Official Creationist Refutation Thread

[Comrade Tortoise]

Well, I am finally breaking down. I found creationists on myspace and think it is about time that there is a thread devoted to beating YECism and IDism into a metaphorical bloody pulp.

Now, these are a small part of a long term project in which i will mathematically rip apart every aspect of the flood, including the animal husbandry aboard the ark, but for now, all I have is the volume of water, and the energy release from the flood itself.

Now, in order to get the volume of the water, we need to make a few assumptions. first, to do this easily, I am going to assume the earth is a perfect sphere with a radius equal to the distance between the center of the earth, to sea level. Note: this is not exact as there are the ocean basis and mountain ranges. However the volume of the ocean basis is greater than the landmass volume, so this number is actually high end.

Now, calculating this out, we can subtract this volume from the volume of a sphere with a radus equal to the distance between the center of the earth and the top of mt.

4/3*3.14159*(6378.4^3)
1, 086, 984, 861, 602.29
4/3*3.14159*(6387.4^3)
1, 091, 592, 603, 662.97

1091592603662.97
-1086984861602.29

4, 607, 742, 060.68006


The volume comes out to 4.6 billion cubic kilometers of water. Again, this is a bit off because for some reason i could not find the above sea level landmass volume. Still the calculations shouldnt be off by more than a couple orders of magnitude and frankly, just looking at the numbers, a few orders of magnitude wont make much difference.

Now, for the following calcs, I will be making use of the so-called "vapor canopy" hypothesis for global flood generation. It is the most common. Of course, the math I use here will apply equally well to the alternative hypothesis, that the waters, or at least some of them, came from underground.

Now, first thing is first, I want to calculate the volume of the water vapor. So here that goes.



Now, each cubic kilometer is 1 billion cubic meters. WHich is 1 billion metric tonnes of water. Now, a gram of water is 1 cubic centimeter. There are 1 million of those per cubic meter. Now, where am I going with this? I am calculating the volume of water vapor needed for this canopy. 55, 555.5555555556 moles of water, per cubic meter. A mole of water when vaporized expands from 18 cubic centimeters to 22.4 liters of vapor. So 1 cubic meter of water vaporises (into a cloud or "vapor canopy") approximatly 1, 244, 444.44444444 liters of vapor. Or, approximatly 1.244 megaliters (I love adding the prefix Mega to things) Now, lets multiply this by 1 billion.

1.244444x10^15 liters. Now, to multiply this by 4.255 billion.

5.734077x10^024 cubic meters of water vapor. Now, the volume of the earth's atmosphere is roughly (I used the karman line and didnt account for landmass volume, so the proportions are consistent) 5.193114x10^19 cubic meters. We are dealing with a volume of water vapor much higher than the volume of the actual atmosphere, to say nothing of the density of the atmosphere in different layers. Now, the water vapor will not stay at standard Temp and Pressure, so it may be a BIT more concentrated than this. But still, it has to be vaporised in order to be suspended in the atmosphere for long. So...

Now we get to play with thermochemistry.

We have approximatly 55, 555.5555555556 moles of water per 1.244 megaliters of water So, lets divide 5.734077x10^024 by 1244444.44444444, then multiply by the number of moles per ubic meter, which is 55555.5555555556

We get 2.559856x10^23 moles of water.

So what praytell does all this mean? It means there is a lot of water little timmy. so much in fact that if it were distributed evenly through the atmosphere, or allowe to settle, it would drown all vertebrate life on its own. WHich says nothing of the pressure

So, here I will discuss the concept of the latent heat of vaporization. When any substance undergoes a phase change, say, from liquid to gas, or vice versa, a certain amount of energy is either absorbed or released per mole, which is constant. It varies with temp and pressure a little bit, but for the sake of simplicity, I am assuming standard Temp and Pressure. The numbers wont be off by more than an order of magnitude or two, which is fine for my purposes.

Now, the latent heat of vaporization for water is 2272 joules per gram. So it looks like I get to convert all that water into grams. I love math! Now, there are 9 grams of water per mole, so I can just multiply that by 2.559856x10^23

We get 2.303870x10^24 grams. Now multiply this by 2272

5.234393x10^27 Joules. that is a lot of joules.

Now, the specific heat of our air is 1 kj per kilogram per degree kelvin. So, what is the earth's atmospheric mass?

5.3x10^18 kg

So I convert the grams to Kg and divide. Then divide that by the specific heat and I get a global temperature increase of 434.69 degrees kelvin.

Wow. Noah and his little friends must have had one hell of an air conditioning system.

Note: this does not take into account the kinetic impact of all that water, nore does it take into account the actual temperature change in the water. Also not that this is a net increase, and is not subject to the water re-evaporiating and absortbing energy. this is end-product.

[Hashava]

Well, the whole point of beliving in god is knowing that he(or she. gah. it's not like god has a gender anyway) can do unnatural things when he feels like it
(science != belief)

[frigidmagi]

Hashava, the problem lies in a rather local American expression of Christianity which tends to insist that Creationism can be proven with science.

The problem is it cannot be proven using sciencitific means.

[JEAP]

Wasn't there some evidence of the Black Sea having a massive rise in its water level a few thousand years ago? William Ryan's and Walter Pitman's Black Sea deluge theory gives you massive flooding and its not too far from where some of the flood myths orginated.

[Shark Bait]

I cant think of a society that does not have a flood myth somewhere even mountain dwelling societys do it just seems to be one of our architypes perhaps some time way back in the day lots of early human cultures experienced said floods and it just got passed on. That and many ancient civlizations lived on flood plains so floods were not all that un common ie eppic of Gilgamesh (if i'm remembering that myth propperly).

[SirNitram]

Well, the whole point of beliving in god is knowing that he(or she. gah. it's not like god has a gender anyway) can do unnatural things when he feels like it
(science != belief)

Quite nonsensical. If God exists, he is natural, because he is intrisincally linked with the universe as it exists. Even in the sense of 'created' objects not being natural, God must be natural because otherwise what created God?

Of course, even Deists agree that a God must be capable of incredible feats. But an incredible feat is not without capability to duplicate. Hell, by Christian mythology, specifically, Genesis, Mankind already has the knowledge/potential knowledge to duplicate all of God's works. See the Tree of Knowledge and God's fears that Man would be His equal if he ate from the Tree Of Life.

[SirNitram]

I cant think of a society that does not have a flood myth somewhere.

You've never heard of Egyptians?

They lack a Flood Myth. Why? Because the Nile Floods On Schedule. You are never taken by surprise by it.

Of course, the fact civilization always springs up on shores and rivers and then spreads might have something to do with how many civilizations have those myths.

[Comrade Tortoise]

Kenneth Miller rips Intelligent Design Apart for two hours

You will LOVE this presentation.

I would also direct you to read the Kitz decision

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/k ... ision.html

[Comrade Tortoise]

Oh and here is the trial transcriopt from Kitzmiller V. Dover

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/pf3.html#vol23

[Mayabird]

Are we only going to focus on Christian creationists here, or can we expand to others like Islam and Hinduism (where variants of creationism are currently spreading at a scary pace).

For an example of Islamic creationism, there's this rather scary fatwa which features a denial of cause and effect:

Muslims believe that Allah alone creates causes, Allah alone creates effects, and Allah alone conjoins the two. In the words of the Qur'an: "Allah is the Creator of everything." (Ar-Ra`d:16 )

A Muslim should pay careful attention to this point, and distance himself from believing either that causes (a) bring about effects in and of themselves; or (b) bring about effects in and of themselves through a capacity Allah has placed in them. Both of these negate the Oneness (wahdaniyyah) of Allah.

[Comrade Tortoise]

Oh by all means, smite Islamic and Hindu creationism as well

[Comrade Tortoise]

updated august 12 2006

I noticed a mathematical error which threw off the calcs.

[Josh]

Yo, Ben, hit me with some good material on the 'transitional stages between species' bullshit, wouldja?

[Ace Pace]

Its simple logic, there is no transitional stage, if so, even humans are in transitional change as species are not static.

Transitional stages imply some point where change stops and there is a 'new specie', which is BS. Change is constant and we're all transitional.

EDIT: DW has kindly done the work for you.

Transitional species

Rebuttal
All of them.

Does that sound flippant? Consider this: ask yourself what a transitional species should look like. Based on evolutionary mechanisms, it would be a species which shares features with other species both before and after it in the timetable. None of its features would be completely unique; they would all show up, even if in somewhat altered form, in related species.

So ... which species fit these criteria? All of them! There is not a single species in the entire fossil record which does not fit these criteria! So what does it mean when creationists insist that there are no transitional species? Simple: it means that they do not know the criteria for a transitional species. In fact, trying to get a creationist to provide a test for identifying a species as "transitional" is like pulling teeth.

Fallacy watch:

Unstated Premise (assumes that transitional species have some undefined, unnatural characteristic which is difficult to find).

EDIT 2: Quoting some parts of another page

What would a "speciation event" look like? Are they expecting some kind of miraculous transformation? A speciation, according to the predictions of evolution theory (as opposed to creationist strawman versions thereof), would be a gradual differentiation of two isolated animal populations over time until they were sufficiently dissimilar to be considered two different species. There is no sudden and discrete "event", unless you measure "events" in geologic timescales. So pointing out that we have never seen one of these events suddenly occur in front of us is extremely deceptive; the "event" in question is defined in such a manner that it would inevitably be identified only by monitoring divergent animal populations and characteristics over a period of time and then declaring at some point that they are different enough to be considered separate species (or determining that they have become intersterile: something which has occurred many times despite creationist denials).

[Comrade Tortoise]

Alright. Well, lets start with observed instances of speciation. I will start with a bit of background

first the biological speies concept: Essentially there is a speciation event when either two populations organisms of formerly the same species become reproductively isolated from one another(called Allopatric speiation), or when the same population adaptively radiates into two unoccupied niches and over time become reproductively isolated (called sympatric speciation)

Ok, now that we have that covered, Mike is a bit out of date. Intersterile is a bit of a misnomer. Sometimes two species CAN breed, they just dont under natural conditions. For example, they have different courtship times or mating dances, or somthing along those lines (this is common in insects)

Now for observed instances

One of my favorite and also a good controversial one is the salamander species Ensatina eschscholtzi it is currently in the process f speciating and the two populations have reached the point where they do not interbreed.

There have also been speciation events observed in Flour Beetles, Lab Rat Worms, and more plants than I care to name.

Now for transitions between larger taxonomic groups. FOr this I will for the sake of saving myself from finger cramps, use talkorigins

Jawless fish to Sharks, Skates and Rays
* Cladoselache (late Devonian) -- Magnificent early shark fossils, found in Cleveland roadcuts during the construction of the U.S. interstate highways. Probably not directly ancestral to sharks, but gives a remarkable picture of general early shark anatomy, down to the muscle fibers!
* Tristychius & similar hybodonts (early Mississippian) -- Primitive proto-sharks with broad-based but otherwise shark-like fins.
* Ctenacanthus & similar ctenacanthids (late Devonian) -- Primitive, slow sharks with broad-based shark-like fins & fin spines. Probably ancestral to all modern sharks, skates, and rays. Fragmentary fin spines (Triassic) -- from more advanced sharks.
* Paleospinax (early Jurassic) -- More advanced features such as detached upper jaw, but retains primitive ctenacanthid features such as two dorsal spines, primitive teeth, etc.
* Spathobatis (late Jurassic) -- First proto-ray.
* Protospinax (late Jurassic) -- A very early shark/skate. After this, first heterodonts, hexanchids, & nurse sharks appear (late Jurassic). Other shark groups date from the Cretaceous or Eocene. First true skates known from Upper Cretaceous.

Jawless fish to bony fish
* Upper Silurian -- first little scales found.

GAP: Once again, the first traces are so fragmentary that the actual ancestor can't be identified.

* Acanthodians(?) (Silurian) -- A puzzling group of spiny fish with similarities to early bony fish.
* Palaeoniscoids (e.g. Cheirolepis, Mimia; early Devonian) -- Primitive bony ray-finned fishes that gave rise to the vast majority of living fish. Heavy acanthodian-type scales, acanthodian-like skull, and big notochord.
* Canobius, Aeduella (Carboniferous) -- Later paleoniscoids with smaller, more advanced jaws.
* Parasemionotus (early Triassic) -- "Holostean" fish with modified cheeks but still many primitive features. Almost exactly intermediate between the late paleoniscoids & first teleosts. Note: most of these fish lived in seasonal rivers and had lungs. Repeat: lungs first evolved in fish.
* Oreochima & similar pholidophorids (late Triassic) -- The most primitive teleosts, with lighter scales (almost cycloid), partially ossified vertebrae, more advanced cheeks & jaws.
* Leptolepis & similar leptolepids (Jurassic) -- More advanced with fully ossified vertebrae & cycloid scales. The Jurassic leptolepids radiated into the modern teleosts (the massive, successful group of fishes that are almost totally dominant today). Lung transformed into swim bladder.


Fish to Amphibians

* aleoniscoids again (e.g. Cheirolepis) -- These ancient bony fish probably gave rise both to modern ray-finned fish (mentioned above), and also to the lobe-finned fish.
* Osteolepis (mid-Devonian) -- One of the earliest crossopterygian lobe-finned fishes, still sharing some characters with the lungfish (the other lobe-finned fishes). Had paired fins with a leg-like arrangement of major limb bones, capable of flexing at the "elbow", and had an early-amphibian-like skull and teeth.
* Eusthenopteron, Sterropterygion (mid-late Devonian) -- Early rhipidistian lobe-finned fish roughly intermediate between early crossopterygian fish and the earliest amphibians. Eusthenopteron is best known, from an unusually complete fossil first found in 1881. Skull very amphibian-like. Strong amphibian- like backbone. Fins very like early amphibian feet in the overall layout of the major bones, muscle attachments, and bone processes, with tetrapod-like tetrahedral humerus, and tetrapod-like elbow and knee joints. But there are no perceptible "toes", just a set of identical fin rays. Body & skull proportions rather fishlike.
* Panderichthys, Elpistostege (mid-late Devonian, about 370 Ma) -- These "panderichthyids" are very tetrapod-like lobe-finned fish. Unlike Eusthenopteron, these fish actually look like tetrapods in overall proportions (flattened bodies, dorsally placed orbits, frontal bones! in the skull, straight tails, etc.) and have remarkably foot-like fins.
* Fragmented limbs and teeth from the middle Late Devonian (about 370 Ma), possibly belonging to Obruchevichthys -- Discovered in 1991 in Scotland, these are the earliest known tetrapod remains. The humerus is mostly tetrapod-like but retains some fish features. The discoverer, Ahlberg (1991), said: "It [the humerus] is more tetrapod-like than any fish humerus, but lacks the characteristic early tetrapod 'L-shape'...this seems to be a primitive, fish-like character....although the tibia clearly belongs to a leg, the humerus differs enough from the early tetrapod pattern to make it uncertain whether the appendage carried digits or a fin. At first sight the combination of two such extremities in the same animal seems highly unlikely on functional grounds. If, however, tetrapod limbs evolved for aquatic rather than terrestrial locomotion, as recently suggested, such a morphology might be perfectly workable."

GAP: Ideally, of course, we want an entire skeleton from the middle Late Devonian, not just limb fragments. Nobody's found one yet.

* Hynerpeton, Acanthostega, and Ichthyostega (late Devonian) -- A little later, the fin-to-foot transition was almost complete, and we have a set of early tetrapod fossils that clearly did have feet. The most complete are Ichthyostega, Acanthostega gunnari, and the newly described Hynerpeton bassetti (Daeschler et al., 1994). (There are also other genera known from more fragmentary fossils.) Hynerpeton is the earliest of these three genera (365 Ma), but is more advanced in some ways; the other two genera retained more fish- like characters longer than the Hynerpeton lineage did.
* Labyrinthodonts (eg Pholidogaster, Pteroplax) (late Dev./early Miss.) -- These larger amphibians still have some icthyostegid fish features, such as skull bone patterns, labyrinthine tooth dentine, presence & pattern of large palatal tusks, the fish skull hinge, pieces of gill structure between cheek & shoulder, and the vertebral structure. But they have lost several other fish features: the fin rays in the tail are gone, the vertebrae are stronger and interlocking, the nasal passage for air intake is well defined, etc.


Amphibians to reptiles

* Proterogyrinus or another early anthracosaur (late Mississippian) -- Classic labyrinthodont-amphibian skull and teeth, but with reptilian vertebrae, pelvis, humerus, and digits. Still has fish skull hinge. Amphibian ankle. 5-toed hand and a 2-3-4-5-3 (almost reptilian) phalangeal count.
* Limnoscelis, Tseajaia (late Carboniferous) -- Amphibians apparently derived from the early anthracosaurs, but with additional reptilian features: structure of braincase, reptilian jaw muscle, expanded neural arches.
* Solenodonsaurus (mid-Pennsylvanian) -- An incomplete fossil, apparently between the anthracosaurs and the cotylosaurs. Loss of palatal fangs, loss of lateral line on head, etc. Still just a single sacral vertebra, though.
* Hylonomus, Paleothyris (early Pennsylvanian) -- These are protorothyrids, very early cotylosaurs (primitive reptiles). They were quite little, lizard-sized animals with amphibian-like skulls (amphibian pineal opening, dermal bone, etc.), shoulder, pelvis, & limbs, and intermediate teeth and vertebrae. Rest of skeleton reptilian, with reptilian jaw muscle, no palatal fangs, and spool-shaped vertebral centra. Probably no eardrum yet. Many of these new "reptilian" features are also seen in little amphibians (which also sometimes have direct-developing eggs laid on land), so perhaps these features just came along with the small body size of the first reptiles.


Synapsid Reptiles to mammals

* Paleothyris (early Pennsylvanian) -- An early captorhinomorph reptile, with no temporal fenestrae at all.
* Protoclepsydrops haplous (early Pennsylvanian) -- The earliest known synapsid reptile. Little temporal fenestra, with all surrounding bones intact. Fragmentary. Had amphibian-type vertebrae with tiny neural processes. (reptiles had only just separated from the amphibians)
* Clepsydrops (early Pennsylvanian) -- The second earliest known synapsid. These early, very primitive synapsids are a primitive group of pelycosaurs collectively called "ophiacodonts".
* Archaeothyris (early-mid Pennsylvanian) -- A slightly later ophiacodont. Small temporal fenestra, now with some reduced bones (supratemporal). Braincase still just loosely attached to skull. Slight hint of different tooth types. Still has some extremely primitive, amphibian/captorhinid features in the jaw, foot, and skull. Limbs, posture, etc. typically reptilian, though the ilium (major hip bone) was slightly enlarged.
* Varanops (early Permian) -- Temporal fenestra further enlarged. Braincase floor shows first mammalian tendencies & first signs of stronger attachment to rest of skull (occiput more strongly attached). Lower jaw shows first changes in jaw musculature (slight coronoid eminence). Body narrower, deeper: vertebral column more strongly constructed. Ilium further enlarged, lower-limb musculature starts to change (prominent fourth trochanter on femur). This animal was more mobile and active. Too late to be a true ancestor, and must be a "cousin".
* Haptodus (late Pennsylvanian) -- One of the first known sphenacodonts, showing the initiation of sphenacodont features while retaining many primitive features of the ophiacodonts. Occiput still more strongly attached to the braincase. Teeth become size-differentiated, with biggest teeth in canine region and fewer teeth overall. Stronger jaw muscles. Vertebrae parts & joints more mammalian. Neural spines on vertebrae longer. Hip strengthened by fusing to three sacral vertebrae instead of just two. Limbs very well developed.
* Dimetrodon, Sphenacodon or a similar sphenacodont (late Pennsylvanian to early Permian, 270 Ma) -- More advanced pelycosaurs, clearly closely related to the first therapsids (next). Dimetrodon is almost definitely a "cousin" and not a direct ancestor, but as it is known from very complete fossils, it's a good model for sphenacodont anatomy. Medium-sized fenestra. Teeth further differentiated, with small incisors, two huge deep- rooted upper canines on each side, followed by smaller cheek teeth, all replaced continuously. Fully reptilian jaw hinge. Lower jaw bone made of multiple bones & with first signs of a bony prong later involved in the eardrum, but there was no eardrum yet, so these reptiles could only hear ground-borne vibrations (they did have a reptilian middle ear). Vertebrae had still longer neural spines (spectacularly so in Dimetrodon, which had a sail), and longer transverse spines for stronger locomotion muscles.
* Biarmosuchia (late Permian) -- A therocephalian -- one of the earliest, most primitive therapsids. Several primitive, sphenacodontid features retained: jaw muscles inside the skull, platelike occiput, palatal teeth. New features: Temporal fenestra further enlarged, occupying virtually all of the cheek, with the supratemporal bone completely gone. Occipital plate slanted slightly backwards rather than forwards as in pelycosaurs, and attached still more strongly to the braincase. Upper jaw bone (maxillary) expanded to separate lacrymal from nasal bones, intermediate between early reptiles and later mammals. Still no secondary palate, but the vomer bones of the palate developed a backward extension below the palatine bones. This is the first step toward a secondary palate, and with exactly the same pattern seen in cynodonts. Canine teeth larger, dominating the dentition. Variable tooth replacement: some therocephalians (e.g Scylacosaurus) had just one canine, like mammals, and stopped replacing the canine after reaching adult size. Jaw hinge more mammalian in position and shape, jaw musculature stronger (especially the mammalian jaw muscle). The amphibian-like hinged upper jaw finally became immovable. Vertebrae still sphenacodontid-like. Radical alteration in the method of locomotion, with a much more mobile forelimb, more upright hindlimb, & more mammalian femur & pelvis. Primitive sphenacodontid humerus. The toes were approaching equal length, as in mammals, with #toe bones varying from reptilian to mammalian. The neck & tail vertebrae became distinctly different from trunk vertebrae. Probably had an eardrum in the lower jaw, by the jaw hinge.
* Procynosuchus (latest Permian) -- The first known cynodont -- a famous group of very mammal-like therapsid reptiles, sometimes considered to be the first mammals. Probably arose from the therocephalians, judging from the distinctive secondary palate and numerous other skull characters. Enormous temporal fossae for very strong jaw muscles, formed by just one of the reptilian jaw muscles, which has now become the mammalian masseter. The large fossae is now bounded only by the thin zygomatic arch (cheekbone to you & me). Secondary palate now composed mainly of palatine bones (mammalian), rather than vomers and maxilla as in older forms; it's still only a partial bony palate (completed in life with soft tissue). Lower incisor teeth was reduced to four (per side), instead of the previous six (early mammals had three). Dentary now is 3/4 of lower jaw; the other bones are now a small complex near the jaw hinge. Jaw hinge still reptilian. Vertebral column starts to look mammalian: first two vertebrae modified for head movements, and lumbar vertebrae start to lose ribs, the first sign of functional division into thoracic and lumbar regions. Scapula beginning to change shape. Further enlargement of the ilium and reduction of the pubis in the hip. A diaphragm may have been present.
* Dvinia [also "Permocynodon"] (latest Permian) -- Another early cynodont. First signs of teeth that are more than simple stabbing points -- cheek teeth develop a tiny cusp. The temporal fenestra increased still further. Various changes in the floor of the braincase; enlarged brain. The dentary bone was now the major bone of the lower jaw. The other jaw bones that had been present in early reptiles were reduced to a complex of smaller bones near the jaw hinge. Single occipital condyle splitting into two surfaces. The postcranial skeleton of Dvinia is virtually unknown and it is not therefore certain whether the typical features found at the next level had already evolved by this one. Metabolic rate was probably increased, at least approaching homeothermy.
* Thrinaxodon (early Triassic) -- A more advanced "galesaurid" cynodont. Further development of several of the cynodont features seen already. Temporal fenestra still larger, larger jaw muscle attachments. Bony secondary palate almost complete. Functional division of teeth: incisors (four uppers and three lowers), canines, and then 7-9 cheek teeth with cusps for chewing. The cheek teeth were all alike, though (no premolars & molars), did not occlude together, were all single- rooted, and were replaced throughout life in alternate waves. Dentary still larger, with the little quadrate and articular bones were loosely attached. The stapes now touched the inner side of the quadrate. First sign of the mammalian jaw hinge, a ligamentous connection between the lower jaw and the squamosal bone of the skull. The occipital condyle is now two slightly separated surfaces, though not separated as far as the mammalian double condyles. Vertebral connections more mammalian, and lumbar ribs reduced. Scapula shows development of a new mammalian shoulder muscle. Ilium increased again, and all four legs fully upright, not sprawling. Tail short, as is necessary for agile quadrupedal locomotion. The whole locomotion was more agile. Number of toe bones is 2.3.4.4.3, intermediate between reptile number (2.3.4.5.4) and mammalian (2.3.3.3.3), and the "extra" toe bones were tiny. Nearly complete skeletons of these animals have been found curled up - a possible reaction to conserve heat, indicating possible endothermy? Adults and juveniles have been found together, possibly a sign of parental care. The specialization of the lumbar area (e.g. reduction of ribs) is indicative of the presence of a diaphragm, needed for higher O2 intake and homeothermy. NOTE on hearing: The eardrum had developed in the only place available for it -- the lower jaw, right near the jaw hinge, supported by a wide prong (reflected lamina) of the angular bone. These animals could now hear airborne sound, transmitted through the eardrum to two small lower jaw bones, the articular and the quadrate, which contacted the stapes in the skull, which contacted the cochlea. Rather a roundabout system and sensitive to low-frequency sound only, but better than no eardrum at all! Cynodonts developed quite loose quadrates and articulars that could vibrate freely for sound transmittal while still functioning as a jaw joint, strengthened by the mammalian jaw joint right next to it. All early mammals from the Lower Jurassic have this low-frequency ear and a double jaw joint. By the middle Jurassic, mammals lost the reptilian joint (though it still occurs briefly in embryos) and the two bones moved into the nearby middle ear, became smaller, and became much more sensitive to high-frequency sounds.
* Cynognathus (early Triassic, 240 Ma; suspected to have existed even earlier) -- We're now at advanced cynodont level. Temporal fenestra larger. Teeth differentiating further; cheek teeth with cusps met in true occlusion for slicing up food, rate of replacement reduced, with mammalian-style tooth roots (though single roots). Dentary still larger, forming 90% of the muscle-bearing part of the lower jaw. TWO JAW JOINTS in place, mammalian and reptilian: A new bony jaw joint existed between the squamosal (skull) and the surangular bone (lower jaw), while the other jaw joint bones were reduced to a compound rod lying in a trough in the dentary, close to the middle ear. Ribs more mammalian. Scapula halfway to the mammalian condition. Limbs were held under body. There is possible evidence for fur in fossil pawprints.
* Diademodon (early Triassic, 240 Ma; same strata as Cynognathus) -- Temporal fenestra larger still, for still stronger jaw muscles. True bony secondary palate formed exactly as in mammals, but didn't extend quite as far back. Turbinate bones possibly present in the nose (warm-blooded?). Dental changes continue: rate of tooth replacement had decreased, cheek teeth have better cusps & consistent wear facets (better occlusion). Lower jaw almost entirely dentary, with tiny articular at the hinge. Still a double jaw joint. Ribs shorten suddenly in lumbar region, probably improving diaphragm function & locomotion. Mammalian toe bones (2.3.3.3.3), with closely related species still showing variable numbers.
* Probelesodon (mid-Triassic; South America) -- Fenestra very large, still separate from eyesocket (with postorbital bar). Secondary palate longer, but still not complete. Teeth double-rooted, as in mammals. Nares separated. Second jaw joint stronger. Lumbar ribs totally lost; thoracic ribs more mammalian, vertebral connections very mammalian. Hip & femur more mammalian.
* Probainognathus (mid-Triassic, 239-235 Ma, Argentina) -- Larger brain with various skull changes: pineal foramen ("third eye") closes, fusion of some skull plates. Cheekbone slender, low down on the side of the eye socket. Postorbital bar still there. Additional cusps on cheek teeth. Still two jaw joints. Still had cervical ribs & lumbar ribs, but they were very short. Reptilian "costal plates" on thoracic ribs mostly lost. Mammalian #toe bones.
* Exaeretodon (mid-late Triassic, 239Ma, South America) -- (Formerly lumped with the herbivorous gomphodont cynodonts.) Mammalian jaw prong forms, related to eardrum support. Three incisors only (mammalian). Costal plates completely lost. More mammalian hip related to having limbs under the body. Possibly the first steps toward coupling of locomotion & breathing. This is probably a "cousin" fossil not directly ancestral, as it has several new but non-mammalian teeth traits.

GAP of about 30 my in the late Triassic, from about 239-208 Ma. Only one early mammal fossil is known from this time. The next time fossils are found in any abundance, tritylodontids and trithelodontids had already appeared, leading to some very heated controversy about their relative placement in the chain to mammals. Recent discoveries seem to show trithelodontids to be more mammal- like, with tritylodontids possibly being an offshoot group (see Hopson 1991, Rowe 1988, Wible 1991, and Shubin et al. 1991). Bear in mind that both these groups were almost fully mammalian in every feature, lacking only the final changes in the jaw joint and middle ear.

* Oligokyphus, Kayentatherium (early Jurassic, 208 Ma) -- These are tritylodontids, an advanced cynodont group. Face more mammalian, with changes around eyesocket and cheekbone. Full bony secondary palate. Alternate tooth replacement with double-rooted cheek teeth, but without mammalian-style tooth occlusion (which some earlier cynodonts already had). Skeleton strikingly like egg- laying mammals (monotremes). Double jaw joint. More flexible neck, with mammalian atlas & axis and double occipital condyle. Tail vertebrae simpler, like mammals. Scapula is now substantially mammalian, and the forelimb is carried directly under the body. Various changes in the pelvis bones and hind limb muscles; this animal's limb musculature and locomotion were virtually fully mammalian. Probably cousin fossils (?), with Oligokyphus being more primitive than Kayentatherium. Thought to have diverged from the trithelodontids during that gap in the late Triassic. There is disagreement about whether the tritylodontids were ancestral to mammals (presumably during the late Triassic gap) or whether they are a specialized offshoot group not directly ancestral to mammals.
* Pachygenelus, Diarthrognathus (earliest Jurassic, 209 Ma) -- These are trithelodontids, a slightly different advanced cynodont group. New discoveries (Shubin et al., 1991) show that these animals are very close to the ancestry of mammals. Inflation of nasal cavity, establishment of Eustachian tubes between ear and pharynx, loss of postorbital bar. Alternate replacement of mostly single- rooted teeth. This group also began to develop double tooth roots -- in Pachygenelus the single root of the cheek teeth begins to split in two at the base. Pachygenelus also has mammalian tooth enamel, and mammalian tooth occlusion. Double jaw joint, with the second joint now a dentary-squamosal (instead of surangular), fully mammalian. Incipient dentary condyle. Reptilian jaw joint still present but functioning almost entirely in hearing; postdentary bones further reduced to tiny rod of bones in jaw near middle ear; probably could hear high frequencies now. More mammalian neck vertebrae for a flexible neck. Hip more mammalian, with a very mammalian iliac blade & femur. Highly mobile, mammalian-style shoulder. Probably had coupled locomotion & breathing. These are probably "cousin" fossils, not directly ancestral (the true ancestor is thought to have occurred during that late Triassic gap). Pachygenelus is pretty close, though.
* Adelobasileus cromptoni (late Triassic; 225 Ma, west Texas) -- A recently discovered fossil proto-mammal from right in the middle of that late Triassic gap! Currently the oldest known "mammal." Only the skull was found. "Some cranial features of Adelobasileus, such as the incipient promontorium housing the cochlea, represent an intermediate stage of the character transformation from non-mammalian cynodonts to Liassic mammals" (Lucas & Luo, 1993). This fossil was found from a band of strata in the western U.S. that had not previously been studied for early mammals. Also note that this fossil dates from slightly before the known tritylodonts and trithelodonts, though it has long been suspected that tritilodonts and trithelodonts were already around by then. Adelobasileus is thought to have split off from either a trityl. or a trithel., and is either identical to or closely related to the common ancestor of all mammals.
* Sinoconodon (early Jurassic, 208 Ma) -- The next known very ancient proto-mammal. Eyesocket fully mammalian now (closed medial wall). Hindbrain expanded. Permanent cheekteeth, like mammals, but the other teeth were still replaced several times. Mammalian jaw joint stronger, with large dentary condyle fitting into a distinct fossa on the squamosal. This final refinement of the joint automatically makes this animal a true "mammal". Reptilian jaw joint still present, though tiny.
* Kuehneotherium (early Jurassic, about 205 Ma) -- A slightly later proto-mammal, sometimes considered the first known pantothere (primitive placental-type mammal). Teeth and skull like a placental mammal. The three major cusps on the upper & lower molars were rotated to form interlocking shearing triangles as in the more advanced placental mammals & marsupials. Still has a double jaw joint, though.
* Eozostrodon, Morganucodon, Haldanodon (early Jurassic, ~205 Ma) -- A group of early proto-mammals called "morganucodonts". The restructuring of the secondary palate and the floor of the braincase had continued, and was now very mammalian. Truly mammalian teeth: the cheek teeth were finally differentiated into simple premolars and more complex molars, and teeth were replaced only once. Triangular- cusped molars. Reversal of the previous trend toward reduced incisors, with lower incisors increasing to four. Tiny remnant of the reptilian jaw joint. Once thought to be ancestral to monotremes only, but now thought to be ancestral to all three groups of modern mammals -- monotremes, marsupials, and placentals.
* Peramus (late Jurassic, about 155 Ma) -- A "eupantothere" (more advanced placental-type mammal). The closest known relative of the placentals & marsupials. Triconodont molar has with more defined cusps. This fossil is known only from teeth, but judging from closely related eupantotheres (e.g. Amphitherium) it had finally lost the reptilian jaw joint, attaing a fully mammalian three-boned middle ear with excellent high-frequency hearing. Has only 8 cheek teeth, less than other eupantotheres and close to the 7 of the first placental mammals. Also has a large talonid on its "tribosphenic" molars, almost as large as that of the first placentals -- the first development of grinding capability.
* Endotherium (very latest Jurassic, 147 Ma) -- An advanced eupantothere. Fully tribosphenic molars with a well- developed talonid. Known only from one specimen. From Asia; recent fossil finds in Asia suggest that the tribosphenic molar evolved there.
* Kielantherium and Aegialodon (early Cretaceous) -- More advanced eupantotheres known only from teeth. Kielantherium is from Asia and is known from slightly older strata than the European Aegialodon. Both have the talonid on the lower molars. The wear on it indicates that a major new cusp, the protocone, had evolved on the upper molars. By the Middle Cretaceous, animals with the new tribosphenic molar had spread into North America too (North America was still connected to Europe.)
* Steropodon galmani (early Cretaceous) -- The first known definite monotreme, discovered in 1985.
* Vincelestes neuquenianus (early Cretaceous, 135 Ma) -- A probably-placental mammal with some marsupial traits, known from some nice skulls. Placental-type braincase and coiled cochlea. Its intracranial arteries & veins ran in a composite monotreme/placental pattern derived from homologous extracranial vessels in the cynodonts. (Rougier et al., 1992)
* Pariadens kirklandi (late Cretaceous, about 95 Ma) -- The first definite marsupial. Known only from teeth.
* Kennalestes and Asioryctes (late Cretaceous, Mongolia) -- Small, slender animals; eyesocket open behind; simple ring to support eardrum; primitive placental-type brain with large olfactory bulbs; basic primitive tribosphenic tooth pattern. Canine now double rooted. Still just a trace of a non-dentary bone, the coronoid, on the otherwise all-dentary jaw. "Could have given rise to nearly all subsequent placentals." says Carroll (1988).
* Cimolestes, Procerberus, Gypsonictops (very late Cretaceous) -- Primitive North American placentals with same basic tooth pattern.


Diapsid Reptiles to birds

* Coelophysis (late Triassic) -- One of the first theropod dinosaurs. Theropods in general show clear general skeletal affinities with birds (long limbs, hollow bones, foot with 3 toes in front and 1 reversed toe behind, long ilium). Jurassic theropods like Compsognathus are particularly similar to birds.
* Deinonychus, Oviraptor, and other advanced theropods (late Jurassic, Cretaceous) -- Predatory bipedal advanced theropods, larger, with more bird-like skeletal features: semilunate carpal, bony sternum, long arms, reversed pubis. Clearly runners, though, not fliers. These advanced theropods even had clavicles, sometimes fused as in birds. Says Clark (1992): "The detailed similarity between birds and theropod dinosaurs such as Deinonychus is so striking and so pervasive throughout the skeleton that a considerable amount of special pleading is needed to come to any conclusion other than that the sister-group of birds among fossils is one of several theropod dinosaurs." The particular fossils listed here are are not directly ancestral, though, as they occur after Archeopteryx.
* Lisboasaurus estesi & other "troodontid dinosaur-birds" (mid-Jurassic) -- A bird-like theropod reptile with very bird-like teeth (that is, teeth very like those of early toothed birds, since modern birds have no teeth). These really could be ancestral.

GAP: The exact reptilian ancestor of Archeopteryx, and the first development of feathers, are unknown. Early bird evolution seems to have involved little forest climbers and then little forest fliers, both of which are guaranteed to leave very bad fossil records (little animal + acidic forest soil = no remains). Archeopteryx itself is really about the best we could ask for: several specimens has superb feather impressions, it is clearly related to both reptiles and birds, and it clearly shows that the transition is feasible.

* One possible ancestor of Archeopteryx is Protoavis (Triassic, ~225 Ma) -- A highly controversial fossil that may or may not be an extremely early bird. Unfortunately, not enough of the fossil was recovered to determine if it is definitely related to the birds.
* Archeopteryx lithographica (Late Jurassic, 150 Ma) -- The several known specimes of this deservedly famous fossil show a mosaic of reptilian and avian features, with the reptilian features predominating. The skull and skeleton are basically reptilian (skull, teeth, vertebrae, sternum, ribs, pelvis, tail, digits, claws, generally unfused bones). Bird traits are limited to an avian furcula (wishbone, for attachment of flight muscles; recall that at least some dinosaurs had this too), modified forelimbs, and -- the real kicker -- unmistakable lift-producing flight feathers. Archeopteryx could probably flap from tree to tree, but couldn't take off from the ground, since it lacked a keeled breastbone for large flight muscles, and had a weak shoulder compared to modern birds. May not have been the direct ancestor of modern birds. (Wellnhofer, 1993)
* Sinornis santensis ("Chinese bird", early Cretaceous, 138 Ma) -- A recently found little primitive bird. Bird traits: short trunk, claws on the toes, flight-specialized shoulders, stronger flight- feather bones, tightly folding wrist, short hand. (These traits make it a much better flier than Archeopteryx.) Reptilian traits: teeth, stomach ribs, unfused hand bones, reptilian-shaped unfused pelvis. (These remaining reptilian traits wouldn't have interfered with flight.) Intermediate traits: metatarsals partially fused, medium-sized sternal keel, medium-length tail (8 vertebrae) with fused pygostyle at the tip. (Sereno & Rao, 1992).
* "Las Hoyas bird" or "Spanish bird" [not yet named; early Cretaceous, 131 Ma) -- Another recently found "little forest flier". It still has reptilian pelvis & legs, with bird-like shoulder. Tail is medium-length with a fused tip. A fossil down feather was found with the Las Hoyas bird, indicating homeothermy. (Sanz et al., 1992)
* Ambiortus dementjevi (early Cretaceous, 125 Ma) -- The third known "little forest flier", found in 1985. Very fragmentary fossil.
* Hesperornis, Ichthyornis, and other Cretaceous diving birds -- This line of birds became specialized for diving, like modern cormorants. As they lived along saltwater coasts, there are many fossils known. Skeleton further modified for flight (fusion of pelvis bones, fusion of hand bones, short & fused tail). Still had true socketed teeth, a reptilian trait.

[Comrade Tortoise]

ell me, in order to stave off temperatures which are now along the lines of 450 degrees celcius, did Noah have a swap cooler or a full blown industrial cooling system which we use to supercool O2 to get it in liquid form?

And what sort of framing did he use on that boat? We cant build wooden ships that large even with modern engineering techniques.

Then there are all the animals...

OK, the size of the ark is probably 135x22.5x13.5 meters so the surface area of the decks is 3037.5 meters. And there are three decks. I will be generlus and not account for the space used by materials, so you have three decks, I am assuming the flood or ghe ark is one deck, and there are two in the middle. So three HABITABLE decks (because no misting system will protect the animals from temperatures which should cause the ark to spontaneously combust)

So you have 3037.5x3=9112.5^2 meters of space. With a 4.5 meter cieling

So, lets assume adult mammals, because baby mammals would not be able to survive (lack of milk, which needs refrigeration and is specific to species... besides, have you ever tried milking an elephant seal?)

So, lets start with the mammals. Now, because we would be able to REALLY see the macroevolution occuring REALLY fast if it were just one of each general type, I am going to assume that "Kind" in the bible means species.

So lets start mammals with the Pinnipeds, because they are cute, cuddly, and harbor seals will rape your leg if you give them half a chance.

Now, there are 33 different species of Pinnipeds, so I will go over their captive needs very generally. First, to protect them from pethogens, you need to keep them and all their water suplies seperated. In fact, you have to keep this water clean which I will go over later. Right now I am only dealing with space. So, I will use an average sized pinneped, say, a Stellar's Sea Lion as a benchmark. Some are smaller, some are larger, but I really dont want to go through all 33 fucking species individually because I am just that lazy. So, min animal welfare requirements here in the US give a min horizontal distance of the pool area to be 1.5x the length of the largest animal. This means for a mating pair of the afformentioned "average" pinnipeds, you will need a 36 square meter pool, and a land area of (averate adult length squared) meters. This means a 20.25 square meter land area, for a grand total per mating pinneped pair of 56.5 square meters. multiply this by 33 for 1864.5 square meters, or 1 deck This of course means that you could not possibly fit everything on this damn boat

However, I will be generous, because there are lots of smaller seals which require less space. So tell me, did God give Noah space folding technology? How about feeding them? I mean, those leopard seals will need a year's supply of penguins...The other swill need crab, fish, krill, mollusks... all of which needs to be kept fresh. And what about the thousands and thousands of gallons of water? How is Noah filtering and cleaning it? Is he using a sand filter for mechanical filtration and beds of charcoal for chemical? And how praytell does he actually clean the land area, male pinnipeds can be awefully aggressive.

SHould I go into the captive requirements of the large cats, or how about elephants, rhinos and other large african fauna?

[Josh]

Sweet-ass.

Thanks guys.

[Comrade Tortoise]

OOPS!

Error in calculations.

I accidentally multipled the horizontal distance 3 times instead of twice.

so each pinniped pairshould have 56.5 square meters. My mistake. this leaves us with 1864.5 square meters, or 1 deck instead of 2

[Comrade Tortoise]

Lets continue with Pantherniae, these are your lions, tigers, and and various sorts of leopard. These are your BIG cats. Now, each mated pair is going to need, in order to stay helathy for the year they were on that cursed boat, around 450 square feet of space. So in the subfamily panthernidae you are looking at 7 species so 945 square meters, which is about half a deck.

These are zoo recomendations, the minimum care requirements will probably be less, but those are short term. You cannot maintain an animal for over a year in those conditions. So this is long term care

This goes for the Pinnipeds, the numbers I gave above were short term requirments for animal dealers. They were not long term care needs. In a spae that big, the seal basically has enough room to swim in a tight circle and haul out to dry off. No animal as intelligent as a pinniped should be subjected to that

[Comrade Tortoise]

A Note on temp.

A degree C is the same as a degree K the scale is just shifted. SO an increase of 434 degrees K due to the laent heat of vaporization is the same as a 434 degree C increase

[Comrade Tortoise]

OK, now there are four species of Rhino, and 2 species of elephant. This is going to be fun.

According to the AZA (Association of Zoos and Aquariums) the min size for keeping a mated pair of elephants is 74.3 square meters of space. Now, there are 2 mated pairs, this comes to about 146 square meters. Note, this does not account for food and clean water storage.

Now, I will use the same figures for Rhinos because I cant find the AZA standards for them.

There are four species of Rhinos, so 292 square meters

Th grand total so far then is 3,247.5 square mters. Or approximatly a deck and a half. Half the total space on the ark for 46 species of mammal.

[Comrade Tortoise]

Now, it hits me that I have not been overly fair to the invertebrates of the world. I have been focusing on cute little pinnipeds and African Megafauna, as well as feline superpredators. Where is the love for the insects?

so, here we go. I will go into the space requirements for social insects of the orders Hymenoptera (Bees, ants wasps, etc) and isoptera (termites)

Now, there are a good 2000 species of termites, unfortunatly, keeping a mated pair is impossible unless you wan to keep a colony. So, we have to consider this. I maintain termites of the genus zootermopsis in captivity for research purposes. They are kept in a rubbermade container approximatly .05 cubic meters in size filled with moiste wood. These are easily stackable. Noah would not have had access to rubbermade containers. he would have been restricted to wooden crates, (bad idea) and pottery. pottery however is not stackable. So, for each species of non-mound building termites like Zootermopsis, he is going to need about 1/6th of a square meter of floor space. Now, because I am lazy and really do not want to look up 2000 species of termites and whether or not they are mound building or not, I will just have to go with the assumption that they are all wood nesters. This will be more favorable to the creationists anyway.

Now, I suppose he could have built a shelving unit. So I will assume that is the case. Reasonably, given the materials, he probably could have stacked them about 6 or 7 shelves up. so I will divide the number of effective termite colonies by 6, giving us 333 effective termite colonies for the purposes of floor space. Diving that by 6 we get about 55 square meters of floor space.

And now for the hymenoptera. Deer god

130 THOUSAND species. Now, most of these are parasitic wasps. In fact, it is estimated that there are more parasitic wasps than this, because it seems that every other insect species has at least one and usually several speciesof wasp which parasitize different stages of its life cycle. However these are described species. So, i am going to find the number of ant species, and assume for the sake of being generous that they can be kept in the same amount of space as a termite colony. Some require more space, some require less, but I am being nice, and lazy.

hmm... 12 thousand ant species. Fun

so that means we get, under the same parameters as the termites: 333 square meters of floor space. For ants.

Now, for social bees and wasps. Assuming the same paremeters, even though it is patently not true, I am being very very generous. 555 square meters. Gees, these insects take up a lot of space.

Now for the rest, which are mostly parasitic wasps. I will ignore hornets and yellow jackers and other colonial wasps for the sake of lazyness and generosity. I will assume that it is possible to keep a parasitic wasp pair alive for a year in a small pottery container with approximatly .1 square meters of floor space. I am also limiting myself to DESCRIBED species, not the projection of several million species. How nice am I?

Now, that leaves...I will allot 20000 species of colonial wasps... so... 78 thousand species of parsitic wasps (again, a couple orders of magnitude more than this is probably the case in reality)... stacking 6 high, 1/10th of a square meter of space each, no gaps... 1300 square meters.

So, the grand total so far is 5490.5 square meters of space. And I havent even gotten to the beetles yet.

I will assume, that beetles can all be kept like wasps.

there are 350 thousand described species of beetle, if god exists, he thinks of beetles while touching himself between the 6 days of creation.

so this comes to, for the beetles 5833.3 square meters. And the ark floweth over.

Concession accepted flood geologists.

[Josh]

Okay, in case you were wondering, there came to be no argument on the matter, so I didn't get to bust out the volumes of info here.

However, they're ready for the next go-round. Thanks.

[Comrade Tortoise]

my pleasure.

:)

[Mayabird]

This isn't exactly a refutation, but an example where refutation is not the only thing to worry about:
A Skeptic Magazine article about Orthodox Jews and evolution.

A few quotes:
[quote]Perhaps the most surprising result of the survey was that the Orthodox Jewish students who were science majors were even less accepting of mainstream science than those who were not science majors.
...
Of particular interest was the item “Which is true? The Sun revolves around the Earth [or] the Earth revolves around the Sun (Figure 8). Only 22 of 173 answered that the Sun revolves around the Earth. Geocentrism is fast returning as a centrist Orthodox belief, so the paucity of geocentrists among these college students is a strong indication of their (relatively) modern Orthodox status. It is my guess that if this survey is repeated in a few years on a similar “modernâ€