Prepare for a Creationist Feeding Frenzy

Look what we found at PhysOrg: Flawed analysis casts doubt on years of evolutionary research. It’s the sort of headline every creationist dreams of. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis:

Years of research on the evolution of ancient life including the dinosaurs have been questioned after a fatal flaw in the way fossil data is analysed was exposed. Studies based on the apparently flawed method have suggested Earth’s biodiversity remained relatively stable – close to maximum carrying capacity – and hinted many signs of species becoming rapidly extinct are merely reflections on the poor quality of the fossil record at that time.

Then they tell us about the problem:

However, new research by scientists at the University of Reading suggests the history of the planet’s biodiversity may have been more dynamic than recently suggested, with bursts of new species appearing, along with crashes and more stable periods.

As we read this, we’re trying to figure out what creationists can do with it. Nothing comes to mind yet, because we don’t see anything that challenges the age of the Earth or the vast amount of evidence for evolution. Moving along:

The new study, published in Methods in Ecology and Evolution by Dr Manabu Sakamoto and Dr Chris Venditti, from Reading, and Professor Michael Benton, from Bristol, says a technique used to ‘correct’ records of diversity in fossils is actually giving misleading results. It means almost a decade’s worth of work aimed at providing an insight into evolution may be misleading as it was based on this fundamental error.

This is the published paper: ‘Residual diversity estimates’ do not correct for sampling bias in palaeodiversity data. All you can see is the abstract, unless you have a subscription. We’ll stay with PhysOrg. They say:

The method [which the new paper challenges] assumes that variations in the number of different fossils at any given time are a reflection of how much rock was available. It has been used in more than 150 published research papers since it was first used in 2007. Dr Sakamoto, evolutionary biologist at the University of Reading, said: “Our work calls into question nearly a decade’s worth of scientific reports and interpretations on the way life on Earth has evolved.”

Interesting, but we don’t yet see much cause for creationist celebrations. One final excerpt:

Professor Mike Benton, Earth Scientist at University of Bristol, said: “The core assumption is that any portion of fossil diversity that can be explained by variations in rock volume should be explained by variations in rock volume. This assumption is based on no evidence. At the extreme, if you have no rock you get no fossils. However, there are many cases where two time intervals are represented by the same amount of rock worldwide, and yet fossil diversity varies massively. Explain that.”

Assuming this paper is correct, what we have here is a good example of science correcting itself. We note that the problem — assuming there is one — wasn’t discovered by creationists, and it doesn’t appear to challenge anything fundamental about either the age of the Earth or the fact of evolution. It certainly doesn’t challenge the radiometric method of determining the age of fossils or rock strata. So maybe the creationists won’t be celebrating. Nah — we’re dreaming. They’re already trying to figure out some way to puff this up into a major “scandal.” It’ll be fun to see how they handle it.

Copyright © 2016. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

16 responses to “Prepare for a Creationist Feeding Frenzy

  1. “Nothing comes to mind yet, because…” you’re looking at the report honestly. Try randomly pulling out some phrases and rearranging them into a grammatically correct form that says something entirely different than the original. That’s how you get the creationist perspective.

  2. What form can the ensuing feeding frenzy take? Apart from the tired claim that “Science changes, therefore science is not reliable; The Word of God does not change, therefore The Word of God is perfect.”?

  3. Anonymous, I was going to make the same suggestion. I’ve often heard science criticized for its “changing nature,” usually from people who’ve benefited at least marginally from germ theory and vaccination, just for starters.

  4. What you fear has already come to pass. David Coppedge is sounding off again.

    http://www.bris.ac.uk/news/2016/october/evolution-research-.html
    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/2041-210X.12666/abstract

    Coppedge thinks this somehow helps his viewpoint (even though perhaps there were more unbiblical extinctions in the distant and more recent past than previously believed):
    http://crev.info/2016/10/fossil-flaw-evolution/
    It’s all circular reasoning I tell you! To use Coppedge’s noun as a verb … Ditch phylogenetics! Ditch evolution! Ditch natural selection!

  5. Meanwhile in La La land:
    http://www.piltdownsuperman.com/2016/10/naturalism-is-not-conducive-to-science.html
    “Meanwhile, there have been and still are many people who believe the Bible and do science quite well.” That would be theistic evolutionists/evolutionary creationists.

  6. Ashley Haworth-roberts says: “What you fear has already come to pass. David Coppedge is sounding off again.”

    I wasn’t think of Coppedge. No one thinks of Coppedge.

  7. It’ll be fun to see how they handle it.

    Why, in their usual Ham-handed way, of course!

  8. “It’s the sort of headline every creationist dreams of.”
    Of course. “Evolution Theory is wrong” is the main creationist claim that can be empirically tested; god of the gaps can’t and Paley’s False Watchmaker Analogy fails as soon as some creacrapper tries to make it testable (like Irreducible Complexity of the Mouse Trap).

    “we’re trying to figure out what creationists can do with it.”
    The same as with Häckel’s pictures, the Piltdown Man and the Nebraska Man.

  9. @mnbo
    I believe that his name is spelled “Haeckel”, with the digraph “ae”, not with the umlaut “Häckel”.

  10. > Studies based on the apparently flawed method have
    > suggested Earth’s biodiversity remained relatively stable –
    > close to maximum carrying capacity – and hinted many signs
    > of species becoming rapidly extinct are merely reflections on
    > the poor quality of the fossil record at that time.
    ———————
    I have never seen a published Phanerozoic diversity curve that shows relative stability.
    Mass extinctions are real events – their fossil signature is real and richly documented by the fossil record. This is not a matter of opinion.
    ———————
    > the history of the planet’s biodiversity may have been more
    > dynamic than recently suggested, with bursts of new species
    > appearing, along with crashes and more stable periods.
    ———————
    That’s what diversity curves have always shown. I’m confused. There’s no semi-scandal here.

  11. TomS, you’re right.

  12. michaelfugate

    Here’s another paper about stasis and evolution – sure to make the anti-evolution crowd whimper….
    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v538/n7626/full/538431b.html

  13. They’ll do the same thing they always do. Rather than doing research themselves, they skim the published papers looking for anything they can pull out as a “gotcha”. They always seem to think that if they can just punch one little hole into the scientific data they can cause the whole theory of evolution to collapse.

  14. None of the links from Ashleigh link to Coppedge.
    I do check out Coppedge’s blog sometimes. He did post recently, a rehash of the JPL trial. Yeppers! Coppy, those grapes still taste sour!

    http://davidcoppedge.com/1/post/2016/10/coppedge-vs-jpl-a-quick-summary.html

  15. “None of the links from Ashleigh link to Coppedge.”
    Most of the material at CREV is written by Coppedge:
    http://kgov.com/bel/20160122

  16. Christine Janis

    “They always seem to think that if they can just punch one little hole into the scientific data ——”

    Which, of course, they have yet to accomplish