Answers in Genesis Articles

Understanding the Nature of Scripture, of Jesus, and the “Dis-Ease” of Theistic Evolutionists (BioLogos)

Wed, 09 May 2012 00:00:00 GMT

To understand the nature of the Bible, theistic evolutionists at BioLogos have proposed that Christians compare Scripture with the divine and human nature of Christ. Underlying this proposal is their assumption that the authors of Scripture and our Lord were not inerrant. The apostle Paul is also singled out as the ultimate source of the “dis-ease” for Christians who are seeking to reconcile the Bible and evolution. First, I show what it is that BioLogos ﬁnds problematic to their cause, and I discuss three problems the BioLogos model creates for Christians. I then present a powerful apologetic to counter the logic of BioLogos: the logic of our Lord’s life in relation to Scripture. The apologetic suggests that BioLogos should consider that the ultimate source of their “dis-ease” is the nature and character of the Creator.

Numerical Simulations of Three Nor’easters with a Warm Atlantic Ocean

Wed, 28 Mar 2012 00:00:00 GMT

Analyses and numerical simulations were conducted on three recent nor’easters which formed on the East Coast of the United States to explore the effects of warmer-than-normal sea-surface temperatures on their wind and precipitation fields. The purpose of the study was to determine how warmer sea-surface temperatures in the Atlantic Ocean following the Genesis Flood would have enhanced nor’easters. Wind and precipitation fields for the actual storms were compared with simulated storms using the NCAR WRF model to insure that the model was accurately replicating the storms. The sea-surface was then increased by about 10°C (18°F) and the models rerun for the three storms. The wind fields and precipitation patterns were compared to the simulated actual storms to find how much the storms had been enhanced and the precipitation footprint changed. The WRF model accurately replicated the actual storms and the warmer sea-surface temperatures dramatically increased the wind speeds and precipitation. The enhanced storms moved more quickly off the Eastern seaboard than the actual storms and formed a larger and heavier snow shield over the northeastern United States and southeastern Canada. The additional accumulation of snow from the larger snow shields likely contributed to the Laurentide Ice Sheet following the Genesis Flood.

Can Theistic Evolutionism Explain the Origin of Morality?

Wed, 14 Mar 2012 00:00:00 GMT

In recent years there has been a growing body of literature in which theistic evolutionists advance arguments in support of their belief that evolution, properly understood, best describes God’s work of creation. As they see it, there are mainly two obstacles in the way of an evolutionary account of morality: reductionism in science and a literal-historical reading of Genesis 1–3. The aim of this paper is to draw attention to some of their theological and philosophical arguments and the problems they create for both themselves and young-earth creationists. My starting points are the biblical picture of natural kinds, the image of God, and Jesus’ understanding of Genesis 1–3. I then evaluate some of the weaknesses in the main arguments theistic evolutionists advance in support of their evolutionary account of morality. The conclusion is that theistic evolutionism is not only inconsistent with Scripture but also philosophically incoherent.

Numerical Simulations of Hypercanes Charley and Fay in the Caribbean and the Gulf of Mexico over a Warm Ocean

Wed, 29 Feb 2012 00:00:00 GMT

Two tropical cyclones were simulated with the NCAR WRF model to determine if warm sea-surface temperatures would cause them to intensify into hypercanes and follow similar storm tracks as the original cyclones. Hurricane Charley (2004) and Tropical Storm Fay (2008) were successfully replicated with the actual sea-surface temperature of about 30°C (86°F). The sea-surface temperature of the Atlantic Ocean was then warmed to 40°C (104°F) and winds, precipitation, and storm tracks compared to the actual storms. Both storms intensified, but not as much as had been anticipated, and the storm tracks diverged greatly from storm tracks of the actual cyclones. The reason appears to be the large cyclonic circulation which developed off the southeastern coast of the United States and steered the hypercanes away from Florida. Strong vertical wind shears also developed in the circulation which suppresses the intensification of hurricanes.

An Evaluation of the Myth That “Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution”

Wed, 08 Feb 2012 00:00:00 GMT

Darwinists commonly claim that evolution is the foundation of all of the sciences, especially the life sciences and that “nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.” To evaluate this claim I reviewed both the textbooks used for life science classes at the college where I teach and those that I used in my past university course work. I concluded from my survey that Darwinism was rarely mentioned. I also reviewed my course work and that of another researcher and came to the same conclusions. From this survey I concluded that the claim “nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution” is false.

Genome-Wide DNA Alignment Similarity (Identity) for 40,000 Chimpanzee DNA Sequences Queried against the Human Genome is 86–89%

Wed, 28 Dec 2011 00:00:00 GMT

To provide a fresh and less-biased global set of analyses, large-scale comparative DNA sequence alignments between the chimpanzee and human genomes were performed with the BLASTN algorithm. One group of experiments was conducted with query and subject low-complexity sequence masking enabled while the second set had masking parameters disabled. Each group of sub-experiments tested fifteen combinations of three different word sizes (7, 11, and 15) and five different e-values (1000, 10, 0.1, 0.001, and 0.00001) for a total of 1.2 million attempted genome-wide alignments. Individual BLASTN query jobs each involved a data set of 40,000 chimpanzee whole genome shotgun sequences (WGSS) obtained from the National Center for Biotechnology (NCBI) and queried against four different human genome assemblies (GRCH37, GRCH36, Alternate SNP Assembly, and the Celera Assembly).

The use of low complexity sequence masking had the effect of decreasing computational time about 5–6 fold, lengthening the alignments slightly, lowering the number of database hits, and lowering the percent nucleotide identity slightly. Depending on the BLASTN parameter combination, average sequence identity for the 30 separate experiments between human and chimp varied between 86 and 89%. The average chimp query sequence length was 740 bases and depending on the BLASTN parameter combination, average alignment length varied between 121 and 191 bases.

The chimp sequences were subsequently implicated by personal correspondence with NCBI staff and supporting data from this study to be pre-screened for some level of homology to the human genome. Nevertheless, excluding data for the large amount of chimp sequence that did not align, a very conservative estimate of human-chimp DNA similarity genome-wide is 86–89%. Results from this study unequivocally indicate that the human and chimpanzee genomes are at least 10–12% less identical than is commonly claimed. These results are more clearly in line with the large anatomical and behavioral differences observed between human and chimp.

What Makes Us Human, and Why It Is Not the Brain: A Creationist Defense of the Soul

Wed, 14 Dec 2011 00:00:00 GMT

Studies of the brain in neuroscience led to two claims about human beings: the brain is what makes them human, and the soul is no longer needed to explain life, consciousness, and human nature. In order to deal with these issues, this study commences with a brief introduction to the thought forms that underlie these claims. It then presents a biblical picture of the soul and created kinds. The aim is to show that the soul is not only the bearer of life and the first cause and director of the body’s structural development and functions, but also identical to the person/self. The final section raises a number of obstacles in the way of a physicalist, specifically, a property dualist understanding of a person as a body/brain. It closes with a brief evaluation of what a physicalist view of a person as a body/brain implies for a Christian understanding of life after death. The conclusion is that the Bible has lost none of its relevance for Christians living in today’s world dominated by scientism, naturalism, and physicalism.

Untangling Uniformitarianism, Level II: Actualism in Crisis

Wed, 30 Nov 2011 00:00:00 GMT

Uniformitarian geology has opposed biblical history for over two centuries. Most creationist critiques focus on contrary empirical evidence, but this series pursues a logical and axiomatic critique of the “four-definition” formulation of uniformitarianism. Three of these facets—stasis, gradualism, and generic uniformity—fail to support the concept. The remaining “uniformity of process,” also called actualism, seems on the surface to work well, but can be addressed by seeking justification of its use as an axiom of natural history. Actualism rests on uniformity, and uniformity in turn on causal continuity. These concepts can be evaluated relative to the worldviews of Christianity and Naturalism by the truth test of coherence. Naturalism fails that test, but Christianity passes because causal continuity is coherent with—and only with—Christianity’s God. As a theological issue, uniformity and actualism are best understood as physical expressions of divine providence. Since providence is distinct from God’s acts of creation, actualism is irrelevant to that part of the rock record and its relevance to the Flood depends on the nature of divine action during that event.

Determining the Ark Kinds

Wed, 16 Nov 2011 00:00:00 GMT

As part of the Ark Encounter Project at Answers in Genesis, a research effort has been initiated to provide information necessary for the best possible reconstruction of the animal kinds preserved on the Ark. This initial paper outlines the basic rationale that will be used and the underlying justification for it. The biblical text provides strong evidence for each kind being a reproductive unit. Based on this and biological evidence that reproduction requires significant compatibility, hybridization will be considered the most valuable evidence for inclusion within an “Ark kind.” The cognitum and statistical baraminology are discussed as they are relevant to this venture. Where hybrid data is lacking, we have chosen to use a cognitum method. Using current taxonomic placement as a guide, pictures and/or personal experience with the animals will be used to ﬁnd obvious groupings. If the grouping seems excessively high taxonomically, the family level may be used as the default level to avoid underestimating the number of kinds on the Ark. Results from statistical baraminology studies and other information will be used where appropriate. It is hoped the result will be a valuable resource for future studies in baraminology.

Adam, Free Choice, and the Cause of Sin: A Creationist Response to a Christian Evolutionist

Wed, 26 Oct 2011 00:00:00 GMT

The presence of moral evil (sin) in the world is relatively easy for the Christian creationist to explain, and free choice is key to that explanation. To Christian evolutionist and professor of biology Daniel Brannan, the idea of a very good Creation and an Adam and Eve who were deceived and sinned is not only incoherent but also makes God the cause of sin. Brannan proposed that Christians accept an Irenean sense of original sin, which entails that Adam was essentially an undeveloped child. Adam was deceived by Satan because he was incapable of distinguishing right from wrong, and Adam had no free choice. How could Adam and Eve have chosen between good and evil, when only after eating of the tree did they achieve that ability? How could they even have been responsible for their choosing, when their eyes were open only after their choice and eating? This paper will show that Brannan’s arguments are based on faulty premises regarding Adam’s constitutional nature, the nature of Adam and Eve’s perfection and Adam’s power of free choice. Adam was not deceived, and God is not the cause of sin.

Time to Abandon Postmodernism: Living a New Way

Wed, 12 Oct 2011 00:00:00 GMT

While there are a growing number of religious people in Western civilization, there are fewer people going to church. In particular, this trend has been observed most significantly among emerging adults in their 20s as was found by Ken Ham in his book Already Gone with Britt Beemer (Ham, Beemer, and Hillard 2009). The results of their study suggested a significant change among the worldview of Western civilization. The worldview of Western civilization is often described by commentators using the term postmodernism. However, the term postmodernism is inadequate to describe the worldview of Western civilization today for several reasons. Even though these terms are used regularly by many and introducing a new set of terms for novelty’s sake is not always the best approach, it is important to abandon using the term postmodernism because we have experienced a significant shift in Western civilization reflected in many different areas of life. A better term to describe the worldview of Western civilization today is neomodernism. To demonstrate this, a brief history of different worldviews is presented to substitute the term postmodernism with the term antimodernism. Understanding that antimodernism is a reaction against modernism illustrates that Western civilization is no longer antimodern. Analyzing the current worldview of Western civilization, the term neomodernism is used to show just how this popular worldly philosophy has infiltrated the church. Having a better understanding of today’s worldview helps us reach the next generation for Christ through teaching apologetics to all generations and living biblically both in church and at home.

Geomorphology of Uluṟu, Australia: Discussion

Wed, 21 Sep 2011 00:00:00 GMT

Introduction

Controversy and informed debate are the lifeblood of scientific investigation. Thus Ken Patrick’s 2010 paper on the origin of Uluṟu is welcome. Patrick first questions and adversely criticizes several aspects of our work on inselbergs in general, and on Uluṟu in particular (Twidale 1978, 2010; Twidale and Bourne 1978). He also proposes an alternative hypothesis in explanation of Uluṟu.

The So-Called “Conventional” Interpretation

Uluṟu is a beveled arkosic inselberg that has survived the ravages of weathering and erosion over the eons because it was sheared and compressed during the Petermann Orogeny of some 570–530 mya (Stewart 2011). Many minor forms are developed on the summit bevel and steep flanks. They vary in origin. Some are tectonic. The red patina that masks the grey-green arkose, the potholes, and the shallow gashes caused by lightning strikes are epigene, having been formed on exposed rock surfaces. Some are considered to be of subsurface origin. The provenance of others is uncertain.

Subsurface weathering and initiation of forms

Several of the minor features of subsurface origin provide vital evidence concerning the evolution of Uluṟu. However, the reality of subsurface weathering, central to the conventional interpretation (Twidale 1978, 2010; Twidale and Bourne 1978) is denied by Patrick (2010, p. 114), who claims that modern equivalents of flared slopes have “not been observed” in course of formation. Taken literally, this is correct, for most currently developing forms are hidden in the subsurface. And even if the weathering front, the junction between regolith and country rock (Mabbutt 1961), could be observed in situ it would not be possible to detect processes at work. On the other hand, many examples of flared slopes—as well as corestone boulders, pitted surfaces, rock basins, gutters, planate forms, and even bornhardts—have been observed already shaped beneath the natural land surface and now exposed, mostly in artificial excavations such as quarries, road cuttings, and local reservoirs (Hassenfratz 1791; Twidale 1962, 2002).

Patrick understands that there is only one zone of flared slopes on Uluṟu. This is not so. Two zones, located 4–5 m and 35–60 m above present plain level, and comprising assemblages of forms initiated at the weathering front in the shallow subsurface, are preserved on the southern face of Uluṟu. Flared slopes dominate the lower, and gaping-mouth caves the higher, but both of these forms are represented in both zones (pace Patrick 2010, pp. 110–111). At several sites, at Uluṟu and elsewhere, flared slopes merge laterally with cylindrical footcaves, shelters or tafoni, and with angular breaks of slopes. Unlike the flared slopes and other forms noted, however, no deep indents have so far been located in subsurface exposures.

Nevertheless, the gaping-mouth caves are coincident with flared slopes and can be attributed either to post-exposure weathering or to intense weathering just above the weathering front, which is where initial breakdown of the country rock occurs (Hutton Lindsay, and Twidale 1977; Twidale 1986). The latter suggestion is more likely but is speculative.

The Mutitjulu Arkose

Patrick (2010, p. 110 et seq.) expresses concerns over the origin and fate of the arkose and related arenaceous and rudaceous rocks in which Uluṟu, Kata Tjuṯa and other residuals surviving in the southern Amadeus Basin are shaped. The thick sequences of fan sediments are impressive but comprehensible as the work of rivers acting on uplands unprotected by vegetation and flowing to a subsiding basin. The arkosic (and rudaceous) debris was derived from the precursors of the Musgrave, Everard, and associated ranges, which, as indicated by the exposed stocks and batholiths, are deeply eroded remnants. That Uluṟu was left in relief implies the stripping of a large volume of detritus that was transported by streams and rivers, the predecessors of the modern Finke and Palmer systems, and deposited in the eastern Amadeus and the western Lake Eyre basins.

The arkose is impermeable, partly because of lithification and compaction resulting from the great thickness and weight of superincumbent strata. In addition, the compartment of rock in which Uluṟu is shaped has survived because it is, or has been, in compression. This is suggested by the occurrence of sheet structures, like the Kangaroo Tail, and triangular wedges exposed in some footcaves and elsewhere (for example, Twidale et al. 1996; Twidale and Sved 1978).

Chronology

Patrick offers only a hint as to the timetable of events. When referring to his Flood (for example, 2010, p. 114) he uses upper case ‘F’. As this denotes the Noachian Flood, is it to be viewed in the context of Ussherian time, with the whole evolution of Uluṟu having been accomplished in the last 6,000–7,000 years?

The conventional interpretation calls for a much longer chronology of events. It is not possible directly to date older erosional land surfaces. Instead, a reasoned reconstruction has been derived based on modern congeners and on local and regional evidence, with particular reference to the Macdonnell and Everard ranges and associated uplands (Twidale 2007). The summit bevel of Uluṟu is considered to be of Maastrichtian age. The low rates of denudation typical of much of Australia (Patrick 2010, p. 113) surely favor the conservation of such exposed landforms. Once exposed, the crest of Uluṟu was stable, but subsurface moisture attack continued apace, wearing back and steepening the bedrock surface, which after stripping also stood unchanged save in detail.

The weathering responsible for the precipitous flanks of Uluṟu is considered to have taken place in the Paleocene and Eocene, because it is associated with silcrete, which in the Lake Eyre basin has been dated stratigraphically as of that age (Mabbutt 1965; Wopfner Callen, and Harris 1974). At this time the climate of central Australia was warm and humid (for example, Benbow et al. 1995) favoring intense weathering by groundwaters rich in biota and organic chemicals. A prolonged phase of subsurface attack is implied by the depth of weathering. Dissection of the silcreted surface and exposure of the steepened face of Uluṟu must have occurred in post Eocene times and considerable thicknesses of Middle and Late Tertiary strata are recorded in the Lake Eyre basin (for example, Callen, Alley, and Greenwood 1995).

Cascades of potholes

These are still developing and, as demonstrated during the occasional heavy rains, are caused by runoff. As photographs clearly show, the depressions increase in size downslope, presumably reflecting both increasing volumes of water and abrasive sand included as load.

The Patrick Model

Patrick (2010, p.113 et seq.) proposes a three-part development of Uluṟu as a preferred alternative to the conventional hypothesis. First, a “cataclysmic watery” event, a deluge, deposited the arkose, and, second, the receding floodwaters shaped the ancestral Uluṟu. Third, torrential rains caused the inundation of the Amadeus Basin and the formation of a lake “several tens of meters” deep. Its level changed in time but wave action at the margins modified the southern flank of Uluṟu to produce the distinctive 30–65 m and 4–5 m landform assemblages.

For the reader there are problems with the author’s use of words and phrases. For instance, what is a temporal lake (Patrick 2010, p. 113); what is a land breach (Patrick 2010, p. 108); how can a watershed scour out a valley (Patrick 2010, p. 108); and how can a subsiding lake achieve regional planation (Patrick 2010, p. 114)? Why is there any necessity to “confess” to postulating a subsurface origin for flared slopes (Patrick 2010, p. 111)? Nevertheless, it is hoped that the correct construction has been placed on the text.

The critical aspect of the Patrick alternative is his suggested development of a deep lake. Examination of available topographic maps suggests it would have occupied most of the present Amadeus Basin. But what blocked the lake, and where are the lake deposits and associated fossils? The plains around Uluṟu are underlain by sequences of mixed sediments (Twidale 1978) with a cover of alluvial and wind-blown sand. Thus, it is simply incorrect to state that lacustrine beds 180 m thick (and more) have been located in the vicinity of Uluṟu (Patrick 2010, pp. 117–118).

Furthermore, although Patrick (2010, pp. 116–118) attributes the landform assemblages in the 4–5 m and 30–65 m zones to wave action, neither displays forms and features typical of coastal notches. The relative significance for coastal erosion of various physical, chemical and biotic agents varies from place to place but even if waves had been active and more effective, why was their effect concentrated on—almost confined to—the southern face of the inselberg? Also, lignites, which consist of compressed vegetation, are minor components of several sequences and imply swampy conditions that are hardly conducive to wave action.

Are all flared slopes to be attributed to wave action? The temptingly-named Wave Rock, one of the most spectacular of flared forms, is located in the southwest of Western Australia (Twidale 1968), but in a region renowned for its well-established paleodrainage system (Van de Graaff et al. 1977). Saline fluvial sediments occur in these channels, but the region is notably lacking in widespread lacustrine beds. Surely, the flared slopes located in hilly or mountainous terrains such as the Californian Sierra Nevada or the Victorian Alps cannot be caused by wave action.

Apart from such difficulties of commission, Patrick’s hypothesis leaves much unexplained. For example, the survival of an Uluṟu, which on three sides protrudes from a platform cut in arkose either exposed or covered by a thin veneer of sand, is not broached. With the possible exception of Mutitjulu and other waterholes located within structural clefts on the southern face, there is no evidence of sapping (Patrick 2010, p. 116) in the form of springs or seepages around the base of Uluṟu. Nor are they likely to develop generally in steeply dipping impermeable strata. No explanation is offered for the preferential concentration of decorations, including the features attributed to a sapping on the southern face of the residual. This distribution is susceptible of explanation by subsurface weathering, given the demonstrated occurrence of moisture contained in the sediments that border the southern flank of Uluṟu. It is not accounted for by postulating the existence of a lake that would wash equally against all sides of the residual.

Conclusion

The so-called conventional explanation based in subsurface initiation and later episodic exposure (Twidale and Bourne 1975) is compatible with the local and regional evidence—as far as it goes. Unfortunately, there are no relevant deep exposures around Uluṟu, so that the inferred subsurface processes and the resultant bedrock forms cannot be observed. Instead, rational inferences have been drawn based on analyses of regoliths adjacent to the weathering front. Again, it is not possible either to examine the rock that has been eroded from all around Uluṟu to determine what rendered it more susceptible, or to test the composition of Eocene groundwaters that are suggested to have achieved the deep weathering responsible for the recession and steepening of the flanks of Uluṟu. And so on—all explanations inevitably involve extrapolation and informed speculation.

Nevertheless, no matter how imaginative they may be, hypotheses must have some basis in fact. One could, for instance, be highly original and propose that Uluṟu has been shaped by glaciers and that glacial till or drift is widely distributed in the Basin. But disregarding for the moment the question of how glaciers erode, there is no supporting evidence on which either to base or to test such a suggestion.

The two-stage hypothesis involving subsurface initiation and subsequent exposure is based in data and concepts that begin coherently to explain the morphology of Uluṟu and environs. Like most geomorphological constructions the interpretation is in the nature of a work in progress, but nevertheless acceptable pro tempore.

References

Benbow M. C., N. F. Alley, R. A. Callen, and D. R. Greenwood. 1995. Tertiary. Geological history and palaeoclimate. In The geology of South Australia, vol. 2, The Phanerozoic, ed. J. F. Drexel and W. V. Preiss, bulletin 54, pp. 208–217. Adelaide: Geological Survey of South Australia.

Callen, R. A., N. F. Alley, and D. R. Greenwood. 1995. Tertiary. Lake Eyre Basin. In The geology of South Australia, vol. 2, The Phanerozoic, ed. J. F. Drexel and W. V. Preiss, bulletin 54, pp. 188–207. Adelaide: Geological Survey of South Australia.

Hassenfratz, J-H. 1791. Sur l’arrangement de plusieurs gros blocs de différentes pierres que l’on observe dans les montagnes. Annales de Chimie 11:95–107.

Hutton, J. T., D. S. Lindsay, and C. R. Twidale. 1977. The weathering of norite at Black Hill, South Australia. Journal of the Geological Society of Australia 24:37–50.

Mabbutt, J. A. 1961. ‘Basal surface’ or ‘weathering front’. Proceedings of the Geologists’ Association of London 72:357–358.

Mabbutt, J. A. 1965. The weathered land surface in central Australia. Zeitschrift für Geomorphologie 9:82–114.

Patrick, K. 2010. Geomorphology of Uluṟu, Australia. Answers Research Journal 3:107–118.

Stewart, A. 2011. New cross-sections through Uluṟu and Kata Tjuṯa. The Australian Geologist 159:20–22.

Twidale, C. R. 1962. Steepened margins of inselbergs from north-western Eyre Peninsula, South Australia. Zeitschrift für Geomorphologie 6: 51–69.

Twidale, C. R. 1968. Origin of Wave Rock, Hyden, Western Australia. Transactions of the Royal Society of South Australia 92:115–123.

Twidale, C. R. 1978. On the origin of Ayers Rock, central Australia. Zeitschrift für Geomorphologie Supplement Band 31:177–206.

Twidale, C. R. 1986. Granite landform evolution: factors and implications. Geologische Rundschau 75:769–779.

Twidale, C. R. 2002. The two-stage concept of landform and landscape development involving etching: origin, development and implications of an idea. Earth–Science Reviews 57:37–74.

Twidale, C. R. 2007. Ancient Australian landscapes. Sydney: Rosenberg.

Twidale, C. R. 2010. Uluṟu (Ayers Rock) and Kata Tjuṯa (The Olgas): Inselbergs of central Australia. In Geomorphological landscapes of the world, ed. P. Migon, pp. 321–332. Vienna: Springer.

Twidale, C. R., and J. A. Bourne. 1975. Episodic exposure of inselbergs. Geological Society of America Bulletin 86:1473–1481.

Twidale, C. R., and J. A. Bourne. 1978. Bornhardts developed in sedimentary rocks, central Australia. The South African Geographer 6:35–51.

Twidale, C. R., and G. Sved. 1978. Minor granite landforms associated with the release of compressive stress. Australian Geographical Studies 16:161–174.

Twidale, C. R., J. R. Vidal Romani, E. M. Campbell, and J. D. Centeno. 1996. Sheet fractures: response to erosional offloading or to tectonic stress? Zeitschrift für Geomorphologie Supplementband 106:1–24.

Van de Graaff, W. J. E., R. W. A. Crowe, J. A. Bunting, and M. J. Jackson. 1977. Relict Early Cainozoic drainages in arid Western Australia. Zeitschrift für Geomorphologie 21:379–400.

Wopfner, H., R. Callen, and W. K. Harris. 1974. The Lower Tertiary Eyre Formation of the southwestern Great Artesian Basin. Journal of the Geological Society of Australia 21:17–51.

Geomorphology of Uluṟu, Australia: Reply

Wed, 21 Sep 2011 00:00:00 GMT

Twidale and Bourne’s comments are appreciated by this author who respects their professional and long-standing experience in the field of modern geomorphology.

I will seek to address each of Twidale and Bourne’s points in the order they were written.

Two Zones of Flared Slopes

Although there exists a marked change in slope angle at the 35 m open-mouth caves, this author is unaware of any feature that correlates with, nor resembles, the very distinctive flared slopes at the 4–5 m mark. In order to accurately represent this response, many hours were spent looking over dozens of Uluṟu images, none of which provided any evidence of this particular distinctive feature. This is not to say they do not exist, just that they have been extremely elusive to the eyes of this very patient observer.

Fig. 1. Contrast of concave out flared slopes and open mouthed caves. Photo: Shargaljut, Dreamstime.

Fig. 1 is indicative of the 35 m horizon. Notice the flared slopes at the bottom of the image for comparison, a feature that is linearly absent at the open-mouth cave feature. Notice also the pinching out of the open-mouth cave to an unaltered surface that is linearly adjacent to the cave. If this horizon represents a subsurface weathering horizon, shouldn’t one expect to find continuity of weathering from one open-mouth cave to the next? A change of slope is evident at this horizon, but one should also expect some other weathering features that connect one cave to another.

Subsequent Erosion

Patrick (2010, p.110 et seq.) expresses concerns over the origin and fate of the arkose and related arenaceous and rudaceous rocks in which Uluṟu, Kata Tjuṯa and other residuals surviving in the southern Amadeus Basin are shaped . . . That Uluṟu was left in relief implies the stripping of a large volume of detritus that was transported by streams and rivers, the predecessors of the modern Finke and Palmer systems, and deposited in the eastern Amadeus and the western Lake Eyre basins.

Twidale and Bourne here respond to what this author believes is one of the paramount difficulties in their hypothesis; that is, the process that first eroded out and then removed vast amounts of rock and detritus. This will not do, however. The etch-plain hypothesis for peneplain construction is not a new convention, being introduced by Wayland in 1934 (Wayland 1934). This hypothesis can be consolidated with a number of comparable theories that collectively try to explain the peneplain phenomena in general. What process, exactly, is responsible for vast areas of flat relief that cut across varied kinds of resistant and non-resistant rock types all over the world? Hence this comment by Thornbury:

The idea of peneplain was a direct and logical outgrowth of his [Davis’] earlier controversial history which continues down to the present, and probably more has been written pro and con regarding it than about any other geomorphic idea (Thornbury 1969, p. 179).

Attributing the erosion and removal of vast amounts of material to ancient fluvial processes is begging the question. It is assumed rather than proven. This author is not the only one who considers this solution with credulity. Ollier and Pain, secular workers known for their discussion of mountain-building processes that include peneplain construction say this:

Most tourists wonder “how did that rock [Uluṟu] get up there?” but the real question is “where did all that rock go?” (Ollier and Pain 2000, p. 29).

Admittedly, the authors are considering the contrast of seeing Uluṟu in terms of erosion rather than allochthonous rock transport, but their remark is nonetheless stunning in its guileless confession: “where did all that rock go?”

Twidale and Bourne’s etch plain hypothesis itself argues against attributing the erosion and removal of the saprolite to fluvial processes. Consider a scenario that requires a humid climate to initiate intense subsurface weathering, and then must change to one of aridity in order to produce the fluvial conditions necessary to remove the disarticulated rock and detritus. These favorable conditions must be repeated several times. Surely, such repeated cycles of weathering and erosion would not be expected to produce an exceptionally flat topography almost completely vanquished of left over saprolite? It seems to this author that much more disarticulated rock, detritus, as well as fluvial erosion features, should be ubiquitous. This is not the case, however. The flatlands all around Uluṟu and Kata Tjuṯa have been completely stripped clean of almost all debris. Given all of the above, it is not unreasonable to assume a large marine transgression. It must be noted that such an idea is not beyond the scope of conventional thinking. Ollier and Pain say this:

The sea is very effective at carving plains at the coast, and with sufficient time could it not carve plains of continental dimensions? . . . Arguments between proponents of marine erosion and those of terrestrial planation were great in the nineteenth century, but are scarcely heard today, although the question has not always been resolved (Ollier and Pain 2000, pp. 234–235).

Uluṟu’s Potholes

Twidale and Bourne here acknowledge the uniformity of Uluṟu’s potholes, but fail to see the importance of such a pattern. Why are the hole sizes increasing downslope? If Uluṟu’s uppermost elevation is indicative of older topography, why do these erosion surfaces not start off large, becoming smaller down the strike of Uluṟu’s upturned strata? Why have uniformity and continuity at all over the surface of Uluṟu? One should conclude that such characteristics are indicative of a contemporaneous Uluṟu surface from top to bottom, not one that is at times separated by millions of years.

Wave Action

Third, torrential rains caused the inundation of the Amadeus Basin and the formation of a lake “several tens of meters” deep. Its level changed in time but wave action at the margins modified the southern flank of Uluṟu to produce the distinctive 30–65 m and 4–5 m landform assemblages.

Actually, this is incorrect. Wave action was only considered for the flared slope features of the 4–5 m mark. Nowhere was it hypothesized that the open mouth cave landforms were formed in the same way. Spring sapping was suggested for the latter. As a matter of importance, wave action was only one of perhaps many other epigenic processes that might be responsible for the flared slope feature. Note this comment in the original article:

Even if Uluṟu’s flared slopes are not the direct result of wave attack, epigenic processes such as this may provide another more viable interpretation (Patrick 2010, p. 115).

Fig. 2. Sub-areal, epigenically derived flared slope features (arrowed). Photo: Matthew Weinel, Dreamstime.

After re-evaluating Twidale and Bourne’s legitimate criticisms, however, I propose some tweaking to my original hypothesis. Similar flared slope features are also found at the base of Uluṟu’s Mutitjulu Waterhole (fig. 2). The processes involved in the formation of these features is probably quite complex, but no doubt involves at least three factors:– (1) Spring sapping; (2) Tafoni related decomposition; and (3) Mechanic abrasion by flowing water. Note that these features are not the result of subsurface weathering. Although spring sapping and mechanical abrasion were processes outlined in the original paper, the role of tafoni was not. What if all three of these processes were at work in the epigenic construction of the entire suite of features found over the face of Uluṟu? Twidale has elsewhere contended that the tafoni and flared slopes share a common origin in that both formed (or were at least initiated?) as subsurface weathering fronts:

flared slopes and cliff-foot caves [tafoni caves] . . . indicate another [period of weathering] when the hill-plain junction stood 4–5 m higher than at present (Twidale 2007, p. 110).

Fig. 3. Tafoni cave with internal concave out flared slope feature and evacuated sub-circular blocks lying on the adjacent piedmont. This image is used by permission of the copyright owner, Billogs.

Yet tafoni is almost always understood in terms of subaerial weathering? That this is the case for Uluṟu is evidenced by evacuated sub-circular blocks lying next to the tafoni caves on the adjacent piedmont (see fig. 3). Once the concave-out tafoni-related caves weather out most of the host rock (in large circular blocks), all that remains is a lip or hood that covers the cave. Once this hood itself weathers and erodes away, one is left with the concave out flared slope feature under discussion. Tafoni weathering rates are still poorly understood, but large granite blocks left over from the Last Glacial Maximum have evidenced huge amounts of in situ tafoni-related decomposition in only a few thousands of years (Brandmeier et al, 2011). It is the contention of this author, then, to postulate a combination of spring sapping at Uluṟu’s base (much like that seen in the Mutitjulu Waterhole), along with tafoni related decomposition. This decomposition would have been accelerated by the presence of an ephemeral inland brackish lake. Although the lake was at times transient, high water periods would also be responsible for mechanical disarticulation and removal of rock detritus and perhaps contributed to the concave out shape.

Misunderstood Words and Phrases

For the reader there are problems with the author’s use of words and phrases. For instance, what is a temporal lake (Patrick 2010, p. 113); what is a land breach (p. 108); how can a watershed scour out a valley (p. 108); and how can a subsiding lake achieve regional planation (p. 114)?

It will be important to clarify these possibly confusing terms. By temporal lake, I mean to suggest a lake that is short-lived. I would here like to add my contention that this lake was probably brackish, and ephemeral being at times dry, while at other times having a high water mark. As for the watershed, I was simply delineating Twidale’s hypothesis using, perhaps, too few words. The entire double planation process as well as subsequent erosion was the intended meaning. As for the final misunderstanding, this author holds to a catastrophic marine transgression that was responsible for regional planation, not a subsiding lake.

Amadeus Basin Lake

Examination of available topographic maps suggests it would have occupied most of the present Amadeus Basin. But what blocked the lake, and where are the lake deposits and associated fossils? The plains around Uluṟu are underlain by sequences of mixed sediments (Twidale 1978) with a cover of alluvial and wind-blown sand. Thus, it is simply incorrect to state that lacustrine beds 180 m thick (and more) have been located in the vicinity of Uluṟu (Patrick 2010, pp. 117–118).

My apologies for misreading Twidale and Harris’s original paper. Twidale said this,

The plains that surround [Uluṟu and Kata Tjuṯa] are depositional. They are underlain by Cainozoic sequences comprising lacustrine, alluvial, and aeolian beds, the thickness of which varies (Twidale and Harris 1977, p. 46).

They later go on to suggest that some of the bore-holes in the area measured 180 m deep of sediment. Since the aeolian sediments chiefly represent only the very top sediments, I incorrectly assumed that the rest of this sediment was made up of lacustrine-type deposits, when in fact they mostly represent lacustrine as well as fluvial sediments. Exactly what percentage is made up of what sediment was not indicated. Nevertheless, deep lacustrine deposits are known in the area as referenced above.

Spring Sapping

With the possible exception of Mutitjulu and other waterholes located within structural clefts on the southern face, there is no evidence of sapping (Patrick 2010, p. 116) in the form of springs or seepages around the base of Uluṟu.

A closer look at fig. 11 in Patrick (2010) should, I think, convince the reader that other areas also evidence spring sapping. Notice the incredibly close correlation of this concave down shaped feature to the water sapping features in Patrick (2010), (figs 12 and 13). Note also the presence of salts.

Conclusion

There still remain severe problems related to Twidale and Bourne’s Double Planation Hypothesis. What testable data exists to verify the processes that removed vast amounts of material? Why is the topography exceptionally flat? Why does continuity of external erosion features exist all over the surface of Uluṟu? Why only one level of flared slopes, and why only at its base? Given these noteworthy unanswered questions, it seems much more reasonable to assume a catastrophic marine transgression that carved out the basic Uluṟu residual. Extreme changes in climate were responsible for the presence of an inland, ephemeral and brackish lake that contributed to the entire suite of features exhibited over the entirety of Uluṟu’s surface. Since this suite of features is best explained by epigenic processes such as spring sapping and tafoni related rock decomposition, this leaves mainstream geomorphologists with an obvious conundrum—how did the original residual form (since these features themselves are used to hypothesize a slow and gradual decrease in land level)? Those limited to slow and gradual processes will be hindered in their investigations due to the almost pervasive and outright anathema of ideas related to catastrophic marine transgressions.

References

Brandmeier, M., J. Kuhlemann, I. Krumrei, A. Kappler, and P. W. Kubik. 2011. New challenges for tafoni research. A new approach to understand processes and weathering rates. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms 36, no. 6:839–852.

Ollier, C. and C. Pain. 2000. The origin of mountains. London, United Kingdom: Routledge.

Patrick, K. 2010. Geomorphology of Uluṟu, Australia. Answers Research Journal 3:107–118.

Thornbury, T. 1969. Principals of geomorphology, 2nd ed. New York, New York: John Wiley and Sons.

Twidale, C. R. 1978. On the origin of Ayers Rock, central Australia. Zeitschrift für Geomorphologie Supplement Band 31:177–206.

Twidale, C. R. 2007. Persistence and relief amplitude. In Ancient Australian landscapes, pp. 105–113. Australia: Rosenberg Publishing.

Twidale, C. R., and W. K. Harris. 1977. The age of Ayers Rock and the Olgas, Central Australia. Transactions of the Royal Society of South Australia 101:45–50.

Wayland, E. J. 1934. Peneplains and some other erosional platforms. Annual Report and Bulletin, Note 1, pp. 77–79. Kampala: Protectorate of Uganda Geological Survey, Department of Mines.

Response to Comments on “How Genomes are Sequenced and Why it Matters: Implications for Studies in Comparative Genomics of Humans and Chimpanzees”

Wed, 14 Sep 2011 00:00:00 GMT

In a recent issue of Answers Research Journal, an article was published entitled “How Genomes are Sequenced and Why it Matters: Implications for Studies in Comparative Genomics of Humans and Chimpanzees” (Tomkins 2011). Shortly after publication, a blog response to the paper was posted by baraminology author and researcher Todd Wood in which some important points were brought up that need to be clarified (Wood 2011a).

The goal in writing the Answers Research Journal article was to illustrate how genomic technologies have been developed and applied in the various genome projects and why understanding these factors helps one to assess the various evolutionary claims that have been made. As an example, I used a comparison between the human and chimpanzee genome projects. The public human genome project used a very methodical (well-funded) approach and employed a diversity of technologies to produce a fairly well detailed genomic framework (International Human Genome Sequencing Consortium 2001; 2004). The chimpanzee genome project received much less funding and relied on the human framework to assemble the DNA sequence obtained through a much quicker and less costly process called whole genome shotgun sequencing (The Chimpanzee Sequencing and Analysis Consortium 2005). However, when the chimpanzee genomic resources became better developed, new tools became available to produce a framework that could stand more on its own merits (Warren et al. 2006). Such an example was the Y-chromosome project, which revealed dramatic differences between the human and chimp MSY regions in gene numbers and gene families (Hughes et al. 2010). While a number of large non-coding structural features (for example, palindromes) were already identified as being quite different, as Wood noted (Rozen et al. 2003), the more detailed features were still largely undefined. I believe that my use of the Y-chromosome comparison example was misinterpreted by Wood, and perhaps by other readers as well. Wood notes:

He does leave out one very, very important issue, however, namely that the Y chromosome is unrepresentative of the entire genome and should therefore not be considered vindication of the opinion that the chimp genome will be much more different than is generally reported (Wood 2011a).

My primary point in using the Y-chromosome example was to show how the refinement of genomic tools can provide a considerably more annotated portrait of genomic landscapes and reveal surprising details. This is something that needs to be done for other regions of the chimpanzee genome before definitive conclusions about human-chimp similarity can be made. It was not the goal of my recent paper to make a claim that the chimp Y-chromosome was indicative of the level of comparative differences between autosomes (non-sex chromosomes). Physical map tools and re-sequencing technologies need to be utilized on other parts of the chimp genome as they were in the Y-chromosome study. In fact, the bigger question we may need to be asking is why have not any similar autosomal studies been published? Perhaps the results were a little too shocking.

Another point that needs to be addressed from Wood’s blog, are comments made about levels of SNP (single nucleotide polymorphism) diversity among autosomal regions compared to the Y-chromosomes. Wood references a paper published by the International SNP Map Working Group (2001) and makes the following comment.

For example, in an early paper on single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) discovery in the human genome, the International SNP Map Working Group reported SNP frequencies about four times higher on the human Y chromosome than on the human autosomes (non-sex chromosomes). SNPs are single nucleotide differences that exist within a species’ gene pool (Wood 2011a).

Unfortunately, Wood got his SNP data backwards regarding the 2001 Nature paper, which is understandable when you read the paper. Per request, Wood graciously posted a correction on his blog site (Wood 2011b). However, despite the blog blunder, a very interesting point concerning the Y-chromosome surfaced. Data from the Nature SNP paper shows in Table 1 that the SNP rate is actually about four times less on the Y-chromosome compared to the autosomes. The authors use a somewhat confusing “kb per SNP” rather than “SNP per kb” rate, contrary to normal semantics (1 kb = 1,000 bases DNA). The paper indicates that the Y-chromosome has a much higher kb per SNP 12.2 kb vs 3.0 (genome ave), indicating that there are less SNPs per kb. Also, Table 2 shows that the heterozygosity (DNA diversity between individuals) for the Y-chromosome is 1.5 vs. 7.5 (genome ave)—a much lower level. All of this data makes perfect sense because the Y-chromosome has no similar homolog and undergoes very little recombination with the X-chromosome during meiosis, despite its large non-coding DNA content. Given this low level of recombination and sequence diversity on the Y-chromosome, the primate evolution model encounters a serious problem—the human and chimp Y-chromosomes should be considerably more similar to each other. The remarkably different DNA sequence of the Y-chromosomes between human and chimp presents a very serious problem for common ancestry. This fact in and of itself is quite noteworthy and would have never presented itself were it not for Wood’s blog.

If there are profound dissimilarity issues between the human and chimp autosomes, what is the best method to evaluate this issue in the most unbiased manner? This question is particularly important because the chimpanzee genome assembly is still largely based on the human genomic framework. In addition, it now looks like the wide-spread contamination of non-human databases with human DNA is a serious problem (Longo, O’Neill, and O’Neill 2010) and will likely be somewhat difficult to detect among primate and other mammalian databases. Bioinformatic research in comparative genomics between human and chimp is currently in progress at the Institute for Creation Research and reports will be forthcoming in the near future.

Hughes, J. F. et al. 2010. Chimpanzee and human Y chromosomes are remarkably divergent in structure and gene content. Nature 463:536–539.

International Human Genome Sequencing Consortium. 2001. Initial sequencing and analysis of the human genome. Nature 409:861–920.

International Human Genome Sequencing Consortium. 2004. Finishing the euchromatic sequence of the human genome. Nature 431:931–945.

International SNP Map Working Group. 2001. A map of human genome sequence variation containing 1.42 million single nucleotide polymorphisms. Nature 409:928–933.

Longo, M. S., M. J. O’Neill, and R. J. O’Neill. 2010. Abundant human DNA contamination identified in non-primate genome databases. PLoS ONE 6, no. 2: e16410.

Rozen, S. et al. 2003. Abundant gene conversion between arms of palindromes in human and ape Y chromosomes. Nature 423:873–876.

The Chimpanzee Sequencing and Analysis Consortium. 2005. Initial sequence of the chimpanzee genome and comparison with the human genome. Nature 437:69–87.

Tomkins, J. 2011. How genomes are sequenced and why it matters: Implications for studies in comparative genomics of humans and chimpanzees. Answers Research Journal 4:81–88. Retrieved from www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v4/n1/implications-for-comparative-genomics.

Warren, R. L. et al. 2006. Physical map assisted whole-genome shotgun assemblies. Genome Research 16, no. 6:768–775.

Wood, T. 2011a. What Jeff didn’t tell you. Todd’s Blog, June 23. Retrieved from http://toddcwood.blogspot.com/2011/06/what-jeff-didnt-tell-you.html.

Wood, T. 2011b. Correction on the Y chromosome. Todd’s blog, July 12. Retrieved from http://toddcwood.blogspot.com/2011/07/correction-on-y-chromosome.html.

Ancient Egyptian Chronology and the Book of Genesis

Wed, 24 Aug 2011 00:00:00 GMT

One of the most popular topics among young earth creationists and apologists is the relationship of the Bible with Ancient Egyptian chronology. Whether it concerns who the pharaoh of the Exodus was, the background of Joseph, or the identity of Shishak, many Christians (and non-Christians) have wondered how these two topics fit together. This paper deals with the question, “How does ancient Egyptian chronology correlate with the book of Genesis?” In answering this question it begins with an analysis of every Egyptian dynasty starting with the 12th Dynasty (this is where David Down places Moses) and goes back all the way to the so called “Dynasty 0.” After all the data is presented, this paper will look at the different possibilities that can be constructed concerning how long each of these dynasties lasted and how they relate to the biblical dates of the Great Flood, the Tower of Babel, and the Patriarchs.