Inconsequential Puddles

My creationist friend Marquis read a book by Darek Isaacs, Dragons or Dinosaurs: Creation or Evolution? (1) and seems to think he’s found the penultimate documentation discrediting the veracity of evolutionary theory. Marquis writes:

“Well lets start off with the fact about dragon legends. There has always been dragon legends told by every culture around the world and they describe the same type of creature. How do u explain this when these early civilizations were telling stories about the same creature but they had no means of communicating with each other?...How do you explain away that Marco Polo, Flavius Josephus, Herodotus, Pliny the Elder and Marco Polo all noted historians have written about seeing dinosaurs in their works.”

Well Marco Polo as a good witness is right out. His account was no doubt taken after rising from the lotus couch in some Oriental opium den prior to his alleged dragon sightings. Aside from that it makes perfect sense that dinosaur fossils uncovered by the inquisitive of the remote past are the source of the myth of dragons. I can tell you that such has been the assessment of paleontologists. Remember of course that the historical figures Marquis mentions and their reports are 500-2000+ yrs old. This of course is before the Renaissance, when folks back then didn’t know much about the actual geological age of the Earth or about the fact of extinction. They would have no way of knowing that their finds were old, very old. It would be pure speculation if I or Darek Issacs tried to read too much into alleged eye-witness accounts of such things as a dragon by our impressionable predecessors. Our classical forefathers could turn a yarn or two, and sometimes one would have to wonder whether or not reality for them is exactly the same thing as we find after the development of modern science. Hell, there are plenty of well-meaning folks today that think they’ve seen ghosts and UFO’s, crying Mother of God statues; and that’s in our time. I’m sure Marquis doesn’t believe in that sort of thing, right?
Marquis would be wrong as well to suppose that there wasn’t contact amongst the ancient European, Middle-East, and Asian cultures going back thousands of years (I’ll concede such may be the case if Isaacs reports on Mayan dragons). Such contact of course pre-dates the alleged historical eye-witness accounts reported by Isaacs. But I’m not sure exactly what was Marquis’s conjecture here. Perhaps he is trying to say, although being somewhat embarrassed to specify, that this is somehow evidence that dinosaurs and humans coexisted in the years preceding Noah’s flood. Not sure, but if I ventured to guess…

Even if some accounts of dragons have some similarity cross-culturally, it says nothing about the well established fact that by 65 million yrs ago there were hundreds if not thousands of dinosaurs of all types. From fossils, paleontologists can distinguish many lineages (code for lots of evidence of transitional creatures confirming the fact that dinosaurs and all other creatures that have ever slumbered, bumbled, or rumbled on the Earth share a common ancestor). Isaac’s got nothing on such a consensus in the scientific community. A few classical accounts of dragons? Due to the intellectual dishonesty prevalent in creationist literature (2) “evidence” that there’s a common mythology about dragons probably needs quite a few qualifications as well (that’s code for it’s probably a dubious, conflated, or otherwise disingenuous account). But overturning Neo-Darwinian theory? Seems like a small, inconsequential puddle that is supposed to wash 150 yrs. of evolutionary theory away. Marquis continues:

“How do u explain that on 2006 at Hell's Creek there was a Tyrannosaurus Rex fossil discovered that had red blood cells still alive. Evolutionists claim the T-Rex has been extinct for 68 million years. It's impossible for red blood cells to last that long. How do u explain the coelacanth, which was supposed to be extinct 70 million years ago and was supposed to be the link between land and sea creatures, but it was found alive and thriving in Africa in 1938.”

It would indeed be fantastic that a 70 myo T. rex with living blood cells were discovered, but that is not what was reported. An article from the Washington Post describes this discovery. (3) What was found surreptitiously was soft tissue that had not been mineralized, after the fossil had to be broken to fit into a helicopter for transport. Schweitzer and her team discovered that some soft tissue had not been mineralized as would be expected in the fossilization process, but even cells and cellular components could be distinguished. Is this amazing? Yes. Is this fantastic? Well, no. It can’t be as this finding has been reasonably documented. This discovery, however, could spark a whole new effort for the study of soft tissue extracted from fossils. But Marquis’s statement of personal incredulity of this particular find does not negate or even conflict with the factual basis of evolutionary theory. Also I’m not sure how the re-discovery of a creature, the coelacanth, which was previously thought to be extinct, somehow discredits macroevolution. It’s not hard to imagine some representatives from an important evolutionary lineage such as the lobed-finned fishes (a representative species of a lineage that indeed lead to the evolution of terrestrial tetrapods) to have become extinct while others carry on to the present. I’m not sure why that is so hard to swallow. It may be that creationists expect ancestral species to always become extinct, while the more “progressive” daughter species take their place on the boring march to humanity. There were no preordained paths for evolution to take. Some of our ancestors went extinct, while others continued. Evolution does not take an expected linear path in which earlier links inevitably become extinct. Marquis concludes:

“These are just but a few facts from the book "Dragons or Dinosaurs" written by Darek Isaacs. Darek does a much better job explaining the fallacies of evolution and the truth about the dinosaurs. If you were to read that book I'm sure you would come out of that with your worldview severely damaged if not completely destroyed. The God of the Bible is real and you should investigate His claims.”

Well I haven’t read this book, but I did come across a review of the film, Dragons and Dinosaurs. (4) Yes there’s a film, a book, and a study guide for home schoolers, complete with a children’s story, Danny the Dragon. Apparently his book and film are being hawked as tools for evolution deniers complete with creationist propaganda for children. The reviewer, Svenson, writes:

“The first section of film starts with a broad overview of the subject and then touches on a couple of different instances which were somewhat interesting, but then Darek Isaacs (the director/producer) never goes deeper beyond references to “Behemoth” and “Leviathan {in the Bible}…It’s almost if Isaacs can’t wait to get to all the old arguments about the flood, dating methods, the fossil record, etc, that we’ve heard time and time again… Isaacs has left too many unanswered questions and filled his exploration with old hat creationism that does not relate to his premise.” (my brackets)

I found a bio on Isaacs at Creation Ministries International. (5) Isaacs has a degree in communications and one in, of course, theological studies. If our friend Svenson is correct, there’s probably nothing new under the sun in Isaac’s argument. Inconsequential puddles. Steven Jay Gould:

“Consider, for example the standard rhetorical, and deeply anti-intellectual, ploy of politically motivated and destructive critics, American creationists in particular. They just list the mistakes, envelop each in a cloud of verbal mockery, and pretend that the whole system has drowned in this tiny puddle of inconsequential error.” (6)

Finally to my friend Marquis, I would be happy to read Isaac’s book. But there is only one condition that I have that has worked rather well when my creationist friends want to “share.” I’ll read a book that you suggest, but at the same time you’ve got to read one of my suggestions. My pick is Jerry Coyne’s Why Evolution Is True, a very readable and cogent treatment of evolution. What say Marquis? Are you game?

References/Notes:

1. Isaacs Derek. 2010. Dragons or Dinosaurs: Creation or Evolution. Bridge-Logos Foundation
http://www.amazon.com/Dragons-Dinosaurs-Darek-Isaacs/dp/088270477X

2. For tactics of the evolution deniers see my summary here http://chucktheatheist.blogspot.com/2011/06/chiropractors-christian-supremacy.html of
Carroll, Sean B. 2006. Making of the Fittest. WW Norton & Company: New York
http://www.amazon.com/Making-Fittest-Ultimate-Forensic-Evolution/dp/0393061639

3. Gugliotta, Guy. A Major T. rex Breakthrough. Washington Post: Friday, March 25, 2005; Page A01.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A63318-2005Mar24.html

4. Svenson (Administrator). Dragons or Dinosaurs: A DVD Review of Derek Isaacs Film. Freethunk, posted: October 12, 2010.
http://www.freethunk.net/articles/freethinking-movie-reviews/dragons-or-dinosaurs-a-dvd-review-of-darek-isaacs-film-275

5. A bio of Isaacs: http://creation.com/darek-isaacs

6. Gould, S. J. 2002. The Stucture of Evolutionary Theory. Belknap Press: Cambridge.p. 168.
http://www.amazon.com/Structure-Evolutionary-Theory-Stephen-Gould/dp/0674006135

Of Monarchs and Spicebushies

A while back I took some pics of a Monarch butterfly (Danaus plexippus) in my back yard. I had been trying to save all of the milk weed plants in my yard from the lawnmower. Each summer they would come back, and after a few years I finally got some to flower.

This is probably a female for it has dark, sharp black veins in its wings. I also saw an unidentified moth that shared the flower top with the Monarch.

Anyone know what moth I've got here? Let me know. Then the other day, I saw another beautiful butterfly in the yard. I didn't know what it was right away, but recognized it as a member of the Swallowtails, family Papilionidae.

One of the prettier butterflies that I've seen, I found out that this one was a Spicebush Swallowtail (Papilio troilus) thanks to Wikipedia (1), and a cool website, Illinois Butterflies (2). Again I think I have a female. Females often sun themselves in the open, while males rarely do. It's thought that females must obtain more heat to warm their thoraxes, while males usually don't exhibit this behavior. Males apparently generate enough heat through vigorous mating displays. But Wow! What a looker. I think I find the Spicebush prettier than Monarchs.

I think she's got a bit of a Goth look to her. Spicebush Swallowtails are the state butterfly of Mississippi, and also exhibit Batesian mimicry in both larval and adult stages. Larva look very snake-like with huge posterior spots that look like huge eyes. Adults mimic another butterfly that tastes awful to predators.

References:

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spicebush_Swallowtail#cite_note-Scriber_ecology-4

2. http://www.illinoisbutterflies.com/butterflies.htm