'Evolution: A Developmental Approach'

Jan 27, 2011

What separates humans from Chimpanzees? Is it the genetics of our population, or our different structures and behavior capabilities? To Professor Wallace Arthur it is all of these points, which is why his latest book Evolution: A Developmental Approach sits between the traditional population approach to evolutionary theory and the molecular approach to provide a complete view on the evolutionary development of our world.

"There are many evolution texts 'out there', but there are none that cover the ground in the same way as this one," said Arthur. "This book adopts a very specific approach to the evolution of animals and plants – an approach in which the central theme is how evolution works by altering the course of egg-to-adult development"

Evolution: A Developmental Approach tackles key themes such as developmental repatterning, adaptation and coadaptation, the origins of evolutionary novelties, and evolutionary changes in the complexity of organisms.

Together these themes explain how evolution works by changing the course of embryonic and post-embryonic development, proving a title influenced by the new approach of evolutionary developmental biology, 'evo-devo'.

A key difference between Evolution: A Developmental Approach and other evolution textbooks is the inclusion of basic population-based evolutionary concepts, as well as comparative developmental genetics and other elements.

Organised on conceptual lines, with the themed chapters and case study examples, the book enables students to see the common themes underlying the evolution of different developmental pathways.

"This is a book about how evo-devo can be integrated with other approaches to evolutionary biology, concluded Arthur, "giving us a more complete view of then has ever been available before."

Explore further: Evolution of snake courtship and combat behavior

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

A genetic trigger for the Cambrian explosion unraveled?

Aug 31, 2007

A team of scientists led by young Croatian evolutionary geneticist Tomislav Domazet-Lošo from Ruder Boškovic Institute (RBI) in Zagreb, Croatia, developed a novel methodological approach in evolutionary studies. Using the ...

Predators and parasites may increase evolutionary stability

Oct 26, 2007

A new study explores the role of natural enemies, such as predators and parasites, for mixed mating, a reproductive strategy in which hermaphroditic plants and animals reproduce through both self- and cross-fertilization. ...

Book: Evolution, religion are compatible

Jan 05, 2008

The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has published a new book arguing that acceptance of the theory of evolution does not require giving up a belief in God.

Recommended for you

World's first microbe 'zoo' opens in Amsterdam

1 hour ago

The world's first "interactive microbe zoo" opened in Amsterdam on Tuesday, shining new light on the tiny creatures that make up two-thirds of all living matter and are vital for our planet's future.

Study shows how chimpanzees share skills

3 hours ago

Evidence of new behaviour being adopted and transmitted socially from one individual to another within a wild chimpanzee community is publishing on September 30 in the open access journal PLOS Biology. This i ...

User comments : 47

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

breadhead
1 / 5 (7) Jan 27, 2011
Evolution needed a new twist, and here it is folks. So will it use examples of variation within a kind, to stretch the imagination into somehow thinking, that given million of years, that a fin becomes a leg, or a wing? Or, a one cell organism forms together into some new creature by random chance, and runs off into the woods? What did the first evolved organism eat? How did it evolve to reproduce? Did a male and female have to evolve at the same place, at the same time? How did they know they should get married and have offspring?
If life so easily can come from nothing why can't scientists create it from nothing in the lab? Oh, but that would require intelligence, would't it?
Terrible_Bohr
5 / 5 (8) Jan 27, 2011
Evolution needed a new twist, and here it is folks.

Read the article. This textbook is not in anyway presenting a "new twist" of any kind.
So will it use examples of variation within a kind, to stretch the imagination into somehow thinking, that given million of years, that a fin becomes a leg, or a wing? Or, a one cell organism forms together into some new creature by random chance, and runs off into the woods?
I know that thinking in terms of millions is hard. But it doesn't make it correct to insist the world is only thousands of years old.
Terrible_Bohr
5 / 5 (7) Jan 27, 2011
What did the first evolved organism eat? How did it evolve to reproduce?
No one knows for certain. How many angels can you fit on the head of a pin?
Did a male and female have to evolve at the same place, at the same time?
Hermaphroditic reproduction happens on earth, right now.
How did they know they should get married and have offspring?
All living creatures seem to have no problem making reproduction a priority. I don't see why this question is so baffling to you; perhaps because you're told that those 'naughty thoughts' about girls are a sin? Anyway, nobody should get married.

If life so easily can come from nothing why can't scientists create it from nothing in the lab? Oh, but that would require intelligence, would't it?
They are pretty close to doing it now. So you're saying that when they do, men will become gods? Your guy in the sky will get jealous with those ideas!
breadhead
1 / 5 (6) Jan 29, 2011
TB, can I call you terrible? You appear to assume that since life exists today, that evolution and the processes that began life obviously happened.
Therefore you feel you do not have to explain it.
Your logical fallacies do not defend your point of view. Men do not become gods, except that those who believe in evolution believe that miraculous "natural" processes turned elements into organic life.
Terrible_Bohr
5 / 5 (8) Jan 29, 2011
Ah, the old "you can't explain every detail" approach! Does it make your standpoint weak then, that your bible-beating makes no testable predictions whatsoever?

To say there is no evolution is to ignore the entire fossil record, for one thing. That has to be worth something. That alone is more than anything a creationist standpoint has to offer as evidence.

You simply try to obfuscate things because you have no real counter argument to the scientific method. Evolution has only been further varified since it was first proposed; it may not have the whole story right now, but it's certainly more compelling than your story. If some other falsifiable theory comes to light, I'll consider it alongside evolution. But I'm not buying the storybook solution.
Terrible_Bohr
5 / 5 (6) Jan 29, 2011
http: [delete this] //www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0015364

Here is an article detailing how science is making progress towards building life from a lab. It sure looks like we're closing in on god's domain.
breadhead
1 / 5 (7) Jan 30, 2011
If they were to create life, would that not prove it takes intelligence to do it? Anyhow, the probabilities of it occurring outside of a petri dish is quite improbable. They should try to create some new life-form instead of being copy-cats.
FloydPinkerton
5 / 5 (2) Jan 31, 2011
If they were to create life, would that not prove it takes intelligence to do it? Anyhow, the probabilities of it occurring outside of a petri dish is quite improbable. They should try to create some new life-form instead of being copy-cats.


No, it would not prove it takes intelligence to do it. Life outside a petri dish? Go outside and look under a rock.

No one copied life created in a lab by J. Craig Ventor:

csmonitor.com/Science/2010/0521/J.-Craig-Venter-Institute-creates-first-synthetic-life-form
Ethelred
5 / 5 (4) Jan 31, 2011
Evolution needed a new twist, and here it is folks.
False. This is NOT new. It is just a new TEXT that covers things that should have been in texts a decade ago.
to stretch the imagination into somehow thinking, that given million of years, that a fin becomes a leg, or a wing?
How about a squirrel becoming a bat via a Flying Squirrel. Much like a group of primates became bats. Fruit bats are NOT related to the other bats. They are descended from primates and that is changing kind even by your narrow definition. Flying squirrels are about the most blatant case of a not-so-missing link that exists.
Or, a one cell organism forms together into some new creature by random chance, and runs off into the woods?
Why? That is magic not evolution. Evolution is NOT random. Mutation is random but Selection is by the environment.

More
Ethelred
5 / 5 (4) Jan 31, 2011
What did the first evolved organism eat?
Raw organic materials. Same stuff it came from. It was not likely an organism. Just a self or co reproducing molecule. My bet is a pair of molecules that could copy each other.
How did it evolve to reproduce?
It just copied itself. Its been done in labs with special conditions without living molecules.
Did a male and female have to evolve at the same place, at the same time?
No. Sexual specialization came after sexual reproduction. This can be seen in MANY organism that are hermaphroditic. There is a species of flatworm that attack each other to decide who is carries the eggs. Can't call it rape since they are both trying to inseminate the other.
How did they know they should get married and have offspring?
I am pretty sure that flatworms didn't have marriage. Kind of hard with mutual rape. I can just see the parents getting together. To eat the offspring.

More
Ethelred
5 / 5 (5) Jan 31, 2011
If life so easily can come from nothing why can't scientists create it from nothing in the lab?
Working on it.
Oh, but that would require intelligence, would't it?
Only to make the lab and the conditions. The chemicals wouldn't need any. Just like when life started. No intelligence needed in the chemical interactions. No intelligence needed in most reproduction. In humans it seems to get in the way.

Oh how about I ask you what I ask Kevin? We answered your questions, lets see if you can answer ours, instead of running away like Kevin always does.

When was the Flood? If you don't the usual date of around 4400BC how do you justify it. If you DO use the Biblically justifiable date then what happened to the Egyptians when the flood killed them all in the middle of the pyramid building era? How come they used the same language afterwards? Why didn't they notice being drowned?

Ethelred
breadhead
1 / 5 (5) Jan 31, 2011
Have you ever seen the mathmatical figures for the probability of chance chemicals forming life? Try ttp://creation.com/answering-another-uninformed-atheist-galileo-miller-urey-probability
Your hypothesis for the conditions for life to begin is extremely wishfull thinking on your part.
Have you heard the concept of irreducable complexity?
ttp://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j17_2/j17_2_56-59.pdf

As for the flood and Egypt, I don't see your chronology. The Egyptians are Noah's offspring. ttp://creation.com/the-pyramids-of-ancient-egypt
Ethelred
5 / 5 (5) Feb 01, 2011
Have you ever seen the mathmatical figures for the probability of chance chemicals forming life?
Yes. I am not impressed by numbers pulled out the ass of a Creationist that were chosen to make things impossible. There is no reason except that to claim the earliest self-copying molecules had to be 100s units long.
Nice to see that you have your priorities right—emphasising your faith above your science!
Typical lie. Atheism is NOT a religion.
Of course; trashy theories deserve to be trashed,
I agree. Creationism is so trashy that Creationist just steel Realists lines and misuse them.
However, in others there is hardly any leeway, e.g. the histones that act as spools around which DNA wraps in chromosomes, ubiquitin which is ubiquitous in organisms apart from bacteria and essential for marking unwanted proteins for destruction,
Which all came after life started and are NOT random results. They are due to the process of selection which is NOT random.

More
Ethelred
5 / 5 (5) Feb 01, 2011
the ubiquitous calcium-binding protein which has almost all of its 140–150 amino acids ‘conserved’ (the same in all organisms).
And another molecule that evolved AFTER life go started. So it too was shaped by Selection and is not from a single random event.
Even evolutionary writers implicitly concede that some sequences are essential, but they call them ‘conserved’
Yes. NOW. At one time the were not essential. Once they evolved the became essential. By his standards Cars could not exist because fuel injectors are essential NOW. The first carburetor was a tank with air bubbling through it. When you are the first you don't have to be perfect.

Like Behe he doesn't understand what he is talking about. I do.
387 proteins for the simplest possible life
A number pulled out of the Asses ass. Self reproducing molecules have been made with far less units. Less than ten.

More
Ethelred
5 / 5 (4) Feb 01, 2011
This is one chance in one followed by over 5000 zeroes. So it would be harder than guessing a correct 5000-digit PIN on the first go!
And all of that is from AFTER life got started. He just made all that up. After all neither he nor I know the details so how can he pick out a number like 387 and claim it HAD TO BE. By making up shit and hoping YOU would eat it. I sure won't as I know its crap.

This is a huge number, but compared with the tiny chance of obtaining the right sequence, it is absurdly small: only 10–4925.
Or we could use REAL numbers and find it more like 10-10 per year per mile of beach front.

Numbers based on present day life are purest bullshit. You could grow a forest with that much bovine feces.

How about you invite that liar to come here and take me on?

More
Ethelred
5 / 5 (4) Feb 01, 2011
Your hypothesis for the conditions for life to begin is extremely wishfull thinking on your part
Nonsense. It is based on the best information available. As opposed to making up shit based on what you don't understand in the first place.
Have you heard the concept of irreducable complexity
Have you seen me take it apart in thread after thread? Dr. Behe got his ass whipped at the Dover Trial. He simply had not done any research into how things might have evolved. He just baldly claimed that they could not.

For instance the clotting cascade he made so much of he just plain had no concept of how it MUST have evolved. It did NOT have to show up all at once. For one thing blood doesn't have to clot if you don't have much of it and are a thin organism as was the case for early animals. They got oxygen through diffusion. Insects still do. Thus the first animals with chemical oxygen transport didn't need sophistication to have an advantage over species without O2 transport.

More
Ethelred
5 / 5 (4) Feb 01, 2011
As for the flood and Egypt, I don't see your chronology.
I used Christian chronology and standard time-lines for Egypt.
The Egyptians are Noah's offspring.
No. The Egyptians have been around for a long time. Longer than the Bible allows.
They say the pyramids were built long before Noah’s Flood,
I don't. They were being built before AND after the Flood that never happened.
Otherwise, the pyramids would be buried under lots of sediment.
No. The Egyptian would have been drowned. Sediment from that alleged flood is nonexistent in any case.
Manetho, an Egyptian priest, left a list of kings and dynasties with their length of reigns, and although inscriptions on tombs and temples give chronological information, the issue is how to interpret this information.
There is C14 testing as well. For instance C14 testing has been done at Jericho which was NEVER under water and the testing showed it be at least 6000 years old.

More
Ethelred
5 / 5 (4) Feb 01, 2011
And modern scholars have developed a long chronology consistent with the idea that humans have evolved over millions of years.
Which ALL the evidence supports.
If the first human societies evolved from primitive hunter-gatherers, how could ancient artisans have built such amazing structures?
Hard work. Similar to the Romans only with more people and less machines and we KNOW how the Romans moved big blocks.
If they began without technology or social organization, why do these incredible feats of engineering burst upon the ancient world?
Because the didn't do that. Silly question. They really don't know ANYTHING as knowing something would make them change their minds.
Some have even wondered if the technology was supplied by aliens.
And some people are even sillier and believe in a Flood with no evidence.

More
Ethelred
5 / 5 (4) Feb 01, 2011
According to the Bible, the first settlers of Egypt migrated from the Euphrates River, the site of the Tower of Babel, where the languages were confused after the Flood
Actually the Bible doesn't say that. He is making a wild assed guess. Based on the silly story.
The modern chronology of Egypt is far too long because dynasties have been placed sequentially, whereas they were, to a greater or lesser extent, contemporary.
Lesser. And that was VERY BAD English. SOME dynasties ran in parallel. For maybe 300 years. Thats it. I take that into account. ONE person only has put this theory forward but it does seem possible. Again it is only a 300 year change. Moves Exodus from 1200BC to 1500 BC for instance. Which I first saw proposed by Jerry Pournelle a LONG time ago. He thought the Thera eruption could have fit the time of Exodus. Still doesn't fix the Flood killing all the Egyptians in the middle of building the pyramids as they were building them for more than 300 years.

More
Ethelred
5 / 5 (4) Feb 01, 2011
And I already took it into account. You see I know more than that ignoramus about his bullshit than he does. He doesn't want the truth and I do.
Also, some dynasties may not have existed at all.
That is throwing cow patties and hoping they stick. They slid off.
It seems the first settlers of Egypt were descended from Mizraim, the son of Ham
Nice job of making stuff up that doesn't fit the time frame. The Egyptians were writing 5000 years ago and the flood was 4400 at the earliest unless you play games with the Bible as well.

Keep in mind that the Bible dates are also changed if you change the Egyptian timeline. Move the Egyptians forward and the Bible timeline has to come forward as well. All the time-lines in the Middle East for the Bronze Age, Israel included, are based on the Egyptian times.

More
Ethelred
5 / 5 (3) Feb 01, 2011
kings were buried in chambers underneath mud-brick edifices, called mastabas. However, in the third dynasty, King Zoser had a vizier (chief minister) called Imhotep, who used rough blocks of stone, instead of bricks, to build the king’s mastaba.
Yep. So he knows that it wasn't an overnight change. Why did push that bull?
Most archaeologists dismiss this statement on the grounds that all the pyramid building had ended before the Israelites arrived in Egypt.
There is also the matter of evidence that both professionals and common Egyptians worked on the pyramids. They used labor instead of monetary taxes. The Egyptians could only work on their land part of the year.

I notice that he carefully evaded giving a time for the Flood. The time was 4400 at the earliest according to Creationist research. Of course that time is based on the Egyptian timeline and if you move the Egyptians forward 300 yeas as that article AND I do then the Flood moves forward 300 years.

More
Ethelred
5 / 5 (3) Feb 01, 2011
Even if you don't move it it STILL is when the Egyptians were literate and building the first pyramids or at least the mastabas. Long after Narmer.
he pyramid builders were not people who had evolved from animals over millions of years.
Pulled that one out of nowhere. The evidence didn't go away because he tossed a bovine bolide at the barn.

Which would have involved hundreds of years with all humans living in that one spot. No evidence supports that.
15,000-ton ocean-going Ark (Genesis 6–8).
Genesis does NOT give the weight, just the length, width and depth. All of which adds up to a ship that can't be made out of wood and is still too small.

More
Ethelred
5 / 5 (5) Feb 01, 2011
Sure is funny how he completely evaded giving dates for the flood based on the Bible. Or actual physical evidence that should be EVERYWHERE. As in right outside your door. Mine too. There isn't any evidence that Anaheim was under miles of water 4400 years ago. The Indians in South America would have notice be wiped out. Same for all the other people that didn't drown. Which includes Jericho.

Now how about you answer the question instead posting stuff I already know about.

When was the Flood according to the Bible?

Ethelred
PaulieMac
5 / 5 (6) Feb 01, 2011
Another in a long list of unanswered Flood questions is that of the native people of Australia, who have an uninterrupted history on the continent going back 40,000 years at least...
breadhead
1 / 5 (4) Feb 05, 2011
There you go, can't even discuss a subject without you guys getting all hot headed cursing and swearing. You have offered no proofs for your faith that can't be countered.
breadhead
1 / 5 (2) Feb 05, 2011
Since bible text has yet to be proven wrong on any topic, there is no basis to discount it based on your evolutionary nonsense. I have no reason to make up my own dates for when the flood occurred, since the ones we have are reasonable.
You apparently only accept dates that fit with what you think it should be. Why do hundreds of world cultures have flood legends?
How do you know that man's interpretation of Egyptian artifacts and their dating is correct? There are many assumptions made with dating methods used. Did the Aborigines people evolve separately from everyone else?
The so-called "Fossil record" wouldn't exist worldwide without the flood.
Why don't you approach the evidence with an open mind, instead of having your mind made up before hand. I used to believe in evolution, but it has too many dead ends, assumptions, and circular reasoning.
Ethelred
5 / 5 (2) Feb 06, 2011
You have offered no proofs for your faith that can't be countered.
Let us know when you do that. Neither you nor anyone else has ever disproved a faith that doesn't exist.Now if you meant the evidence for the and the theory of evolution that is another matter but the result is still the same. No one have countered it. Not you or anyone else.
Since bible text has yet to be proven wrong on any topic,
The world is PROVED to be around 4.5 Billion years old. That is proof. The order of creation in Genesis ONE is wrong and the contradictory order in Genesis, even though different from one, is ALSO wrong. There is NO evidence for a world wide flood, not geological, cultural, historical or genetic. But there should be so that is proof the the Bible is wrong.

More
Ethelred
5 / 5 (2) Feb 06, 2011
I have no reason to make up my own dates for when the flood occurred, since the ones we have are reasonable.
What date? Go ahead so courage and give the date that you think is the correct one. I have seen many. Only a few actually fit the Bible and NONE fit the real world.
You apparently only accept dates that fit with what you think it should be.
What date? I am waiting for you to post one. ONE, not dozens as the Bible is supposed to be clear on this, a range of a 1 to 3 hundred years would be OK. The link you posted gave NO date for the flood. I pointed that out. He evaded an actual Biblically justified date. He didn't even give an date at all. He just claimed the pyramids were built a little more recently then some others claim AND I said I didn't have a problem with 300 years of difference.

I repeat the link you posted gave NO DATE FOR THE FLOOD. Claiming the date is correct without actually giving one is a evasion of the rankest sort.

More
Ethelred
5 / 5 (2) Feb 06, 2011
Why do hundreds of world cultures have flood legends?
It rains in all the lands. They have hundred year floods oohhh pretty much once or twice every 1 to 2 hundred years and thousand years floods, hmm, I guess that would be around once per thousand years on average. Few claim a world wide flood and almost all of those got it from Christians. Where is the PHYSICAL evidence for a world wide flood? Not nonsense about people copying the Christian flood as can be seen in the TWO Greek flood stories. The Older one is very Greek in nature and the one that seems a lot like the Christian one is taken from the Jews MUCH later.
How do you know that man's interpretation of Egyptian artifacts and their dating is correct?
I don't. I know that when he quit trying to muddy up the scene he settled down to dates I had heard already and found moderately plausible but not fully convincing. They are NOT his. I saw it on some documentary and then read up on it. Years ago.

More
Ethelred
5 / 5 (2) Feb 06, 2011
There are many assumptions made with dating methods used.
Yes I know I read his source. The main disagreement with the mainstream view is some sets sacrificial cows. The originator of the theory thought some of the sets ran concurrently instead of in series. He might be right and he might be wrong. Either way the Bible dating is based on the Egyptian dating and if thing move forward 300 years in the Egyptian line that is does the same in the Biblical line. And vice versa. Thus the Biblical timeline vs the Egyptian timeline remains the same in relation to each other. Still even if it did not it is only 300 years and he still did not give a date for the Flood.
Did the Aborigines people evolve separately from everyone else?
No. We are one species. Which Aborigines if you want to get specific about it? If you are talking about the Australians then they seem to have been MOSTLY separated for as much as 30,000 years.

More
Ethelred
5 / 5 (2) Feb 06, 2011
The so-called "Fossil record" wouldn't exist worldwide without the flood.
Oh that is utter rubbish. The fossils have been laid down over hundreds of millions of years and more.
Why don't you approach the evidence with an open mind
I did. You are the one that is refusing to do so. The evidence is clear on this. The world is old and there was no flood AND you still refuse to give a date for the nonexistent flood.
I used to believe in evolution,
Most likely you were just ticking off your parents. It isn't a matter of belief. It is a matter of understanding reality. If you went on belief you did not know anything. I am NOT going on belief.
but it has too many dead ends,
Haven't seen any. Seen Creationists lie about it but that is not the same thing. OHH there are BIOLOGICAL dead ends. The dinosaurs for instance. They died out 65 MILLION years before the Flood That You Won't Date. But no logical dead ends.

More
Ethelred
5 / 5 (2) Feb 06, 2011
assumptions, and circular reasoning.
No circular reasoning. That is a LIE that Creationists started making when they finally noticed that THEY were really using circular reasoning. As for assumptions, you can't get anywhere in life without making them. The key is to TEST the assumptions and so far Evolution is doing very well and Creationists are still batting ZERO.

Give a date for the Flood. A link would be OK IF it has a date. The link you gave had NO DATE for the flood.

Well you have more guts than Kevin to hang in. But you are still unwilling to put a date for the Flood on the line. It is pretty clear from that that you, like Kevin, are aware that there is NO evidence that can support the Flood for any date much less one that can fit the Bible.

Ethelred
breadhead
1 / 5 (2) Feb 06, 2011
This article gives a date if you must have one.
ttp://creation.com/in-the-days-of-peleg
Look in the Egypt Emerges title. Until you asked for a date concerning Egypt, I had no reason to study the subject. You have made quite a number of prejudicial conjectures concerning the creation/Christian view. Would you admit that there can be differing views of the same evidence
based on ones worldview?
breadhead
1 / 5 (2) Feb 06, 2011
I appologize, the flood date is in the first paragraph.

Why assumptions are bad;
any_number x assumption = any answer you want

Dating method used by evolutionist;
No complete geographical column on the planet...
Date the fossil by the location in the geographic column, Derrive the column by the fossil found = circular reasoning

Please provide proof of Christian circular reasoning.
Do you agree that there is uniformity of nature (Not talking about uninformitarianism)?
Ethelred
5 / 5 (2) Feb 07, 2011
You have made quite a number of prejudicial conjectures concerning the creation/Christian view.
My how terrible. Its CREATIONISTS not Christians. The two have an overlap but not all Christians are Creationists and not all Creationists are Christians. I had quite discussion with a Turkish Moslem once here.
Would you admit that there can be differing views of the same evidence
based on ones worldview?
Sure. But sometimes a persons worldview blinds them to reality. For instance most Creationists think the Genesis one and two don't contradict each other even though they clearly have different orders of Creation. Man is created after animals in One and before animals in Two. Its a really clear contradiction.
I appologize, the flood date is in the first paragraph.
You could have just put the date in your post as well as linked to it. It is NOT in the first paragraph. It is in the second and is the traditional one.

More
Ethelred
5 / 5 (2) Feb 07, 2011
According to the biblical chronology as deduced by Archbishop Ussher, the Flood occurred in 2349–2348 BC
And that date is why Kevin and others don't want to post it. It is in the middle of the Egyptian pyramid period. Which is what that article is trying to evade in this:
The Byzantine chronicler Constantinus Manasses (d. 1187) wrote that the Egyptian state lasted 1663 years. If correct, then counting backward from the time that Cambyses, king of Persia, conquered Egypt in 526 BC, gives us the year of 2188 BC for the founding of Egypt,3 about 60 years after the birth of Peleg.
IF correct was the operative word and it isn't.

He consistently uses ancient non-Egyptian sources that were not exactly reliable historians. Including the 4th Century bishop and historian Eusebius of Caesarea a man that said lying is OK to support his beliefs.

More
Ethelred
not rated yet Feb 07, 2011
He also needs an absolutely astounding rate of reproduction between the time of the Flood and the founding of the other countries. Then there is that need for ALL the racial variants to come from one father and four wives.
Of the other kingdoms, the ones most distant from Babel would have been founded the latest. This is exactly what these writers have described. First Babylon, then Egypt, and then Greece were founded.
Such Euro-centric thinking. He ignored China.

httpDELETEME://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_Chinese_history

2698 BC - The Battle of Banquan, the first battle in Chinese history and the Battle of Zhuolu, the second battle in Chinese history, fought by the Yellow Emperor.

And that is NOT the beginning of Chinese history by any means. Nor is it before the beginning of Sumerian or Egyptian writing.

More
Ethelred
not rated yet Feb 07, 2011
httpDELETEME://www.ancientscripts.com/sumerian.html
Examples of this early system represents some of the earliest texts found in the Sumerian cities of Uruk and Jamdat Nasr around 3300 BCE, such as the one below.
httpDELETEME://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian_language
Egyptian writing in the form of labels and signs has been dated to 3200 BC. These early texts are generally lumped together under the general term "Archaic Egyptian."
And here is the reason that both those links you have posted were trying to change Egyptian history.

httpDELETEME://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian_pyramids
The earliest among these is the Pyramid of Djoser (constructed 2630 BCE–2611 BCE) which was built during the third dynasty.
The last listed on that page was
Amenemhat III c. 1860–1814 BC Hawara

Which gives a 770 year long period of pyramid building.

More
Ethelred
not rated yet Feb 07, 2011
Moving the time frame 300 years forward as that first link was trying to do would put the first pyramid at 2330BC. A mere 30 years after the alleged Flood and that is ignoring the fact that the Flood date would move forward 300 years as well since the Biblical timeline is anchored to the Egyptian times.

Now you know why Kevin and others, including the founder of the Discovery Institute don't want to touch the Flood with a ten foot pole. The time frame doesn't fit at all. Not even close.
Why assumptions are bad;
any_number x assumption = any answer you want
Why assumptions MUST be done.

I need to go to work tomorrow on the bus. I have to ASSUME the thing will be running.
I want to figure out when the Egyptians started building pyramids. I have to assume they built them and that there is evidence that they did so before I bother funding an expedition to Egypt.
You had to assume that the Internet would still be working after you wrote that stuff.

More
Ethelred
not rated yet Feb 07, 2011
You can't get anywhere in life without making assumptions. You and I make them all the time.
Dating method used by evolutionist;
No complete geographical column on the planet...
First there is no need for a complete column to know that evolution actually occurs. Second it seems a bit unreasonable to expect that we might find a complete column since erosion occurs. And THIRD there actually is at least one complete column down to bedrock. It just isn't well known as the data is published for the oil industry.

This is a page on the concept of the Geological column and Creationism.

httpDELETEME://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/geocolumn/

It gives the full column in North Dakota and shows 25 additional sites where there is a complete column.

Date the fossil by the location in the geographic column, Derrive the column by the fossil found = circular reasoning
Also false. The column is dated by radiographic methods. Often the fossils themselves are dated that way.

More
Ethelred
not rated yet Feb 07, 2011
Please provide proof of Christian circular reasoning.
Why do you believe the Bible is true? That is not an evasion. YOU and everyone else that believes it does so because they think it is the word of Jehovah. Why? Because the someone told you it is. Why did they tell you that? Because they believe it to be true based on the Bible being the word of god.

There is simply no other reason for the believing the Genesis account except a belief that the Bible is the word of Jehovah since the physical evidence is completely against it.
Do you agree that there is uniformity of nature (Not talking about uninformitarianism)?
Sorry I don't know what you mean by that or why it might be relevant to a discussion about the flood and history. I assume you are going off on a tangent. I have no problem with that IF you get a little more specific about what your point is.

Ethelred
breadhead
1 / 5 (1) Feb 07, 2011
You do realise that the chronologies of ancient Egypt are not fixed. ttp://user.tninet.se/~oof408u/fkf/english/flood.htm
ttp://www.articlesbase.com/religion-articles/biblical-chronology-synchronizing-the-great-flood-with-the-pharaohs-of-egypt-278455.html
(Both Non-Christian sites?) So perhaps you can establish a name for yourself?
I have yet in 30 years of being a Christian heard of any problems with Egyptian and Bible timelines.
Now tell me if it is possible for you and I to look at the same evidence, and come up with two different stories, theories or plausable explanations concerning it?
Ethelred
not rated yet Feb 08, 2011
You do realise that the chronologies of ancient Egypt are not fixed.
I realise that the Bible chronology is based on the Egyptian chronology and we already discussed the fact that is might be off as much as 300 years. Which moves Biblical chronology three hundred years as well.

Your first link seems to be trying to rewrite both the Bbile and history to make them match. He is ignoring that the Bible has flood covering the highest mountain and that the intent was to kill all that breathed or crawled and wasn't on the Ark. And he doesn't give any dates for Egypt in any case.

Second link has a rather bad start.
ortunately there have been scientists that consider the global flood a reality and they have searched for and found evidence for it.
No. They have found evidence for some local floods at different times but NOTHING to support the one described in the Bible.

More
Ethelred
not rated yet Feb 08, 2011
However the same approach has not been taken by historians. They have not looked for evidence that the global flood affected the ancient cultures.
That is because they have never seen any. Looking at everything that has been seen and seing nothing to support the myth makes it unreasonable to accuse people of not looking.
. If the global flood did occur could this be reflected in the history of Egypt?
Yes but it isn't.
So if a global flood occurred, a period of induction from the end of the flood until populations rebounded to their pre-flood levels would occur.
And it would be in our very genes. It isn't.
Rohl states that after the Old Kingdom's glory is followed by the first low in the history of ancient Egypt, the First Intermediate Period (the 7th through the 12th dynasties).
Which is long after the alleged flood and does not have a change in language. This shows the author of the page is absolutely clueless.

More
Ethelred
not rated yet Feb 08, 2011
I believe Menes was the first king of Egypt ever.
I believe the author has serious issues with reality. Narmer was the first king of Upper and Lower Egypt and that was long before the Pyramids were built. Sorry but someone just making up a lot of crap that fits NOTHING doesn't help your stance.
(Both Non-Christian sites?
No. The second is a Christian article by an ignoramous on a religious section of a site that doesn't care about accuracy just adds.

and the first is:
The Christian Freedom Association is a non-profit association, founded by former members of Jehovah's Witnesses.
I think that counts as a Christians site.

There is a bunch of letters from the author of the article you linked to with him having an arguement with the Watchtower about dating. Fat chance of him changing those guys minds. The first letter was written about the time the Watchtower had the world ending. Their seventh failed prediction. They don't make those anymore.

More
Ethelred
5 / 5 (1) Feb 08, 2011
I have yet in 30 years of being a Christian heard of any problems with Egyptian and Bible timelines.
Well now you have. They have been going on for a lot more than thirty years. Olaf wrote that stuff thirty years ago.
Now tell me if it is possible for you and I to look at the same evidence, and come up with two different stories, theories or plausable explanations concerning it?
Sure you could make up a lot of nonsense. I don't do that. I stick with stuff that has evidence supporting it and fits physical reality. Theories and stories that don't fit the evidence aren't worth much except as entertainment. Genesis doesn't fit the evidence much of the time. Sometimes it doesn't even fit from chapter to chapter as can be seen on chapters one and two.

However if you want to give your ideas about the Flood and the lack of physical evidence and the time conflicts I would be willing to go over them. Don't expect me to agree with something that doesn't fit the actual evidence.

More
Ethelred
5 / 5 (1) Feb 08, 2011
For example.

Do you think the Bible describes a world wide flood covering the highest mountain and that was intended to kill all that breathed or crawled upon the Earth? I am pretty sure the Bible is clear on that.

Where do you see any evidence for that flood?

Why didn't any of the people that were writing before and after the Biblical time of the Flood have a change in culture and language?

Why is there no sign of a Flood at Jericho? That is a very old place, far older than the Egyptian culture.

Ethelred