Print
Cataloguing every species on earth
by Colin Nickerson, the Boston Globe
Thanks to Ranjani for the link.
Reposted from:
http://www.boston.com/yourlife/health/blog/2007/05/cataloguing_eve.html?p1=MEWell_Pos4
Spurred by fears that thousands of animals, plants, and microbes will disappear from the planet before scientists can properly study them, a consortium of world-famous research institutions and funding foundations tomorrow will launch an effort to compile an enormous, computer-based "Encyclopedia of Life" to catalog every species known or found.
"For biologists, this is equivalent to the moon shot or mapping the human genome in terms of complexity and scope," said Gary Borisy, director of the Marine Biological Laboratory in Woods Hole, which along with Harvard University is among the top players in a project that will be overseen by biologists but undertaken mainly by software designers and computer engineers.
The aim of a project expected to take a decade at a cost of $100 million is to create a gigantic computer data base containing detailed descriptions of each of 1.8 million "named" species -- that is, forms of life that have been identified by scientists.
Some species, like Elephas maximus (the Asian elephant) or Lumbricus terrestris (a common earthworm), are familiar to everybody and well-studied by biologists. But hundreds of thousands of species -- from microscopic fungi, to bottom dwellers from the deepest seas, to obscure desert beetles -- have simply been preserved on slides or specimen pins, given a Latin name, and assigned a tentative place on the tree of life, then stashed in a sample drawer and all but forgotten.
In addition, biologists believe that untold millions of species -- mainly microorganisms, but also insects, flowers, trees, and even a few reptiles and mammals -- have never been noticed by humans, much less scientifically recorded.
"Our ignorance is dangerous," said Edward O. Wilson, a pioneering researcher of global biodiversity, professor emeritus of entomology at Harvard, and long-time crusader for creation of an accessible encyclopedia of all life. "Life forms with which we've shared the planet are going extinct at an alarming rate -- usually before we even determine what they are and what role they play in the ecosystem. "Our knowledge of biodiversity is so incomplete that we are at risk of losing a great deal of it before it is even discovered."
The Encyclopedia of Life -- to be formally launched tomorrow in Washington, where it will be headquartered -- is envisioned as a computer-based, ever-expanding roster of all life forms that will give scientists an unprecedented means to help decide when they've encountered a new species. It should also provide an invaluable, publicly-accessible trove for everyone from bio-entrepreneurs to birdwatchers.
The encyclopedia's website -- www.eol.org -- contains only a few samples, but within a few years will describe hundreds of thousands of species.
Sample demonstration pages of the polar bear show what the scientists hope to do. It offers pictures, maps, research and data on the molecular biology, genetics, reproduction diet of the polar bear.
The information can be accessed at the "novice" level, which says: "Polar bears inhabit Arctic sea ice, water, islands and continental coastlines." At "expert" level, it says: Polar bears occur in low numbers throughout their range and are most abundant in shallow water areas near shore or where current or upwellings increase biological productivity near ice areas associated with open water, polynyas or lead systems."
The entries will include detail that might range from the color of a buzzard's tail feathers to toxins contained in a toadstool. The interactive encyclopedia will include photographs, maps, links to scientific studies and DNA sequences, anecdotes from amateur naturalists (clearly separated from expert opinion), sound, and video, when available. Eventually, the work will hold the equivalent of about 300 million pages of information.
"Imagine scientists working in a rain forest somewhere who find an unusual plant or fungus," said Jonathan Fanton, president of the MacArthur Foundation, which has donated $10 million to the encyclopedia and pledged another $10 million if the project meets early goals. "They'll be able go on-line and tap into this huge data base to find similar species. They'll be able to know right on the spot if they've made a real discovery."
Today, that process might require culling through museum collections or sifting through mounds of material from various sources.
The Sloan Foundation, another major donor, has fronted $2.5 million for the encyclopedia, while the Marine Biological Laboratory has developed new software that will allow for sophisticated scientific comparisons to be made between species, a technology that didn't even exist a few years ago. Along with Harvard, institutions contributing money and expertise to the project include the Smithsonian Institution, Chicago's Field Museum, and the Missouri Botanical Garden.
"This will be an extraordinary science tool," said James Edwards, a global biodiversity expert named as the encyclopedia's executive director. "It will enable researchers to better understand the complicated relationships between organisms on both the macro- and micro-scale."
Some scientists believe that life is veering towards a sixth "great extinction" since emerging on earth 3.8 million years ago. Unlike the earlier mass extinctions -- most famously the disappearance of dinosaurs -- the looming die-off seems to be caused by human activity, mainly destruction of natural habitat and carbon dioxide emissions contributing to climate change.
Building the encyclopedia will fall mainly to software designers and computer engineers, with old-style field scientists -- like Harvard's Wilson, who won his reputation tracking down unknown species of ants in remote rain forests -- serving mainly to ensure the accuracy and quality of entered information.
"It's really more of a communications project than a discovery project," said Edwards. "It's integrating information so that anyone and everyone can access it, from a frontline scientist to a high school teacher to a farmer trying to figure whether a certain worm in the soil is friend or foe."
And that's just fine with Wilson.
"This effort is just so important to understanding life on our unknown planet," he said. "We are never going to have a mature science of ecology if we don't even know the species in the ecosystem."
Material from the Associated Press was used in this report.
Reposted from:
http://www.boston.com/yourlife/health/blog/2007/05/cataloguing_eve.html?p1=MEWell_Pos4
Spurred by fears that thousands of animals, plants, and microbes will disappear from the planet before scientists can properly study them, a consortium of world-famous research institutions and funding foundations tomorrow will launch an effort to compile an enormous, computer-based "Encyclopedia of Life" to catalog every species known or found.
"For biologists, this is equivalent to the moon shot or mapping the human genome in terms of complexity and scope," said Gary Borisy, director of the Marine Biological Laboratory in Woods Hole, which along with Harvard University is among the top players in a project that will be overseen by biologists but undertaken mainly by software designers and computer engineers.
The aim of a project expected to take a decade at a cost of $100 million is to create a gigantic computer data base containing detailed descriptions of each of 1.8 million "named" species -- that is, forms of life that have been identified by scientists.
Some species, like Elephas maximus (the Asian elephant) or Lumbricus terrestris (a common earthworm), are familiar to everybody and well-studied by biologists. But hundreds of thousands of species -- from microscopic fungi, to bottom dwellers from the deepest seas, to obscure desert beetles -- have simply been preserved on slides or specimen pins, given a Latin name, and assigned a tentative place on the tree of life, then stashed in a sample drawer and all but forgotten.
In addition, biologists believe that untold millions of species -- mainly microorganisms, but also insects, flowers, trees, and even a few reptiles and mammals -- have never been noticed by humans, much less scientifically recorded.
"Our ignorance is dangerous," said Edward O. Wilson, a pioneering researcher of global biodiversity, professor emeritus of entomology at Harvard, and long-time crusader for creation of an accessible encyclopedia of all life. "Life forms with which we've shared the planet are going extinct at an alarming rate -- usually before we even determine what they are and what role they play in the ecosystem. "Our knowledge of biodiversity is so incomplete that we are at risk of losing a great deal of it before it is even discovered."
The Encyclopedia of Life -- to be formally launched tomorrow in Washington, where it will be headquartered -- is envisioned as a computer-based, ever-expanding roster of all life forms that will give scientists an unprecedented means to help decide when they've encountered a new species. It should also provide an invaluable, publicly-accessible trove for everyone from bio-entrepreneurs to birdwatchers.
The encyclopedia's website -- www.eol.org -- contains only a few samples, but within a few years will describe hundreds of thousands of species.
Sample demonstration pages of the polar bear show what the scientists hope to do. It offers pictures, maps, research and data on the molecular biology, genetics, reproduction diet of the polar bear.
The information can be accessed at the "novice" level, which says: "Polar bears inhabit Arctic sea ice, water, islands and continental coastlines." At "expert" level, it says: Polar bears occur in low numbers throughout their range and are most abundant in shallow water areas near shore or where current or upwellings increase biological productivity near ice areas associated with open water, polynyas or lead systems."
The entries will include detail that might range from the color of a buzzard's tail feathers to toxins contained in a toadstool. The interactive encyclopedia will include photographs, maps, links to scientific studies and DNA sequences, anecdotes from amateur naturalists (clearly separated from expert opinion), sound, and video, when available. Eventually, the work will hold the equivalent of about 300 million pages of information.
"Imagine scientists working in a rain forest somewhere who find an unusual plant or fungus," said Jonathan Fanton, president of the MacArthur Foundation, which has donated $10 million to the encyclopedia and pledged another $10 million if the project meets early goals. "They'll be able go on-line and tap into this huge data base to find similar species. They'll be able to know right on the spot if they've made a real discovery."
Today, that process might require culling through museum collections or sifting through mounds of material from various sources.
The Sloan Foundation, another major donor, has fronted $2.5 million for the encyclopedia, while the Marine Biological Laboratory has developed new software that will allow for sophisticated scientific comparisons to be made between species, a technology that didn't even exist a few years ago. Along with Harvard, institutions contributing money and expertise to the project include the Smithsonian Institution, Chicago's Field Museum, and the Missouri Botanical Garden.
"This will be an extraordinary science tool," said James Edwards, a global biodiversity expert named as the encyclopedia's executive director. "It will enable researchers to better understand the complicated relationships between organisms on both the macro- and micro-scale."
Some scientists believe that life is veering towards a sixth "great extinction" since emerging on earth 3.8 million years ago. Unlike the earlier mass extinctions -- most famously the disappearance of dinosaurs -- the looming die-off seems to be caused by human activity, mainly destruction of natural habitat and carbon dioxide emissions contributing to climate change.
Building the encyclopedia will fall mainly to software designers and computer engineers, with old-style field scientists -- like Harvard's Wilson, who won his reputation tracking down unknown species of ants in remote rain forests -- serving mainly to ensure the accuracy and quality of entered information.
"It's really more of a communications project than a discovery project," said Edwards. "It's integrating information so that anyone and everyone can access it, from a frontline scientist to a high school teacher to a farmer trying to figure whether a certain worm in the soil is friend or foe."
And that's just fine with Wilson.
"This effort is just so important to understanding life on our unknown planet," he said. "We are never going to have a mature science of ecology if we don't even know the species in the ecosystem."
Material from the Associated Press was used in this report.
Add to del.icio.us
Posted: Thursday, May 10, 2007 | PermalinkComments 1 - 30 of 30 |
Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers2. Comment #39267 by Serdan on May 10, 2007 at 8:43 am
This is totally awesome! ^_^ Other Comments by Serdan
3. Comment #39273 by bamboospitfire on May 10, 2007 at 8:49 am
Exciting is the word.I will be particularly interested to see the entry for homo sapiens...
Other Comments by bamboospitfire
4. Comment #39280 by Nebularry on May 10, 2007 at 8:53 am
This is all very nice but will they fit into the Ark? Hmmmm . . . ?Other Comments by Nebularry
5. Comment #39283 by ranjani on May 10, 2007 at 8:57 am
This is a wonderful project. However, I cannot help but feel deeply saddened by the rapid extinction rates of flora and fauna. Does anyone here know the actual numbers? The more pressing question which seems unanswerable at this point, is how to stop the ravages of a human driven mass extinction. The rapaciousness of the human species seems to be limitless. Maybe, this project will contribute in some measure to stem the destructiveness of our species. Too much to expect???!!!!Other Comments by ranjani
6. Comment #39335 by carnitine on May 10, 2007 at 10:47 am
It's projects like this that make me wish I had a couple billion dollars in the bank so I could donate.12 million dollars is a teeny tiny budget for this kind of undertaking. I'm also worried about its "wiki" style of submission, unless they check credentials on every submitter. Either way this is very cool.
Other Comments by carnitine
7. Comment #39351 by devolved on May 10, 2007 at 11:47 am
Ooops another big hole appearing in the evolutionary story. Look at this linkhttp://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/5067
Other Comments by devolved
8. Comment #39355 by Mash on May 10, 2007 at 12:02 pm
From devolved's link " But there is no evidence for such a fourth domain of organisms, and this new idea unfortunately appears to be another ‘just so’ addition to help patch up an ailing hypothesis."I don't know whether this is creatonist propaganda or not. Eventhough, I find it pretty darn ironic that they manage to pull the "they've got no evidence" argument whilst remaining serious. Have they completely forgotten that their "theory" is backed up by no evidence at all, what so ever?
Other Comments by Mash
9. Comment #39379 by deejay on May 10, 2007 at 12:54 pm
The fact that life on earth is constantly 'evolving' would make the task of recording all forms of life very difficult. However, it will provide a record of and proof of evolution so that even creationists may evolve into evolutionists . A worthwhile project nevertheless and deserves all the support possible.Other Comments by deejay
10. Comment #39393 by Mikado on May 10, 2007 at 1:34 pm
I am sorry but I am unable to support a Creationist project. Darwin will do fine for me.Other Comments by Mikado
11. Comment #39417 by Robert Maynard on May 10, 2007 at 2:53 pm
Ooops another big hole appearing in the evolutionary story. Look at this linkUrgh, devolved.. why are you such a tool?
This is somewhat similar to the problems that arose when Newsweek brought the public up to date with the current state of the hominid fossil record.
When our hominid fossils numbered in the single digits, scientists placed them in a neat linear line. As more hominid fossils revealed more diverse morphologies, and many leads turned into dead ends (literally, lineages that went extinct), the hominid family tree became a necessarily more complex - and more accurate - representation of our ancestors. Likewise, when our understanding of the early lifeforms of Earth was simple, there was nothing wrong with placing them in a leat line side by side, as distinct paths cleanly drawn from common ancestors, for the time being.
In both cases, the fact that the "family tree" of all life becomes more complex as we "zoom" in to various sections and discover more, does literally nothing to contradict or force us to discard the notion that these forms had a common ancestor, just as the incompleteness of our increasingly complex hominid family tree hasn't lead any serious scientist to question our ape-ancestry.
Let's quote-mine some of this quote-mining:
"There's so much lateral transfer that even the concept of the tree is debatable."
Yep. I suspect we'd find a similar picture of incessant cross-pollination if we tried to map, say, the lineages of viruses flourishing in host-rich human populations today. After all, it is part of the reason they mutate so very fast (the main reason being their desperately short 'generations')
Of course, none of this genetic tangling discounts the fact that morphological diversity increases as time progresses from this point, and decreases as we look back, and the same can be said for any point on the timeline (save perhaps extinction events). If you look down the chart - less diversity; look up, more.
This is the literal symbolism of the 'tree' of life, and you should be grateful, because there are few principles to be found in science which are so simple yet profound.
What I find simply stunning is the inability of this piece (and you) to see how situations with lower replicative fidelity and insecure barriers allowing for rampant cross-pollinations might dramatically increase the generation of so-called "new information", through rampant variation. You're basically staring at a giant bacteria orgy and saying "Nope, I can't see how this could possibly have freaky, unexpected consequences. Like ..oh I don't know, eukaryotes!". Phwoosh!
"It is as if we have failed at the task that Darwin set for us: delineating the unique structure of the tree of life."
Darwin's theories of natural selection and common descent were formulated without the benefit of genetics and genetic transfer, so why is it surprising that the intricate and nuanced details of pre-sexual replication eluded him?
Also, instead of one single organism at the root of the tree, a community of primitive cells is now believed to be the common ancestor
Actually, the consensus and the evidence still points to a single ancestor, with a revised and fresh understanding of the details, in exactly the same sense that scientists have revised our hominid ancestry in light of new evidence that changes our minds. That's kind of the whole point of science..
This is the best part..
Evolutionary theory simply keeps changing its 'goalposts' to produce reworked models that suit the current scientific beliefs.
It's almost as though the theory is improving itself to more accurately reflect reality! Seriously, is this article suggesting that revising your ideas in the light of new information is unscientific?
P.S. I could not help but notice that the piece and its citations are at least seven years old. Methinks you should write to Creationontheweb.com and request that they keep up with the real scientists.
Other Comments by Robert Maynard
12. Comment #39473 by chionactis on May 10, 2007 at 8:13 pm
I'm surprised they didn't mention the Tree of Life Web Project: http://tolweb.org/tree/phylogeny.html Other Comments by chionactis
13. Comment #39479 by Jolly Wally on May 10, 2007 at 8:39 pm
An important project and exciting endeavour!Other Comments by Jolly Wally
14. Comment #39480 by PeterK on May 10, 2007 at 8:39 pm
My wife came up with the best word yet to describe the endless nonsensical blatherings from the creationist camp:"clownful"
Other Comments by PeterK
15. Comment #39522 by Peacebeuponme on May 11, 2007 at 3:56 am
Wonderful idea. Is Richard Dawkins or RDF involved in any way?Other Comments by Peacebeuponme
16. Comment #39621 by devolved on May 11, 2007 at 10:33 am
The link below shows who is doing bad science.http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2891
Other Comments by devolved
17. Comment #39648 by BillySands on May 11, 2007 at 12:43 pm
DevolvedFrom previous experience, I find that your CMI links are a waste of reading time, so why not cut it out and just tell us why there are no humans and dinosaurs fossilised together? Why are there no humans in rocks older than a few hundred thousand years of age?
BTW, I notice CMI seem to think scientific american is a source of peer reviewed original data - chortle!
I'm in no rush to get back to you, but thought I would ask those questions that creationist ignore so others can practice their debating skills on you
Other Comments by BillySands
18. Comment #39649 by Fedler on May 11, 2007 at 12:45 pm
devolved-Your "arguments" (a.k.a. just links to other sites) have been dispatched thoroughly both on this and other scientific sites. You're beating a dead horse, so to speak, and if the horse you're riding dies, get off.
BTW, this project looks WAY cool!
Other Comments by Fedler
19. Comment #39659 by BillySands on May 11, 2007 at 1:18 pm
Devolved Forgot to add the journal of creation doesnt cut it either. I wonder, do non christians review it - does anyone review it? At least proper scientific journals will let any qualified person review it - regardless of faith.
Where is the evidence that endosymbiosis is in trouble? they provide none! And you just accept that!!!!!!!!!!!
They say our views have changed, but that's science - new evidence and all that! and the HRT stuff, how is that not "new information" to the recipient? Then they say when the selective pressure is removed, these horizontally transferred genes degrade - they mutate and change - well, that is evolution!
This junk just exasperates me.
Read a proper scientific article and tell us - yourself what is wrong with it. If yoy can get it, try this http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v431/n7005/abs/nature02848.html;jsessionid=4507516DE18AF5C10391DF3F98B720BF apparently you can register and get it free.
See you aroung, but I can see why people dont debate creationists.
Other Comments by BillySands
20. Comment #39664 by BaronOchs on May 11, 2007 at 1:26 pm
BillySands and Robert Maynard I commend all the effort you expend refuting the creationists on this site! Other Comments by BaronOchs
21. Comment #39668 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on May 11, 2007 at 1:38 pm
It's almost as though the theory is improving itself to more accurately reflect reality! Seriously, is this article suggesting that revising your ideas in the light of new information is unscientific?I get this maddening kind of comment all the time.
It's said with the implication that there is some glowing example of religion with a monopoly on the truth. Yet this is such self evident nonsense. The history of religion, is a long and bloody series of retreats in the area of cosmology, and human biology.
Religions cling to nonsense, even when utterly debunked. Hence the Catholic Church's gracious pardoning of Galileo in 1996. The wonder of science is that it corrects itself, religion even where the abuse is overt and obvious has to have it faults dragged kicking and screaming into the light. I'll take the flawed science, over the flawed religion, thanks. The last 300 years says I'm betting the right horse.
Science and Religion are both human institutions, and they wear that stamp upon them unmistakeably. Yet Science, knows it, accepts it and polices itself accordingly. Religion denies it, claims authority where none is deserved, and abuse, failure and disappointment is ever the result. I mean do we even need to discuss this?
These people have the stupendous gall to swan on to the site and bemoan the fact that "But scientists keep changing their minds!!", as if this was a bad thing.
There is something small, frightened and infantile about it, isn't there?
Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen
22. Comment #39691 by devolved on May 11, 2007 at 2:34 pm
"From previous experience, I find that your CMI links are a waste of reading time, so why not cut it out and just tell us why there are no humans and dinosaurs fossilised together? Why are there no humans in rocks older than a few hundred thousand years of age?"1. So when presented with a scientific challenge you dismiss it by calling it a 'waste of time'.
2. You presume but cannot prove that there are rocks 'older than a few hundred thousand years old'.
3. "..tell us why there are no humans and dinosaurs fossilised together"
With pleasure, follow the link unless you've already closed your mind to the possibility that you could be wrong in which case it would be a waste of time (but for the wrong reason)
http://www.creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter15.pdf
4. "Where is the evidence that endosymbiosis is in trouble?"
here-
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3888
"When our hominid fossils numbered in the single digits *, scientists placed them in a neat linear line. As more hominid fossils revealed more diverse morphologies**, and many leads turned into dead ends (literally, lineages that went extinct), the hominid family tree became a necessarily more complex*** - and more accurate - representation of our ancestors****."
* This is a belief based upon a highly questionable interpretation of data
** as above
*** as above
**** as above
The Renault Scenic on my drive looks very much like my neighbour's Citroen Picasso. One did not evolve from the other. They were both designed. The paragraph above presumes evolution as true then sets out to use the data to prove the belief by interpreting the data to fit the presupposition.
Other Comments by devolved
23. Comment #39693 by BaronOchs on May 11, 2007 at 2:42 pm
The Renault Scenic on my drive looks very much like my neighbour's Citroen Picasso. One did not evolve from the other.
The car manufacturing meme, you might say, or the idea of the car has evolved through its many manifestation. Subject of course to the natural selection of market demand.
They both of course share common ancestry with the very first car(s) which in turn was a "mutation" of earlier forms like the horse-drawn carriage.
well inarticulately expressed but you get the idea.
Other Comments by BaronOchs
24. Comment #39743 by Robert Maynard on May 11, 2007 at 8:15 pm
1. So when presented with a scientific challenge you dismiss it by calling it a'waste of time'.We would dismiss it because it does not constitute anything scientific in nature, nor a challenge to science. And also because we've put in plenty of effort to demolish your "scientific challenges" in the past, with no reciprocation or acknowledgement from you. It's a waste of time, but I'm willing to keep doing it on the off-chance you'll just leave in shame. That's how much I dislike you.
2. You presume but cannot prove that there are rocks 'older than a few hundred thousand years old'.I never get tired of pointing this out, but only to individual people, not the one guy repeatedly. Smarten up, you fucking idiot.
Science is not about proving things. Science is seeing what we can learn by discarding false predictions. It's like saying we can't prove that the Moon landing took place, or who is guilty in a murder case, because we weren't there. Well, that's true, but we can look at the evidence, of which there are mountains, and make reasonable assumptions based on that evidence. It's up to the creationists, or the conspiracy "theorists", or the defence for the murderer, to establish reasonable doubt in the facts. Can you imagine a lawyer whining "Your whole case is based on the presumption that this court can trust the evidence given, but you can't PROVE my client murdered all those people, because there were no eye-witnesses.. no one survived!"
Have you established reasonable doubt?
No.
What you've done is post links and ask us to criticise them. When we do, and you run out of articles to post, you then literally abandon that argument and post a new link on a different topic. And here we see the exact same process repeating itself. You posted a link with seven year old exposition on evolutionary lineages. I briefly explained why its conclusions were nothing of the sort, you posted another seven year old exposition, and then switched gears by posting two other articles on different topics, which may as well have been titled "How Scientists Are Dogmatic and Misleading - In which we point out that Newton was pre-darwinian and imply that his work in any way supports the design perspective." and "Hand-waving Away Geochronology - A Practical Guide". When can we expect your rebuttals to our rebuttals?
You gave me a link last time we met and asked me to show you the scientific problems with it. I did. How about you step up now and show us the scientific problems with that explanation of geochronology? Hopefully you won't start crying about presuppositions, because we have also already been over that, with Tim Marsh here discussing the utility value of certain "presuppositions" over others - another line of argument you previously abandoned.
When we argued with you last time, you stopped addressing topic after topic before disappearing altogether, so we assumed you'd given up or even changed your mind on certain issues. So help me, I will repost (or at least link to) every comment we made on that Limbo article until you stop commenting on this thread or show some humility and/or balls.
3. "..tell us why there are no humans and dinosaurs fossilised together"MAN, this is so juicy! For the sake of keeping my comment smaller I'll try to only address the part dealing with Billy Sand's question. We can come to the rest of it later, seeing it deals, in part, with issues we've already explained ourselves on.
With pleasure, follow the link unless you've already closed your mind to the possibility that you could be wrong in which case it would be a waste of time (but for the wrong reason)
"Many historical accounts of living dinosaurs, which were known as 'dragons', are good descriptions of what we call dinosaurs ... the account in Job 40 of Behemoth sounds like one of the big dinosaurs."
I'm surprised it didn't bring up the Loch Ness monster, seeing its so willing to extend the purview of a "credible argument" into the realm of folklore. "Historical account" and "Idiot myth" are two different things. As for what could have served as original inspiration for such beasts, there is well documented evidence of reptilian (and mammalian) megafauna flourishing throughout prehistory, well into the rise of human domination. There is little doubt that something like a giant alligator would be seen as a 'dragon', and in Asia, the larger forms of monitor lizards are much more reminiscent of asian dragon myths then dinosaurs. Such beasts would have arrested the oral history of humans wherever they first encountered them. Where does the fire thing come from? Possibly a mixture with serpent myth, relating to the effects of poison.. also explicable without dinosaurs. What this article didn't even try to explain was how these myths began to include wings on their monsters. And not feathery wings (which would be intriguing, seeing modern birds are descended from dinosaurs), but giant leathery wings, like those on pterosaurs or mammalian fliers. Pure legend, and its laughable that this would bring it up.
As for Job 40, the big dinosaurs, such as Apatosaurus and brachiosaurus, were not grazing animals as is spelt out in Job 40:15, not only because their giant faces and mouths wouldn't be very good at taking in such low-lying vegetation, but also because grass had not evolved yet. :P
There is a false equivocation going when they use the line "he moves his tail like a cedar" to imply "his tail was as large as a cedar." That's a pretty artful interpretation!
Meanwhile, it makes zero mention of the gigantic necks of Apatosaurus et al, which WOULD warrant a cedar-analogy. Why is it, devolved, that Job 40 does not describe the neck of Behemoth, or his scales? I would think that both of these characteristics would be.. pretty notable amongst other grazing animals. And why do old representations of Behemoth feature a short stubby neck and a strong resemblance to mammalian megafauna?
"Unmineralised dinosaur bones..."
On this occasion, I think I've earned an allowance of "Follow this link.. unless your mind is closed (or some other snide comment)!!"
This TalkOrigins article gives a rundown of the damaging misconceptions that arose from the "recent" news story about preserved blood and tissue in a T-Rex dinosaur bone.
"Rocks bearing dinosaur fossils often contain very little plant material... so what did they eat?"
Heaven forbid that most of it simply wasn't fossilised, for whatever reason. There is plenty of plant matter in the Morrison formation, and the fossil record in general, thanks.
Questioning entire theories based on singular examples of fossil-bearing strata, is like examining a photograph of a family at the beach, and saying "where are the topless sunbathers? Aren't there supposed to be topless sunbathers at beaches? I don't see them in this photo! What about the jellyfish? This highly selective sample of what a trip to the beach is like calls into question many of my cherished assumptions!"
I should be grateful the article didn't ask what dinosaurs drank, seeing there's no fossilised water. Urgh.
You're never going to run out of ammunition with these nonsense articles, and you don't seem open to convincing, so is it really a discussion we're having here?
If there's an exchange, in which all one side does is post links to creationist articles, and the other side puts time in to explain the problems in them, only to have the other side throw out an article on a different topic, to give their cognitive dissonance time to wipe the memory of all opposing arguments, who might we say is in the wrong place, on a website for "clear thinking"?
Other Comments by Robert Maynard
25. Comment #39843 by BillySands on May 12, 2007 at 5:02 am
Good post Robertdevolved
1. So when presented with a scientific challenge you dismiss it by calling it a 'waste of time'.
I dont consider scientific challenges a waste of time. You however have not provided any. An article containing someones opinion and misrepresentation of facts - and as we shall see lies does not constitute a scientific challenge
2. You presume but cannot prove that there are rocks 'older than a few hundred thousand years old'.
See the responses on the limbo thread! Then again, we dont need to know absolute ages to know that you don't get mamals and trilobites in the same rock layers. We can even see the gradual reduction in toe numbers in horses in susessive rock layers - see pliohippus http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/horses/horse_evol.html
so, where are all the humans?
3. "..tell us why there are no humans and dinosaurs fossilised together"
With pleasure, follow the link unless you've already closed your mind to the possibility that you could be wrong in which case it would be a waste of time (but for the wrong reason)
I've already told you if there were indeed humans with dinosaurs, I would say I was wrong. Now, that is a very specific unambiguous statement - I am just waiting for that fossil. I have read your link, so where exactly are the fossils? That's right, there aren't any in your link - no evidence!
Now for one of the lies - no plants. Well, here are just a few that are found with dinosaurs: Angiosperms, Bennettitalites, Caytonialites, Equisetites, Ferns, Ginkoes and Lots more.
I challenged you previously to explain this sequence of habitats: reef, coal forest, reef, coal forest. Needless to say you couldn't - that would be impossible in a flood model.
Here's what the bible says about another creature claimed to be a dinosaur: the Leviathan: job 41 "19 Firebrands stream from his mouth; sparks of fire shoot out."
Hmm mythical creature or evidence of dinosaurs?????? What a bout unicorns? They are in the bible!
Robert dealt with the dragon stuff, but here is yet another possibility: people found big bones in old rocks and let their immagination do the rest.
No fossils, no evidence! I am dissapointed, I thought you were going to give us a laugh by providing the glen rose footprints as evidence for us http://paleo.cc/paluxy.htm you will also find other stuff there refuting the "forbidden archaeology" in yout links.
4. "Where is the evidence that endosymbiosis is in trouble?"
here-
Oh no it isn't! All I see is incredulity: "how could this happen?" etc. Some of these are of course valid questions, and thet are being answered - in a way that just happens to support evolution. NOW READ THAT NATURE ARTICLE I TOLD YOU TO!.
* This is a belief based upon a highly questionable interpretation of data
Justify that statement in your own words! And I dont see how it is making the data fit the model. Things become extinct - they dissappear - become dead ends. In fact, new finds only fine tune our understanding. They dont diminish it!
The Renault Scenic on my drive looks very much like my neighbour's Citroen Picasso. One did not evolve from the other. They were both designed.
And your point is?
Here's my position: show me the fossils and I will concede (that however is unlikely given the overwhelming and self supporting nature of evolutionary theory)
I presume this is your position from your CMI propaganda : Unbelieving scientists are in willfully ignorant denial (Rom. 1:20 ff., 2 Peter 3).
Every thing you post is an attempt to make creationism true! I am open minded, but the evidence convinces me that evolution occurs - come on, all it takes is one naughty little fossil from the millions so far uncovered
Other Comments by BillySands
26. Comment #39971 by devolved on May 12, 2007 at 12:34 pm
"95% of the fossil record consists of shallow marine organisms such as corals and shellfish. Within the remaining 5%, 95% are all the algae and plant/tree fossils, including the vegetation that now makes up the trillions of tonnes of coal, and all the other invertebrate fossils including the insects. Thus the vertebrates (fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals) together make up very little of the fossil record—in fact, 5% of 5%, which is a mere 0.25% of the entire fossil record. So comparatively speaking there are very, very few amphibian, reptile, bird and mammal fossils, yet so much is often made of them. For example, the number of dinosaur skeletons in all the world's museums (both public and university) totals only about 2,100. Furthermore, of this 0.25% of the fossil record which is vertebrates, only 1% of that 0.25% (or 0.0025%) are vertebrate fossils that consist of more than a single bone! For example, there's only one Stegosaurus skull that has been found, and many of the horse species are each represented by only one specimen of one tooth!"So it's pretty unlikely that human and dinosaur fossils would appear together.
Thanks for the Talk Origins link. I'll read it with interest.
Perhaps if you feel I'm not answering all your very many points you could challenge CMI or AiG directly. After all jaw jaw is preferable to war war.
Meet you all again on another post soon.
Other Comments by devolved
27. Comment #39980 by Robert Maynard on May 12, 2007 at 1:39 pm
"95% of the fossil record consists of shallow marine organisms such as corals and shellfish. Within the remaining 5%, 95% are all the algae and plant/tree fossils, including the vegetation that now makes up the trillions of tonnes of coal, and all the other invertebrate fossils including the insects."I see.. so about 4.75% of our fossil record includes the trillions of tonnes of fossil fuels, or specifically coal.
So either this is implying that the fossil record contains some 20 trillion tonnes of "shallow marine" and "coral" fossils, or you've missed some valuable details in your ruthless quote-mining.
On the subject of tonnage, I'm genuinely curious as to how this claim was quantified? By number of specimens, weight, frequency of distinct species? All of these values have disadvantages. Just for starters, it's no surprise that in any large-scale fossilisation, you can simply fit more tiny invertebrates and small plants into an area.
As for weight, vertebrates can get pretty gigantic, and then there's also the problem with the weight advantages conferred to all of these fossils by virtue of mineralisation.
With distinct phenotypic diversity, this problem is compounded by factors like predicted ecology and, again, size. Not only can you fit more small specimens in a smaller area, you can also fit more in if a lot of them got along fine and carried out their lives in close (by our standards, not to mention geological standards) proximity. Larger things, on the other hand, are not only generally harder to kill and fossilise (a raptor can get away from a landslide a little faster than a snail), but their larger scale and more competitive ecologies could serve to ensure that the victims of rapid depositions were rarely diverse in form.
I also think it's pretty unlikely that human and dinosaur fossils would appear together.. but this is mainly because dinosaur fossil do not appear in strata much younger than the 65 million year old K-T boundary, which humans were not around to see.
As for challenging CMI, it is not the job of atheists to dismantle such places, insofar as it doesn't effect our lives what they think.
I wouldn't care what you thought, as long as you hadn't tried to stir up some trouble with unscientific arguments which are very much a waste of time, at a website ostensibly promoting science (among other things).
I'm not going after CMI for the same reason I don't lose sleep directly criticising TIMECUBE.
Other Comments by Robert Maynard
28. Comment #39985 by devolved on May 12, 2007 at 1:53 pm
On this occasion, I think I've earned an allowance of "Follow this link.. unless your mind is closed (or some other snide comment)!!"This TalkOrigins article gives a rundown of the damaging misconceptions that arose from the "recent" news story about preserved blood and tissue in a T-Rex dinosaur bone.
I'm reading the link having printed it out.
Here's the response from Carl Wieland
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3427/
Glad you mentioned coal Robert. It's one the best pieces of evidence for catastrophe and a young earth
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/328
Other Comments by devolved
29. Comment #39990 by Robert Maynard on May 12, 2007 at 2:23 pm
Glad you mentioned coal Robert. It's one the best pieces of evidence for catastrophe and a young earthREALLY..?
Looking over the "evidence against a swamp theory", my jaw literally dropped when I saw this-
"But the evidence indicates that these brown coal deposits did not accumulate in a peat bog or a swamp. First, there is no sign of soil under the coal, as there would be if the vegetation grew and accumulated in a swamp. Instead, the coal rests on a thick layer of clay and there is a 'knife edge' contact between the clay and the coal."I really hope that you caught this bald-faced distortion, buddy, and saw it for what it was.
Because if you didn't know that soil requires active surface interaction with the biosphere - that is, the products of organic matter, water and air - if you didn't know that soil is simply a description of shiftable sediment rich in biological nutrients supplied by living things and the atmosphere, stuff not supplied by COAL - and if you didn't know that plants and swamps do not grow endlessly upward on a permanent base of soil as this article demands, but that soil is always at the uppermost layers do to its aforementioned contact with the biosphere, then I am sorry, but I simply cannot help you. You may have some kind of degenerative disease.
EDIT: No, that's cruel. The important thing is, now you do know! You've learnt some lessons about the nature of soil, and why this part of the article is pure bullshit. Right? :D
..But I mean, surely you did notice that, right? You thought it was worth posting.. for other reasons, right?
Then I saw this-
Then there are a number of distinct ash layers that run horizontally through the coal. If the vegetation had grown in a swamp, these distinct ash layers would not be there. After each volcanic eruption, the volcanic texture of the ash would have been obliterated when the swamp plants recolonized the ash, turning it into soil. Not only is there no soil, but the vegetation found in the coal is not the kind that grows in swamps today.Just to note, brown coal is known for high ash content, which is consistent with a region repeatedly treated to dousings of volcanic ash, some of which are large enough to stifle connections to previous soils and start the process again. Anyway, I love how, if the creationist model were true, this would imply that the real answer is that the Flood apparently involved random bursts of volcanic ash, which settled in uniformly distributed layers during an apocalyptically violent deposition of churning, wet sediment, and the writers don't bat an eyelid. It's an ultimate Biblical expression of godly wrath, yet when it needs to be, it can carefully lay down thin layers of undisturbed ash, before getting back to instantly pulverising plant matter delivered fresh from New Guinea into coal sludge. Moreso, I love how they explicitly say "the vegetation found in the coal is not the kind that grows in swamps today" but simply do not connect the dots. The mountain plants are the "best match", they are not "the match", precisely because the plants found in this mixture do not exist anymore, anywhere, because they are the ancestors of local plants, which now fill many ecological niches and environments.
So, what was that, another roughly thirty minutes of writing for me, and another two minutes of linking from you. Woah, and just an hour after your last article-linking! Take a break, devolved, you must be getting sweaty! Have you learnt anything along the way?
Other Comments by Robert Maynard
30. Comment #40089 by BillySands on May 13, 2007 at 4:23 am
RobertI think he is going to bugger off again.
Then there are a number of distinct ash layers that run horizontally through the coal. If the vegetation had grown in a swamp, these distinct ash layers would not be there. After each volcanic eruption, the volcanic texture of the ash would have been obliterated when the swamp plants recolonized the ash, turning it into soil. Not only is there no soil, but the vegetation found in the coal is not the kind that grows in swamps today.
What? am I on crazy pills and have missed something here? Nope, the jar is unopened, it must be devolved taking them. The plant growing in swamps 300 million years ago are not the same as those around today - shockaroony!!! That's evolution for you. Here are some nice plants "growing" with roots in situ from the coal baring rocks near Glasgow
http://www.hmag.gla.ac.uk/Neil/FossilGrove/index.html
Notice how the little troll ignores the fact you often get coral reefs sandwitched between coal deposits.
So it's pretty unlikely that human and dinosaur fossils would appear together.
Oh this is just getting silly. By his model, the flood created sedimentary rock miles deep all over the world (there must have been some really high mountains then - high enough for jesus to see all the kindgdom of the flat world from (matt 4)). Yet he acknowleges that marine sediments are different from terrestial ones - wow! So land animals are found in land deposits and marine ones in marine deposits - and nothing mixed - fascinating!
Someone sends me a PM if he returns or pops up elsewhwere.
In case you do return, see what I said on the limbo thread about challenging CMI
Other Comments by BillySands
Upcoming Events:
About this site
Mailing List Signup: Enter your email
Go to The Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science
Richard Dawkins Articles | Comments | Tour Journal
Atheist Resources | Local Groups
Debate Points | Latest Responses
Audio Books
The God Delusion
Read by
Richard Dawkins &
Lalla Ward
The Ancestor's Tale
Read by
Richard Dawkins &
Lalla Ward
On the Origin of Species
Read by
Richard Dawkins
Links:
Quote:
"I say quite deliberately that the Christian religion, as organized in its churches, has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world."
Bertrand Russell
Other Recommended Reading
God: The Failed Hypothesis
Victor J Stenger
Intelligent Thought
John Brockman (Editor)
Breaking the Spell
Daniel C. Dennett
More Books
Adjust font size: 
"If this book doesn't change the world -- we're all screwed."
-Penn (Penn & Teller)
The God Delusion
by Richard Dawkins
Over 1.5 million copies sold
DVDs
'The Genius of Charles Darwin' DVD (PAL Region 2 ONLY)
'Enemies of Reason' DVD
'Voices of Science' DVD
'The Four Horsemen' DVD
'Root of All Evil? The Original Program' DVD
'Growing Up in the Universe' DVD
'Break the Science Barrier' DVD
Books by Richard Dawkins
The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing
by Richard Dawkins
The Selfish Gene
by Richard Dawkins
The Blind Watchmaker
by Richard Dawkins
The Ancestor's Tale
by Richard Dawkins
Unweaving the Rainbow
by Richard Dawkins
1. Comment #39262 by WalkingARazor on May 10, 2007 at 8:27 am
Other Comments by WalkingARazor