rest of the dinosaur discussion for the final FBI session.

Nominal Distinctiveness

Before the series on Creationism continues, there's a little issue that needs to be sorted out. 'The Radiant' is a terribly overused epithet in fantasy and games, and upon realising this, it no longer appeals to my fringe sensibilities. 'The Radiant' was, after all, a filler name, given in place of 'The Shining Wings', which proved to be awfully clunky to type repeatedly. On a tangent, most of the names I've given my characters in the some twenty thousand words of the draft are filler names, what with Tas Eldwaraj still being a conlang with morphemes in flux.

The name I've decided to go with is 'The Luminosa', which is another expression of the fact that I may have been studying Latin a little too much. Even the article is setting me off. Perhaps it should just be 'Luminosa'. I'm conceiving it as a Latin second declension neuter plural, but since I am, jarringly, writing in English, I have decided on an adjectival and demonymic form of 'Luminosan'. First, luminosa is already an adjective derived from lux, lucis, and second, Rome, Roman; Greek, Grecian. It felt classically appropriate. Certainly not a Luminosite or Luminosese.

I hope to continue working on Tas Eldwaraj sometime soon, after I'm done with Wheelock's Latin, and when my order for a book on Sindarin comes through. Learning Latin has so expanded my understanding of grammar that I feel like I cannot continue developing my own language until I learn more about languages and grammar in general. I hope not to end up in a situation where I am calling something a 'verbal action noun' when there is a perfectly good term like 'gerund'.

I don't think I'll bother going back to change all the names of my earlier posts in accordance with this one. This can serve as the marker between posts utilising 'The Luminosa' and those employing 'The Radiant'.

Perspectives : Resolving Genesis - Partus Quinque

Today's study dealt with further problems with evolution, why evolution is still so appealing to some, and the speaker began to move into the second part of the content, which was de diluvium. These are the sections I'll remark on:

I. Problems with Gradual Evolution

II. Avian Origins

III. Why Some Scientists Still Accept Evolution

IIII. Do Evolutionists Have Any Other Arguments?

V. How is the Genesis Flood Important to the Debate?

VI. Was the Flood Really Global?

Once again, I am left incensed with the fact that no one had given me answers to these questions from the Christian perspective earlier, or simply told me that it wasn't very important to have to know. The speaker did go a little into an odd, out of place, section on Polonium radiohalos, which might be more appropriate to next week as the speaker used it as evidence for the flood rather than in direct discussion about evolution.

I. Problems with Gradual Evolution

The speaker noted that several transitions would have been nigh impossible for creatures to make in a gradual way, such that each change and required mutation would have some beneficial selective advantage. Basically, this was the argument of irreducible complexity. This of course, recalled the familiar image of the proposed evolution of the eye. However, putting an oculus aside, there are far more transitions that cannot be neatly portrayed. What of the transition from simple circulation to a full four chambered double circulation? That requires so many changes to the thorax, the development of a pulmonary system and the development of a coordinating system for the four chambers, among other things; and this was supposed to have arisen as coordinated by chance natural selection, one beneficial modification at a time? Animals may look similar and mutable externally, but internally, they are far less flexible.

How would one species transition from asexual reproduction to sexual reproduction? From external to internal gestation? Please don't say punctuated equilibrium. The mammalian reproductive system is so complex, involving irritating hormonal feedback cycles, and it is also functionally sensitive to change, as one might ask any couple who wishes for a child but cannot bear one. There is very little room for error in this area, and any errors would necessarily terminate the evolutionary journey of those unfortunate genes. 

II. Avian Origins

The widespread popular conception, as it has been promoted, is that birds evolved from dinosaurs. The speaker points out that the lumbering, heavy beasts with dense bone, scales and inefficient lungs would require a miracle to have descendants, however far removed, with lightweight bone, feathers and a most efficient pulmonary system. Another case of external features and similarities being overemphasized while stark differences are blissfully forgotten.

III. Why Some Scientists Still Accept Evolution

The speaker delves into some of the backstory of evolution as it rose to prominence in the public consciousness. The modern theory of evolution may look wonderfully polished, and there are plenty who honestly believe it because they have heard no convincing arguments to the contrary. However, the fact remains that it is a theory that allows the niggling conscience to be put to rest, and the anti-theist to remain comfortably lodged in a haze of sketchy connections. For such a reason it was and is still seized upon by proponents who reject the existence of God.

IIII. Do Evolutionists Have Any Other Arguments?

Homologous structures are used to show that various features have evolved from the same common origin. This is, once again, a case of highlighted similarities and the glossing of difference. Conversely it would be quite expected that if all kinds were created by the same designer, he would use similar structures and solutions for the same common problems. The speaker also notes that homologous structures are controlled by very different loci on the genes of supposedly related animals. I'm not sure where he obtained that information from. I do wish he would fix that and provide better citations specific to the figures he quotes. The bottom of the page feels rather void of footnotes.

Evolutionists also point out the domestication process as proof of how much modification can occur. The speaker notes that all this modification still occurs within the Genesis kinds, and there are limits to such modification. Minute changes do not amount to a extrapolated speciation. On that note, species are also handily defined by evolutionists to their benefit. The speaker points out that God equipped the original genetic codes with layers of extra information, so that kinds could adapt more resiliently to changes in their environment. However, we do not observe changes such as massively new features like a limb or organ emerging, rather only modification of existing structures.

The speaker also addresses the supposed fusion of the second human chromosome, used to support common ancestry with chimpanzees which have an additional pair of chromosomes compared to Homo sapiens sapiens. Chromosome number does not really say too much though. Many other species which are unrelated to human beings, such as tobacco and potatoes, both have 48 chromosomes. There may be fewer genetic differences between humans and chimps, but the fact remains that while we share most of our DNA in percentage, the vast amount of information contained within DNA implies that those few hundredths amounts to hundreds of thousands of differences.

V. How is the Genesis Flood Important to the Debate?

The speaker now moves on to address the flood, which is crucial to our understanding of the age of the earth. If the flood did occur, it is able to explain our fossils and the geological column. Otherwise, such features could only be explained by glacial geological processes. If the flood was literally true, it also reminds us of the uncomfortable truth that God will not tolerate sin forever, and the comforting fact the Bible is true.

VI. Was the Flood Really Global?

The speaker provides several succinct points for why this should be the case. First, the Bible says the waters covered all the mountains. Second, why bother with an ark over so many years when a journey to relocate would have sufficed? Third, worldwide flood traditions from Deucalion to Manu. Fossils on mountaintops would also provide auxiliary support for mountain-blanketing waters. 

Perspectives : Resolving Genesis - Partus Quattuor

This Saturday's session had two main divisions:

I. The Improbability of Life
II. The Lack of a Working Mechanism of Evolution

This session really shook me, to look at all of what I've read from Dawkins and other evolutionists in a different light. It's unnerving how convincing their arguments looked to me in my teenage years, packaged up in lovely little softcovers. Reading those same arguments from a critical perspective really uncovers a chasm between the touted scientific method and the conjectures of evolutionists. Taking such a stand invites persecution, but evidence, both personal and observational, points to a Creator God. Incidentally, Crash Course just started a series on 'Big History', which adds yet more footage to support of the greatest mythology of the modern age.

I. The Improbability of Life

From my studies in high school biology, the complexity of life was already something easily apparent, so as the speaker went through his figures, I was not too surprised at the impossibly small chances he estimated for the formation of proteins, ribonucleic material and cells. Though, I was rather amused by the conviction that he had as he made his comparisons, given that the figures he was choosing were probably estimates more than anything else. One figure he rather seized on was in relation to the chirality of amino acids. He had a figure that a protein is composed of at least 410 amino acids. I'm not sure what source he derived that from. All the same, he zoomed in on the chirality of the amino acids in terrestrial life being confined to left handed enantiomers, and proceeded to base his later calculations and figures on the binary odds of each amino acid winding up left handed in a functioning protein. The probability he arrived at was 1/2^410, or 3.18*10^-124, and he used this number to go on to make comparisons with other figures, like the number of seconds that the universe has been in existence - according to evolutionists, 4.73*10^17. On the basis of other such similar comparisons, he felt that the chances of even a single protein forming by chance were infinitesimally minute.

From someone with a little more knowledge of biology, it would seem that his value for the protein probability was far too large. There are other factors that come into a protein's functionality. Structurally, the right amino acids have to be arranged in the right order, which brings in a ton of permutations. The polypeptide chain also has to fold in the right way, which also implies that the amino acids could not have haphazardly be added on to either side. The protein has remain in a stable environment for long enough, implying the need for control of other external factors such as pH and temperature for it to function for extended periods of time. Evolutionists bandy around large numbers that seem to vast to comprehend, but the fact is, after a little thought, the complexity of a single protein trumps all the billions of years of the cosmological mythos.

Evolution gained a footing in a time of scientific ignorance about the nature of cells, when they seemed like simple blobs of organic matter infused with élan vital and spontaneous generation was just being overturned. The complexity of a single cell, even a prokaryotic cell, or one of the domain archaea, should leave us agog. Can we dispense with a romantic hypothesis that the scientific method should long have rejected? Where are the observations and repeated trials that lead by logical induction to such grand notions? Rather, there are tatters of skimpy evidence stitched together by insurmountable improbabilities, shaded by the hazy cloaks of a hypothetical vast eon, as unobserved by any living human as the titanomachy or the construction of Valhalla.

II. The Lack of a Working Mechanism of Evolution

This section of the recording was one that truly got to me, and rather disturbed me about how I know what I know. It's odd how topics in the Theory of Knowledge course are supposed to foster such critical thinking, and yet the same classrooms are venues for the dissemination of shaky evolutionary ideas. The speaker began with the universally denied Lamarckian model, followed by Darwin's natural selection, genetic drift, mutations, neo-Darwinism and punctuated equilibrium. I suppose the speaker must be defining evolution in terms of the development of new information or complexity in the genetic code resulting in phenotypical change. Of all the examples that I have heard used in support of evolution, only only remains standing, that of multiple antibiotic resistant bacteria, which is only really applicable for microevolution.

The speaker, after dismissing Lamarck's ideas; poor fellow, always remembered as a foil to Darwin; proceeds to outline natural selection as the whittling down of populations to those that can survive best in an environment. Natural selection, he posits, does not provide a mechanism of how the variety and change in the organism comes to be, but rather, only refers to the process by which some existing varieties of the organism come to predominate the population. It is a logical idea, it is certainly demonstrable, but it fails to explain how new genetic information is demonstrated and accompanying that, how new features or traits arise. If anything, natural selection demonstrates a loss of information, as apparently unsuccessful varieties are phased out and lost. It rather reminds me of the statistics of how varieties of vegetables and fruits have been narrowed down to a handful popular with the modern consumer instead of the hundreds of localised nuanced expressions of, well, Solanum lycopersicum. Thus, if one extrapolates backward on natural selection alone, one can only arrive at an earlier state that contained more complexity, interaction and kinds of life than the one we observe presently.

So, to prop evolution up, we require a mechanism that generates variation and change in a species. The speaker moved on to discuss genetic drift, which appears to have acquired a new meaning in modern biology, or was misunderstood by the speaker, I'm unsure. The speaker explained that genetic drift was the process by which the genes of an organism's parents could be recombined to produce apparently different traits in the offspring. He claims that the differences between parent and child were once interpreted to be evolutionary in nature, rather than as the result of Mendelian shuffling in zygote formation. This point seems rather odd to me, as I was taught that genetic drift refers to the fluctuations in the frequency of an allele in the population. Even so, perhaps evolution should not really be defined by a Hardy-Weinberg disequilibrium as, once again, that only measures the changes in the frequency of existing information and complexity rather than the generation of new information. I'm beginning to wonder if there is really a good, consistent definition of evolution that we can work with.

Third, mutation took the lead as the primary explanation for new alleles and genes, serving as the fount from which all diversity could arise. The speaker points out, and evolutionists also admit, that mutations are usually regressive, or have no useful effect whatsoever. There are very few alleged examples of beneficial mutation, and upon examination of a few that I can recall, I do notice that there aren't really any I know of that involve an increase in genetic information, in contrast with a modification, or deletion of existing information. Consider lactose tolerance, which as a mutation, is considered beneficial as it allows human beings to continue digesting from dairy products produced from domesticated animals beyond the infant stage. This mutation is commonly found in countries where dairy is frequently consumed, and is held to have originated in northern Europe. So, this mutation certainly helped people to survive when and where other sources of nutrition and energy were lacking. However, if one thinks about the genetic information involved, there has only been a modification to existing information, not a generation of new information. We are not producing a brand new protein, but just changing how long lactase is expressed.

Perhaps if one views evolution solely as a process by which organisms adapt to their environment, this might be the case. As I interpret things now, sure, there is certainly variation in the population of a species. In a competitive world, some traits within that variation meet greater success than others. Those with such traits survive, reproduce, and pass those traits down to their offspring. Within this framework, there is, overall, a loss of information as unsuccessful varieties are eliminated. Occasionally, mutation does come in to create a little more variation, but not to the degree where it could produce vastly new features such as whole proteins, let alone organs. Sometimes, these mutations are beneficial to the affected individuals, but even if such a case is allowed to be interpreted so, it does not show that new information can arise through such a process. Adaptive success cannot be equated with descent with the drastic modification proposed by evolutionists that allows the descendants of prokaryotes to be porcupines, penguins or platypuses.

That about covers the speakers next section of Neo-Darwinism, which combines mutations as the source of variation and natural selection as the process by which beneficial mutations are promoted and maleficial mutations are disposed. The speaker also mentions that genes regulate phenotype in a far more complicated fashion than was initially thought. It was one thought that one allele corresponded to one feature in a direct relation. Now we know that genes interact in complex pathways, regulating each other in strict sequence and delicate feedback loops, that several alleles can contribute to the expression of a single phenotype. The development of a single beneficial macro-feature would involve numerous genes mutating in just such a way that confers selective advantage, or at least, no disadvantage, each time, and resulting in a situation where, somehow, all these mutations line up to dictate the instructions for something like a vertebra or an opposable thumb. I suppose another piece of evidence against mutation is also observable from the sheer number of genetic disorders that have developed in human history, in contrast with the few mutations which may be interpreted as circumstantially beneficial. Consider haemophilia, sickle cell-anaemia, cystic fibrosis and Down's syndrome. The genetic code is a genetic circus act, balancing a thousand participants and objects in a sensitive living sculpture.

The speaker concludes with punctuated equilibrium, which he derides as a prime example of preconceived conclusions skewing the interpretation of evidence. The basic argument is:

1. Evolution must have happened
2. There are very few transitional forms in the fossil record.
3. Therefore, evolution must have happened quickly, moving from one distinct species to another.

This is not an argument based on evidence, but an argument from the lack of evidence to bend the facts into a determined thesis. Furthermore, it does not explain how evolution happened, but merely states that it must have happened quickly. The speaker provides an analogy of a layman fixing a broken car, with parts strewn about. If you were to return within an hour, to see a pristine automobile and a beaming layman, you might be inclined to ask him how he was able to accomplish such a feat by tinkering around without technical knowledge. If the response he provides you is 'I did it fast,' it would hardly answer your question.

Perspectives : Resolving Genesis - Partus Tres

Last week's session covered three main subjects:

I. The Appearance of Age Argument
II. Against the Big Bang
III. Undermining the Evidence for Transitional Forms

I felt there were a couple of questionable points that he was making, that either seemed factually inaccurate or quite the logical leap. It would also help if the speaker treated the opposition more level-headedly, instead of seizing on every opportunity for an argument ad hominem. However, overall, there are still points worth considering. The shaky edifice of evolutionary cosmology looks shakier than ever.

I. The Appearance of Age Argument

The primary point this argument makes is that if God did indeed create a full and complete universe, it would not appear to be young, but rather, mature. This approach holds that when an evolutionist looks at the universe, they naturally assume that it must have taken eons to develop because, first, there is no supernatural power to shape the universe such, and second, known naturalistic process could not have formed it so without eons to work with. Contrariwise, when a theist gazes upon creation, since he accepts that there is an omnipotent Creator, he is not puzzled by what appears to be an old creation, as it could simply have been created as such.

II. Against the Big Bang

I think the largest problem with the Big Bang, that modern science does not have a good explanation for, is the matter-anti-matter asymmetry. This was duly brought up by the speaker, and is yet another example of a little exception that the layman is asked to make because the mathematics is simply too incomprehensible. The speaker also discussed the apparent uniformity of the universe in temperature, which immediately recalled the cosmic background radiation image. The speaker holds that the temperature differences are too minute to be worth consideration, which I found rather suspect, since, once again, neither of us are privy to the infallible mathematics behind all these predictions. The speaker attributes such minute differences to interstellar material, gravitational interference and a host of other cosmic factors. The speaker refers to the expansion of the universe being adverse to astrogenesis, as the expansive forces would have overwhelmed gravity. The redshift in light is supposedly also attributable to a rotation of the universe rather than an expansion, and is also rendered weak if the speed of light is not constant as we would like to assume.

The Big Bang is also reliant on dark energy and dark matter for the model to work, which is admittedly, as of yet unproven and only a logical consequence of naturalism. The speaker takes this chance to transition into a long tirade on how evolutionists and cosmologists are constantly conjuring up new ideas to salvage the Big Bang theory to make it work. He claims that no other field would find such behaviour scientifically acceptable, especially as the more recent ideas such as dark energy and matter are not even readily detectable. The Big Bang theory is another case of using present day observations to extrapolate backwards into the far distant past. Again, if we were to chart change and make predictions like so in any other field, it would hard to establish credulity. 

It is a little bit of expansion on my own part, but I feel it ought to come in about here. It is impossible to be certain that just because the universe behaves in a predictable and regular manner now, in the few hundred years that we have observed it systematically, it has always done so. In terms of the timescales that evolutionists claim are involved, it would be like someone monitoring their body temperature over the day, using the data from the last few microseconds and extrapolating backwards in a best fit trend. In all likelihood, he will end up with a reading that suggests he was suffering a terrible fever or must have awoken from some bizarre cryonic. Admittedly that is a rough analogy. Regardless, no matter how sensitive and accurate the instruments we design now, the fact remains that we cannot go back in time to observe what has actually taken place. To extend what data we have is speculation, not science. Science should have repeatable observations, done under controlled conditions.

The speaker also chose to go into several points about the nature of the solar system, which did not seem relevant to the Big Bang per se, but I shall include them here all the same. He points out that the substances of the solar system are arranged strangely and not uniformly at all. The compositions of moons and planets do not suggest a common origin, and atheistic cosmologists are at a loss to explain the differing rotations of Venus and Uranus (Ουρανοσ). There are some theories, and moons could have been captured in orbit. However, it either requires a lot of little exceptions here and there, and strange coincidences, which are no stranger to the evolutionist because it must have happened somehow, and it must have happened without the intervention of a Creator.

Ultimately, the Big Bang fails to answer the question of origins. It is a theory of change, development from one state to another, but it does not answer how the energy of the universe comes into existence.

III. Undermining the Evidence for Transitional Forms

This section can basically be summarised as - Every transitional form from unintelligent primate to the wise man was either a hoax, a misinterpreted animal skeleton, or a human skeleton. Other transitional forms in other branches of the tree of life are of extinct species or do not actually fit the supposed order of evolution in the fossil record. We hear more about the supposed claims rather than the embarrassing retractions. Furthermore, if evolution happens gradually, we would expect large populations of such transitional creatures and they should be comparatively abundant. Evolutionists may argue with the theory of punctuated equilibrium, but that is an argument from a lack of evidence to support a preconceived conclusion.