tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5052051863218777692024-02-08T10:46:27.799-08:00DarwinismUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger33125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-505205186321877769.post-88463300110893767882012-03-31T20:30:00.000-07:002019-09-01T19:21:08.830-07:00The Story In Genesis Does Not Match The Story In Our Genes<p>"A study published by 22 authors (including myself) in the scientific journal Nature Genetics in November 2000 stated the results clearly and succinctly. A worldwide sample of men, from dozens of populations on every continent, were studied using the newly discovered treasure trove of Y-chromosome polymorphisms [only the male of the human species carries the Y-chromosome]. Applying the same methods used in the earlier mitochondrial DNA studies [women alone pass along the mitochondrial DNA], a tree diagram was constructed from the pattern of sequence variation. What this diagram showed was that the oldest splits in the ancestry of the Y chromosome occurred in Africa. In other words, the root of the male family tree was placed in Africa -- exactly the same answer that mitochrondrial DNA had given us for women. The shocker came when a date was estimated for the age of the oldest common ancestor. This man, from whom all men alive today ultimately derive their Y-chromosomes lived 59,000 years ago. More than 80,000 years after that estimated for 'Eve!' Did 'Adam' and 'Eve' never meet? No they didn't, but the reason is fairly complicated, and it reveals one of the most important things to remember about the study of human history with genetic methods... Such dates do not represent the date of origin of our species -- otherwise 'Eve' would have been waiting a long time for 'Adam' to show up. They simply represent the time, peering back into the past, when we stop seeing genetic diversity in our mitochondrial DNA and Y-chromosome lineages... As we'll see... the age difference between 'Adam' and 'Eve' is larger than we would expect by chance, and is probably the result of thousands of years of sexual politics [or two reproductive bottle-necks in the human geneologcial tree separated by tens of thousands of years? -- E.T.B.]. It is not, though, indicative of any deep uncertainties about human evolution. [Though it might be indicative of uncertainties about taking Genesis literally. -- E.T.B.]" [Spencer Wells, The Journey of Man: A Genetic Odyssey (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 2002), p. 53-55. (Well's book has also been made into a television series broadcast on PBS.)]</p>
<p>What is most interesting, above, is the way that the geneticists, have been able to minutely compare differences in the DNA from human beings round the world and determine the most likely ways those differences had accrued over time, just like examining a pile of similar but not identical "chain letters," noting which ones had certain sentences added, or changed round, or had certain punctuation added or removed, tracing the trail of changes made in such chain letters backward in time toward what earlier versions most probably looked like. If you have enough similar chain letters to compare, it's easy to see how this tracing-backward process can be done, and why it works. In fact there was an article about comparing chain-letters and how that relates to tracing back DNA patterns in SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, "Chain Letters and Evolutionary Histories;" June 2003; by Charles H. Bennett, Ming Li and Bin Ma:</p>
<p>IN OUR HANDS ARE 33 VERSIONS OF A CHAIN LETTER, collected between 1980 and 1995, when photocopiers, but not e-mail, were in widespread use by the general public. These letters have passed from host to host, mutating and evolving. Like a gene, their average length is about 2,000 characters. Like a potent virus, the letter threatens to kill you and induces you to pass it on to your "friends and associates"-some variation of this letter has probably reached millions of people. Like an inheritable trait, it promises benefits for you and the people you pass it on to. Like genomes, chain letters undergo natural selection and sometimes parts even get transferred between coexisting "species." Unlike DNA, however, these letters are easy to read. Indeed, their readability makes them especially suitable for classroom teaching of phylogeny (evolutionary history) free from the arcana of molecular biology. The letters are an intriguing social phenomenon, but we are also interested in them because they provide a test bed for the algorithms used in molecular biology to infer phylogenetic trees from the genomes of existing organisms. We believe that if these algorithms are to be trusted, they should produce good results when applied to chain letters. Using a new algorithm that is general enough to have wide applicability to such problems, we have reconstructed the evolutionary history of our 33 letters [see illustration on page 79]. The standard methods do not work as well on these letters. Originally developed for genomes, our algorithm has also been applied to languages and used to detect plagiarism in student assignments: anything involving a sequence of symbols is grist for its mill. [END OF QUOTATION FROM SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN ARTICLE]</p>
<p>Geneticists continue making the most detailed maps of the DNA of each species, and will soon be able to trace more and more of their lineages backward in time by comparing the minute differences that have accrued in their DNA as they split off from each other. That's how they were able to determine that contemporary human beings came out of AFRICA -- as discussed in the first paragraph of this article. Meanwhile, Genesis says that Noah landed in the mountains of Ararat in modern day Armenia, NOT AFRICA, and Genesis goes on to claim that people settled in the "valley of Shinar" not very far from where Noah landed, and there they built the first major "city and tower," and then (after the "confusion of tongues"), they spread to the rest of the world. So the story in Genesis does not match the story in our genes.</p>
<p>Another case of such research was recently reported in NEW SCIENTIST (July 24-30, 2004, "Oz Origins for Perching Birds") that said scientists had studied the DNA of 144 species of passerines (perching birds) and discovered evidence that "suggests that the passerines began diversifying about 82 million years ago, when New Zealand split from Austalia. A major split within the lineage, between songbirds and a second group, came around 65 milion years ago. The songbirds later spread from Australia through Asia, while the others, a group containing flycatchers and ant birds, spread across South America." Again, as in the case of man, no evidence that the songbirds split from the other groups anywhere near the mountains of Armenia where Noah's ark allegedly landed. So it would seem that the story of Noah's ark remains doubtful in light of an increasing array of modern day genetic comparisons.</p>
<p>Cheers!</p>
<p>Ed</p>
<div class="separator" style="text-align:center"><iframe src="https://edwardtbabinski.us/related-content/related-content-19.html" style="margin-bottom:0em; margin-left:0em; margin-right:0em; height:400px; width:600px; border:0px"></iframe></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-505205186321877769.post-53294463603849396452012-03-31T19:33:00.006-07:002019-09-01T19:20:54.621-07:00Geology at Torrey Pines, San Onofre and Del Mar Formation<p><em>Photos and footnotes on fossil shells in the West Coast Monterey Shale, San Onofre, Torrey Pines State Beach.</em></p>
<p><strong>Geology at Torrey Pines and San Onofre</strong> <br />Contributed by Dave E. Matson, <a href="http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/catalog.html">Oak Hill Free Press</a></p>
<p>Featured below are a few of the fossil shells that I came across earlier this year.</p>
<p>About 45 to 50 million years ago the West Coast resembled the East Coast in that there were barrier islands with quiet, mud-filled lagoons. The climate was such that large beds of oysters flourished along with other creatures, such as small, coiled sea snails. Eons later, that mud later got converted into somewhat greenish-gray shale--the Del Mar Formation.</p>
<p>The first shell photo shows a nice, whole oyster fossil resting on the Del Mar Formation. The second shell photo shows the underside of an oyster fossil along with some embedded, coiled snail shells. The 4th shell photo is a closer view of another coiled snail shell. These three fossil photos were taken at the Torrey Pines State Beach, just north of San Diego.</p>
<p><img src="https://edwardtbabinski.us/fossils/monterey_shale/san_onofre.jpg" alt="San Onofre" border="0" /> <br />Enlarge Image, 96 k - <a href="https://edwardtbabinski.us/fossils/monterey_shale/san_onofre_large.jpg" target="_blank" rel="noopener">san_onofre_large.jpg</a> <br />Photo Courtesy Dave E. Matson</p>
<p>The 3rd photo is from San Onofre Beach, a short walk south of the nuclear reactors. These fossils are "only" about 20 million year old and are found in the Monterey shale.</p>
<p><img src="https://edwardtbabinski.us/fossils/monterey_shale/torrey_pines.jpg" alt="Torrey Pines" border="0" /> <br />Enlarge Image, 112 k - <a href="https://edwardtbabinski.us/fossils/monterey_shale/torrey_pines_large.jpg" target="_blank" rel="noopener">torrey_pines_large.jpg</a> <br />Photo Courtesy Dave E. Matson</p>
<p>Geology Photo #1: Torrey Pines. At the very top, not much in evidence here, is the Bay Point Formation (~120,000 years) which consists of loosely consolidated, brown sediments washed down from the hills. The thick, sculpted strata is the Torrey Pines sandstone (~45 million years). It is probably the remains of sand from off shore, barrier islands. The Del Mar Formation (45-50 million years) which consists of layers of mudstone, shale and white/gray sandstone lying on a greenish shale, came from lagoonal muds occasionally flooded with sand from the barrier islands. The scene is similar to the coast of Texas today, which is flat and has barrier islands and lagoons.</p>
<p>Geology Photo #2: San Onofre. A secondary fault may be seen as a thin diagonal in the San Mateo sandstone (4-5 million years) truncated by a later layer of marine boulders of about 125,000 years of age. The brown strata on top is less than 120,000 years old, being washed down from the hills. The white, San Mateo sandstone is underlain by Monterey shale (15-20 million years). To the right, (out of sight) of the secondary fault is the main fault, the Christianitos Fault, which has been inactive for at least 125,000 years as indicated by the undisturbed layer of marine boulders above it.</p>
<p><img src="https://edwardtbabinski.us/fossils/monterey_shale/fossil_shells_01_small.jpg" alt="Fossil Shells" border="0" /> <br />Enlarge Image, 78 k - <a href="https://edwardtbabinski.us/fossils/monterey_shale/fossil_shells_01.jpg" target="_blank" rel="noopener">fossil_shells_01.jpg</a> <br />Shell Photos #1 - Whole oyster fossil resting on the Del Mar Formation. <br />Photo Courtesy Dave E. Matson</p>
<p><img src="https://edwardtbabinski.us/fossils/monterey_shale/fossil_shells_02_small.jpg" alt="Fossil Shells" border="0" /> <br />Enlarge Image, 73 k - <a href="https://edwardtbabinski.us/fossils/monterey_shale/fossil_shells_02.jpg" target="_blank" rel="noopener">fossil_shells_02.jpg</a> <br />Shell Photo #2 - Underside of an oyster fossil along with some embedded, coiled snail shells <br />Photo Courtesy Dave E. Matson</p>
<p><img src="https://edwardtbabinski.us/fossils/monterey_shale/fossil_shells_03_small.jpg" alt="Fossil Shells" border="0" /> <br />Enlarge Image, 76 k - <a href="https://edwardtbabinski.us/fossils/monterey_shale/fossil_shells_03.jpg" target="_blank" rel="noopener">fossil_shells_03.jpg</a> <br />Photo Courtesy Dave E. Matson</p>
<p><img src="https://edwardtbabinski.us/fossils/monterey_shale/fossil_shells_04_small.jpg" alt="Fossil Shells" border="0" /> <br />Enlarge Image, 88 k - <a href="https://edwardtbabinski.us/fossils/monterey_shale/fossil_shells_04.jpg" target="_blank" rel="noopener">fossil_shells_04.jpg</a> <br />Photo Courtesy Dave E. Matson</p>
<p><br /> </p>
<h3>Del Mar Formation</h3>
<p><strong>Del Mar Formation</strong> <br />Contributed by Dave E. Matson</p>
<p>August 8, 2006</p>
<p>I'm including 7 new photos from my March 25, 2006 stop at Torrey Pines. Torrey Pines State Beach is just north of La Jolla, which is the northern coastal extreme of San Diego. The famous cove there is where I went snorkeling for years.</p>
<p>The following photo shows a minor unconformity, where angled strata meet level strata. The angled strata is the slow fill-in of our scour channel. Some of the layers lasted long enough to have developed their own community of shelled creatures. Later, the top of the angled strata was leveled by erosion, probably during a temporary retreat of the sea. The more strata was deposited.</p>
<table border="0" width="425">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>
<p><a href="https://edwardtbabinski.us/fossils/monterey_shale/del_mar_formation_01.jpg" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><img src="https://edwardtbabinski.us/fossils/monterey_shale/del_mar_formation_01_small.jpg" alt="Del Mar Formation" border="0" /> </a> <br /><strong>Del Mar Formation</strong> <br />Enlarge Image, 89 k - <a href="https://edwardtbabinski.us/fossils/monterey_shale/del_mar_formation_01.jpg" target="_blank" rel="noopener">del_mar_formation_01.jpg</a> <br />Photo courtesy of Dave E. Matson</p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p>These fossils in a pebble from the Del Mar Formation at Torrey Pines, California, are 45-50 million years old. I thought the pebble was kind of artsy.</p>
<table border="0" width="425">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>
<p><a href="https://edwardtbabinski.us/fossils/monterey_shale/del_mar_formation_02.jpg" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><img src="https://edwardtbabinski.us/fossils/monterey_shale/del_mar_formation_02_small.jpg" alt="Del Mar Formation" border="0" /> </a> <br /><strong>Del Mar Formation</strong> <br />Enlarge Image, 188 k - <a href="https://edwardtbabinski.us/fossils/monterey_shale/del_mar_formation_02.jpg" target="_blank" rel="noopener">del_mar_formation_02.jpg</a> <br />Photo courtesy of Dave E. Matson</p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p>Bean clams on the beach make up the lower-right photo on this page. In San Diego, years ago, I saw a dense patch of them, each clamping on to a bit of seaweed. It looked like that patch of beach was growing something!</p>
<table border="0" width="425">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>
<p><a href="https://edwardtbabinski.us/fossils/monterey_shale/del_mar_formation_03.jpg" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><img src="https://edwardtbabinski.us/fossils/monterey_shale/del_mar_formation_03_small.jpg" alt="Del Mar Formation" border="0" /> </a> <br /><strong>Del Mar Formation</strong> <br />Enlarge Image, 193 k - <a href="https://edwardtbabinski.us/fossils/monterey_shale/del_mar_formation_03.jpg" target="_blank" rel="noopener">del_mar_formation_03.jpg</a> <br />Photo courtesy of Dave E. Matson</p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p>Here, we see the green shale portion of the Del Mar Formation (45-50 million years), which was once the mud of a lagoon between a low shoreline and offshore barrier islands of sand.</p>
<table border="0" width="425">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>
<p><a href="https://edwardtbabinski.us/fossils/monterey_shale/del_mar_formation_04.jpg" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><img src="https://edwardtbabinski.us/fossils/monterey_shale/del_mar_formation_04_small.jpg" alt="Del Mar Formation" border="0" /> </a> <br /><strong>Del Mar Formation</strong> <br />Enlarge Image, 167 k - <a href="https://edwardtbabinski.us/fossils/monterey_shale/del_mar_formation_04.jpg" target="_blank" rel="noopener">del_mar_formation_04.jpg</a> <br />Photo courtesy of Dave E. Matson</p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p>Artsy pebble on sand.</p>
<table border="0" width="425">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>
<p><a href="https://edwardtbabinski.us/fossils/monterey_shale/del_mar_formation_05.jpg" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><img src="https://edwardtbabinski.us/fossils/monterey_shale/del_mar_formation_05_small.jpg" alt="Del Mar Formation" border="0" /> </a> <br /><strong>Del Mar Formation</strong> <br />Enlarge Image, 108 k - <a href="https://edwardtbabinski.us/fossils/monterey_shale/del_mar_formation_05.jpg" target="_blank" rel="noopener">del_mar_formation_05.jpg</a> <br />Photo courtesy of Dave E. Matson</p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<table border="0" width="425">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>
<p><a href="https://edwardtbabinski.us/fossils/monterey_shale/del_mar_formation_07.jpg" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><img src="https://edwardtbabinski.us/fossils/monterey_shale/del_mar_formation_07_small.jpg" alt="Del Mar Formation" border="0" /> </a> <br /><strong>Del Mar Formation</strong> <br />Enlarge Image, 142 k - <a href="https://edwardtbabinski.us/fossils/monterey_shale/del_mar_formation_07.jpg" target="_blank" rel="noopener">del_mar_formation_07.jpg</a> <br />Photo courtesy of Dave E. Matson</p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p>Just south of the scour-channel strata are these spectacularly-colored strata. A dense layer of fossil shells is found in the strata at about the ankle level of the two visitors.</p>
<table border="0" width="425">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>
<p><a href="https://edwardtbabinski.us/fossils/monterey_shale/del_mar_formation_06.jpg" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><img src="https://edwardtbabinski.us/fossils/monterey_shale/del_mar_formation_06_small.jpg" alt="Del Mar Formation" border="0" /> </a> <br /><strong>Del Mar Formation</strong> <br />Enlarge Image, 123 k - <a href="https://edwardtbabinski.us/fossils/monterey_shale/del_mar_formation_06.jpg" target="_blank" rel="noopener">del_mar_formation_06.jpg</a> <br />Photo courtesy of Dave E. Matson</p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p>At the Torrey Pines Nature Center overlooking Soledad Valley, which is the northern boundary of the Torrey Pines area.</p>
<p>Barnacles and Bay Mussels on Flat Rock at Flat Rock Point. Torrey Pines State Beach, California. The beach is part of the Torrey Pines State Reserve, a Pines State Beach, California. The beach is part of the Torrey Pines State Reserve, a wildlife preserve. There, the rare, stately Torrey pines grow naturally. Their needles are gray-green and in bundles of five.</p>
<table border="0" width="425">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>
<p><a href="https://edwardtbabinski.us/fossils/monterey_shale/del_mar_formation_08.jpg" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><img src="https://edwardtbabinski.us/fossils/monterey_shale/del_mar_formation_08_small.jpg" alt="Del Mar Formation" border="0" /> </a> <br /><strong>Del Mar Formation</strong> <br />Enlarge Image, 416 k - <a href="https://edwardtbabinski.us/fossils/monterey_shale/del_mar_formation_08.jpg" target="_blank" rel="noopener">del_mar_formation_08.jpg</a> <br />Photo courtesy of Dave E. Matson</p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p>Lemonade Berry, a hearty bush, is usually found near the coastal areas. (Rhus integrifolia of the family Anacardiaceae). The fruit exudes a sticky, sour substance that can make a lemonade-like drink!</p>
<table border="0" width="425">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>
<p><a href="https://edwardtbabinski.us/fossils/monterey_shale/del_mar_formation_09.jpg" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><img src="https://edwardtbabinski.us/fossils/monterey_shale/del_mar_formation_09_small.jpg" alt="Del Mar Formation" border="0" /> </a> <br /><strong>Del Mar Formation</strong> <br />Enlarge Image, 88 k - <a href="https://edwardtbabinski.us/fossils/monterey_shale/del_mar_formation_09.jpg" target="_blank" rel="noopener">del_mar_formation_09.jpg</a> <br />Photo courtesy of Dave E. Matson</p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p>On the side of Flat Rock at Flat Rock Point, Torrey Pines State Beach, sea anemones (or some other soft creatures on the side of this rock) collect shells for protection.</p>
<table border="0" width="425">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>
<p><a href="https://edwardtbabinski.us/fossils/monterey_shale/del_mar_formation_10.jpg" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><img src="https://edwardtbabinski.us/fossils/monterey_shale/del_mar_formation_10_small.jpg" alt="Del Mar Formation" border="0" /> </a> <br /><strong>Del Mar Formation</strong> <br />Enlarge Image, 163 k - <a href="https://edwardtbabinski.us/fossils/monterey_shale/del_mar_formation_10.jpg" target="_blank" rel="noopener">del_mar_formation_10.jpg</a> <br />Photo courtesy of Dave E. Matson</p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p>At the Torrey Pines Nature Center, overlooking Soledad Valley, which is the northern boundary of the Torrey Pines area.</p>
<table border="0" width="425">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>
<p><a href="https://edwardtbabinski.us/fossils/monterey_shale/del_mar_formation_11.jpg" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><img src="https://edwardtbabinski.us/fossils/monterey_shale/del_mar_formation_11_small.jpg" alt="Del Mar Formation" border="0" /> </a> <br /><strong>Del Mar Formation</strong> <br />Enlarge Image, 83 k - <a href="https://edwardtbabinski.us/fossils/monterey_shale/del_mar_formation_11.jpg" target="_blank" rel="noopener">del_mar_formation_11.jpg</a> <br />Photo courtesy of Dave E. Matson</p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<div class="separator" style="text-align:center"><iframe src="https://edwardtbabinski.us/related-content/related-content-19.html" style="margin-bottom:0em; margin-left:0em; margin-right:0em; height:400px; width:600px; border:0px"></iframe></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-505205186321877769.post-68835240788730203182012-03-31T16:16:00.002-07:002019-09-01T19:20:39.618-07:00Fossils<p><em>A general introduction to the history of fossil studies, religious apprehentions, how the fossil record and the field of paleontology were established.</em></p>
<p><img style="float: right;" src="https://edwardtbabinski.us/fossils/ammonoid_fossils.jpg" alt="17th century ammonoid fossils" border="0" /> <br />Figure 1.1 Seventeenth century illustration of ammonoid fossils (<em>Cornua ammonis</em>, or "snake stones") drawn by Robert Hooke, father of microscopy and paleontology in Britain, 1703).</p>
<blockquote>"In the mountains of Parma and Piacenza multitudes of rotten shells and corals are to be seen, still attached to the rocks... And if you were to say that such shells were created, and continued to be created in similar places by the nature of the site and of the heavens, which had some influence there --such an opinion is impossible for the brain capable of thinking, because the years of their growth can be counted on the shells, and both smaller and larger shells may be seen, which could not have grown without food, and could not have fed without motion, but there they could not move. <br />And if you wish to say that it was the Deluge which carried these shells hundreds of miles from the sea, that cannot have happened, since the Deluge was caused by rain, and rain naturally urges rivers on towards the sea, together with everything carried by them, and does not bear dead objects from sea shores toward the mountains. And if you would say that the waters of the Deluge afterwards rose above the mountains, the movement of the sea against the course of the rivers must have been so slow that it could not have floated up anything heavier than itself." <br />- Leonardo da Vinci, c. 1500</blockquote>
<p><strong>What is a Fossil?</strong> <br /> <br />We have been conditioned to connect fossils to extinct organisms, and difficult to imagine any other explanation. One definition that seems satisfactory, is "any evidence of prehistoric life". We are not only limited to direct evidence, but all indirect evidence. The state of preservation has little to do with determining whether an object is a true fossil. Dinosaur bones are direct evidence, however, many times indirect evidence are considered, such as preserved footprints in mud, fecal material (coprolites) and gastrolliths (pebbles which presumably aided in digestion), worm borings and chemical substances from prehistoric algae and bacteria, such chemicals fossils are products of metabolism and evidence of such nature, are all defined as <em>fossils</em>. <br /> <br />For understanding methods of natural fossilization, visit "<a href="http://paleontology.edwardtbabinski.us/becoming_a_fossil.html" target="_top">How A Living Organism Becomes a Fossil</a>".</p>
<p>The ancient Greeks believed giant mammoth remains to be remains of mythological giants while <em>mystified by seashells found hundreds of feet above sea level</em>. They wondered if the ocean once covered the land, or did these fossils form within rock like crystal. In the sixth century B.C. Xenophanes of Colophon discovered shells in a high cliff on the island of Malta, concluding perhaps the sea once covered land. The oldest known record of such belief, was by Xanthos of Sardis around 500 B.C. who believed fossils were remains from extinct animals entombed in rock. For 2000 years, the belief expressed by Aristotle (384 B.C.) remained influential, suggesting fish fossils were remains of sea animals that had swam into cracks of rocks and stranded.</p>
<p>From latter days of the Roman Empire, people believed in the literal six day creation and the worldwide flood of Genesis, casting confusion on the proper interpretation of fossils and rocks. Most individuals who lived during those times had limited knowledge about what lie at the bottom of the ocean. Many fossils share no resemblance to species familiar to Europeans. The <em>living chambered nautilus</em> was discovered in 1829, - Europeans could scarcely imagine coiled objects known as <em>Cornua ammonis</em> ("Horns of Ammon") (Figure 1.1), "serpent stones" -- and bullet shaped belemnites (Fig. 1.2.), were relatives of squid and octupus.</p>
<p><img style="float: right;" src="https://edwardtbabinski.us/fossils/belemnites_crinoid.gif" alt="belemnites" border="0" /> <br />Figure 1.2 Illustration by Conrad Gesner from 1565 of bullet-shaped belemnites and crinoid columnals. These organisms resembled no known species to Renaissance Europe, Gesner included. They were presumed to be a product of falling stars due to the starlike pattern in some of the crinoids.</p>
<p>Even today, people who chance to pick up one, often fail to recognize these cylindrical crinoid columnals as relatives to of the sea urchin. Few people have seen the rare crinoids which still dwell on the ocean floor. Scholars once referred to them as "star stones" (<em>Lapis stellaris</em> or <em>Astroites stellis</em>) believing the star-shaped pattern in the columnal and the radial pattern in fossilized coral to be a product of thunderbolts or falling stars.</p>
<p>The word fossil comes from the latin, <em>fossilis</em> meaning "dug up". Educated men during the Middle Ages and Renaissance began to make speculative interpretations of fossils. At first the word fossil was applied to any formation found in a rock, remains of organisms as well as non-organic crystals and concretions. Some believed those formations resembling living creatures were caused by animals who had been stranded in the rock and turned to stone. Others believed they were grown from seeds or washed in during Noah's flood. Other scholars believed they might be pranks of the Devil, for the purpose of destroying faith, while others presumed supernatural origin, (<em>lusus naturae</em>) or "figured stones" produced by mystical "plastic forces". These assumptions may seem strange today, but during the time they were sensible for people who held the widely shared belief in a literal Genesis and a 6,000 year old earth.</p>
<p>Around 1500, Leonardo da Vinci (1452-1519) acknowledged fossil shells in the Apennine Mountains of northern Italy, located far away from any coastline, represented ancient aquatic life. Unlike his colleagues, da Vinci knew it was unlikely they were washed there during Noah's flood, many of the shells being too fragile for such a journey, and impossible to have washed there by the Flood in forty days. Many of the shells were intact, and in a position which was not dissimilar to extant species living near the seashore, simply, they did not appear to be the product of transported organisms. Some of the shells beds were divided by layers of unfossiliferous strata, it did not appear to be a formation produced by a single devastating flood. Most of da Vinci's ideas remained unpublished, for they would not have been accepted at the time.</p>
<p>In 1565, the Swiss physician Conrad Gesner (1516-1565) authored "On the nature of fossils", <em>De rerum fossilium</em>. It was the first work that illustrated fossils. This, along with brief descriptions by earlier authors could be made more accurate. (Fig. 1.2). Gesner's publication were based on his own fossil collection, and those of colleagues which began the modern tradition of exchange, analysis and comparison. Correct in his comparisons of most fossils with living relatives, but Gesner concluded some items such as the crinoid columnals and belemnites were formed by mineral precipitation. Just as many of his contemporaries, Gesner interpreted from a supernatural perspective, Neoplatonic "ideal forms" and failed to explore the implications that are obvious to most of us today. <br />Through his publication, four main questions were raised:</p>
<ol>
<li>Are fossils organic remains?</li>
<li>How did they get into rock?</li>
<li>When did they get there, -when it was formed, or afterward?</li>
<li>How was it the creature became petrified?</li>
</ol>
<p>Answers to these questions were first offered by Niels Stensen, also known as Nicholaus Steno (1638-1686), a Dane physician. Living near the Apennine Mountains, Steno had the opportunity for a closeup firsthand look at the shells. In 1666, he dissected a large shark caught near Livorno. Upon inspection of the mouth of the shark, he saw that its teeth closely resembled fossils known as "tongue stones", latin <em>glossopetrae</em> which were previously considered petrified snake or dragon tongues. (Fig. 1.3) Steno now realized tongue stones were actually petrified remains of ancient shark teeth, and that fossils were a product of once-living organisms.</p>
<p><img style="float: right;" src="https://edwardtbabinski.us/fossils/tongue_stone_shark.gif" alt="tongue stones" border="0" /> <br />Figure 1.3 Illustration by Nicholaus Steno from 1669, showing "tongue stones" and their similarities with modern shark teeth.</p>
<p>Steno published <em>De solido intra solidum naturaliter contento dissertationis prodromus</em> in 1669, "Forerunner to a dissertation on a solid naturally contained within a solid". Steno's publication focused on <em>how</em> solid objects got inside solid objects. Steno theorized the enclosing sandstone must once have been loose sand, which was later petrified into sandstone, an idea which overturned the idea that rocks had been created during the first days of Creation and remained so, as we see them today. Steno's observations extended into further understanding of relative age of geological features, in other words Fossils encased in rock must be older than the rock which formed around them. However, crystals grow within the fabric of the rock, after the rock formed. Steno generalized the principles of superposition, original horizontality and continuity, fundamental principles in historical geology and stratigraphy. Just as the <em>Prodromus</em> was being published, Steno made a conversion to Catholicism forfeiting his interests in science, so the promised disseration never followed. Later, he returned to Denmark, where he lived until his death.</p>
<p>Around the same time of Steno's publication a British scientist, Robert Hooke (1635-1703) was coming to similar conclusions. Hooke was responsible for one of the first microscopes and the first sketches of microscopic organisms, including cellular structure, thus he became known as "the father of Microscopy". In 1665, Hooke made several observations, suggesting fossils might be a useful means to make chronological comparison of age in rocks [similar to coins aiding in accurately dating records in Rome], including the first accurate fossil drawings published posthumously in 1705 (Fig. 1.1). Hooke made the observation that many of the fossils had no living counterparts, therefore he speculated that species may have a fixed "life span". At the time, it was commonly believed the earth and all species had been created a mere 6,000 years before and all species still alive. What Hooke proposed was the first hint at the extinction of species.</p>
<p>Most of the ideas put forth by Steno and Hooke were rejected, until around a century later. Throughout the early 1700's, beliefs about fossils were still influenced heavily by Biblical tradition. In 1726, Swiss naturalist Johann Scheuchzer (1672-1733) described one particularly large fossil, "the bony skeleton of one of those infamous men whose sins brought upon the world the dire misfortune of the Deluge." Scheuchzer named it <em>Homo diluvii testis</em>, or "Man, a witness of the Flood". This early on, comparative anatomy was not advanced enough to make a clear distinction, and the fossil was later discovered to be a giant fossilized salamander. (Fig. 1.4).</p>
<p><img style="float: right;" src="https://edwardtbabinski.us/fossils/homo_diluvii_testis_fossil.jpg" alt="Homo Diluvii Testis" border="0" /> <br />Figure 1.4 <em>Homo diluvii testis</em> "Man, a witness of the flood", as Scheuchzer so named the fossil. Donald R. Prothero, "<em>Bringing Fossils to Life</em>", makes the following humorous observation, "Scheuchzer's anatomical skills were not up to his Biblical knowledge, since it is actually the fossil of a giant salamander."</p>
<p>Another sad event involved Dr. Johann Beringer (1667-1740), dean of the Wurzberg, Germany medical school. Fascinated with the "petrifications" that collectors had given to him, he composed a large monograph of the "figured stones". Some bore resemblance with frogs, shells and other natural objects, some with stars and other curious patterns. Colleagues whom Beringer had offended passed off the carved objects, but confessed the hoax too late to stop publication. He was ruined, and died spending his last pfennig attempting to buy back all the copies of the book.</p>
<p>By the mid eighteenth century, naturalistic fossil concepts prevailed. Linnaeus published the <em>Systema Naturae</em> in 1735, which classified all life including fossils, which were treated and named the same as extant species. At the dawn of the nineteeth century, Baron Georges Cuvier (1769-1832) made progress in the area of comparative anatomy, demonstrating how certain features; claws, sharp teeth, hooves and grinding teeth, were correlated. It is to Cuvier we owe the paleontological tradition to predict unknown anatomical structure, based on a comparison with anatomy of close relatives. Cuvier also showed how bones from mastodonts and mammoths were in actuality, an extinct elephant-like species and explorers had discovered no species like them. Cuvier became the founder of comparative anatomy and vertebrate paleontology, bringing the study of fossils away from much of the Biblical superstition previously overshadowing it. Prior to this time extinction was an unacceptable fact for it went against everything believed aobut the creation account in Genesis. For instance, as Donald Prothero states, "If God watched after the little sparrow, surely He would not allow any of his creatures to go extinct."</p>
<p>During the late eighteenth century, William Smith (1769-1839) an engineer from Britain, was surveying for canal excavations and made the observation that fossils reveal a pattern -each formation had different assemblage, as he wrote in 1796, "the wonderful order and regularity with which nature has disposed of these singular productions [fossils] and assigned each to its own class and peculiar Stratum." Smith became an expert at recognizing the fossils in each formation and correctly identifying the layers from which the specimens orginated. Smith used his knowledge of faunal succession in the first geological map, which was published in 1815. At the same time, Cuvier and a colleague Alexandre Brongniart were mapping the Paris Basin's strata. Though independently, these men realized there was a regular fossil succession, differing formation to formation. These discoveries eventually led to modern concepts of biostratigraphy, a means to explain earth's history.</p>
<p>By the time Darwin's <em>On the Origin of Species</em> was published in 1859, the understanding of fossil complexity had became so widely accepted among scholars, few took Noah's flood literally.</p>
<p><strong>REFERENCES</strong> <br /><img style="float: right;" src="https://edwardtbabinski.us/fossils/fossils.jpg" alt="Paleobiology" border="0" /><a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0073661708/edwartbabinth-20" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Bringing Fossils to Life, An Introduction to Paleobiology</a>, McGraw Hill Publishers, Donald R. Prothero</p>
<p><img src="https://edwardtbabinski.us/fossils/paleobotany.gif" alt="Paleobotany" border="0" /><a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0521382947/edwartbabinth-20" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Paleobotany and the Evolution of Plants</a>, by Cambridge University Press; 2 edition, Wilson N. Stewart, Gar W. Rothwell</p>
<p><img style="float: right;" src="https://edwardtbabinski.us/fossils/dinosaur.jpg" alt="Dinosaurs" border="0" /><a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0753452871/edwartbabinth-20" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Kingfisher Illustrated Dinosaur Encyclopedia</a>, Kingfisher Publishers, David Burnie</p>
<p><strong>FURTHER SUGGESTED READING</strong></p>
<p><a href="http://hometown.aol.com/afmayor/myhomepage/resume.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Adrienne Mayor's books</a> <br /> <br />1) The First Fossil Hunters (Princeton 2000) explains how ancient Greek and Roman discoveries of mysterious petrifed bones of extinct dinosaurs and mastodons led to myths about griffins, giants, and monsters. Watch for "Ancient Monster Hunters" on the History Channel. <br />2) Fossil Legends of the First Americans (Princeton 2005) gathers exciting Native American discoveries and myths about fossils, from tiny shells to enormous dinosaur bones, with stories from more than 45 different tribes, beginning with the Aztecs & Incas.</p>
<p>Stephen Meyer's article, "<a href="http://www.bibleandscience.com/science/dinosaurs.htm" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Are Dinosaurs Mentioned in the Bible?</a>"</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Edward T. Babinski wrote: "In 1726 [Prof. J.J. Scheuchzer] mistook the skull and vertebral column of a large salamander from the Miocene of Oeningen for the "betrübten Beingerüst eines alten Sünders" (sad bony remains of an old human sinner) and figured the specimen as "Homo diluvii testis" (the man who witnessed the Deluge).</p>
<p>SOURCE: Dirk Albert Hooijer, "<a href="http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0369-7827%281952%291%3A10%3C109%3AFAFIH%28%3E2.0.CO%3B2-J" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Fact and Fiction in Hippopotamology</a> (Sampling the History of Scientific Error)," Osiris, Vol. 10. (1952), pp. 109-116.</p>
<p><em>Funny comment about the above sentence</em>: Assertion, emphatic and immune to reason, might not be the best foundation for a new critical practice; but we also can’t tell our salamanders from sinners.</p>
</blockquote>
<div class="separator" style="text-align:center"><iframe src="https://edwardtbabinski.us/related-content/related-content-19.html" style="margin-bottom:0em; margin-left:0em; margin-right:0em; height:400px; width:600px; border:0px"></iframe></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-505205186321877769.post-9782266094829432562012-03-31T15:08:00.000-07:002019-09-01T19:20:24.439-07:00Two Short Poems on the Nature of Scientific Explanations and God and Science<p><strong>PARADOX</strong><br />by Clarence R. Wylie Jr.</p>
<p>Not truth, nor certainty. These I forswore<br />In my novitiate, as young men called<br />To holy orders must abjure the world.<br />'If...,then...,' this only I assert;<br />And my successes are but pretty chains<br />Linking twin doubts, for it is vain to ask<br />If what I postulate be justified,<br />Or what I prove possess the stamp of fact.</p>
<p>Yet bridges stand, and men no longer crawl<br />In two dimension. And such triumphs stem<br />In no small measure from the power this game,<br />Played with the thrice-attentuated shades<br />Of things, has over their originals.<br />How frail the wand, but how profound the spell!</p>
<hr style="width: 50%; height: 1px;" align="left" />
<p><strong>FEAR OF GOD</strong><br />by Ronnie J. Hastings, Ph.D. (1983)</p>
<p>Galileo was chided by the God-fearing for observing that the solar system is Copernican, not Ptolemaic.<br />And yet... the wanderers did and do move about the sun.</p>
<p>Newton was chided by the God-fearing for describing all motions with mathematics, not with divine will.<br />And yet...measurements in mechanics could and can be predicted with precision through calculation.</p>
<p>Lavoisier was chided by the God-fearing for explaining chemistry as quantative reactions, not as miracles or magic.<br />And yet...substances did and do appear and disappear with predictable regularity in labs everywhere.</p>
<p>Darwin was chided by the God-fearing for showing the diversity of life resulting from ecological factors and adaption to them, not from theistic interventions.<br />And yet...life had and has a single structure and has changed and does change forms in time.</p>
<p>Einstein was chided by the God-fearing for demonstrating the democracy of observers, not the absolute God's-eye view.<br />And yet...space and time have changed and do change from frame of reference to frame of reference, and the laws of nature have been and are the same for all frames.</p>
<p>Perhaps the God-fearing are right to fear God. If God is the source of reality, they have been fighting or ignoring God's facts for four hundred years!</p>
<div class="separator" style="text-align:center"><iframe src="https://edwardtbabinski.us/related-content/related-content-19.html" style="margin-bottom:0em; margin-left:0em; margin-right:0em; height:400px; width:600px; border:0px"></iframe></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-505205186321877769.post-51629302385462155002012-03-31T15:04:00.000-07:002019-09-01T19:20:10.841-07:00Michael Denton, is now an Evolutionist<p>Source: Nature's Destiny. From the impossibility of evolution to the inevitability of evolution: Anti-Evolutionst Michael Denton turns into an 'Evolutionist'. <a href="http://home.wxs.nl/~gkorthof/kortho29.htm" target="_blank" rel="noopener">A review by Gert Korthof</a> version 3.1b 23 May 2000</p>
<p>Quote from the book :<br />"It is important to emphasize at the outset that the argument presented here is entirely consistent with the basic naturalistic assumption of modern science - that the cosmos is a seamless unity which can be comprehended ultimately in its entirety by human reason and in which all phenomena, including life and evolution and the origin of man, are ultimately explicable in terms of natural processes. This is an assumption which is entirely opposed to that of the so-called "special creationist school". According to special creationism, living organisms are not natural forms, whose origin and design were built into the laws of nature from the beginning, but rather contingent forms analogous in essence to human artifacts, the result of a series of supernatural acts, involving the suspension of natural law. Contrary to the creationist position, the whole argument presented here is critically dependent on the presumption of the unbroken continuity of the organic world - that is, on the reality of organic evolution and on the presumption that all living organisms on earth are natural forms in the profoundest sense of the word, no less natural than salt crystals, atoms, waterfalls, or galaxies." (page xvii-xviii).</p>
<hr style="width: 50%; height: 1px;" align="left" />
<p>In Nature's Destiny Denton refers to Kaufmann(1) and deDuve(2), to show that, given the right initial conditions, the origin of life and evolution is inevitable.</p>
<p>Can we find crucial evidence in his book which converted him to evolution ? The key passage, I think, occurs in the paragraph "The Closeness of All Life in DNA Sequence Space" of CH 12 (p276). It must have been the key insight for Denton.<br />It reads:</p>
<p>"One of the most surprising discoveries which has arisen from DNA sequencing has been the remarkable finding that the genomes of all organisms are clustered very close together in a tiny region of DNA sequence space forming a tree of related sequences that can all be interconverted via a series of tiny incremental natural steps."</p>
<p>"So the sharp discontinuities, referred to above, between different organs and adaptations and different types of organisms, which have been the bedrock of antievolutionary arguments for the past century (3), have now greatly diminished at the DNA level. Organisms which seem very different at a morphological level can be very close together at the DNA level." [emphasis & note are mine]</p>
<p>Notes:</p>
<p>1. Stuart Kaufmann: At Home in the Universe (1995). It is instructive to compare what Phillip Johnson wrote about Stuart Kaufmann : "....and some plausible rescuers will invite the officers to take refuge in electronic lifeboats equipped with high-tech gear like autocatalytic sets and computer models of self-organizing systems." (p170, Darwin on Trial, 1993). It is clear that there is now a gap between Johnson and Denton(1998). The most important reason however is that Denton accepts the naturalistic assumption of science, which Johnson rejects. Michael Behe wrote a few 'words of praise' at the back cover of Nature's Destiny, Johnson is absent.</p>
<p>2. de Duve: Vital Dust(1995).</p>
<p>3. Including Denton(1986) himself ! He forgets to mention himself !</p>
<p>Even at the ARN website you can read about Denton and Paul Nelson (of the Discovery Institute) going at it on their way to a "Mere Creation" conference: First stop, who gets in but Paul Nelson. Paul and I have known each other. Then Thane Ury (Bethel College) gets in. We start talking and then son-of-a-gun Paul says, "There is Michael Denton"--I couldn't believe it. Lean 50-ish guy with a shock of white, close-cropped hair wearing a shirt that looks like the top for a pair of long underwear. I spent two weeks one summer vacation in Montana outlining various chapters from Evolution: A Theory in Crisis just to drive out the Darwinian poisons I imbibed from my mother's milk. The biggest shock was finding he is so engaging and approachable! He and Nelson started dukeing it out right away. It was fantastic. Here I was with a bad cold, barely holding on to my name tag, fortunate to have taken all the right turns thus far—and bango, the conference starts en route. Paul says "common ancestry is an assumption." Denton says, "the such-and-such goes down and around the something else and why doesn't it just go straight across?" And Paul says, "But how do you know that the down and around isn't optimal?" I remember that point. Then Denton says, "Yeah but when you have delivered as many babies as I have you notice things." He gestures downward with both hands cupped as though he is about to deliver one. He says "Right after they are born they go like this"--he then does a grasping motion with both hands raised. In my semi-fevered state I saw a new born hominid grasping its mothers' fur--right there in the van. He gave a name for the reflex [primate grasp] but even without it I could see that he knew a thing or two about how our kind and kin are born. The conversation in the van was not really a conversation. Denton started talking and gesturing in a very distinctive fashion. He makes his points by jabbing the air with his middle finger—quite unselfconsciously. Possibly this too is a primordial rhetorical reflex with an interesting aeteology. Denton proceeded to develop an evolutionary cosmology, the point of which is that there is abundant evidence for common descent and it is equally clear that evolution is directed and programmed. Indeed Denton affirmed two things—and this is apparently the thesis of his book now under contract at Simon & Schuster--that humankind literally is the point of creation and he is the end product of a divine design. Paul seemed to just let him go, but I sensed Paul was saving up for another time.</p>
<div class="separator" style="text-align:center"><iframe src="https://edwardtbabinski.us/related-content/related-content-19.html" style="margin-bottom:0em; margin-left:0em; margin-right:0em; height:400px; width:600px; border:0px"></iframe></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-505205186321877769.post-28272613875100482532012-03-31T14:41:00.018-07:002019-09-01T19:19:53.930-07:00Geological Eons, Eras, Periods and Epochs, and How Fossils Are Used<p><em>Chart of major geological eons, eras, periods, epochs and events. How fossils are used by scientists to determine its relationship with other specimens, with objective to un-ravel evolutionary patterns and origins.</em></p>
<p>Index fossils are sometimes used by Geologists to determine stratigraphic data about Earth's surface. This is true in the case of spores and pollen grains, the reproductive materials found in plants. By doing so provides the palyntologist means to determine relative age and position of rock, containing the spores. When studying drill cores, this kind of information can be useful to miners searching for fossil fuels.</p>
<p>Palynologists have used index fossils for practical applications, including understanding relationship between major groups of plants, specifically, <a href="http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761567325/Gymnosperm.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">gymnosperms</a> and <a href="http://www.mobot.org/MOBOT/research/APweb/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">angiosperms</a>.<br />
A good index fossil is considered to be one that is easily identifiable, with wide horizontal distribution, and vertical range of approximately one million years. Traditionally, due to scarcity and difficulty in identification, <a href="http://www.nps.gov/pefo/Paleontology/plantmegafossils.htm" target="_blank" rel="noopener">plant megafossils</a> were rarely used as index fossils. Though possessing wide geographical distribution in various sedimentary rocks, the vertical range spans millions of years. Assemblages of megafossils used as indices (or, indexes), accompanied by palynological information, scientists have been able to characterize restrictive stratigraphic units in rock units containing megafossils.</p>
<!-- Begin Geological Eras Table -->
<table style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;">
<tbody style="background-color: #ccc; color: #000; font-size: 11px;">
<tr>
<td style="width: 25;">
<p align="center"><strong>EON</strong></p>
</td>
<td style="width: 25;">
<p align="center"><strong>ERA</strong></p>
</td>
<td style="width: 100;" colspan="2">
<p align="center"><strong>PERIOD</strong></p>
</td>
<td style="width:75px">
<p align="center"><strong>EPOCH</strong></p>
</td>
<td colspan="2">
<p align="center"><strong>Characteristic</strong> organisms and major geological events</p>
</td>
<td style="width:75px">
<p align="center"><strong>Duration</strong> in millions of years</p>
</td>
<td style="width:75px">
<p align="center"><strong>Began</strong> (m.y.a.)</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="background-color: #ccc;" rowspan="32">
<p align="center"><img style="width: 25;" src="https://edwardtbabinski.us/fossils/geological_time_periods/phanerozoic.gif" alt="Phanerozoic Eon" align="bottom" border="0" /></p>
</td>
<td rowspan="7">
<p align="center"><strong>C<br />E<br />N<br />O<br />Z<br />O<br />I<br />C<br /><br />E<br />R<br />A</strong></p>
</td>
<td style="width: 150;" colspan="2" rowspan="2">
<p align="center">QUARTERNARY PERIOD</p>
<p align="center"><img style="width: 100;" src="https://edwardtbabinski.us/fossils/geological_time_periods/quarternary.gif" alt="Quarternary" align="bottom" border="0" /></p>
</td>
<td>
<p>HOLOCENE EPOCH</p>
</td>
<td colspan="2"><center><iframe style="border: none;" src="https://edwardtbabinski.us/fossils/geological_time_periods/holocene.html" width="200" height="125" frameborder="1" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" scrolling="yes" align="middle"></iframe></center></td>
<td>
<p>Last 5,000 years</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>0-10,000 years ago</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<p>PLEISTO-<br />CENE EPOCH</p>
</td>
<td colspan="2"><center><iframe style="border: none;" src="https://edwardtbabinski.us/fossils/geological_time_periods/pleistocene.html" width="200" height="125" frameborder="1" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" scrolling="yes" align="middle"></iframe></center></td>
<td>
<p>2.5 million years</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>10,000 to 1.6 million years ago</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td colspan="2" rowspan="5">
<p align="center">TERTIARY PERIOD</p>
<p align="center"><img style="width: 100;" src="https://edwardtbabinski.us/fossils/geological_time_periods/late_tertiary.gif" alt="Late Tertiary" align="bottom" border="0" /><br />Late Tertiary<br /> <img style="width: 100;" src="https://edwardtbabinski.us/fossils/geological_time_periods/mid_tertiary.gif" alt="Middle Tertiary" align="bottom" border="0" /><br /> Middle Tertiary<br /> <img style="width: 100;" src="https://edwardtbabinski.us/fossils/geological_time_periods/early_tertiary.gif" alt="Early Tertiary" align="bottom" border="0" /><br /> Early Tertiary<br /> <img style="width: 100;" src="https://edwardtbabinski.us/fossils/geological_time_periods/k-t-times.gif" alt="K T Times" align="bottom" border="0" /><br /> KT Times</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>PLIOCENE EPOCH</p>
</td>
<td colspan="2"><center><iframe style="border: none;" src="https://edwardtbabinski.us/fossils/geological_time_periods/pliocene.html" width="200" height="125" frameborder="1" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" scrolling="yes" align="middle"></iframe></center></td>
<td>
<p>4.5 million years</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>2.5-7 million years ago</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<p>MIOCENE EPOCH</p>
</td>
<td colspan="2"><center><iframe style="border: none;" src="https://edwardtbabinski.us/fossils/geological_time_periods/miocene.html" width="200" height="125" frameborder="1" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" scrolling="yes" align="middle"></iframe></center></td>
<td>
<p>19 million years</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>7-26 million years ago</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<p>OLIGOCENE EPOCH</p>
</td>
<td colspan="2"><center><iframe style="border: none;" src="https://edwardtbabinski.us/fossils/geological_time_periods/oligocene.html" width="200" height="125" frameborder="1" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" scrolling="yes" align="middle"></iframe></center></td>
<td>
<p>12 million years</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>26-38 million years ago</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<p>EOCENE EPOCH</p>
</td>
<td colspan="2"><center><iframe style="border: none;" src="https://edwardtbabinski.us/fossils/geological_time_periods/eocene.html" width="200" height="125" frameborder="1" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" scrolling="yes" align="middle"></iframe></center></td>
<td>
<p>16 million years duration</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>38-54 million years ago</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<p>PALEOCENE EPOCH</p>
</td>
<td colspan="2"><center><iframe style="border: none;" src="https://edwardtbabinski.us/fossils/geological_time_periods/paleocene.html" width="200" height="125" frameborder="1" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" scrolling="yes" align="middle"></iframe></center></td>
<td>
<p>11 million years duration</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>54-65 million years ago</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td rowspan="8">
<p align="center"><strong>M<br />E<br />S<br />O<br />Z<br />O<br />I<br />C<br /><br />E<br />R<br />A</strong></p>
</td>
<td colspan="2" rowspan="2">
<p align="center">CRETACEOUS PERIOD</p>
<p align="center"><img style="width: 100;" src="https://edwardtbabinski.us/fossils/geological_time_periods/later_cretaceous.gif" alt="Later Cretaceous" align="bottom" border="0" /><br /> Later Cretaceous<br /> <img style="width: 100;" src="https://edwardtbabinski.us/fossils/geological_time_periods/early_cretaceous.gif" alt="Early Cretaceous" align="bottom" border="0" /><br />Early Cretaceous</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>UPPER<br /> <em>Maastrichtian<br /> Campanian<br /> Santonian<br /> Coniacian<br /> Turonian<br /> Cenomanian</em></p>
</td>
<td rowspan="2"><center><iframe style="border: none;" src="https://edwardtbabinski.us/fossils/geological_time_periods/cretaceous.html" width="200" height="210" frameborder="1" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" scrolling="yes" align="middle"></iframe></center></td>
<td colspan="2" rowspan="2">
<p>76 million years duration</p>
</td>
<td rowspan="2">
<p>65-141 million years ago</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<p>LOWER<br /> <em>Albian<br /> Aptian<br /> Barremian<br /> Hauterivian<br /> Valanginian<br /> Berriasian</em></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td colspan="2" rowspan="3">
<p align="center">JURASSIC PERIOD</p>
<p align="center"><img style="width: 100;" src="https://edwardtbabinski.us/fossils/geological_time_periods/jurassic.gif" alt="Jurassic" align="bottom" border="0" /></p>
</td>
<td>
<p>UPPER<br /> <em>Tithonian<br /> Kimmeridgian<br /> Oxfordian</em></p>
</td>
<td rowspan="3"><center><iframe style="border: none;" src="https://edwardtbabinski.us/fossils/geological_time_periods/jurassic.html" width="200" height="220" frameborder="1" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" scrolling="yes" align="middle"></iframe></center></td>
<td colspan="2" rowspan="3">
<p>54 million years duration</p>
</td>
<td rowspan="3">
<p>141-195 million years ago</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<p>MIDDLE<br /> <em>Callovian<br /> Bathonian<br /> Bajocian<br /> Aalenian</em></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<p>LOWER<br /> <em>Toarcian<br /> Pliensbachian<br /> Sinemurian<br /> Hettangian</em></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td colspan="2" rowspan="3">
<p align="center">TRIASSIC PERIOD</p>
<p align="center"><img style="width: 100;" src="https://edwardtbabinski.us/fossils/geological_time_periods/triassic.gif" alt="Triassic" align="bottom" border="0" /></p>
</td>
<td>
<p>UPPER<br /> <em>Rhaetian<br /> Norian<br /> Carnian</em></p>
</td>
<td rowspan="3"><center><iframe style="border: none;" src="https://edwardtbabinski.us/fossils/geological_time_periods/triassic.html" width="200" height="175" frameborder="1" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" scrolling="yes" align="middle"></iframe></center></td>
<td colspan="2" rowspan="3">
<p>30 million years duration</p>
</td>
<td rowspan="3">
<p>208-245 million years ago</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<p>MIDDLE<br /> <em>Ladinian<br /> Anisian</em></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<p>LOWER (Scythian)<br /> <em>Olenekian<br /> Induan</em></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="background-color: #ccc;" rowspan="17">
<p align="center"><strong>P<br />A<br />L<br />E<br />O<br />Z<br />O<br />I<br />C<br /><br />E<br />R<br />A</strong></p>
</td>
<td colspan="2" rowspan="2">
<p align="center">PERMIAN PERIOD</p>
<p align="center"><img style="width: 100;" src="https://edwardtbabinski.us/fossils/geological_time_periods/permian.gif" alt="Permian" align="bottom" border="0" /></p>
</td>
<td>
<p>UPPER<br /> <em>Lopingian</em><br /> <span style="font-size: 8;">- Changhsingian<br /> - Wuchiapingian</span></p>
<hr style="color: white; height: 1; width: 100%;" />
<p>MIDDLE<br /> <em>Guadalupian</em><br /> <span style="font-size: 8;">- Capitanian<br /> - Wordian<br /> - Roadian</span></p>
</td>
<td rowspan="2"><center><iframe style="border: none;" src="https://edwardtbabinski.us/fossils/geological_time_periods/permian.html" width="200" height="200" frameborder="1" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" scrolling="yes" align="middle"></iframe></center></td>
<td colspan="2" rowspan="2">
<p>55 million years duration</p>
</td>
<td rowspan="2">
<p>245-280 million years ago</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<p>LOWER<br /> <em>Cisuralian</em><br /> <span style="font-size: 8;">- Kungurian<br /> - Artinskian<br /> - Sakmarian<br /> - Asselian</span></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td rowspan="5" valign="top">
<p align="center"><strong>C<br />A<br />R<br />B<br />O<br />N<br />I<br />F<br />E<br />R<br />O<br />U<br />S</strong></p>
</td>
<td rowspan="3">
<p align="center">PENNSYLVANIAN</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>UPPER<br /> <em>Kasimovian | Gzhelian</em></p>
</td>
<td rowspan="3"><center><iframe style="border: none;" src="https://edwardtbabinski.us/fossils/geological_time_periods/pennsylvanian.html" width="200" height="125" frameborder="1" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" scrolling="yes" align="middle"></iframe></center></td>
<td colspan="2" rowspan="3">
<p>45 million years duration</p>
</td>
<td rowspan="3">
<p>280-325 million years ago</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<p>MIDDLE<br /> <em>Moscovian</em></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<p>LOWER<br /> <em>Bashkirian</em></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="width: 150;" rowspan="2">
<p align="center">MISSISSIPPIAN</p>
<p align="center"><img style="width: 100;" src="https://edwardtbabinski.us/fossils/geological_time_periods/carboniferous.gif" alt="Carboniferous" align="bottom" border="0" /><br /><em>Carboniferous</em></p>
</td>
<td>UPPER<br /> <em>Serpukhovian</em><hr style="width: 100%; height: 1; color: white;" />MIDDLE<br /> <em>Vis?an</em></td>
<td rowspan="2"><center><iframe style="border: none;" src="https://edwardtbabinski.us/fossils/geological_time_periods/pennsylvanian.html" width="200" height="140" frameborder="1" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" scrolling="yes" align="middle"></iframe></center></td>
<td colspan="2" rowspan="2">
<p>20 million years duration</p>
</td>
<td rowspan="2">
<p>286-360 million years ago</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>LOWER<br /> <em>Tournaisian</em></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td colspan="2" rowspan="3">
<p align="center">DEVONIAN PERIOD</p>
<p align="center"><img style="width: 100;" src="https://edwardtbabinski.us/fossils/geological_time_periods/devonian.gif" alt="Devonian" align="bottom" border="0" /></p>
</td>
<td>
<p>UPPER<br /> <em>Fammenian | Fransnian</em></p>
</td>
<td rowspan="3"><center><iframe style="border: none;" src="https://edwardtbabinski.us/fossils/geological_time_periods/devonian.html" width="200" height="140" frameborder="1" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" scrolling="yes" align="middle"></iframe></center></td>
<td colspan="2" rowspan="3">
<p>50 million years duration</p>
</td>
<td rowspan="3">
<p>360-408 million years ago</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<p>MIDDLE<br /> <em>Givetian | Eifelian</em></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<p>LOWER<br /> <em>Praghian | Lockhovian</em></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td colspan="2" rowspan="2">
<p align="center">SILURIAN PERIOD</p>
<p align="center"><img style="width: 100;" src="https://edwardtbabinski.us/fossils/geological_time_periods/silurian.gif" alt="Ordovician" align="bottom" border="0" /></p>
</td>
<td>
<p>UPPER<br /> <em>Pridolian | Ludlovian</em></p>
</td>
<td rowspan="2"><center><iframe style="border: none;" src="https://edwardtbabinski.us/fossils/geological_time_periods/silurian.html" width="200" height="125" frameborder="1" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" scrolling="yes" align="middle"></iframe></center></td>
<td colspan="2" rowspan="2">
<p>40 million years duration</p>
</td>
<td rowspan="2">
<p>408-438 million years ago</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<p>LOWER<br /> <em>Wenlockian | Llandoverian</em></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td colspan="2" rowspan="2">
<p align="center">ORDOVICIAN PERIOD</p>
<p align="center"><img style="width: 100;" src="https://edwardtbabinski.us/fossils/geological_time_periods/ordovician.gif" alt="Ordovician" align="bottom" border="0" /></p>
</td>
<td>
<p>UPPER<br /> <em>Ashgillian | Caradocian</em></p>
<hr style="width: 100%; height: 1; color: white;" />
<p>MIDDLE<br /> <em>Llandeilian | Llanvirnian</em></p>
</td>
<td rowspan="2"><center><iframe style="border: none;" src="https://edwardtbabinski.us/fossils/geological_time_periods/ordovician.html" width="200" height="250" frameborder="1" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" scrolling="yes" align="middle"></iframe></center></td>
<td colspan="2" rowspan="2">
<p>65 million years duration</p>
</td>
<td rowspan="2">
<p>438-505 million years ago</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<p>LOWER<br /> <em>Arenigian | Tremadocian</em></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td colspan="2" rowspan="3">
<p align="center">CAMBRIAN PERIOD</p>
<p style="font-size: 10;" align="center"><img src="https://edwardtbabinski.us/fossils/geological_time_periods/late_cambrian.gif" alt="Late Cambrian" width="100" align="bottom" border="0" /><br /> Late Cambrian<br /> <img style="width: 100;" src="https://edwardtbabinski.us/fossils/geological_time_periods/early_cambrian.gif" alt="Early Cambrian" align="bottom" border="0" /><br /> Early Cambrian</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>UPPER<br /> <em>Furongian</em></p>
</td>
<td rowspan="3"><center><iframe style="border: none;" src="https://edwardtbabinski.us/fossils/geological_time_periods/cambrian.html" width="200" height="210" frameborder="1" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" scrolling="yes" align="middle"></iframe></center></td>
<td colspan="2" rowspan="3">
<p>70 million years duration</p>
</td>
<td rowspan="3">
<p>505-540 million years ago</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<p>MIDDLE<br /> * table below</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<p>LOWER<br /> * table below</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="width: 25;" rowspan="4">
<p align="center"><img style="width: 25;" src="https://edwardtbabinski.us/fossils/geological_time_periods/pre-cambrian.gif" alt="Pre Cambrian" align="bottom" border="0" /></p>
</td>
<td rowspan="2">
<p align="center"><strong>P<br />R<br />O<br />T<br />E<br />R<br />O<br />Z<br />O<br />I<br />C<br /><br />E<br />R<br />A</strong></p>
</td>
<td colspan="3">
<p align="center"><a href="https://edwardtbabinski.us/paleontologyvendian.html" target="_top">VENDIAN PERIOD</a></p>
<p align="center"><img style="width: 100;" src="https://edwardtbabinski.us/fossils/geological_time_periods/vendian.gif" alt="vendian" align="bottom" border="0" /></p>
</td>
<td><center><iframe style="border: none;" src="https://edwardtbabinski.us/fossils/geological_time_periods/vendian.html" width="200" height="150" frameborder="1" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" scrolling="yes" align="middle"></iframe></center></td>
<td colspan="2" rowspan="4">
<p>--</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>540-650 million years ago</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td colspan="3" rowspan="1">
<p align="center">PRE-VENDIAN PERIOD</p>
</td>
<td rowspan="1"><center><iframe style="border: none;" src="https://edwardtbabinski.us/fossils/geological_time_periods/pre-vendian.html" width="200" height="150" frameborder="1" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" scrolling="yes" align="middle"></iframe></center></td>
<td>
<p>650-2,500 million years ago</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td colspan="5">
<p>ARCHAEAN<br /> 3.8 to 2.5 billion years ago<br /> <a href="http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/precambrian/archaean.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The atmosphere of Earth</a> was very different from what we breathe today; at that time, it was likely a reducing atmosphere of methane, ammonia, and other toxic gases. During this time, the Earth's crust cooled enough that rocks and continental plates began to form. Early in the Archaean that life first appeared on Earth. Our oldest fossils date to roughly 3.5 billion years ago, and consist of bacteria microfossils. All life during the more than one billion years of the Archaean was bacterial, stromatolites, colonies of photosynthetic bacteria which have been found as fossils in Early Archaean rocks of South Africa and Western Australia. Stromatolites increased in abundance throughout the Archaean, but began to decline during the Proterozoic.</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>2,500-3800 million years ago</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td colspan="5">
<p>HADEAN<br /> 4.5 to 3.8 billion years ago<br /> <a href="http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/precambrian/hadean.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Hadean time</a> is not a geological period as such. During Hadean time, the Solar System was forming. Sometime during the first 800 million or so years of its history, the surface of the Earth changed from liquid to solid. Once solid rock formed on the Earth, its geological history began. This most likely happened prior to 3.8 billion years, but hard evidence for this is lacking. Erosion and plate tectonics has probably destroyed all of the solid rocks that were older than 3.8 billion years.</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>3,800-4,600 million years ago</p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<!-- End of Geological Eras -->
<blockquote>
<p>CAMBRIAN SUBDIVISIONS<br>
Cambrian is divided into three epochs ? the Early Cambrian (Lower Cambrian, Caerfai or Waucoban), Middle Cambrian (St Davids or Albertian) and Furongian (a.k.a. Late/Upper Cambrian, Merioneth or Croixan). Each of the epochs are divided into two faunal stages. Only one, Paibian has been recognized by the International Commission on Stratigraphy. Others are still unnamed. However, the Cambrian is divided into several regional faunal stages.<br>
Source: Answers.com - <a href="https://www.answers.com/topic/cambrian" target="_blank">Cambrian Subdivisions</a>
</blockquote>
<!-- Begin Cambrian Subdivisions Table -->
<table style="margin-left:auto;margin-right:auto">
<tbody style="background-color:#ccc;color:#000;font-size:11px">
<tr>
<th> </th>
<th>Chinese </th>
<th>North American </th>
<th>Russian-Kazakhian </th>
<th>Australian </th>
<th>Regional </th></tr>
<tr>
<th rowSpan="4">Furongian</th>
<td> </td>
<td>Ibexian</td>
<td>Ayusokkanian</td>
<td>Idamean</td>
<td>Dolgellian</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> </td>
<td>Sunwaptan</td>
<td>Sakian </td>
<td>Mindyallan </td>
<td>Festiniogian </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> </td>
<td>Steptoan </td>
<td>Aksayan </td>
<td>Payntonian </td>
<td>Maentwrogian </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> </td>
<td rowSpan=2>Marjuman </td>
<td>Batyrbayan </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th rowSpan=5>Middle Cambrian</th>
<td>Maozhangian </td>
<td>Mayan </td>
<td>Boomerangian </td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Zuzhuangian </td>
<td>Delamaran </td>
<td>Amgan </td>
<td>Undillian </td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Zhungxian</td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td>Florian</td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td>Templetonian</td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> </td>
<td rowSpan=2>Dyeran</td>
<td> </td>
<TD rowSpan=2>Ordian</td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th rowSpan=5>Early Cambrian</th>
<td>Longwangmioan</td>
<td>Toyonian</td>
<td>Lenian</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Changlangpuan</td>
<td>Montezuman</td>
<td>Botomian</td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Qungzusian</td>
<td> </td>
<td>Atdabanian</td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Meishuchuan</td>
<td> </td>
<td>Tommotian</td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td>Nemakit-Daldynian</td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
<!-- End Cambrian Sub-Divisions Table -->
<p>Extant organisms in their structure and distribution, reflect the composition of their environments. We assume extinct organisms also adapted to their environment in the same way. If this assumption is true, then it is possible to determine seasonal variations using growth rings from petrified wood, including paleo-environmental availability of water and temperature changes. Fossilized wood which reflects lack of growth rings, indicate a continuous supply of water and uniform temperature, just as thickened cuticles and sunken stomata of fossilized leaves indicate a lack of water, while roots and spongy stem tissue suggest a swampy or aquatic paleo-environment. With such information extracted from morphology and anatomy of fossil plants, provides in part, the basis for paleoecology and paleoclimatology. Further studies are taken into consideration, such as those on sedimentary materials which naturally occur with the fossils and, <a href="http://paleontology.edwardtbabinski.us/becoming_a_fossil.html" target="_top"><em>how</em> the fossil became preserved</a>, all play into better understanding the paleoenvironment. Specialists caution however, conclusions should never be based entirely upon extant organisms and how they interact with present environments. What we observe occuring today, is not necessarily the key to the past. (<em>Paleobotany and the Evolution of Plants</em>, Stewart and Rothwell, 1993; DiMichele & Wing, 1987.)</p>
<p><a href="http://www.springerlink.com/content/?k=Paleofloristic" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Paleofloristics</a>, which specializes in assemblages of fossil plants, provides insight into Earth's restricted and widescale climate. On the worldwide scale, such studies have provided scientists with insight into plate tectonics and continental drift. These studies can also provide further insight into plant distribution, population, migration and significant changes in early environments. Studies on succession of plants in the geological column have became popular among paleoecologists, and also useful in studies on extant organisms and plant successions in natural history.</p>
<p>Successional changes in organisms throughout natural history are the basis of studies related to the evolution of life. Most paleontologists focus more on relative stratigraphic positioning of fossils, than absolute ages. It remains more important to most in the field, to determine how a fossil relates to other specimen with objective to un-ravel evolutionary patterns and origins.</p>
<p><strong>REFERENCES</strong> <br /><img src="https://edwardtbabinski.us/fossils/fossils.jpg" alt="" border="0" /><a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0073661708/edwartbabinth-20" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Bringing Fossils to Life, An Introduction to Paleobiology</a>, McGraw Hill Publishers, Donald R. Prothero</p>
<p><img src="https://edwardtbabinski.us/fossils/paleobotany.gif" alt="Paleobotany" border="0" /><a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0521382947/edwartbabinth-20" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Paleobotany and the Evolution of Plants</a>, by Cambridge University Press; 2 edition, Wilson N. Stewart, Gar W. Rothwell</p>
<p><img src="https://edwardtbabinski.us/fossils/prehistoric_world.gif" alt="Prehistoric World" border="0" /><a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1563318296/edwartbabinth-20" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Atlas of the Prehistoric World</a>, by Discovery Channel Books, Douglas Palmer</p>
<p><img src="https://edwardtbabinski.us/fossils/dinosaur.jpg" alt="" border="0" /><a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0753452871/edwartbabinth-20" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Kingfisher Illustrated Dinosaur Encyclopedia</a>, Kingfisher Publishers, David Burnie</p>
<p><strong>FURTHER SUGGESTED READING</strong><br />
<a href="http://hometown.aol.com/afmayor/myhomepage/resume.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Adrienne Mayor's books</a><br />
1) The First Fossil Hunters (Princeton 2000) explains how ancient Greek and Roman discoveries of mysterious petrifed bones of extinct dinosaurs and mastodons led to myths about griffins, giants, and monsters. Watch for "Ancient Monster Hunters" on the History Channel.<br />
2) Fossil Legends of the First Americans (Princeton 2005) gathers exciting Native American discoveries and myths about fossils, from tiny shells to enormous dinosaur bones, with stories from more than 45 different tribes, beginning with the Aztecs & Incas.</p>
<p>Stephen Meyer's article, "<a href="http://www.bibleandscience.com/science/dinosaurs.htm" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Are Dinosaurs Mentioned in the Bible?</a>"</p>
<div class="separator" style="text-align:center"><iframe src="https://edwardtbabinski.us/related-content/related-content-19.html" style="margin-bottom:0em; margin-left:0em; margin-right:0em; height:400px; width:600px; border:0px"></iframe></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-505205186321877769.post-72544733083980489872012-03-31T14:36:00.000-07:002019-09-01T19:19:31.955-07:00Response to 'Darwinism and the Nazi Race Holocaust'<p>Someone sent me the web address of an article at the Answers In Genesis site by Jerry Bergman, titled, "Darwinism and the Nazi race Holocaust," and I composed a reply:</p>
<p>BERGMAN (author of "Darwinism and the Nazi race Holocaust" and the Answers in Genesis website): Hitler's government relied heavily upon Darwinism, especially the elaborations by Spencer and Haeckel.</p>
<p>ED: Note the admission, "...especially the elaborations of Spencer and Haeckel." It's the "elaborations" of others, rightly or wrongly that most influenced Hitler, this becomes even clearer below, concerning various "Nazi scientists" listed below and their prejudicial modes of thinking that preceded their eugenics theories concerning "the Jews."</p>
<hr style="width: 25%; height: 1px;" align="left" />
<p>BERGMAN: The Nazis relied heavily upon the work of Hans F.K. Günther, professor of 'racial science' at the University of Jena</p>
<p>ED: Note the admission, "relied heavily upon the work of Hans F. K. Günther," whose "work" consisted of "proving" the "inferiority of the Jews." Why "the Jews" you ask? Because Günther and many other Germans "knew" that the "Jews" were inferior long before Günther ever did his first "racial science" experiment (sic). In fact, many Germans believed that "Jews" were inferior for CENTURIES, because the Bible and Martin Luther told them so. So really, what DOES the Holocaust come down to? Günther's "racial science," a Jew-hating pseudoscience, based firmly on centuries of Jew-baiting and Jew-hating under the Christian cross.</p>
<hr style="width: 25%; height: 1px;" align="left" />
<p>BERGMAN: Poliakov notes that many intellectuals in the early 1900s accepted telegony, the idea that 'bad blood' would contaminate a race line forever, or that 'bad blood drives out good' , just as bad money displaces good money. Only extermination would permanently eliminate inferior genetic lines, and thereby further evolution. . Darwin even compiled a long list of cases where he concluded bad blood polluted a whole gene line, causing it to bear impure progeny forever.</p>
<p>ED: This idea of "telegony" does not necessarily warrant "extermination" in the sense of killing people, just sterilization. I also wonder whether Darwin ever mentioned the words "bad blood" and spoke about it "polluting" a whole gene line. He probably did collect examples in which a pedigreed dog or pigeon was bred with a wild type and the children of that offspring no longer bore pedigreed offspring. But so what? Does that mean build ovens and kill Jews, homosexuals, Poles, and Gypsies? Darwin did invent a theory of inheritance that involved gemmules carried in the blood that carried physically inherited information, but it was disproven long ago. Nobody believes Darwin's theory of inheritance any more.</p>
<hr style="width: 25%; height: 1px;" align="left" />
<p>BERGMAN: Hitler believed that Blacks were "monstrosities halfway between man and ape"</p>
<p>ED: More of Günther's "racial science" at work? Bergman does not say. But the prejudiced idea of Black's being mere savages goes back BEFORE Darwin's day. The Europeans at that time looked down upon the Blacks in Africa and Indians in the Americas for not advancing technologically as fast as they had. The Europeans had guns and steel. The Blacks still had only spears. It proves nothing of course, except that races that develop technology tend to regard the less technologically advanced races with derision, and probably underestimate their capabilities. (Imagine how advanced beings in passing UFOs feel about everyone on our planet?) As for Blacks having a "mundane genetic character" that made them prone to being enslaved, see the "Biblical views" of the president of the Institute of Creation Research in America, found at the very end of this e-mail.</p>
<hr style="width: 25%; height: 1px;" align="left" />
<p>BERGMAN: Relatively few scientific studies exist which directly deal with Darwinism and Nazism</p>
<p>ED: Those wouldn't be "scientific" studies, those would be historical studies.</p>
<hr style="width: 25%; height: 1px;" align="left" />
<p>BERGMAN: . and many evolutionists avoid the subject because evolution is inescapably selectionist.</p>
<p>ED: The word "selectionist" by itself means nothing. Bergman is just straining like the devil to connect everything the involves "Hitlerian, Güntherian, genocidal" selection with Darwin's theory of "natural selection" - a theory that in the biological realm, even some creationists accede to, especially the ones who admit that microevolution occurs.</p>
<hr style="width: 25%; height: 1px;" align="left" />
<p>BERGMAN: One of the best reviews of Darwinism and Nazism documents clearly that Nazism felt confident that their programs of extermination was firmly based on evolution science.</p>
<p>ED: Just because someone is "confident" their beliefs are "based" on something does not mean it is. It merely tells us how "confident" that person was in their belief that it was. So believing one's views are "based on science" doesn't make it so. What was Nazi "racial science" really based on? Perhaps centuries of prejudiced racism? It was also based on "science" prior to the human genome project discovery that all human beings are, genomically-speaking, almost "identical twins" and that the notion of "races" is obsolete. But scientists knew that even BEFORE the human genome project which merely reinforced what they had already discovered via other types of experiments. Speaking of being "based on science," there are still Christian groups who espouse racism and who believe their views are "based on science, or at least on what they claimed was common sense," as did the Christian whites in South Africa, as did Christian slaveholders in the South of the U.S. (As I've pointed out, South Africa was a heavily Protestant Christian nation, that gave more money for missions per capita than even America, and that was during the time of their practice of apartheid, when it was also illegal to teach evolution in schools, nor did they allow the broadcast of any of Sagan's COSMOS programs that dealt with evolution. So, creationism and Christianity in South Africa went hand in hand with apartheid.) And speaking of the idea of "things being firmly based upon" other things, what about all the crazy ideas that one Christian group or another affirms are "firmly based" on the 'Bible," and which another Christian group rejects, though both claim "the Bible" is the "basis" for all their beliefs? And the fact that such disputes have ended in excommunications, riots, murders and wars? Based on the Bible, Early American Puritans were convinced that if the native Americans would not convert, then they should be destroyed like the Canaanites, without mercy, man, woman and child. Need some quotations on that? I've got references. Might make a nice article at the Answers in Genesis site, "Christianity, the Bible, and the Native American Holocaust."</p>
<hr style="width: 25%; height: 1px;" align="left" />
<p>BERGMAN: An assessment by Youngson concluded that the application of Darwinism to society, called eugenics, produced one of the most tragic scientific blunders of all time: "The culmination of this darker side of eugenics was, of course, Adolf Hitler's attempt to produce a 'master race' by encouraging mating between pure 'Aryans' and by the murder of six million people whom he claimed to have inferior genes. It is hardly fair to Galton to blame him for the Holocaust or even for his failure to anticipate the consequences of his advocacy of the matter. But he was certainly the principal architect of eugenics, and Hitler was certainly obsessed with the idea. So, in terms of its consequences, this must qualify as one of the greatest scientific blunders of all time."</p>
<p>ED: Taken from a book titled Scientific Blunders; A Brief History of How Wrong Scientists Can Sometimes Be. No doubt the authors of a book about "science's" greatest blunders are going to play up the "science" aspect behind such blunders and ignore the centuries of religious intolerance and cultural egotism that preceded such blunders. Not to mention the charismatic ideologue, Hitler, and his ideological mass movement that carried out the exterminations proposed by their "leader." I'd say; the Holocaust was a typical case of an alpha male leading his pack of gorillas. And that perhaps a lot of Christians today are being "primed" by their ideology which teaches them to bow down to a holy book or leader, to bow down to the next charismatic leader who comes along and is able to feign both "Christianity" and "science" in the name of some obviously prejudicially based plan which he assures us will "save the world," and thereby wreck it.</p>
<p>Speaking of pseudoscience that is not based on Darwinism, but on a prominent creationist's reading of the Bible check out the following:</p>
<p>HENRY MORRIS OF THE INSTITUTE FOR CREATION RESEARCH, AND THE QUESTION OF "genetic CHARACTER."</p>
<p>From Henry M. Morris, The Genesis Record: A Scientific and Devotional Commentary on the Book of Beginnings, Creation-Life Publishes, San Diego, 1976, I quote this passage: "Sometimes the Hamites, especially the Negroes, have even become actual slaves to the others. Possessed of a genetic character concerned mainly with mundane, practical matters, they have often eventually been displaced by the intellectual and philosophical acumen of the Japhethites and the religious zeal of the Semites." There is no scientific evidence for any "genetic character" basis for a disposition to "the mundane" (nor for a "genetic character" for a disposition to "philosophy or religion") in certain peoples, and no biblical basis for assuming that a general distinction of this kind is genetic either. The notion of a genetic disposition to the mundane in certain populations is an utter fabrication. But it suits Morris' view of the Biblically prophetic curse of one of Noah's three sons, which he sees as thereby being fulfilled because he has interpreted it as being fulfilled, via his fallacy of a "genetic character toward the mundane" for an entire group of people.</p>
<p>ENDNOTE: Morris is careful to avoid the word "race," but instead speaks of "genetic character": "Note that these three streams of nations are not three 'races.' Though some have thought of the Semites, Japhethites, and Hamites as three races (say, the dusky, the white, and the black races or the Mongoloid, Caucasian, and Negroid), this is not what the Bible teaches, nor is it what modern anthropology and human genetics teach. There are dusky and black people found among all three groups of nations. The Bible does not use the word 'race' nor does it acknowledge such a concept. The modern concept of 'race' is based on evolutionary thinking. To the evolutionist, a race is a subspecies in the process of evolving into a new species, and this idea is the basis of modern racism . "</p>
<p>This passage by Morris again demonstrates no knowledge of modern anthropology and genetics which are integral to modern evolution, and which teach that the notion of "race" has indeed become vacuous. But not because the Bible told them so.</p>
<div class="separator" style="text-align:center"><iframe src="https://edwardtbabinski.us/related-content/related-content-19.html" style="margin-bottom:0em; margin-left:0em; margin-right:0em; height:400px; width:600px; border:0px"></iframe></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-505205186321877769.post-173509494775707142012-03-31T12:40:00.000-07:002019-09-01T19:19:11.926-07:00Are miracles more falsifiable than neo-darwinism?<p>"Darwinian evolution is not falsifiable", because "if the Darwinian mechanism of natural selection of random mutations fails to make any adaptive change after millions of years, Darwinists like Mayr protect their theory from falsification by claiming that the "proper" mutations never occurred in order that natural selection could make use of them (Moorhead & Kaplan 1967, pp.63-64)".</p>
<p>ED: Are miracles more falsifiable than neo-darwinism? So what exactly have you gained with your argument above? Indeed, I don't see the point of arguing against neo-darwinistic investigations in favor of miracles -- as if one could find the points at which God stuck his finger into the genome and fiddled with this or that mutation, and distinguish such divine finger pushing from mutations that simply came about naturally. You DO believe that we have evidence of mutations that occur naturally, don't you? Do you also agree that the genomic distance between the human genome and that of the COMMON ANCESTOR of chimp and man, was perhaps half the genomic distance as that between man and chimp currently? And do you further agree that the known NATURAL MUTATION RATES as measured via differences in the non-functional homologous regions of the human and chimp genomes (and as cataloged during meiosis) are HIGHER than the rate of MUTATIONS that are NECESSARY to change the COMMON ANCESTOR into both chimps and humans? Ipso facto, the burden of proof lies on the side of the folks who think it was a miracle. They have to SHOW GOD'S FINGER MOVING THE EXACTLY MUTATIONS INTO PLACE, because scientists already know that THE MUTATION RATE IS HIGH ENOUGH AND THE TIME IS LONG ENOUGH TO CHANGE A COMMON ANCESTOR OF MAN AND CHIMPS INTO BOTH MAN AND CHIMPS.</p>
<p>It's like Newton and the question of the movement of the planets: People wanted to believe God's finger/God's angels moved the planets, but their movements were found to be mappable based on mathematical equations. That didn't disprove that angels moved the planets, and indeed, Newton himself allowed that minor perturbations in their orbits could be "fixed" by the direct hand of God from time to time. But in the end nothing came of that "direct hand of God" theory as physics advanced further in understanding even minor perturbations.</p>
<p>I also showed in my post that minor ADAPTATIONS DO continue to occur even in species allegedly "identical" to their distant ancestors, as evidenced by comparing ancient fossilized species and modern versions of them. The minor differences are there to be found. I also showed that instead of stasis, evidence of large scale adaptations can also be found, including species growing INCREASINGLY more adapted, via STEPS, from say the land mammals to primitive whales to modern day whales. Or from feathered reptiles to less well adapted flying reptiles to modern day birds. Some forms apparently don't remain primitive for long, there seems to be some instability while in the primitve stages and they either adapt further or grow extinct, like primitive feathered reptiles, primitve whales, and hominids, which all went extinct on the way, respectively, to modern birds, modern whales and man. While most other forms remain stable for long periods, like bacteria, jellyfish, flowering plants, coelocanths, monkeys, apes. But even the most stable forms arose as part of an ORDERLY evolution-like trajectory over time, from single cells to multicellular organisms from monkeys to primitive apes to hominids to man, etc.</p>
<div class="separator" style="text-align:center"><iframe src="https://edwardtbabinski.us/related-content/related-content-19.html" style="margin-bottom:0em; margin-left:0em; margin-right:0em; height:400px; width:600px; border:0px"></iframe></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-505205186321877769.post-11104145749895794292012-03-31T12:21:00.014-07:002019-09-01T19:18:56.402-07:00Canadian Rockies: A Geologist's Paradise, National Geographic, June 1911<p><em>Charles D. Wolcott, secretary of the Smithsonian visits the Canadian Rockies. A look back to 1911, when science was first discovering the vast age of the earth, rich fossil record, and paleontology was still in its infancy.</em></p>
<p><img style="float: right;" src="https://edwardtbabinski.us/fossils/1911_national_geographic.jpg" alt="National Geographic, June 1911" width="200" border="0" /></p>
<p>NATURE has a habit of placing some of her most attractive treasures in places where the average man hesitates to look for them. Twenty-five years ago rumors came of a wonderful find of glaciers, forests, mountain peaks, and lakes along the line of the rugged pass through which the Canadian Pacific Railway was building.</p>
<p>A geological reconnaissance by Sir George M. Dawson, of the Canadian Geological Survey,outlined some of the broader geological features, and a somewhat closer study by Mr. R.G. McConnell in 1886 resulted in a more accurate description of the thousands of feet in thickness of sandstone, shale, and limestone that had been arched and broken before being dissected and laid to view by the agents of erosion which formed the canyons, cliffs, and mountains by removing grain by gain or by chemical solution the material that formerly occupied or surrounded them.</p>
<p>A young American, Walter Wilcox, taking his surveying instruments and camera, spent summer after summer sketching maps and photographing the scenery, and in 1869 he published the first of several beautiful volumes on "Camping in the Canadian Rockies." Later, with the development of the Kodak, thousands of pictures were taken by tourists who had little thought of the geological treasures lying all about.</p>
<p>The study of the glaciers was begun early by an American, George Vaux, of Philadelphia, assisted by his sister Mary, and later an expedition sent out by the Smithsonian Institution under the leadership of William H. Sherzer, of the University of Michigan, resulted in the publication in 1907 of a memoir describing and illustrating many of the glaciers.</p>
<p>During the past three years an expedition from the Smithsonian has been making an examination of the four miles or more in thickness of bedded rocks forming the main range of the Rocky Mountains that has been pushed eastward by the great mass of the Selkirk ranges to the west. It is a curious and instructive feature of the geology that the strata of the Rockies, although crowded eastward and thrust out over the later rocks of the plains of Alberta, have not suffered nearly as much dislocation, injury, and alteration as the apparently more massive bedded rocks of the Selkirks. The latter are crumpled, broken, and altered in about the same manner as large blocks of brittle paper would be if subjected to side pressure in a hydraulic press.</p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><img style="display: block; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" src="https://edwardtbabinski.us/fossils/camp_contentment.jpg" alt="Camp Contentment" width="500" border="0" /> <br />Camp Contentment Meadow, Above Lake O' Hara, At Foot of Mount Schaeffer <br />Photo by Charles D. Walcott</p>
<p>MOUNTAIN-BUILDING ON A GRAND SCALE <br />The study of the arched block of strata 16,000 feet or more in thickness from which the picturesque and impressive mountains and canyons have been carved has resulted in the discovery that the rocks in which the great Bow Valley is excavated form a part of the North American continental beds that were deposited in great fresh-water lakes before the waters of the ocean swept over the continent and began their task of depositing the 12,000 feet or more in thickness of rocks of Cambrian age that now contain the remains of the marine life of that period.</p>
<p>As the study of the formations developed it was found that in the eastward thrusting of the rocks massive limestones were often crushed and ground into fragments; in other places the thinner beds for 100 feet or more would be folded and crumbled between huge masses of even-bedded limestones that showed no traces of disturbance. In other places a series of beds, 1000 feet or more in thickness, met some obstacle which they could not crush or surmount, and were driven upward at almost right angles, forming series of sharp, ragged ridges. On the east side of the Lower Yoho Valley the limestones of Mount Ogden are lying nearly level, but on the eastern slope above Sherbrooke Lake Canyon the same beds are turned down at right angels and disappear beneath the canyon bottom. Everywhere the keen eye of the geologist will find evidence of mountain-building on a grand scale.</p>
<p>The panoramic photograph, taken by the author from Burgess Pass, 3,000 feet above Field, and published as a Supplement to this number of the <em>NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC MAGAZINE</em>, shows at a glance over 9,000 feet in thickness of bedded rocks, 6,000 feet of it in an almost sheer cliff in the mass of Mount Stephen. Many thousand feet more may be seen to the westward in Mount Denis and in Mount Vaux. From Mount Stephen the eye follows to the left across the great canyon of the Kicking Horse River to the summit of Mount Field, two miles away, where the same limestone and shale beds carrying the same fossils indicate that thousands of feet in thickness and many millions cubic yards of hard rock have been removed by erosion from between the two mountains, Stephen and Field. From Mount Field a gentle slope carries the same beds northward through Mount Wapta, where they undulate across the President Range and plunge to the westward beneath the corrugated and more readily broken Ordovician rocks of the Van Horne Range.</p>
<p>EARLY MARINE LIFE <br />All of the Cambrian rocks were deposited in waters teeming with marine invertebrate life. As far as now known, this was before the day of fish or of any other vertebrate animal; land plants and even marine vegetable life were almost unrepresented. Other animals of the sea, however, existed in great profusion, and here and there conditions were so favorable for their burial in the mud and sand of the Cambrian sea that they were preserved unbroken, and throughout all the processes of rock-making and mountain building they have escaped destruction.</p>
<p>In one of these favorable places the most delicate of organisms, like the jellyfish, have been exquisitely preserved and we have crustaceans of many varieties. Among these many preserve the most delicate branchiæ and appendages, and one can hardly realize that they were buried in the mud 15 to 20 million years ago and have remained undisturbed while several miles of thickness of sediment were deposited over them, changed into rock, elevated into mountain masses, and later eroded into the present mountains and canyons.</p>
<p>We have long considered that the trilobite (page 516) was the most highly developed animal in the Cambrian time, but last summer a crustacean was found by the author in the fossil bed near Mount Wapta that was the king of the animal world in its day (page 517). That it was prepared to asset its right to the control of the Cambrian sea is shown by the claws with which it was armed.</p>
<p>To the geologist interested in the volcanic rocks a great field is waiting in the Selkirks to the west, and for generations to come there will be unsolved problems for the special student in this great region of mountains, glaciers, and rivers.</p>
<p>SUMMARY OF GEOLOGIC FORMATIONS <br />In the long panoramic view the rocks seen in the distance, forming Mount Balfour, belong to the Sherbrooke formation of the Upper Cambrian, or the most recent rocks of the Cambrian section. Beginning with these and going downward, the following formations are passed through: <br />UPPER CAMBRIAN</p>
<ul>
<li>Sherbrooke formation (mainly limestones) 1,375 feet</li>
<li>Paget formation (limestones and shales) 360 feet</li>
<li>Bosworth formation (limestone and shale) 1,855+ <br /><strong>Total Upper Cambrian</strong> 3,590+</li>
</ul>
<p style="text-align: center;"><img style="display: block; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" src="https://edwardtbabinski.us/fossils/lake_o_hara.jpg" alt="Lake O'Hara" width="500" border="0" /> <br />Lake O'Hara (6,664 Feet) Rests In A Bowl In The Mountains <br />From the lake to the top of Mount Lefroy 4,000 feet of Cambrian strata are seen in one unbroken section. <br />Photo by Charles D. Walcott</p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><img style="display: block; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" src="https://edwardtbabinski.us/fossils/president_range.jpg" alt="President Range" width="500" border="0" /> <br />View Of The President Range From A Point On The Trail On The West Slope Of Mount Wapta, 3½ Miles In An Air Line North Of Field, On The Canadian Pacific Railway, British Columbia, Canada <br />This view shows Emerald Glacier after a light snow-storm has whitened the ice. Note particularly the two lateral moraines formed of broken-up light gray limestone (see page 520). <br />Photo by Charles D. Walcott</p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><img style="display: block; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" src="https://edwardtbabinski.us/fossils/burgess_trail.jpg" alt="Burgess Trail" width="500" border="0" /> <br />Waiting On The Burgess Trail Under Mount Wapta <br />Photo by Charles D. Walcott</p>
<p>MIDDLE CAMBRIAN</p>
<ul>
<li>Eldon formation (siliceous and arenaceceus limestones) 2,700 to 2,800 <br />This is the formation that caps Mount Stephen and may of the higher mountains.</li>
<li>Stephen formation (limestones and shale) 620</li>
<li>Cathedral formation (arenaceous limestones) 1,543 <br /><strong>Total Middle Cambrian</strong> 4,963</li>
</ul>
<p>LOWER CAMBRIAN</p>
<ul>
<li>Mount Whyte formation (limestones and sandstones) 390</li>
<li>Saint Piratt formation (sandy shales and sandstones) 2,705</li>
<li>Lake Louise formation (siliceous shale) 105</li>
<li>Fairview formation (sandstones) 1,324 <br /><strong>Total Lower Cambrian</strong> 4,524</li>
</ul>
<p>SUMMARY <br />Upper Cambrian 3,590+ <br />Middle Cambrian 3,963 <br />Lower Cambrian 4,524 <br />Total thickness of Cambrian section 13,077+</p>
<p>Beneath the old Cambrian sea-beach now forming the base of the Fairview formation there is a great series of sandstones and sandy shales of quite a different character. These rocks formed the land area which was submerged by the Cambrian sea that wore them away more or less in its advance over the continent.</p>
<p>These older rocks are supposed, owing to their character and the absence of marine fossils, to have been deposited in fresh water. They are referred to a series called Algonkian, and are divided into two formations:</p>
<ul>
<li>Hector formation (sandstones and shales-gray, black, greenish, purple in color)... total thickness.. 1,302</li>
<li>Corral Creek formation (sandstones)...1,320</li>
</ul>
<p>THE WASTING AWAY OF THE MOUNTAINS <br />The breaking down of the mountain summits by the action of rain, frost, and ice, so as to form strong pyramids and ridges, is constantly going on. This is well shown by the photograph of Mount Huber, on page 518.</p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><img style="display: block; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" src="https://edwardtbabinski.us/fossils/7000_above_sea_level.jpg" alt="7000 Feet Above Sea Level" width="500" border="0" /> <br />A Cool September Morning At 7,000 Feet Above Sea-Level <br />Photo by Charles D. Walcott</p>
<p>An illustration of a long summit ridge is given by Mount Daly, where every summr storm leaves a fresh coating of snow. I well recall stepping off that limestone onto the snow, thinking it hard and secure, and dropping in up to my armpits within a few feet of the rock. We were glad to paddle our way back and follow the rocky ridge for miles around to get back to camp.</p>
<p>Some of the deep canyons were filled up for 1,000 feet or more by dirt, gravel and boulders washed down from the sides of the mountains, probably during the great Glacial period. Upon the withdrawal of the ice this accumulated material was rapidly cut away, but occasionally masses of it are left high on the sides of a mountain, and often most fantastic forms result from its erosion where the finer beds of gravel and clay are hardened and protected above by blocks of sandstone and limestone. One of the most noteworthy examples is that of the so-called Hoodoos, on the slope of Mount Vaux, 18 miles west of Field.</p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><img style="display: block; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" src="https://edwardtbabinski.us/fossils/trilobite_marine_fossils.jpg" alt="Trilobite Fossils" width="500" border="0" /> <br />Fragments Of A Colony Of Marine Animals On A Slab Of Black Rock, With Many Trilobites (Dark) And Shells Of The Sidney Crab (Light), Whose Claws Are Shown On Page 517 <br />These creatures and other animals, like the delicate jelly-fish, have been preserved many millions of years while sediment several miles deep was deposited over them (see page 511). <br />Photo by Thomas W. Smillie</p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><img style="display: block; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" src="https://edwardtbabinski.us/fossils/king_of_cambrian_world.jpg" alt="Middle Cambrian Crustacean" width="500" border="0" /> <br />The King Of The Animal World 15 Million Years Ago; Discovered By Mr. W. Alcott <br />The Spiny claws of the Middle Cambrian crustacean (<em>Sidneyia inexpectans</em>), shown as a light patch in the center of the figure on page 516 (see page 511).</p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><img style="display: block; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" src="https://edwardtbabinski.us/fossils/mt_huber_cambrian_erosion.jpg" alt="Mt. Huber Cambrian Erosion" width="500" border="0" /> <br />View Of Mount Huber, Showing The Erosion Of The Massive Cambrian Limestones Above The Quartite Sandstones <br />View taken from a low ridge of Lake O'Hara, six miles south of Hector, on the Canadian Pacific Railway, British Columbia, Canada (see page 514). <br />Photo by Charles D. Walcott</p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><img style="display: block; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" src="https://edwardtbabinski.us/fossils/mount_wapta.jpg" alt="Mount Wapta" width="500" border="0" /> <br />Cooling Off After A Hard Climb Up Through The Limestones <br />Panoramic view, at 9,000 feet, of the south face of Mount Wapta from the summit of Mount Field, 4,600 feet above Field, on the Canadian Pacific Railway, British Columbia, Canada. <br />Photo by Charles D. Walcott</p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><img style="display: block; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" src="https://edwardtbabinski.us/fossils/summit_mount_field.jpg" alt="Summit of Mount Field" width="500" border="0" /> <br />The Author Ready To Take A Panoramic View From Summit Of Mount Field <br />Photo by Sidney S. Walcott</p>
<p>TAKING THE PHOTOGRAPHS <br />The panoramic photographs were taken with the Cirkut camera that is used by newspaper men and others for photographing processions and obtaining panoramic views of buildings, railway lines, etc. For use in the mountains several minor changes were made, so that the instrument could be used successfully under such adverse conditions as strong winds, hands and fingers numbed from cold, and often very insecure foundation for the tripod. As it is necessary to have absolute stability and the camera-bed level, the securing of perfect negatives is difficult.</p>
<p>The camera consists of the ordinary 6½ by 8½ outfit, with a panoramic attachment which is 10½ inches square by4 inches in thickness. When the latter is used the tripod head is a 12-inch graduated circle with the revolving bed above A ratchet, driven by springs, moves the camera around the circle, the speed being governed by fans. Our lens is a Bausch and Lomb Zeiss Protar, Series VII.</p>
<p>The long panoramic view had an exposure of one-tenth of a second over each part of the film. The film moves past a vertical half-inch aperture from right to left as the camera is revolving from left to right. With this instrument a view can be taken 8½ inches in height and of any desired length up to 10 feet. Two persons can readily carry the outfit anywhere that one can ordinarily climb. Under unusually difficult conditions the camera can be drawn up by a rope.</p>
<p>Often in the Canadian Rockies days will pass in which the atmospheric conditions are unfavorable for an extended view--dust blown in the plains, smoke from forest fires, or the indefinate summer haze and cloudy weather interfering. The best conditions usually occur just after a heavy storm of either snow or rain has cleared the air.</p>
<p>One really great panoramic view and a half dozen fine smaller views is a successful season with the camera when it is used as an adjunct to hammer and compass in geologic work.</p>
<p>From the vicinity of the Burgess Pass camp the views were most beautiful and varied, and changed from hour to hour during the day and from day to day with the varying atmospheric conditions. Emerald Glacier, directly facing camp (page 513), was always attractive, whether in the bright sunlight, the gray light of early morning, the shadows of sunset, or when snow and fog were sweeping over the range, giving only now and then a glimpse of the ice and cliffs. The light-colored moraines on either side of its foot and the dark rocks afforded a beautiful setting for the glacier. Across the Yoho Pass the cliff of Mount Wapta stood in bold relief, with a steep slope of broken rock on the western side and a huge bank of snow on the eastern side of its south ridge.</p>
<p>Rising back of camp was the beautiful cliff of Mount Burgess, a favorite haunt of the mountain goat. At its eastern foot on the narrow ridge is the point where the great panoramic view was taken. Far below and almost at the foot of the great cliff is Emerald Lake, a spot famous for its scenic beauty. Our camp in the forest just below the ridge was visited quite frequently in September by heavy snow squalls that gave a welcome opportunity for a day's rest, reading, and cleaning up.</p>
<p>Our camp at Lake O'Hara was in a beautiful mountain meadow at the foot of Mount Shaffer. Morning and evening the views of the surrounding mountains were most inspiring. At this elevation (7,000 feet) snow squalls were not infrequent on the higher summits above, and on July 17 snow fell at the camp most of the day. From a slope of Mount Odaray, Lake O'Hara, resting like an emerald in a bowl of mountains (see page 512), reflected the glaciers of Mounts Lefroy and Hungabee.</p>
<p>Camping in the Canadian Rockies is a relatively simple affair if one is accustomed to going about with saddle and pack animals for conveyance. It is not difficult to obtain good camp outfits with horses and men, and much of the most beautiful scenery can be visited without riding on a trail or leaving wagon roads. Firewood and good water are well distributed and grass for the horses usually abundant.</p>
<p>OUR MOUNTAIN PANORAMA <br />NO ONE would be more surprised and delighted with Mr. Walcott's beautiful panoramic view, which is published as a Supplement to this number, than the American scientist whose discoveries gave a practical value to Daguerre's invention of photography, and the 100th anniversary of whose birth was celebrated last month. It s only 72 years since John William Draper in New York took the first photograph of a human face, but the progress in the photography art since then is amazing.</p>
<p>Mr. Walcott's panorama is the most marvelous mountain view that has ever been published, and is remarkable not only for its exceeding beauty, but also because of the many lessons in geography learned by studying it.</p>
<p>Readers of this Magazine who have attempted to take photographs in high altitudes can appreciate the combination of patience and skill required to secure a panorama like our Supplement. Weeks usually elapse before the weather is favorable, and then the slightest error of judgment may make the exposure a complete failure.</p>
<p>Perhaps equally difficult is the engraving, printing, and handling of 100,000 copies of 9-foot picture. For the success of this part of the publication the <em>NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC MAGAZINE</em> takes pleasure in acknowledging its indebtedness to the Matthews-Northrup Works, of Buffalo.</p>
<p>A few copies of the panorama have been printed on heavy art mat paper suitable for framing, and may be obtained at the office of the National Geographic Society at 50 cents per copy.</p>
<p>SCENES IN THE CANADIAN ROCKIES <br />THE scenes in the Canadian Rockies, published on pages 522 to 530, are all from photographs by Rev. George Kinney, of Keremeos, B.C., Canada, who, with his companion, Duncan Phillips, has the distinction of being the first to ascend to the summit of Mount Robson, the highest mountain yet discovered in the Canadian Rockies.</p>
<p>Mount Robson is situated in the heart of the Rockies, some 50 or more miles north of Yellowhead Pass and hundreds of miles from civilization. The mountain can be reached ony by pack-train after long weeks of strenuous endeavor through trackless forests and muskeg.</p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><img style="display: block; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" src="https://edwardtbabinski.us/fossils/mt_vice_president.jpg" alt="Mount Vice President" width="500" border="0" /> <br />A Shoulder Of Mount Vice-President, Overlooking Emerald Lake, Near Field, British Columbia <br />The upper falls in the photograph are about 200 feet high. <br /> Photo by Rev. George Kinney</p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><img style="display: block; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" src="https://edwardtbabinski.us/fossils/takakkaw_falls.jpg" alt="Takakkaw Falls" width="500" border="0" /> <br />Takakkaw Falls (1,200 Feet), In The Valley Of The Yoho, British Columbia <br />Fed by the great Daly Glacier, which is backed by a snow-field of many square miles in extent, the Takakkaw Falls leaps full fledged over a cliff 1,200 feet high, thus forming the crowning wonder of the marvelous Valley of the Yoho, near Field, B.C., in the Canadian Rockies. <br />Photo by Rev. George Kinney</p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><img style="display: block; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" src="https://edwardtbabinski.us/fossils/alpine_club_canada.jpg" alt="Ascending Mt Vice President" width="500" border="0" /> <br />Members Of The Alpine Club Of Canada Ascending Mount Vice-President <br />A difficult piece of rock-work. Under the care of expert guides the members thus qualify for active membership. <br />Photo by Rev. George Kinney</p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><img style="display: block; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" src="https://edwardtbabinski.us/fossils/mount_pinnacle.jpg" alt="Mount Pinnacle" width="500" border="0" /> <br />Mount Pinnacle and Sentinel Pass, Near Paradise Valley, British Columbia <br />This splendid peak, rising out of Paradise Valley like a jeweled needle tipped with pearl, stands side by side with Mount Temple, in the Canadian Rockies, and overlooks the celebrated "Valley of the Ten Peaks." <br />Photo by Rev. George Kinney</p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><img style="display: block; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" src="https://edwardtbabinski.us/fossils/mount_peelee_yellowhead.jpg" alt="Canadian Rockies" width="500" border="0" /> <br />Mount Peelee And The Yellowhead Lakes: Canadian Rockies <br />Yellowhead Pass, sentineled by Mount Peelee and the Yellowhead Mountains, offers for the transcontinental railroads the lowest and easiest gateway through the Canadian Rockies. Gigantic Douglas firs make picturesque the shores of the lakes in this region. <br />Photo by Rev. George Kinney</p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><img src="https://edwardtbabinski.us/fossils/mount_wapta.jpg" alt="Mount Wapta" width="500" border="0" /> <br />Mount Wapta, Near Field, British Columbia, And The First Camp Of The Alpine Club Of Canada <br />Photo by Rev. George Kinney</p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><br />Two Rope Parties Of The Alpine Club Of Canada Crossing The Great Snow-Field On The Summit Of Mount Vice-President, Near Field, British Columbia, At Over 10,000 Feet Altitude <br />Photo by Rev. George Kinney</p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><img style="display: block; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" src="https://edwardtbabinski.us/fossils/mount_robson.jpg" alt="Mount Robson" width="500" border="0" /> <br />Mount Robson (Nearly 14,000 Feet Altitude), King Of The Canadian Rockies <br />As the tourist on the Grand Trunk Pacific will see it, from the mouth of the Grand Forks, on the Fraser River. This monster peak, towering over 10,000 feet above Lake Kinney, in the valley below, at an average angle of over 60 degrees, was finally captured, in 1909, by two Canadians, Rev. George R.B. Kinney and his companion, Donald Phillips. It is the highest mountain yet discovered in the Canadian Rockies. <br />Photo by Rev. George Kinney</p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><img style="display: block; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" src="https://edwardtbabinski.us/fossils/north_mount_robson.jpg" alt="North face of Mount Robson" width="500" border="0" /> <br />The north face of Mount Robson rises abruptly in a series of precipitous cliffs, rank on rank, to the very skies. At its base the Grand Forks River, swiftly flowing from Berg Lake, leaps a cliff as high as a Niagara and, plunging in a succession of superb falls through a gorge over 3,000 feet deep, sweeps through the "Valley of a Thousand Falls" on its way to the Fraser. <br />Photo by Rev. George Kinney</p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><img style="display: block; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" src="https://edwardtbabinski.us/fossils/east_mount_robson.jpg" alt="East of Mount Robson" width="500" border="0" /> <br />Climbing The Ice-Cliffs Of The East Side Of Mount Robson; Canadian Rockies <br />Dr. A.P. Coleman, L.Q. Coleman and Rev. George R.B. Kinney working their way up the fearful ice-cliffs of the east side of Mount Robson in their unsuccessful attempt to climb the mountain in 1908. Leaving their camp at tree-line, for 14 hours they fought their way up those treacherous walls of ice amid constant dangers from hidden crevasses and roaring avalanches, but only attained an altitude of 11,700 feet. <br />Photo by Rev. George Kinney</p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><img style="display: block; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" src="https://edwardtbabinski.us/fossils/canadian_rockies.jpg" alt="Canadian Rockies" width="500" border="0" /> <br />Looking East And South From Mount Robson; Canadian Rockies <br />This view was taken from the east side of Mount Robson at an altitude of over 10,000 feet, high up on the crumbling cliffs from which the great East Glacier flows. From this altitude the snow-capped peaks to the south spread out like the surface of a rugged plain. <br />Photo by Rev. George Kinney</p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><img style="display: block; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" src="https://edwardtbabinski.us/fossils/canadian_rockies_berg_lake.jpg" alt="Canadian Rockies" width="500" border="0" /> <br />East Side Of Mount Robson, Canadian Rockies, From Timber Lake <br />Looking from the east, Mount Robson, in the Canadian Rockies, rises out of one of the most beautiful valleys in all the world of alpine scenery. Six mighty glaciers, the least of which measures not less than a quarter of a mile wide, flowing from his rugged sides and those of the mountains opposite, pour their turbulent streams into the quiet waters of Berg Lake. This lake received its name because of its surface being constantly dotted with huge icebergs that plung into it from Tumbling Glacier midway its length. <br />Photo by Rev. George Kinney</p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><img style="display: block; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" src="https://edwardtbabinski.us/fossils/glacier.jpg" alt="Glacier Mount Robson" width="500" border="0" /> <br />The Big Glacier On The East Of Mount Robson <br />This mighty glacier, flowing from a huge snow-field on the east side of Mount Robson and curving in a wide crescent around the base of Mount Rearguard, is a mile wide and five miles long. The glacier forms a watershed, part of its waters flowing into the Pacific and part into the Arctic seas. <br />Photo by Rev. George Kinney</p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><img style="display: block; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" src="https://edwardtbabinski.us/fossils/mount_robson_glacier.jpg" alt="Glacier Mount Robson" width="500" border="0" /> <br />Surface Of The Big East Glacier Of Mount Robson <br />The crevasses of this glacier are in some places several hundred feet deep, while its lateral and terminal moraines are thrown high on every side, and a splendid medial moraine marks its course. <br />Photo by Rev. George Kinney</p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><img style="display: block; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" src="https://edwardtbabinski.us/fossils/robson_berg_lake.jpg" alt="Mount Robson and Berg Lake" width="500" border="0" /> <br />Mount Robson And Berg Lake From The Northeast: Canadian Rockies <br />So frightfully steep are its rugged sides, and so high does it rise out of its valleys (over 10,000 feet) and so frequent are the severe storms of the region that of all the expeditions that tried to capture Mount Robson, Mr. Kinney's, in 1909, was the only one that ever reached its summit. Even then he and his companions had to sleep several nights on its lofty snow-covered ledges and nearly perished. <br />Photo by Rev. George Kinney</p>
<p><strong>REFERENCES</strong> <br /> <a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B0000296YH/edwartbabinth-20" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><img src="https://edwardtbabinski.us/fossils/geographic.gif" alt="" border="0" />The Complete National Geographic</a>, 111 Years; 1888-2000</p>
<p><strong>RECOMMENDED READING</strong></p>
<ul>
<li><a href="http://etb-flood-geology.blogspot.com/2012/03/why-isnt-flood-geology-accepted-today.html">Creationist "Flood Geology"</a> Versus Common Sense, -Or Reasons why "Flood Geology" was abandoned in the mid-1800s by Christian men of science</li>
</ul>
<div class="separator" style="text-align:center"><iframe src="https://edwardtbabinski.us/related-content/related-content-19.html" style="margin-bottom:0em; margin-left:0em; margin-right:0em; height:400px; width:600px; border:0px"></iframe></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-505205186321877769.post-11141295087357710812012-03-31T12:14:00.003-07:002019-09-01T19:18:40.244-07:00Fossil History in Europe<p><em>A generalized list of important milestones in European fossil hunting, first formally identified dinosaurs and professional fossil collector, Mary Anning.</em> </p>
<p><img style="float: right;" src="https://edwardtbabinski.us/fossils/mary_anning.jpg" alt="Mary Anning" border="0" /> <br />Portrait of Mary Anning, born 1799 in Lyme Regis, England and the first professional fossil collector. Lyme Regis is known for its seacliffs of mudstone and Jurassic Shale. Anning found the first known ichthyosaur in 1811 which had fell from the cliffs. Another discovery followed thirteen years later, the first known and near-complete plesiosaur skeleton.</p>
<p>Europe is rich in fossils, though fossils were often discovered by accident in the earliest years of Paleontology. One of the most astounding finds was in 1776, in a chalk quarry in the Netherlands, a giant crocodile-like skull, called the <em>Beast of Maastricht</em>. Scientists of the day believed the remains to belong to an extant species, strongly resembling modern crocodiles. Later scientists identified the fossil to be remains of a <em>Mososaur</em>.</p>
<p>An important publication by an Italian naturalist, was issued in 1784 on a fossil found in Solnhöfen. The fossil was of a small animal, but unlike any known species. The creature resembled cross between bat and bird, known today as the <em>Pterosaur</em>, the first fossil studied in a systematic way. This fossil soon became important news in Paleontological circles, and quarry workers kept a sharp eye for potential new fossil finds.</p>
<p>By the 1800's, European quarries like the one at Solnhöfen were generating a steady flow of new fossil discoveries. It was during this time that young Mary Anning began professionally collecting fossils. A resident of England, she lived on the coast of Dorset. Erosion from sea water was continually revealing new fossils in the cliff walls. Among her finds was a near-complete extinct reptile, the <em>ichthyosaur</em>. With ever more fossil finds, the concept of extinction became more widely accepted.</p>
<p>The first formal description of a <em>dinosaur</em> was made in 1676 by Robert Plot, a museum curator in England. The discovery of Plot, which consisted of a giant thighbone, was thought at the time to be that of a large mammal, perhaps even, a giant human. One hundred and forty years passed, and further remains were discovered in an English quarry. Later, the species was identified among reptiles instead of mammals. William Buckland, a geologist examined the fossils and identified them as belonging to a carnivorous reptile, which he named <em>Megalosarus</em>, meaning "giant lizard". Geologist Gideon Mantel, followed the next year with another new discovery, identifying the fossil remains of <em>Iguanodon</em>.</p>
<p>In the 1800's, geologists desired to classify many newly discovered fossil species among branches of reptiles, however this changed in 1841 with Richard Owen who demonstrated both <em>Megalosaurus</em> and <em>Iguanodon</em> differed in many ways from other reptiles. Owen proposed <em>dinosaur</em>, as the name for such extinct reptile species. Following this new classification, paleontology advanced forward. In 1861, the first <em>Archaeopteryx</em> fossil was discovered in the Solnhöfen quarry and with the approaching 1900's European fossil hunters began importing fossils from around the world. The new discoveries and fossil collections contributed to the development of natural history museums in Berlin, Paris and London. Paleontologists continued their search for fossils, extinct marine species which included ichthyosaur and plesiosaur, and ice age mammals such as mammoths, rhinoceroses and bears. Some fossil finds included our early human ancestors, and some such as Neanderthal man, both fossil and surviving artifacts.</p>
<p><img style="float: right;" src="https://edwardtbabinski.us/fossils/fossil_shrimp.jpg" alt="Fossil Shrimp" border="0" /><br />
Author David Burnie explains quarry workers carefully split thin sheets of limestone, revealing the well preserved fossils of 150 million year old creatures from the Jurassic. <br />
Featured above is a fossil shrimp from the southern German Solnhöfen quarry. This quarry has produced fossils of soft bodied creatures, including jellyfish.</p>
<p><img src="https://edwardtbabinski.us/fossils/jurassic_fish.jpg" alt="Jurassic Fish" border="0" /><br />
The Solnhöfen quarry, a famous site for <em>Archaeopteryx</em>, numerous <em>pterosaur</em>, fish and insect fossils, was built up from the fine-grain sediment that settled in coral reef during the Late Jurassic period. Rock particles which entombed the creatures are so fine, they preserved the creatures with great details intact.</p>
<p><strong>REFERENCES</strong> <br /><img src="https://edwardtbabinski.us/fossils/fossils.gif" alt="" border="0" /><a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0073661708/edwartbabinth-20" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Bringing Fossils to Life, An Introduction to Paleobiology</a>, McGraw Hill Publishers, Donald R. Prothero</p>
<p><img src="https://edwardtbabinski.us/fossils/dinosaur.jpg" alt="" border="0" /><a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0753452871/edwartbabinth-20" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Kingfisher Illustrated Dinosaur Encyclopedia</a>, Kingfisher Publishers, David Burnie</p>
<p><strong>FURTHER SUGGESTED READING</strong> <br /><a href="http://hometown.aol.com/afmayor/myhomepage/resume.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Adrienne Mayor's books</a> <br />
1) The First Fossil Hunters (Princeton 2000) explains how ancient Greek and Roman discoveries of mysterious petrifed bones of extinct dinosaurs and mastodons led to myths about griffins, giants, and monsters. Watch for "Ancient Monster Hunters" on the History Channel.<br />
2) Fossil Legends of the First Americans (Princeton 2005) gathers exciting Native American discoveries and myths about fossils, from tiny shells to enormous dinosaur bones, with stories from more than 45 different tribes, beginning with the Aztecs & Incas.</p>
<p>Stephen Meyer's article, "<a href="http://www.bibleandscience.com/science/dinosaurs.htm" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Are Dinosaurs Mentioned in the Bible?</a>"</p>
<div class="separator" style="text-align:center"><iframe src="https://edwardtbabinski.us/related-content/related-content-19.html" style="margin-bottom:0em; margin-left:0em; margin-right:0em; height:400px; width:600px; border:0px"></iframe></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-505205186321877769.post-34492169263239228682012-03-31T11:36:00.006-07:002019-09-01T19:18:21.256-07:00Vendian Period and the Origins of Life<p><em>Mainstream scientific theories on life origins, the Vendian World and a look at some of the first life forms that existed on Earth.</em> <br /> <img style="float: right;" src="https://edwardtbabinski.us/paleontology/vendian/stromatolites.jpg" alt="Stromatolites" align="bottom" border="0" /> <br />Stromatolites, are some of the earliest forms of life discovered on Earth, some dating 3.4 billion years old. Cyanobacteria are microbes which act photosynthetically, collecting energy from light. Trapping sediment, cyanobacteria cement together to form mounds like those featured in the image above. One fossil sometimes found in stromatolite mounds, that are of interest to researchers are tiny <em>Cloudina</em> fossils, an early organism which built itself a mineralized shell.</p>
<p style="text-align: left;">Paraphrased and image based on <em>Kingfisher Illustrated Dinosaur Encyclopedia</em> <br />David Burnie, 2001</p>
<p><strong>ABIOGENESIS AND THE FIRST LIFE</strong> <br />Science searches for empirical solutions to empirical problems. One of those problems is to answer <em>How</em> life began. One possible explanation, is that early in Earth's history, a series of random chemical reactions occurred between carbon substances. Some of the chemical reactions may have formed microscopic bubbles, coated with oily membranes shielding inner-fluid from the outside water. Some may have formed a substance that could copy itself, by attracting simpler chemicals. If these two had came together, and began using energy, it may have produced the first self-copying single "living" cells.</p>
<p>One thing is certain. The first living organisms on earth were bacteria. These first microbes derived their energy from dissolved chemicals. As bacteria multiply, the chemical resources used for food, are diminished which sets up a struggle for survival. This challenge is a factor in what makes living organisms evolve. Three billion years ago, bacteria met the challenges and developed <em>Photosynthesis</em>, the ability to collect energy from light.</p>
<blockquote>
<p style="text-align: left;" align="center"><img style="float: right;" src="https://edwardtbabinski.us/paleontology/vendian//oldest_carbon_life.jpg" alt="Oldest Carbon Trace" width="350" align="bottom" border="0" /> A ball of carbon, found on Akilia island off Greenland holds the record as possibly the oldest evidence of life on Earth. The carbon ball, yielding an excess of carbon-12, the fingerprint of life, magnified 6900 times, is cradled in a cavity of a rock that dates 3.86 billion years old. This specimen has lost all of its meaningful anatomical characteristics, though believed it must be similar to all life it preceded. <br />Source: Paraphrased and image based on <em>Exploring The Solar System</em>, National Geographic, J. Kelly Beatty</p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p style="text-align: left;" align="center"><img style="float: right;" src="https://edwardtbabinski.us/paleontology/vendian/fossil_embryo.jpg" alt="Fossil Embryo" align="bottom" border="0" /> Discovered in Vendian Strata of China from about 570 million years ago, this fossil embryo is of an unknown organism, and measures 0.1 millimeters across, less than 1/20 of an inch. <br />Source: Image from <a href="http://cas.bellarmine.edu/tietjen/Ecology/early_animal_evolution.htm" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Early Animal Life</a> and paraphrased from <em>Atlas of Prehistoric World</em>, Discovery Books</p>
<p style="text-align: left;" align="center"><img style="display: block; float:right" src="https://edwardtbabinski.us/paleontology/vendian/radioactive_bacteria.jpg" alt="" width="150" height="228" /></p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p style="text-align: left;" align="center">Life propagates and thrives in the most unexpected places. A scanning electronic microscope captured this unidentified bacteria which lives in an environment of salt and high radiation. <br />Source: Paraphrased and image based on <em>Exploring The Solar System</em>, National Geographic, J. Kelly Beatty</p>
</blockquote>
<p>One theory proposes life may have began elsewhere in the Solar System.</p>
<blockquote>
<p style="text-align: left;" align="center"><img style="float: right;" src="https://edwardtbabinski.us/paleontology/vendian/mars_meteorite_microbe.jpg" alt="Mars Meteorite Origins" width="228" align="bottom" border="0" /> Scientists proposed in 1996, that a controversial 4.5 billion year old Martian meteorite that was discovered in Antarctica in 1984, had trace evidence of fossilized microbes. Tiny clusters of elongated substance, resembling the smallest microbial organisms on Earth, were revealed when the rock was examined with a scanning electron microscope. This rock contains traces of organic molecules. Scientists continue to debate whether or not this rock contains traces of ancient microbial life, that possibly the rock is contaminated from its 13,000 year long stay on Earth. <br />Source: Paraphrased and image based on <em>Exploring The Solar System</em>, National Geographic, J. Kelly Beatty</p>
In 1976, probes visited Mars to test its soil for any signs of life. No evidence was found, neither was any organic matter. However, the planet of Mars in ancient times, may have been a wetter, warmer world with a denser and more protective atmosphere to protect it from the Sun's harmful UV light. Life may have arose and died out with changing atmosphere. Scientists are currently working to perform further investigations in specific locations on the red planet, with probes that may bring soil and rock samples back to Earth, or even quarantined in a space lab.</blockquote>
<p>Another theory proposes life may have began in deep waters, around hot springs.</p>
<table style="height: 267px;" border="0" width="136" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" align="right">
<tbody style="font-size: 11; font-family: tahoma;" valign="top">
<tr>
<td style="width: 132px;"><center><img src="https://edwardtbabinski.us/paleontology/vendian/rimicaris_exoculata.jpg" alt="eyeless shrimp" align="top" border="0" /> <br /><strong>Eyeless Shrimp</strong> <br /><em>Rimicaris exoculata</em>, meaning "dweller in the rift without eyes."</center></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p><strong>Hot Springs, Eyeless Shrimp and the Origins of Life</strong></p>
<p>1800 miles east of Miami, the Mid-Atlantic ridge. Two and a half miles down from the Ocean's surface, superheated water bursts through the sea floor. Rona states, "Since 1975, when the United States and the Soviet Union agreed to under-take joint studies of the oceans, we've seen nothing as spectacular as these spewing black smokers and the life around them." <br />As crustal plates separate, molten rock flows up from the earth's interior on to the ocean floor. This creates new crust, forming mid-ocean ridges, which circle the globe.</p>
<p>Cooler seawater penetrates the cracks, quite possibly extending miles below surface. Near the magma, the water heats and expands, gases and metals leak from rock discharging in the form of a Hot Spring. In ten million years, there is the same amount of water which passes through this process, as the oceans hold water in them today. This under-water system alters the water's chemistry and releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.</p>
<p>In 1985, such springs were presumed to only occur in the world's most volcanically active ocean, the Pacific. However, when hot springs were discovered near the Galápagos, in 1977, scientists began to believe they possibly exist in world-wide mid-ocean ridges.</p>
<p>A bluish-white fog of chemicals and minerals drift from the side of the vents, and reaching the summit of the black smoker, the mound resembling deposits on land, <em>massive sulfides</em> which are mined for gold, silver, zinc and copper. Notice is taken of a sparkle of <em>pyrite</em>, fool's gold, though later examination revealed a mineral sample to be the real thing. Grains of gold discovered in hot springs disproved the belief that gold concentrates only on land.</p>
<p>Thousands, possibly millions of odd, blind shrimp swarm near the chimneys of the black smoker, feeding on bacteria growing near the mouth of the hot spring. Discovered in 1985, the new species was named <em>Rimicaris exoculata</em>, meaning "dweller in the rift without eyes."</p>
<p>How can blind shrimp survive near scalding springs? <br />Cindy Lee Van Dover of Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute discovered the shrimp contains a chemical present in the eyes of other animals, in its back, between the gill chambers. Though it cannot see, the patch serves as a modified light sensor.</p>
<p>How could the shrimp find its way around, in the dark ocean floor? <br />The hypothesis proposed by some researchers, is that the shrimp's unique "eye" may sense the infrared from the black smokers, perceiving it as a dim source of light. Quite possibly, this serves two purposes, the first being to assist the shrimp find the black smoker, prevent getting too near the heat, and second, to locate the micro-organisms it depends upon for its food supply.</p>
<p>Around the globe, other hot springs await discovery in these undersea volcanic mountain ranges. These curious geysers support entire eco-systems which contain new and ancient life forms.</p>
<p>Rona concludes, "Indeed, these may be the places where life began."</p>
<p>Paraphrased and image based on <em>Deep Sea Geysers of the Atlantic</em> <br />Peter A. Rona, for <em>National Geographic</em>, October 1992</p>
<p><strong>Rise of Life on Earth</strong>, The Vendian Period and Ediacaran Fossils</p>
<p style="text-align: left;" align="center"><img style="float: right;" src="https://edwardtbabinski.us/paleontology/vendian/ediacaran_fossil.jpg" alt="Ediacaran Fossil" align="top" border="0" /> <em>Charniodiscus</em>, that bears resemblance to a feather attached to a ball. Discovered by Jim Gehling, and then classified as a soft coral. Seilacher's view is that its body couldn't have filtered nutrients, because, "A filter must have holes, like a net or a feather, but this organism didn't." Seilacher criticises, these fossils give the appearance of thin, fluid-filled mattresses divided into compartments, which is a body plan unknown in any animal or plant kingdom, "We have nothing like this today." Seilacher has placed the Vendobionts in a distinct, but extinct kingdom of their own.</p>
<p>This fossilized imprint of a frond-shaped organism and its circular footing, that dwelled in the ocean waters around 550 millions years ago. Paleontologists believe fossils such as this one, are the first evidence of large, multicellular life. <br />Paraphrased from <em>National Geographic</em>, The Rise of Life on Earth, <em>Life grows up</em> April 1998 <br />Richard Monastersky, with image modifications on the original of O. Louis Mazzatenta</p>
<p>Some of the Ediacaran fossils, reach as much as three feet across and lived at the close of the Precambrian, between 600 million and 540 million years ago. The appearance of the life represented by these fossils, ended three billion years of domination by bacteria, and set the stage for the rise of larger animals.</p>
<p>The Ediacaran fossils are variegated in shape and form, from spoked wheels, anchors, ribbons and fronds. The first were discovered during the 1800's in England, but went primarily un-noticed until Australian geologists turned up a discovery in the 1940's. At the time of the discovery, Scientists classified them as jellyfish, worms and soft corals. However, further discoveries overturned those presumptions. "A short time ago we thought we knew how these organisms related to modern animals. Now we're not so sure." says Guy Narbonne, of Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario.</p>
<p>Fossils of the Ediacaran are the key for insight into the origins of animal life. Some fossils of the Ediacaran were the eldest representatives of our own kingdom, while others existed for a brief time, and disappeared. Some were bizarre, flat-bodied organisms, and paleontologists simply aren't certain how to classify them. All the same, these creatures dwelled long before predators began roaming the oceans, before defensive mechanisms such as shells and hard skeletons evolved.</p>
<p>Observing one <em>Dickinsonia</em> fossil which resembles a footprint like the one Astronauts left on the moon, and the size of a welcome mat, Guy Narbonne remarks, "When this was alive, it would have lain like a flat sheet on the sea bottom. It might have absorbed nutrients directly from the water. Algae may have lived within it, helping harness the sun's energy. It couldn't swim. It probably couldn't even crawl. It was a strange and beautiful creature that apparently disappeared 540 million years ago without leaving any modern relatives."</p>
<p style="font-size: 10;" align="center"><img style="float: right;" src="https://edwardtbabinski.us/paleontology/vendian/dickinsonia.jpg" alt="Dickinsonia" align="bottom" border="0" /> <em>Dikinsonia</em> grew to a length of as much as two feet (60 cm), which made it one of the larger complex organisms of the Vendian. It's body is segmented with midline symmetry dividing it's body. Its body may have been denser than modern jellyfish or worms. [Atlas of Prehistoric World, <em>Discovery Books</em> <br />Reconstruction of <strong><em>Dickinsonia</em></strong>, based on images from <em>Atlas of the Prehistoric World</em>, Discovery Channel Books and <em>Kingfisher Illustrated Dinosaur Encyclopedia</em></p>
<p>Long before species known from the Vendian came on the scene around 600 million years ago, evolution worked primarily with microorganisms on the microscopic scale. These microbes appeared between 4 billion and 3.5 billion years ago. Algae arrived more than 1.5 billions years ago, and was followed by single-cell organisms, ancestors of complex organisms. Due to lack of oxygen in the ocean and atmosphere, life was constrained to smaller and simple organisms.</p>
<p>Earth's shape and form, itself has evolved. One billion years ago, all the continents were connected in a single enormous land mass called <em>Rodinia</em>, except for the green pond scum, it was a desolate sandy, rocky landscape which contained no trees, grass, or even moss.</p>
<p>Around 750 millions years ago, Rodinia began dividing into smaller continental masses. Over the following tens of millions of years, some of the masses collided again, which formed Himalya-sized mountain ranges, redirecting currents in the ocean and altering Earth's climate. Convulsions such as these caused as many as five ice ages, and the earth was left covered in ice.</p>
<p>This break-up of the Rodinian land mass had profound effects on the evolution of life, infusing the ocean with oxygen, which allowed organisms to develop into larger life forms. Says paleontologist Richard Jenkins of the University of Adelaide, "As oxygen levels rose, there was the potential for the proliferation of animal life."</p>
<blockquote><strong>Oxygenating Earth's Atmosphere</strong> <br />All bacteria which use photosynthesis, produce oxygen, a bi-product of using carbon dioxide, water and sunlight to replicate their cells. This build-up of oxygen in the atmosphere did not become significant enough to support life, until around 2.5 billion years ago, as bacteria spread in greater numbers. Prior to that time, Earth's atmosphere comprised mainly of carbon dioxide and nitrogen gas. <br />Source: Atlas of the Prehistoric World, Discovery Channel</blockquote>
<p>Many of the fossils which came from later eras are easier to distinguish than Ediacaran fossils, due to their mineralized shells and bones, and even color, which differentiates many of them from the surrounding rock. However, Ediacaran species contained no hard parts, and were not preserved as easily, all that remains are impressions that were made in sand on the ocean floor, like footprints, which was soon followed by physical decay of their body.</p>
<p style="font-size: 10;" align="center"><img style="float: right;" src="https://edwardtbabinski.us/paleontology/vendian/spriggina.jpg" alt="Spriggina" align="bottom" border="0" /> Reconstruction of <strong><em>Spriggina</em></strong>, based on images from <em>Atlas of the Prehistoric World</em>, Discovery Channel Books; National Geographic, The Rise of Life on Earth, <em>Life grows up</em>, and <em>Kingfisher Illustrated Dinosaur Encyclopedia</em></p>
<p>One of the Ediacaran fossils was dubbed <em>Spriggina</em>, in honor of Sprigg, curved like a comma with a boomerang-shaped head and its body divided into dozens of parallel segments. Based on its shape, Australian paleontologists classified <em>Spriggina</em> as a relative of the modern earthworm, determining that it was likely a form of segmented worm.</p>
<p>The first scientist to study Ediacaran fossils was Martin Glaessner, a renown Australian paleontologist. In the 1950's, Glaessner classified them among representatives of modern phyla and categories of animals based on comparative anatomy. He proposed the circular impressions were made by jellyfish and categorized the oval fossils similar to trilobites as forerunner to insect and crustacean species. Both <em>Spriggina</em> and <em>Dickinsonia</em> with their characteristic segmented body, have been interpreted as belonging among worms.</p>
<p>The discovery of the Ediacaran fossils bridged the gap on the problem that had troubled scientists since the time of Charles Darwin. In the time of Darwin, Precambrian rocks were still regarded barren, Cambrian rocks however contained an abundance of fossil evidence. For Darwin, the fundamental problem was if natural selection occurred gradually, the lack of Precambrian life undermined his theory.</p>
<p>The Cambrian Explosion brought about a burst of animal life, around 540 million years ago. Within a brief period of geological time, the oceans became filled with representatives of almost all living phyla. Ancestors of mollusks, crustaceans, starfish and snails, even animals such as <em>Pikaia</em>, which hinted at the first species with a backbone.</p>
<p>The discovery of Ediacaran fossils by Sprigg, were regarded as the solution to Darwin's dilemma, at long last having the evidence to fill the gap between modern animals, the groups that blossomed during the Cambrian, and the simpler ancestors which preceded them. In 1983, German paleontologist Dolf Seilacher challenged the theory that organisms of the Ediacaran gave rise to later species. Seilacher's view was that the body plans were too simple and strange to have any relation with animals. Even the sponge, the most basic creature, is divided into parts with a mouth like opening, leading to a digestive compartment, and the more complicated species have specialized organs and appendages, however, the Ediacaran fossils, show no such features. "We don't see any indication of organs. We see no legs, no mouths, no anuses, no digestive tracts, nothing to suggest they were animals. We have to stop shoehorning them into categories of modern animals." Seilacher described them as immobile, jelly-filled organisms and classified them as <em>Vendobionts</em>. The fossils show no characteristics indicating the ability to eat or digest food, but may have absorbed sunlight or chemical nutrients direct from the ocean water.</p>
<p>Since Seilacher's criticism, researchers have discovered further Precambrian sites in Russia, Namibia, Newfoundland, and Australia, including more fossil specimen which turned up in Nevada.</p>
<p>Studies of the fossils, have brought about more agreement between scientists. Two categories have been developed. "Some were certainly animals," says Jim Gehling, while "Others were truly bizarre."</p>
<p style="font-size: 10;" align="center"><img style="float: right;" src="https://edwardtbabinski.us/paleontology/vendian/kimberella.jpg" alt="Kimberella" align="bottom" border="0" /> <br />Reconstruction of <strong><em>Kimberella</em></strong>, based on images from National Geographic, The Rise of Life on Earth, <em>Life grows up</em>, and <em>Kingfisher Illustrated Dinosaur Encyclopedia</em></p>
<p>One Ediacaran fossil named <em>Kimberella</em>, shares striking similarities with mollusks, and is believed to be an early predecessor of snails and clams. Kimberella left fossil evidence in sandstone, identifiable by the short parallel scratches which resemble rows of quotation marks, and provides further evidence that complex, mobile animals emerged before the Cambrian explosion.</p>
<p>Another fossil provided by Gehling, was of a strange organism called <em>Phyllozoon</em>, a foot-long creature divided in zigzag segments. "<em>Phyllozoon</em> is the archetypal Vendobiont. We have no modern equivalents. I think <em>Phyllozoon</em> was a quilted organism that lived by colonizing bacteria and algae in its chambered body, which might account for its bizarre shape. It may have needed a large surface area to absorb sunlight or chemicals from the water." Paleontologists are unsure where to place the Vendobionts. Gehling suggested that they may have even been some kind of unusual algae. All scientists agree on one thing, the Vendobionts left no heirs. Some scientists believe that a change in the chemistry of ocean water, lead to the Cambrian explosion, while other scientists believe it was set into motion by genetic factors.</p>
<p>The late Precambrian, was a time in the history of the Earth when large, immobile and defenseless creatures flourished because nothing was around to eat them.</p>
<p>Gehling on the Precambrian, "We're looking at evolution sitting on a knife-edge. It could have gone in many different ways. This was a time of experimentation."</p>
<p>Text paraphrased from portions of <em>National Geographic</em>, The Rise of Life on Earth, <em>Life grows up</em> April 1998 <br />Richard Monastersky, with image modifications on the original of O. Louis Mazzatenta</p>
<p><strong>THE VENDIAN PERIOD</strong> <br /><em>Fossil evidence implies multi-celled organisms began in the oceans during Precambrian times, once believed absent of complex life.</em></p>
<p>The Vendian closed around 545 million years ago. This was a time in Earth's history of shifting continents and changes in the atmosphere and chemical make-up of the oceans. Geologists have discovered that during Vendian times, the earliest continental masses were centralized in the Southern Hemisphere, with Northwestern Africa located in the region of the South Pole. In the late Vendian, the continental masses formed a supercontinent known as <em>Pannotia</em>.</p>
<p>In the decades following Darwin, scientists regarded the Vendian as a barren wasteland of rock and desolate of life. This early landscape was indeed an unpromising scene for the propagation of life, barren, even with its rivers, lakes and the extensive desolate rock and sediment. However, the ocean with its ability to filter out dangerous rays to delicate single-celled organisms and keep them moist, was another matter. Both direct and indirect fossil evidence, and the diverse lifeforms that followed in the Cambrian period, implies that life began in the Vendian ocean. Research has suggested that groups of complex organisms, apart from higher plant species, in all likelihood, must have evolved during the Vendian period. Unfortunately, due to the soft-bodied structures, the majority left no fossil evidence. The Ediacarans, which appear to be extinct forms of early jellyfish or worms, are the exception, being the first, larger organisms which left distinguishable fossil impressions in ocean sediment.</p>
<blockquote><strong>Precambrian Oil</strong> <br />Geologists have discovered traces of oil and gas in Australia and South Africa which date around 2 billion years old. Since geologists know oil and gas are a natural bi-product of decay in tiny marine lifeforms, their presence implies the earth was well-populated with active microbes, more than previously assumed.</blockquote>
<p>The most primitive life forms of bacteria date at least to 3.8 billion years. Microbes use photosynthesis as a means for their food supply, as a chemical bi-product of using light energy, they produce oxygen. The oxygen was taken up by dissolved iron minerals, which formed sediment known as "banded iron formations". This process continued for nearly a billion years before oxygen made any significant accumulation in the atmosphere. In the Vendian period, oxygen rose from .2% to 17% of Earth's atmosphere, close to the present-day 21%.</p>
<table style="width: 425;" border="3" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="5" align="center">
<tbody style="font-size: 11; font-family: tahoma;" valign="top">
<tr>
<td>
<p><strong>THE VENDIAN GLOBE</strong> </p>
<p>A globe of the Earth (below) reflecting location of land masses during the late Precambrian, as Geologists have came to understand from their studies of geological strata. It was a world, quite unfamiliar to us. During the Vendian, land covered much of the Pacific Ocean realm. Ancient seas covered the hemisphere where Europe, Asia and Africa now exist. Only two primary continents dominate, the great land masses of Northern Gondwana, what now is India, Antartica, and Australia while Southern Gondwana went on to form what is now Africa, North and South America and parts of Asia. Some tropical regions of the Earth today, were setting in the South Pole covered with glacial ice.</p>
<p style="font-size: 10;" align="center"><img src="https://edwardtbabinski.us/paleontology/vendian/vendian_01.jpg" alt="Vendian" align="bottom" border="0" /></p>
<ul>
<li>Australia was located in the northern hemisphere, during the Vendian. This region contains numerous sandstone deposits that was abundant in the period, and has served to preserve the known Ediacaran fossils. Those fossils, which anchored to the seafloor or burrowed in sand, were named for the Ediacara Hills, located in Flinders Range, S. Australia. </li>
<li>Ocean waters between the Northern and Southern Gondwana land masses began narrowing, both land mass heading on a collision course. This took place around 580 millions years ago, leading to the formation of the supercontinent <em>Pannotia</em>, however this union between the two continents lasted only a few million years. </li>
<li>Southwest Africa, was under water for a long period in the Vendian. Called <em>Namibia</em>, famed for Ediacaran fossil traces that date around 600 million years old. </li>
<li>Sandstone rocks from Newfoundland, where Ediacaran fossils are also found, are composed of a finer grain than those from Australia. Deposits of sediment may have occurred by underwater avalanches (turbidity currents) caused by earthquakes.</li>
</ul>
<p style="font-size: 10;" align="center"><img src="https://edwardtbabinski.us/paleontology/vendian/vendian_02.jpg" alt="Vendian" align="bottom" border="0" /></p>
<p> </p>
<ul>
<li>Coasts of modern NW. Australia were part of Northern Gondwana. N.E. North America (Laurentia), and N.E. Siberia were all part of crustal plates, with absence of the earthquake activity normally associated with such regions. </li>
<li>Southern China contains the Nantuo Formation which was composed of "tillites," a combination of mud, sand, stone, and rock carried by ancient glaciers. The tillites give evidence the region was glaciated during the late Vendian.</li>
</ul>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p>Paraphrased and image based on <em>Atlas of the Prehistoric World</em>, 1999, Discovery Channel Books by Douglas Palmer</p>
<p style="valign: top;"><strong>REFERENCES</strong> <br /><img src="https://edwardtbabinski.us/fossils/geographic.gif" alt="" align="bottom" border="0" /><a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B00002S93P/edwartbabinth-20" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Complete National Geographic</a>, 111 Years; 1888-2000</p>
<p><img src="https://edwardtbabinski.us/fossils/dinosaur.jpg" alt="" align="bottom" border="0" /><a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0753452871/edwartbabinth-20" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Kingfisher Illustrated Dinosaur Encyclopedia</a>, Kingfisher Publishers, David Burnie</p>
<p><img src="https://edwardtbabinski.us/fossils/prehistoric_world.gif" alt="Prehistoric World" align="bottom" border="0" /><a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1563318296/edwartbabinth-20" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Atlas of the Prehistoric World</a>, by Discovery Channel Books, Douglas Palmer</p>
<p><strong>FURTHER SUGGESTED READING</strong> <br /><a href="http://hometown.aol.com/afmayor/myhomepage/resume.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Adrienne Mayor's books</a> <br />1) The First Fossil Hunters (Princeton 2000) explains how ancient Greek and Roman discoveries of mysterious petrifed bones of extinct dinosaurs and mastodons led to myths about griffins, giants, and monsters. Watch for "Ancient Monster Hunters" on the History Channel. <br />2) Fossil Legends of the First Americans (Princeton 2005) gathers exciting Native American discoveries and myths about fossils, from tiny shells to enormous dinosaur bones, with stories from more than 45 different tribes, beginning with the Aztecs & Incas.</p>
<p>Stephen Meyer's article, "<a href="http://www.bibleandscience.com/science/dinosaurs.htm" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Are Dinosaurs Mentioned in the Bible?</a>"</p>
<div class="separator" style="text-align:center"><iframe src="https://edwardtbabinski.us/related-content/related-content-19.html" style="margin-bottom:0em; margin-left:0em; margin-right:0em; height:400px; width:600px; border:0px"></iframe></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-505205186321877769.post-77500585246174866782012-03-31T11:08:00.005-07:002019-09-01T19:17:58.429-07:00An overview of Earth's Geological Timeline<img style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; display: block;" src="https://www.edwardtbabinski.us/beach_kids/sea_shells/natural-history-timeline.jpg" alt="Mass Extinctions" border="0" />
<p align="center">Edward T. Babinski: The first billion years of the earth's formation there was no life so far as anyone knows. The earth was being bombarded with debris as it cooled. And the early pre-Cambrian contains no fossilized evidence of even the simplest life forms. Some say that perhaps life or reproducing chemicals formed more than once and were destroyed more than once as asteroids from the early star system continued colliding with earth and the other planets, i.e., before the orbiting ring of matter round the sun had assumed more regular and less dangerous orbits.</p>
<p>From: <a href="http://north-carolina-sea-shells.blogspot.com/2006/05/when-did-first-mollusks-appear.html" target="_top">When Did Mollusks First Appear?</a></p>
<ul>
<li>
<p><a href="https://edwardtbabinski.us/fossils/" target="_top">What Is A Fossil?</a><br />
A general introduction to the history of fossil discoveries, and the gradual progress of science and paleontology.</p>
<ul>
<li>
<p><a href="https://edwardtbabinski.us/paleontology/becoming_a_fossil.html" target="_top">How A Living Organism Becomes a Fossil</a><br />
Taphonomy, the study of how living organisms become fossils, and five natural methods which explain how living organisms become fossils.</p>
</li>
<li>
<p><a href="https://edwardtbabinski.us/fossils/fossil_history_europe.html" target="_top">Fossil History in Europe</a><br />
Important milestones in European fossil hunting, including first professional fossil collector, Mary Anning.</p>
</li>
<li>
<p><a href="http://edwardtbabinski.us/fossils/how_fossils_are_used.html" target="_top">Major Geological Eons, Eras, Periods and Epochs, and How Fossils Are Used</a><br />
Chart of major geological eons, eras, periods, epochs and events. How fossils are used by scientists to determine its relationship with other specimens, with objective to unravel evolutionary patterns and origins.</p>
</li>
<li>
<p><a href="http://edwardtbabinski.us/paleontology/vendian.html" target="_top">Vendian Period and the Origins of Life</a><br />
The Vendian World, a look at some of the first life forms that existed on Earth, and theories about the origins of life.</p>
</li>
</ul>
<p><strong>HISTORICAL ARTICLES</strong></p>
<ul>
<li>Canadian Rockies: <a href="http://fossils.edwardtbabinski.us/geologists_paradise.html" target="_top">A Geologist's Paradise</a>, National Geographic, June 1911<br />Charles D. Wolcott, secretary of the Smithsonian visits the Canadian Rockies. A look back to 1911, when science was first discovering the vast age of the earth, rich fossil record, and paleontology was still in its infancy.</li>
</ul>
<p style="valign: top;"><strong>REFERENCES</strong><br /><img src="https://edwardtbabinski.us/fossils/fossils.jpg" alt="" align="bottom" border="0" /><a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0073661708/edwartbabinth-20" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Bringing Fossils to Life, An Introduction to Paleobiology</a>, McGraw Hill Publishers, Donald R. Prothero</p>
<p><img src="https://edwardtbabinski.us/fossils/paleobotany.gif" alt="Paleobotany" align="bottom" border="0" /><a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0521382947/edwartbabinth-20" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Paleobotany and the Evolution of Plants</a>, by Cambridge University Press; 2 edition, Wilson N. Stewart, Gar W. Rothwell</p>
<p><img src="https://edwardtbabinski.us/fossils/dinosaur.jpg" alt="" align="bottom" border="0" /><a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0753452871/edwartbabinth-20" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Kingfisher Illustrated Dinosaur Encyclopedia</a>, Kingfisher Publishers, David Burnie</p>
<p><strong>FURTHER SUGGESTED READING</strong><br /><a href="http://hometown.aol.com/afmayor/myhomepage/resume.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Adrienne Mayor's books</a><br />1) The First Fossil Hunters (Princeton 2000) explains how ancient Greek and Roman discoveries of mysterious petrifed bones of extinct dinosaurs and mastodons led to myths about griffins, giants, and monsters. Watch for "Ancient Monster Hunters" on the History Channel.<br />2) Fossil Legends of the First Americans (Princeton 2005) gathers exciting Native American discoveries and myths about fossils, from tiny shells to enormous dinosaur bones, with stories from more than 45 different tribes, beginning with the Aztecs & Incas.</p>
<p>Stephen Meyer's article, "<a href="http://www.bibleandscience.com/science/dinosaurs.htm" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Are Dinosaurs Mentioned in the Bible?</a>"</p>
<p>Edward T. Babinski wrote: "In 1726 [Prof. J.J. Scheuchzer] mistook the skull and vertebral column of a large salamander from the Miocene of Oeningen for the "betrübten Beingerüst eines alten Sünders" (sad bony remains of an old human sinner) and figured the specimen as "Homo diluvii testis" (the man who witnessed the Deluge).</p>
<p>SOURCE: Dirk Albert Hooijer, "<a href="http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0369-7827%281952%291%3A10%3C109%3AFAFIH%28%3E2.0.CO%3B2-J" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Fact and Fiction in Hippopotamology</a> (Sampling the History of Scientific Error)," Osiris, Vol. 10. (1952), pp. 109-116.</p>
<p><em>Funny comment about the above sentence</em>: Assertion, emphatic and immune to reason, might not be the best foundation for a new critical practice; but we also can’t tell our salamanders from sinners.</p>
</li>
</ul>
<div class="separator" style="text-align:center"><iframe src="https://edwardtbabinski.us/related-content/related-content-19.html" style="margin-bottom:0em; margin-left:0em; margin-right:0em; height:400px; width:600px; border:0px"></iframe></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-505205186321877769.post-29783640256919435632012-03-31T10:51:00.003-07:002019-09-01T19:17:41.210-07:00How A Living Organism Becomes a Fossil<p><strong>Five natural methods which explain how living organisms are preserved to become fossils.</strong></p>
<p><em>Being a paleontologist is like being a coroner except that all the witnesses are dead and all the evidence has been left out in the rain for 65 million years.</em> <br />- Mike Brett-Surman, 1994</p>
<p><img style="border-width: 0px; float: right;" src="https://edwardtbabinski.us/paleontology/bog_mummy_01.jpg" alt="Bog Mummy" width="250" height="572" />On Earth, there are over one and a half million species which have been identified, and estimates arrive at three and a half million which remain. Fossils preserve only a select portion, such as organisms with hard body parts; shells, bone, wood, for instance, fossilize more easily, making them easier to study and learn about their past. Soft-bodied organisms on the contrary, seldom fossilize, making it far more difficult for paleontologists to study. The study which focuses on how organisms become fossilized is <em>taphonomy</em>, Greek for "laws of burial".</p>
<p>Taphonomy has increased in popularity over the last decades. It's importance is gaining insight into the preserved fossil record. From the time an organism dies, many things can happen before it becomes covered, such as decay, trampling, broken, fed upon, and the more information scientists can reconstruct about the creature, the more accurate the hypothesis.</p>
<p>First in the process of reconstruction, is determining what type of fossilization took place. The majority of fossils have been altered from their original shape and texture which presents the paleontologist with a challenging task in making a determination on the appearance of the original specimen. In rare occurences, an organism became fossilized with original tissue still intact. For instance, in the Siberian Tundra, some Wooly Mammoths were discovered thawing with freeze-dried soft tissue and food remains in their digestive tract. Some of them so well preserved, the thirty thousand yr. old meat could be eaten without adverse effect. Another example is of a Wooly Rhinoceros found fossilized in an oil seep in Poland, the specimen was pickled which prevented decay. Though such cases are rare, when they do occur they preserve physical traits such as texture, color and diet.</p>
<p><img style="float: left; margin-right: 2px; margin-left: 2px; padding:5px;" src="https://edwardtbabinski.us/paleontology/tar_pit_fossils.jpg" alt="fossils preserved in tar" width="400" height="277" /><br />
Forty thousand year old bones pickled in tar, retain the original composition, but are black and scent of petroleum. These were found fossilized in the Rancho La Brea tar pits. Enough of the original material remains for scientists to extract DNA for comparative studies with living relatives.Photo by Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County, California.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>2000 years ago the Celts and their kin believed the bogs of Northern Europe were entrance to the realm of the gods. Bogs are filled with a natural enbalming fluid, acidic water, low in oxygen and rich with tannins (the same chemicals used to cure leather). Over time dead vegetation turns into peat, harvested for heating fuel.</p>
</blockquote>
<p><img style="float: right;" src="https://edwardtbabinski.us/paleontology/bog_mummy_02.jpg" alt="Bog Mummy" border="0" /></p>
<blockquote>
<p>More than 1000 bog mummies have been found. Most around 2000 years old. Often their bones are dissolved, while the skin has been transformed into leather, with tremendous lifelike detail. Many bear signs of a violent death, slit throats, strangulation or hanging. Many scholars believe they were sacrificed to (sun-agricultural related) fertility gods.</p>
<p>Images (some alterations required for Web) and Notes, Adapted from National Geographic Video, <em>Mummies: Voices of the Dead</em></p>
</blockquote>
<p>Many shells from the Pleistocene age contain unaltered composition, which includes the mother of pearl coating, (the shiny coat lining the interior surface of the shell.) Some Cretaceous ammonite fossils contain this layer, but most fossils that date older, lack the original aragonite.</p>
<blockquote>
<p><img style="float: right;" src="https://edwardtbabinski.us/paleontology/fly_amber.jpg" alt="Fly Trapped In Amber" border="0" /> <br />Insects trapped in Amber are preserved with the finest details though most of the organic material will decompose over time. <br />Photo adapted from Briggs and Crowther, 1990.</p>
</blockquote>
<p><strong>PRESERVATION IN AMBER</strong> <br />Amber comes from resin, a thick sticky liquid which often traps insects and other organisms when it seeps from tree bark. The resin dries, hardens, with the insect preserved inside, often with incredible detail. The majority of such specimen are mere carbonized films while sometimes the organism has been discovered with original bio-chemicals intact. Such molecules can be extracted and sequenced for study. However, the degraded composition of the material makes it impossible to ever reconstruct an entire organism.</p>
<p><strong>NATURAL METHODS OF FOSSILIZATION</strong></p>
<p><img style="float: right;" src="https://edwardtbabinski.us/paleontology/ichthyosaur.jpg" alt="Ichthyosaur Fossil" border="0" /></p>
<ul>
<li>Permineralization <br />Bone, especially marrow and wood both contains pores and cavities. After soft material decays, the harder material is left. If it becomes buried, it may become permeated in calcium deposits from groundwater. Calcium carbonate or silica settles into the bone or wood, cementing it and turning to rock. Unlike Replacement (below), new material settles into hard remains, but no original material is removed. Fossil logs from the <em>Petrified Forest in Arizona</em> were permineralized by silica, while other petrified wood and bone specimens are fossilized by carbonate. This process can be so thorough, even details of cell structure remain intact.</li>
<li>Recrystallization <br />Some shells are made of aragonite and other unstable materials which sometimes reverts to a form of calcium carbonate, or <em>calcite</em>. In some cases, the calcite may recrystallize into larger crystals, preserving the original shape, but under a microscope the alteration in original texture becomes apparent.</li>
<li>Dissolution and Replacement <br />Sediments of bone or shell may be exposed to water, which will cause a decay of the original material. When a fossil dissolves, its original shape will be preserved in a void by the surrounding sediments. This internal filling is known as <em>steinkern</em>, German for "stone cast". The void sometimes is replaced with sediments, which mimmicks the shape of the original fossil. This method of fossilization is identified when a fossil is comprised of minerals that are clearly not the original.</li>
<li>Carbonization <br />Fossils may also be preserved as thin films of carbon in such environment as sandstone or shale. When an organism dies, its soft tissue decays leaving a residue of carbon, a dark film which preserves the outline of the organism. This method is common with plant fossils, though there are examples of carbonized animal fossils.</li>
</ul>
<blockquote>
<p>The outline of an Ichthyosaur preserved in a carbonized film around the skeleton. <br />Original Photo by R. Wild, from <em>Bringing Fossils to Life, An Introduction to Paleobiology</em>, by Donald R. Prothero</p>
</blockquote>
<p><strong>REFERENCES</strong> <br /><img src="https://edwardtbabinski.us/fossils/fossils.gif" alt="" border="0" /><a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0073661708/edwartbabinth-20" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Bringing Fossils to Life, An Introduction to Paleobiology</a>, McGraw Hill Publishers, Donald R. Prothero</p>
<p><strong>FURTHER SUGGESTED READING</strong> <br /><a href="http://hometown.aol.com/afmayor/myhomepage/resume.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Adrienne Mayor's books</a> <br />1) The First Fossil Hunters (Princeton 2000) explains how ancient Greek and Roman discoveries of mysterious petrifed bones of extinct dinosaurs and mastodons led to myths about griffins, giants, and monsters. Watch for "Ancient Monster Hunters" on the History Channel. <br />2) Fossil Legends of the First Americans (Princeton 2005) gathers exciting Native American discoveries and myths about fossils, from tiny shells to enormous dinosaur bones, with stories from more than 45 different tribes, beginning with the Aztecs & Incas.</p>
<p>Stephen Meyer's article, "<a href="http://www.bibleandscience.com/science/dinosaurs.htm" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Are Dinosaurs Mentioned in the Bible?</a>"</p>
<div class="separator" style="text-align:center"><iframe src="https://edwardtbabinski.us/related-content/related-content-19.html" style="margin-bottom:0em; margin-left:0em; margin-right:0em; height:400px; width:600px; border:0px"></iframe></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-505205186321877769.post-24341614319924238392012-03-26T20:26:00.001-07:002019-09-01T19:17:24.253-07:00Man, the Social Animal<blockquote>
<p>Thomas C. writes:</p>
<p>Ed,</p>
<p>Question: I was just watching a conservative news report. I got to thinking, and I know this isn't an original thought, I was wondering whether there have been any genetic/evolution studies on homosapien's need to form groups.</p>
<p>Conservatives and liberals square off constantly, and this only polarizes our country! Niether group is 100% correct! Yet, a conservative always defends his/her agenda and liberals do the same. It is the same with religion and other groupings.</p>
<p>As a high school teacher I see how cliques form. I see how dangerous they can become. Adults are no better. We form our cliques around like minded people and defend them to the hilt!</p>
<p>I wonder if it is somehow connected to evolution. As a history teacher I know that groups were important for survival. All people seemed to have formed groups to hunt, gather and protect. I wonder if today that same mechanism leads to the staunch religiosity of Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, etc? Is this adherance a part of our evolutionary past? Reaching back to an earlier time when grouping together was a survival instinct?</p>
<p>What do you know? Think?</p>
<p>Thank you,</p>
<p>Thomas</p>
</blockquote>
<p>ED: Instinctive defense of one's territory runs deep in many species.<br />That goes for mental territory as well. *smile*</p>
<p>Also, speaking of mental territory, it is a most satisfying animal impulse to get other people to share one's ideas. It's also a logical fallacy that no matter how many people you get to agree with you, that doesn't mean your ideas are true -- not even marginally truer than fewer people who share a different idea.</p>
<p>I think agnosticism is the only way to bring greater groups of people together into larger groups. Unfortunately agnosticism doesn't seem to be a very Evangelical faith, in some cases it lay close to indifference, but they are not the same thing. Though if even a marginally greater percentage of people were a bit more indifferent to the most dogmatic and unproven ideas of our religious and political alpha males, then I think that would be a good thing.</p>
<p>Two books come to mind concerning the need to expand one's mental territory and the need to form groups, and they are both by the same author, the first book is called <em>The Lucifer Principle</em>, which points out that just as bacteria seek to fill a petri dish, even mental ideas of a most nebulous and unproven sort, seek to fill as many minds as possible. The book compares mass movements in politics and religion to the simplest needs of single celled organisms. It also compares organisms in between as well. *smile*</p>
<p>Oh, one more thing, the more dogmatic and unproven a hypothesis, the more likely it is that its advocates will seek to demonize those who believe differently. Because it's relatively easy to bring a group of people together in love if they have an "out-group" upon which they can project their fears and anger.</p>
<div class="separator" style="text-align:center"><iframe src="https://edwardtbabinski.us/related-content/related-content-19.html" style="margin-bottom:0em; margin-left:0em; margin-right:0em; height:400px; width:600px; border:0px"></iframe></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-505205186321877769.post-73121074436075827642012-03-26T20:20:00.001-07:002019-09-01T19:17:04.970-07:00From Darwin to Hitler<p>Concerning a message posted at: sg.messages.yahoo.com/</p>
<p>Re: Edward T. Babinski</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Top /Culture, Religion, & Philosophy /Evolution<br />Culture, new ageism, religion, philosophy. What do you believe in?</p>
<ol>
<ol>
<li>Evolution 27/09/04</li>
</ol>
</ol>
<ol>
<ol>
<li>New Book: From Darwin to Hitler 27/09/04</li>
</ol>
</ol>
<ol>
<ol>
<li>Edward T. Babinski 27/09/04</li>
</ol>
</ol>
<ol>
<li>Re: Edward T. Babinski 27/09/04</li>
</ol>
<p>Subject: Edward T. Babinski<br />by: ichiban_sux<br />Posted on: 27/09/04 21:08<br />Msg #3<br />A Reponse to "<a href="http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/latest_2003/racism.html">Darwinism and the Nazi Race Holocaust</a>."<br />by Edward T. Babinski</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Re: Edward T. Babinski<br />by: islewake<br />Posted on: 27/09/04 22:39<br />Msg #4</p>
<p>BERGMAN: The Nazis relied heavily upon the work of Hans F.K. Günther, professor of 'racial science' at the University of Jena</p>
<p>ED: Note the admission, "relied heavily upon the work of Hans F. K. Günther," whose "work" consisted of "proving" the "inferiority of the Jews." Why "the Jews" you ask? Because Günther and many other Germans "knew" that the "Jews" were inferior long before Günther ever did his first "racial science" experiment (sic). In fact, many Germans believed that "Jews" were inferior for CENTURIES, because the Bible and Martin Luther told them so. So really, what DOES the Holocaust come down to? Günther's "racial science," a Jew-hating pseudoscience, based firmly on centuries of Jew-baiting and Jew-hating under the Christian cross</p>
<p># Where in the bible does it say that Jews were inferior. Could you either answer that, or ask Ed to answer this.</p>
<p>BERGMAN: Poliakov notes that many intellectuals in the early 1900s accepted telegony, the idea that 'bad blood' would contaminate a race line forever, or that 'bad blood drives out good' , just as bad money displaces good money. Only extermination would permanently eliminate inferior genetic lines, and thereby further evolution. . Darwin even compiled a long list of cases where he concluded bad blood polluted a whole gene line, causing it to bear impure progeny forever.</p>
<p>ED: This idea of "telegony" does not necessarily warrant "extermination" in the sense of killing people, just sterilization. I also wonder whether Darwin ever mentioned the words "bad blood" and spoke about it "polluting" a whole gene line. He probably did collect examples in which a pedigreed dog or pigeon was bred with a wild type and the children of that offspring no longer bore pedigreed offspring. But so what? Does that mean build ovens and kill Jews, homosexuals, Poles, and Gypsies? Darwin did invent a theory of inheritance that involved gemmules carried in the blood that carried physically inherited information, but it was disproven long ago. Nobody believes Darwin's theory of inheritance any more.</p>
<p># so this Ed guy is trying to say sterilization of "inferior races" is OK? Would he like to be in queue for the first to be sterilized, or you?<br />Isn't he being incredibly racist? You would want to support him and his views?</p>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<p>REPLY TO ISLEWAKE FROM ED BABINSKI</p>
<p>ISLEWAKE: Where in the bible does it say that Jews were inferior. Could you either answer that, or ask Ed to answer this.</p>
<p>ED: Christian society/civilization viewed Jews as spiritually and morally "inferior" damnably so, since Christians grew convinced that only a stubbornly evil people blinded by Satan could deny the truth of Christianity for centuries and not convert, even while living in the midst of Christians. (See also the last chapter of Mark, "Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not BELIEVE will be CONDEMNED," and John 3, "Whoever does NOT BELIEVE stands CONDEMNED ALREADY.") What a blight also on Christian society to have such unbelievers in their midst. They feared that allowing such Satanic blindness to continue unresisted in the midst of their Christian cities might even bring down God's wrath on the inhabitants of the entire town.</p>
<p><strong>CHRISTIANITY AND JUDAISM</strong><br />[The Theodosian Code appeared in 438 A.D. It was a collection of the edicts of earlier Christian Roman Emperors brought together in a single book.] The Code characterized Judaism as "abominable superstition" and Jewish religious gatherings are referred to as "sacrilegious assemblies." The presence of Christians in a synagogue was regarded as lese-majeste liable to persecution. From 423 on, no new synagogue could be erected without the permission of the Church. Similar restrictions applied to Jews throughout the Middle Ages. A Christian who converted to the Jewish faith lost his property and his right of behest. In the fifth century, capital punishment was imposed upon Jews who solicited new adherents for their faith. In the seventh century, the Jews in Spain, Italy, and France were ordered to chose between baptism and expulsion. Saint Isidore of Seville (ca. 560-636) summoned a persecution of Jews, and thereupon King Sisebut ordered their forcible conversion. Although the Church did not endorse this procedure officially, it did subject the Jews to all penalties for heresy if they could be accused of inclination to their former faith, from which they had been averted by force. The reason given was that baptism once performed is indelible, even if it is performed by coercion. In 694, the Council of Toledo decreed perpetual servitude for Jews. The Fourth Lateran Council of 1215, which had particular significance for the treatment of heretics. determined that Jews should wear a distinctive dress or particular badge, putting these regulations into Canon Law.</p>
<p>The Protestant Reformer, Martin Luther, was similarly intolerant toward the Jews and their public worship. His advice is "that their synagogues and schools be set on fire, and that those portions which will not burn be covered up with earth. And this should be done to the honor of our Lord and of Christendom, so that God may see that we are Christians and have not knowingly tolerated not willed such public lies, maledictions, and blasphemies against His Son and His Christians." [Luther's Works (German), Erlangen Edition, 37,233]- Mensching, Tolerance and Truth in Religion, trans., Hans-J. Klimkeit<br />(Alabama: The University of Alabama Press, 1971)</p>
<p>In 1543 Martin Luther wrote two violent books against the Jews. His intercourse with several Rabbis filled him with disgust and indignation against their pride, obstinacy, and blasphemies. He came to the conclusion that it was useless to dispute with them and impossible to convert them. [Luther saw things this way.] Moses could do nothing with Pharaoh by warnings, plagues and miracles, but had to let him drown in the Red Sea. The Jews would crucify their expected Messiah, if he ever should come, even worse than they crucified the Christian Messiah. They are a blind, hard, incorrigible race. He went so far as to advise their expulsion from Christian lands [and forbidding them "safe passage" as well -- E.T.B.], the prohibition of their books, and the burning of their synagogues and even their houses in which they blaspheme our Savior and the Holy Virgin. In the last of his sermons preached shortly before his death at Eisleben, where many Jews were allowed to trade, he concluded with a severe warning against the Jews as dangerous public enemies who ought not to be tolerated, but left the alternative of conversion or expulsion.<br />- Philip Schaff [Professor of Church History in the Union Theological Seminary, New York] Modern Christianity: The German Reformation = Vol. VII of History of the Christian Church (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmanns, second edition revised, 1910)</p>
<hr style="width: 50%; height: 1px;" align="left" />
<p><strong>THE NAZIS AND THE JEWS</strong><br />ED'S RESPONSE TO YOUR QUESTION ABOVE<br />It took Nazi "pseudo-science" to redefine that hatred and scorn in terms of the latest fade, biological "inferiority," but such a redefinition did not redirect the focus of the scorn, since it had been directed for centuries at "the Jews."</p>
<p>Neither did the Nazis reject the earlier Christian anti-semitic arguments, they used every variety of argument at their disposal. For instance, Hitler prominently dispalyed Luther's book, ON THE JEWS AND THEIR LIES, in a glass case at his rallies. There were also religious propganda pamphlets from the Nazis showing that they also employed the racial inferiority arguments that CREATIONISTS were using during that same time period as well.</p>
<p>Note that the Christian religion and racism also have a past together, not just Nazism and racism. South Africa, ruled by a conservative Protestant white minority, featured a school system that taught creationism right beside apartheid teachings of the racial inferiority of Blacks, and apartheid in South Africa lasted a long time. The most religious part of the United States, the South, with the fewest most harmonious religious denominations, Southern Baptists, Southern Methodists and Southern Presbyterians, split with their northern brethren over the right of ministers to own slaves, defended the right to own slaves, and ever after the Civil War, continued to advocate the inferiority of the Black race. Even today, you can visit the website of the KKK in America and read, "We [the Ku Klux Klan] are born-again Christians and intend to remain so."<br />-- Pastor Thomas Robb, ordained Baptist minister and National Director of the Ku Klux Klan, [Source: http://www.kukluxklan.org "Christian Witness Doctrine: Politics from a White Christian perspective -- the way our country was meant to be! 'What we need is more Patriotism in the Christians and more Christianity in the Patriots.'"])</p>
<p>In short, it was evolution, creation, and yes, religion too, that maintained the anti-Jewish prejudice in Germany. Neither did Hitler or the Nazis abandon "God," which would obviously have been more of a Bolshevik error! How the Nazis hated those atheistic Bolshevists!</p>
<p>Was Catholic Hitler "Anti-Christian?" See, On the Trail of Bogus Quotes by Richard C. Carrier [The essay excerpts research published later as "Hitler's Table Talk: Troubling Finds." German Studies Review 26.3 (Oct 2003): 561-76)] "We often hear accusations that 'Adolf Hitler was an atheist and look what he did!' The idea that Hitler believed in God, that he even claimed Christ as his own, is so shocking to people that they will go to any lengths to deny it. But the notion that Hitler was an atheist has already been soundly refuted.1 For more, <a href="http://ffrf.org/fttoday/2002/nov02/index.php?ft=carrier.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">here</a>.</p>
<hr style="width: 50%; height: 1px;" align="left" />
<p><strong>MORE ON JEWS AND CHRISTIANS</strong><br />Historian Dagobert Runes (whose mother was killed by the Nazis) blamed the Christian church for the Holocaust. He wrote: "Everything Hitler did to the Jews, all horrible, unspeakable misdeeds, had already been done to the smitten people before by the Christian churches. The isolation of Jews into ghetto camps, the wearing of the yellow spot, the burning of Jewish books, and finally the burning of the people -- Hitler learned it all from the church. However, the church burned Jewish women and children alive, while Hitler granted them a quicker death, choking them first with gas."</p>
<p>Dr. Runes said Christian priests and ministers still were inculcating hostility to Jews as the Third Reich arrived. "The clergymen don't tell you whom to kill; they just tell you whom to hate," he wrote. "The Christian clergymen start teaching their young at the tenderest age that THE Jews killed the beloved, gentle Son of God; that God Himself, the Father, punished THE Jews by dispersion and the burning of their holy city; that God holds THE Jews accursed forever. For all the 2,000 years, there was no act of war against the Jews in which the church didn't play an intrinsic part. And wherever there was a trace of mercy, charity, or tolerance to be found amid this savagery, it came not from the church but from humanitarians in the civil world, as in Napoleonic France during the American Revolution. Some fancy that these brutal outrages. occurred only in the Dark Ages, as if this were an excuse. Nay, when George Washington was president, Jewish people were burning on the spit in Mexico. Wherever there are Christian churches there is anti-Semitism."</p>
<p>When Nazism finally came, it was rooted in a fundamental fact: Religion had split Europe into a dominant majority and a vilified minority. Madmen rode this division to destruction. Fifteen years after the ghastly contents of the death camps were revealed, reformer Pope John XXIII offered this prayer: "The mark of Cain is stamped upon our foreheads. Across the centuries, our brother Abel has lain in blood that we drew, and shed tears we caused by forgetting Thy love. Forgive us, Lord, for the curse we falsely attributed to their names as Jews." [p. 163-165]<br />- James A. Haught, Holy Horrors: An Illustrated History of Religious Murder and Madness (Buffalo, N.Y.: Prometheus Books, 1990)</p>
<p><a href="http://www.tentmaker.org/books/MartinLuther-HitlersSpiritualAncestor.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">MARTIN LUTHER, HITLER'S SPIRITUAL ANCESTOR</a></p>
<p><a href="http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/web/faq/faq-nt.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">ANTI-JUDAISM IN THE NEW TESTAMENT</a><br />FROM THE JEWS FOR JUDAISM WEBSITE<br />The question of why the Jews were chosen to be exterminated is obviously more complicated than what creationists would like people to believe. (So is the question of the founding of America, but that's another question entirely.)</p>
<hr style="width: 50%; height: 1px;" align="left" />
<p>ISLEWAKE: so this Ed guy is trying to say sterilization of "inferior races" is OK?</p>
<p>ED: Read what I wrote, I questioned where all the "hatred" focused on "the Jews," along with the Nazi idea to "exterminate" them, came from, and I pointed out it did NOT come from "science." At most, the Nazi pseudo-scientific teachings concerning "Jewish biological inferiority" and their pseudo-scientific fear of "mixed bad blood" might promote sterilization, not extermination. Extermination was the Nazi's choice, probably for psychological reasons. Deep down they knew that you could unite a nation of people together more easily if they had an object they could all fear, hate or project their own insecurities, fears, hatreds, and BLAME onto. As the war got brutal so did the need to shift the blame and get more brutal with the folks upon whom they had placed the most "blame" for what was "wrong" (or going "wrong") with the world.</p>
<hr style="width: 50%; height: 1px;" align="left" />
<p>ISLEWAKE: Would he like to be in queue for the first to be sterilized, or you?</p>
<p>ED: Again, read what I said, I was pointing out the pseudo-science that the Nazis were building their case round. And how the Nazis' rise to power benefited from the previous 1700 years of anti-Judaic hatred, fear, blame, etc. The trouble with Hitler and Nazism was quite simple, as even the Evangelical Christian, Chuck Colsen has pointed out. At first Hitler was PRAISED for removing criminals off the street and improving Germany's economy. Even the BAPTIST COURIER here in Greenville, S.C., praised Hitler for doing that. Many Christians thought Hitler had the right idea at that time. But after Hitler gained such huge devotion and found out how he could move and more people with his speeches, and rose to such a high place, he soon decided to start locking up whomever HE considered to be "criminals" as well.</p>
<hr style="width: 50%; height: 1px;" align="left" />
<p>ISLEWAKE: Isn't he being incredibly racist? You would want to support him and his views?</p>
<p>ED: "Incredibly racist?" I was not making racist remarks but comparing levels of Nazi pseudo-science. Of course if you wish to argue that one remark misunderstood by you is enough evidence to turn people away from whatever else I write, then maybe I should employ your logic and find a couple remarks in the Bible that appear detestable to me, and argue that people ought to no longer support the Bible. Because, depending on the circumstances, even genocide can be "right with the God of the Bible." For instance:</p>
<p>Every living thing on the earth was drowned [which no doubt included pregnant women and babies]... Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.<br />-- Genesis 7:23</p>
<p>And according to the Bible, God gave orders to kill children and to rip open the bodies of pregnant women:</p>
<p>Thus saith the LORD... Slay both man and woman, infant and suckling.<br />-- 1 Samuel 15:3</p>
<p>The LORD delivered them before us; and we destroyed the men, and the women, and the little ones.<br />-- Deuteronomy 2:33-34</p>
<p>Joshua destroyed all that breathed, as the LORD commanded.<br />-- Joshua 10:40</p>
<p>Kill every male among the little ones.<br />-- Numbers 31:17</p>
<p>The wind of the LORD shall come up from the wilderness, and his spring shall become dry, and... Samaria shall become desolate... they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up.<br />-- Hosea 13:15-16</p>
<p>With thee will I [the LORD] break in pieces the young man and the maid.<br />-- Jeremiah 51:22</p>
<p>Happy [or Blessed] shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.<br />-- Psalm 137:9 ( A SONG!)</p>
<p>"The pestilences were sent by God. The frightful famine, during which the dying child with pallid lips sucked the withered bosom of his dead mother, was sent by God. God drowned an entire world with the exception of eight persons. Imagine how such acts would have stained the reputation of the devil!" -- Robert G. Ingersoll</p>
<p>You shall fear (no other gods) only Yahweh... for He is a jealous God. Otherwise His anger will be kindled against you and He will wipe you off the face of the earth... In the cities He gives you leave alive nothing that breathes... utterly destroy them... show them no mercy... or Yahweh will destroy you utterly... The Lord delivered them before us... we... utterly destroyed the men... women, and the little ones of every city... If your brother, son, daughter, wife, or your friend who is your own soul, entice you away secretly, saying, "Let us go serve other gods"... you shall kill him; your hand shall be first against him to put him to death... These curses shall come on you... because you would not obey the Lord... you shall eat the offspring of your own body, the flesh of your sons and of your daughters... I [the Lord] will make mine arrows drunk with blood.<br />-- Deuteronomy. 2:33-34; 5:9; 6:13,15; 7:2,4; 13:6-9; 20:16,17; 28:45,47,53; 32:42</p>
<p>I shall make them eat the flesh of their sons and the flesh of their daughters, and they will eat one another's flesh in the siege... A curse on him who is lax in doing the Lord's work! A curse on him who keeps his sword from bloodshed. You are My war-club... with you I shatter old man and youth. young man and virgin.<br />-- Jeremiah 19:9; 48:10; 51:20,22</p>
<p>Such verses bring to mind a question: Is "heaven" going to be a vacation paradise for obedient child slaughterers? ("A curse on him who is lax in doing the Lord's work! A curse on him who keeps his sword from bloodshed") I can just hear the pool-side chat in heaven, "We killed everyone in the city as God commanded. or thought we had. Then I spotted a heap of blankets rustling in an alleyway and yanked them aside, and there was a trembling young girl and her pregnant Mom. You should have seen the look on their faces as I raised my sword and. Hey waiter, can I get another Bloody Mary? Boy, I just love this place!"</p>
<p>Cheers,<br />
<a href="http://www.edwardtbabinski.us">Edward T. Babinski</a></p>
<div class="separator" style="text-align:center"><iframe src="https://edwardtbabinski.us/related-content/related-content-19.html" style="margin-bottom:0em; margin-left:0em; margin-right:0em; height:400px; width:600px; border:0px"></iframe></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-505205186321877769.post-21291263416938687252012-03-26T20:14:00.002-07:002019-09-01T19:16:42.104-07:00Evolution of Communication in Primates<p>Evolution of Communication in Primates<br />by Sharon Mooney</p>
<blockquote>"While our human awareness and compassion is rapidly expanding to include a greater concern for our biosphere and its inhabitants, our ignorance still remains a critical problem. Fundamental to removing ignorance and replacing it with understanding is communication. We feel that communication is the one behavior most critical for future survival. Washoe has helped replace some of our ignorance about communication with an understanding of ourselves, as well as other beings. This is one reason why we have committed our lives to a research project that focuses on the understanding of communication and chimpanzees."<br />-- Dr. Roger S. Fouts</blockquote>
<p><strong>Human – Ape Connection</strong><br />Many studies have been conducted on the relationship between man and ape, and communication is only one of them. This paper focuses on the similarities between man and ape, our related abilities and need for communication. According to the latest research, Human and Chimp chromosomes are 1.23% different vs. the previously presumed 1.4% difference. According to the Jane Goodall Institute, Chimpanzees and humans possess similar biological traits in areas such as composition of blood and immune responses. Chimp and human brains and central nervous sytems are remarkably similar. Chimpanzees have been used in medical research because they are so biologically similar to humans. They can become infected with all known human infectious diseases with the possible exception of cholera. It is conceivable that Chimpanzees, Bonobo and Gorillas have the capacity for intellect that at one time was believed to be a unique human characteristic. Chimpanzees in captivity have successfully been taught such human language as American Sign Language and learning three hundred signs or more. Chimps have been able to master varied computer skills and chimps have the capacity "for reasoned thought, abstraction, generalization, symbolic representation and a concept of self". Researchers who have worked with the Chimpanzee and other apes express a firm belief their primate counterparts have a reasonable amount of ability to feel and express real emotion such as fear, sadness, despair and can feel both mental and physical pain. Some of the observable behavior includes "kissing, embracing, patting on the back, touching hands, tickling, swaggering, shaking a fist, brandishing sticks or hurling rocks. These patterns appear in similar contexts as those in which they are seen in humans and mean much the same thing." (Goodall, 1999) Chimpanzees have a closer relation genetically with humans than with gorillas. Some scientists have proposed classifying chimpanzees in a genus with humans, and dubbing them <em>Homo troglodytes</em>.</p>
<p><strong>The Human and Chimp Brain are Similar</strong><br />Scientists at Columbia, Mount Sinai have found a region called the planum temporale which is a part of the brain's temporal cortex, beneath the parietal cortex which is enlarged in humans and now known to share the same asymmetry in ninety four percent of chimpanzees. Scientists like Dr. Gannon believe that this new found evidence is potential proof that distinct planum temporale was a fundamental substructure in the brain of early man's and the great ape's (chimp, orangutan, gorilla) common ancestor, approximately eight to fourteen million years ago. This pre-hominid brain trait is believed to have diverged in its evolution from chimps when human ancestors moved away from localized territories and became roaming bipeds. It was believed that only humans possessed this enlargement. As noted, “Nineteenth-century neurologist Carl Wernicke had noticed that patients with brain lesions of the posterior temporal lobe and parietal lobe - the same area studied by the Mount Sinai and Columbia researchers - could produce language but couldn't understand it. It is likely that this region is responsible for handedness, musical talent, as well as communication disorders like schizophrenia and dyslexia. "Chimpanzees have a sense of self, a great cognitive capacity to understand a lot of things we teach them and the neurophysiology behind their communication ability is likely similar to our own." says Dr. Gannon. That region of the temporal cortex, also known as Wernicke's area, was thought to control language comprehension, but only in humans,” says Dr. Holloway. He expressed belief that perhaps chimpanzees do not have a language per se as humans but rather communicate by a complex combination of facial, body and hand expressions with the added impact of vocalizations such as grunts.</p>
<p>Dr. Gannon who assisted in the research at the Mount Sinai School of Medicine Department of Otolaryngology argues that "this evidence likely means that the anatomically distinct PT was already a fundamental neural substructure in the brain of a human - great ape (chimp, orangutan, gorilla) common ancestor around 8-14 million years ago. In fact, Dr James F. Battey, Jr., Director of NIH-NIDCD, has stated in an NIH press release "This study will generate language research from a new perspective."</p>
<p>At the Gombe Stream Reserve, near Lake Tanganyika chimpanzees have been observed to communicate by using a waving hand gesture to get other chimps to look in a certain direction or, using a “begging hand” to solicit a certain response from others. It can be deduced chimps have intelligence to judge the world around them, and the anticipated response of others around them. This recognition of chimps communicating effectively through hand gestures gave rise to the thought apes might understand sign language.</p>
<p><strong>Efforts to teach Apes speech</strong><br />Speech gave man the ability to evolve his self awareness, and by researching our cousins, the ape we can gain a better insight into how man’s ability to speak evolved. Early efforts were made to teach apes speech, but ended in failure. The results at best were near uninterpretable grunts. In difference to humans, chimps produce about twelve different vocalizations compared to the hundreds humans can make. When sign language was introduced to the ape subjects, successful breakthroughs resulted. Notably Koko a female gorilla taught American Sign Language to express her thoughts. Also, in the 1970’s a chimp called Washoe was trained in the University of Nevada. Washoe learned up to 240 words. Four other chimps were added to the sign language project and amazingly use their knowledge of sign language to teach one another. Washoe was documented to have taught her adopted son to sign without the interference of humans.</p>
<p>Many linguists believe apes have no real understanding of human language but are practicing imitation. They agree that apes may understand symbolism or individual words, they lack the ability to form a complex idea with syntax. Apes form language categories, for instance the word “dog” could represent all species of dogs, and the word “shoe” could represent either a boot or slipper. Apes might likewise invent a new word by combination of the old, for instance for “watermelon” they might say “drink fruit”. Apes can understand vocalized English and translate words into American Sign Language.</p>
<p><strong>Some Benefits for Humans</strong><br />Studying communication of apes has lead to some insight into teaching and better understanding what goes wrong with non communicating children to sign, autistic children and the developmentally disabled, even epilepsy. Dr. Daniel Buxhoeveden, physical anthropologist stated "We are trying to understand what makes the human brain different from non-human primates. We also are trying to understand the pathology of diseases of the brain that are not understandable by classical methods. We think the difference is going to be in the way the brain is organized." These researchers studied the organization of tissue, by completing detailed analyses of a "minicolumn" or a group of eight to one hundred brain cells and their wiring. Millions of such minicolumns exist throughout the brain, but this research was focused on the planum temporale. Differences exist in minicolumns of humans and ape. One of the researchers, Dr. Buxhoeveden stated "These minicolumns are different in their structure in the human brain and also different in that they are lateralized, larger on the left side than on the right side of the brain, we didn't find this in the chimpanzee or the monkey." In humans, language is controlled by the left side of the brain which makes the left-right brain difference pertinent. These differences may eventually help explain why humans possess advanced communications skills, compared to that of their primate counterpart, the ape, which possesses only basic communication skills. Dr. Buxhoeveden stated "We found evidence that the brain is organized differently in humans in this area of the brain, even though the outside looks the same. This provides an anatomical substrate, a hint that the brain is wired differently in humans in the language area than in the chimpanzee or the monkey." He continued to say, "We will be looking at this to describe pathologies that are subtle, that don't have classical symptoms that you see in diseases such as Alzheimer's, where there are obvious, major things wrong with brain tissue. In diseases such as schizophrenia and autism, those obvious symptoms aren't there. But we believe that you will find them in the most subtle wiring of the brain."</p>
<h4><strong>Literature Cited</strong></h4>
<ul>
<li><a href="http://www.2think.org/chimp.shtml" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Similarities Found In Human, Chimp Brains</a>. (1998).</li>
<li><a href="http://www.aar.com.au/pubspta/bt/15jan/bio08.htm" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Kyodo News, BioTech News</a> (2001)</li>
<li><a href="http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/cultural/language/chimpanzee.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Stafford, Amy “Chimpanzee Communication”</a></li>
<li>Gannon, Patrick “Chimpanzee Communication and Language-related areas of the Brain” (1998)</li>
<li>Jane Goodall Institute <a href="http://www.janegoodall.ca/chimps/chimps_living_sim.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">“Similarities to Humans”</a> (1999)</li>
<li>Medical College Of Georgia, <a href="http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2001/09/010905071926.htm" target="_blank" rel="noopener">“Brain Circuitry Involved In Language Reveals Differences In Man, Non-Human Primates”</a> (2001)</li>
</ul>
<div class="separator" style="text-align:center"><iframe src="https://edwardtbabinski.us/related-content/related-content-19.html" style="margin-bottom:0em; margin-left:0em; margin-right:0em; height:400px; width:600px; border:0px"></iframe></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-505205186321877769.post-26387808977905798932012-03-26T19:30:00.002-07:002019-09-01T19:16:26.060-07:00CREATIONISM, Intelligent Design (I.D.) and EVOLUTION<p><strong>CREATIONISM, Intelligent Design (I.D.) & EVOLUTION NEWS 9/30/05</strong><br />Edited by Edward T. Babinski</p>
<p><strong>WHOLE GENOME DUPLICATION, CREATIONISM AND I.D.</strong><br />I read last year about the evidence that "whole genome duplication" had taken place not only in plants, but in two very similar but distinct species of zebra fish. Then, recently, I learned that there is now evidence that "whole genome duplication" took place at least twice in the vertebrate line. What's interesting is the evidence that remains in, say, the two species of zebra fish, one species of which has almost twice the amount of genetic material as the other one, with of course many of those duplicated genes without on-off codons, just unused pseudogene duplicates.</p>
<p>Anyway, please do a google search on the topic of "whole genome duplication" or WGD or zebra fish sometime, and let me know what the I.D.ists think of the evidence for this.</p>
<p>Also, if there is a Designer who keeps any sort of close tabs on nature, whole genomes are getting away from Him, just duplicating themselves whole, and leaving many of those duplicates unused, and in fact in the case of the two zebra fish species we know for a fact that the one with the unduplicated smaller genome gets along just fine without duplicating its whole genome as happened in the case of its close cousin.</p>
<p>Another favorite of mine is the evidence of chromosomal fusion seen inside <a href="http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/articles/chimp_chromosome.html">Human Chromosome #2</a>, which still even retains a remnant of the second centromere, and a reversed telomeric region INSIDE the fused chromosome (telomeres are found at the tips of chromosomes not in their MIDDLE, and they have a certain orderly direction to them, pointing outward toward the tips.) Chimps have two shorter chromosomes with a specific banding pattern that aligns quite closely with the banding patterns of the single elongated Human chromosome #2--which as I said, contains internal evidence as well, of once having been two chromosomes. So the evidence of a fusion with the sloppy leftover results still being visible inside human chromosome #2 is not contestable. It's a fact.</p>
<p>The problem for creationists and anyone who thinks that the Designer oversees every little wiggly thingy, is a problem that both creationists and I.D.ists can't seem to face. Though I do recall seeing Berlinski admit on The Daily Show interview two weeks ago, that he accepts evolution and also only pushes I.D. forward as an hypothesis for a FEW things in nature, not everything in nature. So is Berlinski admitting that Darwinism has some force for many things, just not all changes in nature? Looks like the creationists and I.D.ists are backing themselves into a corner. Perhaps?</p>
<hr style="width: 50%; height: 1px;" align="left" />
<p>23 September 2005<br /><strong>"Insight Into Eye Evolution Deals Blow To Intelligent Design"</strong><br />How complex and physiologically remarkable structures such as the human eye could evolve has long been a question that has puzzled biologists. But in research reported this week in <em>Current Biology</em>, the evolutionary history of a critical eye protein has revealed a previously unrecognized link between certain components of sophisticated vertebrate eyes - like those found in humans - and those of the primitive light-sensing systems of invertebrates. The findings, from researchers at the University of Oxford, the University of London and Radboud University in The Netherlands, put in place a conceptual framework for understanding how the vertebrate eye, as we know it, has emerged over evolutionary time. Human sight relies on the ability of our eye to form a clear, focused image on the retina. Critical to this function is the eye lens and the physical properties that underlie the transparency of the lens. The eye's ability to precisely refract light is because of high concentrations of special proteins called crystallins found in lens cells.</p>
<p>Vertebrates such as fish, frogs, birds, humans and other mammals all experience image-forming vision because our eyes express crystallins, which helps form the lens that is needed. But our invertebrate relatives, such as sea squirts, have only simple eyes that detect light but are incapable of forming an image.</p>
<p>This lead to the view that the lens evolved within vertebrates early in vertebrate evolution, raising the question: How could a complex organ with such remarkable physical properties have evolved in the first place? Researcher Sebastian Shimeld from Oxford approached this question by examining the evolutionary origin of one crystallin protein family, known as the ß?-crystallins. Focusing on sea squirts, the researchers found that these creatures possess a single crystallin gene, which is expressed in its primitive light-sensing system. The identification of this single crystallin gene strongly suggests that it is the gene from which the more complex vertebrate ß?-crystallins evolved.</p>
<p>Perhaps even more remarkable is the finding that expression of the sea squirt crystallin gene is controlled by genetic elements that also respond to the factors that control lens development in vertebrates. This was demonstrated when regulatory regions of the sea squirt gene were transferred to frog embryos where they drove gene expression in the tadpoles' own visual system, including the lens.</p>
<p>The researchers say this suggests that prior to the evolution of the lens, there was a regulatory link between two tiers of genes, those that would later become responsible for controlling lens development, and those that would help give the lens its special physical properties. This combination of genes appears to have then been selected in an early vertebrate during the evolution of its visual system, giving rise to the lens.</p>
<p>The new findings deal a serious blow to the Intelligent Design movement which has long contended that the lack of an apparent evolutionary pathway for complex eye development indicated the presence of a supreme designer.<br />Ref: <a href="http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/20050822230316data_trunc_sys.shtml" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Current Biology</a>, Vol. 15, pages 1684-1689, September 20, 2005. DOI 10.1016/j.cub.2005.08.046</p>
<hr style="width: 50%; height: 1px;" align="left" />
<p><strong>New evidence in favor of cetacean evolution</strong>, based on the evolutionary trees of the parasites that different cetacean species carry on their bodies!</p>
<p><a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4260498.stm" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Whales have "lice" whose evolutionary antecedents</a> include crabs and shrimp and other arthropods! And the relationships of those parasites to one another also parallel the evolutionary relationships of the different cetacean species to one another!</p>
<hr style="width: 50%; height: 1px;" align="left" />
<p><em>And speaking of sea-going parasites</em>, here's a remarkable new discovery, you've got to see the photos!</p>
<p><a href="http://animal.discovery.com/news/briefs/20050912/tongueeater.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Tongue-eating parasite</a></p>
<hr style="width: 50%; height: 1px;" align="left" />
<p><strong>MORE NEWS</strong></p>
<p>Personal Stories of Creation/Evolution</p>
<p>Ken MacLeod's Story<br />By Ken MacLeod, 2003</p>
<p>Ed Brayton's Story<br />By Ed Brayton</p>
<p>Steve Robertson's Story: A Case History of What Happens to a Young-earth Advocate who works in Geology<br />A graduate of Christian Heritage College</p>
<p>Steve Smith's Testimony<br />By Steve Smith, 1998</p>
<p>Wendy Wendel's Story<br />By Wendy Wendel</p>
<hr style="width: 50%; height: 1px;" align="left" />
<p>Stories of <a href="http://answersincreation.org/testimony.htm" target="_blank" rel="noopener">former creationists</a> (who remained Christians after they became evolutionists)</p>
<hr style="width: 50%; height: 1px;" align="left" />
<p>My friend Ed Babinski communicated a note to me that you [Dr. Colling is writing this to a Wall Street Journal reporter] might be interested in talking about the difficulty that Christians have moving away from creationism and toward a more realistic view of the world.</p>
<p>I routinely encounter this tension myself, and while working with students at a Christian college. All their lives, the students are taught one truth. (Six day literal creation), and are told by well-meaning parents and pastors that rejection of evolution is essential to the Christian faith.</p>
<p>But then these same young people go to college (even a Christian college)and discover an entirely different truth, one that seems on the surface to be diametrically opposed what they have been taught by those people they most trust. Alas, as a result of this dilemma, the students often experience intense personal pain in relationships with their loved ones, and profound confusion regarding their faith.</p>
<p>For me personally, the greatest task of teaching at a Christian college is not to convince or persuade creationists that evolution is true: The reality of evolution is apparent to anyone who cares to take a serious look. (Unfortunately, most don't look!)<br />Rather, the greatest challenge is to dismantle the flawed premise that says that understanding in science and belief in God are mutually exclusive, and to provide students with a learning environment where students can effectively learn how life truly functions without feeling that they must discard their faith.</p>
<p>I am not sure what direction you are considering with this Gautam, but if you need some help, I will help. We need to do a better job of communicating a message of integration, not continuing the same old "us vs. them" story that seems to get the headlines most of the time. Science and faith are fully compatible.</p>
<p>On a different, but related note, I have another idea for an article.</p>
<p>Does a potential solution to the entire creation/evolution, science/faith, public school teaching controversy sound interesting?</p>
<p>It is Random Design, and comes from the book, Random Designer - Created from Chaos to Connect with the Creator. Sharon Begley (from your WSJ) wrote about it last December from the perspective of teaching evolution at a Christian college, but no one from the national media has yet written about the concept itself. If you have interest, I can help you understand the concept and would be interested in talking with you further.</p>
<p>In my view, the only solution to science/faith, creation/evolution controveries that has a prayer (sorry) of bringing people together is one that acknowledges the world as it really is, while providing a permanent place at the table for the existence of a Creator.<br />Over 25 years in biology education at a Christian college, Random Design is the only mechanism I see that accomplishes this objective effectively.</p>
<p>If you need some input for your story idea, and/or if you have interest in pursuing this second direction, please let me know. I have written opinion editorials for the Chicago Sun Times and York Dispatch (Dover, Pa. Intelligent Design court case), been interviewed by NPR and Christian Networks Journal. I am currently working on writing additional articles for the Christian audiences, the national science education crowd (to address the intelligent (or not so intelligent) design issue), and would also like to communicate with general audiences such as those of the WSJ as well. I will also be writing the feature book article for Science and Theology News that will go to press in December.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.randomdesigner.com" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Random Designer web site</a></p>
<p>All best,<br />Richard G. Colling</p>
<p>Richard G. Colling Ph.D.<br />Professor of Biology<br />Olivet Nazarene University</p>
<hr style="width: 50%; height: 1px;" align="left" />
<p>J. Scott tried setting up a <a href="http://genesispanthesis.tripod.com/inspiration.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">pro-creationist answer</a> but instead wound up <strong>leaving</strong> the creationist fold, here is his story</p>
<hr style="width: 50%; height: 1px;" align="left" />
<p>Luke Wenke lwenke/hotmail.com was a young-earth creationist in college and had created a website to battle evolution. Below is Luke's letter to Answers in Genesis in which he mentioned my name and the influence that a packet of geologist's reports I sent him on the Green River formation, had upon him. Sarfati of Answers in Genesis wrote Luke a long letter urging him to reconsider the fact that what had been sent to him in that packet of materials was from an "apostate," and should not be heeded, only the word of God should be heeded. But Luke was not convinced by the arguments of Jonathan Sarfati of Answers in Genesis.</p>
<p>"Dear Answers in Genesis, I see you have a link to my creation-evolution website, 'Dirt or Slime?' on your 'Noah's Ark Site Chronology' page. I just killed that site today, so you should take that link off, because my pages no longer exist. About 2 months ago I became convinced that the earth is millions of years old by the Green River formation. I was sent material from a former young-earther (Ed Babinski) which included responses from creationists. Your article in Creation magazine raises no further evidence. Except that a hurricane left 6 inches of deposits. The formation is several hundred feet! It has dark and light layers and there are even layers with animal tracks and thin volcanic ash layers. There are 6 million layers and I think that means a layer every second or so, across many miles, if the Flood was true, etc. An old earth makes a lot more sense..."</p>
<hr style="width: 50%; height: 1px;" align="left" />
<p><a href="http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/8619_issue_11_volume_4_number_1__3_12_2003.asp">Robert A. Moore</a>, former young-earth creationist [his personal story about leaving the fold is in Leaving the Fold: Testimonies of Former Fundamentalists], wrote a little booklet chock full of arguments against the literal interpretation of Noah's Flood. His arguments remain a thorn in the side of modern day creationists like Woodmorappe who go to great pains to try and sloth them off, to little avail.</p>
<hr style="width: 50%; height: 1px;" align="left" />
<p>Interesting also is the fairly recent story of a biology prof. hired by Wheaton College (Billy Graham's alma mater, and the "Harvard" of Evangelicalism), whose contract was apparently not renewed at Wheaton because he was too strongly pro-evolution, and didn't pay enough respect to the "modified dirt" hypothesis of the creation of man as relayed in the Bible. His case was mentioned in an article in the Chronicle of Higher Education. I can send his name and other info on request.</p>
<hr style="width: 50%; height: 1px;" align="left" />
<p>DR. TERRY GRAY<br />Terry Gray (biochemist, tried for heresy in a very conservative denomination for writing that God used evolution). <a href="http://www.asa3.org/gray/evolution_trial" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Material on Terry Gray's trial</a>.</p>
<div class="separator" style="text-align:center"><iframe src="https://edwardtbabinski.us/related-content/related-content-19.html" style="margin-bottom:0em; margin-left:0em; margin-right:0em; height:400px; width:600px; border:0px"></iframe></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-505205186321877769.post-89715615340402380132012-03-26T17:14:00.001-07:002019-09-01T19:38:12.903-07:00Darwin and Hitler, on The Topics of Evolutionary Ethics<p>Letter to the Author of the Book, Darwin and Hitler, With Added Discussion on The Topics of Evolutionary Ethics, Is Living for Pleasure All There Is?, Dangers of Religion, Fear of Atheism/Atheists, Fear of Evolution, and, Christian Men/Women of Science Who Are Pro-Evolution<br />by Edward T. Babinski</p>
<p>Letter to Dr. Richard Weikart, member of the Intelligent Design movement's "Discovery Institute," and author of the book, Darwin and Hitler:</p>
<p>Dear Dr. Weikart,</p>
<p>In <u>Darwin and Hitler</u> you agreed that German Darwinists before Hitler's day ought not be described as "proto-Nazis" so you focused on the ways in which their views overlapped and presaged those of the latter Nazi ideology. However as the following recent books demonstrate, a similar point could also be made concerning the Christians in Germany before Hitler and during Hitler's reign, and the ways in which their prejudices overlapped with that of Nazi ideology:</p>
<p>Betrayal: German Churches and the Holocaust<br />Edited by Robert P. Ericksen & Susannah Heschel<br />(Augsburg Fortress)</p>
<p>The Holy Reich: Nazi Conceptions of Christianity, 1919-1945<br />Richard Steigmann-Gall<br />(Cambridge University Press)</p>
<p>A summation of the above two works at "about.com" states, "German Christians supported the Nazis because they believed that Adolf Hitler was a gift to the German people from God. German Christianity was a divinely sanctioned religious movement which combined Christian doctrine and German character in a unique and desirable manner." Prior to World War II even the Southern Baptists here in my conservative little city of Greenville S.C. wrote glowingly of Hitler's character, accomplishments and his faith, as published in the local Baptist Courier.</p>
<p>Besides the two new books, a recently published biography of the present Pope mentions the interplay between the Catholic church and Nazism:</p>
<p>Pope Benedict XVI: A Biography of Joseph Ratzinger<br />John L. Allen Jr.<br />(Continuum)<br />SELECTIONS: Many ordinary Catholics objected to attacks on their church, but there was simply no opposition to Nazism tout ensemble. ... In fact, there were key points at which Nazi and Catholic attitudes intersected and created a basis for mutual support. Both groups hated the Weimar Republic. The Nazis opposed Weimar because it was allegedly too Jewish and led by the "November Criminals" who sold out the country after the First World War; Catholics objected to it because it smacked of liberalism, sexual degeneracy, and an irreligious spirit. Cardinal Faulhaber, for example, gave a speech in May 1933 in which he expressed thanks for the Volksgemeinschaft, or spirit of community, which Hitler had fostered, and rejected "liberal individualism." Moreover, Catholics shared with Nazis an instinctive fear of the Bolsheviks. Finally, there was a form of anti-Jewish sentiment that was openly accepted among Catholics, based in part on the theological argument that the Jews sinned by rejecting Christ and in part on the historical fact that many Jews had played leading roles in the Kulturkampf. As early as 1925, a Franciscan priest named Erhard Schuland wrote a book called "Katholizismus und Vaterland" (Catholicism and Fatherland) that called on Germans to fight "the destructive influence of the Jews in religion, morality, literature and art, and political and social life." Schuland expressed what was very much the consensus in German Catholicism of the day... Archbishop Konrad Gröber of Freiburg was known as the "Brown Bishop" because he was such an enthusiastic supporter of the Nazis. In 1933, he became a "sponsoring member" of the SS. After the war, however, he claimed to have been such an opponent of the Nazis that they had planned to crucify him on the door for the Freiburg Cathedral. Bishop Wilhlem Berning of Osnabrück sat with the Deutsche Christen Reichsbishop in the Prussian State Council from 1933 to 1945, a clear signal of support for the Nazi regime. Cardinal Bertram also had some affinity for the Nazis. In 1933, for example, he refused to intervene on behalf of Jewish merchants who were the targets of Nazi boycotts, saying that they were a group "which has no very close bond with the church." Bishop Buchberger of Regensburg called Nazi racism directed at Jews "justified self-defense" in the face of "overly powerful Jewish capital." Bishop Hilfrich of Limburg said that the true Christian religion "made its way not from the Jews but in spite of them."... After April 7, 1933, civil servants in Germany were required to prove that they were not Jews. Because births had been registered by the state only since 1874, the church was called upon to provide many records. The Catholic church cooperated right up to the end of the war. Likewise, after the 1935 Nüremberg laws that forbade marriage between Aryans and non-Aryans, most Catholic priests did not perform such ceremonies, even though the number of Jewish conversions to Catholicism was accelerating because of the persecution.</p>
<p>Related statements of interest from two Popes:</p>
<p><u>Pope Gregory XVI</u> (1831-1846): From the polluted fountain of indifferentism flows that absurd and erroneous doctrine, or rather, raving, which claims and defends liberty of conscience for everyone. From this comes, in a word, the worst plague of all, namely, unrestrained liberty of opinion and freedom of speech…It is in no way lawful to demand, to defend, or to grant unconditional freedom of thought, or speech, of writing, or of religion, as if they were so many rights that nature has given man.</p>
<p><u>Pope Pius XI</u> (1922-1939): Benito Mussolini is…a gift of Providence, a man free from the prejudices of the politicians of the liberal school.</p>
<p>ALDOUS HUXLEY'S CONCLUSION</p>
<p><a href="http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/julian_huxley_lie.html">Aldous Huxley</a> pointed out that advocating either a dogmatically harsh "philosophy of meaninglessness" OR an equally dogmatic and harsh "philosophy of meaning" has led men (for men, not women, are primarily the ones who make such things happen) to imprison, torture, murder, and/or wage war against others for either self pleasure AND/OR to please their God:</p>
<p>"No philosophy is completely disinterested. The pure love of truth is always mingle to some extent with the need, consciously or unconsciously felt by even the noblest and the most intelligent philosophers, to justify a given form of personal or social behavior, to rationalize the traditional prejudices of a given class or community. The philosopher who finds meaning in the world is concerned, not only to elucidate that meaning, but also to prove that is it most clearly expressed in some established religion, some accepted code of morals. <...> The desire to justify a particular form of political organization and, in some cases, of a personal will to power has played an equally large part in the formulation of philosophies postulating the existence of meaning in the world. Christian philosophers have found no difficulty in justifying imperialism, war, the capitalistic system, the use of torture, the censorship of the press, and ecclesiastical tyrannies of every sort from the tyranny of Rome to the tyrannies of [Calvin's] Geneva and [Puritan] New England. In all cases they have shown that the meaning of the world was such as to be compatibel with, or actually most completely expressed by, the iniquities I have mentioned above--iniquities which happened, of course, to serve the personal or sectarian interests of the philosophiers concerned. In due course, these arose philosophers who denied not only the right of Christian special pleaders to justify iniquity by an appeal to the meaning of the world, but even their right to find any such meaning whatsoever. In the circumstances, the fact was not surprising. One unscrupulous distortion of the truth tends to beget other and opposite distortions. Passions may be satisfied in the process; but the disinterested love of knowledge suffers eclipse."</p>
<p>Besides Huxley's wise observation, others including Eric Hoffer (author of The True Believer), and Heinz Pagels (author of The Dreams of Reason), have pointed out that the "fundamentalist mindset" is what is most common to outbreaks of religious, philosophical and political fanaticism:</p>
<p>"Characteristic of all fundamentalism is that it has found absolute certainty--the certainty of class warfare, the certainty of science, or the literal certainty of the Bible--a certainty of the person who has finally found a solid rock to stand upon which, unlike other rocks, is 'solid all the way down.' Fundamentalism, however, is a terminal form of human consciousness in which development is stopped, eliminating the uncertainty and risk that real growth entails." (Heinz Pagels, The Dreams of Reason)</p>
<p>This recalls Mark Twain's gentle poke: "We have infinite trouble in solving man-made mysteries; it is only when we set out to discover the secret of God that our difficulties disappear."</p>
<p>"Another characteristic, not of fundamentalism, but of fundamentalists is their intellectual modesty, their almost saintly humility. Nietzsche said once that we are all greater artists than we realize, but fundamentalists are too timid to think of themselves as great artists. They take no credit for what they have invented; they assume they have no part in the creation and maintenance of the Idols they worship. Like the paranoid-very much like the paranoid, in fact -they devise baroque and ingenious Systems, and define them as "Given." They then carefully edit all impressions to conform to the System. There is no vanity, no vanity at all, in people who are so intensely creative and so unwilling to recognize their own cleverness." (Robert Anton Wilson, The New Inquisition: Irrational Rationalism and the Citadel of Science)</p>
<p>Speaking of the class of fundamentalism known as "Protestant Christian fundamentalist/inerrantist," one such person, Gleason Archer, created a 480-page Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties in which he ingeniously attempted to explain away a host of "apparent" contradictions found in the Bible. ("Apparent" contradictions are the worst kind, because they are clearly apparent, and no explanation to try and explain them away is as inerrant as the text whose innerrancy one is attempting to defend.) Archer's single volume "encyclopedia" however, is far too short. What he needs to do is produce an enormous set of encyclopedias dealing with "Bible difficulties," along with a yearly supplemental volume to explain away the latest problems raised by textual and archeological research. A similar unwillingness to recognize their own cleverness was also apparent in the Plymouth Brethren (nineteenth-century Protestant fundamentalists who insisted the Bible was literally true.) One person raised in that milieu, recalls:</p>
<p>"They devised an elaborate system of mental watertight compartments. The contradictions of Old and New Testaments were solved by a Doctrine that what was sauce for the Jewish 'Dispensation' was not necessarily sauce for the Christian "Dispensation." Cleverer than Luther, they made possible the Epistle of James by a series of sophisms which really deserve to be exposed as masterpieces of human self-deception. My space forbids. So, despite all the simplicity of the original logical position [i.e., that the 'Word of God' must be without error or contradiction], they were found shifting as best they might from compromise to compromise. But this they never saw themselves; and so far did they take their principle that my father would refuse to buy railway shares because railways were not mentioned in the Bible! Of course the practice of finding a text for everything means ultimately 'I will do as I like,' and I suspect my father's heroics only meant that he thought a slump was coming."</p>
<p>One corollary is that if a Protestant fundamentalist searches diligently for something in the Bible they can usually find it there. (It's just this uncanny "gift" they have which they take no credit for, and do not dare suppose has anything to do with their individual level of mental agility and creativity.) In fact, if Crowley's father had just searched a little more, and with a bit more faith (and creativity) he COULD have found railways mentioned in the Bible. Chaplain Tresham Dames Gregg did, and delivered a noteworthy sermon on the subject that was published as a booklet in 1863, The Steam Locomotive as Revealed in the Bible. A Lecture Delivered to Young Men in Sheffield. Rev. Gregg's sermon is a little gem of fundamentalist ingenuity and creativity in which he demonstrates that God gave the prophet Ezekiel a vision of a steam locomotive. (Ezek. 1:4-25)</p>
<p>A fundamentalist not only believes that "with God, all things are possible," but, "with the Bible, all interpretations and invented explanations for a passage's meaning are possible" (except, of course, any that disagree with his church's doctrine, or imply the existence of errors or contradictions).</p>
<p>So fundamentalists (I am using Protestant fundamentalists/inerrantists as my primary example since I am most familiar with them) display at least two major characteristics:</p>
<p>(1) absolute certainty,</p>
<p>and,</p>
<p>(2) an unwillingness to recognize all the cleverness employed in keeping their "absolute certainty" afloat.</p>
<p>There is also a third characteristic, namely,</p>
<p>(3) grabbing the oars of the "D.S.S. Absolute Certainty" and using them to beat the heads of landlubbers who refuse repeated invitations to join the crew.</p>
<p>As A. E. Van Vogt observed in his pamphlet, Report on the Violent Male, and Colin Wilson observed in his book The Criminal History of Mankind:</p>
<p>"The Violent Male-and almost all violence is committed by males-seems to be a man who literally cannot ever, admit he might be wrong. He knows he is right... His ego definition, as it were, demands that he is always Right, nearly everybody else is always Wrong."</p>
<p>Wilson emphasizes that this model describes not only many, many infamous criminals, but quite a few of the more infamous statesmen and churchmen of history, who were not called criminals only because they were powerful enough to define what was "crime" in their society.</p>
<p>Cheers,</p>
<p>Edward T. Babinski (former fundamentalist Christian)</p>
<p>P.S., I was reading the chapter dealing with "Social Darwinism" in Michael Ruse's recent work, The Creation Evolution Debate, and wondered what you thought of his opinion of the history and philosophical implications (or rather non-implications) of Social Darwinism vis a vis your own? Have you two been in contact? If so, I'd like to know what you both have been talking about.</p>
<p>Have you responded to the review of your book, and the accompanying comments and questions found <a href="http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2004/08/social_darwinis.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">here</a>?</p>
<p>Have you seen the following online article?<br />"<a href="http://www.commondreams.org/views05/1129-28.htm" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Of Darwinism and Social Darwinism</a>"<br />Robert B. Reich<br />Published on Tuesday, November 29, 2005</p>
<p>My review of your book:<br /><a href="http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/darwin_hitler.html">Darwin to Hitler</a>: Weikart, the Discovery Institute, and History<br />by Edward T. Babinski</p>
<hr style="width: 50%; height: 1px;" align="left" />
<p>THE "RELATED LINKS" SECTION BELOW IS FOLLOWED BY QUOTATIONS FROM SCHOLARS ON THE FOLLOWING TOPICS:<br />"EVOLUTIONARY ETHICS"<br />"IS LIVING FOR PLEASURE ALL THERE IS?"<br />"DANGERS OF RELIGION"<br />"FEAR OF ATHEISTS, ATHEISM"<br />"FEAR OF EVOLUTION"<br />"CHRISTIAN MEN/WOMEN OF SCIENCE WHO ARE PRO-EVOLUTION"</p>
<hr style="width: 50%; height: 1px;" align="left" />
<p>Related Links:</p>
<p><a href="http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/aig_and_racism_response.htm" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Racism and Creationist Dogma</a> (Answers in Genesis's racist article)</p>
<p>Jan. 8, 2006 <a href="http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/aig_and_racism_response2.htm" target="_blank" rel="noopener">response to Answers in Genesis</a> and their racist article</p>
<hr style="width: 50%; height: 1px;" align="left" />
<p>Christianism & Christian Nationalism<br /><u>Christianism & Christian Nationalism<br />Christianity in the Confederate South<br />Christian Identity</u></p>
<p>Christian Reconstructionism & Dominion Theology<br /><u>Dominionism & Dominion Theology<br />Christian Reconstructionism<br />Commonalities: Christian Reconstructionism & the Christian Right</u></p>
<p>Religious Privilege & Christian Privilege<br /><u>What is Christian Privilege?<br />Hidden Christian Privileges in American Society<br />Christian Supremacy & the Dhimmitude of Non-Christians</u></p>
<p>Related Articles<br /><u>Adolf Hitler & Christian Nationalism: Nazis' P...<br />Book Review - Betrayal: German Churches and the Holocau...<br />Book Review - Twisted Cross: The German Christian Movem...<br />Weren't the Nazis Pagans? The Holy Reich: Nazi Con...<br />Book Review - The Holy Reich: Nazi Conceptions of Chris...</u></p>
<p><a href="http://atheism.about.com/od/adolfhitlernazigermany/p/NaziChristian.htm?nl=1" target="_blank" rel="noopener">LINKS</a> TO ALL OF THE ARTICLES</p>
<hr style="width: 50%; height: 1px;" align="left" />
<p><a href="http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/anti-semitism/Luther_on_Jews.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Martin Luther</a>--Selections from his notorious German work, "The Jews and Their Lies" (A book that Hitler used to show off at his rallies)</p>
<p><a href="http://www.tentmaker.org/books/MartinLuther-HitlersSpiritualAncestor.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Martin Luther</a>: Hitler's Spiritual Ancestor</p>
<hr style="width: 50%; height: 1px;" align="left" />
<p>EVOLUTIONARY ETHICS</p>
<p><a href="http://www.arn.org/docs/odesign/od181/weikart181.htm" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Review</a> of two books on Evolutionary Ethics by Richard Weikart</p>
<hr style="width: 50%; height: 1px;" align="left" />
<p>MORE ON EVOLUTIONARY ETHICS</p>
<p>QUOTATION from philosopher Mary Midgley, "Wickedness: An Open Debate," <u>The Philosopher's Magazine</u>, No. 14, Spring 2001:</p>
<p>Darwin proposed that creatures like us who, by their nature, are riven by strong emotional conflicts, and who have also the intelligence to be aware of those conflicts, absolutely need to develop a morality because they need a priority system by which to resolve them. The need for morality is a corollary of conflicts plus intellect:</p>
<p>"Man, from the activity of his mental faculties, cannot avoid reflection… Any animal whatever, endowed with well-marked social instincts, would inevitably acquire a moral sense or conscience as soon as its intellectual powers had become as well-developed, or anything like as well-developed as in man."(Charles Darwin, <u>The Descent of Man</u>)</p>
<p>That, Darwin said, is why we have within us the rudiments of such a priority system and why we have also an intense need to develop those rudiments. We try to shape our moralities in accordance with our deepest wishes so that we can in some degree harmonize our muddled and conflict-ridden emotional constitution, thus finding ourselves a way of life that suits it so far as is possible.</p>
<p>These systems are, therefore, something far deeper than mere social contracts made for convenience. They are not optional. They are a profound attempt--though of course usually an unsuccessful one--to shape our conflict-ridden life in a way that gives priority to the things that we care about most.</p>
<p>If this is right, then we are creatures whose evolved nature absolutely requires that we develop a morality. We need it in order to find our way in the world. The idea that we could live without any distinction between right and wrong is as strange as the idea that we--being creatures subject to gravitation--could live without any idea of up and down. That at least is Darwin's idea and it seems to me to be one that deserves attention.</p>
<hr style="width: 50%; height: 1px;" align="left" />
<p>QUOTATION from primatologist Frans De Waal, <u>Peacemaking Among Primates</u></p>
<p>Forgiveness is not, as some people seem to believe, a mysterious and sublime idea that we owe to a few millennia of Judeo-Christianity. It did not originate in the minds of people and cannot therefore be appropriated by an ideology or a religion. The fact that monkeys, apes, and humans all engage in reconciliation behavior (stretching out a hand, smiling, kissing, embracing, and so on) means that it is probably over thirty million years old, preceding the evolutionary divergence of these primates...Reconciliation behavior [is] a shared heritage of the primate order…</p>
<hr style="width: 50%; height: 1px;" align="left" />
<p>QUOTATION from Albert Einstein</p>
<p>A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death.</p>
<hr style="width: 50%; height: 1px;" align="left" />
<p>IS LIVING FOR PLEASURE ALL THERE IS?</p>
<p>Human beings experience pleasures of many different kinds, including the grand pleasure of accomplishing great and difficult things over one's lifetime, things that aid, teach, or draw applause from many of our fellow beings, especially accomplishments in fields as varied as athletics, science and music.</p>
<p>Therefore, "pleasure" is not just about being fed wine and dried figs while concubines fan you. Both Eastern and Hellenistic philosophies and religions know the different between things that are truly pleasing and pleasurable in deeply fulfilling ways, compared with mere indolence.</p>
<p>Take these quotations from the Buddhist collection of wise verses, known as The Dhammapada (new trans. by Glenn Wallis):</p>
<p>Living with an eye to pleasure,<br />unrestrained in the sense faculties,<br />immoderate in eating, indolent, and idle--<br />Mara overcomes such a person,<br />as the wind overcomes a weak tree.</p>
<p>Living without an eye to pleasure,<br />well restrained in the sense faculties,<br />moderate in eating, faithful, and energetic,<br />Mara does not overcome such a person,<br />as the wind, a rocky hill. (7-8)</p>
<p>The craving of a person who lives carelessly<br />grows like a creeping vine.<br />He plunges from existence to existence,<br />like a monkey seeking fruit in the forest. (334)</p>
<p>Not through a torrent of money<br />nor in sensual enjoyment<br />can satisfaction be found. (186)</p>
<p>Speaking of Western philosophers, Evangelical Christian scholar, Luke Timothy Johnson, PRAISES ancient Greek and Roman moral philosophy in his college course (available from The Teaching Company), "Practical Philosophy: The Greco-Roman Moralists." The course is billed thusly: "Imagine a course that teaches you not only how to think like the great philosophers, but how to live. Greeks and Romans of the early imperial period are often overlooked in the annals of philosophical study, but provided down-to-earth advice on how to live a solid, happy life." Harry McCall listened to Johnson's tapes and said, "I would challenge any fundamentalist to listen to this course, but I'm sure they would say 'It's a tool of the Devil!'"</p>
<p>Which also reminds me of something that Dr. Albert Schweitzer (the liberal Christian theologian who focused on "reverence for life," and who worked as a medical missionary in Africa for decades) pointed out: "For centuries Christianity treasured the great commandment of love and mercy as traditional truth without recognizing it as a reason for opposing slavery, witch burning and all the other ancient and medieval forms of inhumanity. It was only when Christianity experienced the influence of the thinking of the Age of Enlightenment that it was stirred into entering the struggle for humanity. The remembrance of this ought to preserve it forever from assuming any air of superiority in comparison with thought." Also in the same book, Schweitzer cautioned against "the crooked and fragile thinking of Christian apologetics." [Albert Schweitzer, Out of My Life and Thought: An Autobiography (New York: The New American Library, 1963)]</p>
<p>And, getting back to Hellenistic philosophy's down-to-earth advice, consider this:</p>
<p>May I be no man's enemy, and may I be the friend of that which is eternal and abides.<br />May I never devise evil against any man; if any devise evil against me, may I escape without the need of hurting him.<br />May I love, seek, and attain only that which is good.<br />May I wish for all men's happiness and envy none.<br />When I have done or said what is wrong, may I never wait for the rebuke of others, but always rebuke myself until I make amends.<br />May I win no victory that harms either me or my opponent.<br />May I reconcile friends who are wroth with one another.<br />May I, to the extent of my power, give all needful help to all who are in want.<br />May I never fail a friend in danger.<br />May I respect myself.<br />May I always keep tame that which rages within me.<br />May I never discuss who is wicked and what wicked things he has done, but know good men and follow in their footsteps.</p>
<p>The Prayer of Eusebius, written by a 1st-century pagan, as quoted in Gilbert Murray, <u>Five Stages of Greek Religion</u>. (Incorrectly attributed on the web to a 3rd-century Christian also named "Eusebius," but this was a 1st-century pagan philosopher's prayer. See Professor Murray's book.)</p>
<hr style="width: 50%; height: 1px;" align="left" />
<p>I will be as careful for you as I should be for myself in the same need.</p>
<p>Calypso, to Odysseus, in Homer, <u>The Odyssey</u>, Book 5, verses 184-91. (Roughly late 8th century BCE.)</p>
<hr style="width: 50%; height: 1px;" align="left" />
<p>As for being able to survive without explicit faith in God, nor with explicit theological ideas about the unseen, the afterlife, it's obvious that today there are whole nations with low percentages of believers in God, yet they are not presently doing horrendously badly. There's Japan (50% of whom don't even believe in a higher Spirit), and nations of Europe, especially northern Europe and the Czech Republic, to China (whose crime rate is still the lowest in the world I think--because their legal system stresses rehabilitation and pressure to reform placed on the offender by his whole family, and because the state assigns you a job after prison) whose economy is rising swiftly. Neither did polytheistic nations fare horribly badly in antiquity, such as the enormous and long lasting empires of Egypt, Babylon and Rome, the latter of which featured Hellenistic literature, sculpture, plays, philosophy, architecture, endless roads, as well as giving us early scientists, city planners, republican-based democracy, advanced trade and advanced soldiering (for its day), as well as 500 years of peace, the Pax Romana. Even Hinduism is with us still, a religion of vast inclusiveness and many paths to God.</p>
<p>Since I mentioned Buddhism, above, may I add that as a philosophy it doesn't ask how things came to be, and doesn't stress what one must believe about God or the gods. In case you haven't read much Buddhism, I highly endorse a book by Alan Watts (a former Anglican priest) titled simply, Buddhism. Also see Watts' book on another eastern philosophy with some traits in common with Buddhism, namely, Tao: The Watercourse Way. Conrad Hyers has a wonderful little book titled, Once-Born, Twice-Born Zen. And one of the Jesus Seminar fellows has produced a series of books that lines up sayings of Jesus beside sayings from Buddhism, and another book that lines up Jesus sayings with sayings from Taoism. Some of the parallels are quite interesting. There's also a thin book titled, Oneness, and another titled, One Heart, that features the most enlightening sayings from all the world's major religions.</p>
<p>A few more of my favorite sayings from the Dhammapada:</p>
<p>In this world hostilities are never appeased by hostility.<br />But by the absence of hostility are they appeased. (5)</p>
<p>All tremble before violence.<br />All fear death.<br />Having done the same yourself,<br />you should neither harm, nor kill. (129)</p>
<p>"They berated me! They hurt me!<br />They beat me! They deprived me!"<br />For those who hold such grudges,<br />hostility is not appeased.</p>
<p>"They berated me! They hurt me!<br />They beat me! They deprived me!"<br />For those who forgo such grudges,<br />hostility ceases.</p>
<p>Do not speak harshly to anyone.<br />Those to whom you speak might respond to you.<br />Angry talk really is painful.<br />The result might crash down on you. (133)</p>
<p>Win over an angry person with poise.<br />Win over a mean person with kindness.<br />Win over a greedy person with generosity,<br />and one who speaks falsely with honesty. (223)</p>
<p>There was not, nor will there be,<br />and now at present no person is found<br />who is wholly praised or wholly faulted.</p>
<p>As an elephant in battle bears the arrow<br />shot from a bow,<br />I will endure insult;<br />for many people have poor self-control. (320)</p>
<p>There was not, nor will there be,<br />and now at present no person is found<br />who is wholly praised or wholly faulted. (228)</p>
<p>Better than a thousand statements<br />composed of meaningless words<br />is a single meaningful word which,<br />having been heard, brings peace. (100)</p>
<p>Month after month one might offer a thousand sacrifices for a hundred years.<br />And another might, for an instant only, honor a person who cultivates himself.<br />Better is that honoring than the one which was offered for a hundred years. (106)</p>
<hr style="width: 50%; height: 1px;" align="left" />
<p>A few more ancient sayings, this one's really old:</p>
<p>Do not return evil to your adversary; Requite with kindness the one who does evil to you, Maintain justice for your enemy, Be friendly to your enemy.</p>
<p><u>Akkadian Councils of Wisdom</u> (from the ancient Babylonian civilization that existed two millennia before Jesus was born) in Pritchard's Ancient Near Eastern Texts</p>
<hr style="width: 50%; height: 1px;" align="left" />
<p>Return love for hatred. Otherwise, when a great hatred is reconciled, some of it will surely remain. How can this end in goodness? Therefore the sage holds to the left hand of an agreement but does not expect what the other holder ought to do. Regard your neighbor's gain as your own and your neighbor's loss as your own loss. Whoever is self-centered cannot have the love of others.</p>
<p>Taoist wisdom (written centuries before Jesus was born)</p>
<hr style="width: 50%; height: 1px;" align="left" />
<p>That which you want for yourself, seek for mankind.</p>
<p>Islamic holy teaching (Sukhanan-i-Muhammad, 63)</p>
<hr style="width: 50%; height: 1px;" align="left" />
<p>People were Christian before Christ ever existed. People were humanistic before humanism was ever organized.<br />People were loving before LSD was ever discovered.</p>
<p>Timothy Leary, as quoted by Paul Krassner, "The Cynic Route from Crazy SANE to Loving Haight," <u>The Realist</u>, 1967</p>
<hr style="width: 50%; height: 1px;" align="left" />
<p>DANGERS OF RELIGION</p>
<p>QUOTATION from Keith Ward (himself pro-religion) in The Case for Religion:</p>
<p>[E]ven the great monastic communities of western Europe, such as Cluny Abbey, founded on renunciation of the world and denial of the flesh, quickly became owners of vast estates and wielders of enormous political power. They no longer protested against the world. They were the world, in all its pageantry and power, and they validated the dream of empire, which they consecrated as Crusades to destroy the infidel. That is why people should not look to religion for salvation or for a solution to the ills of the world. Failure to see the possibilities for corruption and destruction in religion is a failure of spiritual perception of the first order. Few people fail to see the destructive possibilities of other people's religions, but they can be remarkably blind to their own.</p>
<hr style="width: 50%; height: 1px;" align="left" />
<p>Theology is the science of Dominion.</p>
<p>- - - My God is your god's Boss - - -</p>
<hr style="width: 50%; height: 1px;" align="left" />
<p>One very small <a href="http://atheism.about.com/library/weekly/aa030701b.htm" target="_blank" rel="noopener">modern day example</a> of domination-seeking fundamentalist Christians.</p>
<hr style="width: 50%; height: 1px;" align="left" />
<p>QUOTATION from Blaise Pascal, Pensees, (1670)</p>
<p>Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction.</p>
<hr style="width: 50%; height: 1px;" align="left" />
<p>QUOTATION from <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/6172" target="_blank" rel="noopener">G. K. Chesterton</a> in the Daily News, as quoted by Robert Blatchford, God and My Neighbor</p>
<p>Christianity has committed crimes so monstrous that the sun might sicken at them in heaven.</p>
<hr style="width: 50%; height: 1px;" align="left" />
<p>QUOTATION from C. S. Lewis in a letter to Bede Griffiths, dated Dec. 20, 1961, not long before Lewis' death, The Letters of C. S. Lewis, ed., W. H. Lewis, (New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, Inc., 1966), p. 301.</p>
<p>Even more disturbing as you say, is the ghastly record of Christian persecution. It had begun in Our Lord's time--'Ye know not what spirit ye are of' (John of all people!). I think we must fully face the fact that when Christianity does not make a man very much better, it makes him very much worse... Conversion may make of one who was, if no better, no worse than an animal, something like a devil.</p>
<hr style="width: 50%; height: 1px;" align="left" />
<p>QUOTATION from Albert Schweitzer, Out of My Life and Thought: An Autobiography (New York: The New American Library, 1963).</p>
<p>For centuries Christianity treasured the great commandment of love and mercy as traditional truth without recognizing it as a reason for opposing slavery, witch burning and all the other ancient and medieval forms of inhumanity. It was only when Christianity experienced the influence of the thinking of the Age of Enlightenment that it was stirred into entering the struggle for humanity. The remembrance of this ought to preserve it forever from assuming any air of superiority in comparison with thought."</p>
<hr style="width: 50%; height: 1px;" align="left" />
<p>Perhaps over the millennia and via increased communication and heightened literacy and knowledge of others and the world, religion has not civilized man, but man has civilized religion? God improves as humankind advances.</p>
<hr style="width: 50%; height: 1px;" align="left" />
<p>ON THE FEAR OF ATHEISTS/ATHEISM</p>
<p>ATHEISM DEFENDED BY A CHRISTIAN<br />Atheism tends to be a term of disrepute in the Western world, but we ought to do all we can to change this situation. The honest atheist is simply a person who has looked out upon the world and has come to believe that there is no adequate evidence that God is, or that there is good evidence that God is not. Very seldom does this make a man happy or popular...A man who has no practical belief in God may nevertheless be a good man. Sometimes it is the very goodness of a man which makes him an unbeliever; he is so superlatively honest, so eager not to accept anything without adequate evidence, so sensitive to the danger of believing what is comforting, merely <u>because</u> it is comforting...Such a man we can only honor."</p>
<p>Elton Trueblood (Quaker theologian), <u>Philosophy of Religion</u></p>
<hr style="width: 50%; height: 1px;" align="left" />
<p>A CATHOLIC DEFENSE OF ATHEISM<br />Atheism is clearly always a permissible view of man in a world in which God is not immediately evident.</p>
<p><u>20th Century Encyclopedia of Catholicism</u></p>
<hr style="width: 50%; height: 1px;" align="left" />
<p>ANOTHER CHRISTIAN DEFENDS ATHEISTS<br />Not one man in a thousand has the goodness of heart or the strength of mind to be an atheist.</p>
<p>Samuel Taylor Coleridge</p>
<hr style="width: 50%; height: 1px;" align="left" />
<p>A DEIST ASKS, "WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ATHEISTS?"<br />If there are atheists, who is responsible but the mercenary tyrants of souls who say: "Believe a hundred things in the Bible either manifestly abominable or mathematically impossible; otherwise the God of mercy will burn you in the fires of hell, not only for millions of billions of centuries, but for all eternity."</p>
<p>Voltaire, <u>Philosophical Dictionary</u>, entry under "Atheist, Atheism," Second Section</p>
<hr style="width: 50%; height: 1px;" align="left" />
<p>A DEIST DEFENDS HERETICS<br />All the heretics I have known have been virtuous men. They cannot afford to be deficient in any of the other virtues, as that would give advantage to their many enemies; and they have not, like orthodox sinners, such a number of friends to excuse or justify them.</p>
<p>Ben Franklin as quoted in <u>Benjamin Franklin: His Wit, Wisdom, and Women</u> by Seymour Stanton Block</p>
<hr style="width: 50%; height: 1px;" align="left" />
<p>A BELIEVER IN GOD WHO LIVED HAPPILY WITH ATHEISTS<br />I believe in God, although I live very happily with atheists...It is very important not to mistake hemlock for parsley; but not at all so to believe or not in God.</p>
<p>One day a man was asked if there were any true atheists. Do you think, he replied, that there are any true Christians?</p>
<p>Denis Diderot (1713-1784), cited in <u>Against the Faith</u> by Jim Herrick</p>
<hr style="width: 50%; height: 1px;" align="left" />
<p>I give blood. I volunteer my organs. I donate to charities. I return my shopping cart. I never needed religion to puppeteer me through life and tell me how to feel about gays, abortion, and capital punishment or how to raise my kid. When people ask me what I am, I say Earthling.</p>
<p>William P.O'Neil, "Playing the God Card," <u>Chicago Tribune</u>, Feb. 10, 2000</p>
<hr style="width: 50%; height: 1px;" align="left" />
<p>I just returned from the Blood Connection in my home town where I spent an hour giving red blood cells and having the plasma pumped back into my arm. I am told that my blood will save someone's life. And, if it was someone injured by doing something stupid (such as driving while intoxicated and getting in a wreck), I have (in effect) given my blood so they might have life...and, since they did not die from their "sinful" act of driving while intoxicated because of my blood, then my blood could be said to have given them life which is metaphorically similar to the way Gospel tracts teach that Jesus shed his blood for our sins and gave use life via his "vicarious atonement." In fact I was told by my nurse that my blood or blood products would be used to save the lives of multiple persons. I bring up the connection to Christian theology because I used to be a Baptist preacher and attended Christian colleges and seminaries for six years. Back in 1997 the supervisor at my government job told our secretary that he would not give the "Man of the Year" award to a "damn atheist," so he gave the award to a Christian on the staff (so much for the separation of Church and State). Ironically, the Christian who receive that award was later fired, my supervisor passed away at a relatively young age, while old Harry the "atheist" is giving blood to save the lives of others.</p>
<p>Harry McCall, contributor to <u>Leaving the Fold: Testimonies of Former Fundamentalists</u></p>
<hr style="width: 50%; height: 1px;" align="left" />
<p>THE FREETHINKER/ATHEIST AS SEEN BY CHRISTIANS<br />I have often remarked that the Christian in his treatment of the freethinker passes through three distinct stages. In the first instance he depicts the heretic as someone almost incredibly vile. There is a good reason for this, since in order to justify his suppression, he must be loaded with moral opprobrium and the social censure used to enforce the religious condemnation. So to the orthodox imagination unbelief becomes a mere cloak to cover incredible scoundrelism. A catalogue of vices is drawn up of which the Freethinker ought to be guilty, and the heretic of religious fiction is made to live up to the program. The next stage is when the freethinker is better known, and the Christian assumes a pitying attitude. The heretic may be a decent sort of a fellow, although he is terribly mistaken in his view, but--and the "but" is altogether fatal. Then, as freethinkers become better known, he is promoted to almost the level of the Christian himself. Sometimes we are told that he may be as good as a Christian, a degree of excellence which to a visitor from another planet would hardly appear to mark an incredible degree of moral development.</p>
<p>Professor Drummond used to address his class, "I knew a student, an avowed atheist. He roomed with a man who contracted typhus. What do you think the atheist did? He neglected his classes to nurse his chum, who after a severe struggle, recovered. What of the nurse? He contracted the disease and died. The atheist died and went to heaven and received the 'well done, thou good and faithful servant.'" Drummond thought it worthwhile to point out that an atheist did what hundreds, probably thousands of people are doing every week in some form or another. Of course, in the majority of cases it is not advertised. Men and women help each other, nurse each other, take risks for each other, and sometimes pay the cost of the risks they run. It is only advertised when it happens to be done in the name of Christ, while the larger number of cases are known only to an immediate circle of friends. Clearly, if Christians had lied less about their opponents, if they had slandered them less, if they had been brought up with a healthier appreciation of the qualities and capabilities of normal human nature, Professor Drummond would not have needed to inform his class that an atheist might be a decent human being.</p>
<p>The author from whom I have taken the Drummond anecdote tells the story as illustrating the latter's liberality of mind. It is quite clear that had his hearers really understood the nature of morality, had they been taught that morality springs from, and has sole regard to the social relationships, there would have been no point in the story and no need for its telling. The atheist does not need an anecdote to inform him that a Christian may act in a human manner. He knows that human nature, like murder, will out, and the moral promptings which are expressions of so many thousands of generations of associated life cannot be prevented expressing themselves by the most anti-social religious teachings.</p>
<p>Chapman Cohen, <u>Essays in Freethinking</u></p>
<hr style="width: 50%; height: 1px;" align="left" />
<p>SHOULD WE USE THE CONCEPT OF GOD TO MAKE A BETTER WORLD?<br />I am not of the opinion that we should make use of the concept of God in striving for a better world. This, it seems to me, is incompatible with the integrity of a modern cultured person.</p>
<p>Albert Einstein</p>
<hr style="width: 50%; height: 1px;" align="left" />
<p>IS IT EVER PROPER TO ACT AS IF GOD DID NOT EXIST?<br />There is a wonderful Hasidic story about a rabbi who was asked whether it is ever proper to act as if God did not exist. He responded, "Yes, when you are asked to give to charity, you should give as if there were no God to help the object of the charity."</p>
<p>Alan Dershowitz, <u>Letters to a Young Lawyer</u></p>
<hr style="width: 50%; height: 1px;" align="left" />
<p><a href="http://weblogs.oxegen.us/victorious_gospel/articles/6227.aspx" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Do Your Fear What Would Happen If The World Believed In Evolution?</a></p>
<p><a href="http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/evolution/christian_evolutionists.html">Christian Evolution Resource List</a></p>
<div class="separator" style="text-align:center"><iframe src="https://edwardtbabinski.us/related-content/related-content-19.html" style="margin-bottom:0em; margin-left:0em; margin-right:0em; height:400px; width:600px; border:0px"></iframe></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-505205186321877769.post-89264097297466389562012-03-26T16:50:00.001-07:002019-09-01T19:15:53.516-07:00Darwinism or Directed Mutations?<blockquote><em>That would seem to be directed mutation if it was ever to be of any utility.</em></blockquote>
<p>Right now science appears to know less about Designer "directed mutations" than about Darwinism, and, by the very nature of each view, it appears likely to stay that way. Vis a vis Darwinism and the moth/orchid question: Beak size (and beak length) changes occur in finches in a variety of directions, not simply one direction; while in moths, tongue lengths change in a variety of directions, not just one. I don't know how many eggs a moth lays and what the alleles and variances are of tongue-length in each moth that survives long enough to lick nectar and breed more moths, but I do know that among flies, if all the eggs from one mother housefly lived, she would produce more than five trillion offspring in just one season. We're not up to our eyeballs in flies because of the huge percentage of young flies that die. A sunfish sometimes lays three hundred million eggs. A single bacterial cell that divides every twenty minutes, could multiply to a mass four thousand times greater than the earth's in just two days. [That figure is from a letter sent to CRSQ by a creationist, involving 144 bacterial doublings in 48 hours. I'm not sure what the final number is after 144 consecutive divisions but it's astronomically huge. That doesn't happen, because of the inconceivably huge death rate of bacteria.] A single oyster, left to its own devices, produces more than one-hundred-twenty-five million eggs in a season. That's more than enough oysters, if none died in eight years [10 to the 89th power number of oysters] to crowd the water out of the oceans and make it cover the earth. A female sea turtle lays a hundred or more eggs, but after they hatch in a nest buried beneath the sand on the beach, only a handful of baby sea turtles make it to the safety of the ocean. And of those still fewer survive to breed. A recent study showed that one-third of adult birds and four-fifths of their offspring die of starvation every year (David Lack, "Of Birds and Men," New Scientist, Jan., 1996). Not surprising, since birds have to eat from one-quarter to one-half their body weight daily, so starvation is a common killer of birds.</p>
<p>Concerning the evolution of moths with longer tongues, there may not need to be that much Designer "direction" in a species evolving a longer tongue since all of the rest die out. (Likewise in long term evolution, think of all the cousin species that have died out.) The death and extinction of many seems to be the heavy price of continued change for the few.</p>
<p>Also, nature is filled with escalating "arms races." Look at the way the AIDS virus mutates, or any bacteria mutates. And the way that our immune system works via natural selection, sending out a host of antibodies of differently mutated forms until one of them gains a small purchase or foothold on the invaders in our body, then we produce more antibodies in a range of mutated shapes and sizes but only like the ones that gained a little foothold, and of those, some grab on tighter while the rest die out, and then our immune system sends out more mutated antibodies like the ones that grabbed on tighter, until even a tighter grip is discovered, but ALL THE REST OF THE ANTIBODIES WITH LESSER GRIPS are no longer produced and die out, while the ones that kept grabbing on tighter and tighter grow more abundant. That happens every time we fight off a cold in a few days. It's Darwinism inside out own bodies. And this same Darwinian method is now used by pharmaceutical companies, and by computer companies to solve complex mathematical problems, and by metal alloy companies to make firmer metals. Darwinism apparently works.</p>
<p>One of the most recent examples in bacteria was the "nylon-eating bacteria" that evolved recently. Nylon is a new man-made polymer, maybe 50-60 years old. But some nylon that had grown sticky and gooey was found in a bin in one nylon factory. The bacteria were examined and compared with others of their species and it was discovered that a particular frame shift mutation (which means that a gene got read at a slightly different starting point and slightly different ending point) allowed that bacteria to break down the nylon and obtain energy from that process. But not a LOT of energy. It wasn't a highly competent design because the bacteria weren't extracting a lot of energy from the process, just enough to get by. And it was based on a simply frame shift reading of a gene that had other uses. But with a simple frame shift of a gene that was already there, it could now "eat" nylon. Future mutations, perhaps point mutations inside that gene, could conceivably heighten the energy gain of the nylon decomp process, and allow the bacteria to truly feast and reproduce faster and more plentifully on just nylon, thus leading perhaps in time to an irreducibly complex arrangement between bacteria who live solely on nylon and a man-made fiber produced only by man.</p>
<p>GETTING BACK TO ORCHIDS, they have a survival strategy that appears well suited in a Darwinian fashion to eventually produce specific relationships between them and whatever species pollinates them. The orchid seed is smaller than the mustard seed, dust-like, and each orchid produces tens to hundreds of thousands of these seeds. They are also naturally rare flowers, living high in trees or in widely dispersed strands on the ground. So just one successful cross-pollination event of the same insect reaching two of the same species of orchid and cross pollinating them is like winning the jackpot for orchids -- especially since orchids have few natural enemies and live long lives. So they would be expected to Darwinially evolve the most complex and specified relationships with their few successful pollinators, narrowing them down to eventually specializing in a single pollinator. See article below:</p>
<p>NATALIE ANGIER, "THE GRAND STRATEGY OF ORCHIDS"<br />The orchid family is the largest of all plant groups, representing upward of thirty thousand species. The flowers are also among the most artfully deceptive, and they have acquired such an extravagant repertory of disguises in color, odor, shape, and overall engineering that for botanists and evolutionary biologists they continue to yield a bounty of surprises. Charles Darwin was so enraptured by orchids that he wrote an entire book about their reproductive strategies.</p>
<p>Yet only now are biologists learning why the flowers are such great pretenders...<br />Some orchids look and smell like female bees, presenting irresistible decoys to male bees on the prowl. Others so closely resemble female wasps that the males of the species will molest them time and again, alternately picking up and depositing pollen sacs with each new act of what is called pseudo-copulation...helping to pass the equivalent of sperm from one orchid flower to the ovary-like structure of a second flower, allowing orchid fertilization to occur.</p>
<p>Another type of orchid has the aroma of rotting meat, coaxing any carrion flies in the neighborhood to come hither. Some orchids mimic the splendor and fragrance of other types of flowers that, in the tradition of floral courtesy, persuade insects to visit them by offering a sung of nectar. But the skinflint orchids do not bother to generate the precious liqueur; instead, they reward any bee foolish enough to fall for the ploy with nothing more than a sticky pat of pollen. Some bees come out of an orchid with such a load of pollen stuck to their backs that they can hardly fly.</p>
<p>The details of the resemblance between orchids and whatever plant or animal they happen to be aping offer a bird's-or bug's-eye view of how other creatures perceive the world around them and what their sensory capacities may be like. Thus, an orchid will evolve a striking pattern if its pollinator focuses on patterns, a chemical if the pollinator is chemo-sensitive, a shape if that's what turns on the desired visitor.</p>
<p>Some orchids do offer a nectar bonus to a pollinator needed to transfer pollen from one plant to another. But the flowers are finicky and concentrate their efforts on beckoning a specific emissary. One type of orchid, the Angraecum sesquipedale, a native of Africa and Madagascar, will release a waft of jasmine like perfume in the evening hours to attract a moth that emerges only after dark.<br />The moth happens to have a proboscis, or tongue, that is twelve inches long, just the length needed to reach down into the deep tube of the flower, where its nectar and its pollen can be found.</p>
<p>A similarly magnanimous orchid, found in Central and South America, generates an aromatic oil that the males of a particular bee species need if they are to woo females. After landing on the orchids, the males use little brushes on their front legs to sop up droplets of the precious substance, which they store in their hollow hind legs, releasing it later as an enticement to females. Their<br />close contact with the orchids result in pollen transfer.</p>
<p>But such loving synchrony of purpose is rare, and most orchids are shameless charlatans...<br />Many orchids are named after what their flowers resemble: spiders, butterflies, baskets, shoes, peas, and donkeys.<br />But all orchids have a few detail in common: notably, a protruding lip, which tempts insects to land on it as on an airport runway, and an internal column, which contains both the anther cap and the ovaries. Any given flower can either send sperm like pollen to another plant or serve as the recipient for a second orchid's pollen, but few species are capable of self-fertilization. They need a pollinator to pass their genes around. After pollination, a fertile seed pod grows out of the stalk of the flower.</p>
<p>Orchids also are somewhat parasitic. Their seeds are tiny, the size of dust particles, and therefore can carry no protein or nutrients. Once released from the pod and blown to the ground, an orchid seed must gain its nutrition from a fungus growing nearby. Different species of orchid rely on different fungal helpers to germinate. The flower's entire modus operandi seems to be getting something for nothing. Many species are epiphytes, tree dwellers that let their roots dangle slothfully to catch vitamins from bird droppings, rotting leaves, and other material washed down from above by the rain.</p>
<p>But laziness alone does not explain the orchid. Many seem to have about them a touch of self-destructiveness. They can be so mean and deceptive toward their potential pollinators that insects avoid them. Some orchids for example, use a slingshot system to shoot their pollen capsules at bees that have alighted on their petals; they hurl out the packets with such force that the bees are often<br />knocked long distances. These bees quickly lean to shun the floral snipers.</p>
<p>The pink lady's-slipper orchid, a particularly flamboyant example found in pockets around the United States, has a flower that looks and smells as though it were engorged with nectar, yet not only is it utterly dry inside; it's also a nasty trap. When a bee alights on the lower lip of the lady's-slipper, hoping for a treat, the flower's hinged upper lid closes down, caging the creature inside. The only escape route is through a passageway out the rear. As the bee fights its way to freedom, it must pass by the anther stem, where it inadvertently picks up a cap of pollen. So unpleasant is the encounter that the creature will be unlikely ever to venture near another lady's-slipper. For the orchid, the bee's wariness is dangerous, because it takes two acts of insect gullibility to complete a fertilization: the first to pick up the pollen, the second to smear it on another flower.</p>
<p>In fifteen years of study in a Maryland national forest, one naturalist, who followed the fates of a thousand lady's-slippers, found that only twenty-three managed to be pollinated, presumably by the dunces of the local bee population.</p>
<p>A new theory of orchid strategy explains such apparently counterproductive behavior. It holds that the flowers are nature's quintessential gamblers, willing to bank everything on a potentially enormous payoff. Most flower plants have a high annual rate of fertilization, but when they are fertilized, each produces only one seed or a handful of them. By contrast, although few orchid plants will breed during any given year, when one is fertilized, it hits pay dirt. "They work on the lottery system," said Dr. Richard B. Primack, a professor of biology at Boston University. "The chances of any flower being visited are very low, but when the flower is fertilized, it produces tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of seeds."</p>
<p>A win-or-lose strategy seems to benefit many orchid species. Most of the thirty thousand different orchid species count few members among them. They are naturally rare flowers, living high in trees or in widely dispersed strands on the ground. As a rule, rare species evolve exaggerated, risky, and highly specific reproductive strategies; they are custom-designed to survive in their niches. Many orchids target all their efforts at attracting one type of pollinator. That is why one orchid evolves the shape of a species of female wasp or emits a pungency of interest to one type of fly, or will ensnare one kind of bee and even manage to catch a dimwit twice. Orchids can afford to wait for the perfect pollinator. They are among the longest-lived of all flowering plants, and they have very few natural enemies. As a result, far more orchids survive from one year to the next than do most plants.</p>
<p>Suckers may come and suckers may go, but the fakers of the world are built to last. [Natalie Angier, "The Grand Strategy of Orchids," The Beauty of the Beastly: New Views on The Nature of Life (New York: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1995)]</p>
<blockquote><em>Why bother, when the result cannot be tested. But, nonetheless the Enthusiasts claim credit for having found the secret.</em></blockquote>
<p>Scientists bother to tackle the most difficult intractable problems. People at one point said, "why bother" trying to explain the difference between organic and inorganic chemicals, because "I.D.-like" scientists back then taught that a special vital force, found only in living creatures, was necessary in order to produce organic chemicals. Then a chemist discovered how to produce an organic chemical in his lab without any vital force being involved, just acid and a rock (he produced "urea" I believe). And look at all that has happened since then in the field of organic chemistry, even bio organic chemistry. People used to look up at the stars and think "why bother" trying to explain them and their courses, they are far away and certainly moved by supernatural forces. But Newton took a crack at it, and look where astrophysics has gotten since then. It was only during this century that the structure of DNA was discovered, and only in the past few years that biologists were able to map the entire human genome and began work on a comparative primate genome database project, the Silver Project, available on the web. And now computers are searching through the genomes of a slowly increasingly number of different species to track similarities and differences, but we still have to learn how segments of the genome function as well to understand it. It's a lot of work, an endless project. But evolutionary scientists are bothering about it. Because such comparisons of genomes are like peering into the "geologic column" of all living things via layers of historic genetic changes (for instance, non-functioning genetic segments accumulate more mutations over time than functioning segments, so they provide another method of comparison between species).</p>
<p>In the last two decades scientists have also uncovered a few answers concerning how a few major developmental genes function, like the HOX genes that make embryos produce eyes in both invertebrates and vertebrates.</p>
<blockquote><em>Darwinist claims are vast, and IDers must calculate the improbabilities for all their scenarios, including your Hollywood-bound version.</em></blockquote>
<p>Calculating improbabilities only tells us what we don't know. Evolutionists are working on increasing what we can know about connections between the inorganic, organic and bio organic worlds, connections between species, etc.</p>
<p>And even if it's highly improbable that you or anyone else on this planet will ever be hit by lightning, such an equation does nothing to comfort one particular gentleman I read about who has been struck by lightning five times in his life so far.</p>
<blockquote><em>The Darwinian scenarios have no utility in the modern science enterprise.</em></blockquote>
<p>Calculating improbabilities has less utility than Darwinism does. Darwinism presently applies to immunology, pharmacology, problem solving in computers and mathematics, metallurgy. And to studies in biology, botany, even astrophysics (the "natural selection" of the early evolution of galaxies and sub-atomic particles).</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Do you think he has <a href="http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/index.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">a coherent position</a>?</p>
</blockquote>
<p>I don't think I have a "coherent" position if you are speaking of an idealistic notion of absolute coherency. It seems to me at the moment that Darwinistic ideas have some measurable functional value and importance in science and may explain more things than a "perfect Designer" hypothesis appears to explain, but I don't know everything. Though my intuition is that at the moment the Designer hypothesis stresses things we don't know. It might even help elucidate gaps in knowledge. But scientists don't deal in gaps, they deal in extending our knowledge into areas where we were ignorant. And I do not consider the "miraculous explanation" to be an extension of scientific knowledge, just of theological knowledge. The I.D. explanation "solves" the mystery of "design" by positing an even great mystery, a "Designer." You can solve ANY mystery that way. Darwinistic evolution at least has limitations, like if you found a human skull in Precambrian strata. Or if man's chromosomal and genomic components were absolutely unlike his nearest living cousins, the primates. Instead we can see the chromosomal number line up b/w man and chimp with evidence of two chromosomes that became one inside chromosome #2 in man, and the chromosomal bands line up per chromosome, and the overall genomic differences between chimp and man are only 1.4%, less than that between sibling species of nearly identical fruit flies. And the genomic differences between man and chimp's common ancestor would have been even LESS that for each of them backward to a common ancestor. Not that much of a "jump" for a "Designer" to have to make. Perhaps some large scale embryonic genes made the proper changes. In fact I read in U.S. NEWS, July 29, 2002 that in the journal Science the week before, a single mutation in a regulatory gene as enough to produce mice with brains that had an unusually large, wrinkled cerebral cortex resembling out own. (No word, though, on whether the mutant mice gained smarts.)</p>
<blockquote><em>Can't you leave God to do what he chooses, when he chooses? Must you assume you are his equal and thus should have an equivalent understanding--and perhaps an input, even voting on the preferred route to follow?</em></blockquote>
<p>God could have made everything a second ago with our memories intact; the fossils in the ground; sunlight created in transit, even made to look like it had passed through clouds of gas a billion light years away and some of its spectrum having been absorbed by that cloud of gas along the way. Can you or anyone argue against that hypothesis? No, it's as plausible as I.D., let's call it "instant D."</p>
<p>I am saying nothing about being God's equal, I am saying nothing about having the understanding of God. But I do agree with Galileo and Voltaire's sentiments when they wrote, "I do not believe that the same God who endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect had intended for us to forgo their use." (Galileo) "The silly fanatic repeats to me that it is not for us to judge what is reasonable and just in the divine Being. That His reason is not like our reason, that His justice is not like our justice. Eh? How, you mad demoniac, shall we judge justice and reason otherwise than by the notions we have of them? Do you want us to walk otherwise than with our feet, and speak otherwise than with our mouths?" (Voltaire)</p>
<blockquote>
<blockquote>Ed Babinski: So what if Darwinism gives atheists solace. Are the atheists to be denied solace?</blockquote>
<p>No, of course not. But, should they have dominion over us?</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The question of dominion is a political one. I mean, the first commandment in the Bible says, "Thou shalt have not gods before me." Yet America's First Amendment says, "You have the right to worship as you please." Exactly how you can give everyone solace has been an ongoing concern of governments and nations since governments and nations began. In most cases the type of solace anyone may have has been decided by those in power, either Christian power or Islamic power, or communist power. And Christians vie for dominion over each other, just as Muslims do and communists do too. In America, Christians want reverence for God taught in school, in a morning prayer and in biology class apparently as well. Some would bring God up in math class too, as some conservative Christian colleges do today. And of course, these same people would be aghast at having a Darwinian evolutionary Christian speak in their churches, let alone teach and discuss evolution in a church. Call me old fashioned but I think schools are for learning and churches are for praying. And the more done in both, the better and happier most people will be. Of course the fact that Gen. 1-2 can be interpreted so many different ways, from young to old-earth concordist to sacred myth (C. S. Lewis's version), means that those who revere the Bible are going to remain in tension with each other as well as with Darwinian evolution. It's the same tension with ANY two people who have deeply held but different beliefs. Atheist evolutionists are going to continue to write books and argue for their points as are anthropic principle philosophers, as are theistic evolutionists, as are I.D.ers, as are old-earth creationists, as are young-earth creationists, as are geocentric creationists. The distribution is not going to be equal by any means, and who knows which way society as a whole will be swayed in the end? All we can each do is talk about it, and learn to deal with each other's differences of opinion in a fashion that doesn't involve bombs and tanks. To everyone who believes you can't have a difference of opinion without getting angry irrational and punchy, I say, "Bosnia!"</p>
<blockquote>
<blockquote><em>Ed Babinski: I originally brought up the "irreducible long-tongued moth and long-nectary orchid" because it seemed pretty straightforward: Lengthening nectary, lengthening tongue over time. Seems like it could happen, knowing other moths with longish tongues and orchids with longish nectaries.</em></blockquote>
Seems simple enough--provided you do not understand the chemical alterations required. Ignorance is an absolute requirement for that belief.</blockquote>
<p>Nobody knows all the chemical alterations involved. But we can see long, longer, longest-tongued moth species pollinating orchids with nectaries of different lengths. And we know that tongue lengths can vary over generations in different directions, with the longest getting the longest nectaries and their offspring continuing to suck the nectar in the longest nectaries -- and the rest dying out, or cousin species growing extinct. Studying the genomes of that moth and those orchids, along with the genomes of all their cousin species would shed more light on what was involved in the process. But right now the focus is on man and chimp and the Silver comparative genome project.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Philosophe it is! You do know everything. Well, at least a little about everything.</p>
<em><br />Aside from not having your fabulous memory, and considering my other limitations, it is well that I only was tempted to discover the details about a few things.</em></blockquote>
<p>Thanks. (Compliments are among the few things that leave me speechless.)</p>
<blockquote><em>You just wont give God a moment of peace, will you.</em></blockquote>
<p>God only knows if I'm giving him peace or joy by using the brain he gave me to wonder about stuff. Does God prefer silence and reverence, is that why he made the world? Well, maybe he does on the seventh day each week, the Sabbath, Saturday. But what about the other six days of the week? Maybe he delights in us using our minds to question things Monday through Sunday? And who knows what God thinks of I.D. or Darwinism? Even Christian men of science disagree on such matters.</p>
<p>Personally, I can't find much in the way of reverence in my soul when I study the tapeworm, or bedbugs stab raping each other, or sea slugs having penis duels in which one's sperm eats away a third of the inseminated victim's body, or the way the bee's penis explodes after insemination.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Why are the earliest birds more like ancient reptiles than modern day birds?</p>
<em>What makes you so confident of that scenario?</em></blockquote>
<p>I've seen diagrams and photos of the skeletons of ancient reptiles, early birds, and modern day birds, and the comparisons are strikingly different between the earliest known bird fossils and modern day birds, while the earliest known bird fossils are all more similar to ancient reptiles. I'd also heard in a letter somebody sent me (dubious source perhaps) that Archeopteryx languished in a museum for a while and was considered another reptile fossil until somebody noticed the faint feather markings extending from its limbs. Probably true since the Archie fossils were only recognized as bird fossils after Darwin's shot was fired. Then somebody noticed the feather markings. (The hypothesis that the feather markings were added later was disproven, fresh slabs were broken open much later that contained the same markings.)</p>
<p>The shape of Archie's skull and the sutures of each bone in Archie's skull, compared with all known modern birds and their smooth helmet shaped skulls and their bone sutures is very different. Looking at pics of Archie's whole body you can see striking similarities between Archie and ancient reptiles and striking differences between Archie and modern day birds. You don't have to know anatomy to see them.</p>
<p>The few birds that have been found and dated earlier than Archie are also like Archie and like ancient reptiles in many more respects than they are like modern birds.</p>
<p>The same is true of whale fossils. The earliest whales found throughout the Eocene are unlike modern whales. In the Eocene there are varieties with long jaws and rows of teeth that still contained resemblances to the jaws and teeth of land mammals. There are many varieties with far more distinct necks and even diminished limbs as compared with modern day whales. The nostrils have moved at most about halfway up the long nose, not become a blowhole yet. The faces haven't become as shortened as in modern day whales, they are sill long. There's no room for a large echolocation bump of fat in the skulls of even later Eocene whales like Basilosaurus. And the ears show increasing modification for underwater hearing and underwater sense of balance (the semi-circular canals shortening). So ALL of these Eocene whales, in whatever order you want to put them, exhibit characteristics more "primitive" than modern whales.</p>
<blockquote>
<blockquote><em>Ed Babinski: I mean if we found a hummingbird (the only one that can fly backwards) among the earliest birds, I'd be surprised, but we don't. We find birds with reptilian shaped triangular skulls with the same shaped individual skull bones as reptiles, and other features that label them as "birds in progress."</em></blockquote>
Is it possible they were reptiles, and not birds????</blockquote>
<p>Hoyle tried that, suggesting that the feathers on Archeopteryx had been added as a forgery, turning a reptile into an "early bird." But further examinations dismissed that hypothesis, though Hoyle tried to hang on to it for a while. Another slab from the same quarry that was in the same museum was split open much later, and revealed feather markings. And other ancient birds are now known, though none of their feather markings are preserved as beautifully as Archie's, their bone structure is definitely that of Archie's close cousins, and there are faint feather markings. Now we know of a few species of dinosaurs that also had feathers. I've even seen a diagram of a fossilized "feather-scale" based on an original fossil find. Not a feather, not a scale, but something in between. Not really surprising since in some birds even today, their scales turn into feathers, and they are both formed from the same embryonic layer and by a similar process. I could check into some good books on bird evolution and mail you copies of pages with pics of what I'm talking about. I haven't checked the web under "bird evolution" yet. I was busy a month ago getting together website info on whale evolution.</p>
<blockquote>
<blockquote><em>(How competent a Designer are we talking about?) And then once the progress has been achieved every early birds is wiped out. In this case the early bird did not catch the worm, it caught the grave.</em></blockquote>
And all the chimp ancestors vanished too????</blockquote>
<p>If chimps or their ancestors lived in forests (or moved to forests) the chances of finding their remains are close to nil. Land animals leave the fewest fossilized remains, especially animals living in forests with a fair abundance of life: Flies and beetles reach a corpse quickly, lay their eggs on it and the worm-like young hatch and eat it, worms and tiny insects reach it, bacteria and fungal spores travel quickly by air and digest the skin and bone, the sun dries it out making it brittle, the wind and rain separate and carry pieces away, water may get into dry bones during some days of the year and expand and freeze, cracking them further. Olduvai Gorge is quite a find, a gorge where floods occurred every so often, burying some early apes and early hominids (that lived on a savanna). Some cousins of the early ancestors of chimps and man might be found in Olduvai. But those that became chimps apparently split for the forests and trees. No one knows every species that was evolving at that time, just the ones that left fossilized remains. Hence the debates over the exact branching of man's family tree, which is more like a bush in which many species simply died out. But prior to that bush there were just apes, and prior to those, just monkeys. There's an order to the progression and many extinct species along the way. Naturally the exact order is difficult to determine the more you try to narrow the period you want to look at. A million years is a blink of an eye, geologically, and some fossils can get slightly remixed during that period, oh, not intermixed with say, Cretaceous or Cambrian fossils, but it's more difficult to determine absolute dates the finer the period you are looking at. And we have but a small scattering of fossils from the many species that may have lived during any one period.</p>
<div class="separator" style="text-align:center"><iframe src="https://edwardtbabinski.us/related-content/related-content-19.html" style="margin-bottom:0em; margin-left:0em; margin-right:0em; height:400px; width:600px; border:0px"></iframe></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-505205186321877769.post-28429839605350412612012-03-26T16:40:00.001-07:002019-09-01T19:15:36.373-07:00CHRISTIAN EVOLUTION RESOURCE LIST (UPDATED 10/9/2016)<ul>
<li><a href="#christian_evolutionists">PROMINENT CHRISTIAN EVOLUTIONISTS</a></li>
<li><a href="#christians_evolution">CHRISTIAN WEBSITES THAT DEFEND EVOLUTION (aside from the massive new premier site, </a><a href="http://biologos.org/">BIOLOGOS</a></li>
<li><a href="#emails">E-MAILS FROM PROFESSORS WHO ARE CHRISTIAN EVOLUTIONISTS</a></li>
<li><a href="#admissions">HUMAN EVOLUTION (CREATIONISTS MAKE ADMISSIONS)</a>
<p><a name="christian_evolutionists"></a><strong><span style="color: black;">1) PROMINENT CHRISTIAN EVOLUTIONISTS</span></strong><br />DR. RICHARD G. COLLING<br />Dr. Colling is a fundamentalist Christian and chair of Biology at a fundamentalist Christian college, and also author of Random Designer: Created From Chaos To Connect With Creator. According to Dr. Colling, "It pains me to suggest that my religious brothers are telling falsehoods" when they say evolutionary theory is "in crisis" and claim that there is widespread skepticism about it among scientists. "Such statements are blatantly untrue," he argues. "Evolution has stood the test of time and considerable scrutiny... What the designer designed is the random-design process," or Darwinian evolution, Colling says. "God devised these natural laws, and uses evolution to accomplish his goals." ["Teaching Evolution at Christian College" by Sharon Begley, The Wall Street Journal (December 31, 2004)]</p>
<hr style="width: 50%; height: 1px;" align="left" />
<p><a href="http://www.ualberta.ca/~dlamoure/index.htm" target="_blank" rel="noopener">DR. DENIS O. LAMOUREUX</a><br />Dr. Lamoureux is a biologist/evolutionist and Evangelical Christian.<br />He was involved in a written debate with Phillip E. Johnson, the lawyer and advocate of the "Intelligent Design hypothesis," which was published in book form as Darwinism Defeated? A debate between Phillip E. Johnson and Denis O. Lamoureux.</p>
<hr style="width: 50%; height: 1px;" align="left" />
<p>DR. KEITH B. MILLER<br />Dr. Miller is professor of geology at Kansas State Univ (not to be confused with Dr. Kenneth Miller, below) <a href="http://www-personal.ksu.edu/~kbmill/Book_Ann.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Dr. Keith Miller's website</a>.<br />He edited, Perspectives on an Evolving Creation, (William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2003) that included essays by the following Christians:<br />Terry Gray (Colorado State)<br />James Hurd (Bethel College)<br />Ted Davis (Messiah College)<br />Robin Collins (Messiah College)<br />David Wilcox (Eastern College)<br />Mark Noll (Wheaton College)<br />Jeff Greenberg (Wheaton College)<br />Laurie Braaten (Judson College)<br />John Munday, Jr. (Regent Univ.)<br />Loren Haarsma (Calvin College)<br />Howard Van Till (Calvin College)<br />Deborah Haarsma (Calvin College)<br />Warren Brown (Fuller Theological)<br />David Campbell (University of Alabama)<br />Jennifer Wiseman (Johns Hopkins Univ.)<br />Conrad Hyers (Gustavus Adolphus College)<br />George Murphy (Trinity Lutheran Seminary)<br />Bob Russell (Center for Theology and Natural Sciences)</p>
<hr style="width: 50%; height: 1px;" align="left" />
<p>DR. DAVID N. LIVINGSTONE<br />Dr. Livingstone is the author of, Darwin's Forgotten Defenders: The Encounter between Evangelical Theology and Evolutionary Thought (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1987)</p>
<hr style="width: 50%; height: 1px;" align="left" />
<p>DR. HOWARD J. VAN TILL<br />Dr. Van Till is a Professor of Astronomy at Calvin College, and is the author of<br />1) The Fourth Day: What the Bible and the Heavens Are Telling Us about the Creation (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1986)<br />2) Science Held Hostage<br />3) "The Creation: Intelligently Designed or Optimally Equipped?" Theology Today 55 (1998): 344-364</p>
<hr style="width: 50%; height: 1px;" align="left" />
<p>DR. DAVID L. WILCOX<br />Dr. Wilcox has a Ph.D. in Population Genetics, and is Professor of Biology at Eastern College, St. David's, PA. He is the author of God and Evolution (Nov. 2004)</p>
<hr style="width: 50%; height: 1px;" align="left" />
<p>LARRY ARNHARDT<br /><a href="http://darwinianconservatism.blogspot.com/">Larry Arnhart</a> is a Christian and also Professor of Political Science at Northern Illinois University. He is the author of Darwinian Natural Right: The Biological Ethics of Human Nature; and, Darwinian Conservatism (2005), whose blurb reads, "The Left has traditionally assumed that human nature is so malleable, so perfectible, that it can be shaped in almost any direction. Conservatives object, arguing that social order arises not from rational planning but from the spontaneous order of instincts and habits. Darwinian biology sustains conservative social thought by showing how the human capacity for spontaneous order arises from social instincts and a moral sense shaped by natural selection in human evolutionary history." Arnhardt has also debated <a href="http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles/ArnhartDarwinDesign.shtml" target="_blank" rel="noopener">I.D.ists at their conferences</a></p>
<hr style="width: 50%; height: 1px;" align="left" />
<p><a href="http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/index.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">DR. KENNETH MILLER</a><br />In a court case in Cob country, Georgia in which the school board lost their battle to insert "Evolution is only a theory" stickers inside a biology text, the "offending" book in question was written by a Christian, Dr. Kenneth Miller. How ironic. Besides having authored a widely used biology textbook, Miller is also the author of Finding Darwin's God: A Scientist's Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution.</p>
<p>More on Dr. Miller at Christianity Today's website:</p>
<p>"<a href="http://www.ctlibrary.com/11081" target="_blank" rel="noopener">A Somewhat Higher Opinion of God</a>": A conversation with biologist Ken Miller. Interview by Karl W. Giberson</p>
<p>"<a href="http://www.ctlibrary.com/11059" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Finding Darwin's God</a>: A conversation with biologist Ken Miller."<br />Interview by Karl W. Giberson</p>
<br /><hr style="width: 50%; height: 1px;" align="left" /><br />
<p>DR. FRANCIS COLLINS<br />Dr. Francis Collins is Director of the Human Genome Project. Collins has stated: "I am unaware of any irreconcilable conflict between scientific knowledge about evolution and the idea of a creator God; why couldn't God have used the mechanism of evolution to create?...In my field, biology, because of the creationists the standard assumption is that anyone who has faith has gone soft in the head. When scientists like me admit they are believers, the reaction from colleagues is 'How did this guy get tenure?'" (Gregg Easterbrook, "Science and God: A Warming Trend?" Science, Vol. 277, No. 5328, Aug. 15 1997, p. 890-893)</p>
<p>More on Dr. Collins at Christianity Today's website:</p>
<p>"<a href="http://ctlibrary.com/6670" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Genome Doctor</a>: The director of the National Human Genome Research Institute answers questions about the morality of his work" by Francis Collins</p>
<hr style="width: 50%; height: 1px;" align="left" />
<p><a href="http://www.polkinghorne.org/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">DR. JOHN POLKINGHORNE</a><br />Dr. Polkinghorne is an ordained Anglican priest, former Cambridge professor of theoretical physics.<br />He is also the author of<br />1) Quarks, Chaos, and Christianity: Questions to Science and Christianity (New York: Crossroad, 1994)<br />2) Science and Theology: An Introduction (London: SPCK, 1998)<br />3) The Work of Love: Creation as Kenosis (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2001) A book of essays by assorted theistic evolutionists that explores the Biblical concept of kenosis (self-emptying) and the doctrine of creation in light of evolutionary thought.</p>
<hr style="width: 50%; height: 1px;" align="left" />
<p>DR. DONALD NIELD<br />Dr. Nield is Professor of Engineering Science at Auckland University, and author of God Created the Heavens and The Earth.</p>
<hr style="width: 50%; height: 1px;" align="left" />
<p>DR. GRAEME FINLAY<br />DR. Finlay is a Cell Biologist who lectures in General Pathology in the Department of Molecular Medicine and Pathology at Auckland University, and is the author of<br />1) A Seamless Web: Science and Faith; Evolving Creation<br />2) God's Books: Genetics and Genesis.</p>
<hr style="width: 50%; height: 1px;" align="left" />
<p>DR. DENIS EDWARDS<br />Dr. Edwards is the author of<br />1) The God of Evolution: A Trinitarian Theology (New York: Paulist, 1999)<br />2) Jesus and the Cosmos (New York: Paulist, 1991)</p>
<hr style="width: 50%; height: 1px;" align="left" />
<p>DR. JOHN F. HAUGHT<br />Dr. Haught is the author of<br />1) Deeper Than Darwin: The Prospect for Religion in the Age of Evolution (Boulder, CO: Westview, 2003)<br />2) God After Darwin: A Theology of Evolution (Boulder, CO: Westview, 2000).</p>
<hr style="width: 50%; height: 1px;" align="left" />
<p>DR. STANLEY L. JAKI<br />Dr. Jaki is a Benedictine priest with doctorates in both theology and physics, and the author of<br />1) Cosmos and Creator (Scottish Academic Press, l979; Regnery Gateway, 1980), An analysis of the bearing of modern cosmological theories on the Christian dogma of the creation of the universe, followed by the history of that dogma, its philosophical presuppositions, and its relation to evolutionary theories of man<br />2) Genesis 1 Through the Ages (London: Thomas More Press, 1992) with illustrations. A history of the interpretations of Genesis 1 from biblical times to the present day, with an emphasis on the ever-present lures of concordism. Eight lectures delivered April 25- May 9, 1992, in New York on behalf of Wethersfield Institute<br />3) Bible and Science (Front Royal, VA: Christendom Press, 1996) An analysis of the biblical world view and basic Biblical propositions<br />insofar as they relate to science and to its history.</p>
<p><a name="christians_evolution"></a><strong><span style="color: black;">2) CHRISTIAN WEBSITES THAT DEFEND EVOLUTION</span></strong></p>
<p><a href="http://www.polkinghorne.org" target="_blank" rel="noopener">John Polkinghorne's web site</a> with helpful links.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/creationism/darwin.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Darwin's Forgotten Christian Defenders</a></p>
<p><a href="http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/evolution/christian_evolution.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Three Cheers For Christian Evolutionists</a></p>
<p>From <a href="http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/babinski/evangelicals.html">Abandoning Geocentrism To Accepting Evolution</a>: A "Liberal Trend" Among Evangelical Christians?</p>
<p>Evolving Interpretations of the <a href="http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/geocentrism/cosmology.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Bible's "Cosmological Teachings"</a>--Or--Does the Bible "Teach Science?"</p>
<p>DWISE1'S <a href="http://cre-ev.dwise1.net/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Creation/Evolution Page</a><br />(On the Danger of Losing One's Faith Due to Fallacious Creationist Arguments, and why Christians must remain open to theistic evolution)</p>
<p><a href="http://www.answersincreation.org/evolution.htm" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Christian Evolutionists</a> (and lots of old-earth arguments, including <a href="http://answersincreation.org/testimony.htm" target="_blank" rel="noopener">testimonies</a> of former Young-Earthers)</p>
<p>Dr. Robert J. Schneider's <a href="http://www.berea.edu/specialproject/scienceandfaith/default.asp" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Science and Faith</a> essays</p>
<p><a href="http://steamdoc.s5.com/writings.htm" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Dr. Allan H. Harvey's essays</a></p>
<p><a href="http://www.abc.net.au/rn/science/ockham/stories/s17040.htm" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Dr. Anthony Garrett</a> (former atheist and member of Australia's skeptic society who became a Christian evolutionist)</p>
<p><a href="http://www.faithreason.org/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">John D. Callahan</a> (aithor of Science and Christianity, and his debate with YEC Kent Hovind is on the web)</p>
<p><a href="http://groups.msn.com/ChristiansForEvolution" target="_blank" rel="noopener">ChristiansForEvolution</a> newsgroup</p>
<p>The <a href="http://www.cin.org/jp2evolu.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Pope's Message</a> On Evolution</p>
<p><a href="http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/babinski/inerrancy.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Fine-Tuners Who Reject I.D. Arguments</a></p>
<p><a href="http://www.meta-library.net/bio/hvt-body.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Howard J. Van Till</a> (Professor Emeritus of Physics and Astronomy at Calvin College)</p>
<p><a href="http://www.theistic-evolution.com/index.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Carl Drews</a></p>
<p>Christian Evolutionism at the <a href="http://www.asa.org" target="_blank" rel="noopener">ASA website</a> (American Scientific Association, an organization of <a href="http://www.aaas.org/spp/dser/evolution/index.shtml" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Evangelical Christians who are scientists</a>,includes both old-earth creationists and <a href="http://www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/Evolution/murphy__van_dyke_dialogue.html#Theistic%20Evolution" target="_blank" rel="noopener">theistic evolutionists</a>)</p>
<p><a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20100811062417/http://home.entouch.net/dmd/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Glenn Morton</a></p>
or see Glenn's pieces <a href="http://www.oldearth.org/bio_glenn_morton.htm">here</a>
<p><a href="http://www.bibleandscience.com" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><br />Stephen Meyers</a>'s website</p>
<p>Webpage that features the article, "<a href="http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/id_for_dummies.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">I.D. For I.Dummies</a>"</p>
<p><a href="http://zygoncenter.org/about_who.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Zygon</a> (journal)</p>
<p><a href="http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/1028_statements_from_religious_org_12_19_2002.asp" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Voices For Evolution</a>: Statements From Religious Organizations</p>
<hr style="width: 50%; height: 1px;" align="left" />
<p>3) E-MAILS FROM PROFESSORS WHO ARE CHRISTIAN EVOLUTIONISTS</p>
<p>Ed,</p>
<p>You might add to your List of Prominent Christian Evolutionists the following names: Peter Dodson (dinosaurs) and Simon Conway Morris (Cambrian). Apparently Sean Carroll, the 'evo-devo' guru is a Catholic who thinks God is real - thus, I presumes fits the bill. My guess is we have about 5000+ "theistic evolutionists" of various stripes teaching science at the 100-odd schools of the "Council on Christian Colleges and Universities"--but most of us keep our heads down--hoping to 'pass' as "real" Christians (in lieu of our fellow brethrens' suspicions to the contrary).</p>
<br />
<p>David L Wilcox</p>
<hr style="width: 50%; height: 1px;" align="left" />
<p>Ed -</p>
<p>Thanks for the list. I am honored and pleased to be included on your list among such august company as Dr. Kenneth Miller, Rev. Dr. John Polkinghorne, Glenn Morton, and Dr. Francis Collins! You have the majority of my favorites already listed. I have a section on "<a href="http://www.theistic-evolution.com/references.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Theistic Evolution</a>" on my References page that has a few of yours.</p>
<p>Go there and search for "Theistic Evolution" and you'll find my shorter list.</p>
<p>Consider adding Michael Dowd and his <a href="http://www.thegreatstory.org/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Great Story</a>.</p>
<p>Dowd comes across as kind of "New Age"-y, but in his presentation I could not find anything that contradicts the Bible. There is also the <a href="http://nrcse.creighton.edu/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Nebraska Religious Coalition for Science Education</a>.</p>
<p>One promiment name I did not find on your list is that of <a href="http://ecoevo.bio.uci.edu/Faculty/Ayala/Ayala.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Rev. Dr. Francisco Ayala</a>, an ordained priest and scientist.</p>
<p>You might contact him to verify that it's the right guy, and that he is an ordained priest.</p>
<p>When I started my web site in 2000 there were very few sites on the Internet that had anything positive to say about theistic evolution. Now there are plenty that advocate the view that God can (and did) create through the process of evolution. Francis Collins in particular can be paraphrased as saying, "What's the problem?"</p>
<p>I think Chistians like me have woken up to the fact that young-earth creationism won't go away just by ignoring it. We have also realized that the bogus claims of creationism have turned many people away from accepting Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior! Arguing about scientific theories is one thing, but distorting the Gospel (or adding to it) is quite another thing entirely! See Galatians 1:8-9 for details.</p>
<p>Lest anyone write off us TE people as a bunch of liberal compromisers, I am a member of the Anglican Mission in America. Although I dislike political labels, the AMiA is generally considered to be a conservative offshoot of the Episcopal Church. So although there may be a correlation, it's not true that only liberal Christians accept evolution.</p>
<p>If you're interested in my credentials, I'm currently sweating through the second semester of Atmospheric Dynamics on my way to earning a Master's Degree in Atmospheric Science. Theistic meteorology can be a useful analogy! When I graduate I'll feel free to call myself a scientist, but for now I'm a software engineer working with meteorological data. And trying to clear the path to Jesus, despite the obstacles that others would put in the way.</p>
<p>In Christ's service,<br />Carl Drews</p>
<hr style="width: 50%; height: 1px;" align="left" />
<p>Ed</p>
<p>You might want to say John Polkinghorne is "author of many books including:" and add that he is a winner of the Templeton Prize and the founding President of ISSAT</p>
<p>You could also add Arthur Peacocke, Prof Simon Conway Morris FRS and Dennis Alexander (author of Rebuilding the Matrix)</p>
<p>YIC<br />
Nicholas</p>
<hr style="width: 50%; height: 1px;" align="left" />
<p>I recommend the following:</p>
<blockquote>All the works of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin.<br />All the works of Karl Schmitz-Moormann, Especially his Theology of Creation in an Evolutionary World.</blockquote>
<p>Good luck,<br />Philip Hefner</p>
<hr style="width: 50%; height: 1px;" align="left" />
<p>Please feel free to add me to the list of Christian evolutionists.<br />I direct the course on the "Epic of Creation" at the Zygon Center for Religion and Science at the Lutheran School of Theology at Chicago. I am an Orthodox Christian, and I wrote the book "Beauty and Unity in Creation: The Evolution of Life", Light and Life Publishers, 1996. I have also attached my CV which lists my scientific accomplishments.</p>
<p>Nevertheless, if this does not fit with the format of information you are posting, please feel free to disregard this email. Zygon thought I should supply you with the needed information.</p>
<p>Best wishes in your endeavors,<br />Gayle</p>
<p>Gayle E. Woloschak, Ph. D.<br />Professor, Department of Radiology<br />Department of Cell and Molecular Biology<br />Feinberg School of Medicine<br />Chicago, IL</p>
<hr style="width: 50%; height: 1px;" align="left" />
<p>Dear Ed</p>
<p>Thank you for your very informative email listing many Christians who are committed to the God who is sovereign over natural process. And I wish you well in your efforts against the spread of 'Creationism'.</p>
<p>In New Zealand, where I live, American 'Creationism' has got an almost total hold on the evangelical public. However, here and in Australia too, evangelical theologians and Christians who are scientists (in universities and government research institutes) are solidly behind mainstream science.</p>
<p>Very useful contacts in the UK would be geneticists Dr Caroline Berry and her husband Prof. Sam Berry. They represent Christians in Science, the UK-based organisation of evangelicals with an interest in science.</p>
<p>In New Zealand, one notable contact would be Prof Gareth Jones, who is a structural biologist who has written extensively on Christianity and science themes.</p>
<p>The evangelical organisation in Australia which has sought to withstand the 'Creationist' onslaught is ISCAST, for whom a contact man is their Administrator Mr Richard Gijsbers. He could put you in touch with many highly ranked scientists who are Christians.</p>
<p>I submit some websites (listed in my booklets which you have presented in your email) which should give useful contacts in various countries. <a href="http://www.cis.org.uk/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Christians in Science</a> (CiS).</p>
<p><a href="http://www.faithandthought.org.uk/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Victoria Institute</a></p>
<p>The above two organizations publish the journal <a href="http://scibel.gospelcom.net/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Science and Christian Belief</a>. Scibel</p>
<p><a href="http://www.iscast.org.au/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Institute for the Study of Christianity in an Age of Science and Technology</a> (ISCAST)</p>
<p><a href="http://asa.calvin.edu/ASA/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">American Scientific Affiliation</a> (ASA)</p>
<p>The ASA publishes the journal Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.csca.ca/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Canadian Scientific and Christian Affiliation</a> (CSCA)</p>
<p><a href="http://www.wheaton.edu/ACG/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Affiliation of Christian Geologists</a> (ACG)</p>
<p>I can provide you with other contacts if you would like them! I attached an article that I and some fellow Christians published last year. You may find it interesting.</p>
<p>If you can suggest how my booklets can be distributed in the USA, I would be very glad to hear any suggestions. Keep up your good work.</p>
<p>Yours sincerely in Christ<br />Graeme Finlay<br />PhD</p>
<p>P.S., Humans and chimps share an extensive collection of particular genetic markers. [For example, our DNA shares with that of other primates a vast catalogue of genetic parasites--several million in number, comprising 50% of the human genome--that provide a consistent outline of primate evolutionary relationships. Remarkable studies using the 'Alu' genetic parasite as an evolutionary marker have been done by Salem A-H, Ray DA, Xing J et al (2003). Alu elements and hominid phylogenetics. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 100, 12787; Xing JC, Salem AH, Hedges DJ et al (2003). Comprehensive analysis of two Alu Yd subfamilies. J Mol Evol 57 Suppl 1, S76.] The shared history to which such common markers testify establishes conclusively that human and chimp genomes have been copied from the same line of ancestors. It is a conclusion that we must live with. And when the details of the chimp genome are published with great fanfare in the scientific literature and the popular media, it is a conclusion for which we must give a Christian interpretation.</p>
<p>For a discussion of evolutionary genetics from a Christian perspective see Rolston H (1999). Genes, Genesis and God. (Cambridge: CUP).</p>
<p>For a discussion of the compatibility between evolutionary and religious perspectives, see and Conway Morris S (2003). Life's Solution: Inevitable Humans in a Lonely Universe (Cambridge: CUP).</p>
<p>The dangers inherent in Christians making the wrong choices are well expressed by the evangelical historian Noll MA (1994). The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, and Leicester: IVP).</p>
<p>Graeme Finlay PhD is a cell biologist who lectures in scientific pathology at the University of Auckland, and should be addressed in any correspondence.<br />Warren Judd PhD lectured in molecular biology for several years in the University of Auckland, and is currently editor of the NZ Geographic Graham O'Brien PhD is a molecular geneticist who is training for the ministry. He is a member of the Inter-Cchurch Bioethics Council Ross Prestidge PhD, a biochemist, is a Senior Staff Scientist at the Genesis Research and Development Corporation Ltd., Auckland. Andrew Shelling PhD a molecular biologist, lectures in Reproductive Science at the University of Auckland, and is currently President of the Human Genetics Society of Australasia (NZ Branch).</p>
<p><a name="admissions"></a><strong><span style="color: black;">4) HUMAN EVOLUTION (CREATIONISTS MAKE ADMISSIONS)</span></strong><br />Two quotations from creationists:</p>
<p>`I was surprised to find that instead of enough fossils barely to fit into a coffin, as one evolutionist once stated [in 1982], there were over 4,000 hominid fossils as of 1976. Over 200 specimens have been classified as Neandertal and about one hundred as Homo erectus. More of these fossils have been found since 1976.<br />--Michael J. Oard [creationist], in his review of the book, Bones of Contention -- A Creationist Assessment of Human Fossils, in the Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 30, March 1994, p. 222</p>
<p>`The current figures [circa 1994] are even more impressive: over 220 Homo erectus fossil individuals discovered to date, possibly as many as 80 archaic Homo sapiens fossil individuals discovered to date, and well over 300 Neandertal fossil individuals discovered to date.<br />Marvin L. Lubenow [creationist], author of Bones of Contention -- A Creationist Assessment of Human Fossils, in a letter to the editor of the Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 31, Sept. 1994, p. 70</p>
<p>"<a href="http://www.theistic-evolution.com/transitional.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Transitional Fossils of Hominid Skulls</a>" by Carl Drews, a Christian evolutionist, "By 2000 enough pre-human fossils had been recently discovered to form a clearer picture of human ancestry, something that was difficult 20 years earlier. This web page contains an illustration of those skulls, displayed in a lineup so that you can compare them and see if they look like transitional fossils or not. I have provided my own commentary, but feel free to analyze them yourself and draw your own conclusions."</p>
<p><a href="http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Arguments We Think Creationists Should Not Use</a> (A must read article at the Young-Earth Creationist site, Answers in Genesis)</p>
<p>"<a href="http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/babinski/hypothesis.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Creationists Admit Difficulties With Their Hypothesis</a>"</p>
</li>
</ul>
<div class="separator" style="text-align:center"><iframe src="https://edwardtbabinski.us/related-content/related-content-19.html" style="margin-bottom:0em; margin-left:0em; margin-right:0em; height:400px; width:600px; border:0px"></iframe></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-505205186321877769.post-61905501818143061592012-03-26T16:34:00.001-07:002019-09-01T19:15:17.548-07:00Three Cheers For Christian Evolutionists!<blockquote>
<p><em><a href="http://www.bouncersplace.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=3484" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Patricia</a>: [...] I am a Christian Evolutionist. Is there such a thing? Yep. Must be.<br />Good luck to you.</em></p>
</blockquote>
<hr style="width: 50%; height: 1px;" align="left" />
<p><strong>THREE CHEERS FOR CHRISTIAN EVOLUTIONISTS!</strong></p>
<p>Mark Noll, Christian historian at Wheaton College (the "Harvard" of evangelical Christian colleges), made the following admissions in his article, "The Evangelical Mind Today" (First Things, Oct. 2004):</p>
<p>"Taken together, American Evangelicals display many virtues and do many things well, but built-in barriers to careful and constructive thinking remain substantial... We [evangelicals] remain inordinately susceptible to enervating apocalyptic speculation, and we produce and comsume oceans of bathetic End Times literature while sponsoring only a trickle of serious geopolitical analysis... And far too many of us still make the intellectually suicidal mistake of thinking that promoting 'creation science' is the best way to resist naturalistic philosophies of science. When it comes to the life of the mind, in other words, we evangelicals continue to have our problems... Strife over 'creation science' continues to simmer, exacting a high cost in both serious study of nature and serious learning from Scripture, yet several positive influences are evident. Without claiming mastery of the recondite issues involved, I can say I am heartened by the consistent quality of intra-evangelical debate in forums such as the American Scientific Affiliation's Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith. I am also encouraged by the boldness and clarity with which evangelicals such as Denis O. Lamoureux (debater of Phillip E. Johnson in the book, Darwinism Defeated?), and Keith B. Miller (editor of Perspectives on an Evolving Creation, Eerdmans Publishers, 2003, that brings together a wide variety of specialists who each address evolution from the perspective of their own discipline. There is a good balance between scientific and theological issues with multiple voices representing a range of Christian theological traditions), spell out why they are evolutionists and why they hold evolutionary theory to be compatible with traditional Christian orthodoxy."</p>
<p>Besides Mark Noll, another prominent Evangelical Christian professor at Wheaton College is John H. Walton, author of the NIV Application Commentary On Genesis, 2002, which is a MUST READ for any Evangelical still trying to squeeze 'scientific creationism' out of the first three chapters of Genesis.</p>
<p><strong>OTHER PRO-EVOLUTION EVANGELICAL CHRISTIANS</strong><br />Between 1910 and 1915 a 12-volume set of books was published, titled, The Fundamentals, filled with essays by conservative Protestants, among them, R. A. Torrey (an editor of The Fundamentals), George Frederick Wright and James Orr, who all advocated a cautious pro-evolutionary stance. Only in the eighth volume of The Fundamentals did two aggressive rejections of evolution appear, one by an anonymous essayist and another by the relatively unknown Henry Beach, both of whom lacked the theological and scientific standing of the senior Evangelicals already mentioned. Reverend Orr, one of the more renowned contributors, was a theologian of the United Free Church College in Glasgow and widely respected as an apologist for Evangelicalism, but expressed doubts as to how literal, Genesis, chapter three, ought to be taken: "I do not enter into the question of how we are to interpret the third chapter of Genesis -- whether as history or allegory or myth, or most probably of all, as old tradition clothed in oriental allegorical dress..." [James Orr, The Christian View of God and the World (1897), p. 185, 447]</p>
<p>David N. Livingstone (a Research Officer in Queen's University, Belfast) has documented that most leading Evangelical scholars in the 19th and early 20th-century accepted vast geological timescales and some form of evolutionary theory.~ In the sciences: Hitchcock, Silliman, Guyot, Maury, Gray, Wright, Dana, Winchell, and Mcloskie. And in theology: McCosh, A. A. Hodge, B. B. Warfield, C. W. Hodge, and Strong (of Strong's Concordance fame). Even some of the contributors to The Fundamentals (mentioned above) advocated a cautious synthesis of creation and evolution. Livingstone's conclusion: "Evangelical scientists were among the first in America to adopt and later to promote an evolutionary outlook... The Fundamentalists who arrived in the 1920s more closely resembled stepchildren than children of this family." [David N. Livingstone, Darwin's Forgotten Defenders: The Encounter Between Evangelical Theology and Evolutionary Thought (Grand Rapids, Mich.: W. B. Eerdmans, 1987)]</p>
<p>Nor was the mid-20th-century Evangelical, C. S. Lewis, disturbed by the thought of Genesis being "...derived from earlier Semitic stories which were Pagan and mythical." [C. S. Lewis, Reflections on the Psalms (London: Collins, Fontana Books, 1958), p. 93] "We read in Genesis (2:7) that God formed man of the dust and breathed life into him. For all the first writer knew of it, this passage might merely illustrate the survival, even in a truly creational story, of the Pagan inability to conceive true Creation, the savage, pictorial tendency to imagine God making things 'out of' something as the potter or the carpenter does." [C. S. Lewis, "Scripture," Reflections on the Psalms] In short, "Lewis found more truth in the story of the 'Garden of Eden' when he regarded it as myth than as history." [Michael J. Christensen, C. S. Lewis on Scripture: His Thoughts on the Nature of Biblical Inspiration, The Role of Revelation and the Question of Inerrancy (Waco, Texas: Word Books, 1979), pp. 34-35)]</p>
<p>Other 20th-century Evangelicals have expressed views similar to Lewis's:</p>
<p>"The style [of Genesis chapters 2-3] is lively and picturesque... The Lord God takes on a human form: we see him mold clay, breathe into man's nostrils, walk in the garden when the breeze gets up and make for the guilty couple better clothes than their improvised cloths... The presence of one or several word-plays [in the story of how Eve was crafted from Adam] casts doubt on any literal intention on the author's part... There is a dream-like garden with strange trees and a cunning animal who opens a conversation; you could believe you were in one of those artless legends, one of those timeless stories which are the fascination of fokelore." [Henri Blocher, In the Beginning: The Opening Chapters of Genesis (InterVarsity Press, 1984)]</p>
<p>Speaking of prominent modern day Christians who accept evolution and even defend it against I.D. arguments, there's Howard Van Till (of Calvin College), Kenneth Miller (author of Finding Darwn's God), Denis Lamoureaux (co-author of Darwinism Defeated? The Johnson-Lamoureaux Debate on Biological Origins. Vancouver: Regent College, 1999), Dr. Stephen C. Meyers (manager of bibleandscience.com), Conrad Hyers (author of The Meaning of Genesis), and Paul Seely. For more information on them and other Christian evolutionists, including the ones at the American Scientific Affiliation (that publishes Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith), and at the Institute for the Study of Religion in an Age of Science (that publishes Zygon magazine), see the article: <a href="http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/babinski/inerrancy.html">The Fine-Tuning Hypothesis</a>, an alternative to the Intelligent Design Hypothesis.</p>
<div class="separator" style="text-align:center"><iframe src="https://edwardtbabinski.us/related-content/related-content-19.html" style="margin-bottom:0em; margin-left:0em; margin-right:0em; height:400px; width:600px; border:0px"></iframe></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-505205186321877769.post-9707067309113441852012-03-26T16:30:00.001-07:002019-09-01T19:15:02.093-07:00Evolution in Bacteria<p>ETB Response on Theology Web</p>
<p>By <a href="http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1122108&postcount=1" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Sylas</a> July 21, 2005</p>
<p>If you thought evolution was slow and gradual, think again. You may even be helping it along, says Bob Holmes.</p>
<p>So begins one of the main cover stories in the July 9 edition of New Scientist. This is my second thread based on this issue; there will be at least two more.</p>
<p>This article is about exceptionally rapid evolution, especially in response to a changing environment. The initial example is fish. Every fisherman knows that you should throw back the tiddlers. By doing this, you deliberately limit your catch so as to ensure the next generation of fish will survive and go on to repopulate stocks for the next fishing season. Commercial fisheries often work to the same principle, using wide meshed nets that allow baby fish to escape for another day.</p>
<p>Unfortunately, this well intentioned strategy has backfired. By sparing the smaller fish, fisherfolk are not only letting the fingerlings get away; they are changing the selective pressures on the population. Evolutionary change in response can reshape a whole species in a very short space of time. Fifteen years of commercial fishing off the Atlantic coast of Canada has resulted in a reduction in the average size of mature fish by almost half.</p>
<p>Furthermore, changes persist even after a moratorium of fishing was announced. The mean size of fish does start to increase again, but it is not a simple reversal to restore the previous equilibrium. The response of populations to new circumstances brings about more change than simple size. The smaller fish tend to produce fewer eggs, and this inhibits recovery. Also (though this is not mentioned explicitly) changes in fish populations have follow-on effects for other organisms, and after fishing is removed the resulting environment is not the same as originally.</p>
<p>There are now sufficiently many examples of this to show that rapid evolution is not an exception, but a normal part of our dynamic world. Other instances of change discussed include substantial reduction in tusk length for elephants in response to poaching; in the size of bighorn sheep and the size of their horns in response to trophy hunting, experimental simulation of selective fishing in controlled fish populations, changes in the beaks of Darwin's finches on the Galapagos islands in response to climate cycles, cyclic changes in the relative proportions of three mating strategies of the "side-blotched lizard" in south west USA due to an unstable equilibrium, and changes in breeding cycles of squirrels in response to increase temperatures in recent years. Sometimes change is chaotic; as for the finches where the pressures alternate from year to year. Sometimes there is a sudden development of a new consistent trend in response to some new effect, as in the size of fish.</p>
<p>It is also hard to predict exactly what effects will be; but appreciating the potential for rapid evolutionary change does allow some planning for how we manage the environment. For example, in fishing, the article suggests we should consider throwing back both the largest and smallest fish, and keeping only a mid range. This would tend to select for rapid growth, with the "fittest" fish being those spending the least amount of time at the intermediate fishable size. But we don't know what other changes would be attendant upon that. Another strategy is simply to have some strict no fish zones; from which no fish are taken at all, which should blunt selective effects.</p>
<p>The article also notes that microbes are champions at rapid evolution, and that new genes can jump between lineages, breaking the simple pattern of inheritance and allowing new genes and new proteins to sweep across a range of organisms. For example, chemists have developed new compounds, ever seen on earth before; weedkillers like atrazine and 2,4-D, or nitrotoluenes such as TNT. Yet in just a few decades new enzymes have evolved that are able break these chemicals down and even use them for food. Once they have evolved these genes can jump lineages and spread through diverse populations. This may be a useful tool for finding new ways to clean up toxic waste problems.</p>
<p>The article points out that a common response to environmental change is also extinction. Some species just do not adapt to new circumstances, and die out.</p>
<p>One of the serious implications of rapid evolution is for conservationists. Attempts to "preserve" endangered species with captive breeding programs and habitat management is placing them in new situations entirely from those in which they first evolved; and what is preserved may be a lineage undergoing rapid evolution away from the starting point we sought to conserve.<br />Cheers -- Sylas</p>
<blockquote>
<p><em>Dee Dee Warren (FOUNDER OF TWEB): I don't think any of this is news. Nor would I call it "evolution" either.</em></p>
</blockquote>
<p>POSTED IN RESPONSE BY <a href="http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1123474&postcount=31" target="_blank" rel="noopener">EDWARD T. BABINSKI</a><br />Why not call it evolution, Dee Dee? As Sylas pointed out bacteria have evolved means to digest chemical substances that human beings have only recently made in labs, substances not found in nature. So do you believe that the gene(s) necessary for bacteria to digest the manufactured explosive chemical, TNT, were:</p>
<p>a) created "in the beginning" and hidden inside bacteria and only became activated recently after TNT was invented by human chemists? Think of what an infinite number of genes it would be necessary to hide inside all the world's bacteria, because they are amazingly adaptable little critters.<br />b) a Designer steps in and deliberates mutates or hands out new genes to bacteria all the time?<br />c) the bacterial species itself "evolved" something new?</p>
<p>Speaking of those wiley bacteria, they were even caught digesting nylon, a substance that didn't exist until 1935 (they had reduced some nylon in a discard bin to a gooey substance, which is how the little culpits were caught in the act). A study of their genomes, compared with their non-nylon eating cousins', demonstrated that a simple frame shift mutation was responsible for their amazing new digestive ability. Though they were still at least 50X away from fully digesting the nylon, and hence still couldn't extract more than a fraction of the possible energy that might be extracted from the breakdown process.<br />[For details and responses to creationist objectors, see <a href="http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Dave Thomas's article</a>].<br />Futher mutational shuffling of genes might enable some of those bacteria to more fully digest nylon, in which case, Victoria's Secrets might be out of business.</p>
<p>And bacteria aren't the only living things to come up with new mutations to handle new man-made substances. There's also mosquitoes, cottom budworms, and houseflies that have undergone some ingenious mutations since the advent of DDT (another man-made chemical ending in T):<br />"Mosquitoes that are resistant to DDT have evolved multiple copies of the esterase genes that enable them to detoxify it; the cotton budworm has altered the target of the poison, and houseflies have altered the proteins that transport the poison. [So there is a variety of _possible_ mutations that can reduce the killing effects of the same pesticide, in this case, DDT, on an organism. This increases the odds that such resistance could occur via the same random mutations that naturally occur in every organism during meiotic divisions of its germ cells.-- E.T.B.] The insecticides select for those resistant phenotypes, and the genes that confer this<br />resistance are transmitted to the next generation."<br /><a href="http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/articles/dembski.html">From Random Mutations and Intelligent Design</a></p>
<p>If you believe that nature can only Devolve and never Evolve, and that mutations must be viewed as harmful, the truth is that mutations are not all harmful, and nature certainly isn't simply devolving.<br />DROSOPHILIDS FLY IN THE FACE OF DE-EVOLUTION, INSTEAD THEY HAVE EVOLVED!<br />We see species of flies in Hawaii found no place else on earth. Presumably the drosophilid fly (commonly called the "fruit fly," but that's not all it eats, not in Hawaii) was among the first insects to reach those islands soon after they started to form (about 8 million years ago), and proceeded to fill a variety of niches that drosophilid flies do not fill elsewhere around the world.<br />Check out the classic article, titled, "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution," written by an Orthodox Christian who was also a world class evolutionary scientist, Dobzhansky--scroll down to the part that reads "<a href="http://people.delphiforums.com/lordorman/light.htm" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Adaptive Radiation: Hawaii’s Flies</a>"</p>
<p><a href="http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/darwin/origin/flies.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Pics of different fruit flies found only on the Hawaiian islands</a></p>
<p>Add to this a creationist comment (!) about how Hawaiian fruit flies are larger and more brightly colored compared with the rest of the fruit flies on earth, and have even evolved a type of "song" that the mainland fruit flies never evolved. (!) Obviously, some new morphologies and behaviors peculiar to certain species of fruit flies have evolved on the Hawaiian islands:<br />www.creationmoments.com/radio/transcript.asp?track_id=94</p>
<p>About 25% of all the drosophila species on earth are found only on those tiny Hawaiian islands. While it is the fruit flies that are the best known, many other insect groups have diversified also. Hawaii boasts a carnivorous caterpillar, the happy face spider and a whole host of other fascinating endemic arthropods, many of which are brilliantly illustrated in the book, Hawaiian Insects and Their Kin by Francis Howarth and William Mull. Lush, and also in the book, Remains of a Rainbow; Rare Plants and Animals of Hawai'i by David Liittschwager & Susan Middleton.<br />Doesn't sound like devolution to me. Sounds like evolutionary adaptations.<br />How about species of blind cave fish and blind salamanders that lose their eyes? Is it just a case of degeneration? No, because they gained more sense glands in their tongues and their movement-sensing organs known as lateral line canals (that lay alongside their bodies) grew larger and more sensative. These changes were pro-adaptive ones, so pro-adaptive mutations occur.</p>
<p>In fact evidence that whole genome duplication took place in the past without killing organisms has been gathered from comparing the chromosomes and genomes of closely related species of plants, as well as in cases of closely related species of animals (zebra fish). Yet the organisms didn't die, not even from chromosomes doublings or whole genome duplication.</p>
<p>Geneticists recently compared the genomes of two closely related species of Zebra fish, one of which they knew had far more genetic material than the other. But a full genome comparison revealed even more. It revealed that the species with the far greater amount of genetic material probably got it as the result of a massive mutation in the past in which the entire genome had been duplicated, because they found that many duplications of genes existed, while some of the duplicate genes have apparently been weeded out, and others of the dups now lay in non-utilized portions of the genome, and stills others of the dup had undergone some minor mutations making them near-dups, and they were in utilized portions of the genome--hence it appears like those new active genes came about as the result of a massive whole genome duplication and subsequent whittling down of duplicate genes. Yet the organism didn't die in the process, both species of Zebra fish exist today.</p>
<p>That reminds me, have you heard about human chromosome #2? It still contains remnants of its origin from a different kind of mutation, a mutation in which two previous chromosomes fused into a single chromosome. Geneticists point out that human chromosome #2 still contains the remnants of a SECOND centromere (the little button in the middle of chromosomes) and also contains reversed telomeric regions (in the midst of the chromosome, instead of at its ends where teleomeric regions are normally found), that together provide evidence that human chromosome #2 is the result of a fusion of two chromosomes.<br />Keep in mind that chimp and human chromosomes are very near in number (chimps have one extra chromosome) and even more telling, the chromosomes of both chimp and human are nearly identical in length and even have distinctive chromosomal bands that line up when homologous chimp and human chromosomes are lined up beside each other. But the chimp has one extra chromosome, while human chromosome #2 contains visible evidence of being the result of a fusion of two chromosomes that are both found in the chimp. (And that explains why chimps have one extra chromosome than humans, it's not an extra chromosome in chimps, but in humans two chromosomes fused into one, most probably from a common primate ancestor of both chimp and human).</p>
<p><strong>BIG EVOLUTIONARY CHANGES</strong><br />If a creationist seeks evidence of really BIG changes, and complains that bacteria are still bacteria and flies are still flies on Hawaii, and fish are still fish (blind or not), then it's only necessary to point out to them that the BIG changes all started out small and long ago, like when the first bacteria became eukaryotes (bigger single cells with distinct nuclei) and the first eukaryotes became aggregated together to form the first colonial multi-cellular ogranisms, etc. So, all big things start out small. Or like when the first vertebrates evolved in the Cambrian from previous simple bi-lateral species that existed, those first vertebrates didn't look like species with vertebral columns do today with their amazing variety from fish to amphibians to reptiles to mammals, monkeys and man. Instead the earliest vertebrates back in the Cambrian consisted of only a tiny species without a jaw, no boney spine, a thin almost worm-like critter with merely a notocord for "spine" and a slightly darkened eye spot at one end of the notocord. The BIG change from that little critter in the Cambrian to today's vertebrates would take several hundred million years.</p>
<p>Also keep in mind that once a line of evolution is moving along it keeps diverging, so you wouldn't expect a fruit fly to evolve into a vertebrate, it's already an insect and already of a certain variety of fly, it's not likely that it will evolve into even another kind of insect because evolution doesn't work backwards toward common ancestors. Neither would one expect a vertebrate like a camel to evolve backward till it became one of those simple little species of the earliest common ancestors of all vertebrates we saw in the Cambrian. "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle" than for such a thing to happen. Actually it's easier for the earliest common ancestor of all vertebrates to squiggle through the eye of a needle than for a camel with its boney vertebrae to do so.</p>
<p>Nor would we expected a wild dog in Africa to one day grow gills and take to the ocean, barking and chasing catfish in the sea. Though if a modern land mammal DID return to the sea, we WOULD expect it to retain the mammalian features it had previously evolved and not simply jettison it's mammalian four chamber heart and lung for a fish's heart and gills, i.e., not simply revert back to literally being a fish! Take for example the evolution of whales, vertebrates that returned to the sea: "Whales have hearts like ventricles and auricles like mammals, they are warm-blooded, have lungs, nurse their young--just like mammals on land. They even have eyelids that move... [the Right Whale even still has a pelvis, femur and tibia inside its body!] Darwin viewed the similarities as signs that whales (including porpoises and dolphins) descended from mammals that lived on land." [Carl Zimmer, Evolution]<br /><a href="http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/whales/rudiments05.html">Whales Hind Limb Rudiments</a></p>
<div class="separator" style="text-align:center"><iframe src="https://edwardtbabinski.us/related-content/related-content-19.html" style="margin-bottom:0em; margin-left:0em; margin-right:0em; height:400px; width:600px; border:0px"></iframe></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-505205186321877769.post-23227632357614446402012-03-26T16:26:00.001-07:002019-09-01T19:14:46.351-07:00Aldous Huxley - An Anti-Darwinist Criticism<p><strong>Letting the Air Out of George Neumayr's Latest Anti-Darwinism Rant</strong><br />by Edward T. Babinski</p>
<p>Mr. George Neumayr (Editor of the American Spectator), is not a fan of Darwinism. In a recent article, titled, "Individuals Against Divine Intellect," Mr. Neumayr wrote:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><em>"Aldous Huxley once let the cat out of the bag when he said, in response to a question about the origins of modernism, that it began not in the minds of intellectuals but in their wills: they needed to come up with an intellectual system that would give them permission to behave licentiously. Darwinism serves a similar function: it gives intellectuals permission to think atheistically, as Richard Dawkins noted in his much-cited comment that evolution 'made it possible to be an intellectually satisfied atheist.'"</em></p>
</blockquote>
<p>But continuing to trot out Aldous Huxley (who by the way was NOT an atheist), and Dawkins as though they proved the rule, ignores the genuine spectrum of opinion out there concerning Darwinism, I.D. and creationism. For instance there are creationists who fulminate AGAINST the "Intelligent Design" hypothesis such as Prudom at the recent <a href="http://www.reason.com/rb/rb072105.shtml" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Creation Mega-Conference</a>, just as there are pro-evolution Christians who do not identify Darwinism with atheism as Dawkins attempts to do. I am speaking of folks like the Vatican's Astronomer who came out in favor of neither fearing nor dissing Darwinism after one American Cardinal recently did so. I might also mention a leader in the Human Genome Project who is both pro-evolution and Christian, who was interviewed in Christianity Today. Thus your article overlooks a full spectrum of questions. (For a list of <a href="http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/evolution/christian_evolutionists.html">prominent pro-evolution Christian men and women of science</a>. See also Rev. Robert Farrar Capon's recent book, Genesis: The Movie. ) Lastly you ought to consider what ELSE Aldous Huxley said besides the bit that you alluded to being "let out of the bag," above. I believe you were alluding to this statement by Aldous:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>"I had motives for not wanting the world to have a meaning; and consequently assumed that it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption. The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics. He is also concerned to prove that there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do. For myself, as no doubt for most of my friends, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom. The supporters of this system claimed that it embodied the meaning--the Christian meaning, they insisted--of the world. There was one admirably simple method of confuting these people and justifying ourselves in our erotic revolt: we would deny that the world had any meaning whatever."<br />[Aldous Huxley, Ends and Means, 1937]</p>
</blockquote>
<p>HOWEVER, Huxley did not simply discuss "philosophies of meaningless," he also discussed "philosophies of meaning." To quote Aldous:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><em>"The desire to justify a particular form of political organization and, in some cases, of a personal will to power has played an EQUALLY large part in the formulation of philosophies postulating the existence of MEANING in the world. Christian philosophers have found no difficulty in justifying imperialism, war, the capitalistic system, the use of torture, the censorship of the press, and ecclesiastical tyrannies of every sort from the tyranny of Rome to the tyrannies of [Calvin's] Geneva and [Puritan] New England. In all cases they have shown that the meaning of the world was such as to be compatible with, or actually most completely expressed by, the iniquities I have mentioned above--iniquities which happened, of course, to serve the personal or sectarian interests of the philosophers concerned. In due course, there arose philosophers who denied not only the right of Christian special pleaders to justify iniquity by an appeal to the meaning of the world, but even their right to find any such meaning whatsoever. In the circumstances, the fact was not surprising. One unscrupulous distortion of the truth tends to beget other and opposite distortions. Passions may be satisfied in the process; but the disinterested love of knowledge suffers eclipse."</em><br />[Aldous Huxley, Ends and Means: An Inquiry into the Nature of Ideals and into the Methods Employed for Their Realization (Harper and Brothers Publishers, New York and London, 1937, fifth edition, p. 316]</p>
</blockquote>
<p><strong>PUTTING HUXLEY'S DISCUSSION OF "PHILOSOPHIES OF MEANINGLESSNESS" IN THEIR ORIGINAL POST-WORLD WAR 1 CONTEXT</strong><br />In 1966 a conservative editor printed a paragraph from Aldous Huxley on "the philosophy of meaninglessness" and "sexual mores," and added a title above the paragraph that read, "Confessions of a Professed Atheist." But what the editor failed to reveal to his readers was that Aldous was not an "atheist" when he wrote that paragraph, but was arguing against "atheism." The paragraph itself was taken from Aldous Huxley's book, Ends and Means, written in 1937 (chapter 14, the chapter on "Beliefs"), and he was speaking about the rise of the "philosophy of meaninglessness" and materialism among the "masses" after the First World War, the generation of the 1920s. That generation had just seen solders from overtly Christian nations of Europe using the latest deadly inventions like the machine gun and poison gas to kill each other's Christian soldiers, then all sides stopped fighting on Christmas Eve, then went back to massacring each other the next day.</p>
<p>Speaking of Aldous's generation, John Derbyshire wrote:<br />"The 1920's and 1930's were notoriously an age of failed gods and shattered conventions, to which many thoughtful people responded in obvious ways, retreating into nihilism, hedonism, and experimentalism. Literature became subjective, art became abstract, poetry abandoned its traditional forms. In the 'low, dishonest decade' that then followed, much of this negativism curdled into power-worship and escapism of various kinds. Aldous Huxley stood aside from these large general trends. Though no Victorian in habits or beliefs, he never entered whole-heartedly into the spirit of modernism. The evidence is all over the early volumes of these essays. James Joyce's ground breaking novel, Ulysses, he declares in 1925, is 'one of the dullest books ever written, and one of the least significant.' Jazz, he remarks two years later, is 'drearily barbaric.' Writing of Sir Christopher Wren in 1923, he quotes with approval Carlyle's remark that Chelsea Hospital, one of Wren's creations, was 'obviously the work of a gentleman.' Wren, Huxley goes on to say, was indeed a great gentleman, 'one who valued dignity and restraint and who, respecting himself, respected also humanity.' In his thirties, in fact, Huxley comes across as something of a Young Fogey." [John Derbyshire, "What Happened to Aldous Huxley," The New Criterion Vol. 21, No. 6 (February 2003)]</p>
<p>In another chapter of Ends and Means (chapter 15, "Ethics") Aldous, abhorred "sexual addictions," or using sex as a means to achieving base ends. And Aldous' chapters on "Religious Practices," "Beliefs," and "Ethics" argued in favor of a meaningful cosmos and a universal spirituality that Aldous said was reflected in the works of certain Eastern mystics as well in the works of some famous Christian mystics.</p>
<p><strong>ALDOUS HUXLEY ON FAITH AND ETHICS</strong><br />
"There are some... who believe that no desirable 'change of heart' can be brought about without supernatural aid. There must be, they say, a return to religion. (Unhappily, they cannot agree on the religion to which the return should be made.)" [p. 2]</p>
<p>"In practice, Christianity, like Hinduism or Buddhism, is not one religion, but several religions, adapted to the needs of different types of human beings. A Christian church in Southern Spain, or Mexico, or Sicily is singularly like a Hindu temple. The eye is delighted by the same gaudy colors, the same tripe-like decorations, the same gesticulating statues; the nose inhales the same intoxicating smells; the ear and, along with it, the understanding, are lulled by the drone of the same incomprehensible incantations [in the old Catholic Latin mass tradition], roused by the same loud, impressive music. "At the other end of the scale, consider the chapel of a Cistercian monastery and the meditation hall of a community of Zen Buddhists. They are equally bare; aids to devotion (in other words fetters holding back the soul from enlightenment) are conspicuously absent from either building. Here are two distinct religions for two distinct kinds of human beings." [p. 262-263]</p>
<p>"In Christianity bhakti [or, loving devotion] towards a personal being has always been the most popular form of religious practice. Up to the time of the [Catholic] Counter-Reformation, however, the way of knowledge ("mystical knowledge" as it is called in Chrstian language) was accorded an honorable place beside the way of devotion. From the middle of the sixteenth century onwards the way of knowledge came to be neglected and even condemned. We are told by Dom John Chapman that "Mercurian, who was general of the society (of Jesus) from 1573 to 1580, forbade the use of the works of Tauler, Ruysbroek, Suso, Harphius, St. Gertrude, and St. Mechtilde." Every effort was made by the [Catholic] Counter-Reformers to heighten the worshipper's devotion to a personal divinity. The literary content of Baroque art is hysterical, almost epileptic, in the violence of its emotionality. It even becomes necessary to call in physiology as an aid to feeling. The ecstasies of the saints are represented by seventeenth-century artists as being frankly sexual. Seventeenth-century drapery writhes like so much tripe. In the equivocal personage of Margaret Mary Alacocque, seventeenth-century piety pours over a bleeding and palpitating heart. From this orgy of emotionalism and sensationalism Catholic Christianity seems never completely to have recovered." [p. 281-282]</p>
<p>"First Shakespeare sonnets seem meaningless; first Bach fugues, a bore; first differential equations, sheer torture. But training changes the nature of our spiritual experiences. In due course, contact with an obscurely beautiful poem, an elaborate piece of [musical] counterpoint or of mathematical reasoning, causes us to feel direct intuitions of beauty and significance. It is the same in the moral world. A man who has trained himself in goodness come to have certain direct intuitions about character, about the relations between human beings, about his own position in the world -- intuitions that are quite different from the intuitions of the average sensual man... [p. 333]</p>
<p>"The ideal of non-attachment has been formulated and systematically preached again and again in the course of the last three thousand years. We find it (along with everything else) in Hinduism. It is at the very heart of the teachings of the Buddha. For Chinese readers the doctrine is formulated by Lao Tsu. A little later, in Greece, the ideal of non-attachment is proclaimed, albeit with a certain, pharisaic priggishness, by the Stoics. The Gospel of Jesus is essentially a gospel of non-attachment to "the things of this world," and of attachment to God. Whatever may have been the aberrations of organized Christianity -- and they range from extravagant asceticism to the most brutally cynical forms of realpolitik -- there has been no lack of Christian philosophers to reaffirm the ideal of non-attachment. Here is John Tauler, for example, telling us that 'freedom is complete purity and detachment which seeketh the Eternal...' Here is the author of "The Imitation of Christ," who bids us 'pass through many cares as though without care; not after the manner of a sluggard, but by a certain prerogative of a free mind, which does not cleave with inordinate affection to any creature.'" [p. 5, 6]</p>
<p>"...as knowledge, sensibility and non-attachment increase, the contents of the judgments of value passed even by men belonging to dissimilar cultures, tend to approximate. The ethical doctrines taught in the Tao Te Ching, by Buddha and his followers, in the Sermon on the Mount, and by the best of the Christian saints, are not dissimilar." [p. 327]</p>
<p><strong>ALDOUS HUXLEY ON THE INFLUENCE OF THE WORST ASPECTS OF THE BIBLE ON THE HISTORY OF CHRISTIANITY</strong><br />"Examples of reversion to barbarism through mere ignorance are unhappily abundant in the history of Christianity. The early Christians made the enormous mistake of burdening themselves with the Old Testament, which contains, along with much fine poetry and sound morality the history of the cruelties and treacheries of a Bronze-Age people, fighting for a place in the sun under the protection of its anthropomorphic tribal deity... Those whom it suited to be ignorant and, along with them, the innocent and uneducated could find in this treasure-house of barbarous stupidity justifications for every crime and folly. Texts to justify such abominations as religious wars, the persecution of heretics... could be found in the sacred books and were in fact used again and again throughout the whole history of the Christian Church. [p. 328]</p>
<p>"In this remarkable compendium of Bronze-Age literature, God is personal to the point of being almost sub-human. Too often the believer has felt justified in giving way to his worst passions by the reflection that, in doing so, he is basing his conduct on that of a God who feels jealousy and hatred... and behaves in general like a particularly ferocious oriental tyrant. The frequency with which men have identified the prompting of their own passions with the voice of an all too personal God is really appalling." [p. 276-277]</p>
<p>"According to his very inadequate biographers, Jesus of Nazareth was never preoccupied with philosophy, art, music, or science and ignored almost completely the problems of politics, economics and sexual relations. It is also recorded of him that he blasted a fig tree for not bearing fruit out of season, that he scourged the shopkeepers in the temple precincts and caused a herd of swine to drown. Scrupulous devotion to and imitation of the person of Jesus have resulted only too frequently in a fatal tendency, on the part of earnest Christians, to despise artistic creation and philosophic thought; to disparage the inquiring intellect, to evade all long-range, large-scale problems of politics and economics, and to believe themsevles justified in displaying anger, or as they would doubtless prefer to call it, 'righteous indignation.'" [p. 275-276]</p>
<p><em>Lastly, I suggest Mr. Neumayr, that you read this little piece as well</em>:<br /><a href="http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/belief_evolution.html">Do You Fear What Might Happen If The World Believed In Evolution?</a></p>
<div class="separator" style="text-align:center"><iframe src="https://edwardtbabinski.us/related-content/related-content-19.html" style="margin-bottom:0em; margin-left:0em; margin-right:0em; height:400px; width:600px; border:0px"></iframe></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-505205186321877769.post-38063647825846728392012-03-20T15:29:00.001-07:002019-09-01T19:14:30.340-07:00Isaac Newton's Dishonesty<blockquote><em>All I claim is that evidence of Darwin's dishonesty is just part of the evidence against "the theory of evolution".</em></blockquote>
<p>What about Newton's dishonesty? Is that evidence against "the theory of gravity?" See, BETRAYERS OF THE TRUTH by William Broad and Nicholas Wade, Simon and Schuster, New York, p. 27-28 on Newton, or see Science, Feb. 23, 1973, "Newton and the Fudge Factor" by Richard S. Westfall, in which it is proven that Newton fudged his figures to make them come out to an exactitude and precision that "proved" this hypotheses correct, but such exactitude and precision was absent from his original sources.</p>
<p>The authors of BETRAYERS OF THE TRUTH also pointed out that "Newton's willingness to resort to sleight of hand is evident in more than just falsification of data. He used his position as president of the Royal Society, England's premier scientific club, to wage his battle with Leibniz over who first invented calculus. What was shameful about Newton's behavior was the hypocrisy with which he paid lip service to fair procedure but followed the very opposite course. It would be an inquitious judge "who would admit anyone was a witness in his own cause," announced the preface of a Royal Society report of 1712 which examined the question of priority in calculus. Ostensibly the work of a committee or impartial scientists, the reports was a complete vindication of Newton's claims and even accused Leibniz of plagiary. In fact, the whole report, sanctimonious preface included, had been written by Newton himself. Historians now believe that Leibniz' invention of calculus was made independantly of Newton."</p>
<p>See also the article "Newton's Debt to Cudworth" by Danton B. Sailor in Journal of the History of Ideas, 1988, which proves that Newton borrowed a theory of the origins of atomism from a Cambridge Platonist, Ralph Cudworth, instead of turning to Nature for truth as Newton made people think he did.</p>
<p>Not to mention the fact that numerous works on Newton's life and religion, including NEVER AT REST by Richard S. Westfall (Cambridge Univ. Press), LET NEWTON BE! ed. by John Fauvel, et al. (Oxford Univ. Press), IN THE PRESENCE OF THE CREATOR: ISSAC NEWTON AND HIS TIMES by Gale E. Christianson (The Free Press), ISAAC NEWTON: THE LAST SORCERER by Michael White (Fourth Estate), THE RELIGION OF ISAAC NEWTON by Frank E. Manuel (Oxford Univ. Press), ESSAYS ON THE CONTEXT, NATURE, AND INFLUENCE OF ISAAC NEWTON'S THEOLOGY by James E. Force and Richard H. Popkin (Kluwer Academic Pub.), all show that Newton was not an orthodox Christian, shunned taking Holy Orders which was de riguer for all other professors at the university where he taught, loved Arius / hated Athanasius, and also that Newton shunned his family and their tightly held Christian values, and also that he suffered manic-depression and had a horrible personalty and was quite vindictive.</p>
<p>I imagine that geocentrist creationist Christians have quite a field day with Newton, since geocentrists don't like gravity as it is currently understood. To them science has been going down hill since the Copernican Revolution.</p>
<div class="separator" style="text-align:center"><iframe src="https://edwardtbabinski.us/related-content/related-content-19.html" style="margin-bottom:0em; margin-left:0em; margin-right:0em; height:400px; width:600px; border:0px"></iframe></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-505205186321877769.post-64041819722982296042012-03-20T14:55:00.002-07:002019-09-01T19:14:16.427-07:00Darwin and Eugenics<p>This seems to me beside the point of arguing for or against creation, evolution, or design:</p>
<p>1) Even if Darwin and Galton were mass murderers, that would have nothing to do with the truth or falsity of evolutionary theories of their day or ours.</p>
<p>2) Injustice and inequalities and class systems can be found throughout history. Concentrating on the injustices of "eugenics" is simply to focus on one tiny aspect of all the injustices and inequalities and class systems on earth. Besides, for those who wish to discuss race, then let's discuss the history of Christianity and the extermination of "less Christian" races like the American Indians (whose extermination was compared by Puritan preachers to the following of the command of God to destroy the Canaanites), or let's discuss Christianity and slavery, or even some of Henry Morris's statements in the last ten years concerning the "curse of Ham," or let's discuss Christian racist groups like the KKK and apartheid South Africa, and Christian racist speeches throughout the ages. Bob Jones here in Greenville S.C. firmly believed and preached on his radio program that "If you are against segregation you are against God."</p>
<p>3) Billy and Oral and Pat are passing along their dynasty to their genetic heirs today. People tend to love their own children the best, don't they? As far as the future of eugenics goes, the human genome project is opening up a can of worms, since the odds of people coming down with various illnesses appears related to a person's genomic proclivities for those illnesses. Insurance companies are going to probably start taking advantage of that information in the future, and dividing people up into various risk categories, from low to high risk, and parents will probably want to make sure their children don't have those genetic illnesses, and the easiest way to do that is by assuring it at birth, by choosing their children's genome before conception. That will also assure the parents that their child will be healthier in both body and mind and live longer. That might be how the future will turn out. (See the movie GATTACA for some of the bad side to that scenario. But for some more positive aspects of eugenics and long lifespans read Robert Heinlein's TIME ENOUGH FOR LOVE novel.)</p>
<p>I happen to agree with Darwin's comments concerning eugenics below, which doesn't mean I agree with everything Darwin ever said or wrote. "Choosing who would be on the registry" is a major problem.</p>
<p>Darwin points out a number of practical difficulties, of which the greatest, he thought, 'would be in deciding who deserved to be on the register; ... Though I see so much difficulty,' he concludes, 'the object is a grand one; ... yet I fear [it is] utopian.'" (Darwin C.R., letter to F. Galton, January 4, 1873, in Darwin F. and Seward A.C., eds., "More Letters of Charles Darwin: A Record of His Work in a Series of Hitherto Unpublished Papers," John Murray: London, 1903, Vol. II, p.43, in Bowlby J., "Charles Darwin: A New Life," [1990], 1992, W.W. Norton and Co: New York, reprint, pp.415-416)</p>
<p>If we were discussing say, Christianity instead of Darwinisn, I could go on about the ways Christianity has influenced society and/or political systems, with plenty of dark examples.</p>
<p>As we learn more about the human genome, the question of how to use that knowledge for our own betterment will continue to raise questions of a "Eugenics" like nature. Eugenics is not simply Hitler's hatred of the Jews raised to a scientific dogma among Nazi "scientists" who salivated at the thought of exterminating them. Eugenics can mean simply wishing to conceive "better" human beings, healthier in mind and body. And with modern day knowlege of the genome increasing, the temptation to try and conceive humans that are in some ways "better" will be increasingly difficult to resist. That is not "Darwinism," that is plain fact. As if the way insurance companies might use that knowledge in future to raise the rates of those highest at risk, due to their genomic content of various risk factors.</p>
<p>As for "Darwinism" today, it appears to have remained a staple of modern day conservatives round the world who believe the poor and destitute need to be prodded by the hot poker of their disheartening circumstances, which will only make them "stronger" (or kill them it seems), while the wealthy need more corporate welfare and tax cuts. *smile* That kind of "Darwinism" is rife among modern day political conservatives (which oddly enough seem to be backed nowadays by their religiously conservative counterparts).</p>
<p><strong>"Darwin not the founder of negative eugenics"</strong><br />To combat the endless distortions of Darwin's ideas, an international team of 150 specialists in the biological sciences and human studies has, over a period of 10 years, achieved an historical and critical synthesis of Darwinism and evolutionary theory. At last the matter has been clarified: Darwin is not the father of modern anti-equalitarian theories; Darwin is the founder neither of negative eugenics nor of dogmas of the elimination of the weak; Darwin is not the justifier of Victorian imperialism. In short, Darwin is not responsible for "<a href="http://www.planete.net/~ptort/darwin/evolengl.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Social Darwinism</a>". Edited by PATRICK TORT Presses Universitaires de France</p>
<p>Patrick Tort has recently set up the "Institut Charles Darwin International" (International Charles Darwin Institute) which has a two-fold purpose: to encourage original research on evolutionary biology and on the history of evolutionist thought, and to publish the complete works of Darwin in French (35 volumes).</p>
<p>History of Science Prize:<br />Patrick TORT, from the UMR 7596 research unit of CNRS, for his research on the works of Charles Darwin, in particular the publication of the "Dictionnaire du Darwinisme et de l'évolution" (Dictionary of Darwinism and of Evolution) and the creation of a new methodology (analysis of discursive complexes)designed for the analysis of the history of thought systems.</p>
<p><strong>Racist theories of creationists...American theories of polygenesis</strong><br />American Theories of Polygenesis is the first set in the Concepts of Race in the Nineteenth Century series edited by Robert Bernasconi. The seven-volume collection brings together key works on the creationist theory of polygenesis.</p>
<p><em>A creationist theory of the origins of racial differences.</em><br />In the mid-nineteenth century, American ethnological research was dominated by two polygenists, Samuel George Morton and Louis Agassiz. Their works on the subject are represented in this set, as are the major texts of the two most famous popularizers of polygenesis, Josiah Nott and George Gliddon. Charles Hamilton Smith's work, which was adopted by supporters of polygenesis in the United States, is included in its American edition, as is the translation of Arthur Gobineau's classic essay on the inequality of the human races by Henry Hotz, a work which Nott and Hotz doctored to bring into line with American polygenesis. This set is completed with a volume by John Bachman, an American opponent of Nott and Gliddon, and another by Alexander Winchell, a representative of the next generation of American polygenists. Historians of science, anthropology, American philosophy and evolution will find this collection indispensable for understanding one of the key debates on race in the nineteenth century.</p>
<p>collection of rare primary sources on American polygenesis in the nineteenth century</p>
<p>important examination of a nineteenth-century scientific concept of race</p>
<p>Volume 1<br />Samuel George Morton, Crania Americana: Or, a Comparative View of the Skulls of Various Aboriginal Nations of North and South America. To which is prefixed an Essay on the Varieties of the Human Species (1839)</p>
<p>Samuel George Morton, 'Crania Aegyptiaca', from Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, vol. 9 1844)</p>
<p>Volume 2<br />Charles Hamilton Smith, The Natural History of the Human Species. With a Preliminary Abstract by S. Kneeland (1851)</p>
<p>Volume 3<br />Josiah Clark Nott and George Robins Gliddon, Types of Mankind (1854)</p>
<p>Volume 4<br />Josiah Clark Nott and George Robins Gliddon, Indigenous Races of the Earth (1857)</p>
<p>Volume 5<br />John Bachman, The Doctrine of the Unity of the Human Race Examined on the Principles of Science (1850)</p>
<p>Volume 6<br />Joseph Arthur de Count Gobineau, The Moral and Intellectual Diversity of Races, transl. By Henry Hotz (1856)</p>
<p>Volume 7<br />Alexander Winchell, Preadamites (1880)</p>
<p><strong>Creationists invented the first "racial" theories</strong><br />The following creationists were products and producers of the prejudices of their era concerning ideas of "race":</p>
<p>Use of race as a way to classify large divisions of Homo sapiens originated with Carl von Linne (Linnaeus) [a creationist]. Johann Blumenbach [another creationist] was the first to use the word "race," and use of this word has remained largely unchanged in common and medical contexts.</p>
<p>Creationist Carl Linnaeus, the Swedish taxonomist and botanist, was the first to place humans in a taxonomy of animals, in his Systema Naturae in 1758. He divided humans into four main groups on the basis of physical and psychological impressions: Europeans, who were "fair gentle, acute, inventive governed by laws"; Americans, who were "copper-coloured obstinate, content free regulated by customs"; Asiatics, who were "sooty severe, haughty, covetous governed by opinions"; and Africans, who were "black crafty, indolent, negligent governed by caprice."</p>
<p>Blumenbach, the German anthropologist and anatomist, first used the word "race" in 1775 to classify humans into five divisions: Caucasian, Mongolian, Ethiopian, American, and Malay. Blumenbach also coined the term "Caucasian" because he believed that the Caucasus region of Asia Minor produced "the most beautiful race of men." Both Linnaeus and Blumenbach stated that humans are one species, and the latter remarked on the arbitrary nature of his proposed categories.</p>
<p>These men were <a href="http://www.acponline.org/journals/annals/15oct96/medrace.htm" target="_blank" rel="noopener">products and producers of the prejudices of their era</a>, but it is remarkable how similar the concept and categories of race remain today, even after it has been widely documented that phenotypic and biochemical variations do not correlate simply with genotypic differences.</p>
<div class="separator" style="text-align:center"><iframe src="https://edwardtbabinski.us/related-content/related-content-19.html" style="margin-bottom:0em; margin-left:0em; margin-right:0em; height:400px; width:600px; border:0px"></iframe></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0