Did we evolve to run barefoot or not?

Sicknote, your awesome. You are always good for laugh.

 

I have been following this debate - if one can call it one, for some weeks; it is now time to say something. A few isues need to be addressed.

1) We have been very close to the teological argument at times - "as the giraff who wanted a longer neck decided to grow one in order to reach the tall trees". Quite right - we did not evolve to run barefoot - that is putting purpose to a random event - we were already barefoot (unless as so rightly been pointed out, we wrapped our feet in leather or whatever).

2) Contrary to what has been stated here and on more than one occasion in the past WE DO inherit acquired characteristics - but not in the manner described by Jean Baptist Lamarke, but probably in the manner described by Waddington. A well understood mechanism has yet to be described, but as a working principle of evolutionary biology it is accepted as fact. One example, that MAY be correct, is the fact that all humans - don't care what colour you are - have squatting facets in utero - are they an inheritance of acquired characterisics? Are they phylogenetic as all apes have them? Stuffed if I know. (1997) Patterns of Morphological Discrimination in the Human Talus: a consideration of the Case for Negative Function. (Kidd & Oxnard) In: Perspectives in Human Biology Volume Three: Human Adaptability: Future Trends and Lessons From the Past. Oxnard & Freedman (ed) pp 51-70)

3) I fail any cogent argument that joins shoes to plantaris. To understand this better one should look into phylogeny, not ontogeny. In primates, plantaris is essentially vestigial in all but those "primitive" non-plantigrade primates - ad in these cases they have a furry (hairly?) heel pad that does not touch the ground - ever. A usueful study would be the presence or absence of plantaris in pan and gorilla - I will start digging.

We need to think more carefully, and with greater scientific accuracy, if we are going to answer these issues. Rob

 

Bob, I don't follow you, how is this an example of inheritance of an acquired characteristic?

I have acquired a number of scars and a broken nose over the years, to name but a couple of my acquired characteristics. I could breed and reproduce until the end of time, yet non of my offspring will ever be born with anything resembling any of these.

 

Isn't the most likely explanation: All humans have squatting facets in utero (unless they didn't feel like squatting in utero). Children who grow up squatting retain their squatting facets, because they use them. Children who grow up with chairs, and therefore don't squat, find their squatting facets obliterated during development because their tali are not subject to squatting forces.

In the same way, isn't the most likely explanation to support Trinakaus' assumption: All humans possess genes for the development of robust phalanges. Children who grow up barefoot develop robust lesser toes, apparently because they are used in such a way... Children who grow up wearing shoes develop gracile lesser phalanges, perhaps because they don't use them in the same way as those who grow up barefoot.

Further, if the the next generation of chair users resumed squatting they would develop squatting facets during development. And if the next generation of shoe wearers lost all their shoes (or grew up in a zealous barefoot running household) they would develop more robust phalanges than their parents.


Different epigenetic developmental landscapes, sure, but I don't see how inheritance of acquired characteristics comes into it. I see the subtlety you're hinting at with Waddington, but since this thread began with a post that confused development with evolution and had some people unknowingly invoking Lamarke, isn't it best to leave "inheritance of acquired characteristics" out of it? After all, we're talking about development, not evolution.

 

Yes, I suspected this was so - still, the definitions outlined in my previous post does outline the different context in which the terms relating to "evolution" is used... as well as somewhat providing one the freedom to change his/her perspective on the topic in light of the mounting evidence that grows each year.


Keeping in step with the Paul at Abbey Road photo, the next picture steps the pace up to reveal drawings closely related to the subject matter - "Did we evolve to run barefoot?" The following types of evolution parade pictures I admit are fascinating – particularly as a child (I remember looking at these types of pictures for ages when I was a kid). These have been one of the most successful tools ever used to promote human evolution. It constituted powerful visual 'proof' for human evolution that even a small child could grasp... because of its graphic power, the progression has been indelibly etched into the minds of billions of people worldwide...



The above parade achieved widespread publicity in a 1985 National Geographic magazine. They show the now somewhat familiar progression in a realistic looking set of intriguing drawings. Yet, these types of "evolution parade" pictures are false... researchers often knew this before publication (yet they were published anyway)... particularly the following. Why? Putting aside the more in depth anatomical/biomechanical fallacies involved, the above illustration is even less accurate than the others we are familiar with as the subjects above are all running – something that many researchers (evolution based) in the area won’t agree on.


Only fragmentary fossil evidence exists for the case of human evolution, that the progression in the "evolution parade" pictures was drawn from largely manufactured or distorted evidence. Many of the figures shown have been built up from a few fragments: part of a jaw, some teeth perhaps, maybe bits of femur/hip & maybe some foot bones. One should also bear in mind that these fragments are often found far from each other (sometimes many km apart i.e. a 15 km arc in one case) & sometimes at different layers (which for me doesn’t particularly play too much significance based on my position i.e. the event that caused the fossils). However, going by evolutionary principles a fragment found in a different stratum would indicate a different time period (i.e. many thousands of years) – yet it is still used for evidence in a specimen. Thus the fragments in many cases are not from the one individual pre-human identity. I’ll leave the history of embarrassing animal fossils (intentional or unintentional) that has found its way into the mix for now. Thus diagrams of this nature are products of educated guessing & the artist’s imagination i.e. one artist’s admittance... "I wanted to get a human soul into this ape-like face, to indicate something about where she was headed" (John Gurche, sculptor. National Geographic 189 (3): 96-117, March 1996). If today’s police detectives obtained & interpreted evidence following these same principles/guidelines there would be chaos... yet we’re suppose to accept this in science - palaeontology – a field that seems to produce such abundant returns from such few fragments of fact!



There has also been mention that diagrams associated with the "evolution parade" have racist undertones i.e. Caucasian/European appearance more evolved than African appearance (wouldn’t want to speculate on the intentions of the artists myself), hence I find it rather ironic that in the 21st century the distance running events are dominated by Ethiopia & Kenya on the world stage (check out the now running IAAF World Championships).



Let’s not Kidd ourselves here, this topic does not, nor should invoke the concept of "evolutionary medicine" (as Lieberman wishfully bestows)... our objective as health professionals is to stick to evidence based medicine.

Lieberman: - "Shoes are fine, but an evolutionary medicine hypothesis is that minimal shoes may have advantages." Oh come on Dan – I worked this out whilst I was in high school... & certainly did not use the mythical concept of "evolutionary medicine" to come to this conclusion. When I was in Podiatry studies I also realised that some people’s lower limb structure may not be suitable to minimalist shoes – particularly if they intend to do the desired amount of running training/racing involved to reach one’s potential.


Let’s look at the above figures (i.e. Australopithecus) in relation to the subject matter – running.

In the absence of any actual evidence for the origin of pre-human/primate endurance running, both evolutionists & creationists discuss a long list of those anatomical features & functions of man (but lacking in apes) that are useful or essential for distance running. These human features, compared to chimps, include:

- Inner ear structure suitable for habitual upright movements.
- Nuchal Ligament – needed for head stabilization.
- Shorter arms.
- Shoulders that rotate.
- Narrower Thorax – facilitate trunk counter-rotation.
- Wider vertebrae with better developed disks (more detail on the spine in next paragraph).
- Narrower Pelvis - facilitate trunk counter-rotation.
- Larger buttocks - expanded Glute Max. attachment – trunk stabilization.
- Enlarged lower extremity joint surface – stress reduction.
- Shorter Femoral neck – reduced bending moments.
- Longer legs – increased stride length.
- Springy calf & foot tendons.
- Enlarged heel bones.
- Plantar Arch - energy storage/shock attenuation.
- Shorter toes - stability during push-off & distal mass reduction.
- Midtarsal rigidity (as opposed to Midtarsal break in chimps).
- Control of body temperature by sweating - conducive effectiveness of heat dissipation (useful for endurance).

Another important issue on this topic is the differences between the primate spine & the human spine... the curve of the lumbar spine (the lordosis), was thought by evolutionists to be a problem, the result of man having recently adopted an upright position. However, if a spine injury (i.e. fracture) causes a lumbar kyphosis (curvature directed posterior), that spine is significantly weakened. When you start to examine the biomechanics of the curved spine, asking why it's that shape, what's good about it, you find that the arch of the spine has a beautiful purpose. Like the arch of a bridge, it adds strength. Humans with the characteristic lumbar lordosis can lift proportionally more weight than a gorilla with its characteristic kyphotic spine.

Also the vertebral bodies increase on cross-sectional area as you go further down the spine, because in the upright position, the lower ones take more loads. The bones are not denser, just bigger. By contrast, animals that walk on all fours have a roughly horizontal spine that is equally loaded all the way... so all their vertebrae are of a similar cross-sectional area. If the evolutionist were right in saying we had recently attained an upright posture, our vertebral bodies should be like those of quadrupeds, but they are not.


The above vast & beneficial differences can not derive from the speculated unguided selective pressures (unthinking environmental factors), random episodes of the assumed vast mutation events of the evolution process.



While all of these features do play a role in our ability to run on two legs, they hardly serve as evidence for how they have evolved—at best, they serve as an evolutionary wish list for just some of the things an ape would need to run like a human. The use evolution to prove evolution is clearly an illogical circle of reasoning. Hence both living & fossil apes (the speculated pre-human branch of primates) were incapable of endurance running but both living & fossil humans are capable of such running ability. A point that gets scant attention is that one must first learn to walk before one can run. Some seem to accept without question that Australopithecus afarensis (commonly known as "Lucy") was capable of bipedal walking with a human-like gait (i.e. a bowl shaped pelvis consistent with upright posture & locomotion) but there is no compelling evidence to support this. Both the pelvis & feet of the Australopithecines closely resemble those of pygmy chimps & neither is suitable for the distinctive human walking stride & subsequent running gait.



Dr Charles Oxnard (who appears to be cited on this thread) & Lord Solly Zuckerman (trained anatomists & themselves evolutionists) concluded that invariably all of the Australopithecines, grouped together anatomically, are further away from both apes & humans than these two groups are from each other. They thus conclude that the Australopithecines were a unique group of extinct creatures, not anatomically intermediate between apes & humans, so were not evolutionary "links" at all. There have also been studies on the bony structure of the inner ear (Spoor., Wood, B & Zonneveld, F., Implications of early hominid morphology for evolution of human bipedal locomotion, Nature 369 (6482): 645-648, 1994). The shape of this has been shown to directly reflect patterns of movement. Understandably, humans (the only creatures alive that walk habitually upright) have an inner ear structure which stands out from the rest. When this analysis is carried out on fossil skulls, the results are completely in line with creationist expectations. So-called Homo erectus (which even some evolutionists are saying should be reclassified as Homo sapiens) has an inner ear structure just like ours; whereas that of all Australopithecines (& Habilines) studied are "decidedly ape-like". They tend to believe that Australopithecines might have balanced on two legs when standing, rather than when moving, just as chimps do when gathering food. (P. Shipman, 'Those Ears Were Made for Walking', New Scientist, July 30, 1994, pp. 26-29.)


Putting aside other areas (due to time & length) such as the shape of the forearm, wrist bones (i.e. indicating knuckle walking), hands/phalanges, pelvis/hip, knee etc... let’s look at the feet (being a Podiatry forum). It has been stated that the Australopithecine proportional foot length was 30 per cent greater than that of the average human: ".. . (this means) greater bending at hip & knee joints, resulting in a high-stepping gait... Lucy lifted her legs rather awkwardly while walking — like a modern human wearing a pair of flippers" (Bower, B., 1994. Hominids down to earth or up a tree? Science News, 145(15):231).


In regard to the Talus, the small afarensis (Australopithecine) specimen had a very ape-like Talus in which there was a backward angled tilt. In the larger specimens the Talus had a forward tilt (which is a mystery) - human’s joint faces slightly forward for ease of an erect full-striding gait. While it is true that a backward-angled talus does not prevent a forward bending of the foot, it would cause some leaning over & awkwardness, chimp fashion, with bent knee & hip while locomoting erect. With such a Talus there is no way the small afarensis (for example Lucy) could stride out in human fashion. The matter of the forward-facing tilt of the larger afarensis specimens is frankly a mystery, but there is simply no way by which the larger, supposedly male specimens would be so much more advanced than the smaller female specimens. Male & female individuals of the same species could hardly have evolved at such a disparate rate. Of the foot of a Habiline fossil, Oxnard & Lisowski say that the foot is not adapted for bipedality in the manner of man, & that it displays features (which resemble) the feet of arboreal (tree dwelling) creatures, & that when it walked bipedally it locomoted with flattened arches rather than with the high arches of man (Oxnard, 1980, American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 52:16). This conclusion is strongly supported by another researcher... Bernard Wood - "the foot is very ape-like" (Wood, B., 1992. Origin & evolution of the genus Homo. Nature, 355:786). Although Oxnard has been attacked by fellow evolutionists (not uncommon amidst evolution/palaeontology circles), the fact remains that his morphometric analysis of Australopithecine Tali (bones vital in locomotion) indicated a gulf between modern man, the Habilines, the Australopithecines & modern African apes. In fact, Australopithecines had Tali most like those of the tree-dwelling ape, the orang-utan. There was no indication that the Australopithecines were intermediate between humans & apes (Oxnard, C. E., Lisowski, F. P. and Albrecht, G. H., 1974. Some African fossil foot bones: a note on the interpolation of fossils into a matrix of extant species. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 41:191— 216).


Surely it must be increasingly difficult for the paleoanthropologists to keep maintaining their position. It appears they are so paralysed by the concept of evolution that they cannot think any other way. Most of them have to ignore their very own analyses & computations! It would seem that evolution is so plastic that there's nothing this philosophy cannot do within its own biased realm. More than a century of fervent searching has not revealed the presumed abundance of clear examples of gradually morphing transitional forms that Darwin's theory predicts... & evolution needs.

 

Simon, user7 and Ben Hur,
I hope that I am not being difficult - I know that I am sometimes, but honest that is not my intention here. If you know me you will know that I am a passionate evolutionary biologist.

Simon: I am merely suggesting that inheritance of acquired characteristics (not as in Lamark) by genetic assimilation may explain the squatting facet bit - perhaps like this:

Chinese, South African and a few other cultures squat rather than use a chair. Their tali and tibia are recognisable with the squatting facets. Logical explanation is that they have developed them through habitual squatting.....WRONG. We found in the paper I quoted above, that squatting facets are present in all human fetal feet. Thus, the derived state is not the squatting tali, the derived state is the non-squatting facet. A clear case of use it or lose it. Thus we have a case of negative function - the speciality is not doing something. SO: how did the facets get there in all human fetal materials? 1) by actually squatting in utero and the developing fetus becomes a space occupying lesion, so to speak. 2) by ancient genetic assimilation from a time when our ancesters squatted. 3) by phylogeny - all apes have squatting facets (2&3 are not mutually exclusive and as hypotheses may be nested together).

Ben Hur, you make mention of some of my academic heros. Chas Oxnard was my PhD supervisor. He is only called Dr Oxnard by the Creationist nutters who have misquoted him for about 50 years. Charles has been Prof Oxnard since about 1966. After being the deputy Vice Chancellor at Southern California, he became Chair of Anatomy and Human Biology at The University of Western Australia where are paths crossed for my doctorate. We still work together today. The man is a hero. Solly Zuckerman was Chair of anatomy in Birmingham UK and was a classic polymath. He was Chas Oxnard's supervisor. The third hero of mine there is Pete Lisowski, who died only about 3 years ago. He finished as Prof Emeritus at Hobart. In his day he knew more about the hominoid talus than any other person alive. I use his data to this day.

Solly Zuckerman had direct access to the Darwin ancestry - he went straight to the sources. As a matter of interest (well, I am interested), there was a bust up between Solly and Wilfred Le Gros Clarke. Clarke was Oxford, and old school; Solly was an upstart from the red-brick (and South African to boot). If you follow all the doctoral students down the line, still to this day there is unease bewteen the two camps - classic original sin. However, I am told that the row was a bit like the troubles in Ulster - they settle for a while and flair up for a bit. The row can be chased right back to Thomas Huxley and Richard Owen........... ! Thus the school of anatomy from which I was begatted, so to speak, starts with Tom Huxley - and I am proud of that.

You are quite correct about the Australopithecus talus - those that have examined (essentially all of them) plot near apes in multivariate space. Papers you might be interested in are:
1996 The OH8 Foot: a reappraisal of the functional morphology of the hindfoot utilizing a multivariate analysis. The Journal of Human Evolution 31: 269-291 (Kidd, O’Higgins and Oxnard)

2005 Little Foot and Big Thoughts – a Re-evaluation of the Stw573 Foot from Sterkfontein, South Africa. Journal of Comparative Human Biology 55:3 189-212 (Kidd & Oxnard)

The point Chas and Solly were making about the Australopithecus was that thre were in themselves specialised to a mode of locomotion that could not really be considered to be a proto-human locomotion. This is analagous to the manner in which African apes knuckle walk - it is a specialisation of its own and not on the way to human bipedal walking. The best proto model that we currently have is the Orangutan and its arboreal bipedalism - it walks along branches. Much work on this comes out of the Crompton Lab at Uni of Liverpool UK.

Cheers, Rob

 

Ok I'll bite,
Can you provide a link to new stuff that has come out since our last discussion?

Your critiques of carbon dating did not convince me that there was a problem. I know I won't be able to convince you of that, so we can let that one sit. So, what's new?

Eric

 

I have just read Ben Hur's (Matthew Thomas's) post again, as it is Sunday afternoon and I am now retired again after a 5 week locum in Central Queensland. It is with dispair that I read such nonsense from those that presumably have been the product of the a science course.
My best advice, Matthew is to lose the word "human" from the phrase "human evolution", and now start look at the huge numbers of superb examples from other species. Perhaps the chiclid fishes from Lake Victoria, the Silver Sword Alliance of plants from Hawaii, the finches from Galapogos........ to name but just a few.

OR: are we trapped inside a bigotry that allows other species to evolve or they want, but just don't involve humans? I have seen it so often in half educated persons with a back ground of indoctrinations - not that I am suggesting for second that Matthew has.

Step 1) engage brain
Step 2) use it.

Dispair, Rob

 

Thank you for your response... Rob, Mr Kidd, Dr. Kidd or Prof. Kidd. I am not sure of your preferred/appropriate title (I have asked this question before in another thread but don't believe I got an answer)... wouldn't want to offend based on the issue you raised in the following quote; hence I'll call you Dr Kidd being that you have stated you have a "PhD/doctorate".

Anyway, I can't speak for the others you addressed but I don't see you as being "difficult" at all. Just providing input to the thread from a different perspective to I - of which relating to areas which do tend to have a history in attracting friction/controversy. "Passionate" people do need to keep in mind if they are coming across as "difficult"; hence it is good you are mindful of this. Some have called me passionate as well & subsequently of have been mindful to do likewise.

I really can't see calling Chas Oxnard "Dr Oxnard" such a contentious issue (I can surely see that you are a... "passionate evolutionary biologist"). I am quite happy to refer to him as Prof. Oxnard & I sincerely apologise if I have offended you or Prof. Oxnard in addressing with the prefix of Dr. You obviously admire the gentleman in referring to him as a "hero". I honestly thought that Professors (& Masters) were commonly referred to as "Dr" anyway.

However, I was going to take issue with your comment of... "Creationist nutters" & who have apparently "misquoted him". After thinking about it, you are correct... as there are a lot of "Creationist nutters" out there - they annoy me also, probably more than you. Have I misquoted Prof. Oxnard? (It would seem not) You seem to have a generalised view of Creationists - probably swayed by your philosophical viewpoint & academic status (as is evident later). Not all who have a Creationist perspective come from the same boat :sinking:... in fact far from it. Many in academia/science keep a low profile or are "closet creationist/I.Ds" as far as public standing is concern for good reason (which I won’t go into now).

Crikey, this sounds more 'colourful' than Podiatry Arena. Oh... the issues & egos in the realm of academia (particularly within evolutionary biology circles)... is it any wonder that this mindset has an impact on research & the subsequent interpretation thereof. No offence here - I am sure you & your "heroes" have put in the effort to get to your positions within academia. I see history, tradition & subsequent status as being rather important & influential here.

Thank you for your reference of another two papers. When I get a chance I'll look into them further.

Hmmm... changed your tone have you Rob. Quite disappointed with your latest response there. Two reasons – you have a personal dig then you have the audacity to not to provide credible evidence to support your position.

It takes far less knowledge, thought & effort to attack the messenger than it does to attack the message. It’s easy, anyone can do it (if you are that way inclined)... It diverts attention conveniently away from the science, logic & understanding required to put forward a credible alternative point of view.

This is a tactic regularly used by evolutionists to deflect scrutiny from the real issues, i.e. the "science" (or lack of it). To draw the sympathy vote they portray themselves as moderate, clear-thinking rationalists being challenged by... what are the words you used Rob?... "nonsense", "bigotry" & "half educated persons"...

No thanks; “humans” were the issue here... I’ll stick to the subject matter at hand... "Did we evolve to run barefoot or not?" “We” being human. I suggest you leave the "chiclid fishes from Lake Victoria, the Silver Sword Alliance of plants from Hawaii, the finches from Galapogos" alone & provide some evidence for a change... in a field you’re suppose to have some knowledge in. I mean really... Galapagos (spelt with three “a”’s BTW) finches... that is so old hat... I have much info on this area. Surely you can provide more credible sources than that.

Oh, & despair has an “e”. Now frankly, I couldn’t care less about the odd spelling mistake but If you’re going to submit material like... "Step 1) engage brain" & "Step 2) use it"... then you better make sure you do likewise!



Being that the Plantaris muscle has been alluded to as a vestigial organ & subsequently associated as an evolution by-product it is worth closely looking at the muscle. The problem with declaring any organ to be without function is our inability to distinguish between an organ that truly has no function & one for which a real function is simply unknown. The human ego (& even scientists have one which has been revealed by one apparently in the know) often finds it more satisfying to conclude that an organ has no use than to admit that we simply do not know its use. Evolutionists like to propose a few of our smaller & least understood muscles as being vestiges of once useful organs left over from presumed evolutionary ancestors. For example, the plantaris is still widely regarded to be vestigial by reason of its much smaller size & seemingly minor contribution to the two much larger muscles with which it is associated. However, the plantaris muscle with its long slender tendon looks to serve a proprioceptive function that provides a kinesthetic sense of limb position & muscle contraction (Menton, D., The plantaris & the question of vestigial muscles in man, CEN Technical Journal 14(2) 2000).

Fortunately, many scientists have ignored the claims of evolutionists regarding vestigial organs, & thus the advance of empirical science has revealed the plantaris does have a sensory function in addition to its more obvious motor function. There is growing evidence that some of the smaller muscles in our body that were once considered vestigial, on the basis of their small size & weak contractile strength, are in fact sensory organs rather than motor organs. The plantaris with its exceptionally high number of spindles now appears to be a highly specialized sensory or proprioceptive muscle/organ. Often these small sensory muscles are found to be in close association with much larger motor muscles i.e. the Soleus & Gastrocnemius (Menton, D., The plantaris & the question of vestigial muscles in man, CEN Technical Journal 14(2) 2000).

Many small, short muscles have been found to act across joints in parallel with much larger muscles, just like the plantaris & triceps surae. (Peck, D., Buxton D.F. & Nitz, A., A comparison of spindle concentrations in large & small muscles acting in parallel combinations, J. Morphology 180:243–252, 1984); (Nitz, A. and Peck, D., Comparison of muscle spindle concentrations in large & small human epaxial muscles acting in parallel combinations, The American Surgeon, 52:273–277, 1986).

These muscle associations are known as a "parallel muscle combination" (PMC). There are believed to be nearly three dozen such PMCs in the extremities of man. The smaller plantaris, however, was found to have 3.7 muscle spindles per gram compared to only 0.67 spindles per gram for the triceps surae, a ratio of over 5.5 to 1 in favour of the plantaris. Similar ratios were found favouring the smaller member in several other PMCs, leading Peck & co-workers to propose that the small members of PMCs may function as "kinesiological monitors" providing crucial proprioceptive information to the central nervous system (Peck, D., Buxton D.F. & Nitz, A., A proposed mechanoreceptor role for the small redundant muscles which act in parallel with large primemovers; in: Hinick, P., Soukup, T., Vejsada, R. and Zelena J. (eds.), Mechanoreceptors: Structure and Function, Plenum Press, London, pp. 377–382, 1988).

The evolutionary notion of vestigial organs has undoubtedly interfered with the progress of empirical science. Only as scientists have ignored the claims of evolutionists have they been able to elucidate the functions of once 'vestigial' organs such as the parathyroid, thymus, pineal, pituitary, & adrenal glands. The above evidence associated with the plantaris reveals some of the pitfalls of declaring any muscle to be either vestigial or useless.

* Dr David Menton: Anatomist & a Creationist:
- Associate Professor of Anatomy at Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri (1966–2000).
- Associate Professor Emeritus of Anatomy at Washington University School of Medicine (July 2000).
- Elected ‘Professor of the Year’ in 1998 by the Washington University School of Medicine Class of 2000.
- Profiled in American Men & Women of Science: A Biographical Directory of Today’s Leaders in Physical, Biological & Related Sciences for almost two decades.

... & often cited as Dr Menton in Creationist circles; hence claims of apparent disrespect/discrimination of Creationists titling an evolutionary biologist Professor as "Dr" are uncalled for & petty in light of this discussion.

 

Hi Eric, thank you for another opportunity to answer your questions. I do like to take advantage of these opportunities as I feel uncomfortable putting the evidence of this nature forward with no prompting. After all, I certainly don’t want to come across as... well, some of the phrases that Robo came up with in his last post (just a few of the derogative comments that get thrown around in discussions of this nature). Also, this type of material/evidence very rarely gets public attention for reasons I won’t dwell on here. Only if these topics come up will I provide an alternative perspective/interpretation; or if questions are asked of me I will oblige & answer them as best I can.


I don’t believe I critiqued "carbon dating" alone but the scope of the dating method used within the likes of Geology & Palaeontology, that being radiometric dating (of which carbon dating is a part of). This actually ties in well with your request for recent evidence ("a link to new stuff"). Naturally there isn’t just one link... but many. The first will be on radiometric dating & the following will be grouped under headings:

- Palaeontology – Fossils & Time:
- Cosmology:
- Biology - Cells:
- Genetics:


* Radiometric dating:
Many scientists rely on the assumption that radioactive elements (isotopes) decay at constant, undisturbed rates & therefore can be used as reliable clocks to measure the ages of rocks & artefacts. Most estimates of the age of the earth are founded on this assumption... there are actually 3 assumptions in the mix for radioisotope 'dating':

1/ the speculated original status of the artefact.
2/ a closed physical system.
3/ the rate of the decay must have been constant: which the following addresses...

New observations have found that those nuclear decay rates actually fluctuate based on solar activity.

In 2009, New Scientist summarized a mysterious & inadvertent discovery. Brookhaven National Laboratories physicist David Alburger found that the nuclear decay rate of silicon-32 changed with the seasons. (Mullins, J. 2009. Solar ghosts may haunt Earth's radioactive atoms. New Scientist. 2714: 42-45).

In a separate but similar instance, Stanford University reported that Purdue physicist Ephraim Fischbach accidentally found that nuclear decay rates sped up during the winter while analysing data from both Brookhaven & the Federal Physical & Technical Institute in Germany. (Stober, D. The strange case of solar flares and radioactive elements. Stanford Report. Posted on news.stanford.edu August 23, 2010, accessed August 25, 2010).

Peter Sturrock, a Stanford physicist & expert on the sun's core, reviewed several technical papers that showed these odd correlations between the sun & radioactive systems. He knew that the sun's core rotates at a regular rate & has a "face" side that emits neutrinos more intensely. When the core's face swings around & is aimed at the earth, then the earth receives a more concentrated neutrino blast.

Sturrock found that every 33 days, when that part of the solar core faces earth, there is a corresponding change in the decay rate of radioactive materials.

The fluctuating rates also fly in the face of the bedrock assumption that nuclear decay rates are constant. Sturrock said, "Everyone thought it must be due to experimental mistakes, because we're all brought up to believe that decay rates are constant." (Stober, D. The strange case of solar flares & radioactive elements. Stanford Report. Posted on news.stanford.edu August 23, 2010, accessed August 25, 2010).

Hence we can measure many things about a rock; we cannot directly measure its age. For example, we can measure its mass, its volume, its colour, the minerals in it, their size & the way they are arranged. We can crush the rock & measure its chemical composition & the radioactive elements it contains. But we do not have an instrument that directly measures age (unless we/someone were there at the beginning when it was formed).

Radiometric ‘dating’ effectively measures isotopes – that’s it – not age!
If the assumption of a constant rate is incorrect, then conclusions built upon that assumption are most definitely suspect, including certain dates assigned to artefacts & earth materials.

Hence the above has recent science papers that reveal solar activity changing isotope decay rates at periods every year. There is also another element which affects the uniformitarian mindset assessment of artefacts on this watery planet of ours - & this involves water... but I’ll leave it at this for now.


*Palaeontology – Fossils & Time:
An array of studies on stunning soft tissues from fossils that are supposed to be millions of years old have provided a problem for evolutionary long ages due to the fact soft tissues are known to decay 'quickly', within only thousands of years. This problem only gets worse with each additional fossil tissue find.

- For example, an extinct variety of penguin was found fossilized in South America, & its plumage was compared to that of modern varieties. The fact that this fossil still exhibited feather colours, & the reasonable assumption that the original penguin feather melanosomes should no longer exist after "36 million years". (Fossilized Giant Penguin Reveals Unusual Colors, Sheds Light on Bird Evolution. The University of Texas at Austin press release, September 30, 2010).

- A shrimp from Oklahoma was found in a rock layer & assigned an evolutionary age of over 300 million years, but it still had muscle tissue in its tail. (Professors Study Oldest Fossil Shrimp Preserved with Muscles. Kent State University press release, November 9, 2010).

- The fossil with perhaps the best-preserved original tissues was that of a mosasaur, an extinct marine reptile, found decades ago in Kansas but only described last year. It had mummified skin, original retinal material in its eye cavity, & decayed haemoglobin residue that was still coloured red. (Lindgren J. et al. 2010. Convergent Evolution in Aquatic Tetrapods: Insights from an Exceptional Fossil Mosasaur. PloS ONE. 5 (8): e11998).

- I’m sure you’re familiar with the soft tissue find within a T-Rex, so I’ll leave that one.

- A cricket apparently didn’t change in 100 million years of evolution. The splay-footed cricket genus Schizodactylus has exhibited what evolutionists call "evolutionary stasis" for "at least the last 100 million years". (news.illinois.edu, 3 February 2011).

- Australia's Apex Chert Formation is comprised of very hard quartz rock. Over 20 years ago, researchers suspected that tiny shapes within the rock were fossils of oxygen-producing bacteria. However, university of Kansas geologists recently analyzed newly acquired samples of the Apex Chert "microfossils" & found just the opposite... co-author Alison Olcott Marshall said in a University of Kansas press release... "We found no sign of any microfossil," (Lynch, B. M. Research overturns oldest evidence of life on Earth, with implications for Mars. University of Kansas press release, March 15, 2011). This above example was used in a recent documentary I saw on Australian T.V – a documentary whose objective was to validate evolution... one of the most pathetic 'science' documentaries I’ve seen in a long time (yet it gets aired to deceive thousands!).



*Cosmology:
Evolutionary Big Bang prediction states that galaxies should look younger the farther out into space they appear from earth.

- The "mature" galactic clusters are only supposed to exist close-in, but more were discovered in the far distance this past year, adding to similar observations from prior years. (Texas A&M-Led Research Finds Ancient City of 'Modern' Galaxies. Texas A&M University press release, May 11, 2010, reporting on research to be published in Papovich, C. et al. 2010. Spitzer-Selected Galaxy Cluster at z=1.62. Astrophysical Journal, in press).

- The June 13, 2011, issue of New Scientist magazine summarized recent work by astronomer John Kormendy of the University of Texas at Austin & cosmologist Jim Peebles of Princeton University, as well as others. Astronomers are finding evidence that, according to Peebles, shows that "galaxies are complicated & we don't really understand how they form. It's really an embarrassment." (Thomas, V. and R. Webb. 2011. Slim and beautiful: Galaxies too good to be true. New Scientist. 2816: 32-35).

- In the January 2011 issue of Nature, Peebles summarized two papers that described galaxy discs (i.e. ‘flat’ or ‘irregular’) that totally failed to fit the standard theories of how galaxies supposedly formed. (Peebles, P. J. E. 2011. Astrophysics: How galaxies got their black holes. Nature. 469 (7330): 305-306).


*Biology - Cells:
- In an October 2010 issue of Nature, evolutionary biochemist Nick Lane of University College London reported that any eukaryotic cell requires a fully functional mitochondrion that is already in place. Eukaryotic cells, which have a nucleus & make up plants & animals, have mitochondria that are responsible for manufacturing fuel for the rest of the cell to constantly "burn." Without these particular components, such cells could not survive. This result implies that it is impossible for a Darwinian, naturalistic, step-by-step process to have developed the first eukaryotic cell. Instead, Lane & study co-author William Martin proposed that the first eukaryotic cell "suddenly" received a fully functioning mitochondrion when one bacterium engulfed a smaller one (?? Can you believe that one??). (Lane, N. and W. Martin. 2010. The energetics of genome complexity. Nature. 467 (7318): 929-934).

The problem is, in the words of today's pre-eminent evolutionist Richard Dawkins, "Without gradualness in these cases, we are back to a miracle."


*Genetics:
- Pseudogenes, or "false genes," were initially thought to be mutated & useless genetic "junk" since they don't code for proteins. When they were first discovered, evolutionists claimed they were leftovers of Darwinian evolution. But ongoing studies clearly show that the evolutionary interpretation was premature & even misleading.

Biologists first assumed that pseudogenes are not translated into proteins because they lack some of the codes that signal such translation. Since pseudogenes were not translated into proteins, they supposedly had no function. Thus, they have "long been labelled as 'junk' DNA, failed copies of genes that arise during the evolution of genomes." (Pink, R. C. et al. 2011. Pseudogenes: Pseudo-functional or key regulators in health & disease? RNA. 17 (5): 792-798).

- In a study published in the technical journal RNA, Oxford Brookes University biologists reviewed some of the newly discovered functions for pseudogenes. They wrote, "In some cases, what appears to be a nontranslated pseudogene can, in fact, code for truncated proteins." Also, "evidence that some pseudogenes can exert regulatory effects on their protein coding cousins is mounting." (Pink, R. C. et al. 2011. Pseudogenes: Pseudo-functional or key regulators in health & disease? RNA. 17 (5): 792-798).

They reviewed studies where mutations in pseudogenes contributed to type 2 diabetes & certain cancers. If pseudogenes are not important, then why would their disruption cause disease? The researchers concluded that "the prevalent attitude that they are non-functional relics is slowly changing." (Pink, R. C. et al. 2011. Pseudogenes: Pseudo-functional or key regulators in health & disease? RNA. 17 (5): 792-798).

- One class of this "junk" DNA has turned out to have a specific regulatory function. It yields "long, non-coding RNA" that actually operates as a switch that helps turn off gene expression. ( Wistar Researchers Discover New Class of Objects Encoded Within the Genome. The Wistar Institute press release, October 5, 2010, reporting on research published in Ørom, U. A. et al. 2010. Long Noncoding RNAs with Enhancer-like Function in Human Cells. Cell. 143 (1): 46-58).

- Members of another class of formerly-called "junk" DNA, known as "pseudogenes," were also found to play an important role in regulating gene expression. (Poliseno, L. et al. 2010. A coding-independent function of gene and pseudogene mRNAs regulates tumour biology. Nature. 465 (7301): 1033-1038).
(The ENCODE Project Consortium. 2007. Identification and analysis of functional elements in 1% of the human genome by the ENCODE pilot project. Nature. 447 (7146): 799-816).

- Additional unforeseen classes of sequences, like microRNAs, add to the robust & complicated regulation networks upon which cellular life depends. (Hayden, E. C. 2010. Human genome at ten: Life is complicated. Nature. 464: 664-667).

The following results show that the human genome clock has been counting down fast. These data set reasonable limits to the total duration of mankind on earth. Those limits are incompatible with "millions of years”, but they fit just right with the thousands of years history that Creationists work off. The human genome looks very young indeed...

- According to a study published in January 2010, humans accumulate mutations at a rate of 1 to 5 percent per generation. (Lynch, M. 2010. Rate, molecular spectrum, and consequences of human mutation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 107 (3): 961-968).

- Another 2010 DNA base-by-base analysis yielded a smaller number, finding that 60 new, irrevocable mutations add up each generation. (Pennisi, E. 2010. 1000 Genomes Project Gives New Map of Genetic Diversity. Science. 330 (6004): 574-575).

There are also more areas of recent insight i.e. erosion rates of the continents etc... but I’ll leave it at that.

Regards,
Matthew.

 

I picked an unreferenced paragraph at random from the above post and stuck it into google. I found it with the first hit, word for word...

Here you go: http://creation.com/the-way-it-really-is-little-known-facts-about-radiometric-dating

Just did it again with a different paragraph:
http://www.icr.org/article/sun-alters-radioactive-decay-rates/

Just an observation.
Here's another couple of interesting sites I found on Google:
http://www.plagiarism.org/
http://www.the-ten-commandments.org/the-ten-commandments.html (re: No.8)
"these words are not my own, they only come when I'm alone" Golden green- the stuffies.
"I'm sure he stole all of my pencil lead in school"

You might want to pull that plank out of your eye now.

 

1) Copy
2) Paste

3) Read http://www.subgenius.com/bigfist/Art_Mines_24/PDFs/image/yeti_1st_April04.pdf
4) Be slack

 

1) Cut
2) Paste http://www.icr.org/article/origins-breakthroughs-2010-cell-biology/

Repeat as necessary?

...someone who plagiarises other peoples work? In future you could just post a string of links, which would save us from the overly long postings and wouldn't make you come across as someone trying to pass off other peoples writings as your own.

 

What tangled webs we weave, when we set out to deceive