Milankovitch Cycles

And the Age of the Earth

Sean D. Pitman, MD
© July 2006

Table of Contents
 • Introduction
• Devils Hole
• A Few More Problems
• Playing the Right Tune
• Correlation with Tree Ring Dating

Home Page

Milutin Milankovitch was a Serbian engineer and meteorologist - born in 1879 he

attended the Vienna institute of technology graduating in 1904 with a doctorate in

technical sciences. He then went on to work in the University of Belgrade where he

spent time working on a mathematical theory of climate based on the seasonal and

latitudinal variations of solar radiation received by the Earth.

Milankovitch proposed that the changes in the intensity of solar radiation received

from the Earth were effected by three fundamental factors. The first is called

eccentricity, a period of about 100,000 years in which the nearly circular orbit of the

Earth changes into a more elliptical orbit. The next factor is called obliquity, a period of

about 41,000 years where the Earth's axis tilt varies between 21.5 and 24.5 degrees.

The final factor is called precession, a period of approximately 23,000 years where the

Earth's axis wobbles like a spinning top.

 Milankovitch proposed that these regular cycles of the

Earth, as they changed the Earth's relationship to the Sun,

had an effect on the Earth's climate, driving hot and cold

cycles, to include the ice ages throughout ancient history.

The orbital calculations are thought be very accurate

back several million years. And, they are thought to match

markers of temperature variations within layered structures,

such as layered ice in Greenland and Antarctica and layered

deep sea sediments. Measurements of changes in 18O vs. 16O ratios within these layers

are thought to correlate with the Earth's climate over the course of hundreds of

thousands and even millions of years of Earth's history. (Back to Top)

 Devils Hole

For many years, Milankovitch Theory (MT) was very popular and generally still is

within the mainstream scientific community. However, fairly recently, several

fundamental challenges to the validity of MT have arisen. Perhaps one of the first

significant problems was noted by Wallace Broecker in his short paper published in a

1992 issue of Nature. Broecker wrote:

 "One of the fundamental tenets of palaeoclimate modeling, the Milankovitch theory,

is called into doubt by isotope analysis of a calcite vein, just reported in Science by

Winograd and colleagues. The theory, which is backed up by a compelling bank of

evidence, suggests that the ice ages determined, with unprecedented accuracy, in the

new record cannot be reconciled with the planetary cyclicity. . .

Winograd and colleagues' evidence also turns on oxygen isotope data, this time

from vein calcite coating the hanging wall of an extensional fault at Devils Hole, an

aquifer in southern Nevada. In 1988, the authors published a date, 145,000 years,

based on 234U-230Th dating for the end of the penultimate ice age (Termination II),

marked by an increase in the 18O to 16O ratio, a change taken to mirror an increase in

local precipitation. Although the date was only 17,000 year earlier than the previously

accepted date of 128,000 years, if correct, this change is enough to bring Milankovitch

mechanism into serious doubt. . .

I remain confused. The geochemist in me says that Devils Hole chronology is the

best we have. And the palaeoclimatologist in me says that correlation between accepted

marine chronology and Milankovitch cycles is just too convincing to be put aside. . .

One side will have to give, and maybe - just to be safe - climate modellers should

start preparing themselves for a world without Milankovitch." 1

This paper was followed by a rebuttal from Cesare Emiliani, a well known and

outspoken supporter of MT entitled, "Milankovitch theory verified". Emiliani wrote:

 "Broecher compares terminations (the transitions between glacial and interglacial

conditions) in deep-sea cores with the recently published delta18O curve from Devils

Hole, Nevada to question the validity of the Milankovitch theory. Terminations,

transitional episodes that extend through time, are poor time markers for the correlation

of Pleistocene sections. The maxima (hypsithermals) and especially the minima

(bathythermals) in the isotope curves are much sharper and thus afford a more precise

correlation. . .

Astronomical parameters recalculated by Berger show that at that time both

obliquity [41ka period] and eccentricity [100ka period] were low. If these conditions were

responsible for the last ice age, one would expect that similar conditions could be

responsible for the preceding ice ages. The table compares the times when these

conditions recurred during the past half million years with the ages from Devils Hole.

Because the two time scales are independent of each other, their close similarity

suggests a common cause which, one would suspect, is the Milankovitch mechanism.

Thus, far from invalidating Milankovitch, as maintained by Winograd et al. and by

Broecker, the Devils Hole chronology appears to provide support. Support is also

suggested by an analysis of the Devils Hole spectrum." 2

However, Emiliani's paper was soon rebutted by Landwehr et al. in a 1994 paper

entitled, "No verification for Milankovitch" where the authors accuse Emiliani of actually

biasing the data by leaving out and even adding key data points in his analysis of the

data:
 We were puzzled by the table in the Scientific Correspondence by Emiliani. He

rejects the conventionally used terminations (glacial-interglacial transitions) as time

markers and focuses on bathythermals (the coldest portions of glacial cycles), which he

deems to be sharper and therefore more precise time markers. He claims that

bathythermals in the Devils Hole delta 18O chronology occur at times when the orbital

parameters of obliquity and eccentricity are both "low", as determined from Berger's

figures, thereby supporting Milankovitch mechanism.

Unfortunately, Emiliani does not specifically define what he means by the critical

terms "low" or "when they approach coincidence", but we assume he takes "low" to

mean the times when both obliquity [41ka period] and eccentricity [100ka period] were

at a minimum, or obliquity was at a minimum and eccentricity was less than at least the

long-term (0-600,000-year) average value. We show in the figure the seven

astronomical "low" events that Emiliani gives in the third column in his table, as well as

the seven (but not identical) events that satisfy the specific definition of astronomical low

conditions using data in reference 4. We were puzzled as to why Emiliani omitted the

two-well defined "low" events at 395,000 and 517,000 years and note that they do not

correspond to bathythermals in either the Devils Hole or the marine delta 18O

chronologies. Indeed, the 395,000-year "low" event occurs during a peak interglacial

time. We also note that Emiliani's designation of a "low" event at 555,000 and 150,000

years does not fit the earlier stated definitions.

Also shown in the figure are the eight major delta 18O minima, denoting times of full

glacial climate, found in the Devils Hole chronology, and the subset of six events that

Emiliani gives in the second column in his table. He did not mention the two Devils Hole
isotope minima at 223,000 and 173,000 years, which do not correspond to any

astronomical "low" event.

In comparing the astronomical "low" events predicted by the specific definition with

the minimal isotope events found in the Devils Hole chronology, one sees that although

there are four 'matches', there are six 'non-matches', twice when a bathythermal would

be predicted but did not happen, and four times when one did occur but not during an

astronomical "low" event. Thus the astronomical conditions that Emiliani specifies is

neither sufficient nor necessary for the occurrence of bathythermals." 3

So, it seems that Emiliani manipulated the data quite extensively in order to make it

fit in with MT. Though this was most certainly done subconsciously, it highlights the

pitfalls of bias - of having a strong belief that a particular view or theory is almost

certainly "true". This does not mean that such a belief isn't good to have in many cases.

It is just that one should be aware of one's own inescapable biases when approaching

and interpreting new or even old data.

But, there are those, such as Imbrie, who argue that the Devil's Hole data is

inappropriately compared to deep-sea core data - that the two data sets should be read

independent of each other since they are most likely effected by the weather in very

different ways. However, Karner and Muller have responded to this notion with the

following comments:

"As long as Devils Hole was unique, it could have been a fluke. It is a land-based

site, and perhaps it was only recording a local climate change (although that was
unlikely, based on its strong correlation with the Vostok paleotemperature time series). It

would have been incautious to abandon the otherwise successful Milankovitch theory

based on a single data record. But now there are other records - sea level records from

opposite sides of the globe, that show the causality problem is real - and these data are

not easily dismissed."11

(Back to Top)

A Few More Problems

Despite the problems with contradictions from the Devils Hole data, MT managed

to hang on as a generally accepted theory in the mainstream science community. But,

not all were so convinced. Consider also the conclusions of Vyacheslav A. Bolshakov

from Moscow State University (August, 2005):

"Empirical data reveal considerable inconsistencies of the Milankovitch theory. The main

of them are the following:

1. The climatic cyclicity for the Brunhes chronology is primarily

governed by a 100 ka periodicity, attributed to eccentricity

variations, whose immediate impact is disregarded in the

Milankovitch theory.

2. According to empirical data, glacial events fall on eccentricity

minima, whereas under the Milankovitch theory these are

mainly coupled to eccentricity maxima. [known as the

causation problem]

3. About one million years ago, the dominant climatic

periodicity switched from 41 ka to 100 ka, which is at odds

with the Milankovitch theory, because the variation periods of

orbital elements suffered no significant changes at that time.

It seems logical, that a theory, which contradicts to empirical data, is wrong.

Consequently, the Milankovitch theory should be rejected, as was done with regard to it

50 years ago, as well as with regard to Croll's theory about 100 years ago."4
This feeling is also shared by several other prominent scientists, such as Richard Muller

from Berkeley. Muller writes:

"We have been studying the cycles of the ice ages using data collected from sea-

floor cores, Greenland ice, and other terrestrial sources. We have published a careful

spectral analysis that shows that the "standard" Milankovitch theory for the glacial

cycles is wrong, and we have proposed an alternative explanation: that the cycles are

driven by extraterrestrial accretion."5

In short, because of the many problems with MT, especially the causality problem

where the ice and deep see core data say the Earth should be warm when MT says it

should be cold, and visa versa, Muller believes that MT is simply wrong and should be

replaced by another theory. He has even come up with a ready theory to explain away

at least one of the major problems with MT - extraterrestrial accretion. Muller basically

believes that as the Earth travels around the Sun it does not always stay in the same

plane. Like a slightly wobbly record on a record player, the Earth will sometimes be

above the plane and sometimes below the plane. This happens to occur in a cyclic

pattern of about 100,000 years. Muller believes that as the Earth moves out of plane, it

picks up more cosmic dust than usual, which affects the weather of the Earth in 100,000

year cycles.

"So far, Muller and MacDonald have been unable to get their full paper, detailing

their work, published, despite their considerable credentials. It's been rejected by

Science. It's been rejected by Nature three times - the third time as recently as June -
though the editors did request, and published, a shorter version summarizing their

findings last November. Why? Muller pulls open a long file drawer, crammed with

papers. 'Here it is. Essentially everything that's been published for the last twenty years

assumes the Milankovitch model. I think it's very hard for people in this field, and all the

referees to whom our paper has been submitted are working in this field, to accept our

paper. They'd have to say that most of their own work for the past twenty years is

fundamentally flawed.'" 6

Isn't that interesting? Milankovitch theory is so engrained in the scientific

community that even an otherwise well-respected mainstream scientists seems to be

having trouble getting anything significant published that fundamentally challenges

Milankovitch.

However, some have managed to publish certain problems with MT. Consider the

following discussion by Raymo et. al., concerning the "41kyr Problem":

"While many investigators have attempted to model the 100 kyr world, few have

focused their attention on the 41 kyr world. A notable exception is Andre Berger and

colleagues who used a two-dimensional ice sheet-climate model to try to simulate the

growth and decay of ice sheets over the last 3 million years [e.g., Berger et al., 1999].

While the obliquity period [41ka] is present in the model output, precessional variance

[21ka] in ice sheet mass is also strongly present. In other words, although they

successfully model the lack of the 100 kyr eccentricity cycle, they were not able to

model an ice sheet that varies only at the obliquity frequency. This appears to be

because the model is ultimately very sensitive to high-latitude summer insolation.

 Secondly, a discussion of the 41 kyr problem can be found in Richard Muller and

Gordon MacDonald's book "Ice Ages and Astronomical Causes" [Muller and

MacDonald, 2000]. Following Kukla [1968], they propose that northern latitude winter

insolation (e.g., January 65_N) may drive late Pliocene/early Pleistocene climate cycles,

even though the total insolation received in January is a factor of 20 less than summer

insolation at the same latitude. However, they go on to say this proposition is

speculative and that the geologic record is posing a problem that needs to be solved." 7

So, the 41ka cycle isn't without its own significant problems - and this is well

recognized. This only adds to the problems with the 100ka cycle and the 400ka cycle -

none of which really fit MT. Perhaps Vyacheslav Bolshakov isn't off his rocker after all? -

when he notes, along with Muller and others, that causality problems are a significant

issue? How can MT be valid when empirical data is interpreted to indicate glacial events

to fall on eccentricity minima whereas MT claims they should fall on eccentricity

maxima? Isn't that a rather fundamental problem all by itself? How are such problems,

combined with dramatically discrepancies between predictions based on U/Pb dating

vs. MT, as demonstrated by Hinnov et al. overcome without a multitude of ad hoc Band

Aids? Hinnov writes:

"Two principal techniques for high resolution dating of the stratigraphic record,

namely, U-Pb dating of single zircons in volcaniclastic interbeds and statistical analysis

of orbitally forced sediments, were recently applied to the Anisian-Ladinian Latemar

Limestone of northern Italy, a succession of more than 500 meter scale platform cycles,
each of which records a low amplitude sealevel oscillation. Unfortunately, the results of

the two techniques are in serious conflict. Evidence for strong Milankovitch forcing of

the cyclic succession indicates a depositional duration for the Latemar Limestone of 10-

12 million years, whereas U/Pb-dated zircons from volcaniclastics in coeval basinal

Buchenstein beds indicate only 2-4 million years. This conflict has led to a scientific

impasse: either the approach used to determine a Milankovitch origin for the cycles is

wrong, or the interpretation of the results from the zircon dating is wrong, or both are

wrong."8

(Back to Top)

Playing The "Right" Tune

There is yet another potential problem known as "tuning". Since deposition of

sediments in the bottoms of the ocean and snow in the polar regions is not uniform, the

patterns produced by the oxygen isotope ratios has to be "tuned" in order to match up

the isotope pattern with the pattern of the Milankovitch cycles. "The time scale of the

data [for 21ka and 41ka cycles] was tuned by adjusting the sedimentation rate to match

the expected orbital cycles".1 In other words, the 41ka obliquity cycle is supposed to be

linked to the same cycle in ocean cores, which is "tuned" to match the expected orbital

cycle. Doesn't that sound just a bit like circular reasoning? If a pattern is tuned to match

another pattern, of what independent value is the data behind the tuned pattern?
 In a very interesting paper, Peter Huybers, of Harvard University, reports on some

experiments he has carried out with the practice of tuning as it relates to Milankovitch

theory.

"White noise can be tuned to a ratio of 41:23 in such a way that multiple spectral

peaks can be generated with high coherencies as well as precession-like amplitude

modulated bands were none previously existed. . .

To demonstrate that tuning probably over-estimates the variance attributable to

Milankovitch forcing, I tune white-noise to the orbital parameters. I show that tuning can

routinely generate multiple spectral peaks, high coherencies, and precession-like

amplitude modulated bands where none previously existed. This indicates that tuning

assumes an unverifiable relationship between astronomical forcing and the delta-18O

climate proxy and calls into question the accuracy of tuned chronologies. Finally, by

tuning the Devils Hole record, I attempt to highlight how tuning can bias our

interpretation of climate change toward the Milankovitch hypothesis. . .

It is possible that climate does linearly respond to Milankovitch forcing, but this

should be recognized as a largely unsupported assumption. As it stands, tuning adopts

a complicated relationship between time and depth to account for its assumption of a

phase locked relationship between the orbital parameters and the respective delta 18O

frequency bands. This time depth relationship is seen to significantly change the

spectral and temporal nature of a record. In the aggregate case of DSPD607, ODP677,

ODP849, and ODP980 it doubles the variance concentrated at Milankovitch

frequencies. In light of Devils Hole, tuning enforces a potentially false causal

relationship between deglaciations and insolation at 65o North. Because the large

assumptions inherent in tuning are often not accounted for, the interpretation of tuned

deep sea sediment records is generally biased toward the Milankovitch hypothesis."8
 In other words, The original signals found in the deep-sea cores are not used to

make these graphs that one sees in published papers. These graphs are polished quite

a bit beforehand. And, they are polished or "tuned" in a biased way so that they will

match the timing of the Earth's precession (23ka) and obliquity (41ka) phases. For

instance, if the known ratio of these phases had been different, like 50:25, this ratio

would be the one used to "tune" the signals and this ratio would therefore be the one
seen in these papers. Sounds preposterous! - doesn't it? But, this is exactly what is

going on in many "scientific" papers.

Consider the following report of a conference in which the whole concept of tuning

was attacked by Richard Muller.

"Muller scored the most points at the meeting when he attacked a standard

technique, called tuning, that oceanographers use for dating layers in sediment cores.

The task of dating these strata is difficult because sediments may accumulate more

quickly during some eras and more slowly in others. To tell the age of layers between

known benchmarks, researchers often use the Milankovitch orbital cycles to tune the

sediment record: They assume that ice volume should vary with the orbital cycles, then

line up the wiggles in the sediment record with ups and downs in the astronomical

record.

"This whole tuning procedure, which is used extensively, has elements of circular

reasoning in it," says Muller. He argues that tuning can artificially make the sediment

record support the Milankovitch theory.

Muller's criticisms hit home with many researchers. "He scared the hell out of them,

and they deserved it," says Broecker."10

(Back to Top)

Correlation with Dendrochronology?

 The fact of the matter is that matching patterns like this is quite subjective - even

given various statistical techniques that are

supposed to help. The problem of auto-correlation, as noted by D.K. Yamaguchi, seems

to be a problem here just as it is with tree ring dating (i.e., dendrochronology).

In this paper Yamaguchi recognized that tree rings tend to "auto correlate" or

actually cross-match with each other in several places within a "master" tree-ring

sequence. What he did to prove this was quite interesting. He took a 290-ring Douglas-

fir log known, by historical methods, to date between AD 1482 and 1668 and
demonstrated that it could cross-match in multiple places with the Pacific Northwest

Douglas Fir Master Growth-ring Sequence to give very good t-values. A t-value is given

to a wiggle-match on the basis of a statistical analysis of the correspondence between

two wood samples. This statistical assessment is done by computer which assigns high

t-values (3 and above) to good wiggle-matches and low t-values (below 3) to those with

poor correspondence between the ring patterns. Amazingly, using such t-value

analysis, Yamaguchi found 113 different matches having a confidence level of greater

than 99.9%. For example, Yamaguchi demonstrated that his log could cross-match with

different master tree-ring sequences to give t-values of around 5 at AD 1504 (for the low

end of the ring age), 7 at AD 1647 and 4.5 at AD 1763. Six of these matches were non-

overlapping.11 That means that this particular piece of wood could be dated to be any

one of those six vastly different ages to within a 99.9% degree of confidence. This

finding calls into serious question the accuracy of building master tree-ring sequences

that go back over many thousands of years.12

In this light, it is interesting to note that a number of the crucial dendrochronology

sequences, such as the Garry Bog 2 (GB2) and Southwark sequences, which connect

the Belfast absolute chronology (i.e. the AD sequence) to the 'floating' Belfast long

chronology (i.e. the BC sequence), and ultimately used to re-date the South German

chronology, have t-values of around 4. These t-values are considerably lower than those

obtained for some of the historically incorrect dates produced by Yamaguchi's

experiment. Thus, one would be justified in asking if the crucial cross-links which

connect up the floating sequences of the Belfast and German chronologies are based

on incorrect wiggle-matches - resulting from the phenomenon of auto-correlation. As

noted by several, such as Lasken, this problem prompts a second very basic question.

That is, should one expect tree-ring-growth patterns to produce genuine

correspondences at the same historical dates when the climates (and in particular the

micro-climates) of Ireland, England and Germany are so different? Clearly,

dendrochronology, although possibly helpful for the dating of certain relative events, is

not anywhere near an exact science.13

The work of Douglas Keenan is also quite interesting in this regard. "There is

currently only one (substantial) master dendrochronology from anywhere in the Ancient

Near East. Hence this master dendrochronology has great importance. This master is

from Anatolia. "Anatolia" is a geographical term, roughly designating modern Turkey. A

master dendrochronology for Gordion (39.7 °N, 32.0 °E), in central Anatolia, was first

developed in the 1970s. This master dendrochronology, however, does not extend

continuously from the present to the past. The master has been anchored in time-i.e.

dated-largely via radiocarbon (originally, the master was dated via archaeo-history). In

what follows, much of the work that has been done in Anatolian tree-ring matching is

reviewed. The conclusions are disturbing, and have implications for tree ring studies

generally." 14,15
 Turkish dendrochronology is quite

interesting and relevant to this

discussion and the understanding of

the science of dendrochronology as a

whole. One especially interesting

example has to do with the work of

Kuniholm and his dating of wood from

the city gateway at Tille Höyük - an

ancient city. What happened was that

the t-value wiggle-match produced by

computer analysis came up with not

one, but three matches of 1258, 1140,

and 981 B.C. - each with a greater than

99.9% certainty. 14,15,16

Consider that perhaps desire plays more of a part than actual detached science

when it comes to dendrochronology. In this light, note that dendrochronologists working

in Hohenheim, Germany, were proven wrong three times in the mid 1990s, each time

after very strong assertions of reliability. 14

As with dendrochronology master sequences going back beyond a few thousand

years, all kinds of ad hoc hypotheses are required to support MT so that it doesn't

collapse completely. The use of many such ad hoc fixes is usually a good sign that the

theory really isn't that solid after all. (Back to Top)

References:

1. Wallace S. Broecker, Upset for Milankovitch theory, Nature 359, October 29,
1992
2. Cesare Emiliani, Milankovitch theory verified, Nature 364, August 1993
3. J.M. Landwehr, Isaac J. Winograd and T.B. Coplen, "No verification of
Milankovitch", Nature 368, April 14, 1994: 594
4. Vyacheslav A. Bolshakov, The problems of the orbital theory of paleoclimate: new
way for their solution.119899, Moscow State University, Geographical faculty,
Moscow, Russia The poster presentation at the Second Open Science Meeting:
Paleoclimate, Environmental Sustainability and our Future. August 2005.
(http://www.pages-igbp.org/products/osmabstracts/Bol'shakov.pdf)
5. Richard A. Muller and Gordon J. MacDonald, Specturm of 100-kyr glacial cycle:
Orbital inclination, not eccentricity, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., Vol. 94, pp. 8329-8334,
August 1997
6. Richard A. Muller, An Astrophysics Experiment
(http://physics.berkeley.edu/research/faculty/Muller.html)
7. Maureen Raymo, The 41kyr World: Milankovitch's other unsolved mystery,
Paleoceanography 18, No. 1, 2003
http://www.deas.harvard.edu/climate/pdf/raymo-2003.pdf
8. Linda A. Hinnov, Nereo Preto, Lawrence A. Hardie, Johns Hopkins University,
Baltimore, MD, University of Padua, Padua, Italy, "Triassic Geochronology
Controversy: Milankovitch Versus Zircon Radioisotope Time Calibration of the
Latemar Platform Cycles", AAPG Annual Convention, May 11-14, 2003, Salt
Lake City , Utah
(http://www.searchanddiscovery.com/documents/abstracts/annual2003/shor...)
9. Peter Huybers, Milankovitch and Tuning, Harvard University, 2001
(http://www.mit.edu/~phuybers/General/)
10. Richard Monastersky, "The Big Chill - Does dust drive Earth's ice ages?",
Science News, vol 152, October 4, 1997, pages 220-221.
(http://www.muller.lbl.gov/pages/news%20reports/ScienceNews.htm)
11. Daniel B. Karner and Richard A. Muller, "A Causality Problem for Milankovitch"
(http://www.muller.lbl.gov/papers/Causality.pdf)
12. Yamaguchi DK.1986. Interpretation of cross correlation between tree-ring series.
Tree-Ring Bulletin 46:47-54.
13. Allen Roy, C14-Dendrochronology ( a...@infomagic.com ) Sun, 2 May 1999
21:09:50 -0700 (http://www.asa3.org/archive/asa/199905/0017.html)
14. Douglas J. Keenan, Anatolian tree-ring studies are untrustworthy, The Limehouse
Cut, London E14 6N, United Kingdom, 16 March 2004
(http://www.informath.org/ATSU04a.pdf)
 15. Douglas J. Keenan, Why Radiocarbon Dates Downwind from the Mediterranean
are too Early, Radiocarbon, Vol 44, Nr 1, 2002, p 225-237
(http://www.informath.org/14C02a.pdf)
16. Kuniholm, P. -- 1993: Appendix in G. Summers: Tille Huyuk 4, pp. 179-90

. Home Page . Truth, the Scientific

Method, and Evolution

. Methinks it is Like a Weasel . The Cat and the Hat -

The Evolution of Code

. Maquiziliducks - The Language of Evolution . Defining Evolution

. The God of the Gaps . Rube Goldberg

Machines

. Evolving the Irreducible . Gregor Mendel

. Natural Selection . Computer Evolution

. The Chicken or the Egg . Antibiotic

Resistance
. The Immune System . Pseudogenes

. Genetic Phylogeny . Fossils and DNA

. DNA Mutation Rates . Donkeys, Horses,

Mules and Evolution

. The Fossil Record . The Geologic

Column

. Early Man . The Human Eye

. Carbon 14 and Tree Ring Dating . Radiometric Dating

. Amino Acid Racemization Dating . The Steppingstone

Problem

. Quotes from Scientists . Ancient Ice

. Meaningful Information . The Flagellum

. Harlen Bretz . Milankovitch

Search this site or the web powered by FreeFind

Site search Web search

Since June 1, 2002

Debates:

Stacking the Deck

God of the Gaps

The Density of Beneficial Functions

All Functions are Irreducibly Complex

Ladder of Complexity

Chaos and Complexity

Confusing Chaos with Complexity

Evolving Bacteria

Irreducible Complexity

Scientific Theory of Intelligent Design

A Circle Within a Circle

Crop Circles
 Mindless vs. Mindful

Single Protein Functions

BCR/ABL Chimeric Protein

Function Flexibility

The Limits of Functional Flexibility

Functions based on Deregulation

Neandertal DNA

Human/Chimp phylogenies

Geology

The Geologic Column

Fish Fossils

Matters of Faith

Evidence of Things Unseen

The Two Impossible Options

Links to Design, Creation, and Evolution Websites

Since June 1, 2002