Grand Canyon Made By Noah's Flood, Book Says (Geologists Skewer Park For Selling Creationism)

San Francisco Chronicle ^ | January 8, 2004 | Julie Cart, Los Angeles Times

[Scenic Sounds]

How old is the Grand Canyon? Most scientists agree with the version that rangers at Grand Canyon National Park tell visitors: that the 217-mile-long chasm in northern Arizona was carved by the Colorado River 5 million to 6 million years ago.

[BibChr]

Sure.

Translation: "Wahh! You were supposed to roll over and play dead! Not fair! Wahhh!"

Dan

[Doctor Stochastic]

Correlation vs causation. Good question. Tha answer is a bit long but I'll try a short synposis.

Correlation (as I was using the term) is a statistical measure of relationship. (The formulas are in any elementary statistics book and are available on the net.) For example, one might measure the heights of parents and the heights of their offspring. A plot of parent-height vs offsprint-height will show a tendency for tall parents to have tall offspring and short parents to have short offspring. (Note that the relationship isn't perfect, short parents can have tall offspring, and vice versa.) There is a measure called the correlation coefficient which can be either positive or negative depending on what is being measured; it's actually the cosine of the angle between the (normalised) data vectors. The square of the correlation coefficient gives a estimate of the "strength" of the correlation. All this is statistical in nature and depends on sample size, etc. Anyway, things with high correlation strength are often causally related.

Causation is a scientific (or physical or chemical, etc. rather just statistical) relationship. For example, setting something on fire causes it to burn or having the gene for Huntington's Corea actually causes the disease. Causation is stronger (epistemologically) than correlation but neither really implies the other logically. It is possible to have random causes where the correlation coefficient between "cause" and "effect" (before and after states) is zero.

In the case of race; having certain genes for skin color may be correlated with "race" but all "races" have people with these genes; on the other hand, Huntington's Corea is caused by the gene; those with the gene get Huntington's.

In scientific inquiry, high correlation is a sign that something "interesting" may be occuring. (Of course, if there were no correlation between things that we thought out to be correlated, that would be of interest too.) One can also get "spurious" correlation due to what's called confounding factors. For example, there is a very strong correlation between the consumption of Hershy bars an the number of heart attacks in the US; Both are "caused" by the increase in population. Similarly, the number of babies born is correlated with the number of storks nesting on chimneys for the same reason. This type of confounding makes it problematical to study things like murders, murder rates, gun ownership, etc.

As an example of the use of correlation, in the 1950s some British scientists were trying to find out the reason for an increasing rate of lung cancer. They actually hypothesized that lung cancer was primarly caused by automobile exhaust (or in their case, lorry exhaust.) What they did is look at the correlations between people with lung cancer and exposure to exhaust, smoking, eating habits, etc. (They compared against lots of items; I can't remember their names either.) The only correlation of significance was with smoking; it was much bigger than they expected. Later others have elucidated the mechanism whereby smoke damages lung tissue.

[GluteusMax]

Are you saying that two groups of organisms that cannot interbreed are still of the same species? If so, what is your criteria for species?

What I'm saying is that I find it rather unremarkable to point to a creature that is only mild different from another and declare proof for transitional creatures.

The fact that some worms or fish end up slightly different from their forbears only demonstrates that there is incredible depth in the genetic coding. That's all it really proves. However it does not "prove" that something new has arisen.

Simply because two ring creatures can't reproduce with the guys on the other end, but can with a majority of the others doesn't prove they are a different species. It could simply indicate that some survival mechanism is in play. Are they still ring creatures? Why yes they are.

With respect to Mr. Henry's links, I am digesting them more slowly in deference to his concern that I blew through the other info w/o really digesting it. I can say that so far they are unconvincing, presenting much speculation.

[dangus]

Actually, I sort of meant to suggest it would *not* have measurable erosion. For nitpickers, we could do it directly under the Niagara Falls, as a source of high-energy water.

[Ichneumon]

Sure. Translation: "Wahh! You were supposed to roll over and play dead! Not fair! Wahhh!"

Just curious -- has your playground style *ever* actually worked?

Maybe you should try a new approach.

Then maybe you'd actually get a response, like the one I made to the Freeper who raised the same question *yesterday*. How does that fit into your fantasy that I'm somehow "afraid" to address it?

You're just making yourself look foolish. And this is not a credit to your side of the "crevo" discussion.

[tutstar]

bttt

[Ichneumon]

I can say that so far they are unconvincing

Everything can be unconvincing to the person who wants to resist the implications strongly enough.

And chew on these while you're at it: 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution The Scientific Case for Common Descent.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so very much for the explanation! It was very helpful indeed and easy to read!

All this is statistical in nature and depends on sample size, etc. Anyway, things with high correlation strength are often causally related.

I presume then that if a high correction strength is detected, the next step is to look for a causal relationship - but finding the one does not necessarily mean the other will also be found.

[dangus]

Well, those rocks probably haven't been in the stream for millions of years. Streams tend to pop up here and there, and rarely persist for more than a few thousand years. The rocks need not be much older than beach glass.

IIt's been too long since I've studied such things -- but I think the reason for the rough edges of the Grand Canyon is smaller-scale wind erosion and weathering (after the large-scale water erosion), which tends to cause chips and chunks to fall off at a time, particularly when the rock in question tends to fracture easily or, like sandstone, is made of a composite of granules and a cementing mineral.

[Ichneumon]

No new species have appeared. Existing species changed within their design parameters. If you disagree, I would like you to point out, documented of course, a new species appearing.

Any/all species of arachnids appeared within the past 450 million years. They did not exist before that.

Any/all species of tetrapods appeared within the past 450 million years. They did not exist before that.

Any/all species of insects appeared within the past 450 million years. They did not exist before that.

Any/all species of dinosaurs appeared within the past 250 million years. They did not exist before that.

Any/all species of birds appeared within the past 210 million years. They did not exist before that.

Any/all species of flowering plants appeared within the past 150 million years. They did not exist before that.

Any/all species of modern mammals appeared within the past 150 million years. They did not exist before that.

Any/all species of horses appeared within the past 40 million years. They did not exist before that.

Any/all species of elephants appeared within the past 40 million years. They did not exist before that.

Any/all species of grasses appeared within the past 40 million years. They did not exist before that.

That's around a million or so new species "appearing", how many more would you like?

We have evidence that a species "appears" in the geologic record with no links to a "transitional" animal. Hmmn.

"We" do? Feel free to name some from the past 200 million years or so.

And are you trying to imply that no species "appears" in the geologic record *with* links to transitional forms? If so, what are these?

[Doctor Stochastic]

What is your definition of species? Whales and kumquats cannot interbreed due to genetic differences; the end members of the rings cannot interbreed due to genetic differences.

[r9etb]

You only restated your previous comment that evolutionary theory predicts differences in intelligence among races.

Not quite. Let's see if I can restate. Suppose that evolutionary theory is correct that intelligence is an evolved trait. Then we would obviously expect to find a genetic component to intelligence, and at the same time we would expect some environmental factor that results in selection for intelligence.

The studies referred to above show that there are genetically discernable, geographically concentrated "sub-populations." This is what I was referring to when I used the word "race." The quotes were intended to emphasize I was using the term only as a convenience, but the studies do note a correlation between these populations and "racial" ethnic identifications.

Anyway, this geographic-genetic differentiation is precisely what one would expect from evolution, as the environmental factors are obviously different in the Gobi desert than for equatorial Africa.

The next step is this: is it possible that one set of environmental factors would select more strongly for intelligence than another? Certainly it's possible -- it is, in fact, the working theory for how human intelligence evolved.

The final step is obvious: is it possible that a population from, say, Asia might have selected for intelligence differently from one in equatorial Africa? Sure -- if it takes different skills to stay alive in one place than another, then the more "difficult" place might well select more strongly for intelligence than for, say, speed and endurance.

In "Mismeasure of Man," Gould basically took to task various historical attempts to measure intelligence. This is fine as far as it goes, but it does not justify his later conclusion the there is no difference.

I think on that last point, it's probably not possible for a researcher to conduct, much less publish, meaningful research on racial intelligence differences -- any study that did find a difference would be hailed on one side, and condemned by the other, primarily for political reasons. It's the same political dynamic that makes it extraordinarily difficult to find trustworthy data on the life expectancy of homosexual males.

It's always tempting, of course, to look at the progress of civilization in various locations, and make inferences that way. For example, it appears that equatorial Africa has tended to be a brutal sh!thole for as long as history can record, whereas China boasts a long line of civilization "firsts." Is that meaningful? I don't know, but it may well be suggestive.

Finally, there's the problem of defining "intelligence." It's a complex thing, and different sorts of "human brainpower" might be selected-for in different situations. Here we might be able to borrow from the world of dog-breeding, where certain types of personalities and mental traits can be, and are, selected for. Thus we see the affable and laid-back (except for chasing balls) golden retriever; the obsessive herding instincts of a border collie; and the protectiveness and intelligence of a German Shepherd. Regardless of what the "intelligence measure" really is, we do know that certain breeds tend to be more mentally suitable for certain tasks than others.

[Doctor Stochastic]

Correct. That's the way things are supposed to proceed. As a rule of thumb, high correlation usually means that there is a causation, but the obvious one may not be correct (storks and babies.)

[Havoc]

Evidence and testing? You mean carbon dating or guessing age based upon layers of material.. Carbon dating is a technical way of guessing age because the assumed constant is not constant nor is the variable proveable over time as to what it has been at any given time. Nor does it consider saturation or contamination properly, it is impossible to know these things, thus rendering it a couple of guesses plugged into an equation rendering the outcome a processed guess. Layer dating isn't much more complicated nor is it any more accurate. Doesn't hurt my worldview; but, it really peaves some of you zealots.

[Dataman]

We'll just score that attempted combo dodge/smear move as a direct hit, thank you very much.

Dan

A direct hit it was. I-non has no moral authority to demand others modify manners while wallowing in indecorous snobbishness such as Try again when your manners, your maturity, and your reading comprehension all improve.

[dangus]

Since the 1800s, it's been observed by biologists that the mechanism for evolution ON A SMALL SCALE was mutation of genes. (Watson and Crick in the '60's demonstrated the nature of genes, but their existence had long been hypothesized; many expected that they were protein, whereas W&C showed that they were chromosomes.)

As biologists have been BETTER able to show macro-evolution in the fossil record and in the protein and chromosomal analysis, attention has been paid to MICRO-evolutoin (or, better stated, "sexual selection," a term coined by DARWIN himself because he realized "evolution" would only be fitting for massive changes over huge periods of time).

You are right: sexual selection is better understood to occur at crisis. If thick fur is better than thin fur, the thicker-furred creatures will NOT gradually replace the thinner-furred creatures, but will probably make large strides during exceptionally harsh winters.

Also, as the focus has been more on smaller periods of time, certain mechanisms of evolution have been seen. A traditional challenge to evolution is this: Since partially evolved feathers are useless for flight, how did such a complex feature evolve? The answer is that many features have "interum" purposes. For example: The intricate features of a feather make feathers excellent for insulation. In fact, the fossil record shows tens of millions of years of fossils of feathered creatures who did not fly. Then one feathered reptile that happened to be a glider had a mutation that caused the fibers of his down to "zip" together forming a working feather.

[Dataman]

Translation: "Wahh! You were supposed to roll over and play dead! Not fair! Wahhh!"

You nailed it.

[dangus]

>> hideous image of Michael Jackson >>

THat's what you call UNNATURAL selection.

[Doctor Stochastic]

Finally, there's the problem of defining "intelligence."

That's actually the almost the entire problem. Likewise, one mustn't confuse intelligence with learning. I would guess (based on pretty good evidence) that the ancient Egyptians were every bit as intelligent as we are today, but they just didn't know as much (not counting what we have forgotten.)

[dangus]

>> Back atcha: Evolutionary theory: random chance created all forms of life on Earth. HOW? >>

Natural Selection is not random, and it conforms to the Laws of Nature created by God.