General Chat (Non-Music-Related)

As wacky as some of us may believe Vampier's constant 'doom and gloom' stuff is, these people are crazier!
https://www.tfes.org/
I wonder if the folks behind it are just really smart and love to see how they can pull one over on the toadies? Read their forum for a whole lot of craziness!

Whatever... 2 stupid comments from 2 very accurately conjoined twins of absolute hatred of anyone that follows Gods LAW and can be successful...

You guys don't have a CLUE! SAD.

Whacky? Only because you, MIKE BIRCH would LOVE the opportunity to CENSOR everyone.

You power hungry little Ahole.

Whacky? Only because you, MIKE BIRCH would LOVE the opportunity to CENSOR everyone.

You power hungry little Ahole.

I thought you had me on 'ignore', buttercup. Guess you must be a 'flat earther', too? Would not surprise me. You obviously didn't read what I posted, or check the link out. Go back to your little piggy and keep on crying.

I'll see your flat earth and raise you a "No Moon Society."

I created such a beast in my senior year of high school a) to annoy the teachers, and b) to amuse myself by seeing if I could somehow prove logically that the moon does not exist.

All that time wasted. I could have been stealing hubcaps or something useful.

Talbot

I'll see your flat earth and raise you a "No Moon Society."

I created such a beast in my senior year of high school a) to annoy the teachers, and b) to amuse myself by seeing if I could somehow prove logically that the moon does not exist.

All that time wasted. I could have been stealing hubcaps or something useful.

Talbot

That's funny! But go to that link and see just how much time and effort has been invested in this whole thing!

http://yourlisten.com/PieTime/devil-inside-the-temple
http://yourlisten.com/PieTime/royal-cou ... d-you-back

some advocates of evolutionism have also assumed a right to reject the creationary paradigm because it does not explain in detail exactly how (in scientific terms comprehensible to the mind of man) the Creator performed the act of creation. The argument goes something like: “It’s not a valid theory unless you can explain exactly how the so-called act of creation took place!” But the speaker has failed to recognize at least two things as he seeks to impose this demand:

The very nature of the creationary paradigm precludes man, as a created being, from any right or entitlement to exhaustive knowledge of the Creator’s ways or means. It is an act of arrogance for the creature to claim entitlement from the Creator for more information than the Creator has chosen to reveal (as if he had the capability to comprehend it in the first place). The creationist thus can and will claim to “know” no more about the act of creation than what the Creator has chosen to reveal.
By demanding a “how” explanation, the evolutionist has invoked a double standard, since the evolutionary hypothesis ultimately fails to produce an empirically substantiated explanation as to “how” everything “happened” all by itself, with no apparent cause or purpose. Unable to explain exactly “how” matter and energy appeared where previously there was nothing, and unable to explain exactly “how” genetic information appeared in massive amounts where previously there was none, the evolutionist is scarcely entitled to demand to know “how” it was done by the Creator.
Demanding the right to know “how” the omniscient, omnipotent Creator has done something is a rather self-important and presumptuous posture to be assumed by a creature incapable of suggesting exactly “how” the thing might have happen all by itself via any other means.
Conclusion

By having the terms defined with more clarity (and less bias), and with a measure of information provided, one should have little difficulty seeing that the “theory of creation” not only exists, but also stands up rather well to a rigorous side-by-side comparison with its evolutionary counterpart. It has predictive value, is internally consistent, is no less falsifiable than evolution, and consistently explains at least as many phenomena allegedly “explained” by evolution.

The vocal proponents of evolution have demonstrated time and again that they are not interested in this kind of straightforward clarity or information. They object to its presentation, excuse themselves from paying much (if any) careful attention to it, then return to hacking up their favorite “straw-man” caricatures and congratulating each other on a job well done. (Don’t let this happen to you!)

Vocal proponents of evolutionism such as are found at Talk.Origins have employed willful ignorance and arbitrary double-standards to question the scientific legitimacy of the creation science model. They then go to great lengths to avoid responsibility for using such unscientific—if not outright deceptive—tactics to disparage their worst nightmare: the truth.

Timothy Wallace

straw-man again? he said Creator not God


Opponents of Neo-Darwinian evolution have argued that it is impossible, because many biological systems require an irreducible number of parts for the system to have any useful function. The concept of irreducibility requires a set of characteristics that must exist simultaneously. Such characteristics are termed critical characteristics. The advantage of identifying critical characteristics is that they give an indication of the minimum quantity of design information that must exist simultaneously in the genetic code for a mechanism to have any useful function. The irreducible mechanism of the knee joint is shown to contain at least 16 critical characteristics, each requiring thousands of precise units of information to exist simultaneously in the genetic code. This demonstrates that the knee could not have evolved but must have been created as a fully functioning limb joint from the beginning of its existence.

Introduction

According to the theory of evolution, natural mechanisms such as limb joints have evolved one characteristic at a time by random and rare genetic mistakes, called mutations. Evolutionists admit that mutations generally give rise to disability and suffering, because organisms are so delicately balanced that random changes tend to cause all kinds of malfunctions. For example, mutations are known to be responsible for serious genetic disorders such as hemophilia and cystic fibrosis.[1] However, despite the damaging nature of mutations, evolutionists believe that sometimes there are mutations that produce an improvement in the functioning of an organism. Evolutionists believe that these ‘favourable mistakes’ are inherited by offspring and accumulate so that a new species evolves. Evolution is believed despite a complete absence of indisputable evidence for the existence of any information-adding mutations.[2]

Definition of an Irreducible Mechanism

Evolution is based on a key assumption that natural mechanisms within organisms can evolve incrementally so that all intermediate mechanisms have some useful function that gives a survival advantage. A mechanism that can evolve one characteristic at a time whilst always having a useful function can be called a reducible mechanism. A mechanism that cannot evolve one characteristic at a time whilst always having a useful function can be called an irreducible mechanism. Behe has recently applied the term irreducible to biochemical systems that cannot evolve.[3] However, opponents of evolution have used the basic concept of irreducibility for a long time. For example, the argument that bird flight requires ‘many parts to be simultaneously present’ has been used for many years.[4]

Even Darwin himself admitted that evolution could only produce a reducible mechanism. In his Origin of Species, Darwin says:

‘If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.’ [5]
One of the most vocal evolutionists of our day, Richard Dawkins, is also adamant that evolution can only work if it is incremental.[6]

Since an intelligent designer is not restricted to incremental change, he is able to create irreducible mechanisms without any difficulty. This means that an intelligent designer has an inherently far greater capacity for ingenious design than does the process of evolution. It is interesting to note that evolutionists sometimes admit that the process of evolution is very restricted compared to intelligent design because of the constraint of incremental change. For example, Steven Vogel says:

‘ … the evolutionary process faces constraints far more severe than anything impeding human designers. We biologists recognise these constraints, but we don’t often rise above our natural chauvinism and make enough noise about them. Every organism must grow from an initially smaller to an ultimately larger size. Nature in effect must transmute a motorcycle into an automobile while providing continuous transportation. The need for growth without loss of function can impose severe geometrical limitations.’ [7]

It is important to note the confession that biologists do not make enough noise about the constraints of evolution because there is an obvious contradiction between the enormous restrictions of evolution and the obvious superiority of design in the natural world!

Since only intelligent design can produce an irreducible mechanism, the existence of irreducible mechanisms in nature demonstrates the existence of an intelligent Designer.[8] Identifying irreducible mechanisms in nature is very important, because evolutionists are very clever at focusing attention on non-essential parts within mechanisms. For example, Dawkins places much attention on how the lens in the human eye is not essential to the basic functioning of the eye and how this supposedly supports the theory of evolution.[9]

Definition of a Critical Characteristic

In this paper, the concept of irreducibility is developed further to the level of an irreducible set of characteristics that must exist simultaneously for a mechanism to have any useful function. Such characteristics are termed critical characteristics. Critical characteristics must not only be simultaneously present, but they must also be simultaneously and precisely compatible with each other in order to produce the required physical effects. In general, the critical characteristics of mechanical mechanisms are often geometrical characteristics, because these must have precise values whereas other characteristics such as material properties do not usually have to have precise values. The advantage of identifying an irreducible set of critical characteristics is that they give an indication of the minimum quantity of information in the genetic code that must exist simultaneously and correctly. The identification of a set of critical characteristics provides overwhelming evidence that a natural mechanism could not have evolved.

The Irreducible Human Knee Joint


Figure 1. Anatomy of the knee joint (peripheral ligaments and knee cap removed). F = Femur, T = Tibia, LC = Lateral condyle, MC = Medial condyle, PCL = Posterior cruciate ligament, ACL = Anterior cruciate ligament.

There are basically three types of limb joint in animals and humans. These are the ball and socket joint (e.g. hip and shoulder), the pivot joint (e.g. elbow) and the condylar joint (e.g. knee). The knee joint is the largest and most complex joint in the human body. The knee is called a condylar joint because of the articulation between the femur and the tibia, as shown in Figures 1 and 2.[10] The femur has two protrusions called condyles. These have a convex curvature in order to roll and slide against the tibia. The tibia has two concave grooves that match the condyles of the femur. The two central ligaments that connect the tibia to the femur are called cruciate ligaments because of the way they form a cross. These cruciate ligaments fit neatly inside the space between the two condyles.

The knee joint is an irreducible joint because each of its four complex parts needs to exist simultaneously and in a complex assembly to be able to perform its basic function. The two bones are essential because they perform the rolling and sliding motion. The two cruciate ligaments are essential because they act as mechanical linkages and perform a vital guiding function in the joint, as shown in Figure 2. If just one ligament is removed, then the joint cannot function as a hinge, and the joint can have no useful function.

Critical Characteristics in the Knee Joint


Figure 2. The irreducible mechanism of the knee (bones cut away to show cruciate ligaments).

The irreducibility of the knee joint is most clearly demonstrated by identifying the critical geometrical characteristics that must be defined in the genetic code. The knee has many critical geometrical characteristics because the two cruciate ligaments and the two leg bones form a very sophisticated and precise mechanism, called a four-bar hinge.[11]

The four-bar hinge mechanism of the knee is shown at various stages of rotation in Figure 2. These stages of rotation are schematically presented in Figure 3 to show clearly how the four-bar hinge works. The cruciate ligaments form the two crossed bars (b & c) whilst the upper and lower bones effectively form the other two bars (a & d). The cruciate ligaments are able to pivot where they are attached to the bones (points 1, 2, 3 & 4) because they are made of a non-rigid material. In a four-bar hinge, the length of each of the four bars remains constant, but the angle between each bar can change so the lower leg can rotate. One important feature of the four-bar hinge is that the instantaneous centre of rotation approximately coincides with the cross-over point of the cruciate ligaments. This cross-over point moves as the joint opens and closes so that the knee does not have a fixed point of rotation, as does a simple pivot joint. The knee joint is a particularly sophisticated kind of four-bar hinge, because the cruciate ligaments are not rigid and have to be kept taut by the rolling action of the bones.

Table 1: Critical characteristics in the knee joint.

Part

Critical Characteristics

No. of Critical Characteristics

Femur bone

Protrusion of two condyles

2

Convex curvature of two condyles

2

Position of ligament attachment points

2

Tibia bone

Concave curvatures of two tracks

2

Position of ligament attachment points

2

Anterior cruciate
ligament

Position of ligament attachment points

2

Length of ligament

1

Posterior cruciate
ligament

Position of ligament attachment points

2

Length of ligament

1

TOTAL


16

There are at least 16 critical characteristics in the knee joint as shown in Table 1. These are geometrical characteristics that are absolutely essential to the joint. For simplicity, these will be specified by the order of 16 genes in the genetic code. It could be argued that the knee joint also requires characteristics to trigger the growth of the four separate components. However, these have not been included in Table 1 because the evolutionist may argue that the four components already happened to exist in some ‘primitive joint’. It could also be argued that the knee joint requires characteristics to describe a muscle actuator. However, these too have been left out because the evolutionist may argue that these already happened to exist in some ‘primitive joint’. Therefore, these 16 characteristics represent a conservative estimate of the minimum required critical characteristics in the knee joint.

If any one of the critical characteristics shown in Table 1 is missing, then the knee cannot function at all. Anyone who has experienced a ruptured cruciate ligament will know this only too well. The 16 critical characteristics must not only be present, but must also be precisely compatible with each other to produce the right physical motion. The two bones must have a compatible curvature at their interface and this curvature must also be precisely compatible with the position and movement of the cruciate ligaments. In particular, the bones must be shaped so as to make the lower leg rotate around the instantaneous centre of rotation of the four-bar hinge. If the attachment points are not in the right place on the bones, then the instantaneous centre of rotation of the knee joint will not be compatible with the shapes of the bones, and the knee will seize up or fall apart. The ligaments must also be assembled to the correct attachment points so that the ligaments form a cross as shown in Figures 2 and 3. If one of the ligaments was assembled to the wrong attachment point such that the cross was not formed, then the knee could not function as a hinge and would be useless.


Figure 3. Schematic diagram of the four-bar mechanism in the knee joint. See text for explanation.

Since a human characteristic is typically specified by one gene with about 1,000 chemical units of information, it requires many thousands of units of information in the genetic code to specify the essential design information of the four-bar hinge. The theory of evolution proposes that mutations cause random changes to units of information in the genetic code and that this leads to evolution. Yet with the knee, many thousands of precise units of information must be in place simultaneously for the knee to have any usefulness.

Not only must all critical characteristics be present from the start but they must also remain unchanged, otherwise this will cause the physical system to break down. In the case of a healthy knee joint, if a random change is made to one of the critical characteristics, such as the position of a ligament, then the knee will cease to function properly because the position of the ligament is no longer compatible with other critical characteristics. This shows why random gene mutations generally cause malfunctions and suffering in living organisms.

The Impossibility of an Evolved Knee

The knee joint presents a major challenge to the evolutionist because it is unique, and because there are no intermediate forms of joint between a condylar joint and the other two limb joints found in animals and humans - the ball and socket joint and the pivot joint. The knee is widely acknowledged by anatomists as being a completely distinct type of joint.[12] This is because the knee uses completely different mechanical principles for hinged movement. Whereas the knee has two mechanical linkages that perform a vital guidance role (the cruciate ligaments), the joints of the hip, shoulder and elbow have no such mechanical linkages at all. Whereas the knee rolls and slides, the joints of the hip, shoulder and elbow only slide. Whereas the knee has a centre of rotation that moves by up to several centimetres, the joints of the hip, shoulder and elbow have a fixed centre of rotation.

It is interesting to note that some biology books describe the knee joint as a ‘highly modified hinge joint’ implying that the knee must have evolved from the simple pivot joint that exists in the elbow.[10] The use of the term ‘highly modified’ shows that evolutionists are aware that there is a big difference between a pivot joint and a condylar joint. In fact, the difference is enormous because there are no known intermediate mechanisms between a simple pivot hinge and a four-bar mechanism. Indeed, a pivot hinge has none of the critical characteristics shown in Table 1. In particular, a pivot joint has nothing remotely like the two crossed cruciate ligaments at the centre of the joint. The evolutionist might argue that there is a similarity with the curved surfaces of the bones. However, there is even a distinct difference in the curvature of the bones between the knee and elbow joints because of the complex motion of the knee.

It would seem impossible for evolutionism to explain how an evolutionary process could cause two ligaments to suddenly become crossed at the centre of a pivot joint, precisely at the same time that a space is formed to accommodate them, and precisely at the same time that a complex and compatible rolling motion is formed! The popular evolutionist Dawkins claims that he is not aware of any type of complex organ that could not have evolved by ‘numerous successive slight modifications’.[13] However, the knee joint appears to be one clear example of a mechanism within the human body that could not possibly have evolved by numerous successive slight modifications.

Non-Essential Parts in the Knee Joint

The anatomy of the knee in Figure 3 is deliberately simplified in order to identify the parts that are absolutely essential to the most basic function of the knee. Having demonstrated that there is an irreducible mechanism within the knee that cannot evolve, it is important to note that the complete knee contains an extremely efficient and elegant design with many complex parts. These include a bone at the front of the knee called the patella (knee-cap) and a fibrous capsule containing several ligaments, which encloses and supports the joint. There is also a soft cartilage to reduce shock loads between the bones and an elaborate arrangement of muscle fibres connected to the front and back of the leg to enable the movement of the joint to be finely controlled. There is even a lubricating fluid, called synovial fluid, inside the knee that makes the joint rotate smoothly and last a long time.

The biomechanics of the knee are also simplified in Figure 3 for clarity. In reality, the ligaments do stretch by a tiny amount when the knee is in certain positions. There is also a small amount of torsional freedom between the femur and tibia. These features make the knee joint an extremely sophisticated mechanism. Indeed, the knee joint is so sophisticated that human designers have been unable to produce an artificial knee that has anything approaching the performance of a real knee.

Even though the fine details of the knee joint give wonderful evidence of design, it is only the irreducibility of the knee mechanism that can ‘prove’ the theory of evolution to be impossible. Evolutionists such as Richard Dawkins are experts at focusing attention on non-critical parts. If evolutionists attempted to discuss the evolution of the knee, I suspect they would describe in detail how the knee-cap was not actually essential and how it just appeared and was retained because it gave advantages. It is most likely that they would also say that the lubricating fluid was not essential but that it suddenly appeared and remained because it gave advantages. After giving many such examples, they may lead the reader into thinking that every single part of the knee could just evolve by chance. It is therefore very important to present to evolutionists the irreducible mechanism at the core of the knee joint and to identify critical characteristics.

Non-Critical Characteristics in the Knee Joint

Non-critical characteristics are characteristics that do not have to be simultaneously present with exact values for a system to perform a useful function. Examples of non-critical characteristics in the knee joint include the colours and material properties of the cruciate ligaments and bones. Since these characteristics do not interact precisely with other characteristics and they do not affect the basic functioning of the knee, it is theoretically possible for these non-critical characteristics to evolve by mutation and in isolation. However, even though the ligaments and bones could in theory change in terms of colour and material properties by random mutations, these changes would not convert the knee into another kind of mechanism!

The fact that evolution can in theory evolve characteristics that are non-critical is used by the evolutionist to give the impression that evolution can work. School textbooks often give examples of how a new colour of a creature such as a moth could evolve by mutation, and then say that with many mutations the moth could have evolved from a primitive creature. However, even though the colour of a moth may be important to its survival, the characteristic of colour is nevertheless a trivial one in terms of how it affects the functioning of organs and parts within the moth. Therefore, the example of the evolution of colour by mutation is not an example of evolution at all because no matter how many non-critical characteristics are evolved, they can never change one kind of functioning system into another kind of functioning system.

When discussing evolution, biology books will rarely distinguish between critical and non-critical characteristics in an organism although characteristics are known to vary greatly in importance. This is very surprising, because a characteristic like the attachment position of a ligament is vastly more important than the colour of the ligament. There is no doubt that critical characteristics are obscured because evolutionists can only attempt to give trivial examples of evolution such as changes in colour. To demonstrate the theory of evolution, the evolutionist would have to show how a critical characteristic like the attachment position of the cruciate ligaments could evolve. However, this has never been done and can never be done because such a critical characteristic could not evolve in isolation.

Four-Bar Hinges in Engineering

Four-bar hinges are commonly found in vehicle steering mechanisms. Engineers always start the design exercise with a complete set of parts. Following on from the transport analogy of Steven Vogel, the theory of evolution is analogous to proposing that one can take the engineering drawings of a simple pivot joint used in a motorbike steering wheel and evolve them into the drawings of the steering system of a four-wheeled vehicle. The information on the drawings is equivalent to the genetic code, and random photocopying errors in the information are analogous to mutations. The evolutionist believes that the random photocopying errors will sometimes produce a slightly better system, and that via selection, eventually the steering system of the motorbike will turn into a four-bar hinge and form the steering system of a four-wheeled vehicle!

Such reasoning is absurd for several reasons. Firstly, if a random change were made to the information on a drawing of a motorbike steering system, then this would at best cause no change in the basic functions and at worst have catastrophic consequences. Secondly, there are no intermediate mechanisms between a motorbike steering system and a car steering system, whereas evolution would require hundreds of fully functioning intermediate forms. In a similar way, it is impossible for the knee joint to have evolved from a simple pivot joint such as the elbow joint.

The Uniqueness of the Human Knee

The basic principle of the knee joint is unique whether it is the knee joint of an animal or human being. However, there is yet a further problem for the evolutionist in that the human knee is distinctly different from animal knees. In the case of humans, the knee is designed to lock easily in extension (straight leg) so that maintaining straight legs and a vertical posture is easy. This design feature is one reason why man is a biped (two-legged) and is able to walk and run upright in a completely natural way. Apes’ knees cannot lock and must be continually loaded in flexion (bent leg). Thus apes are generally quadrupedal (four-legged) and it is extremely difficult for apes to maintain a vertical posture with its legs. Evolutionists admit that the only way apes can attempt to stand upright is by having awkward bends at the ankle, knee and hip joints.[14] Such a distorted posture means that apes can only stay vertical for short periods and distances. In contrast, an able-bodied and fit human being can run many miles without great difficulty!

Evolutionists admit that there is a key difference between the knees of animals and humans. For example, Dye says:

‘Despite the overall similarity of the design of the knee in tetrapods, no ideal animal model of the human knee is available.’ [15]

That there are thousands of different types of animals on the earth that move with a horizontal stature provides great evidence that humans have been deliberately designed to be unique.

The Power and Wisdom of God

The human knee joint not only gives evidence of design but it also gives evidence of the infinite power and wisdom of God. Solomon spoke of the wonder of growth in the womb:

‘As you do not know what is the way of the wind, or how the bones grow in the womb of her who is with child, so you do not know the works of God who makes everything’ (Ecclesiastes 11:5).

Conclusion

Whether gene mutations are random (as atheists believe) or planned (as many theistic evolutionists believe) the process of evolution cannot produce an irreducible mechanism because evolution is restricted to incremental change in the genetic code.

The human knee joint is an irreducible mechanism that must have at least four complex parts existing simultaneously and in a complex assembly to perform any useful function. The 16 critical characteristics in the knee joint correspond to several thousand units of information in the genetic code. These units of information cannot evolve incrementally but must exist simultaneously for the knee to perform its basic function.

There are no intermediate forms of joint between the condylar joint of the knee and the other two joints found in animals and humans — the ball and socket joint and the pivot joint. And there are distinct differences between the knee joint of animals and that of humans.

There is thus overwhelming evidence that the knee was created as a fully functioning limb joint from the beginning of its existence.

Stuart Burgess is a lecturer in Engineering Design in the Department of Mechanical Engineering at Bristol University, United Kingdom. He has also lectured Engineering Design at Cambridge University where he was a Bye-Fellow of Selwyn College. He has published over 50 papers and patents in the area of engineering design and is a recipient of the Worshipful Company of Turners Engineering Design Gold Medal. He is a member of Buckingham Chapel in Bristol and has a Diploma in Theology from the London Reformed Baptist Seminary. He acknowledges helpful comments from Dr John Davis from the Department of Civil Engineering, Bristol University.

[RETURN TO TEXT]
References

[1] Roberts, M.B.V., Biology a Functional Approach, 4th Ed., Nelson, Walton-on-Tham

http://yourlisten.com/PieTime/royal-cou ... d-you-back

Dawkins’ Weasel Analogy

Dawkins (1986) developed a computer simulation program called the “weasel analogy” to illustrate how Darwinian evolution works. The term “weasel analogy” refers to a line in Hamlet, viz. “METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL,” which is the target sequence. Dawkins started with a set of English letters selected by random. His computer program then reproduced his starting string of letters to achieve a second generation, a third generation, etc. Each time that his computer ran the program, though, random changes were introduced (Dawkins, 1998). In each generation, the computer chose only those randomly changed letters that fit the target sequence. The letters that fit the goal letters are retained and not mutated again. This example was meant to simulate how natural selection might work to evolve a living organism, and the productive changes that can result from natural selection of simulated mutations (Spetner, 1997). The concept illustrates both the evolution of genes from preexisting genes and also from random sequences of DNA.

Dawkins’ example has been widely cited in the literature, and many evolutionists have asserted that his computer analogy provides clear support for Darwinism. Chet Raymo, for example, argued that such modeling is a valid method of demonstrating evolution, and that:

What seemed unlikely to Darwin, and seems impossible to creationists, has been shown to be quite reasonable by high-speed computer modeling. Not only reasonable, but, given the proven premises of random mutations and natural selection, virtually inevitable. Will successful computer simulations make any difference to creationist True Believers? Not likely (Raymo, 1998, p. 152).
Problems with Dawkins’ Analogy

An evaluation of the literature and an analysis of the original data reveals many serious problems with Dawkins’ mutation/selection model. A major problem is the computer program contains human designed foresight that evolution does not possess. Intermediate word sets are chosen only because the program is designed to select for changes that match its predetermined goal. Many of Dawkins’ rules are unrealistic, such as only non-goal letters are subject to mutation in each generation in order to reach the goal. They would not be selected by a reader who did not know the goal of the program. Many problems also exist with the mutation/selection basis of macroevolution, three of which will be covered in detail here because they demonstrate a major problem of neoDarwinism in nature.

One major problem is that this model does not include lethal mutations. Every single product of the program can survive and “reproduce” until the goal is reached. As a result, there is no limit to the “beneficial changes” available for selection, and every single change to each goal letter increases “fitness” and is thus selected for the next generation (Spetner, 1997, pp. 163-170). This model is totally unrealistic because most expressed mutations are deleterious and, as a result, the favorable mutations almost always “become swallowed in the flood of bad mutations” (Hoyle, 1999, p. 20). Hence, “only mutations of small effect are likely to be beneficial” (Bell, 1997, p. 56).

The triplet genetic code design is resistant to mutational changes in the gene product because a third base mutation will often result in the same amino acid when translated. Thus no amino acid change will occur in the protein that is produced. In these cases, natural selection acting on the genome would not significantly affect the protein. Even these so-called neutral mutations, however, can affect the efficiency with which such proteins are manufactured.

In almost every organism studied so far, a distinct preference or bias exists for a particular codon for each amino acid. For example, among all the 6 different codon triplets that code for leucine in E. coli 49% are CTG, while in yeast 10% of leucines use this code compared to 44% in the fruit fly and 41% in humans (Eyre-Walker, 2002, p. 176). In E. coli, for lysine the AAA code is used 75% of the time and the AAG code is used only 25%. In contrast, Rhodobacter employs the opposite proportion: AAA is used 25% of the time for lysine and AAG 75%. This does not conform to neoDarwinian predictions. If the proportion were the same for all bacteria (which it is not), this could be seen as evidence for evolution. We do not see evidence of a neoDarwinian relationship in this pattern—organisms that are judged closer by evolution criteria do not have a similar coding usage bias.

If a cell rarely uses a specific codon, it produces lower levels of the tRNA needed for that codon (Clark and Russell, 1999, p. 220). As a result, mutation from AAA to AAG will still produce lysine, but the tRNA needed for AAG will be in such short supply that protein synthesis will not proceed as rapidly as normal. NeoDarwinists argue that the code evolved first, and then the tRNA regulation level evolved later. But it could just as well be argued that tRNA regulation developed first, and this influenced the protein code selection so that more of certain tRNAs caused the code used by that tRNA to become more common. Nonetheless, no evidence exists that a change occurred either way in either the code frequency or in the tRNA regulation.

Mutational Changes are Not Random

Another of the many objections to the mutation/selection theory (and the weasel analogy as well) is that it assumes all possible single-base pair substitution mutational changes of each base pair have an equal probability of occurring. It will be shown that this is not the case—certain changes are far more likely to occur than others. In addition, when random mutations take place, certain amino acids are also far more likely to be produced than others (Lewin, 1997).

If the GGT DNA codon mutates to TGT, the mRNA produced by the DNA template during transcription would be UGU instead of GGU and, as a result, cysteine would be incorporated into the resultant protein instead of glycine. The DNA coding strand or non-template strand mutations affect the germline, and the complement strand, also called the template strand, is used to produce the mRNA that is identical to the coding strand, except in mRNA where a uracil is used instead of a thymine. Given the average gene, and assuming that equal numbers of mutations occur at each base pair, the probabilities shown in Table I will be produced, demonstrating, as will be explained below, degeneration of genomic information.

As shown in Table I, almost 60% (59.7%) of the amino acids produced by a random selection three base pairs will consist of just eight amino acids (serine, arginine, leucine, threonine, alanine, glycine, valine, and proline). The twelve other amino acids will be produced only about 35% of the time. Two amino acids (gryptophane and thionine) are coded by only one m-RNA codon, 1.6% each. Serine and arginine can be produced by six different combinations of base pairs, whereas typtophan and methionine can be produced by only one codon. Because certain amino acids would be far more likely to result from mutations that cause a DNA base pair change, deterioration would result in the increasing dominance of certain amino acids and the increasing rarity of other amino acids. The result would be a loss of information. Random mutations will ultimately lead to a gradual increase of the eight amino acids and a decrease of the others, especially methionine and tryptophan. As mutations accumulate, the result will be an increasingly larger number of certain amino acids in the genome, especially in areas of the genome that are not subject to natural selection.

This does not happen in the natural world today, however, because natural selection functions as a conserving force to select out deleterious genetic changes. Likewise, changes that are beneficial will be selected for, but these helpful changes are close to nonexistent, indicating that the genome was optimal from the beginning. Natural selection operating on mutations may in some cases optimize survival if acting on an existing functional gene, but mutations cannot build-up the code in the first place.

A preliminary analysis of the DNA finds that the proportion of amino acids existing in genes, introns, and other DNA are not what would be expected by natural selection. When DNA that has no known function, (excluding DNA used for regulatory purposes, for centromeres, for telomeres, and for the production of RNA or tRNA) is examined, the patterns found are clearly in contrast to expected random mutational patterns shown in Table I. This shows that random changes have had only a small role in producing the genome, both in its protein coding and noncoding sections. Part of the reason is that mechanisms that function to resist change in the DNA genome exist. But these repair mechanisms would not have existed in primitive cells, which would mean that rapid genomic degeneration would have occurred before the repair system had evolved. These facts also argue against the conclusion of Ayala (1978) that the ultimate source of genome information of all life was mutations.

The likelihood of producing certain families of amino acids such as polar and non polar, must also be determined. This classification of randomly produced amino acids is important in protecting genome information because members of the same amino acid family have similar functions in producing the required protein conformation. Amino acids from one family can sometimes be interchanged and still produce a functional polypeptide or protein. The random production of amino acids based on frequencies of m-RNA codons would yield too few (only 18.8%) of the charged amino acids that are critical to produce the hydrophobic interaction required to maintain the correct conformational structure of proteins (Ritter, 1996, p. 69). Only 4.7% of the 64 randomly produced codons would lead to the sulfur-containing types of amino acids (methionine and cysteine) necessary for disulfide bonding in proteins. Random production of the codes for amino acids would also tend to produce a high percentages of nonpolar uncharged and polar uncharged amino acids (62.7%).

Some mutations would help to restore the structure but the trend would consistently be toward nonpolar uncharged and polar uncharged amino acids which would cause a deterioration of the genome. For every mutation that would help to restore the structure, more would occur that would move the genome toward the most likely amino acid type. The next research step is to determine how common each of these amino acids is in the proteins of various organisms. A preliminary review indicates there exists a great contrast between expectations due to random changes and what actually exists, assuming natural selection produced the genome.

Biased Conversion of a Nucleotide Base into another Base

Mutations can change one nucleotide base into another. The extant genetic research indicates that nucleotide conversion by such mutations is not random, but highly skewed. One of the most common conversions is of a cytosine into a uracil (Ridley, 2001, p. 91). This change can also be caused by nitrites that replace the amino group in cytosine with a hydroxyl group, converting cytosine into uracil that introduces an Adenine on the complementary strand of DNA (Pool, Penny, and Sjšberg, 2001, p. 147; Clark and Russell, 1999, p. 163).

This mutation of C into U does not normally produce permanent changes in animals today because a specific, dedicated, repair enzyme system exists to monitor and repair this common incorrect conversion (Reader and Joyce, 2002, p. 843). As a result, C-to-U mutations are uncommon in organisms that have this repair system. The chemical instability of cytosine, which readily deaminates to uracil, is so great that origin-of-life theorists hypothesize that the early life forms must have used a different set of bases, such as diaminopurine instead of cytosine, in order to survive (Reader and Joyce, 2002). Aside from lack of evidence, this solution creates a whole new set of problems, not the least of which is the need to postulate that the code existing in all life today was in the past a different code because no life form currently uses diaminopurine or other bases.

Degeneration of the genome also occurs as a result of mutations occurs in living organism because certain bases are far more likely than others to result from mutations, such as the conversion from Guanine (G) to Thymine (T) that will eventually produce TTT (UUU in mRNA), the code for phenylalanine. As a result, when random bases are produced (assuming that all bases have an equal probability of being produced), serine, arginine, leucine, valine, proline, threonine, alanine, and glycine will, in time, come to dominate the genome. This disparity would have worked against producing the code by natural selection in the first place.

An example of this method of degradation is illustrated by the words “amino acid” which would be changed to “amano acad,” then to “amaao aaad,” and finally to “aaaaa aaaa” if the letter “a” dominated. Another mutation can change the “a” back to an “m” or another letter but, in this illustration, the overall trend would be to the letter “a” and would eventually stabilize largely at a set of “a” letters with a few converting back to other letters from time to time.

Before the repair system would have evolved, there would have been no way effectively and efficiently to counter this common type of degeneration. Damage degeneration would have been rapid and potentially lethal. This C-to-U change would likely have been a very common mutation type in the putative early stages of evolution, causing what we could call mutational “meltdown.”

Another problem is mutational rate differences in single stranded compared to and double stranded DNA. For example, cytosine is converted into uracil in single stranded DNA about 200 times more often than in double-stranded DNA. This would also have contributed to a mutational meltdown very early in evolution because pre-biotic evolution of simple to complex requires that the first RNA and DNA molecules would have consisted of simpler, single-stranded units.

Another problem with such theoretical single-stranded precursors of life, apart from deamination of cytosine, is that all DNA bases become detached from single-stranded DNA about four times more often than they do from double-stranded DNA (Ridley, 2001, p. 91). This would have inevitably lead to frequent backbone cleavages and the resultant breakdown of the nucleic acid strands.

Bias in Mutational Types

Studies of bacterial mutations has found that a pervasive bias toward deletions rather than insertions exists (Andersson and Andersson, 1999; Gregory, 2004). Zhang and Gerstein found deletions were about three times more common than insertions (2003, p. 5338). Another study found a “virtual absence of insertions and a remarkably high incidence of large deletions” (Petrov and Hartl, 1997, p. 279). This deletional bias produces a strong tendency to lose base pairs, which results in a clear genome deterioration that must be selected against by natural selection and other mechanisms for a life form to survive. This, again, illustrates a conserving role for natural selection. The same bias favoring loss above insertion has been found true for other types of mutations, including point mutations, nonsense mutations, and other mutation types.

Research Has Also Demonstrated Bias in Mutation Direction

Some non-random mutational base changes are more likely to occur than others. Genetic recombination studies have found, for example, that heterozygous organisms “produce an excess of one allele in their gametes” resulting in biased gene conversion and resultant genome deteriation (Eyre-Walker, 2002, p. 177). Studies of bias revealed that nucleotide mutation tended to go one way more frequently than the other (Freeman and Herron, 2001). Eyre-Walker (2002, p. 178) found that “there are many more GC —> AT than AT —> GC mutations, particularly in genes with high GC3” content. If this bias occurs even to a small extent, mutations would produce more and more thymines until eventually thymies would dominate the genome. Furthermore, entropy would increase more rapidly if the four DNA bases were used rather than Dawkins’ 26 letters. The reason is that far more changes are required to reach homogeneity with 26 letters than with four.

Mutation Hot Spots

Studies of mutations have shown that mutations are much more common in some areas of the genome termed “hot spots” than in others known as “cold spots” (Jorde, et al., 1997; Stadler, 1942; Zhang, et al., 2004; Mira, et al., 2001). In these mutation studies, workers have found that a large percentage of known mutations occur in only a small number of possible loci. Freeman and Herron (2001) found that only two mutations accounted for 94.4% of the 319 mutations identified in one gene.

A worker in another study of mutations in a human germline of the tumor suppressor anti-oncogene gene p53 found that, of the approximately 400 codons whose mutations were mapped, only 35 mutations were at sites other than in four codons, numbered 175, 245, 248, and 243 (Vogelstein and Kinzler, 1998, p. 398). Similar observations have been made for other types of cancer genes and many non-cancer genes. Origin by natural selection cannot account for the existence of hot spots. These hot spot patterns are found in both germline (inherited) and somatic mutations (Vogelstein and Kinzler, 1998, p. 398).

One of the most common mutational hot spots is the CG dinucleotide, which is involved in mutations about 12 times more often than other dinucleotide sequences (Jorde, et al., 1997). Another hot spot cluster involves the ras gene/mutations which are at codons 12, 13, and 61 (Clark and Russell, 1999, p. 196). Bonaventure, et al. (1996, p. 148), found that “more than 98%” of all cases of achondroplasia are a result of mutations in the transmembrane receptor domain that often involves a missence substitution in the first tyrosine kinase domain of the receptor. Another example is that about 70 percent of all cystic fibrosis patients have the same defect—a small deletion of 3 bases that code for phenylalanine—which is another hot spot (Clark and Russell, 1999, p. 179).

Although some of these examples that appear to be mutational hot spots actually result from the fact that many mutations are inherited, most are true hot spots. Approximately one-third of all cystic fibrosis cases result from a novel mutation in one location on the gene, indicating that the area is a true hot spot, and is not the result of the parent’s carrying cystic fibrosis alleles. Evidently all genes contain hot spots, although new sequences and further study of individual variations may reveal some exceptions.

One major hot spot area occurs where DNA sequences contain repetitive or short, repeated, similar sequences. Small insertion mutations are relatively common events, often occurring due to “slippage” or “stuttering” of DNA polymerase enzymes during DNA replication. These cause various mutations such as “triplet-repeat, expansion disorders.” As is true when editors scan a manuscript, spelling errors in words with multiple letters such as “addresses,” or “assesses,” often are missed, and misspellings such as “accessses” or “assessors” are allowed to slip by (Lewis, 1997). Another possible cause for the increased incidence of repeat DNA sequence mutations is that symmetrical or inverted repeat sequences allow abnormal base pairing to occur within a strand when local DNA strands unwind to prepare for replication. This condition can interfere with both replication and repair enzyme functions, thereby increasing the likelihood of errors.

An example is the clotting factor IX gene, which, when damaged, causes the hemophilia B blood clotting disorder. Mutations in this gene occur up to 100 times more often at 11 specific sites within the gene that have relatively long CG dinucleotide repeats. Similarly, an inherited form of the bone-weakening condition, osteoporosis, is usually caused by an extra thymine that is inserted into a specific three base homopolymer of thymine in the normal gene (Lewis, 1997). The result is a tendency to produce nucleotide “stuttering” at this hot spot. In Dawkins’ example (1986), this would be illustrated by the degeneration of changing weasel into weasssel.

The mutational probability varies by as much as 50% from one gene to another gene. A study by Stadler found that in corn the number of mutations ranges from zero to 492 per million gametes, depending on the gene (Freeman and Herron, 2001).

Another factor that influences the frequency of gene mutations is the size of the gene. All other things being equal, the longer the gene, the greater the statistical expectation of a mutation. The genes in which mutations cause both cystic fibrosis and phenylketonuria are abnormally large. These two diseases are among the more common genetic defects found today (Clark and Russell, 1999, p. 176). Factors such as the specific location of the gene in the chromosome, its structure, and its proximity to histones likewise affect the frequency of mutations. These empirical findings are also of a major concern for medicine. They explains why over 1,085 diseases are caused by mutational errors (McKusick, 2002).

A clear trend exists for mutations to degrade the genome, resulting in a loss of information. This is because the strong tendency of mutations is to shift the genome content in the direction of less useful information (e.g., a higher proportion of pyrimidines, specifically thymine). This change creates a serious problem for the mutation/selection model, and helps to explain why the vast majority of mutations have a detrimental effect on the functionality of the final protein coded by the DNA.

These are a few of the many reasons why mutations tend to produce non-random patterns. Non-randomness results in deterioration of the genome because when a greater likelihood exists that certain combinations of nucleotides will be produced than others, certain base combinations become increasingly frequent. This process produces more and more nonfunctional proteins. These are all reasons why most of the expressed mutations are lethal or detrimental.

Systems and Mechanisms Designed to Reduce Degradation

One reason why mutations are kept at bay is that the coding regions of the genome are repaired much more effectively than most noncoding regions, and several repair systems are active only on transcriptional genes (Freeman and Herron, 2001). Freeman and Herron (2001) write that the “most transcriptionally active genes are repaired most effectively,” and that the “accuracy appears to be the greatest where mutations could be the most damaging” (p. 85). It could be logically asserted that this accuracy is a tribute to design, not evolution. Many deleterious mutations are eliminated by natural selection and this too helps to protect the genome from deterioration.

Dawkins and others have argued that the tendency of the genome to degrade is not fatal to neoDarwinian theory. Their main defense is that selection pressure works against these strong deteriorative tendencies. NonDarwinists have long recognized this protection by natural selection, as summarized in Bergman, 2001. The tendency of the genome to degrade, however, militates against its ever producing a functional gene upon which selection could occur. A living organism that can survive in a specific environment must first exist for selection to occur. Dawkins’ mechanism cannot function until a living, functioning organism first is present. Even if DNA could somehow replicate outside of a living cell, it would rapidly degenerate for the reasons discussed above. DNA is a very unstable chemical molecule. Without complex systems to constantly repair and maintain the genome, it deteriorates readily by oxidation and other normal chemical processes.

Evidence for Beneficial Mutations

It is also widely known that beneficial mutations are extremely rare. Some workers have estimated that far less than .01 percent of all expressed mutations are helpful to the organism. As Francisco Ayala (1978) noted “mutation is the ultimate source of all genetic variation,” but useful genetic variation “is a relatively rare event....” (p.63). Dobzhansky (1957) likewise concluded that “the mutants which arise are, with rare exceptions, deleterious to their carriers, at least in the environments which the species normally encounters” (p. 385). The conclusion that very few beneficial mutations occur in nature is still held by many today. In Strickberger’s words “new mutations that have an immediate beneficial effect on the organism seem generally to be quite rare” (2000, p. 227).

In order to locate all alleged examples of beneficial mutations, I carried out a computer search of the literature. My review covered all published scientific studies that dealt with beneficial mutations. The definition of beneficial mutation used was a mutation that was regarded as beneficial by the authors surveyed. Key words used in the computer search included synonyms of beneficial, such as “favorable, helpful, usable, valuable, adaptive, good, advantageous, supportive, positive,” etc. The search of two data bases totaling 18.8 million records found that, of all articles discussing mutations, only 0.04 percent, or 4 in 10,000 articles on mutations, were located that discussed beneficial or favorable mutations. Some overlap exists in the data bases searched, consequently the actual total number of records searched was less than 18.8 million. The overlap in the search was estimated by extrapolating from the records found. Assuming that the same level of overlap exists in the entire database, a total of approximately 16 million records was searched. These searches may have missed some relevant articles but are useful to indicate trends.

All of the 126 examples located were then reviewed, focusing on evidence for information-gaining beneficial mutations. It was found that none of them contained clear, empirically supported examples of information-gaining, beneficial mutations. Most “examples” of actual, beneficial mutations were loss mutations in which a gene was disabled or damaged, all of which were beneficial only in a limited situation.

A review of both textbooks and journal articles on evolution demonstrated that the most common examples of beneficial mutations were sickle cell anemia, bacterial resistance to antibiotics, Ancon short legged sheep, viral/bacterial immunity, and a “putative beneficial mutation for lipid transport” (Galton, et. al., 1996; Strickburger, 2000).

An example of a mutation that was beneficial in specific situations was damage to the Chemokine receptor 5, (CCR5), the principle co-receptor in T-cells that causes cells with CD4 receptors (primarily T-cells) to be unable to take the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) into the cell. As a result, a person with this mutation has an abnormally high immunity to HIV infection (Huang, 1996; Wilkinson, 1998).

Discussion of the Beneficial Mutation Literature Review

Most of the literature covered the topic of beneficial mutations in general, and did not document specific mutations. The second largest category was literature dealing with loss mutations that were beneficial to humans only in certain situations. An example of such loss mutations, illustrating that many “beneficial mutations” were not beneficial for the animal, was a muscle mutation in the Belgian Blue breed of cattle. This is very valuable to beef farmers because it results in 20 to 30% more muscle than average. The meat is also very tender and lower in fat (Seitz, et al., 1999; McPherron, et al., 1997). A different mutation in the same gene is also responsible for the very muscular Piedmontese breed of cattle.

Muscle growth is regulated by a number of proteins, including myostatin. The Belgian Blue strain mutation deactivates the myostatin gene. Consequently, there is less regulation of the muscle growth, and the muscle bulk becomes abnormally large. Genetic engineers have bred muscular mice by using the same principle. Like seedless fruit and many similar mutations, this one is beneficial to humans only and not to the cattle. Among the mutation’s several negative side effects is a reduction of the animal’s fertility. Although this Belgian Blue mutation produces “beneficial” effects for farmers and consumers, it is the result of information loss—as are mutations that produce seedless fruit. Therefore, it is the opposite of the production of new beneficial information that would be necessary to achieve macroevolutionary changes.

Another example of a so-called “beneficial” mutation that was discovered in 1889 in Atchison, Kansas, is a mutant hornless Hereford cow. Hornless cattle suffer fewer injuries in herds, and for this reason many cattleman had been surgically dehorning their herd. The new breed eliminated this requirement, and it soon became a common domesticated breed (Walker, 1915, p. 68). In the wild, though, the Hereford cow would be at a distinct disadvantage.

The most well known loss mutation was discovered in 1791 by Seth Wright, a Massachusetts farmer. He noted that a male lamb in his flock had short, bent legs resembling a dachshund (Walker, 1915, p. 68). He realized that a flock of bowlegged sheep could not jump high fences, which could save the sheepherder time and money because only short barriers would be needed to contain them. He carefully raised this sheep, and, as the trait was evidently caused by a dominant gene, he was able to produce a new sheep “breed,” which is now called Ancon sheep (Hickman, et al., 2001). It is now realized, however, that this so-called breed is actually a usually lethal deformity that causes achondroplasia, and this “breed” has rapidly gone extinct in spite of efforts to save it.

The Number of Mutations NeoDarwinism
Requires to Evolve a Species

A total of 1.7 million species of animals have been identified from comparative studies of preserved specimens (Blackmore, 2002). Researchers estimate that somewhere between 3 million and 30 million species now exist. The most common estimate is around 13 million (Margulis and Schwartz, 1998, p. 3; Blackmore, 2002).

According to an Amersham bioscience report (2001, p. 1), it is estimated that there are thousands of different proteins used in the human body (see also “Preteome” AAAS Science Netlinks). Nuclear pore complexes alone comprise 50 to 100 different proteins (Allen, 2000, p. 1651). All of them are produced by the estimated 35 to 45 thousand human genes that, according to neoDarwinists, evolved from other, less-complex, and often shorter genes. Shermer (2002, p. 229) estimates that “trillions of distinct modifications” were required to evolve humans alone. Presumably, each modification would require many mutations.

A significant fraction of open reading frames has been judged not to match any another sequence in the database, indicating that a significant number of all proteins may be unique to each genus of animal (Bailey, 2001; Siew and Fischer, 2003, p. 7). Thus, as many as 200 million different proteins may exist. From 150,000 to 250,000 extinct animal species have also been identified and reported in the paleontological literature. NeoDarwinists estimate that as many as 99 percent of all species that have ever lived are extinct (Margulis and Sagan, 2002, p. 52; Raup, 1977, p. 50). Although some claim the number is far lower, assuming this estimate to be valid would put the number of species that have ever lived at over 200 trillion!

Given the estimate that roughly an average of 1,000 transitional forms are required to evolve a species (a number that is a rough estimate and is dependant on various assumptions)—this would mean that 2x1017 transitional forms have existed. If 1,000 mutations are required for each transitional form, this would translate into 2x1020 beneficial mutations that are required. And not one clear beneficial mutation or transitional form has yet been convincingly demonstrated, although likely some do exist. The paucity of clearly helpful mutations must be considered in context with the estimate that 2x1020 mutations that are required to produce the natural living world existing today and the number of animals that are speculated to have once existed.

Given a low estimate of 1,000 steps required to evolve the average protein (if this were possible) over 2x1014 beneficial mutations would have been needed to evolve just the proteins that are estimated to exist today. So far only 60 species, including the nematode worm, humans, yeast, rice, mustard plant, and bacteria have had their DNA fully sequenced. As more life forms are sequenced, the above estimates may go either up or down. The same evolutionary problem exists in attempting to use mutations to explain the origin of the genes required to make fat, nucleic acid, carbohydrate families, and other compounds that are produced by living organisms and are necessary for life.

Conclusions

It is critically important to focus on questions involving molecular biology because this area is central to the whole question of neoDarwinism’s validity. Although other mechanisms have been proposed to contribute to evolution, the production of new information by mutations is at its core. Therefore, the critical analysis of proposals by Dawkins and others is essential to determine the feasibility of macroevolution by means of mutations and natural selection. An examination of Dawkins’ weasel argument showed that it utterly failed to support the conclusion that mutations can produce significant, new, gene-coding information. Numerous reasons exist, aside from those discussed here, as to why Dawkins’ example is an excellent illustration of why mutations cannot function as the major, or even a minor means, of creating new genes and new species (Read, 1999; Truman, 1999). A study of hot spots and degradation of the genome by mutations shows that macroevolution by means of mutations is, at best, quite unlikely. Many complex mechanisms including natural selection work against degeneration. The fact that the more active the gene, the more accurate the repair process will be, also mitigates against NeoDarwinism.

All of the beneficial mutations located in my search of the literature involving almost 20 million references were loss mutations and mutations such as sickle cell anemia that have a beneficial effect only in very special circumstances. In most situations they have a decidedly negative effect on the organism’s health. Not a single clear example of an information-gaining mutation was located. It was concluded that molecular biology research shows that information-gaining mutations have not yet been documented. While such negative findings do not in and of themselves prove creation, they support the conclusion that an Intelligent Designer formed the original genomes of ea

ince the early nineteenth century historical geology has developed along lines defined by the presuppositions of naturalism and uniformitarianism. The revival of an alternative scheme, distinguished by the priority of supernatural revelation and a derivative catastrophism, was coherently launched by the publication of The Genesis Flood in 1961. The field of creationist geology has cohered and grown since then. The immensity of the task of constructing a viable Bible-based alternative to accepted geologic history has been little appreciated by many, and has proven even more difficult by the lack of workers willing to undertake such a job. And yet, over the past 38 years, some progress has been made by the dedicated efforts of the numerically-limited creationist community.


In keeping with making the most efficient use of limited resources, creationists have generally attempted to find as much common ground as possible between the demands of Biblical historical teaching and uniformitarian geology. The obvious advantage of this approach was the potential for a relatively quick and easy synthesis of Biblical history with the objective rock record. Many ideas have been proposed since this time in an attempt to bridge Flood geology to modern geology. Since modern historical geology is defined and summarized by the global uniformitarian stratigraphic column (GUC), the logical starting point has been the reinterpretation of the GUC within a catastrophic and short-term framework. The main focus of this effort has been the merging of the first eleven chapters of Genesis into the GUC (Figure 1). From a conceptual standpoint this approach appears reasonable. However, the experience of the past several decades has shown that integration is difficult, perhaps because the extrascientific presuppositions of naturalism and uniformitarianism are pervasively imbedded in the GUC. Thus the task of defining a consistent approach to creationist stratigraphy is more complex than was initially thought. Early warnings, sounded by Woodmorappe (1981), have not been widely heeded.

In the time-weighted framework of the GUC, identifying time periods in the rock record assumes great importance. Classical nineteenth century stratigraphy illus-trated this concept with the great debates focusing on the placement of the boundaries within the time/rock record. Today, many secular geologists are using event and environmental parameters to further refine their interpretation of earth history (Berggren and Van Couvering, 1984; Brett and Baird, 1997; Donovan,1989; Erwin, 1993; Hallam, 1992; Wilgus, Hastings, Kendall, Posamentier, Ross and Van Wagoner, 1988). However, as naturalists, they continue to operate within the framework of the GUC and its formal time/rock divisions. Unfortunately, many catastrophists, though advocates of a young Earth, have adopted the uniformitarian preoccupation with time per se. They have defined their syntheses of Flood geology and the GUC by the correlation of time boundaries in the GUC to those in Biblical history (Austin, 1994; Austin and Wise, 1994; Baumgardner, 1990; Snelling, Scheven, Garner, Ernst, Austin, Garton, Scheven, Wise, and Tyler, 1996). Many creationists have attempted to used a modified version of the GUC (i.e., shortening the timeframe of the basic system) to define both the pre-Flood/Flood and the Flood/post-Flood boundaries (Austin, 1994; Austin and Wise, 1994; Garton, 1996; Garner, 1996a, 1996b; Holt, 1996; Robinson, 1996; Snelling, 1996; Tyler, 1997).

All of these attempts have shared one important assumption—that the time-based stratigraphy of the GUC is compatible with the event-based stratigraphy strongly implied by the Bible. Because the time available for geologic work is so compressed by the Biblical record, any effort to understand the relationships between the rocks and time may be actually misdirecting workers away from more profitable investigations of geologic history. A major shortcoming for creationists attempting to utilize the conceptual framework of time-based stratigraphy occurs with the apparent disposition to add multiple high-energy events to the single global Flood event of the Bible to explain the rock record. In itself this does not necessarily violate the Bible, because Scripture does not address many things we find in geology (e.g., meteor impacts and their resulting craters, volcanoes, tsunamis, glaciers, sea-level changes, etc.). However the desire to accommodate the GUC has created difficulty in assigning all of the high-energy events to the Flood.

A study of the nineteenth century debate between uniformitarian geology and Christianity reveals a clear trend of compromise on the part of Christians that led to the abdication of Biblical authority in earth history. We are concerned that early steps along this same path appear to be attracting Christians in the twentieth century, too. This path follows the steps of starting with the biblical position of one universal Flood, and then gradually drifting toward uniformitarianism by attempting to reconcile the Flood and the GUC. Inference from the Scriptural account, absent consideration of the GUC would attribute the bulk of the rock record to the Genesis Flood. However, Christians that incorrectly assign an epistemological equity between natural history and the Bible begin to lean toward the dynamic accumulation of “facts” supporting the GUC. As the sophisticated complexity of the GUC became more attractive, other, less-catastrophic events were added to the Genesis Flood to harmonize “science” and Scripture. Finally, in total retreat, Christians developed the consensus that a universal Flood was no longer required, that it was not even wanted, and that it unacceptably interfered with Lyellian stratigraphy. Some Christians tried to preserve a degree of Scriptural integrity by relegating the Flood to the uppermost sections of the GUC, thus allowing an uneasy accommodation of the uniformitarian column, while keeping their belief in the Flood intact. However, this side path merely led to the conclusion that as the number of events increase, the energy requirements of each one diminish, to the logical end point where no significant energy event was required. At that point, the great biblical judgment of the Flood became an overflowing of the Euphrates River Valley (Sauer, 1996), the infilling of either the Mediterranean Sea (Morton, 1995) or Black Sea (McInnis, 1998; Ryan and Pitman, 1998), or even a tsunami associated with the eruption of Santorini (Myles, 1985). Fortunately, all are catastrophic events acceptable to uniformitarians (even though the uniformitarians are inconsistent at this point [Reed, 1998]). The essence of this misguided thought process was captured by Fields (1976, p. 184) where he lamented:

“There seems to be an assumption that if Christianity is to realize its full potential of impact on the scientific community, the message that no conflicts exist between the Bible and uniformitarian science must be heralded.”
We fear that the first steps of this path may be taken anew in the twentieth century by seeking to harmonize the Bible with the GUC. It is our opinion that a viable creationist stratigraphy requires adherence to Scripture and eschews modification of a biblical worldview to accommodate uniformitarianism.

The Current Divide Within Creationist Stratigraphy

We assert that the Bible teaches that the global Flood and its associated events produced the greatest levels of geologic energy (i.e., erosion, sediment transport, deposition, new sediment production, volcanism, tectonism, turbidites, extra-terrestrial impacts, sea-level changes, etc.) ever experienced by the planet, and resulted in the formation of most of the igneous, metamorphic, and sedimentary rocks found in the crust during and shortly after the Flood (Reed, Froede, and Bennett, 1996). These same crustal features have been reinterpreted by evolutionists as the GUC. A close examination of the naturalist worldview reveals that the basis for doing so is derived from non-scientific considerations, although presented as science. The evidence for the GUC is considered powerful by many creationists, and some continue to attempt reconciliation between the GUC and the biblical record. We believe that this approach causes confusion, and remains undefined and inconsistent in its use within creation geology.


The Biblical approach to understanding Earth’s short history requires that the physical evidence (i.e., the rock record) fit within the context and constraints of Scripture. There are basically two different ways of looking at dividing the time/rock record stratigraphically: 1) Those who believe that an accommodation with the GUC is possible, and 2) those who reject the GUC for an alternate biblical framework. We fall into the latter category, which must be understood because it influences the manner in which we attempt to resolve Flood-based geology (Figure 2).

Although the present creationist debate has apparently been drawn along the lines of selecting a specific uniformitarian column “golden spike” as a Flood boundary, it has become obvious as work progresses that the real issue is whether or not the GUC has any use within creationist stratigraphy. This issue has been addressed in an indirect manner by the failure of all creationists desiring application of the GUC to reach agreement on the placement of a single Flood-related boundary. It may be true that resolution of the boundaries dispute remains to be resolved in the context of the GUC; however, it is also possible that the inability to reach such a resolution is itself indicative that no resolution can be found within the current context of the debate.

We propose to test the compatibility of any harmonization of the Bible with the GUC by reference to the Northern Gulf of Mexico Basin (NGOMB) sedimentary wedge. This article will compare several proposals made by young-earth creationists for the location of the Flood/post-Flood boundary (based on applying the GUC) to the NGOMB stratigraphic column, widely considered relatively complete in the Mesozoic and Cenozoic erathems. We will show the insurmountable physical problems of each proposal. If a consistent Flood-related boundary cannot be identified in the GUC, then we believe that the argument to divorce creationist stratigraphy from the GUC and to develop an alternative synthesis of geologic data with Biblical history should be considered.

There is an additional benefit to this examination. We fear an epistemological imbalance between Scripture and uniformitarian geology. Contrary to modern positivism, we assert that biblical revelation is primary and superior to any naturalist interpretation of history. Thus, there can be no balanced comparison between the “truth of science” and the truth of Scripture in an attempt to reconcile the two. Rather, any interpretation of history that rejects biblical revelation should in turn be rejected and its interpretive results should be carefully examined for all hidden presuppositions implanted by the naturalist framework. A sound young-earth Flood geology should not fear careful examination of proposed historical models, since confidence in the truth of Scripture cannot depend in any way on natural history.

Table I. Rough estimates of sediment volumes for the Mesozoic Era, the Cenozoic Era, the Quaternary Period, and the modern Mississippi River delta plain. Estimates for the first three were derived from cross sections shown in Figure 3 of Jackson and Galloway (1984). The estimate of the modern Mississippi River delta plain was derived from an areal extent of 13,300 square miles from Figure 2 of Kolb and Dornbusch (1975) and a maximum thickness of 1000 feet from Gould (1970). The maximum thickness was used to partially offset deltaic sediments transported offshore by distal sediment distribution processes. These estimates, however crude, reinforce the intuitive intent of the figures regarding the rate of sedimentation needed in the post-Flood era to accommodate the various boundary proposals.

Reference Unit Estimated volume of sediment (km3)
Mesozoic Era 24,000,000
Cenozoic Era 6,000,000
Quaternary Period 1,500,000
Modern Mississippi delta plain (6000 y. estimated) 100,000
Testing GUC-Derived Boundaries in the Gulf of Mexico Basin

The NGOMB provides an excellent setting for testing various Flood/post-Flood boundaries because of its robust sedimentary representation of the Mesozoic/Cenozoic erathems. Three different proposals are tested using the NGOMB sedimentary sequence. Specifically, we will examine proposals for placing the Flood/post-Flood boundary at: 1) the boundary between the Paleozoic and Mesozoic, 2) the boundary between the Mesozoic and Cenozoic and, 3) the boundary somewhere in the Pliocene/Pleistocene. Estimated volumes of Mesozoic, Cenozoic, and Quaternary sediments are presented for comparison in Table I, along with the present day volume of the modern Mississippi River delta plain. Although these numbers are crude estimates, they provide additional information to support the diagrams presented in figures below. Any biblical model of Earth history must be able to explain field evidence (Reed and Froede, 1997). We believe that a careful examination of various young-earth Flood stratigraphic models will disqualify any of them that are built on any attempt to harmonize the Scriptures with the GUC.

Paleozoic/Mesozoic Boundary


Recent support for a Paleozoic/Mesozoic - Flood/post-Flood boundary was presented in a special symposium within the Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal (see Snelling 1996). Several articles proposed and defended the Paleozoic/Mesozoic boundary as marking the termination of the Genesis Flood. Numerous arguments were advanced to harmonize the GUC with the global Flood of Genesis. Woodmorappe (1996) and Froede (1997) took issue with this approach because of its perceived inherent support of evolution, and because it required multiple large-scale (i.e., global) extra-biblical catastrophes following the Flood to accommodate the uniformitarian column within a young-earth time frame.

How does this proposal explain the sedimentary section in the NGOMB? The Paleozoic/Mesozoic boundary within the NGOMB is presented in Figure 3. If the model proposing that the Paleozoic/Mesozoic boundary represents the end of the Genesis Flood, it must explain the following:

The tremendous volume of sediment deposited after the Flood (the cross-section reflects a sediment wedge ranging up to 10 miles thick and extending some 720 miles out into the NGOMB along much of its lateral extent),
The dramatic variations in mean sea level that appear to have ranged from the fall line during the Mesozoic to well offshore in the present Gulf of Mexico during recent times.
The difficulty in justifying the high energy levels during post-Flood time required for this volume of sediment to be eroded and deposited in the NGOMB, and
The difficulty in describing an adequate source for the sediments apart from Flood conditions.
We do not believe that any reasonable explanation can be offered for these conditions in the NGOMB. Thus, either the boundary is incorrectly placed in this proposal relative to the GUC, or the difference between plausibly setting the boundary at the base of the Mesozoic in selected locales but not in the NGOMB suggests that the GUC cannot be harmonized with biblical history. Similar examples of immense volumes of post-Paleozoic sediment can be found in North Africa, the North Sea, Indonesia, etc. In-depth discussion of these areas is beyond the scope of this paper, but offer avenues of further research for any interested creationist. Although examples could be multiplied to demonstrate the difficulties of depositing the combined global Mesozoic and Cenozoic erathems in a youthful, post-Flood world, only one is needed to demonstrate the failure of the proposed global model. We find this proposed Flood/post-Flood boundary inadequate in explaining the Mesozoic and Cenozoic sediment sequences in the NGOMB, and unacceptable within the framework of the young-earth Flood model.

Mesozoic/Cenozoic Boundary


Other creationists support a Flood/post-Flood boundary at the Mesozoic/Cenozoic boundary. Dr. Kurt Wise, a young-earth creationist, has stated that “virtually all creation geologists accept the entire Cenozoic as post-Flood” (BSN, 1995, p. 18). Dr. Wise’s position appears to establish the Flood/post-Flood boundary at the Mesozoic/Cenozoic contact. This boundary is also proposed in Dr. Steve Austin’s book on the Grand Canyon (1994, p. 58, Figure 4.1). An evaluation similar to that performed above forces us to the conclusion that we do not understand how this proposed boundary can explain the sedimentary sequence found in the NGOMB. We welcome any forthcoming explanation from either Dr. Wise or Dr. Austin.

How does this proposal explain the sedimentary section in the NGOMB? The Mesozoic/Cenozoic boundary for the NGOMB is presented in Figure 4. This proposal also requires tremendous volumes of sediment to have been eroded and deposited into the NGOMB following the Flood. If the model proposing that the Paleozoic/Mesozoic boundary represents the end of the Genesis Flood, it must explain the following:

The tremendous volume of sediment deposited after the Flood (the cross-section reflects a sediment wedge ranging up to 6 miles thick and extending some 360 miles out into the NGOMB along much of its lateral extent),
The dramatic variations in mean sea level that appear to have ranged from near the fall line during the Cenozoic to well offshore in the present Gulf of Mexico during recent times.
The difficulty in justifying the high energy levels during post-Flood time required for this volume of sediment to be eroded and deposited in the NGOMB, and
The difficulty in describing an adequate source for the sediments apart from Flood conditions.
Like the Paleozoic/Mesozoic boundary proposal, we do not believe that any reasonable explanation can be offered for these conditions in the NGOMB. Again, either the boundary is incorrectly placed in this proposal relative to the GUC, or the difference between plausibly setting the boundary at the base of the Cenozoic in selected locales but not in the NGOMB suggests that the GUC cannot be harmonized with biblical history. We find this proposed Flood/post-Flood boundary inadequate in explaining the Cenozoic sedimentary sequence in the NGOMB, and therefore unacceptable as a viable young-earth Flood model.

Pliocene/Pleistocene Boundary


Many young-earth geoscientists support moving the Flood/post-Flood boundary well up the global uniformitarian stratigraphic column toward the Pliocene/Pleistocene boundary. Of the choices that would harmonize the GUC and the biblical record, this approach appears to be the most reasonable when looking at the changing geologic-energy levels implied by the strata. However, if some parameter other than time (such as changing energy levels) is the basis for judging the goodness of fit between a Flood model and the GUC, then why not abandon the time-centered methodology of the GUC. For many young-earth geoscientists the location of the boundary at the Pliocene/Pleistocene boundary is believed to satisfy the transition from the Flood into the Ice Age. However, problems with this approach occur when moving offshore in a clastic setting and/or with biogenic carbonates of this “age” in areas such as the Bahamas, Florida Keys (see Froede, 1999), and the Great Barrier Reef.

How does this proposal explain the sedimentary section in the NGOMB? The Pliocene/Pleistocene boundary of the NGOMB is presented in Figure 5. This proposed Flood/post-Flood division is placed near the “top” of the NGOMB uniformitarian stratigraphic column. This approach correctly suggests that most stratigraphic deposition occurred during the high-energy period of the Flood. The post-Flood continental and nearshore deposits are relatively minor and reflect lower energy levels. However, in offshore settings the Pleistocene deposits can be many thousands of feet thick (both clastics and carbonates). What processes eroded and then deposited the thick blanket of Pleistocene clastic deposits far offshore, and could this have formed within the short time constraints of the post-Flood world? Likewise, how do creationists account for the hundreds of feet of Pleistocene carbonate strata in a post-Flood setting? We believe that the volume and location of these offshore Pleistocene deposits present similar, though less dramatic, problems for this boundary proposal relative to the preceding two.

Another important issue related to the proposed Pliocene/Pleistocene boundary is the method whereby these offshore deposits are stratigraphically defined. It is typically done by the transition of microfossil assemblages. The old problem of dating sediments by the evolution of biota once again is an issue here. Presently, young-earth creationists have not devised an environmental means of using microfossils to explain sedimentary units within the Biblical framework. Hence, we recommend that the basis for harmonizing the GUC boundary with the Flood boundary be rejected until creationists can show that there is a stratigraphically significant, but non-evolutionary explanation for the microfossil assemblages.

Implications of the Gulf of Mexico Record

The publication of The Genesis Flood in 1961 will be remembered as a revolutionary event in creationist hydrology and geology. The dominant naturalist-uniformitarian paradigm was challenged on the most fundamental levels, and even today the implications of that challenge have not yet been fully realized. Since 1961, even geologists who continue to claim the naturalist-uniformitarian worldview have been affected by creationist challenges. The movement away from the strict nineteenth century uniformitarianism of Lyell can be partly attributed to Whitcomb and Morris’ work.

Advances in creationist stratigraphy have been frustratingly slow in the last four decades. There has been no direct impact in the secular geologic community. This is because the naturalists have been quick to realize the fundamental nature of the challenge of creationism not just to their historical scenarios, but to their very worldview. With few workers, creationist geology has been both slow to develop alternate interpretations and confusing to those workers who have insisted on the priority of following the GUC in their work. Some researchers have discovered that the gulf between the GUC and the Bible is wider than first hoped. Some have not been able to shift their assumptions toward the Scriptures, and have become advocates of a theistic version of uniformitarianism that does no justice to Genesis. Others have not vigorously pursued their models to logical conclusions, and thus work with inconsistencies in their framework.

The stratigraphy comprising the NGOMB provides a setting where we can compare the GUC to several creationist Flood/post-Flood boundary proposals. This area provides an excellent test of the various theories because it represents a relatively complete uniformitarian rock section spanning the Mesozoic and Cenozoic. We consider this not only a test of the boundary proposals per se, but also of the entire strategic approach of reconciling the GUC to the Bible. As expected, each of the creationist models tied to the GUC fail to explain the observed stratigraphic sequence in a logical and defensible manner. This is because the uniformitarian rock column emphasis is on evolutionary biology and “time” and not on the tremendous geologic forces experienced during and following the global Flood.

Assessment of Previous Work

We are not condemning the work of the last forty years. The road to progress in knowledge does not always proceed in a straight path. Glover (1984) called Scholasticism the most fruitful failure in the history of ideas because the process of critically comparing the Aristotelian and biblical worldviews was a necessary step in modern western thought. If the comparison of current creationist proposals that seek reconciliation between Scripture and the GUC to the NGOMB stratigraphic section is an adequate test, then the failure of creationists to reconcile the GUC and the young-earth Flood-dominated geologic history of the planet should be acknowledged, recognized as progress, and another strategy pursued. Ironically, Whitcomb and Morris (1961) described another strategy. They realized that their work would require a vast reassessment of geology; not on a shallow level of readjusting interpretation, but on the more fundamental level of replacing governing assumptions and following the implications of the new structure to a logical conclusion. They advocated the reinterpretation of geologic data within a biblical framework, rather than the reinterpretation of the uniformitarian framework within the biblical framework. Human beings naturally search for the most efficient manner to achieve goals. However, the goal of refashioning geology in a biblical worldview cannot be done in a cursory fashion. It will require exhaustive research to reinterpret that data, not simply to reinterpret the interpretations.

An Alternate Strategy


Several authors have pointed out the incompatibility of pursuing a reconciliation of the GUC and the Bible (Froede, 1995, 1998; Reed, 1996a, 1996b, 1998; Reed and Froede, 1997; Walker, 1994; Woodmorappe, 1981 - to cite the most recent). A new alternative rejects the GUC because it rejects the use of time as the primary parameter in interpreting geologic history. The emphasis in this method is on events and their associated energy requirements (Froede, 1998; Reed, Froede, and Bennett, 1996). As with any proposal seeking to match the stratigraphic record with the Bible, it must also be able to successfully explain the physical rock record in order for it to be used in young-earth Flood studies. Regardless of whether or not this particular energy approach is successful, we believe that only in a move away from the GUC will we be capable of defining creationist geology.

Our approach to understanding Biblical geologic history is presented in Figure 6. It examines the changing geologic-energy levels as they affected Antediluvian sediments, flora, and fauna (and new materials added during and following the global Flood). It does not use traditional evolution-based methods (i.e., biostratigraphy) to define time. It instead infers the energy required for materials to be eroded, transported, and deposited, and compares those relative levels to Scripture. Note that our energy-based stratigraphic column is completely independent of the GUC. The Flood/post-Flood boundary is defined environmentally by the subsidence of high-energy Flood events and the transition into more “uniformitarian” depositional patterns, rather than by correlation to a uniformitarian boundary “golden spike.” Although high-energy events occurring after the Flood may blur the boundary, these Ice Age and Present Age Timeframe deposits could be diagnosed by being more local in their aerial extent. We propose that this manner of interpreting the stratigraphic record can be rewarding in revealing the tremendous power of the Flood. At a minimum, it meets the necessary criterion of divorcing creationist stratigraphy from the GUC, and shifts the interpretation of Earth’s history back to a Biblical approach and away from naturalism.

Conclusion

Concepts, models, and interpretive theories depend on the physical supporting data. The GUC is an illustration of the reliance on non-scientific presuppositions that may or may not be readily apparent to the user. Scientists are trained to develop models using available physical data. However, difficulty occurs when attempting to evaluate the non-scientific components of these models. Examining the GUC “model” against the Bible’s presentation of earth history demonstrates the complete failure in unifying these two worldviews. Over the past four decades various strategies for using the GUC as a framework for biblical history have been proposed by creationists. We have examined three of these proposals against the strata found within the NGOMB. All of these approaches fail either because of the time/energy demands of the sedimentary record relative to a short post-Flood history. While the Pliocene/Pleistocene boundary comes the closest to what we expect with ever-decreasing geologic-energy levels, it too falls short when examining offshore clastic and carbonate accumulations. There appears to be too great a volume of Pleistocene sediments offshore requiring too much energy for too short a period of time to define all of these strata as post-Flood deposits. Many of the Pleistocene sediments were deposited under high-energy conditions that could only have occurred with the closing stages of the Flood. Hence, we propose that creationists examine the various sediments with some understanding about the energy necessary to precipitate or grow them (as in the case of carbonates), or erode, transport, and deposit them (for clastics).

Any ongoing effort to join the GUC to creationist geology must by definition explain how it can be harmonized globally. If a given model fails at the NGOMB, it has failed. If these efforts fail (and we believe they have) the model(s) must be abandoned or modified! Failure to discard bad ideas will only lead to greater confusion in creation science. Both creationist and secular scientists require internal corrections to their models and ideas. We believe a new approach to creationist stratigraphy is required. We hope that other creationists will focus their efforts developing concepts and models that eschew the GUC. By changing this conceptual framework, we can open new doors to understanding geology and the Bible, we can focus our studies on understanding the Flood’s impact on the Antediluvian world, and we can jettison the evolutionary baggage that permeates the GUC. We hope this will lead to greater productivity as we base our investigations more consciously on Scripture instead of worrying about how to make the Bible work within a system based on evolution.

References

CRSQ: Creation Research Society Quarterly

CENTJ: Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal

Austin, S. A. 1994. Grand Canyon: Monument to catastrophe. Institute for Creation Research, Santee, CA.

Austin, S. A. and K. P. Wise. 1994. The pre-Flood/Flood boundary: As defined in Grand Canyon, Arizona and eastern Mojave Desert. In Walsh, R. E. (editor). Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Creationism. Technical symposium sessions. Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, PA. pp. 37–47.

Baumgardner, J. R. 1990. The imperative of non-stationary natural law in relation to Noah’s Flood. CRSQ 27:98–100.

Berggren, W. A. and J. A. Van Couvering (editors). 1984. Catastrophes and earth history: The new uniformitarianism. Princeton University Press.

Brett, C. E. and G. C. Baird (editors). 1997. Paleontological events: Stratigraphic, ecological, and evolutionary implications. Columbia University Press, New York.

BSN, 1995. Speaking to the Earth: An interview with Steven Austin and Kurt Wise. Bible-Science News 33(5):17–21.

Donovan, S. K. (editor). 1989. Mass extinctions: Processes and evidence. Columbia University Press, New York.

Erwin, D. H. 1993. The great Paleozoic crisis: Life and death in the Permian. Columbia University Press, New York.

Fields, W. W. 1976. Unformed and unfilled: A critique of