"This is a huge discovery... the breakthrough of the year. It is going to be hard to imagine other discoveries happening throughout the course of the year having this type of implications... It is a paradigm buster." ~ Dr. Frazale Rana
The above quote comes from biochemist Dr. Rana's comments on a paper published in the journal Nature back in early January named "Tetrapod trackways from the early Middle Devonian period of Poland". This paper discusses the discovery of fossilized tetrapod footprints in an abandoned rock quarry in the Holy Cross Mountains (south-eastern Poland). Such "trace fossils" (fossils that display records of biological activity but not the fossils of the organism itself) would not normally be that interesting if it were not for the date associated with the fossils. The paleobiologists who discovered these footprints used several different dating methods to establish that these trace fossils date to 397 million years ago. That date is very disturbing for evolutionary biologists because it means that the alleged transitional species between fish and tetrapods (which date from 385 to 365 million years ago) are, in fact, not transitional species at all since they appear after the tetrapod footprints.
"Tetrapod" is the scientific name for vertebrate animals with for limbs. You and I are tetrapods as are dogs, cats, lizards, etc. Being able to explain how tetrapods emerged in evolution is a very important facet of evolutionary models. It has been alleged by naturalistic evolutionary biologists that the fossil record documents the transition from fish to fishapods (transitional species) to land-base tetrapods. There are three species of fishapod that supposedly document this transition: Panderichthys (roughly 385 million years ago) which evolved into Tiktaalik (about 375 million years ago) which evolved into Ventastega (about 365 million years ago) which evolved into true land-based tetrapods like Acanthostega and Ichthyostega. Now, ever since these fossils were discovered and the "family tree" was drawn there have been many issues that cast serious doubt on this story but none so big as this one. Did you notice the dates? These fishapods (that are supposedly transitional species between fish and tetrapods) first show up in the fossil record about 12 million years after these recently discovered tetrapod footprints. That means they cannot be transitional species because they do not even appear on the scene until after tetrapods were walking the earth.
This is another example of "proof" for naturalistic evolution (that presumably has fossil evidence to support it) that has been overthrown by a single fossil find. This line of fishapods has been touted for quite a long time as documented evidence for evolution but with this new find we see that it cannot be. If that is the case then what other "well established" evolutionary explanations are awaiting overthrow?
By His Grace,
Taylor
Thursday, May 20, 2010
Monday, May 10, 2010
The Differences Do Matter
This post is going to be a reversed from my normal format. I will talk briefly and then share a longer-than-normal quote.
I am sure most of the people reading this have seen the popular "Coexist" bumper stickers. According to the providers of the bumper stickers the intent is to promote people finding a way "to live together in peace and harmony". Unfortunately ideologies such as this have been twisted into a false form of "tolerance" that wants people to believe there are no critical differences between religions and that we should accept them as equal. When it goes that far it is, at best, wishful thinking.
Dr. Stephen Prothero, a professor of religion at Boston University, recently released a book called God is Not One where he shows why the differences in religions do matter. Below is a rather long excerpt taken from the Wall Street Journal. I do not agree with everything he says in it but his overall assessment of the situation is accurate:
Taylor
I am sure most of the people reading this have seen the popular "Coexist" bumper stickers. According to the providers of the bumper stickers the intent is to promote people finding a way "to live together in peace and harmony". Unfortunately ideologies such as this have been twisted into a false form of "tolerance" that wants people to believe there are no critical differences between religions and that we should accept them as equal. When it goes that far it is, at best, wishful thinking.
Dr. Stephen Prothero, a professor of religion at Boston University, recently released a book called God is Not One where he shows why the differences in religions do matter. Below is a rather long excerpt taken from the Wall Street Journal. I do not agree with everything he says in it but his overall assessment of the situation is accurate:
This is a seductive sentiment in a world in which religious violence can seem as present and potent as God. But it is dangerous, disrespectful and untrue....By His Grace,
Of course, one purpose of the "all religions are one" meme is to stop this fighting and this killing. But this meme, however well intentioned, is neither accurate nor ethically responsible. God may be one according to the Abrahamic religions, but when it comes to the mathematics of divinity, one is not the only number. Many Buddhists believe in no god, and many Hindus believe in 330,000. Moreover, the characters of these divinities differ wildly. Is God a warrior like Hinduism's Kali or a mild-mannered pacifist like the Quakers' Jesus?
I do not believe we are witnessing a clash of civilizations between Christianity and Islam. But it is a fantasy to imagine that the world's two largest religions are in any meaningful sense the same, or that interfaith dialogue will magically bridge the gap between them. Each of the great religions offers its own diagnosis of the human predicament and its own prescription for a cure. Each offers its own techniques for reaching its religious goal, and its own exemplars for emulation. Muslims say pride is the problem; Christians say salvation is the solution; education is a key Confucian technique; and Buddhism's exemplars include the lama and the bodhisattva. If practitioners of the world's religions are mountain climbers then they are ascending very different peaks and using very different tools.
You would think that champions of multiculturalism would warm to this fact, glorying in the diversity inside and across religious traditions. But even among multiculturalists, the tendency is to pretend that the differences between, say, Christianity and Islam are more apparent than real, and that the differences inside religious traditions just don't warrant the fuss practitioners make over them....
This wishful thinking is motivated in part by a principled rejection of the traditional theological view that only you and your kind will make it to heaven or paradise. For most of world history, human beings have seen religious rivals as inferior to themselves—practitioners of empty rituals, perpetrators of bogus miracles, purveyors of fanciful myths. The Age of Enlightenment popularized the ideal of religious tolerance, and we are doubtless better for it. But the idea of religious unity is wishful thinking nonetheless, and it has not made the world a safer place. In fact, this naive theological groupthink—call it Godthink—has made the world more dangerous by blinding us to the clashes of religions that threaten us world-wide.
Faith in the unity of religions is just that—faith, and perhaps even a kind of fundamentalism. And it does not just infect the perennialists. While popular religion writers such as Mr. Smith see in all religions the same truth and the same virtue, new atheists such as Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins see in all religions the same idiocy and the same poison. In both cases, Godthink is ideological rather than analytical. It gestates in the dense clouds of desire rather than with a clear-eyed vision of how things are in the ground. In the case of the new atheists, it springs from the understandable desire to denounce the evil in religion. In the case of the perennialists, it begins with the equally understandable desire to praise the good in religion.
Neither of these desires serves our understanding of a world in which our religious traditions are at least as diverse as our political and economic arrangements....
I too hope for a world in which human beings can get along with their religious rivals. I am convinced, however, that we must pursue this goal through more realistic means. Rather than beginning with the sort of Godthink that lumps all religions together into one trash can or treasure chest, we must start with a clear-eyed understanding of the fundamental differences between Judaism and Islam, Buddhism and Hinduism, Daoism and Confucianism.
Some people are convinced that the only foundation on which inter-religious civility can be constructed is the dogma that all religions are one. I am not one of them. In our most intimate human relationships, who is so naive as to imagine that partners or spouses must be essentially the same? What is required in any healthy relationship is knowing who the other person really is. Denying differences is a recipe for disaster. What works is understanding the differences and then coming to accept and, when appropriate, to respect them. After all, it is not possible to agree to disagree until you see just what the disagreements might be. And tolerance is an empty virtue until we actually understand whatever it is we are supposed to be tolerating.
Taylor
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
Planetary Habitable Zones
"For the host stars with effective temperatures lower than 4,600 K, the ultraviolet habitable zones are closer than the habitable zones. For the host stars with effective temperatures higher than 7,137 K, the ultraviolet habitable zones are farther than the habitable zones. For a hot subdwarf as a host star, the distance of the ultraviolet habitable zone is about ten times more than that of the habitable zone, which is not suitable for the existence of life." ~ "Habitable zones and UV habitable zones around host stars" by Jianpo Guo, Fenghui Zhang, Xianfei Zhang, and Zhanwen Han
The "habitable zone" is something that is crucial in the conversation about life on other planets. The habitable zone is the intersection of two cosmological regions that must both be favorable to life: one within a solar system (circumstellar habitable zone) and the other within the host galaxy (galactic habitable zone). The galactic habitable zone defines a region that is close enough to the galactic core to provide a sufficiently high level of heavy elements to form rocky planets (like Earth) and yet far enough away so that high-frequency radiation does not harm or destroy life. The circumstellar habitable zone is usually defined as the region around a star where liquid water can exist on a planet. Recent research, however, has added a new constraint to the circumstellar habitable zone. This new constraint is an ultraviolet (UV) habitable zone. This region is a band around a star where any planets in it will receive enough UV radiation energy to drive the chemical reactions related to life’s origins (assuming a naturalistic evolution model) and yet not too much, which would result in the destruction of DNA. DNA would never be able to survive on a planet that is too close to its host star because of too much radiation, and it would never be able to form on a planet that is too far from its host star because of not enough radiation.
The paper cited above shows that in the vast majority of stars the liquid water habitable zone and the UV habitable zone do not intersect. "Effective temperatures" that the paper refers to are the temperatures of black bodies that would emit the same total amount of electromagnetic radiation as the stars being studied. Basically around any stars with effective temperatures below 4,600 K the UV habitable zone is too close to the star for liquid water to exist (it would all evaporate), and around any stars with effective temperatures above 7,137 K the UV habitable zone is too far from the star for liquid water to exist (it would all freeze). Around such stars there is no possibility for life as we know it. In fact, requiring a planet to fall within both zones (the liquid water and the UV zone) eliminates 80% of all stars as possible candidates for life-supporting planets. This adds to the growing body of evidence that Earth is uniquely fined-tuned for life as we know it.
By His Grace,
Taylor
The "habitable zone" is something that is crucial in the conversation about life on other planets. The habitable zone is the intersection of two cosmological regions that must both be favorable to life: one within a solar system (circumstellar habitable zone) and the other within the host galaxy (galactic habitable zone). The galactic habitable zone defines a region that is close enough to the galactic core to provide a sufficiently high level of heavy elements to form rocky planets (like Earth) and yet far enough away so that high-frequency radiation does not harm or destroy life. The circumstellar habitable zone is usually defined as the region around a star where liquid water can exist on a planet. Recent research, however, has added a new constraint to the circumstellar habitable zone. This new constraint is an ultraviolet (UV) habitable zone. This region is a band around a star where any planets in it will receive enough UV radiation energy to drive the chemical reactions related to life’s origins (assuming a naturalistic evolution model) and yet not too much, which would result in the destruction of DNA. DNA would never be able to survive on a planet that is too close to its host star because of too much radiation, and it would never be able to form on a planet that is too far from its host star because of not enough radiation.
The paper cited above shows that in the vast majority of stars the liquid water habitable zone and the UV habitable zone do not intersect. "Effective temperatures" that the paper refers to are the temperatures of black bodies that would emit the same total amount of electromagnetic radiation as the stars being studied. Basically around any stars with effective temperatures below 4,600 K the UV habitable zone is too close to the star for liquid water to exist (it would all evaporate), and around any stars with effective temperatures above 7,137 K the UV habitable zone is too far from the star for liquid water to exist (it would all freeze). Around such stars there is no possibility for life as we know it. In fact, requiring a planet to fall within both zones (the liquid water and the UV zone) eliminates 80% of all stars as possible candidates for life-supporting planets. This adds to the growing body of evidence that Earth is uniquely fined-tuned for life as we know it.
By His Grace,
Taylor
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
Measuring Time From DNA
"As we develop better molecular methods, people would like it if the molecular dates reconciled with the fossil record. Then everybody would be happy, but instead the gap is getting wider, and in the end, that might actually be interesting." ~ Michael Donoghue
Michael Donoghue endorsed a paper titled "An uncorrelated relaxed-clock analysis suggests an earlier origin for flowering plants" about the origins of angiosperms (flowering plants) that was recently published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences by a team of researchers from Yale University and The National Evolutionary Synthesis Center. In this paper the researchers talk a lot about a technique known as "molecular clock analysis." This technique is a way that evolutionary biologists attempt to understand the relationships between organisms and the time frames where the organisms (presuming an evolutionary model) diverged from each other on the evolutionary track. Evolutionary biologists will compare DNA sequences from organism that exist today, use that information to attempt to build evolutionary trees, and then use molecular clocks to determine when the organisms diverged from each other on the evolutionary tree.
Let me attempt to explain how molecular clocks work. DNA has genetic "letters," which are abbreviated A, G, C, and T. The linear sequence of these letters contains genetic information (much like a word in language contains information because of its definition). The letters build genetic "words," which harbor the genetic information of the DNA molecule. Mutations can alter the sequence of genetic "letters" (much like a misspelling in a word) and molecular clock analysis attempts to measure the rate of these "misspellings" from mutations. If you compare two different DNA sequences which come from organisms that (presuming an evolutionary model) have a common ancestor and you know the rate of change/mutation of the DNA then you can extrapolate the time frame in which the organisms diverged from each other.
The problem with molecular clock analysis is that you have to make assumptions about the rate of change/mutation of the genetic "letters" in the DNA. Evolutionary biologists will attempt to calibrate the rate of change in the clock by going to the fossil record, looking at when certain organisms appeared in the record (organisms that are assumed to be evolutionary relatives), and then correlating the lapses in time with the changes in DNA to create a rate. They then take this calibrated rate and apply it to the entire evolutionary tree they have built to attempt to determine when organisms may have diverged from each other. The problems with this are: 1) it is notoriously difficult to do and 2) the results achieved by the analysis most often do not agree with what is seen in the fossil record. These researchers (from the teams mentioned above) attempt to get around these problems by varying the rate of mutation over time. They "relaxed" the clock. They vary the rate (often times by a lot and with rates too rapid for an evolutionary model) in order to get molecular clock analysis to match up with the fossil record.
Often times molecular clocks are used as a very important tools in molecular biology and cited as evidence for evolution. I like Donoghue's quote above because he seems to recognize the inconsistency in using molecular clocks to validate evolution. The fact that the "gap is getting wider" is "interesting" because it then either invalidates naturalistic evolution or invalidates the molecular clock method itself. This study shows us how flawed this technique actually is. It shows that there is generally no agreement between molecular clocks and the fossil record and that in order to get agreement researchers are rigging their inputs (relaxing the clock) until they get something that agrees with the fossil record. I am sorry, but this is not the way to do science. You can say that the rates may change over time (as rates often do) but you cannot just assume whatever rate(s) you want in order to get the results you are looking for. You have to have criteria that justifies 1) differing rates over time and 2) the specific rates you are using. What justifies using these different rates? For a scientist to do this they must have objective reasons for doing it. Playing with the data until you get the results you were looking for is not a reason. This hurts the case for molecular clocks being support for evolution. If you play with the data until you get the results you want (for the naturalistic evolution model) you cannot then turn around and say it is evidence for the evolutionary paradigm and this study highlights that particular problem. This paper shows that either molecular clock analysis (as it stands right now) is very flawed, the naturalistic evolution models are flawed, or both.
By His Grace,
Taylor
Michael Donoghue endorsed a paper titled "An uncorrelated relaxed-clock analysis suggests an earlier origin for flowering plants" about the origins of angiosperms (flowering plants) that was recently published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences by a team of researchers from Yale University and The National Evolutionary Synthesis Center. In this paper the researchers talk a lot about a technique known as "molecular clock analysis." This technique is a way that evolutionary biologists attempt to understand the relationships between organisms and the time frames where the organisms (presuming an evolutionary model) diverged from each other on the evolutionary track. Evolutionary biologists will compare DNA sequences from organism that exist today, use that information to attempt to build evolutionary trees, and then use molecular clocks to determine when the organisms diverged from each other on the evolutionary tree.
Let me attempt to explain how molecular clocks work. DNA has genetic "letters," which are abbreviated A, G, C, and T. The linear sequence of these letters contains genetic information (much like a word in language contains information because of its definition). The letters build genetic "words," which harbor the genetic information of the DNA molecule. Mutations can alter the sequence of genetic "letters" (much like a misspelling in a word) and molecular clock analysis attempts to measure the rate of these "misspellings" from mutations. If you compare two different DNA sequences which come from organisms that (presuming an evolutionary model) have a common ancestor and you know the rate of change/mutation of the DNA then you can extrapolate the time frame in which the organisms diverged from each other.
The problem with molecular clock analysis is that you have to make assumptions about the rate of change/mutation of the genetic "letters" in the DNA. Evolutionary biologists will attempt to calibrate the rate of change in the clock by going to the fossil record, looking at when certain organisms appeared in the record (organisms that are assumed to be evolutionary relatives), and then correlating the lapses in time with the changes in DNA to create a rate. They then take this calibrated rate and apply it to the entire evolutionary tree they have built to attempt to determine when organisms may have diverged from each other. The problems with this are: 1) it is notoriously difficult to do and 2) the results achieved by the analysis most often do not agree with what is seen in the fossil record. These researchers (from the teams mentioned above) attempt to get around these problems by varying the rate of mutation over time. They "relaxed" the clock. They vary the rate (often times by a lot and with rates too rapid for an evolutionary model) in order to get molecular clock analysis to match up with the fossil record.
Often times molecular clocks are used as a very important tools in molecular biology and cited as evidence for evolution. I like Donoghue's quote above because he seems to recognize the inconsistency in using molecular clocks to validate evolution. The fact that the "gap is getting wider" is "interesting" because it then either invalidates naturalistic evolution or invalidates the molecular clock method itself. This study shows us how flawed this technique actually is. It shows that there is generally no agreement between molecular clocks and the fossil record and that in order to get agreement researchers are rigging their inputs (relaxing the clock) until they get something that agrees with the fossil record. I am sorry, but this is not the way to do science. You can say that the rates may change over time (as rates often do) but you cannot just assume whatever rate(s) you want in order to get the results you are looking for. You have to have criteria that justifies 1) differing rates over time and 2) the specific rates you are using. What justifies using these different rates? For a scientist to do this they must have objective reasons for doing it. Playing with the data until you get the results you were looking for is not a reason. This hurts the case for molecular clocks being support for evolution. If you play with the data until you get the results you want (for the naturalistic evolution model) you cannot then turn around and say it is evidence for the evolutionary paradigm and this study highlights that particular problem. This paper shows that either molecular clock analysis (as it stands right now) is very flawed, the naturalistic evolution models are flawed, or both.
By His Grace,
Taylor
Sunday, April 11, 2010
Church II
I have come with one purpose
To capture for myself a bride
By my life she is lovely
By my death she’s justified
I have always been her husband
Though many lovers she has known
So with water I will wash her
And by my word alone
So when you hear the sound of the water
You will know you’re not alone
Chorus:
‘Cause I haven’t come for only you
But for my people to pursue
You cannot care for me with no regard for her
If you love me you will love the Church
I have long pursued her
As a harlot and a whore
But she will feast upon me
She will drink and thirst no more
So when you taste my flesh and my blood
You will know you’re not alone
Chorus:
There is none that can replace her
Though there are many who will try
And though some may be her bridesmaids
They can never be my bride
This song is by Derek Webb. He is a member of Caedmon's Call and also does side projects on his own. Caedmon's Call is one of my favorite bands and his solo stuff is also very good. I love the lyrics to his songs (and Caedmon's Call's songs) because they are so rich and have so many poetic allusions to biblical stories and/or doctrine. This one in particular I really like because of the bridge lyrics:
Seeing baptism and taking the Eucharist, among many other spiritual signs and symbols they represent, reminds me of the greater covenant community that Christians are a part of. The Eucharist is a covenant meal, which is an act of covenantal ratification much like the meal shared by the elders of Israel before God in Exodus 24. It proclaims Christ, seals the benefits of union to Christ in believers, spiritually nourishes the believer, and pledges the believer’s fidelity to Christ and His body. (I wrote a paper called "Covenant-Renewing Worship" that speaks some about this.) Baptism is a covenant sign that brings the children of believers, or new believers, into the covenant community so when you "hear" the water you know that you are not alone.
Last week at church we had two baptisms: the baby of a member couple of the church and a believer's baptism of a young woman who had grown up Muslim (nominal Muslim, but Muslim none-the-less). Seeing both of those really encouraged me. When the baby was baptized I thought, "This is a lucky child because he will grow up in a covenant family that will love and support him." When the believer was baptized I thought, "She is now one of my own." I do not know her personally but she is now a professed Christian and part of the covenant community of the Church and just knowing that another has been brought into the Kingdom is encouraging. They were both encouraging because, like the song says, seeing them reminded me that I am not alone. Like John Wesley says, "Everyone who belongs to Jesus belongs to everyone who belongs to Jesus" (whether we like it or not).
By His Grace,
Taylor
To capture for myself a bride
By my life she is lovely
By my death she’s justified
I have always been her husband
Though many lovers she has known
So with water I will wash her
And by my word alone
So when you hear the sound of the water
You will know you’re not alone
Chorus:
‘Cause I haven’t come for only you
But for my people to pursue
You cannot care for me with no regard for her
If you love me you will love the Church
I have long pursued her
As a harlot and a whore
But she will feast upon me
She will drink and thirst no more
So when you taste my flesh and my blood
You will know you’re not alone
Chorus:
There is none that can replace her
Though there are many who will try
And though some may be her bridesmaids
They can never be my bride
This song is by Derek Webb. He is a member of Caedmon's Call and also does side projects on his own. Caedmon's Call is one of my favorite bands and his solo stuff is also very good. I love the lyrics to his songs (and Caedmon's Call's songs) because they are so rich and have so many poetic allusions to biblical stories and/or doctrine. This one in particular I really like because of the bridge lyrics:
So when you hear the sound of the water
You will know you’re not alone
...
So when you taste my flesh and my blood
You will know you’re not alone
Seeing baptism and taking the Eucharist, among many other spiritual signs and symbols they represent, reminds me of the greater covenant community that Christians are a part of. The Eucharist is a covenant meal, which is an act of covenantal ratification much like the meal shared by the elders of Israel before God in Exodus 24. It proclaims Christ, seals the benefits of union to Christ in believers, spiritually nourishes the believer, and pledges the believer’s fidelity to Christ and His body. (I wrote a paper called "Covenant-Renewing Worship" that speaks some about this.) Baptism is a covenant sign that brings the children of believers, or new believers, into the covenant community so when you "hear" the water you know that you are not alone.
Last week at church we had two baptisms: the baby of a member couple of the church and a believer's baptism of a young woman who had grown up Muslim (nominal Muslim, but Muslim none-the-less). Seeing both of those really encouraged me. When the baby was baptized I thought, "This is a lucky child because he will grow up in a covenant family that will love and support him." When the believer was baptized I thought, "She is now one of my own." I do not know her personally but she is now a professed Christian and part of the covenant community of the Church and just knowing that another has been brought into the Kingdom is encouraging. They were both encouraging because, like the song says, seeing them reminded me that I am not alone. Like John Wesley says, "Everyone who belongs to Jesus belongs to everyone who belongs to Jesus" (whether we like it or not).
By His Grace,
Taylor
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)