The Official Perfection KOs Creationism Thread Part Four: The Genesis of Ire!

[bgast1]

I am interested in knowing from you guys how fossils are formed. I am not interested in fossil placement yet. Although that could be my next question, I don't know yet. Right now I want to know how they are formed. Again, please do not point me to some link. Explain it to me in your own words.

 

[Perfection]

Well, I'll be honest and say that I don't know the exact mechanism behind fossilization (I'd assume there are several). I would like to know the importance of this bit of knowledge as it has already bean demonstrated that a global flood couldn't create all the fossils seen in the world.

Perhaps Carlos will be of greater assistance when he comes around.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Here are two quick links to fossil formation.

http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/dinosaurs/dinofossils/Fossilhow.html

http://www.scsc.k12.ar.us/TuttS/fossil_formation.htm

There are six ways that organisms can turn into fossils, including:
unaltered preservation (like insects or plant parts trapped in amber, a hardened form of tree sap)
permineralization=petrification (in which rock-like minerals seep in slowly and replace the original organic tissues with silica, calcite or pyrite, forming a rock-like fossil - can preserve hard and soft parts - most bone and wood fossils are permineralized)
replacement (An organism's hard parts dissolve and are replaced by other minerals, like calcite, silica, pyrite, or iron)
carbonization=coalification (in which only the carbon remains in the specimen - other elements, like hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen are removed)
recrystalization (hard parts either revert to more stable minerals or small crystals turn into larger crystals)
authigenic preservation (molds and casts of organisms that have been destroyed or dissolved).
Most animals did not fossilize; they simply decayed and were lost from the fossil record. Paleontologists estimate that only a small percentage of the dinosaur genera that ever lived have been or will be found as fossils.

Why are Fossils Rock-Colored?
Because they ARE rocks! A fossilized object is just a rocky model of an ancient object. A fossil is composed of different materials than the original object was. During the fossilization process, the original atoms are replaced by new minerals, so a fossils doesn't have the same color (or chemical composition) as the original object. Fossils come in many colors and are made of many different types of minerals, depending on what the surrounding rock matrix was composed of; one dinosaur bone (Minmi) is an opal.

Also, some fossils of skin (and other soft body parts) have been found. Again, the color of the skin is not retained during the fossilization process, all that remains today is a rocky model of the original.

 

[The Last Conformist]

At this point, I was attempting to address only whether it was possible for the fossils to have formed quickly, if such a global flood could have taken place. Not whether it did or not.

No, the fossils could not have formed quickly (on a human timescale), because there are way to many of them for all to be alive at even approximately the same time. Happy?

Again I am not a scientist, don't point me to some link, or read some book. Exactly how are fossils formed, to the best of our knowledge

Exactly? Depends on the kinds of fossils we're speaking of - diatoms, frex, just drop to the bottom when they die, where their shells pile up in mighty layers till the pressure crushes them together to solid rock.

 

[BasketCase]

I give you the human eye. http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4342/
There is no other creature that has an eye just like ours. We have a wide range of scope of light.

Actually, there are a number of critters on the planet--such as birds--who can see a lot better than humans can.

That minor detail aside, here's what we've got: birds who can spot a dime on the city street from the top of the Empire State Building. Then humans, with color vision which is great for watching "The Return of the King" but with lower acuity. Then you've got dogs, who can't see all that well (they "see" mostly with the nose instead). Dive into the ocean and you get eyes that aren't much more than simple photoreceptors, but which are still useful.

So there you have it: a clear continuum of development from the simple to the complex. The evidence is all right here in front of us, in critters that are alive today. No archaeological experience required. That the human eye doesn't work unless all the parts somehow developed all at once doesn't prove anything, because the parts did develop all at once! And, contrary to what Evolution's detractors will tell you, "half an eye" does in fact have survival value.

 

[ironduck]

because the parts did develop all at once!

No they didn't. Photoreceptors came before lenses.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

But of course photoreceptors are useful without lenses, and primitive lenses in turn are better than no lenses at all.

 

[Che Guava]

Actually, there are a number of critters on the planet--such as birds--who can see a lot better than humans can.

That minor detail aside, here's what we've got: birds who can spot a dime on the city street from the top of the Empire State Building. Then humans, with color vision which is great for watching "The Return of the King" but with lower acuity. Then you've got dogs, who can't see all that well (they "see" mostly with the nose instead). Dive into the ocean and you get eyes that aren't much more than simple photoreceptors, but which are still useful.
...

The study of the evolutionary development of the human eye is really fascinating! I was reading a while ago that the reason that we developed such a great sense of colour had to do with the fact that we were voracious fruit-eaters. Unlike sharp avian eyes, or other mammals that respond mostly to motion, we had to be able to pick out the poisonous berries from the good ones, and be able to tell when a mango is ripe before we rip it off the tree. It also was very useful for telling other people apart, given our developed social structure but lack of 'scent identifiers'.

 

[The Last Conformist]

While humans do have good colour vision by mammalian standards, there's plenty birds and reptiles that has as good or better as us. Many fish too - those bright colours on many tropical fish are for show, and would be pretty meaningless if other fish didn't see them.

 

[Che Guava]

While humans do have good colour vision by mammalian standards, there's plenty birds and reptiles that has as good or better as us. Many fish too - those bright colours on many tropical fish are for show, and would be pretty meaningless if other fish didn't see them.

Better colour vision? I always thought they had shapr eyes, but not necessarily good colour ones. As for fish, there are a lot out there with some pretty amazing eyes. The cuddlefish (i guess that's more of a squid than a fish) can do some amazing things with colour for communication...

 

[The Last Conformist]

Better colour vision? I always thought they had shapr eyes, but not necessarily good colour ones.

Unless Richard Dawkins and sundry other biologists have been telling me lies, yes, many reptiles and birds have better colour vision than us.

Some turtles, frex, are tetrachromatic, meaning they have four kinds of cones, allowing them an entire extra dimension of colour sensation over us trichromats.

 

[Che Guava]

I guess you can see why this stuff isn't my expertise

I wonder why turtles have such good vision...?

 

[Dr Tiny]

Hmm one (and there are plenty more) thing that gets to me about irreducible complexity (IC), essentially what we are discussing here, is that IC assumes that no parts of the complex have been lost in the past that can have helped maintain the function of the complex. For a non biological example of this simply look at a stone arch bridge. An arch needs all the component parts in order to remain standing, eg remove the keystone and it collapses. However in order to build a bridge it is supported with scaffolding until all the bricks are in place and it can support itself. The scaffolding is then removed.
NB bridge building assumes a final designed state, whereas evolution has no final end point. No analogy is ever perfect

I am sure similar events have occured during the course of evolutionary history, that is an enzyme (1) with the function of catalyzing A --> B can also work on catalyze X --> Y but much less efficiently (scaffold). The X --> Y could well be enough to keep the organism going but evolution sees the development of a second enzyme (2) (eg duplicate and mutant of the first) that is better at catalyzing X --> Y than enzyme (1). Thus the scaffold is removed and the bridge built.

Hope I did not confuse anyone with all that

 

[Ali Zaybak]

Thus the scaffold is removed and the bridge built.
Hope I did not confuse anyone with all that

Not in the least! The scaffold argument makes perfect sense, at least to me. I find it especially interesting in light of one of Kent "Dr. Dino" Hovind's favorite anti-evolution arguments, in which he exhorts his enraptured audience to believe that genetic mutations only cause "information loss." I'm not implying that the scaffold argument is a complete response to Hovind, but it would, I believe, give the good Reverend something to piously chew on for a while. Furthermore, Hovind's scant grasp of genetics sees to his argument's overthrow.
As an aside, let me suggest to everyone that you watch Hovind's free videos- I believe a link to them was posted in one of these forums a while back. The man is incrdeibly charismatic, using smooth rhetoric and appeals to home-grown common sense to make his invalid points. I feel that it helps to see what we're up against here, and it may be quite disheartening if you're inclined to melancholy. With Hovind, the presentation is everything: he repeats his slick sound bites of Creationist wisdom (which are really rather memorable), and through sheer rhetorical skill and good natured ridicule of the opposition, he no doubt converts many "good Christians" to his literalism. By positioning himself as "just a regular guy," he successfully propagates the damaging stereotype of ivory-tower science that is out of touch with reality (cf. Bush v. Gore 2000 and Bush v. Kerry 2004 for exmaples of the efficacy of this tactic). Appeals to reason and logic (and heaven forbid, science!) are unwelcome by the masses, who want to hear common sense, integrity, piety, gregariousness, and values. The great Mobility is won over by colloquialisms and charisma, and Kent "Tax-Evasion" Hovind offers these and more.
Are there any champions in Darwin's camp who can meet this challenger? Debates with him are pointless, as has been evinced nearly 100 times in the past. But is there not someone who can accept the mantle of communicator to the people? It has been said many times on this thread that most people would accept eovlution theory if only they understood it. So where is the one who will help them to understand?

 

[The Last Conformist]

Hovind may be charismatic (tho the reaction he elicits from me is homicidal hatred), but the real problem is that the people who listen to him want to believe his lies.

 

[Perfection]

It's amazing how charismatic many of these Creationists are. I've seen Behe in person, and though his ideas disgust me, you can't help but like the guy.

 

[warpus]

So where is the one who will help them to understand?

Sometimes you just can't enlighten the willfully ignorant. If they don't want to learn, there isn't much you can do.

 

[ironduck]

It's somewhat easier to be charismatic and endearing when facts are not important and you can appeal to what your audience wants to hear as well as set up boogeymen to confirm their fears of the opposition. There are quite a few counter examples of brilliant scientists that were extremely charismatic and interesting to listen to - Einstein and Feynman being my favourites. However, it's not their scientific side the public got a view of, so although they helped give science a more positive image they probably didn't enlighten people who weren't interested in science to begin with.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

I thought Stephen Jay Gould did a good job, not of converting anyone to evolution but at least of explaining it to those who accepted it who were somewhat scientificlly illiterate.

 

[ironduck]

But how many people who aren't already scientifically inclined read Gould or Hawking?