Download jhontesbiologyearthsage

* Hasn’t been referenced until information is proved valid.
The theory of evolution has the availability of a long period of time for the development of life and
speciation to occur as a basic foundation principle. Evolutionary theory uses a geological time frame
of the Earth’s age as approximately 4.5 billion years old to allow for the process of natural selection
and extinction to occur. However, the creation theory disputes this and uses a shorter geological age
(6,000-10,000 years) for the Earth as a framework for an explanation of the diversity of life and
major extinction of species. Various views of creationism typically have been promoted by small
groups of politically active religious fundamentalists who believe that only a supernatural entity
could account for the physical changes in the universe and for the biological diversity of life on Earth.
To this day, evidence has been produced to support both a long and short term time frame for the
Earth’s age. The evidence to support these claims are indicated by exploring for and against
arguments of both biological evolution and creationism. The key fields to be explored are areas such
as: Darwinism opposing Creationism, natural selection and theories of thermodynamics,
paleontology, the comparative anatomy, biochemistry, catastrophic events such as the worldwide
flood, the DNA molecule, the accumulation of helium in the atmosphere, the decay of the Earth’s
magnetic field, the accumulation of meteorite dust on the moon and speciation.
There is an enormous difference between Darwinism and Creationism. Darwinism concerns itself as
a science, that is explained by scientific methodology and creationism is more so based on a belief
that a supernatural entity exists.
http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/biology/b103/f01/web3/ejelonu.html Biological evolution concerns
changes in living things during the history of life on Earth. It begins to explain that living things share
common ancestors and over time evolutionary change gives rise to new species. In contrast, ideals
that have given uprise to creation sciences are derived from the conviction of most Abrahemic
religions that God created the universe-including humans and other living things, all at once in the
relatively recent past. Creationists believe creatures started out as distinct and separate organisms
when God created them and they do not believe that organisms change into complete differently
and distinct animals through evolution. For example, Creationists do not believe that single-celled
organisms evolved into more complex plants and animals, finally evolving into Homo Sapiens.
Although creationism is not a scientific theory, Creationists are using scientific evidence in
supporting their argument that Darwinism cannot be scientifically sustained based on the fact that it
goes against creationism. Furthermore criticising evolution, Creationists are pursuing scientific
evidence of their own, in support of their creation account in Genesis. However, a problem begins to
arise as Creationists try to entwine science with religion. The pairing of these two origins prove ineffective because religion doesn’t require proof whereas science does. Creation science incooperates the believes that God created the Earth and all the creatures in it, it is not science
because creation by God or another divinity does not give concrete scientific explanation of life’s
origin. Rather, it gives an explanation that becomes consistent with their belief that an intelligent
creator, God, exists and created the universe. Creationists begin to try verify this concept and other
Biblical stories by evaluating on scientific grounds. For instance, Geologists used to try explain all
Earth’s geological features in terms of Noah’s Flood.
Not to get confused, Darwinism is not evolution. Rather, Darwinism is simply Charles Darwin’s
proposal for the methods by which natural processes cause the evolution of the species. Today
evolution is known as the “changing of simple life forms to higher life forms as theorised by Darwin.”
He also presented the idea that evolution worked by natural selection. The natural selection theory
states that “evolutionary change comes through the abundant production of genetic variation in
every generation. The relatively few individuals who survive, owing to a well developed combination
of inheritable characteristics, give rise to the next generation.” Evidence to support this claim were
the case study results concerning the industrial melanism, a phenomenon that affected over 70
species of moths in England. It has been best studied in the peppered moth. Prior to 1800, the
typical moth of the species had a light pattern. Dark coloured or melanic moths were rare and were
therefore collectors’ items. During the revolution, soot and other industrial waste darkened tree
trunks and killed of lichens. The light-coloured morph of the moth became rare and the dark morph
became abundant. In 1819, the first melanic morph was seen; by 1886, it was far more common,
thus illustrating rapid evolutionary change. Eventually the light morphs were common in only few
locales, far from industrial areas. The cause of this change was thought to be selective predation by
birds, which favoured camouflage colouration in the moth.
http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange1/current/lectures/selection/selection.html
Among the harshest critics on the theory of evolution are Creationists. They have been active in
indicating weaknesses in scientific evidence. Commonly, supporters of creation science argue that
natural selection can produce minor changes within species but cannot generate new species from
pre-existing species. Despite the fact that there is plenty of supporting evidence for adaptive
changes, there is no scientific evidence to examine one species becoming an entirely different, more
highly evolved organism. http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/biology/b103/f01/web3/ejelonu.html
Darwin proposed the processes of evolution in 1958, including common descent, speciation and
natural selection. At the time, most people believed that the age of Earth was about 6,000 years, as
estimated by Bishop Ussher in the seventeenth century from his reading of the bible. In Darwin’s
first edition of On the Origin of the Species by Means of Natural Selection, Darwin made a rough
estimate of the Earth’s age, based on geology, of several hundred million years. The estimate began
to support his claims of natural selection because he thought the time was sufficiently long enough
to produce the wide range of species on Earth.
Physicist William Thomson later disputed Darwin’s approximation, arguing Earth was much younger.
Thompson had made major contribution to thermodynamics, formulating the second law of
thermodynamics and establishing the absolute temperature (Kelvin) scale. (During this time, the only
known sources of energy were chemical and gravitational). Thompson calculated the age of the Sun
for each mechanism and found that gravity gave the largest value, of a few tens of millions of years.
Earth cannot be older than the Sun. Using thermodynamics; Thompson also calculated that the
temperature of Earth would have been too high even as recently as a million years ago to allow for
life. However, Thompson’s conclusions were wrong and Darwin’s theory was not falsified. With the
discovery of nuclear energy early in the twentieth century, a new source of energy became known
that was far more efficient than either gravity or chemical reactions. This provided a mechanism for
a much longer-lived sun. Furthermore, the natural nuclear radioactivity of Earth generates significant
heat and upsets Thompson’s calculation for the rate of cooling of Earth.
By the mid-twentieth century, the nuclear processes that fuel the Sun were well established and
described by theory. By the end of the century, the observation of neutrinos from the Sun had
directly confirmed the validity of a nuclear source of energy for the Sun and a potential lifetime of
ten billion years. Prior to this, radioactive dating had also verified that Earth is several billions of
years old and palaeontologists have found signs of a life going back almost that far.
http://www.csicop.org/sb/show/darwinism_and_the_age_of_earth
A major piece of evidence offered by Darwin is found in the science of paleontology. Paleontology
deals with locating, cataloguing and interpreting the life forms that existed in past millennia. It
concerns the study of fossils, bones, shells, teeth and other remains of organisms, or evidence of
ancient organisms that survived over eons of time. Paleontology supports the theory of evolution in
that the Earth is old. This is demonstrated through evidence found that descents of modern
organisms have evolved from common ancestors. It supports the claim in that Darwin proposal of
evolution and the time it takes to evolve spans over billions of years, that of which is strongly
supported by paleontology.
Additional evidence to support evolution is offered by comparative anatomy. As pointed out by
Darwin, the forelimbs of animals such as humans, whales, bats and other creatures are very similar,
even thought the forelimbs are used for different purposes. He proposed that similar forelimbs have
similar origins and he used this evidence to point to a common ancestor for modern forms.
Modern biochemistry indicates there is a biochemical similarity in all living things. For example, the
same mechanisms are for trapping and transforming energy and for building proteins from amino
acids are nearly identical in almost all living systems. DNA and RNA are the mechanisms for
inheritance and gene activity in all living organisms. The structure of the genetic code is almost
identical in all living things. This uniformity in biochemical organisation underlies the diversity of
living things and points to evolutionary relationships.
http://www.cliffsnotes.com/study_guide/Evidence-for-Evolution.topicArticleId-8741,articleId8636.html
Creationists claim that there is geological evidence that the Grand Canyon was formed as a result of
one, or at most a few, flash floods that occurred when water in a huge lake was suddenly released
when a lava dam broke. They claim the process was basically the same as the Mount St. Helens
eruption, which created a deep channel down one side of the mountain. This, they claim, supports
their belief that all of the earth’s major geological features were brought about by catastrophic
events that occurred in a relatively brief amount of time. (can be argued against)?
http://chem.tufts.edu/science/FrankSteiger/grandcyn.htm
Creationists use DNA molecules as an example to support their claims in that the Earth is young.
Since its discovery by James Watson and Francis Crick in 1953, evolutionists have faced an
insurmountable hurdle. Creationists believe that anyone who truly investigates the mystery of the
DNA molecule, the incredible micro, digital, error-correcting, redundant, self duplicating,
information storage and retrieval system, with its own inherent language convention, that has the
potential to develop any organism from raw biological material understands that life is the result of
Intelligent Design. They oppose theories of evolution by questioning their complexity of life
formation; Creation states that matter + energy + information = incredibly complex life. Evolution
states that matter + energy + random chance = incredibly complex life.
(Not solid evidence, purely biased argument) Take out?
http://www.allaboutscience.org/intelligent-design.htm
Creationists commonly resort to creation science in which they claim to give the Earth a much lower
birth date. The most supported claims of creationism to falsify evolution are the accumulation of
helium in the atmosphere, the decay of Earth’s magnetic field and the accumulation of meteoritic
dust on the moon.
The argument that the Earth is young can be supported through the accumulation of helium in the
atmosphere. Helium-4 is created by radioactive decay and is constantly added to the atmosphere.
Helium is not light enough to escape the Earth’s gravity and therefore will begin to accumulate over
time. The current level of helium in the atmosphere would accumulate in less than two hundred
years thus making the Earth young.
Decay of the Earth’s magnetic field is also argued by creation science. in support, they argue that the
dipole component of the magnetic field has decreased slightly over the time that it has been
measured. Assuming the generally accepted "dynamo theory" for the existence of the Earth's
magnetic field is wrong, the mechanism might instead be an initially created field which has been
losing strength ever since the creation event. An exponential fit (assuming a half-life of 1400 years
on 130 years worth of measurements) yields an impossibly high magnetic field even 8000 years ago.
The most common form of the young-Earth Creationist argument is based on a single measurement
of the rate of meteoritic dust influx to the Earth gave a value in the millions of tonnes per year.
While this is minor compared to the processes of erosion on the Earth (about a shoebox-full of dust
per acre per year), there are no such processes on the Moon. Creationists claim that the Moon must
receive a similar amount of dust (perhaps 25% as much per unit surface area due to its lesser gravity),
and there should be a very large dust layer (about a hundred feet thick) if the Moon is several billion
years old.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html
Evolution is furthermore supported by claims of speciation. Speciation is a process by which one
species of organism diverges into two new, genetically diverse species. Whenever a species diverges,
forming two separate species, the event that splits the lineage is known as a speciation event. When
one of these events occurs, it results in a loss of genetic flow between the two species produced in
the split; they become genetically isolated. Genetically isolated species, despite initially sharing a
common ancestor, can no longer reproduce. An example of speciation was the polar bear, a close
relation of the brown bear and fossils show the connection. Over time, the species began to spread
out into different areas, forming genetic niches and eventually becoming two entirely separate
species of bear. It’s very clear that polar bears are white because of genetic adaptation to their
surroundings; their fur could no longer be brown like that of their relatives or else they blend in with
the harsh, colourless artic terrain they call home. Most speciation occurred in the past, as with the
polar bears. Scientists can often isolate when events occurred and continue to study how they
happened.
http://curiosity.discovery.com/question/what-is-speciation
People often think of speciation as a slow, timely process. All of the available evidence supports the
idea that different species evolved from common ancestors, and yet, new species don’t pop up
around us on a daily basis. For many biologists, this implies that speciation happens so slowly that
speciation happens so slowly that it’s hard to observe on human timescales. That tracking of a
population for millennia or more is needed to actually see it split into two separate species.
For organisms that reproduce sexually, speciation begins when parts of a population evolve
differences from one another. Eventually, the two parts of the population may evolve so many
differences that they can no longer interbreed. This can happen in various ways – through shifts in
mate availability, mate choice or simply the organisms’ ability to mate successfully with one another.
Speciation strongly upholds science behind biological evolution. It also supports claims that the
Earth is old because for evolution to occur, biologists believe this process takes millions of years to
attain results.
Discuss the molecular clock?
http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange1/current/lectures/speciation/speciation.html
It can be seen that evidence has been presented to support both a long and short-term time frame
of Earth’s age. This can be seen through the proposals of Darwinism and strong arguments opposing
biological evolution in that the world is old. The topic will continue to spike controversy until solid
evidence exists to upset the scientific evidence that has been presented. Evolution and Creationism
cannot to an extent be compared. This is because biological evolution grounds itself through the use
of scientific evidence. In contrast, Creationists believe the Earth was created by a supernatural entity
in relatively recent times and until ground-breaking evidence can support claims of evolution,
creation science won’t cease the opportunity to invalidate proposals that the Earth is old. In saying
that, the same goes with Creationism, until a supernatural entity presents itself, evolutionists will
endeavour to falsify Creationist theories.
Notes – Worth Discussing?
Types of speciation Allopatric speciation occurs when a large number of individuals are separated from others of their
species by a physical geographic boundary. This is the type of speciation Darwin observed on the
islands when he studied the types of finches that lived there.
Peripatric speciation is similar to allopatric speciation, but it takes place when a small group is
separated from a larger group of its species. The genetic change in peripatric speciation is much
more rapid because the gene pool is much smaller; there simply aren't as many genetic options, so a
new species appears in a shorter period of time.
Parapatric speciation occurs when a species migrates from its original home and enters a new
environment. Darwin said natural selection produces individuals more suited for the new conditions.
One example is grasses that thrive in the contaminated soils near mines.
Sympatric speciation occurs when the individuals adapt to changing conditions. Scientists are
studying the Rhagoeitis pomonella fruit fly, which originally fed on the fruit of hawthorn trees. Then
some individuals shifted to feed on apples, which were more common, about 150 years ago. Now,
the apple-eating flies seem to be becoming a new species.
http://curiosity.discovery.com/question/what-is-speciation - Martha Barksdale
My Conclusion View - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2267227/
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2649647/