Thoughts on these two anti-evolution arguments?

[neolithic]

Greetings. First of all I would like to congratulate the mods of this site. I do quite a bit of reading on the internet and this is one of my favorite forums to read due to the civil nature of the debate and the usefulness of most comments.

Anyway, to the point. My brother and I were discussing religion seriously for the first time today. I hold the view that Objectivists do on God, my brother however does not. He is currently enrolled in a Bible study class at the highschool that is suppose to teach the historical aspects of the bible (geography, time periods, ect) but the teacher often injects pro-creationists commentary. He pointed out some arguments that quite frankly, I haven't heard so far. While they hardly prove the validity of one religion over another (which is what the debate was suppose to be focused on) he used them to try to argue for the topic dejour, an Intelligent Designer.

The first argument was the way in which water lays down sediment. He says that instead of the typical layer upon layer method (think a stack of pancakes), that instead it lays them in lateral direction more like books on a shelf. He says that this been proven, by an alledged aethist, and that he was shown in class a video of water laying sediment like this. This was some how supposed to prove that fossils found at a greater depth in the earth aren't actually older. His argument here wasn't entirely clear to me but I thought I would offer it in case anyone had heard of it.

His second argument comments on the claim that peoples' intelligence evolves over time as a corrallarly to evolution. To counter this, his teacher says that the ancients did things that we can not do today, mainly regarding feats of engineering. He claims that there is no crane today capable of lifting the ancient pyramid blocks and how they even built them remains largely unknown, thus they had more intelligent engineers than we do today. There are also some ancient structures who have been deemed "more sturdy" than buildings built today and that the blocks making the foundations of these buildings are so close together a pin can not fit between them. He tries to use this to refute the claim that were are in fact evolving into a more intelligent species. I pointed out that I thought average intelligence rises over time. Were there incredibly brillant people in ancient times? Sure, but the populous as a whole was generally less intelligent than we are today. I also said that building conditions were quite different back then. The buildings he was talking about were typically shrines or palaces built to honor some king, and thus time and money were no object. If we could spend 30-40 years and use a seemingly infinite amount of money and slave lives on a building project I feel very confident we could easily surpass them.

Anyway, these are two arguments that I had not heard from the ID camp and thought I would get some like-minded thoughts on the subject. These aren't terms that are easily googled so I can't find any specifics, but any commentary/insights would be appreciated. Thanks

[FeatherFall]

I'm not a geologist, but the sediment argument sounds suspicious. When you described what the video apparently shows evidence of, I got the picture of water laying small amounts of sediment in at a time. Thus, a second layer of books could be laid over the first, and then you would have a geology consistent with both analogies -- one that says that each layer is like a row of books. It still wouldn't support the claim that fossils are much younger than we think. Besides, did they discuss carbon-dating?

While intelligence probably did grow with evolution at one point, I would wager that any significant growth happened long before the rise of ancient civilization. The reason we are capable of outbuilding the pyramids now is that our knowledge base has grown, not our intelligence. Besides, they didn't have to lift the stones, they could have rolled them up ramps or done something equally mundane. I'd also be willing to wager that some building substances that were used thousands of years ago would have yielded to pressure and eventually conformed to the forces causing the pressure.

Edited December 16, 2005 by FeatherFall

[softwareNerd]

Neolithic, Welcome to the forum.

The teacher has illustrated why it is impractical to teach a theory like ID because it can effect the rest of a person's thinking. You see, a scientist does not approach the facts with the intention of fitting the facts into the bible. So the scientist is free to think creatively about what did happen.

Re: your first example, Featherfall mentioned carbon-dating. I'm sure an archeoplogist could give you an explanation of how fossils are dated, and why that technique is valid.

Re: your second example, of the pyramids, here is the way to tackle the question: ask yourself how you would go about building the pyramids if one were to give you many thousands of workers, the technology of the times, and an abundance of sand (Hint: the sand could be part of the solution.). Suppose a huge prize were at stake on a new "Re-build the Pyramid" TV show . Think about this and you'll probably figure out how it could be done.

[Captain Nate]

I don't think I have ever heard of sediment layers being built vertically like bookshelves. I suppose non-horizontal layers can be created by uneven surfaces, such as water running down a mountain.

When sediment layers are not found horizontally that is usually indicative of some kind of shift in the layers years later, usually due to an earthquake, which ripped up several sediment layers and tilted them over, which is not uncommon.

[Hal]

I dont see what the first argument has to do with evolution. The evidence for the modern theory comes primarilly from biology (eg the structure of DNA), not fossil records. Incorrect fossil evidence would show that some specific evolutionary arguments about the development of certain individual species were incorrect, but it wouldnt show that evolution didnt occur. In order to show THAT, you'd have to somehow demonstrate that our understanding of genetics was fundamentally wrong in some way.

The 'intelligence' argument is meaningless because intelligence is a fairly vague notion which is incapable of quantative scientific measurement (dont say IQ tests...). Theres no obvious criteria which allows us to attach meaning to the statement that one group of humans is 'more intelligent' than another, because this immediately provokes the questions "more intelligent measured by which standard?", and "more intelligent at doing what?". In any case, evolution doesnt imply that entities must necessarily 'become more intelligent' or 'better' or whatever - it just says that they successive generations change over time as a result of environmental pressures. If you want to label certain changes as being 'good' and others as being 'bad' then thats fine, but this a purely philosophical question which has nothing whatsoever to do with evolutionary biology - value judgements come from philosophy, not science. Its irrelevant to Darwinism whether humans today are 'more intelligent' or better at building things than humans 2000 years ago, or whether termites are 'better engineers' than us. Even if this were true (which it almost certainly isnt), all this could imply is that their enviornment was somehow more favourable to entities which could build things than ours is (and even that could be wrong, since not all traits are adaptions).

On a sidenote, I'm curious what he means by "there are no cranes today capable of lifting pyramid blocks". Surely he doesnt beleive thats literally true?

Edited December 16, 2005 by Hal

[NewYorkRoark]

The first argument was the way in which water lays down sediment. He says that instead of the typical layer upon layer method (think a stack of pancakes), that instead it lays them in lateral direction more like books on a shelf. He says that this been proven, by an alledged aethist, and that he was shown in class a video of water laying sediment like this. This was some how supposed to prove that fossils found at a greater depth in the earth aren't actually older. His argument here wasn't entirely clear to me but I thought I would offer it in case anyone had heard of it.

From a geology major...

He's right and he's wrong and then he's very wrong. First of all, in relatively stagnant water (think an ocean basin, lake basin, pool basin in a river, etc.) sediment IS laid down exactly like pancakes:

============

============

============ ... and so on and so forth.

However, if the sediment is deposited in a river/stream/even beach/tidal area bed, the flow of water alters the sediment arrangement. I'm not sure if you're brother meant that the books are arranged like this: ||||||| or like this \\\\\\\ or //////.

The correct answer is that the sediments are layed diagonally with the diagonal pointing upward towards the direction of flow:

\\\\\\\\\\\\ <---- Water flow

You can actually figure out the flow of any ancient stream/river in seconds by simply observing the arrangement of sediments.

But his logic is terrible. This doesn't stop layers from accumulating. It's just means that the sediments within each layer are arranged diagonally instead of horizontally. It doesn't stop layers from forming... For instance:

\\\\\\\\\\ <----- Water Flow

\\\\\\\\\\ <----- Water Flow

\\\\\\\\\\

instead of

====== - Stagnant -

====== - Stagnant -

======

And still, there's sediment deposited in stagnant water, which does accumulate like stacks of pancakes.

And even still, there's carbon dating...

If you don't mind me saying so, both arguments are rediculous. The intelligence argument has already been sufficiently refuted.

[neolithic]

On a sidenote, I'm curious what he means by "there are no cranes today capable of lifting pyramid blocks". Surely he doesnt beleive thats literally true?

Honestly, I am not sure what he actually believes to be true. His teacher said that verbatim though. He has a great deal of respect for his teacher and is therefore impressionable. Thank for your responses as I'm sure they will be helpful in future debates.

[Thales]

To counter this, his teacher says that the ancients did things that we can not do today, mainly regarding feats of engineering. He claims that there is no crane today capable of lifting the ancient pyramid blocks and how they even built them remains largely unknown

Well, firstly, 3000 years ago is not very much time, evolutionarily speaking. The Brontosaur lived 260 million years ago. If you used 3000 years as the unit of measurement, then you'd have to go back 86,667 of those units to reach 260 million years. That's a very small fraction on that scale.

Also, I looked up the average weight of a pyramid block for Kufu's Great Pyramid, which is 2.5 tons. That's about the size of a car. Clearly very easy to lift for a crane.

There are massive cranes that can lift up full fledged ships. My quick google search found many that can lift 65 tons, and I found two in tandem that can lift 700 tons.

As to not knowing how they did it, this is true. Historians have theories, but nobody really knows. Still, this has nothing to do with us being able to do it. I mean, I don't know how the deck on the house up the street was built, but I could guess, and I could certainly build one much the same. We can easily build a pyramid. It's just that our methods would likely be different today. Frankly, they'd be better, because our mathematical and engineering tools are far superior today than they were then.

NewYorkRoark, an excellent posting. Nice to see an expert in the field chime in.

Hey, this looks like a chance for me to post a link to this Richard Dawkins interview HERE, in which he discusses attacks on evolutionary theory.

Here are a couple of excerpts.

Question ...A lot of people think that evolution is all about random chance.

Dawkins ...That's ludicrous. That's ridicuous. Mutation is random in the sense that it's not anticipatory of what's needed. Natural selection is anything but random. Natural selection is a guided process, guided not by any higher power, but simply by which genes survive and which genes don't survive. That's a non-random process.

Q... You criticize intelligent design, saying that the "the theistic answer" --pointing to God as designer--"is deeply unsatisfying"--presumably you mean on a logical, scientific level.

D ...Yes, because it doesn't explain where the designer comes from. If they're going to emphasize the statistical improbability of biological organs---"these are so complicated, how could they have evolved?"--well, if they are so complicated, how could they possibly have been designed? Because the designer would have to be even more complicated.

Neolithic, you may want to read it.

[JMeganSnow]

. . . a pyramid block for Kufu's Great Pyramid, which is 2.5 tons. That's about the size . . .

You know, I remember when that was spelled Cheops. It was always pronounced Khufu, but it was spelled Cheops.

[neolithic]

Thanks everyone, your comments have been very useful in our discussions. This has pointed out to me that there are some unacceptable holes in my knowledge of the Theory of Evolution. Aside from reading the Origin of Species, what is a comprehensive volume for a solid foundation of the theory? He keeps saying that I don't have facts to back up my arguments (which I know sounds ludicrous coming from an IDer), but in a sense he is right. I actually have very few specifics in regards to the theory. I know the underpinnings, such as through fossil records and DNA evidence we can see an evolutionary progression, but I can't say specifically what species we have seen progress and how. This is simply unaccetable to me and I would like to remedy it promtply. Thanks again.

Edited December 20, 2005 by neolithic

[Liriodendron Tulipifera]

there are some unacceptable holes in my knowledge of the Theory of Evolution. Aside from reading the Origin of Species, what is a comprehensive volume for a solid foundation of the theory? He keeps saying that I don't have facts to back up my arguments (which I know sounds ludicrous coming from an IDer), but in a sense he is right. I actually have very few specifics in regards to the theory. I know the underpinnings, such as through fossil records and DNA evidence we can see an evolutionary progression, but I can't say specifically what species we have seen progress and how. This is simply unaccetable to me and I would like to remedy it promtply. Thanks again.

You could read Origin of Species. It's a marvelous book. Unfortunately, Darwin did not have a mechanism to explain how evolution worked, so even when you are through with this convincing book you won't know much about modern evolutionary theory. Gregor Mendel gave us the mechanism with his work on 'genetics'. If you are seriously interested in understanding evolution and combating the arguments of those who don't understand it, you need a modern synthesis of evolution that combines evidence from DNA, the fossil record, and biogeography of extant organisms. Since much of the work has happened within the last 20 years, you need to read a textbook to cover all sub-topics of evolution in general, or take a class. Unfortunately, most departments require that you take other Bio classes to sign up for a class in Evolution. Then, if you are interested in speciation, which is where the creationist types seem to have the most trouble, you could try: Endless forms - species and speciation, ed. by Daniel J. Howard.

Reading Dawkins is OK, I suppose. As far as speciation, anything by Ernst Mayr is excellent. You could also read E.O. Wilson or Stephen Jay Gould. This does not mean I sanction the philosophy of any of these scientists. That you will have to analyze for yourself. Wilson and Dawkins are both determinists. I recently read The Biological Basis of Teleological Concepts by Harry Binswanger, who is an Objectivist. The book is an attempt at a synthesis of evolutionary theory and philosophy, and you may find it interesting.

Critics of evolution always criticize the fossil record or our ability to interpret it, or say that these data do not "make sense" because there are not "gradual changes" or "species transforming into others." They also criticize arguments that evolutionary biologists rarely use anymore. They attack gradualism, when it is the model of punctuated equilibrium that best explain the fossil record. This is not to say there are not "gaps" in the fossil record. But when you are inferring what happened in the past based on pieces of data you have in the present, of course each individual dataset will be incomplete. They want their cake and to eat it, too. This is impossible. The same critics also rarely attack phylogenetic work (comparison of DNA to model how organisms might be related). Furthermore, they only attack pieces of the evolutionary synthesis at a time, never the whole evolutionary synthesis of evidence from phylogenetics, the fossil record, and biogeography. When the data are synthesized, they provide a much more convincing picture, rather like the gathering of evidence at a crime scene.

Of course, they also always ignore the many examples we have of species changing to others right before our eyes!! Ironically, something Jesus said is applicable here. "Even if they see with their own eyes, they will not believe." Now why is that? Because all of these "arguments" of theirs are driven by emotion, not reason. They feel a certain way because of the perceived implications of evolution (i.e. they perceive that evolution says man is not special), so they try to cook up "facts" that indicate that evolution doesn't happen. So, you cannot really reason with these people anyway. Not all are irrational. Some are rational but have simply been temporarily swept up with the wrong crowd. You must separate the wheat from the chaff to determine whether arguing with these people is even worth your time. Check out some of my other posts in evolution threads for more on this topic of evolution.

To accept evolution, people first need to understand it. Evolution does not make organisms progress. You need to get that out of your head. It allows them to survive. That is all. In the case of what traits will be selected for, consider the following. If the trait in question increases fitness (and all we mean by that is a greater reproduction and survival for those that have the trait vs. those that don't) then it will spread through a population. That is, it will be selected for. Whether the trait is strictly or loosely heritable will determine how fast that particular trait will sweep to fixation or, at least, a high level within the population. Different traits arise through mutation.

I have no doubt that human intelligence is what has allowed us to dominate the planet, but I agree with Hal that it's senseless to use intelligence in humans as an argument for or against natural selection. First of all, knowledge can be passed on from generation to generation in a way that does not happen in the vast majority of other species. Intelligence in humans is a very complex topic. We probably don't even know to what extent it is heritable, and even if it were 100% heritable, the selection forces it is under are not all natural, they are cultural and artificial. Intelligence these days does not lead to increased fitness in a biological sense. All that one has to do is consider the state of affairs in today's world to know that this is not true. It is not the intelligent who are fit, in a reproductive sense.

Edited December 20, 2005 by Liriodendron Tulipifera

[ColdWontRise]

Id check out how those fossils hold up to carbon dating. And as for the evolution of the mind, a thing can only evolve if the fittest survive. We live in a society where its quite the opposite, most everyone survives and can proliferate.

[Adrian Hester]

Id check out how those fossils hold up to carbon dating.

For fossils, carbon dating's useless. (1) Fossils are made of minerals that have replaced the carbon compounds in the oprganims that were fossilized, and (2) they're so old that pretty much all of the carbon-14 would have decayed anyway; carbon dating can't be used for things older than about 60,000 years. For fossils you use other radiometric dating methods (potassium-argon dating, uranium-lead dating), which actually date the rocks around those containing the fossils. (They can only be used for igneous rocks; fossils are found in sedimentary rocks, so you date the igneous rocks above and below them to give a range for the age of the fossil.) Incidentally, you'll need to learn a bit of the nuts and bolts of dating if you want to argue with any creationist who actually tries to learn the standard arguments, because they have devised a couple of utterly false and incredibly stupid arguments against the validity of radiometric dating as such that are plausible if you don't know much about the subject. (False statements about the mathematics behind it, for example, and ad hoc claims that radioactive decay rates actually vary depending on external factors--which of course they claim scientists really know but refuse to admit because they're all godless communists bent on destroying the dignity of God's creation. If decay rates really were variable like that, someone would have figured out a way to get rid of radioactive wastes more readily than just isolating them while they decay.)

[NewYorkRoark]

For fossils, carbon dating's useless. (1) Fossils are made of minerals that have replaced the carbon compounds in the oprganims that were fossilized, and (2) they're so old that pretty much all of the carbon-14 would have decayed anyway; carbon dating can't be used for things older than about 60,000 years. For fossils you use other radiometric dating methods (potassium-argon dating, uranium-lead dating), which actually date the rocks around those containing the fossils. (They can only be used for igneous rocks; fossils are found in sedimentary rocks, so you date the igneous rocks above and below them to give a range for the age of the fossil.) Incidentally, you'll need to learn a bit of the nuts and bolts of dating if you want to argue with any creationist who actually tries to learn the standard arguments, because they have devised a couple of utterly false and incredibly stupid arguments against the validity of radiometric dating as such that are plausible if you don't know much about the subject. (False statements about the mathematics behind it, for example, and ad hoc claims that radioactive decay rates actually vary depending on external factors--which of course they claim scientists really know but refuse to admit because they're all godless communists bent on destroying the dignity of God's creation. If decay rates really were variable like that, someone would have figured out a way to get rid of radioactive wastes more readily than just isolating them while they decay.)

The classic example of evolution "in action" is that of the peppered moth ( Peppered Moth ). Unfortunately, the first few pages of my google search listed only .com websites partial to intelligent design.

Peppered Moth Evolution (General) Chronology:

1. Peppered moth can be light or dark gray.

2. Industrialization increased pollution and turned tree bark darker.

3. Lighter gray moths were more visible.

4. Lighter gray moths became victims to predation more often.

5. Darker gray moth population increased.

6. Pollution reduced.

7. Tree bark color returns to normal.

8. Lighter gray moth population turns around.

Edited December 20, 2005 by NewYorkRoark

[neolithic]

Thanks again everyone. Convincing others isn't a major priority for me right now. I am 20, so what I am more concerned with is making sure my philisophical foundation is firm, others be damned. The only reason me and my brother entered into a debate is because he asked me, not the other way around. I am glad he did however, as it reminded my foundation is not set yet. Since I am currently pursuing 3 engineering degrees venturing far enough into biology to take a class on evolution simply is not possible. I was hoping that there would be a comprehensive book (a bible, if you will) on modern evolutionary biology that would help fill my holes. I see now that it will not be that simple. but I will continue to further my understanding.

[Liriodendron Tulipifera]

The classic example of evolution "in action" is that of the peppered moth (

Well, NewYorkRoark, unfortunately this is one example that the religion people have latched onto for good reason, since I believe there is some evidence that the data were falsified in the classic peppered moth example. However, as I have mentioned in the other evolution thread, the falsification of data in a few studies does nothing to eliminate the existence of thousands of other observational or experimental studies. I daresay evolution will never be disproved. It is a fact, and it is here to stay whether people like it or not. The theory will undergo refinements, that is to be sure.

neolithic - if you took high school biology and understand the concepts of 'DNA' and 'cell' and how they work, you should be fine. Perhaps it was silly to suggest a course. Courses are time consuming and expensive and one can learn just as well by reading. The most comprehensive thing you could read would be probably be something by Ernst Mayr. He is arguably the most respected evolutionary biologist of last century, although he tended to focus on animals (grumble). I have not read the following book, but perhaps you could find it.

2001. Ernst Mayr. What Evolution Is. Basic Books. New York.

Sorry, I may have overwhelmed you with all those authors, only because this is a subject about which I am passionate. Don't give up too easily I would certainly recommend Origin of Species. It is eloquently written.

[softwareNerd]

Thanks again everyone. .... I see now that it will not be that simple. but I will continue to further my understanding.

An alternative to books is to write out your understanding of evolution. Not a huge essay, just a few paragraphs. There are folk here who might be willing to help correct any omissions or errors you have at least in you "high-level" summarized understanding.