Talk:Evidence against a recent creation/Archive1

PS, I know that while I whine about your endless typos, this is shaping up to be a really good article. And, ironically, your typos prove that this is original work. Funny, that. Knock youself out, dude. human^{be in} 02:38, 9 October 2007 (EDT)

Yes, it really is shaping up. I do some edits from time to time as well. It seems quite comprehensive. Good going Ice.--Bob^{bing for apples} 05:04, 22 October 2007 (EDT)

Merge into here...

..., perchance, Lower limit on the age of the universe? VirileSterile^yawn! 18:33, 24 October 2007 (EDT)

Perhaps... maybe it was a red link? Or, maybe, someone intends to make it larger? Although, I agree, conceptually the two ideas are, well, the same in the end. human 18:34, 24 October 2007 (EDT)

Organization

Is there any reason for the order of arguments (date added, effectiveness at damning creationism, etc.)? If not, I feel like there should be. Thunderkatz^Ho! 21:03, 25 October 2007 (EDT)

If you must have O R D E R then just alphabetise 'em? Susan^{speak your mind} 21:38, 25 October 2007 (EDT)

How about in order of increasing or decreasing minimum age proved by the method? That ought to be confusing enough to do... human 13:41, 26 October 2007 (EDT)

If it needs order I'd go for that. Perhaps in sections - arguments demonstrating the earth is at least 10,000 years old, at least 100,000, at least 1,000,000. But it might be a lot more messy to do.--Bob^{bing for apples} 13:46, 26 October 2007 (EDT)

How about we start by bolding the age proved in each section (ie, "over 700,000 years"), then start moving sections around? And add a short intro explaining how they are organized? Then maybe drop the headers one level and group them as you suggest? human 14:05, 26 October 2007 (EDT)

That's cool. It would enable us to tell at a glance if there were natural sections as well. We'll need to be consistent with the use of "over" and "at least". In theory all of them would go in a section "over 10,000 years for example.--Bob^{bing for apples} 14:09, 26 October 2007 (EDT)

Haha, true. Should we go oldest first? Since the "oldest" ones are sort of "best"? human 14:19, 26 October 2007 (EDT)

But when you look at the articles, most of them are not written in a format which falls easily into this framework. :-( --Bob^{bing for apples} 14:13, 26 October 2007 (EDT)

<-- I did a quick scan and most seemed to be - one or two will have to be edited? Or we add a "conclusion" line to each one in bold? human 14:19, 26 October 2007 (EDT)

Well, I guess if the number isn't there we should go and find it. Because if we're saying it shows the earth (or in some cases the universe) is over 6,000 years old then we should say what is the minimum age identified by the method.--Bob^{bing for apples} 14:23, 26 October 2007 (EDT)

Draw a timeline graphic with points mrked for each minimum. (someone hoo can uplad graphics) Susan^{say something then!} 14:17, 26 October 2007 (EDT)

Nice idea, but I'd say we'd need to look at after we have the numbers clear. Might be difficult to get the scale on as well. Some numbers in thousands - others in many millions.--Bob^{bing for apples} 14:27, 26 October 2007 (EDT)

The timeline graphic is a good idea, but wouldn't it be best to order the entries by scientific discipline? One section for atronomy, one for geology, one for biology, etc. - to the extent that's possible? --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 14:29, 26 October 2007 (EDT)

That's a good idea too! human 14:48, 26 October 2007 (EDT)

Yes, it is. But I like the idea of increasing age. First mini article shows the earth is at least x thousands of years old. Next at least tens of thousands. Next hundreds of thousands etc etc. It just feels like a nice way to build the case.--Bob^{bing for apples} 15:19, 26 October 2007 (EDT)

I personally don't like the idea of ordering by age. I like the idea of just presenting a block of the best and almost best evidence at the beginning and then having the weaker ones, interspersed with a few good arguments, at the end. But whatever, it does not really matter. - Icewedge 19:39, 26 October 2007 (EDT)

more

Here's an idea. First, the TOC is not very useful since it is so long I ignore it. So we need a better "guide" tot his article. People have suggested "by discipline", by "minimum age of earth", and by "strength of argument". I'm not sure how best to rearrange the sections, but we could NOTOC it and make a navigational aid or three to put at the top - that is, make one that lists the sections by discipline, one that is some sort of (logarithmic) timeline for them, and one that groups them by how compelling their arguments are. The first two could be done by anyone who can read English and has a computer. As far as the "importance" one, it's more of a judgment call, and requires some serious thought. Since it's Icewedge's idea, and largely his article, I suggest he should be the one to figure that out, and that should be the order they are presented in the article. Then there is no need for a nav box for "argument strength", just maybe 3 or 4 "super headers" grouping them. After that, I don't mind trying to cobble together a way to navigate them by discipline or by minimum age each section proves. I want to get this done so we can cover story this article. Thoughts? human 16:08, 7 February 2008 (EST)

That an interesting idea. I will try playing around with a new contents table and see if I can come up with anything any one likes. - Icewedge 12:11, 8 February 2008 (EST)

Ok, what about a sidebar like this? - Icewedge 16:42, 10 February 2008 (EST)

This is Icewedge's article? That's funny, I rarely see him edit... -- Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 17:40, 10 February 2008 (EST)

Check the fossil record. He doesn't "own" it, he just wrote almost all of it. human 18:54, 10 February 2008 (EST)

Hmmm, looks interesting. It could be narrower, right? And would list all the sections? I'd say, let's try it and see how it looks. human 19:00, 10 February 2008 (EST)

Looks good, Mr. Wedge! Do you mind if I try to squeeze it a bit narrower? And, I guess, one of us should pipe all those links to get rid of the visible "#" signs. But it's a great way to TOC this article. I take it that the sections themselves are physically arranged from stronger to weaker? human 19:42, 19 February 2008 (EST)

There just alphabetized, more or less. - Icewedge 19:58, 19 February 2008 (EST)

No

What a bunch of BS. I laugh at this.

Thanks :) I am glad you derived entertainment from our article! - Icewedge 23:27, 26 October 2007 (EDT)

In Sovet Russia, BS laughs at you!! Uchiha 23:53, 26 October 2007 (EDT)

Still it's nice to be appreciated. Sad the editor didn't stay to debate though.--Bob^{bing for apples} 12:13, 27 October 2007 (EDT)

If he's like most Young Earth Believers, this is probably the entire argument he would put forth in the debate: GOD DID IT Zmidponk 18:56, 23 December 2007 (EST)

cover story

(Please do not archive this section)

• Thunderkatz nominated it. 20:08, 29 January 2008 (EST)
• I agree, as it is very high quality and well referenced. Might need some internal structure though. human 20:08, 29 January 2008 (EST)
  • I promoted it, due to the improvement in navigation/TOC. human 22:45, 19 February 2008 (EST)

Hot-rodding continents

I can't help it, because of the ad-hoc YEC argument that things went faster in the old days (to account for such problems as the speed of light), I suddenly had this image of the continents speeding apart to get where they are in time to fit the Bible - India speeding across the Indian Ocean to collide with the Asian continent, the fender bender pushing up the Himalayas and everyone in India getting a collective case of whiplash.They'd have to sue god for that one. PoorEd 12:29, 23 February 2008 (EST)

Hehe, which god? I bet some YECer saw a sped-up animation of tectonics and thought it was in real time... human 14:56, 23 February 2008 (EST)

Maybe Shiva? 15:11, 23 February 2008 (EST)

YEC view

What would be really interesting is for each section to have the YEC rebuttal of it. Anyone up to that? Ajkgordon 11:46, 19 March 2008 (EDT) I don't mean the "it says so in Genesis" argument. I mean the creation science argument specifically arguing against each point. Ajkgordon 11:48, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

You mean the creation pseudoscience argument. Rational Ed^{welcome to the bizarro world} 12:07, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

How about doing it as a subpage, or parallel article? I don't really want to see this long, good article full of YEC garbage, although I wouldn't at all mind seeing a parallel list (heavily linked to the main article, of course). human 12:22, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

No, no, quite right. The current article shouldn't be ruined. A new article with two columns - left would be the content from this page, right would be the YEC answer. Ajkgordon 13:50, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

OK, sure. "Evidence against a recent creation: YEC responses" (this way it is listed next to ours in cats, etc.)? And who is going to write it? Andy? Or one of his goons? human 14:03, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

Andy? LOL, NO! PJR would be an obvious choice but he wouldn't, would he? Perhaps someone from here who knows enough about the YEC arguments; enough to know how to write it from a YEC view as if he believed it. Any volunteers? Ajkgordon 06:40, 20 March 2008 (EDT)

Shouldn't be too hard. You just need to accept that there was a wordlwide flood that covered all the mountains, killed everything and rearranged everything, the speed of light and radioactive decay rates used to be unimaginably higher, and god is capable of doing anything she wants for the rest. Rational Ed^{welcome to the bizarro world} 13:28, 20 March 2008 (EDT)

Perhaps we could just search for each term at AIG and CreationWiki and quote what they have to say? human 13:30, 20 March 2008 (EDT)

The problem I see is that some of those arguments tend to be titanically verbose. This is, of course, no accident--one of the main tactics employed by Creation Scientists is verbal obfuscation. By burying the reader in impressive-sounding but ultimately meaningless jargon, they hope to conceal the fact that, at core, there's not very much to the idea they're promoting.

It's that calculated contempt for their audience that makes me shake my head in wonderment when I hear YEC advocates railing against "elitism." They're the biggest elitists around--their entire strategy is predicated on the notion that their audience is too stupid or poorly-educated to differentiate between valid science and impressive-sounding gibberish. --Phentari 12:14, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

references

Does anyone know why the second half or so all end in <li/>? I thought it was a bug in template:reflist, but it still happens after I switched to <references/>. human 12:45, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

I fixed it! There was an improperly closed "span" tag at footnote 15... human 19:53, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

Thermoluminescence dating

Don't think this is good example. The article says that the method is only accurate on objects 300 to 10,000 years in age. YEC estimates Creation to be up to that age. Ajkgordon 10:40, 9 April 2008 (EDT)

Good point. Rational Ed^faith 10:43, 9 April 2008 (EDT)

Well, it's almost last, in the "youngest age" section. And it says it can go up to 230,000 years - just not accurately enough to be used for dating many things, I suppose. Just as radiocarbon dating is only good for up to about 50,000 years, I suppose. human 19:55, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

The sun's "photon travel time"

This is another possible one. The time it takes a photon to travel from the sun's fusion core to the photosphere where it escapes into space is estimated to take between 10,000 and 170,000 years. (Although it's not the same photon - the original photon is emitted, absorbed, re-admitted, re-absorbed and so so on until it eventually reaches the surface.) In other words, energy from the fusion reaction at the sun's centre takes at least as long to get to us as the upper limit YECers give for the age of the universe. Or, yet another way of looking at it, we would have been in the dark until today. I'm a bit hazy on the details so if any of you sciency types want to write something, I think it might make a good addition. Ajkgordon 05:30, 10 April 2008 (EDT)

Anyone? Or is it a crap idea? Ajkgordon 10:47, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

Not crap, but if it's not the same photon then it would be easy for a YECer to go "Aha! that's not the same thing at all, therefore Genesis is literally true," like a twat in their usual logical way. Do it if you like, but, um, don't expect everyone to understand it. Totnesmartin 11:04, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

You can calculate a "start time" and an "escape time" so, yes it is an excellent addition.   ^Contribs_Talk 11:09, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

Right, so the correct explanation is energy in the form of EM radiation or photons. I'd love to write it but I don't have the edumacation. I might try it here and let somebody else scientificate it. Ajkgordon 11:27, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

It's like pushing the end of a spring: the other end will move, but after a period of time and the bit tat moves won't be the bit that was pushed. (?)   ^Contribs_Talk 11:42, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

"Balance"

Not being an astrophysics wonk, is this legit? -- Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 03:02, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

There's been a bunch of edits from the same BoN that all seem a bit dubious. He/she seems to be approaching the topic as if YECers could still believe in the Big Bang, but just not it being eons ago, similar to the varying-speed-of-light YEC argument. Overall, it seems to just confuse the article (even the phrasing is fuzzy - "This is answered from science" reads very awkward). It is an article called "Evidence against a recent creation," after all, and his/her edit summary talks about "adding balance." At the very least, his/her claims should be cited, right? --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 03:57, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

I've reverted 'em all - AGAINST is right Arcan.   ^Contribs_Talk 04:22, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

(and it's a cover story)   ^Contribs_Talk 04:23, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

Also, didn't matter form after the universe started expanding? NightFlare^{Speak, mortal} 04:44, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

Allegedly, but no-one actually saw it :)   ^Contribs_Talk 04:47, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

God did. -The Almighty Tuna 05:14, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

Did She?   ^Contribs_Talk 05:32, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

Yes, but then she found out that her role was actually to do housework and help her husband, so she stopped seeing it. -The Almighty Tuna 09:12, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

Actually Susan is our own wiki-wife and she does an amazing amount of RW housework. As for the rubbish posted by bunch of numbers - at the time of the big bang there were no planets, stars or galaxies. So claiming craters were caused by stuff exploding during the big bang is pure BS. The accepted age of the earth is about 4.5 bn years while for the universe it is almost 14 bn years. So things had plenty of time to quieten down. Genghis^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 09:39, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

Yeah, while one or two of BoNs posts were quasi-logical at least, the one where the bang caused craters on earth was just loony tunes. As Susan invited the BoN on their talk page to do, they could always start "evidence for a recent creation". Awesome book: The First Four Minutes - it's a popularization, relatively, of what the universe "might" have been like for the first 100 seconds or so. Pretty cool stuff. human 19:50, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

This article is a move star!

Browsing the most recent Google results for RationalWiki I found this. At least one person finds our article useful :) - Icewedge 21:29, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

Sweet! Can we embed utube videos? If so, we could have a link at the top to "eaarc/video: for those who prefer their words embedded in pretty pictures". Your work is famous now, that's very cool. human 21:42, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

I don't think that we can embed videos right now and I don't think that the video is that well made. It is nice to see that all our work has not gone unnoticed however :) - Icewedge 21:51, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

Awesome! Quick—everybody with a Youtube account watch and favorite it! -- Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 11:53, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

Edit Explanations, Part 1

All right. I’m going to make about a million billion edits to this here page, and because I don’t want to hijack the article or start any fights on my very first day, I’m going to make justifications for all of my non-grammatical edits.

“Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority estimates that the great barrier reef began over 600,000 years ago, and that the current growths of coral to be found at that location began around 20,000 years ago.”

The linked article does not say this. It says that the “earliest record of complete reef structures” we have today is 600,000 years ago, and it says that “Many of the places that support reefs today were part of the land during the last ice age, which ended about 20,000 years ago.” (Emphasis mine) That “20,000 years” statistic doesn’t help us much.

So, I have removed the 20,000 years statistic, I have rewritten the 600,000 year statistic to reflect the government article, and I have added a statistic from the same site that was ommitted from the previous article—namely, that “corals have existed on the Great Barrier Reef for as long as 25 million years.”

Sorry to bother you all. I will post explanations for other content revisions as I continue to edit this page, but I don’t anticipate there will be too much more in the way of content revision—I’m trying to focus on grammar.A Writer of Vaudevilles 18:38, 30 October 2008 (EDT)

Thanks for telling us what you're up to.--Bob^{bing up} 18:44, 30 October 2008 (EDT)

Yes, thank you Vaudeville. That was very considerate of you. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 18:55, 30 October 2008 (EDT)

I deleted this sentence in “Geomagnetic Reversal: “The strength of the earth's magnetic field will decay until such an event occurs, where the polarity of the field flips and is then replenished in strength.” It doesn’t really have anything to do with the explanation of how Geomagnetic Reversal is relevant to recent creation theory.A Writer of Vaudevilles 21:02, 30 October 2008 (EDT)

• Thanks for your copyediting work on this article AWoV, it needs it. I am a terrible writer. - Icewedge (*bleet*) 15:34, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

Sphinx

Ok, I know it is not much, but water damage at the base of the sphinx suggests that it was built somewhere in the ballpark of 9000 years ago. It is reasoned that it was built when the area was swampy. One of the main reasons it has been preserved so well over the millennia is that for long periods of time, it's body was covered in sand. If someone can find some sources, would this be adequate? Or are you going for older?--Nate River 00:04, 11 January 2009 (EST)

If you have references for these ideas, and can integrate them in to this very-well-evolved article, feel free to try? ħuman 00:14, 11 January 2009 (EST)

Gonna be a few days. It was on a documentary I saw, but I can't remember the name. C'est la vie.--Nate River 00:34, 11 January 2009 (EST)

Try here. fröhlich ^{"gay" and "happy"} 00:42, 11 January 2009 (EST)

Thanks, this is a great article.--Nate River 20:40, 11 January 2009 (EST)

Should be removed

I am sorry Nate River, but I don't really think that this section belongs in this article. For two reasons,

• The age of the sphinx is hotly debated among geologists, and the conventional view is that it was built around 2500 BC. I am no expert but it seems that Schoch and West (1991) have attracted little outside support for their idea which has been refuted by other archaeologists:
  • "In this article, the authors show how weathering in an arid environment can produce the rounded profile, given the gradual change in lithology of the alternating hard and soft limestone strata. The authors show further that the channels are actually the pre-Pliocene karst features formed by underground water and exposed due to the excavation of the Sphinx ditch. They propose therefore that, for now, the Sphinx may still be regarded as of pharaonic origin. "[1]
• Schoch and West (1991) conclude the age of the sphinx was 5000-10,000 B.C.E, the lower end date fits within the creationist age of the earth.

All and all I think it is rather weak evidence. The 5000-10,000 range gives creationists just a bit too much wiggle room (I have in the past only included evidence that gave a date of at least ~10K years for the age of the earth) and iffy dates should be avoided especially when the science is not clear and is in debate (by actual scientists of course).

Thoughts? Agree/disagree? -- Icewedge // talk 23:59, 31 December 1999 (EST)

Makes sense to me (to remove it), on the two major points: 9,000 years is not "EARC", and the ongoing debate over its age in the first place. ħuman 15:30, 17 January 2009 (EST)

I can see your guys points and I agree that it is kinda iffy. I was unsure of it at first and asked if this would be ok to post. However, if you guys think it is not that beneficial, feel free to remove it. Maybe if the theory gets more mainstream support, we can repost this here. Maybe we can just move this to a separate article? I am just glad I didn't include the whole belief that it's construction had to do with the sun raising in Leo or whatever. I felt that was more crazy than anything the whole Atlantis conclusion.--Nate River 20:32, 17 January 2009 (EST)

New separate article could be very interesting and allow more room to flesh it out. Good idea. ħuman 21:42, 17 January 2009 (EST)

Greg Neyman quote in lead

I'm not sure it really adds to the article - do we want the first thing people read on this fairly serious article to be a snarky line by an OECer? ħuman 01:02, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

The quote was just too good to pass up. I have moved it to a more snarky article. ListenerX^TalkerX 01:17, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I saw that. Much better place for it. ħuman 01:19, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Should we re-order the sections...

according to the box on the right (by years?)? [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 00:23, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

No. The "mismatch" is intentional - the sections are in order of "strength". The hand-made TOC is in order of, obviously, time. ħuman 00:39, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

There actually ordered alphabetically, strength would be nice but its rather subjective. @k61824: they are not in that order as that order can be ambiguous. Icewedge 00:46, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Icewedge, I should have looked first ;) Nice to see you checking in! ħuman 01:52, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Linguistics?

Since none of our list of evidence comes from Linguistics, shall we remove that from the opening section? [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 01:21, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Good catch, yes. ħuman 01:26, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

distant starlight - problem with source object

The distant starlight problem is an issue , but what of the creation of suns. I was reading that is can take a long time for photons created inside the suns to make their way out. Does anyone know how long it 6takes a sun to begin emitting light ? There is also the delay for nucleosynthesis of heavier elements to occur for formation of planets. It takes a few supernovas. I dont see it adds much to the article really Hamster (talk) 22:27, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I think it takes thousands of years, but I may be way off. And, yeah, those other things also take a very, very long time. I do think the amount of time required to get from raw stars to "solar systems" with rocky, metallic planets via supernovas might be a good section if we can dig up a nice well-written academic source to get teh numbers. ħuman 00:41, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

1)Surely the outside layers of the new star are hot enuff to emit photons before the really hot ones from the centre get there.

2)I don't think there's any consensus on how planetary systems form. Worth looking in to. ^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 00:49, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

It's the internal photons that heat up the surface, and it takes them ages to get emitted, absorbed, and re-emitted. As far as the planets, the key is that it takes a supernova to make the heavier elements (gas giants could form without them since they are really just stars that are too small to fuse hydrogen). ħuman 00:54, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

thinking about this a bit. If God made the stars in a form where they are emitting light then he has made a scientifically old universe. He could then make the light in transit as a historical artifact and the starlight problem goes away. If he didnt then there would be a delay while gas clouds condensed, and stars formed, and supernova appeared and thats about 1 million years for a large star. Does the Bible state that the stars were visible on Earth, or just that God made them ?

There's a well-known creationist approach to this problem call the Omphalos Hypothesis, which dates from the early 19th century and basically states that god created the world with all evidence of antiquity. Creationists have long had to deal with any evidence of age in the universe, including tree rings and even whether Adam and Eve had navels (PJR thinks they didn't :) ) 20th century creationists extended the idea (I wouldn't really call it a hypothesis because it's not susceptible of being tested in any meaningful sense) in response to the starlight problem by stating exactly what you wondered. It's also called Last Thursdayism by Anti-Last Tuesdayists. Either way, it can be argued to imply a deceptive god creating illusions of things that never happened, as light from a supernova with whatever red shift would naturally lend itself to supporting the proposition that a star exploded in that region of space however many years ago. I personally don't know why creationists would bother with an idea that implies their god might be a liar with what they really ought to be wondering is if their god is a lie. 17:46, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

It takes about 200,000 years for photons to journey from the core to the photosphere in our sun, even the lowest estimates are on the order of tens of thousands of years. Although that's with a smallish, middle aged star, so I don't know how well that compares to newly formed ones. It would be 2.3 seconds if it weren't for all those damn particles in the way. Once they escape it's a mere 8.3 minutes to reach earth. Jaxe (talk) 17:53, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Lat thursdayism is as sound as most other theologies but keeps the Good Fairy (creator of all things nice , may her wand always wave) very busy remaking everything each week. An unfortunate oversight :( A source I found says about 1 million years for a large (10+ solar masses) sun from start to nova so that seems consistant Hamster (talk) 18:00, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Cosmic microwave background radiation

added the section - reference is a bit basic - 300,000 years after Big bang expansion begins. Hamster (talk) 18:02, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Did you add it to the TOC, which is a subpage, not automatic? ħuman 19:15, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

oops , why not remove this for now, and I will see if I can improve it ? Hamster (talk) 19:20, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Sure, why not copy it to here? ħuman 19:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

God faking it

Basically why would God bother putting in the background detail to make it #appear# that the universe is several billion times older than it actually is?

perhaps God has a fixxation on consistancy , and so he made an old Earth so that he could have full sized trees and adult animals, after all he made Adam as a mature male rather than a baby. Hamster (talk) 21:22, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Deliberate stupidity is easier to believe in.

The Bible does not mention icebergs - therefore The Titanic was destroyed by other means (develop illogicality to taste).

Ditto 'your local fast food chain hamburger.

Bracket brain is complaining about the length of this page.

Whoever you are, I delinked your pointless red links. ħuman 20:29, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

(Red links = articles that might/should be on RW)

Is 'the devil in the detail'? ('The devil' being a 'nautical thingy' for poking hot tar into gaps in planks.) But are YECs of a Manicheanism persuasion? 82.44.143.26 (talk) 16:00, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

This reads like another chatbot. But it looks too human. Any thoughts?--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 16:16, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Error rate of 1000%

"Currently, the greatest number of layers found in a single ice sheet is over 700,000, which clearly contradicts the idea of an earth less than 10,000 years old. Even if one were to assume an error rate of over 1000%, the age demonstrated by this method would still be far greater than that suggested by young earth creationists."

How exactly is an error rate of 1000% even possible? Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the highest possible error rate 100%? Also, isn't "error rate" ambiguous here? If a reader assumes a 1000% error rate is actually a 99.9% error rate, he might make a simple calculation like 700,000 / 1000 = 700 years, which is bogus. The only useful statistic I can think of, is the probability curve of the number of layers per year.

Or maybe I'm just nitpicking :) --Michilus (talk) 15:31, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

We don't stick to liberal interpretations of Error Rates around here, 84.198.28.133 (not, I suspect, your real name). For example, I am 105.3% certain that you are in favor of banning the use of the largely defensive weapon of gun during classroom prayer.

But yes, you are right. Bondurant (talk) 10:52, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Creative misreading - '...the greatest number of lawyers...' Makes more sense than some of the creationist suggestions (and funnier, so more probably true). 171.33.222.26 (talk) 17:51, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

An error rate of 1000% could mean getting everything wrong 10 times, but I suspect it means off by a factor of 10. Whyhow (talk) 00:08, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Tidal locking?

I'm not sure exactly how long, but as far as I can tell tidal locking takes an extremely long time. Does anyone who has a better understanding of the subject than I do want to add this? 128.54.38.144 (talk) 20:23, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I suppose we could plug some figures into that equation, but it's a decent enough suggestion to add. ^postate 22:23, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Image

Could some autoconfirmed user please upload this picture from Wikimedia Commons? Thanks, Fabio (talk) 21:25, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

cut for discussion

Ice layering

The reliability of ice layering is confirmed by the Milankovitch theory, which describes the overall effect of changes in the Earth's orbit upon its climate. The Earth's mean orbit radius varies in time due to the influence of the movement of Jupiter and Saturn. The Earth's axis completes one full cycle of precession approximately every 26,000 years. At the same time the elliptical orbit rotates more slowly. The combined effect of the two precessions leads to a 21,000-year period between the seasons and the orbit. In addition, the angle between Earth's rotational axis and the normal to the plane of its orbit, obliquity, moves from 22.1 degrees to 24.5 degrees and back again on a 41,000-year cycle; currently, this angle is 23.44 degrees and is decreasing.

The evolution of Earth's climate predicted by Milankovitch theory fits the observed periodicity of climate recorded on ice core's. This agreement has been observed over a period of at least 400,000 years.

---

I'm not sure this really adds to what is there, and it seems a bit "theory reliant". Discuss? ħuman 22:25, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, it's a nice description of precession but misses out a few steps explaining how it relates to actual ice-layering. Definitely could be included, but shortened (it doesn't need that much details) and with added relevance to ice-layering. ^postate 22:39, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Seems like it's more a use of ice layering to reinforce Milankovitch theory than an earth-dating method to me. There's also some very unclear writing in there - what does "a 21,000-year period between the seasons and the orbit" mean? ħuman 22:45, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Maybe the information about Milankovitch theory should be placed on a separated article, but I thought it was important to cite Milankovitch cycle to justify that ice layering dating is not such a theory reliant method (layers may be identified with naked eye). I mean, a creationist could say that lots of snow have sedimented on the poles during the imaginary universal flood. The coupling between ice layering and the periodic movement of the earth disallow this argument, because you would have to argue that the solar system rotated much faster in the past. Fabio (talk) 13:14, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'm pretty sure it could be its own article on RW. Linking to it from the ice-layering sub-section that briefly describes how the two sync up would be good. But for the more in depth discussion of how precession relates to dating methods would be best done in that separate article. ^postate 13:24, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I added a section on Milankovitch cycles, because evidence of the cycles is continuous enough to permit dating of the Oligocene-Miocene boundary at 23.03 million years ago. It is more patchy before that, and I could not find any good comprehensive recent review. --Lpetrich (talk) 11:18, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Oklo natural nuclear fission reactor

The abundance of the uranium-235 in natural uranium ore is 0.720%. This concentration is not enough to to produce a self-sustaining critical chain reaction in light water react. ors. Nevertheless, the half-life of uranium-235 is about 700 million years, which means uranium ore had higher concentrations of uranium-235 in earlier geologic eras, allowing the existence of natural nuclear fission reactors. The conditions under which such natural nuclear reactors could exist has been first predicted in 1956 by Paul Kuroda. In 1972 Fracis Perrin, a french physicist, investigated at Oklo in Gabon, Africa, UF₆ samples containing only 0,717% of uranium-235. This discrepancy required explanation, as all uranium handling facilities must meticulously account for all fissionable isotopes to assure that none are diverted for weapons purposes. Thus the French Commissariat à l'énergie atomique (CEA) began an investigation. A series of measurements of the relative abundances of the two most significant isotopes of the uranium mined at Oklo showed anomalous results compared to those obtained for uranium from other mines. Further investigations into this uranium deposit discovered uranium ore with a ²³⁵U to ²³⁸U ratio as low as 0.440%. Subsequent examination of other isotopes showed similar anomalies, such as Neodymium and Ruthenium.

This loss in ²³⁵U is exactly what happens in a nuclear reactor. A possible explanation therefore was that the uranium ore had operated as a natural fission reactor. Other observations led to the same conclusion, and on September 25, 1972, the CEA announced their finding that self-sustaining nuclear chain reactions had occurred on Earth about 2 billion years ago. Later, other natural nuclear fission reactors were discovered in the region.

---

This might belong in the article, with some cleanup. Also, this article requires manual editing of the TOC template, due to the topics being alphabetical and the TOC sorted by age. Please keep in mind that this is a cover story article, which is why I am being so picky about sudden massive additions. Discussion? ħuman 22:25, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Table of contents?

Is it hiding, where is it? Rationalize (talk) 12:26, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Nevermind, i see it's on the right. Confused me because it's not the standard wiki TOC! Rationalize (talk) 12:28, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

(EC)The NOTOC command is hiding it. The contents are arranged chronologically in the right hand template. With many of the navbars now on the right side, this could be confusing. Perhaps a change to something more prominent going across the top rather than to the side? ADK^{...I'll coax your lockpick!} 12:29, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Neolithic Revolution

Also known as the agricultural revolution, it started around 13,000 BC. This is a human event, where humans swapped from hunter/gatherer techniques to agricultural techniques. Can this be added? If not, why? Thanks in advance.^{— Unsigned, by: Devex3 / talk / contribs}

Actually, it started around 8,000-5,000 BC. I don't see why it would be any more important than other points in human history prior to 6,000 BP, like say the Upper Paleolithic Revolution/behavioral modernity. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 19:43, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Could somebody please add...

...a section on Mitochondrial Eve here? We already have one for Y-chromosomal Adam. I would do it myself, but I only have 10 minutes available to me right now, i.e. not enough time to research mtEve with anything besides what's in my head right now (i.e., no citations). It would go under the >100 000 section in the contents, as mtEve has been dated to 100 000 to 200 000 years BP. The Heidelberg Kid (talk) 17:37, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Why not just do it when you have time?--il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 17:38, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

DNA

Hello, this is my first edit anywhere on here. I'm a Zoroastrian but am more inclined to rationalism (i.e. no God of the gaps). My Christian grandmother tells me that DNA is "absolute proof" of intelligent design. Can any evolutionary biologist help me refute this claim? EddieMonah (talk) 23:37, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Refute it to whose satisfaction? Yours, your grandmother's, or the evolutionary biolgist's? This kind of claim is not falsifiable, because it is highly subjective. The argument, though, would be that DNA is impossibly complex, which is not based on any scientific analysis, but only on an assumption that an evolutionary origin couldn't possibly come up with something so complex and so well-designed. Which is assuming the conclusion. Simple processes can create complex and powerful structures, in an environment that repeatedly modifies and tests structures, then discards ones that don't survive, over very long periods of time with many, many "experiments." Is that enough? How about we run an experiment? Create a "dead" universe, and see if life arises. Oh! It's already been done? Maybe we need some more repetitions. And we could ask God, please, keep your hands off of this one, it's messing up our experiment. --Abd (talk) 21:17, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

If someone has called it "absolute proof", it's unlikely that any evidence can persuade them otherwise. Usually the idea that DNA implies design is due to a simplification and misconception that DNA is some kind of computer code. ^gnostic 21:49, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, let me be more clear: she thinks it's a kind of "receptor cell". Receptors have to respond to an outside source. Therefore, they respond to God. EddieMonah (talk) 23:39, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

That doesn't even make sense. ^pathetic 23:44, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

DNA and its "information" physically exist and work by causing physical reactions. I'm not aware of any reason to believe something is remotely transmitted to it. (Like Armondikov said, though, there's no real way to tell what sort of explanation will suffice, if any.) 99.50.98.145 (talk) 00:02, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Evidence for a recent creation

Just thought I'd point out some of the evidence that I do believe exists to see what you guys think about it. I always like seeing why the other side believes what they do, and how they respond to my own views. Unlike many Creationists, I don't re-hash tired arguments; mine are original ones you likely haven't heard before. I guess to some degree I'm just curious what answers you might concoct in response. :)

• Microevolutionary rates are far faster than they should be if radiometric dating is correct.[2] Australian Cane Toads and Italian Wall Lizards are just a few of the examples showing microevolution occurs over decades rather than thousands or millions of years, indicative of a much younger earth.

• Transitional forms falling apart.[3] The human evolutionary tree now looks like a messy bush, with offshoots everywhere. Many once claimed essential parts of the human evolutionary tree are now recognized to not be direct descendants of the human lineage, like Homo Erectus. Others have been discovered too complex too early or even to walk upright, like Lucy, Ardi, and Sahelanthropus.

• Punctuated equilibrium was invented to try and explain why stasis appears in the fossil record, contrary to the gradualism and uniformitarianism predicted by Darwin and Lyell.[4] Rather than transitional forms and steady evolution, the fossil record shows species remained stable over long periods without transitions. Punk Eek had to be invented to deny this evidence away, evidence that suggests macroevolution is a fable and the same Uniformitarianism (constant, gradual processes like decay rates inferred by radiometric dating) is false.

• Catastrophism, once replaced by Uniformitarianism, is now recognized to be true.[5] The fossil record shows clear evidence mass catastrophes occurred, yet evolutionists deny these catastrophes could have affected the atmospheric isotope levels and thus decay rates. It seems they still want to stick to Uniformitarianism (which by the way Lyell invented because he disliked his mentor William Buckland using Catastrophism to support the Bible) even though we now know Catastrophism is true, and don't want to revise their thinking in light of the impact on evolutionary theory and radiometric dating.

• Sterility caused by interspeciary breeding was one of the four weaknesses to evolutionary theory acknowledged by Darwin in On the Origin of Species yet still remains largely unexamined by a supposedly objective scientific community.[6] We continue to see sterility in hybridism which makes no sense if all species had a common ancestor, and indicates boundaries between core parent species suggestive of created species rather than a common ancestor, a fact Darwin himself acknowledged.

-Jzyehoshua, CreationWiki --98.220.198.49 (talk) 10:41, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

None of those indicate anything about the age of the Earth or universe. Ŵêâŝêîôîď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 11:25, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

That's because I'm not trying to debate the age of the Earth or universe, since I'm not convinced there's need to. Genesis 1 says the earth was void at the beginning, and that the sun wasn't created until the 4th day, meaning the previous 3 weren't necessarily solar days and could have been much longer periods. By recent creation I'm referring to life on earth specifically, which I think is young, not age of the earth or universe. --98.220.198.49 (talk) 11:30, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

If your core argument on the age of the Earth is "Genesis says", & no further evidence or discussion is needed, why not just apply the same logic to the question of life on Earth rather than looking for evidence in the fossil record, evolutionary rates, etc.? Wëäŝëïöïď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 11:44, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

My core argument isn't "Genesis says", rather what Genesis says provides the theoretical framework for me to examine. If Genesis says it, that then is a theory for me to consider and see whether the evidence matches up compatibly, or whether there's decisive evidence that it's wrong (which I haven't seen yet). I look at the evidence expecting to see Genesis proved right, as affirmation of my beliefs, and that is indeed what I have found so far. I expect to see macroevolution shown wrong and that God created core species which microevolved within those core kinds to become the varieties we see today; without a common ancestor. I expect to see evidence microevolution occurs far faster than it should if life has an ancient origin and that too appears evidenced as well. I believe microevolution and natural selection to be solid fact, but a common ancestor, ancient dating methods, and a purely physiological origin to life on earth appear questionable and interpretive speculation increasingly contrary to the hard evidence. --98.220.198.49 (talk) 11:49, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

If you believe that the Earth was created before the Sun then there is nothing that we can say which will change your perception. And the term Catastrophism as used by Lyell which in reality only refers to a supernatural flood, is in no way related to the acceptance of modern naturalistic Catastrophism for which mechanisms are well understood. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 11:52, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, I never said I thought the Earth was created before the Sun. For all I know the Sun was also void as well in the beginning, and was declared created on the 4th day in being given energy. I just go by the theoretical framework of Genesis and leave open the other possibilities in my mind without jumping to conclusions if possible on such issues. Catastrophism has come a long way from the days of Lyell, but the bottom line is that Uniformitarianism is the basis for assuming radiometric decay rates remained constant and that long ages are at work here, and that Uniformitarianism replaced Catastrophism - and we now know Catastrophism to have been correct. Without such an assumption of constant, gradual processes per Uniformitarianism, the dating methodologies suddenly become quite shaky. --98.220.198.49 (talk) 12:01, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘(ECs) At any rate, this article is focused on the age of Earth and/or the universe, not animals or the concept of evolution. From what I can tell at a glance, none of the evidence even requires the existence of "macroevolution". ~ Kupochama^[1][2] 11:53, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I suppose. Given the mention in the article of radiometric dating and dendrochronology, which apply to age of life on earth, and not age of the earth/universe specifically, I thought there was overlap and thought "recent creation" would encompass the subject matter I'd be addressing. As for the subject matter, I do think it shows growing evidence contrary to macroevolution. The weakening of transitional forms of course very much affects macroevolutionary theory and belief in a common ancestor, as do sterility in interspeciary breeding and punctuated equilibrium. Microevolutionary rates and Catastrophism deal more with the dating of life on earth than macroevolution, however. --98.220.198.49 (talk) 12:01, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

The point is that those put minimum ages on the Earth, that are an order of magnitude or two higher than the YEC (Ussher chronology) estimate of 6000 years. Ergo, those are evidence against the "recent" creation. ^{d hominem} 12:06, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm still deciding whether I agree with the Ussher Chronology, personally, given that the Bible sometimes calls people 'begat' who are grandchildren rather than children, and gives descendants that aren't always direct. Much of what we know of human civilization is consistent with a very young earth however, only if the isotope dating methodologies are correct (plus Dendrochronology which is pretty similar) can it really be determined life on earth is older. I'm reading Brent Dalrymple's "The Age of the Earth" and he seems to think the system was closed, that the amounts of initial daughter isotopes can be known, that the electron shield surrounding isotopes was always as strong as it now is, and that no catastrophes or natural effects would have thrown off isotope decay rates sufficiently to seriously affect the dating results. Myself I'm a bit skeptical I suppose, but then I do admittedly give credence to the Bible barring absolute evidence to the contrary. --98.220.198.49 (talk) 12:21, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Oh, wait, all the links above are to Creation.com. Sorry, my time treating this discussion section seriously has just come to an end. ^moral 12:14, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Well of course, you'd hate to listen to opposing views, wouldn't you? And it's CreationWiki.com, which I made pretty obvious to be where I was coming from in my original post. --98.220.198.49 (talk) 12:21, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but some of us have spent a lot of time listening to CMI (creation.com). As for CreationWiki, I'm not sure, though I recall that creationism was an official requirement for editing rights or some such. ~ Kupochama^[1][2] 13:03, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

CreationWiki bans non-creationists from editing articles or having any authorship, those wishing to contribute to the site need to prove themselves to not be evilutionists. So, please, look up the word "irony" in the dictionary when accusing me of not listening to others. I know more about creationism than most creationists do. ^gnostic 14:24, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Points 1, 2 and 3 seem to be quibbles about the mechanisms and details of evolution. Point 4 really isn't explained; when there have been differences in decay rates they are miniscule, and it's not clear why decays rates should change all that dramatically unless you think probability is problematic. For point 5: If something is unexplored, that doesn't mean it's incorrect. None of your points are well explained or documented, which makes them hard to evaluate. Most are quibbles about the mechanisms of evolution, and do not falsify it in anyway. And per usual, you give no real evidence for kinds, a global flood, or a week-long creation. You may wish to go here although it's a dying wiki. sterile^{evolutionist story telling} 15:08, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Don't forget that CreationWiki is Terry Launchbooty's home-from-home. Which means you can pretty discount it. --PsyGremlin말하십시오 15:19, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

And I'm back.

To Kupochoma and Armondikov

To Kupochoma and Armondikov: Much of the Creation-Evolution debates do get rehashed without original points, although that tends to happen on any political subject. And you're right, CreationWiki does have those editing requirements. Personally I wish it was more similar to Wikipedia without such requirements, or if it had them, to only have them on Creation-similar articles.

However, let me point out that if Wikipedia didn't have liberal bias forcing many of us to edit on CreationWiki, the necessity for CreationWiki and that silly edit requirement probably would've never occurred. Wikipedia doesn't even allow an article on CreationWiki[7] and doesn't want it listed in the wikilists even though it does allow wikis with 1/10th the articles CreationWiki has (491 to 5,288) to be listed, like 'A Million Penguins'.[8]

One has only to look at the Obama article on Wikipedia[9] to see how long and how blatantly they have been suppressing any mention of material contrary to liberal views. No mention of his voting against medical care for newborn children (Born Alive Infant Protection Act bills) which was a major issue in the 2004 and 2008 elections, and brought up by 3 different opponents, Alan Keyes, Hillary Clinton, and John McCain/Sarah Palin.[10] No mention of his political corruption, running unopposed in his first election by disqualifying all four opponents via petition signature technicalities with a team of lawyers. No mention of how he struck a deal with the Illinois Senate leader Emil Jones in 2003 to make him a U.S. Senator, getting all the major legislation in the Illinois Senate directed to him so he got credit for other senator's bills; with his entire legislative record built in one year.[11] No mention of how the press then forced the unsealing of the two 2004 frontrunners opposing him in the 2004 election, Blair Hull and Jack Ryan, so that both their campaigns imploded - the Chicago Tribune even sued to uncover the files in Ryan's case. If Wikipedia did not lock out conservatives from editing and providing balance to the skewed reporting there, there would be no need for CreationWiki.

To Sterile

To Sterile: Point 1 to me seems pretty major an issue surrounding radiometric dating. For microevolution to be occurring within decades rather than thousands or millions of years suggests the long dates being reached via radiometric dating are nowhere near accurate, and that species are not evolving consistent with a long, drawn-out age to life on earth. That's consistent with life on earth being thousands rather than hundreds of millions or billions of years old.

I have no idea what you are trying to say here; what is the "acceptable" rate of microevolution and how are you measuring it? If anyting "too fast" microevolution would support facile macroevolution. It's also contradictory with your statements about punctuated equilibrium: "Punctuated equilibrium was invented to try and explain why stasis appears in the fossil record." Are you saying that evolution is going "too slow" and "too fast" at the same time? sterile^{evolutionist story telling} 21:25, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, I quoted from some articles in my 1st point source that showed microevolution today is going far faster than conventional evolutionary theory says it should. E.g., "The evolutionary processes spawned by the cane toad invasion have occurred in a span of just 70 years. This adds to evidence from the past two decades that populations can adapt quickly when selection pressure is strong. 'We're taught evolution occurs over these very, very long time frames. But in systems like these, it's incredibly fast,' Shine, the study co-author, said."[12] "Ecology is being transformed by the recognition that ecological and evolutionary timescales are not easily differentiated. A 1999 review of evolutionary rates by Andrew Hendry and Mike Kinnison (The pace of modern life: measuring rates of contemporary microevolution. Evolution 53:1637-1653) provided the striking conclusion that rates of contemporary evolution are much faster than generally appreciated... Our work reveals that a number of traits including critical thermal maximum, embryonic development rate, and thermal preference behavior all show variation consistent with local adaptation that occurs on the scale of decades and tens of meters. These findings offer a startlingly different picture of interactions between organisms and their environment prompting us to rethink, in larger sense, how we should conceive of ecological assemblages."[13] "Contrary to theoretical predictions, these genomes have experienced a massive proliferation of noncoding content... The evolution of mutation rate, genome size, and chromosome structure can therefore be extremely rapid and interrelated in ways not predicted by current evolutionary theories."[14]

As for contrast with my points on Punctuated Equilibrium, that deals more with Macroevolution than Micro. Whereas microevolutionary rates show microevolution, adaptation within core species is occurring very rapid, the evidence in the fossil record shows sudden appearance of complexity and generally stable species for long periods of time without transitions between core species. That to me suggests that (a) the dating methodologies are wrong and the fossil record records a shorter time span than is generally appreciated given today's rapid rates, and (b) there is no common ancestor - species were created and do not evolve beyond set boundaries within core kinds, as also indicated by sterility in attempted hybridism.--98.220.198.49 (talk) 22:25, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

It's obvious that you are cherry picking/stroking your confirmation bias. You are taking a small set of examples and declaring that they are relevant beyond that. The cane toads have an explanation: Without fitness disadvantages, the toads can grow legs at a rapid rate. The flowering plants article makes a contrast to other, slower evolving plants in the same genus. There are perfectly good explanations for the rapid rates of evolution that are consistent with the current model. None disprove macroevolution or common descent, which is what you likely this is evolution. So this is pointless. sterile^{evolutionist story telling} 23:36, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

My original source[15] provided half a dozen different examples, including one on general ecologic rates.[16] That's not a small sample size, that's comprehensive, in my mind. The 3 of the 6 I specifically quoted show that these rates were unexpected given conventional predictions under evolutionary theory, and that the repeated finding in all 6 cases that microevolution today occurs within decades is a surprise to the scientific community. --98.220.198.49 (talk) 00:06, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Point 2 affects what's long been considered pivotal to evolutionary theory, the history of transitional forms, specifically for apes to humans. The discovery of Ardi, Ardipithecus ramidus, for example, showed in 2009 that we never looked anything like modern apes and ancient humans didn't look like a chimp some funny thing in between. The discoveries of Ardi and Sahelanthropus showed early humans walked upright too, and resulted in the acknowledgement that so too did Lucy. Also, you have a lot of hominims once labeled human descendants that are now being labeled offshoots separate from the direct human lineage, and they don't have any explanation for how a number of these could fit in or how they could have evolved.

If anything, numerous offshoots separate from direct human lineage is entirely consistent than evolution; that is, you are more likely to find braches than the actual trunk. It isn'e necssary for us to look like modern apes if both branches continue to evolve. I'm not sure why Lucy and Adi walking is a problem for evolution. sterile^{evolutionist story telling} 21:28, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, reaction from the media and scientific community to me suggested otherwise. There appeared widespread surprise by the numerous discoveries showing that these finds were not at all expected under conventional evolutionary theory. E.g., "Another discovery by Dr. Leakey challenged the prevailing view that the family tree had a more or less single trunk rising from ape roots to a pinnacle occupied by Homo sapiens. Yet here was evidence that the new species Kenyanthropus platyops co-existed with Lucy’s afarensis kin. The family tree now looks more like a bush with many branches... Other challenges arise from human evolution in more recent epochs. Just who were the 'little people' found a few years ago in a cave on the island of Flores in Indonesia? The Australian and Indonesian discoverers concluded that one partial skeleton and other bones belonged to a now-extinct separate human species, Homo floresiensis, which lived as recently as 18,000 years ago."[17] "The new research by famed paleontologist Meave Leakey in Kenya shows our family tree is more like a wayward bush with stubby branches, calling into question the evolution of our ancestors. The old theory was that the first and oldest species in our family tree, Homo habilis, evolved into Homo erectus, which then became us, Homo sapiens. But those two earlier species lived side-by-side about 1.5 million years ago in parts of Kenya for at least half a million years, Leakey and colleagues report in a paper published in Thursday’s issue of the journal Nature... Overall what it paints for human evolution is a 'chaotic kind of looking evolutionary tree rather than this heroic march that you see with the cartoons of an early ancestor evolving into some intermediate and eventually unto us,' Spoor said in a phone interview from a field office of the Koobi Fora Research Project in northern Kenya."[18] "The phrase 'family bush' doesn't trip off the tongue the way 'family tree' does, but anyone talking about human evolution had better get used to it. For years, scientists who study human origins have known that the simple model in which one human ancestor evolved into another in a nice, linear fashion is a myth. Instead, starting 4 million years ago, half a dozen species in the genus Australopithecus lived in Africa at the same time. Only one is our direct ancestor; the others were evolutionary dead ends, failed experiments. But experts thought that once the Homo lineage debuted about 2.5 million years ago in East Africa with Homo habilis, things settled down, with habilis evolving into Homo erectus who evolved into Homo sapiens—us—like biblical begats. Two fossils discovered in Kenya suggest that evolution was a lot messier than that."[19] "An unprecedented fossil foot bone appears to confirm that Australopithecus afarensis—the early human ancestors made famous by the "Lucy" skeleton—walked like modern humans, a new study says... Revealed in 2009, Ardi helped dispel the notion that a chimplike missing link occupied the base of the human family tree. Ardi's 'foot was already a pretty good bipedal foot, although that species retained an opposable great toe.' A. afarensis's foot now appears far more advanced than previously thought, Lovejoy said."[20] "Move over Lucy. And kiss the missing link goodbye... The fossil puts to rest the notion, popular since Darwin's time, that a chimpanzee-like missing link—resembling something between humans and today's apes—would eventually be found at the root of the human family tree. Indeed, the new evidence suggests that the study of chimpanzee anatomy and behavior—long used to infer the nature of the earliest human ancestors—is largely irrelevant to understanding our beginnings... 'This find is far more important than Lucy,' said Alan Walker, a paleontologist from Pennsylvania State University who was not part of the research. 'It shows that the last common ancestor with chimps didn't look like a chimp, or a human, or some funny thing in between."[21]

To my way of thinking, those aren't ho-hum statements, but show conventional theory did not at all predict the deluge of unexpected discoveries revealing complexity, early bipedality, and complete inconsistency with a chimp ancestor, that are being found. --98.220.198.49 (talk) 22:02, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Alan Wlaker is not sayign that there is a "complete inconsistency with a chimp ancestor"; he's saying that the common ansector of chimps and humans looks different than we might expect. Certainly none of the people who you quote don't think evolution−including that of humans–has been disproven, and in fact, what they have found is consistent with other species. And, yet again, macroevolution and common ancestory are not disproven. sterile^{evolutionist story telling} 23:44, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

The National Geographic article clearly states, "The fossil puts to rest the notion, popular since Darwin's time, that a chimpanzee-like missing link—resembling something between humans and today's apes—would eventually be found at the root of the human family tree. Indeed, the new evidence suggests that the study of chimpanzee anatomy and behavior—long used to infer the nature of the earliest human ancestors—is largely irrelevant to understanding our beginnings."[22] Alan Walker specifically stated, "This find is far more important than Lucy. It shows that the last common ancestor with chimps didn't look like a chimp, or a human, or some funny thing in between." To me, those are extreme statements and revelations, that the furthest human ancestors can no longer be said to resemble modern apes given the discoveries of Ardi, Sahelanthropus tchadensis[23][24][25], and Orrorin tugenensis[26][27], and that the study of chimpanzee anatomy and behavior are largely irrelevant to understanding our beginnings. To me that suggests the entire hypothesizing by the scientific community that we were ever similar to modern apes, or had a common lineage, has been entirely misguided. We now know the earliest hominims, Ardi, Sahelanthropus, and Orrorin, were unusually complex bipeds with little in common with modern apes. For me it appears more consistent with the Biblical transitioning from long-lived humans (900+ years) to the present-day lifespan average of 70 years (Psalms 90:10) and capped at 120 years set in Genesis 6:3. --98.220.198.49 (talk) 00:06, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Likewise with Point 3, the stasis and sudden appearance of complexity in the fossil record is not remotely compatible with conventional evolutionary thinking, and shows a fossil record consistent with core created species that were created instantaneously and then simply adapted to their environments with minor adaptations, not all-encompassing evolution stemming from a common ancestor. Punctuated Equilibrium hypothesized as a result that evolution goes along very slowly and then happens too quickly for us to see, all at once, and that's why we see a fossil record supportive of the Bible rather than evolution - essentially a way to discredit and avoid the evidence of the fossil record and make it say what they want it to say.

Evolution tends to occur rapidly when a niche is being filled, hence why there was a diversity of life when it moved on land. Again, this doesn't disprove evolution, and is a quibble about the mechanism or details. Creationism has no mechanism other than God breathing, which isn't all that fulfilling. sterile^{evolutionist story telling} 21:30, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Still, microevolution, speciary adaptation, is going far faster today than what's typically been proposed for life on earth to be millions and billions of years old. If this were an isolated instance it wouldn't be an issue, but this is for general ecology rates, amphibians, rodents, reptiles, and plants. And Punctuated Equilibrium ultimately comes off as a convenient way to write off all the evidence in the fossil record showing macroevolution does not occur, and to deny away the stasis and sudden complexity in said record that is increasingly showing a viewpoint Evolutionists dislike and Creationists applaud. --98.220.198.49 (talk) 22:02, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

No. You've overgeneralized your 12 cases out of 2-15 million species, which have another context for understanding them, filling a niche. No evolutionist is uncomfortable with this, a strange an awkward characterization. And again, macroevolution and common ancestory, your likely possible definition of evolution are not threatened in the slightest. sterile^{evolutionist story telling} 23:46, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

According to Encyclopaedia Britannica the following hominims, human transitional forms, exist[28]:

• Sahelanthropus tchadensis: 7-6 mya (million years ago)
• Orrorin Tugenensis: 6 mya
• Ardipithecus kaddaba: 5.8-4.4 mya
• Ardipithecus ramidus: 5.8-4.4 mya
• Australopithecus anamensis: 4.2-3.9 mya
• Australopithecus afarensis: 3.8-2.9 mya
• Kenyanthropus platyops: 3.5-3.2 mya
• Australopithecus bahrelghazali: 3.5-3.0 mya
• Australopithecus africanus: 3.3-2.4 mya
• Paranthropus aethiopicus: 2.7-2.3 mya
• Australopithecus garhi: 2.5 mya
• Homo habilis: 2.5-1.5 mya
• Homo rudolfensis: 2.5-1.5 mya
• Paranthropus boisei: 2.2-1.3 mya
• Australopithecus sediba: 2.0 mya
• Paranthropus robustus: 1.8-1.5 mya

However, many are now recognized to overlap in time and space rather than being descendants. Ar. kaddaba and Ar. ramidus coexisted. A. afarensis, K. playtops, A. bahrelgazali, and A. africanus all coexisted. P. aethiopicus, A. africanus, A. garhi, H. habilis, and H. rudolfensis all coexisted. A. sediba, P. boisei, H. rudolfensis, and H. habilis all coexisted as well. So it's getting a bit crowded. Rather than a nice orderly tree progression, they're living at the same times when they're supposed to be descended from one another, with scientists now having to throw the term offshoot at one after another of them, since as famous paleontologist Meave Leakey has noted, "Their co-existence makes it unlikely that Homo erectus evolved from Homo habilis."[29] Coexistence makes it unlikely the coexisting species are descended from each other. As Encyclopaedia Britannica concludes:

"Not only were there numerous species of human predecessors long ago, but many of these overlapped in time and space. Habitats favourable for hominin occupation undoubtedly appeared and disappeared throughout much of Africa over and over again with the drastic fluctuations in tropical climates that occurred during the Pliocene and Pleistocene epochs. More species presumably await discovery, because there were probably many evolutionary experiments in these varied and changing habitats. Although the current sample of fossil hominins leads some to the impression that there were only a few hominin lineages, it is far more likely that the human family tree will turn out to be quite 'bushy.' Species names may need to multiply to accommodate the diversity, although a balance needs to be maintained between excessive splitting groups apart and lumping them together."

I count only 16 australopithecines, and many were once considered part of the human lineage, only to be now considered offshoots that coexisted, with questions surrounding what lineages they could have had. A number of them were mention among the 15 cases. Therefore, the human evolutionary tree is indeed falling apart. --98.220.198.49 (talk) 00:14, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Point 4 is essential to radiometric dating. Uniformitarianism, the theory that constant, gradual processes are at work changing the world, supplanted Catastrophism and the theory that catastrophes resulted in rapid change. However, since we found out that major catastrophes did in fact occur, it should call into question whether processes really can be assumed to be slow, constant, and gradual, since said catastrophes would logically result in rapid processes like mountain-building or sediment deposition, and could affect radiometric decay rates or atmospheric isotope levels. We already know volcanism affects decay rates, as does Beryllium. So if Catastrophism is true (which we now know it is), then it should call into question the central assumptions of Uniformitarianism that constant, gradual processes are at work - assumptions pivotal to radiometric dating and Dendrochronology.

Literally thousands of isotopes have been observed to decay, and all occur proportional to the number of nuclei. That is the only "assumption." Do you have any evidence otherwise? It's somewhat irrelevant which is valid if you do not have evidence to suppor other. When was there rapid mountain building again? Rapid sediment deposition? What is the evidence than volcanism affects decay rates? This is also trying to supplant things you find unuseful all at once; why does everything uniformitarian have too be thrown out? Why must we accept all catastrophism? sterile^{evolutionist story telling} 21:34, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, just going by what Dalrymple says in "The Age of the Earth" (Radiometric Dating section), it seems clear to me that we still don't understand what causes radiometric dating or how the process works. He admits decay of a given isotope appears spontaneous and unpredictable. To me it seems concerning they are inferring that decay always happened at this rate because this is the rate it happens at now. Now, if they're simply assuming this on the assumption "the present is the key to the past", that of Uniformitarianism, they should at least be consistent with that, but when microevolutionary rates show microevolution within decades, rather than revise their dates consistent with today's, they assume today's rates have sped up for some reason. Volcanism throwing off decay rates is a point that's long been made by Creationists, in pointing out that lava-affected material gives considerably different radiometric dates.[30][31] Beryllium also affects radiometric dates, although admittedly, not very substantially.[32] Dalrymple also acknowledges radiometric decay can be affected, but argues such alterations are typically minimal and rare because the shield of orbiting electrons prevents all but powerful nuclear forces from affecting the nuclei. Nevertheless, even then we are assuming the shield of electrons did not itself evolve to its presently powerful state, or that past catastrophes (which we now acknowledge occurred) had the nuclear effects necessary to decay isotopic nuclei more quickly. We don't have to accept all Catastrophism, but the presence of Catastrophism calls into question the central assumptions necessary to radiometric dating, that major catastrophes were not rapidly altering geological processes, including radiometric decay rates.--98.220.198.49 (talk) 22:02, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Snelling and Swetson's work has been shown to be filled with invalid methodological errors and distortions. The beryllium effect is tiny. Even if there are catastrophes there is no compelling reason to throw out all radiometric dating. Labelling something as "catastrophism" or "uniformitarianism" does not change the validity of the evidence. By your logic, the rapid microevolution tells you nothing. And again, nothing to disprove macroevolution or common ancestory. sterile^{evolutionist story telling} 23:58, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

True, there is no compelling reason to throw out all radiometric dating. But the facts that (a) we still don't truly understand how radiometric dating works or what the mechanism is, (b) radiometric decay can be altered by external forces, even if minutely, (c) catastrophes occurred in earth's past that very well could have altered decay rates and other factors necessary for reaching radiometric dating conclusions, and (d) microevolutionary rates today are consistent with a young age to life on earth rather than the ancient dates derived from radiometric dating, all suggest that there is now reasonable basis for considering radiometric dating to be wrong, and assuming a young age to life on earth. In other words, radiometric dating cannot be thrown out, but there is reasonable basis for alternative theories to be given consideration, and for people to rationally consider radiometric dating could be false; rather than to be unquestionable fact like adherents of evolutionary theory often portray it to be. --98.220.198.49 (talk) 00:22, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

(a) When the smoking-lung cancer link was discovered, the mechanism wasn't known at first, but the link was. Should people have still smoked when the mechanism wasn't known? There is also a tremendous amount of content known about nuclear decay: it's entirely predictable what nuclei will decay, to what they will decay, and the rates and ratios for each isotope. (b) The lung cancer rate could be changed by small environmental conditions. Should we then discount the link? (c) You haven't established the catastrophes would change the rates. Nor is there a compelling case that there was a catastrophe. You're asserting over and over again. (d) The microevolutionary rates are perfectly consistent with microevolution, and ergo are consistent with evolution. Your 6/2-15 million (nominally 0.0003% at best) examples are tenuous, especially when the authors have perfectly fine explanations based on evolution: filling niches and lack of adverse pressure. Furthermore, you have not given "alternative theories" for consideration; you've merely tried to sow doubt in evolution. What is your hypothesis? sterile^{evolutionist story telling} 00:53, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Concerning Point 5, true, a lack of exploration doesn't make something correct. But the more we see of interspeciary breeding, the more we can appreciate that breeding between clearly different parent species results in sterility. Even species as similar as lions and tigers, when interbred (Liger), result in sterile offspring. One is then challenged to explain why sterility exists in interbreeding if not for the reason that Darwin acknowledged a prevailing view of his time, that a Creator is using it to keep the species separate with clear boundaries per core created species.

An omnipotent creator can do whatever he wants; there is not requirement for him to keep breeding within a kind, and hence it isn't evidence for or against a creator. It's also not clear to me how this argues against mutation and variation, natural selection, and speciation. Evolution doesn't require that similar species produce fertile offspring, just that there is variation and selection within as species. Again, it's just empty as an argument. sterile^{evolutionist story telling} 21:38, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

But if said omnipotent Creator created core species per the book of Genesis, rather than evolving everything from a common ancestor, then we would expect to see microevolution but not macro, and evolution within core species but not between them. The existence of sterility in interspeciary breeding to me at least strongly suggests that core species were created, rather than macroevolution from a common ancestor. Darwin considered such sterility in interspeciary breeding to be one four weaknesses, and tests for falsifiability, in his theory.[33] And technically, we can't consider his theory 'science' if it's not falsifiable, correct? Therefore, we ought to pay more attention to those 4 weaknesses he acknowledged, the lack of transitional forms, sterility in interspeciary breeding, the level of instinct in nature, and unexplainable complexity. --98.220.198.49 (talk) 22:14, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Citing the entirety of On the Origins of species doesn't really help, and it's been quite some time since I read it. If it's Chapter VIII/Hybridism, he ends with, "Finally, then, the facts briefly given in this chapter do not seem to me opposed to, but even rather to support the view, that there is no fundamental distinction between species and varieties," in which case you are merely quote mining.) I have no idea what the relationship between macroevolution and sterility in interspecies breeding is, and why Darwin said it was a problem. If you explain it, we can talk; otherwise this is fruitless. sterile^{evolutionist story telling} 00:14, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Ah, that's my mistake, I used the wrong page link, it was intended to go to page 171.[34] Obviously Darwin did try to explain why sterility in interspeciary breeding isn't problematic for his theory, but I personally wasn't convinced, because he focused primarily on horticulture rather than animal evolution. Genesis 1:12 shows there were 3 main kinds of plant parent species, grass, herbs with seed, and fruit trees whose seed is in itself, thus there are fewer parent species and interbreeding should be easier to perform than in animals. Darwin dwells only briefly on the sterility in interspeciary breeding for animals because in his words, "In regard to animals, much fewer experiments have been carefully tried than with plants."[35] However, this has become for me the major issue, as we are now repeatedly seeing this sterility occur in animal hybridism attempts. Darwin also tried to deny the universality of this sterility by focusing on cases like finches adapting, which I would argue is within a parent species and microevolution rather than macro, thus not addressing the real issue. He said, e.g., "Finally, looking to all the ascertained facts on the intercrossing of plants and animals, it may be concluded that some degree of sterility, both in first crosses and in hybrids, is an extremely general result; but that it cannot, under our present state of knowledge, be considered as absolutely universal."[36] However, as we've discovered more about interspeciary breeding, I would argue that we see microevolution per interspeciary breeding (e.g. polar bears and grizzly bears interbreeding) and minor adaptations (e.g. moths changing color on trees or finches changing slightly given their environments) but continue to see barriers in nature itself preventing interspeciary breeding and macroevolution. --98.220.198.49 (talk) 00:36, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

You still are not saying why this is a problem for evolution. (It's also clear that 2-15 million species didn't come from the kinds on the ark.) Until you address this point, there is no point continuing the discussion. sterile^{evolutionist story telling} 01:02, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

As for what the points involved, the first two were extremely well-documented. For the Transitional forms point in particular, I had exceptional research backing up the points, with over 30 different sources, the majority of them from peer-reviewed scientific journals like Nature, and most others from major publications like the New York Times or National Geographic.

You have a couple of examples for your first example. How do you know they are representative of all of evoution? Most of them are examples of rapid evolution when species entire a new niche, which is already well known. And are you serious that National Geographic and Nature think that transitional forms are going down the drain? The macroevolution of aquatic life going to land, and of land animals going back to sea (as whales) has been meticulously documented in the last 30 years. (Not to mention other transitions, such as the evolution of plants and dinosaur-bird evolution.) sterile^{evolutionist story telling} 21:44, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

My first point's source gives half a dozen examples, general ecology rates, the Australian Cane Toad, human evolutionary rates, the Italian Wall Lizard, plant evolution, and rodent evolution.[37] All of them taken together show microevolution today is occurring far more rapidly than expected under conventional evolutionary theory. As for what National Geographic and Nature think, I'm not trying to say they think this or that, but to show the information they are reporting itself is difficult for evolution to explain. My 2nd point provides 15 different cases, all recent (2000-2012), showing that conventional evolutionary theory is being seriously challenged by recent archaeological discoveries.[38] --98.220.198.49 (talk) 22:14, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Same overgeneralization, and you ignore that the scientists have evolutionary reasons for the changes.

What's your evidence for kinds? sterile^{evolutionist story telling} 00:00, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Sterility in interspeciary breeding is a strong evidence that kinds exist so far as I am concerned, and the weakening of transitional forms and stasis in the fossil record (as addressed by Punctuated Equilibrium) are both indicators for me as well that core species, kinds, exist, rather than all species coming from a common ancestor. --98.220.198.49 (talk) 00:38, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, this was amusing for a couple of hours. It's apparent that you are not going to address any of my points in any satisfactory way, so I guess I'll consider this done. sterile^{evolutionist story telling} 01:04, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

To Psy (and others...)

To Psygremlin: Who is Terry? As I understand it, Chris Ashcraft is the major admin for CreationWiki. I notice this Temlakos person has made exactly 3 edits since January 16, 2012, and as a newer editor at CreationWiki, I suppose I haven't encountered them as a result. Regardless, (a) why do you dislike them so much, and (b) why do you think the presence of a single editor, even one who is an admin as I notice this Temlakos appears to be, ultimately invalidates an entire wiki and its community? ---98.220.198.49 (talk) 21:10, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Why should sterility indicate creation? If God didn't want species to breed (horse & donkey for example), why should he enable them to have viable offspring at all, sterile or otherwise? Wëäŝëïöïď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 22:29, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

In Genesis 1 it says God created core species and told them to bring forth after their kinds. Therefore, it would be logical microevolution is factual, and an original dog species branched out into the numerous dog species we see today. Perhaps Giraffes, Camels, and Llamas were once part of an original parent species as well. Thus we would expect to see viable offspring between those of the same parent species, but to see sterility or even no results when breeding is attempted between different parent species. Perhaps sterility would be the result between those of the same parent species (different types of bears interbreeding, or different types of horses/donkeys interbreeding, e.g.) whereas interbreeding would be entirely impossible between those of different parent species. Thus sterility would be God's way of trying to maintain the varieties created, and interbreeding between core created species would simply be impossible altogether - not something easily explained if all species come from a common ancestor. Yet today when we try breeding between clearly different parent species like lions and bears it doesn't work, and even when we try breeding between closely related animals seemingly within the same parent species, like horses and donkeys, the offspring (mules) is often infertile. --98.220.198.49 (talk) 22:43, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't see which part of your answer addressed my question. To reiterate, why should sterile offspring be better in God's plan than no offspring at all? If He wanted animals to diversify as much as possible, He would have let species interbreed freely. If He wanted to maintain species distinction, He wouldn't let them interbreed at all (or have any inclination to). Interbreeding with sterile offspring serves neither purpose. I don't understand why you think it justifies an intelligent design interpretation of evolution. Wẽãšẽĩõĩď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 23:05, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe God wanted animals to diversify apart from their core created species seen in Genesis 1, thus why He repeatedly told them to bring forth after their kinds rather than just in general, and that he created a core horse species, core dog species, core cat species, etc., and these were to branch out into the assorted species we see today. Breeding between these core species would be contrary to His general design, and thus boundaries between interbreeding would exist. Furthermore, as a core horse species branched out into subcategories like horses and donkeys, these subcategories might be desired varieties by God, and thus interbreeding between them would produce sterility to maintain the subvarieties, yet still be possible since they were part of the same original parent species.

I suppose there could be a number of reasons why God might allow breeding between those of the same parent species, but it logically would be allowed and permissible unlike breeding between different parent species, even if resulting in sterility. To me, the impossibility of breeding between parent species, and sterility in breeding even between those of the same parent species, evinces some form of design however, whatever the explanation for that design could prove to be. All I can do is hypothesize on why it might be there, but for my mind it appears more compatible with Creationism and core created species in the book of Genesis, and incompatible with a common ancestor and interchangeable species that should interbreed freely.

To go off what Darwin said in On the Origin of Species, "The view generally entertained by naturalists is that species, when intercrossed, have been specially endowed with the quality of sterility, in order to prevent the confusion of all organic forms."[39] Darwin devoted all Chapter 8, Hybridism, to combating the popular view of his time that sterility in hybridism evidenced Creator-initiated boundaries between species. --98.220.198.49 (talk) 23:15, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

There's no reason why a common ancestor should mean all species interbreeding interchangeably. You might understand evolution better if you read more widely than Creationwiki. ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 23:35, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

There's a reason I quoted Darwin so much in relation to sterility. It's because he's the one who acknowledged in "On the Origin of Species" that said sterility in hybridism was one of the four main weaknesses opposing evolutionary theory. I like to evaluate a theory by what the original source declares it to be, going to the source, and thus try to determine what Christianity is by what the Bible says apart from religious interpretations - likewise I tried to determine what the framework of evolution is by what Darwin said. That Darwin acknowledged it so difficult a problem for evolutionary theory, and devoted an entire chapter of his most prominent work to addressing it, instantly promoted its relevance in my mind while reading On the Origin of Species.

As for my reading habits, I've only begun editing (and reading) CreationWiki the past month. The articles on CreationWiki I sourced had material I myself wrote for CreationWiki, based on my own research and reading of science articles, news articles, and historical literature like On the Origin of Species. That's why if you check the page history for those CreationWiki articles, you'll see I was the editor for the material. I expect as others learn about the relevance of these points they will play a major role in the growing Creationism/Evolution debate. --98.220.198.49 (talk) 23:44, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

But why should it even be a debate? If the evidence favouring microevolution over macroevolution, a lack of common ancestry, and an origin of life a few thousand years ago rather than a few billion, is as compelling as you're suggesting that it is, then we should see huge numbers of biologists, theists & atheists alike, coming to these conclusions (none of which inherently suggest a creator). Yet instead we only hear these views from biblical creationists, most of whom work outside of the recognised scientific community, while mainstream biology supports a much older origin of life with gradual diversification of species. Doesn't that make you wonder if you're really coming to these conclusions for the right reasons & with an open mind? ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 00:00, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Once they learn about it, yes we should. Many of the points I'm making however, are not made by the Creationist community - I have personally been introducing these points to the Creationist community via CreationWiki over the past month. The numerous articles on transitional forms and rapid microevolutionary rates I'm quoting are all relatively recent, dating from 2000 and later, and the public is just beginning to become aware of them. While a given person may be aware of one or two of these discoveries, nobody but myself has yet collected all these discoveries into one place like this for easy viewing. Therefore, once this evidence starts becoming more widely dispersed, I expect more people will begin coming to the same conclusions I have. As I said at the beginning, these are new points I'm making, original points, that are just now being brought to the attention of the broader public and even the Creationist community, via myself. --98.220.198.49 (talk) 00:44, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

If you want to bring them to the attention of the broader public, CreationWiki ain't how to do it. Nobody outside the creationist community will ever take any theories promoted by that site very seriously. & I predict that you're wrong & that in five or ten or twenty years time these theories will still only hold any appeal within the creationist community, & not within the peer-reviewed & evidence-based scientific community. Wěǎšěǐǒǐď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 01:05, 14 May 2012 (UTC)