Natural Selection: the blue allele is selected:















Genetic Drift as shown at Wikipedia:













Natural Selection of a mutation:

EvC's silly straw man argument against the Flood that other planets also have canyons

Boy they really don't get it at all over at EvC. Here's a new thread challenging creationists who attribute the Grand Canyon to Noah's Flood to explain the canyons on other planets.

Do they really not get it? Has it really just gone over their heads? Have we been so unclear in our presentation of the argument? There are thirteen posts on that thread at this time and NOT ONE has seen what's wrong with the question.

Creationists don't argue that the Flood merely cut the canyon, creationists argue that the Flood BUILT THE STRATA into which the canyon was cut! The Grand Canyon simply happens to be a marvelous place for actually SEEING the strata that make up the surface of the entire earth since the Flood because it exposed them to such a great depth.

We DO also argue, of course, that the Grand Canyon was not cut by the Colorado River over bazillions of years, but was carved out by the draining of massive lakes that were left over from the Flood, but primarily the focus is on the strata themselves as evidence for the Flood.

It so happens that I've recently often thought about how the planets are good evidence for the Flood of Noah because they don't have strata! That is, the strata are NOT the normal result of billions of years of existence as a planet; they could only have been created by special circumstances, which on planet Earth means the Flood of Noah.

So the lack of strata on other planets is very good evidence against the claims of geology that the strata represent normal buildup over bazillions of years. Oh I know, they DO claim it takes water, only not the Flood. Rather they postulate a series of many risings and fallings of the land, periods of immersion in water between periods of drying out. They don't bother trying to explain how periodic immersion in lakes and seas would have created layers of different sediments either, they just claim it did. A mountain eroded and its sediments fell into the water and so we got a thick slab of, oh, sandstone, and then after a few million years somehow a new mountain formed built of, oh, clay, and now we get a layer of slowly-falling clay into the water etc. They also don't bother to explain their ridiculous idea that there were many risings and fallings of the land to facilitate this building up of the layers. All over the earth? Oh, you can get a rising from an underground volcano, sure, but then what's going to cause the land to fall again so it can pick up another layer of a brand new sediment? And you can get a falling of the land, but you don't get risings and fallings. The sheer nuttiness of such ideas, apparently started back with James Hutton in the 18th century, ought to have led self-respecting geologists to make some changes in the theory by now.

http://www.holoscience.com/views/view_mars.htm

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-07/15/xin_202070515101467153594.jpg

http://i.space.com/images/030617_mars_grandcanyon_04.jpg

http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/144527main_pia02892-516.jpg

http://books.google.com/books?id=aKJxbM8FOS8C&pg=PA64&lpg=PA64&dq=canyon+on+mars+strata&source=bl&ots=ibiSfKabzj&sig=JbexqtpWFaDMqjhdOYlgLC9NwOE&hl=en&ei=71ymS6D9No7asgOBy83fAw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CBgQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=canyon%20on%20mars%20strata&f=false

They claim in this above publication to see strata but the picture shows nothing at all like our strata. Then they say it's basalt flows. Not really strata.

Diary more than anything else

I'm not much of a blogger if the objective is to make contacts with others of similar interests, and I've thought that eventually I would go out and connect with other blogs on my favorite topics; but I've come to think of my blogs as more like a diary or journal, a place to organize my thoughts. I enjoy it when someone does come by and comment, even if the comment is loudly negative, as many are of course on the subjects I pursue.

Lately I've been blogging less and reading more. Still in my favorite subjects. Bought some books I really can't afford and am having a very enjoyable time of catching up on the history of science. I wish I could afford more. In fact I wish I could live inside the most complete libary on earth. The internet is wonderful that way, but it's not complete and I do get frustrated at times.

I've been reading mostly in the history of geology lately. I started out reading in genetics but found myself in geology before long. Both of course are related to the issues surrounding evolution. Read a biography of James Hutton, "the father of modern geology," very entertaining as well as informative. Accumulating a big wish list at Amazon on geology books, such as Hutton's friend John Playfair's Illustrations of Huttonian Theory. I wish I had access to a whole slew of pictures of the geological formations on which Hutton developed his theory of the earth -- I may find that in a more modern book on geology, of which I have one in my wish list too. Again, the internet is a great source for these things, I just wish there was more available. I also wish it were less expensive to print out the sources that ARE available. If wishes were horses .... Academic books are often prohibitively expensive. Sometimes you can find a decent deal on used books through Amazon but if the book is a classic the used copies will be too expensive too.

I can't go out and look at these formations for myself so pictures are absolutely necessary. There are photos and diagrams of Hutton's Siccar Point available on the internet: Here's a good one and the comment about how Hutton simply looked at it and "realized" the earth was old is priceless. This site speaks of "environments of deposition." I find this very amusing but of course geologists take it seriously.

I have plenty of thoughts about Hutton's theory, but I'm not going to post them here right now.