Feedback Letter | |
Comment: | Creation Rocks! |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | Indeed.
They are not for nothing called rocks of ages. 4.56 ± 0.02 billion years old. |
Feedback Letter | |
Comment: | Great page! The only argument I've heard that you didn't address was based on extrapolating the diameter of the Sun, leading to life being impossible x millions of years ago. Are you familiar with this argumnt? What are the accepted models for star aging? |
Response | |
From: | Chris Stassen |
Author of: | Isochron Dating |
Response: | We briefly
discuss the "shrinking sun" argument in this section of
The Solar FAQ, and in this section of
the "How Good are those Young-Earth arguments" FAQ.
Van Til's response (on the ASA astronomy/cosmology page) is one of the better off-site rebuttals to the creationist claim. There is another by our own Tim Thompson which is pretty good. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | Sir, I mean no disrespect. If it would not be too much trouble would you send me a compact proof for your fact of evolution. And when you do, I would like very good references so I may follow up and verify the veracity of your response. This is for personal research as I am debating becoming an evolutionist. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | The proof is
not compact. The proof of evolution is in the mutually
comfirming implications of a great many independent lines
of evidence.
In the sitemap of the archive (accessible from the home page) there is a section on The Evidence for Common Descent, which is (in my subjective opinion) the guts of the fact of evolution. That section lists four FAQs covering many lines of evidence, and which contain an enormous number of primary references. This section also has a link to the section on Fossils and Paleontology, which has a further nine or so relevant FAQs; again with references. This much material can be overwhelming; feel free to focus on the aspects you find of interest, and to ask questions about what is contained in these files! |
Feedback Letter | |
Comment: | I'll probably be writing one of those "you guys are so great, evolution rocks" feedbacks eventually, but just now I'm asking about this: How can we see distant stars in a young Universe?. What exactly do they mean, and what are the problems with it? |
Response | |
From: | |
Author of: | The Recession of the Moon and the Age of the Earth-Moon System |
Response: | If the
universe is only 10,000 years old, and if light actually
travels at a constant speed (anything less than infinite),
then no object should be visible if it is more than 10,000
light-years away (where one light-year is defined as the
distance that light travels in one year; at very nearly
3x105 km/sec, that distance is about
9.5x1012 km or about 5.9x1012 miles).
One common creationist response is that the light is
created "in flight", by the analogy that since God created
Adam as a fully grown man, with all the signs of adult age,
He might well have done so with the objects in the universe
too. However, as is pointed out in the article you cited,
this creates the uncomfortable notion of a deceptive God, a
criticism often leveled by evolutionists, and hotly denied
by creationsts (who, nevertheless, usually have no
substantive response).
One way to get around this is a proposition that the speed of light might not be constant, as we generally believe it to be. Had the speed of light been greater in the past, it would have covered the distance we call 10,000 light-years in less than 10,000 years, and if it were fast enough in the past, it might have covered even millions of "light-years" in a mere 10,000 years. Creationist Barry Setterfield claims that the historical data record shows that the speed of light has varied in that record. The criticism of his work, by creationists, referenced also in the article you cited, is based on the original version of his claim, that only the speed of light was variable. He has since remodeled his claim into a cosmology that varies several "constants", and varies particle masses as well. While that circumvents the original criticisms, it certainly opens the door for a whole new family of criticisms. Not the least is that his claim that all of the constants can be seen as variable in the historical record is unsupportable, as he fails to realize that he is seeing measurement noise and assuming that it is a true effect of nature. You can examine Setterfield's work on his own website, and see the criticism The Decay of c-decay in our own archive. And that brings us to the true purpose of the article, to play up the new creationist cosmology developed by D. Russell Humphreys (PhD in physics from LSU, retired from Sandia National Laboratories, where most of his work was in the nuclear engineering area, and classified). He published the book Starlight and Time - Solving the Puzzle of Distant Starlight in a Young Universe in 1994 (Master Books, ISBN 0-89051-202-7). He uses general relativity theory, in a bounded universe with a definite center in 3 dimensions, and uses time dilation to account for the discrepency between 6 literal days, and the appearance that those 6 days lasted several billion years. It is not at all obvious that he has used general relativity properly, and he has been criticized along those lines (see references 5 & 6 in the article). The major problem I see with Humphreys' cosmology is that it is impossible, if one sticks to the laws of physics as we know them. This weakness Humphreys readily acknowledges, although to him it is a strength. Humphreys refers to Isaiah 40:22, Who stretches out the heavans like a curtain, and spreads them out like a tent to Dwell in. To Humphreys, this is an indication that God side-stepped the laws of physics, to drag space-time out of its own black hole and force the universe to expand, in what Humphreys calls a "white hole cosmology". The need for devine intervention comes about because Humphrey's assumes a bounded universe with a distinct center, both of which are aspects absent from standard cosmology. Standard Big Bang cosmology does not violate the laws of physics, simply because it is unbounded. Humphreys' cosmology does violate the laws of physics, simply because it is bounded. It's a clever idea that relies on direct, devine intervention, in order for the universe as we know it to exist at all. I suppose if one is a creationist, it makes pretty good sense to rely on devine intervention for your cosmology to work. But, to me, the idea looks exactly the same as the idea that the light was created "in flight", and suffers from exactly the same criticism, namely a deceptive God. At best, assuming there is no other error in the white hole cosmology, it is impossible to tell the difference between it, and standard cosmology, just as it is impossible to tell the difference between real age, and the mere appearance of age. God's violation of the laws of physics to force the "impossible" expansion hides the true age of the universe behind a false cosmology. So, despite the title of his book, Humphreys never really solved the basic problem of a universe that is young, looks old, and how that encourages the notion of a deceptive God. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | Oh, my.
Someone sent me:
Each year the Washington Post's Style Invitational asks readers to take any word from the dictionary, alter it by adding, subtracting, or changing only one letter and supply a new definition. Among the 2002 winners was: Dopeer Effect: The tendency for stupid ideas to seem smarter when they come at you rapidly. I think this is a characteristic of Hovind's presentations! His facts are 'Clueshifted' due to the careful and rapid fire way he pops them out at the class. When they are recorded, written, and accessible for careful analysis, the opposite, or 'headshift' applies. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | "The one
that says “things change” (this is science), or
the one that says “that’s how everything came
to be” (this transcends science and is philosophical
naturalism—a metaphysical position)? TO uses the two
interchangeably."
This is from www.trueorigin.org/to_deception.asp. I would like to point out that the so-called "counter site" to Talk Origins is just like all the other creationist crud. They try to re-define things, give them names besides evolution, try to merge abiogenesis and evolution together along with other things. Ah an lets not forget the numbers scare or methaphore scare. "DNA looks like a staircase! And E. coli DNA can fill all the books in the largets library! (not even close on the latter.) ANYWAYS I just wanted to say "It should hurt to be dumb."(tm) Keep up the good work. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | Saruman, The White |
Comment: | You fools!!
Evolution is fake, Nobody has seen evolution in action, If
you say yes, we have seen evolution as a fact!! then tell
me Futbol players would evolve faster muscles than normal
guys? They would be stronger and faster than us? if you say
yes, they probabily will be, then you crazy.
The evolution is stupid, creationism rules!! |
Feedback Letter | |
Comment: | Having gone through all the TO Feedback (as well as much else in this interesting site) I was wondering how often those creationists who present scientified arguments against current Evolutionary theory bother to respond to your generally patient and well-presented refutations of their ideas. Also, do those who present (often offensively distorted) mined quotations in favor of their position ever acknowledge their error? I haven't noticed it, but would be glad to know of even the most basic sense of courtesy from the Creationist camp. I'm very sorry to say that I don't expect a positive answer, but do prove me wrong in this. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | I'd love to be able to. I can't. Some may have responded thus, but none come to mind right now. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | Ryan Hart |
Comment: | As a Christian, I would like to apologize for Ian Taylor's embarassing behaviour at the debate in Canada, 1990. Please note that albeit most, but not all Christians are that ignorant. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | Anonymous |
Comment: |
Wistar Destroys Evolution
I may have fallen for a naive trap, but this is the first creationist argument that has shaken me. Is this really as bad as they are representing? Why would anyone continue to beleive evolution was true after reading this? PLEASE E-Mail me back even if you don't put this up, because I need closure on this one. It's going to bug me day and night until I get some feedback on it. (I may have posted this twice, sorry if I did.) |
Responses | |
From: | |
Response: | You did make
two posts which were slightly different but essentially
about the same subject.
See Pathlights items resulting from a search of our website. The pathlights.com pages you made reference to were about material more than 15 years old. I'm not aware of any more recent "smoking guns" against evolution. I think you can sleep soundly. Browse the FAQ Index to find scientific information countering their arguments. |
From: | |
Response: | The thrust
of the article you cite is that mathematicians have proven
that random chance cannot account for evolution. But
biologists have known this since Darwin. Evolution is
not based on chance alone; it also includes
selection.
The article also insinuates that biologists ignore mathematics. Nothing could be further from the truth. Mathematics is essential in modern biology. Fields from population dynamics to genetic analysis would be virtually impossible without highly advanced mathematics. I would hazard a guess that many biologists know more mathematics than some of the mathematicians in the article. To illustrate the overall accuracy of the webpage, I will quote just one example. The article says,
I did a little research on the NCBI website and found several variants of the human alpha hemoglobin that, by virtue of the fact that they were found in living humans, still function. I also see that human hemoglobin differs from that of other apes and monkeys by anywhere from two to eight amino acids, and from a bat (Myotis velifer) in twelve. Obviously, changes are viable. [To see these results from yourself, go to the BLAST page, choose "Standard protein-protein BLAST", and plug in the human hemoglobin alpha sequence (below) in the search window: mvlspadktn vkaawgkvga hageygaeal ermflsfptt ktyfphfdls hgsaqvkghg kkvadaltna vahvddmpna lsalsdlhah klrvdpvnfk llshcllvtl aahlpaeftp avhasldkfl asvstvltsk yr ] |
Feedback Letter | |
Comment: | Stay strong brothers! Fight the forces of evil and religion. Spread truthe and enlitenment. May evolution be taught to every choolchild! |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | To say we are engaged in a fight against evil seems a bit pretentious. It is a fight against ignorance. It is not a fight against religion, and many churches and other religious groups are allied with scientists in wanting schoolchildren to have a decent education. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | Matt |
Comment: | The rebutalls to all of these feedbacks are to me lacking in truthfulness. I would believe them if the rebutter would please tell describe who they are and what credentials they have. Is there a webpage that describes them in more detail? |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | No. The
unstated policy in talkorigins is that comments stand or
fall on their merits, and not on credentials.
For what it is worth, I contribute under my own name, and I have a PhD in mathematical logic and computer science from Monash University in Australia. This qualification is pretty much irrelevant. My knowledge relating to the creationism evolution debate, in biology, in geology, in astronomy, and in the bible, is all picked up over many years of reading in my own time; and I have no real credentials as a scientist. On the other hand, there are others who contribute feedback responses who do have excellent and directly relevant qualifications, and considerable professional experience as working scientists. None of us rely on credentials to substantiate any feedback response. I take considerable exception to the claim that feedback responses are lacking in truthfulness. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | I'm 14 years
old. I happened to be doing a report on evolution. As I
came in research for the age of the Earth, I found many
funny and rediculous mistakes. I'm 14, and even I saw the
stupidity of some your dating methods. Sorry if I'm
offending your religion of evolution, but I can't help not
speaking against such mistakes on your website.
Radiometric Dating Methods The isotope concentrations can be measured very accurately, but isotope concentrations are not dates. To derive ages from such measurements, unprovable assumptions have to be made such as: 1. The starting conditions are known (for example, that there was no daughter isotope present at the start, or that we know how much was there). 2. Decay rates have always been constant. 3. Systems were closed or isolated so that no parent or daughter isotopes were lost or added. Carbon Dating There are so many other factors affecting carbon dating, that carbon dating is not reliable. Even with using carbon dating it still supports that the Earth is under 4.55 billion yrs old. It can only date back 30,000 - 50,000 yrs at the most. Think about it if you will, trees have been found through more than five layers of sedementary and us dumb humans say, "Well looky here ain't we got an old tree here!" Seriously we could go on and on back and forth about stuff saying no that's not fact and niether is that. While you were reading that you probably already came up with something to counter it. It goes directly against your faith. I call it faith because there is deffinately alot of faith that has to go on since the missing link IS missing. I doen't know about you but I know I didn't come from no monkey. I'm guessing you probably did, since you believe in favored races and all. But still I know God doesnt believe in Atheists. Niether do I. Atheism was invented so man didn't have to have an accountability to a creator or a God. That is a religion in and of itself. You believe it. If you believe a mix between creation and evolution, I don't blame you because I see it all the time at school the teachers spew out lies too. Not all but many teacher have sworn and cussed at me. The reason is because of making a point that creation is true. They'll get up in your face and yell, my science teacher in 6th grade did that and I didn't even disprove his faith. All he heard was that I was a creationist. I have never had a teacher that has taught creation as an alternative theory. They are allowed to teach creation. I bring creation up in the classroom whenever they are teaching their evolution. I am shut down by them saying, "We can talk about this after school. It's not part of my curriculum." I thought this class was about learning and asking questions? Maybe it's not. Maybe there's another agenda behind it. To be honest I'm 14 I don't know all the details about evolution but this is what I can tell you: Firstly, speaking strictly scientifically- Both creation and evolution are theories on the origin and development of the universe. Which theory is nearer to the truth is determined by honestly considering which one is best suppoted by the facts. You may be surpprised to hear that the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of creation. But don't take my word for it- compare the best creationist and evolutionist writers. Secondly, If the above is true- Why is the theory of evolution so much more popular than the theory of creation? Because- if creation is true, then there is a creator, who not only made the vast and wonderful and and intricatly detailed universe and the rules which govern it, but who also created each one of us and laid down the rules which should governn our behavior. This means- again, if I'm honest- I'm in trouble The wonderful news is- the news that Jesus came to give- That if I do honestly admit my wrong- doing, whatever it is, and turn from it, my creator is a God of Love, a loving father, who will forgive me at that very moment! |
Response | |
From: | |
Author of: | The Recession of the Moon and the Age of the Earth-Moon System |
Response: | About those
"unprovable assumptions".
1. The starting conditions are known ... Knowledge of the starting conditions is not required to perform accurate radiometric dating. Just look at the Isochron Dating FAQ.Old fashioned methods had that problem, but modern methods do not. 2. Decay rates have always been constant. Actually, this is a provable assumption, so far as "provable" applies in the natural sciences. We know from experience that no significant variation in decay rates has ever been observed. We know from experience that the variations we have seen, never amount to greater than 1% in the half-life, and usually are closer to 0.1%. And we know from theory where we would expect variation to be possible. It turns out that the variations we do see appear where theory says they should, and to the extent that theory says they should. See, for instance, " How to Change Nuclear Decay Rates. The computed age is "linear" with respect to the half-life. That means, if we are uncertain about the half-life, to say 1%, then we are uncertain about the age by the same amount, about 1%. For an age of 4,000,000,000 years, that means an uncertainty of 40,000,000 years. 4,000,000,000 - 40,000,000 is still a lot more than 10,000, so any argument based on what we actually know does not help the idea of a young Earth. So it is no surprise that sources such as Answers In Genesis, as you say elsewhere was the source of your information, rarely deals with what we (or they) actually know. They prefer to deal with speculation, and it is Answers In Genesis which fills their articles with assumptions that are not just "unprovable", but "incomprehensible". 3. Systems were closed or isolated so that no parent or daughter isotopes were lost or added. This too is quite the provable assumption. It is not too difficult, in most cases, to see the thermal history of a rock in its mineral structure. It is also not to hard to characterize how and/or if the elements move around in the rock. Sometimes the systems really are closed, sometimes they are not. But even in cases where they are not, it's usually not too hard to figure out what happened and compensate for it. Carbon Dating ... Carbon dating certainly does not support a young Earth, nor an "old" one either. Since carbon dating cannot see beyond its own limits, roughly 50,000 years in most cases, it is simply not relevant to the issue. At least, not for an "evolutionist". However, it suddenly becomes relevant for young Earth creationists, because 50,000 is bigger than 10,000, and if you think the Earth is 10,000 years old, even something 30,000 years old hurts. So the young Earthers have to make up as many ficticious problems as they can. In fact, carbon dating works just fine. ... trees have been found through more than five layers ... This too is not the problem you think it is, or the problem that somebody else hopes you will think it is. See the "Polystrate" Fossils FAQs. While you were reading that you probably already came up with something to counter it. Indeed I have, and all based on fact & knowledge. It has nothing to do with going against my "faith". It has everything to do with fact & truth, both of which are in short supply amongst young Earth creationists. I don't care if the Earth is young or old, it can be either one. I only care that what I say is as true as I can make it. And I am continually dismayed at the inability of the young Earth creationists to practice what they preach, just a little respect, now & then, for the truth. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | Ben H. |
Comment: | While I understand your policy that "those who espouse alternative views should speak for themselves," it is nevertheless unfortunate that a site titled "Exploring the Creation/Evolution Controversy" should title one section "Arguments against Creationism" and another section "Biology and Evolutionary Theory." Surely this is not conductive to a open ended discussion? |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: |
There is plenty of open-ended discussion on the talk.origins newsgroup. Please feel free to join the discussion there at any time. Wesley |
Feedback Letter | |
Comment: | Hi. I was just going to say that I'm praying for you. I know that you are not hoing to take this message to heart and you probably won't even read all of it. But I find it sort of humorous that you are arguing against every theory that creation has proposed and yet there is not concrete proof, all you have is quotes from people and your own opinion. I find it troubling that you are so sold on something that you don't even know anything about. I'm not attacking you or anything, I am just recommending that you look into your beliefs and make sure you know what it is that you believe. Thank you for taking the time to read this if you even got this far without trashing this message. And once again, I'm praying for you... |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | Actually,
most of us have looked into our beliefs just fine, thanks.
You may be under the mistaken impression that study of the
natural processes by which something occurs is in some way
a rejection of God. In fact, the two questions are
orthogonal. Contributors to the talkorigins archive include
both believers and nonbelievers; and you can't really tell
which is which from the scientific arguments presented. We
all study the same world.
The archive site map includes a section on The Evidence For Common Descent; starting from there you can find a large number of articles setting out many different lines of evidence which allow all persons, regardless of their beliefs on whether or not the world is created by God, to see and learn something of the history of life in that world. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | Dear
Sir/Madam,
The next edition of Archaeology magazine, scheduled for release on 15 April 2003, contains a portion on attempts to combat pseudoscience in cyberspace. I would like to make you aware that there is a two page feature on the skeptical "In the Hall of Ma'at" website. Some of the readers of this site may be interested in its contents. Best wishes, Mike Brass, Archaeology BSocSci(Hons), University of Cape Town. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | Looking at
the link you provide, I think it is indeed very likely that
some of our readers will be interested.
This web site is essentially a defence of mainstream scholarship with respect to ancient history, and a response to "alternative" histories from the lunatic fringe. The organization and style is very impressive, and there is some overlap with topics considered at talkorigins. There is an extensive and very active web based discussion area, and a good selection of articles. Based on my first quick examination of what is available, I am very impressed. I will be looking at your site in more detail in the future. It is also a recent addition to our "other links" collection, under the heading of "Critical Thought". And while we are at it, I have also submitted another web site to talkorigins for inclusion in our links collection. It is The Antiquity of Man, maintained by Mike Brass. Kudos, Mike. |
Feedback Letter | |
Comment: | About Noah and the ark and animals, I have much to say but will summerize it for you. The Bible doesnt tell you everything, cause if we knew everything there wouldnt be much of a point for God. Also the ark was real, and yuo have to have ALOT more faith to believe that man evolved from monkey's. And if you think about it, what would you prefer? To think that you were created in the image of a superior being with a purpose or that you were just formed after tens of thousands of years and developed from there to where you are now? |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: |
Actually, I'd prefer that I were Omnipotent God-Emperor of the Universe myself, rather than just a guy sitting at a computer in a house in Minnesota. Unfortunately for your train of logic, what we'd prefer doesn't define what is true. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | Hannah |
Comment: | In some FAQ
you write: "The quality of an argument is not determined by
the credentials of its author.", yet in the same paragraph:
"See the Suspicious Creationist Credentials FAQ".
Why do you propose that creationism is determined by the credentials of its authors if evolution is exempt from this influence? |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: |
Your complaint would have more weight if you had examples of evolutionists who thought that making up phony degrees for themselves improved the quality of their arguments. The point being made is that lofty credentials do not make one's arguments better. The relevance of the Suspicious Creationist Credentials FAQ is that apparently, many creationists do not understand this principle. Shouldn't you instead be questioning why people like Hovind and Baugh find it necessary to wave phony or worthless degrees around when they make their claims? |
Feedback Letter | |
Comment: | I do not like how this site has a biased viewpoint. While reading into evolution and creationism, I expected this site to give information from both sides, but instead, all I found was links to how creationists are "wrong" and how they just "point out evolutionists' mistakes but don't question thier own." Maybe you should try to be a litte more open minded. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: |
Given that the default entry page for the archive and the Welcome FAQ both explain that this site is for mainstream science answers to antievolution arguments, the reader's expectation should have been quite a bit different. As for not finding links to antievolution arguments, the reader simply didn't look hard enough. This archive maintains one of the most extensive list of links to antievolution pages available anywhere. Those links do go off-site, true, but they are available. Many of our own pages link to antievolution sites featuring the arguments being critiqued. Contrast that with the very poor linking one finds on most antievolution sites. They certainly come nowhere close to the standard the readers promotes as "open-minded". I came to the evolution/creation controversy prepared to accept good anti-evolutionary apologetics. What I found on the antievolution side of things was a morass of illogic, mendacity, and brazenly counterfactual claims. My personal library of antievolution literature extends to full file drawers and many board-feet of shelf space. The science turns on evidence, and that evidence does demonstrate a bias: it shows most antievolution claims to be absolute hogwash. (Some antievolution arguments have nothing to do with evidence of any kind.) Wesley |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | Y.S. Lee MD |
Comment: | Hi I hope you to know my opinion on my website. WHICH ONE IS MORE SCIENTIFIC, CREATION OR EVOLUTION THEORY? |
Responses | |
From: | |
Response: |
Dear Dr. Lee: My opinion is that your website is dreadfully poor. Sincerely, |
From: | |
Response: | Dear Dr.
Lee,
Websites should, I suppose, be judged by the content one finds. Personally, I find crowded or overly colorful pages to be difficult to read. Maybe it's my advancing age, but I find myself comparing webpages to well-designed book pages. But, as I often argue with myself about tasteful treatment when designing my own webpages, any criticism here might be unjustified. Then there is the matter of spelling. When, in the first sentence on a webpage I find a word such as "Sovereinity," I start to squirm a bit. I feel just a tad uncomfortable. Does there exist a computer today without a spell checking application? If, in addition to spelling problems, I encounter on the introductory page egregious grammar that is usually mastered by 7th or 8th grade, I am left to wonder whether the author of the website is seriously concerned about the opinions of his readers. You seem to be concerned about this since you actually asked for feedback. I am, as a result of your request, willing to take time to explain why I was dissuaded from spending more time at your website. Sincerely, Bob Patterson |
From: | |
Response: |
Your website appears not to have improved since you last asked for our opinions on it in March 2002. What I said then appears to continue to apply now:
Wesley |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | I have been
exploring various philosophical areas relating to the
origins of life, etc. I have found the talk.origins website
exceedingly helpful and professional in presenting the
views of various standpoints.
I believe that this website is a credit to scientific thought and has personally helped me formulate new ideas and to become better acquainted with subjects that interest me. Keep up the good work. Philosopher |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | Nikki |
Comment: | Hi! I just want to thank you for publishing the section about the types of mutation! I had to write about mutation for a school essay and i was totally lost, then i found your website! Thanks! |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | I'd just like to know why in the article entitled "evolution is a fact and a theory" that no actual facts were used. There were many times the the word "fact" was included but there was no evidence provided that would even suggest, let alone make anyone, including myself a creationist, come to the conclusion that evolution is a fact. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | The page you
refer to, Evolution is
a Fact and a Theory, well describes the use of these
terms in science and explains why evolution qualifies for
these usages.
If you are interested in reading about some of the overwhelming number of specific facts (observed evolution, genetic evidence, transitional fossils) mentioned by Dr. Gould, then there are many FAQs on this website on such topics. The Site Index should be helpful in this regard. I have a page about Evolution: Fact and/or Theory? which briefly quotes Dr. Gould and Dr. Paul Ehrlich as they attempt to explain the matter. There are also a few links provided for further reading. I hope this helps. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | Rena |
Comment: | I am commenting on the theory of hominids. I am a christian and in the bible it clearly states that we were created by God from the dirt of the ground. Now science has nothing to prove that humans or any living species evolved from the same origin. All of the evidence that they have has been proven by scientist to be false. The Piltdown was an apes jaw placed with a human skull it fooled paleontologist for forty five years. The Ramapithecus is an extinct baboon. The Hesperithecus is based on a pigs tooth. The Orce man was based on a donkeys skull. And the findings of Lucy are pieces found more than two miles apart. The point is that almost everything shows this theory to be false. Including the bible. It was all discovered by someone trying to become famous by discovering something new. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | You mention
one known famous fraud; Piltdown
Man.
You mention Ramapithecus. This is an exinct ape from about 12 to 14 million years ago which is possibly ancestral to orangutangs (not baboons). It was seriously proposed some forty years ago as a possible ancestor for the Australopithecines, and hence of humans; but that model was disproved as better fossils were found. You mention "Nebraska Man" (Hesperopithecus) which was proposed, and rejected, all within a couple of years, and had almost no general acceptance in the scientific community. Most scientists were skeptical from the very start, and it had essentially no impact on science even in the few years before the inflated claims were retracted. You mention Orce Man. This also has never been of major significance in study of human origins. It is a small fragment of a skull (not a complete skull) and although it could be from an equid (relative of horses or donkeys) this is not certain. See the link for more detail. You mention Lucy -- which is a fine and legitimate example of Australopithecus afarensis; ancestral to humans or else a very close relative. Your claim that the pieces were found more than two miles apart is false; the pieces of Lucy were all found close together. You are here repeating a confusion based on two different fossils from different individuals, and monumental incompetance on the part of a creationist (Tom Willis) which has been endlessly repeated by others who don't bother going back to the original reports. See Lucy's Knee Joint: A Case Study in Creationists' Willingness to Admit their Errors. If you really want to get serious about "all the evidence", you should focus on the evidence which is actually used by scientists to examine human evolution. Of the fossils you mention, only Ramapithecus and Lucy stand as good examples of fossils which were used seriously for proposing a human lineage; and Ramapithecus was rejected in that role about twenty years ago. You have basically ignored all the evidence for human evolution in Africa which has been developed over the last forty years. I direct your attention to Fossil Hominids: The Evidence for Human Evolution. One of the best fossils is Turkana Boy, an exceptionally complete Homo erectus skeleton about 1.6 million years old. See also the list of Hominid Species; and the list of Prominent Hominid Fossils. As an exercise, try looking at at fossils found after 1990. This would include Sahelanthropus tchadensis (probably older than the divergence of humans and the great apes), Ardipithecus ramidus (fragmentary remains of 17 individuals), Kenyanthropus platyops, Australopithecus garhi, Australopithecus anamensis, Homo georgicus, and of course more fossils from already identified species. It is by no means clear exactly how each fossil related to every other in a family tree; but the overall picture is an excellent collection of transitional hominid species. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | I am a
creationist doing research for a book. I have searched the
t.o. archive for the subjects: evolution of reproduction,
evolution of diploids, and reproduction. I have not found
an explanation for how asexuality evolved into sexuality.
Please provide an understanding for how sexuality could have evolved from asexual creatures? Otherwise a good link for the explanation would be appreciated. |
Response | |
From: | |
Author of: | Evolution and Philosophy |
Response: | You will
find a good summary of the details in The origins of
sex: three billion years of genetic recombination, by
Lynn Margulis and Dorion Sagan, Yale University Press,
Cambridge MA.
The details may have been somewhat overtaken by recent research, but it remains an excellent starting point. The short answer is that sex evolved from processes of reproduction of single celled organisms which exchanged genes - not all "asexuals" are always asexual, and there are a number of processes by which genes can be exchanged. This site is not an encyclopedia of evolution, although we try to cover the many topics raised. Try Googling for "evolution sexual reproduction". When I tried it, it came up with a number of sites. The ones with ".edu" in the domain name are usually more reliable. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | I liked your
web site. Regrettably my chemistry background is a bit
lacking to get it all, but heck, this seems to be a great
start.
A few questions though. Regarding your notes on the P=1 items in your chain of events such as monomers-> polymers, etc. Are these the only steps in the process that have been observed? Also, when you note that "Where the creationist idea that modern organisms form spontaneously comes from is not certain" and that ... "The nearest I can come to is Lamarck's original ideas from 1803" ... ... Does that mean that in fact, Darwin, nor anyone else, never claimed to have observed, or even believed in A-bio-genesis? Thanks regardless for a cool site, Rich Engle |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | Darwin wrote
in correspondence that:
Elsewhere, he wrote, to his longstanding friend, Joseph Hooker, on 1 February 1871:
More to the point, in print, Darwin denied that what he called "heterogenesis" (a term that preceded Huxley's coining of "abiogenesis") occurred on a daily basis. The paper, "The Doctrine of Heterogeny and the Modification of Species" was published in the Athenaeum, No. 1852, 25 April 1863, pp 554-555 (reprinted in The Collected Papers of Charles Darwin edited by Paul H. Barrett, Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1977. 2 Vols). in it, he said:
So Darwin accepted the abiogenetic origin of life but freely and openly confessed that he had no real idea how that happened. Many researchers since have quoted the "warm pond" idea, and this is still a viable hypothesis, although the weight of opinion appears to me to be shifting towards subterranean origins of living reactions. The idea that "mature" living things, such as animals and plants arose from "slime and protoplasm" was common - it is found in Aristotle, and throughout the middle ages. Leibniz believed in it, and so, as you quote, did Lamarck. It is sort of the default view of the west, finally put to rest by Pasteur. But Pasteur did not deny that it had happened in the beginning; merely that it was not happening now for rotting and souring organisms in milk and so forth. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | Dr.
Theobald,
First, I wanted to give praise to your excellent article '29 Evidences for Macro-evolution'. . :-) I enjoyed reading your response to Ashby Camp's "critique" as well. No doubt you're probably quite aware of this evidence, but I thought another good bit to add to the "Molecular Vestigial Structures" would be the evidence for a fusion in our chromosome 2. The fused chromosome looks exactly like the 2 chimp chromosomes 2p and 2q joined together (in addition to having extra telomeres and a centromere in our chromosome 2 as well). It explains how we ended up with 23 pairs of chromosomes while the other primates have 24. I'm predicting that Camp would probably respond, "Well, God just created humans originally with 24 chromosomes and there was a fusion later!" More detail can be found from the following site: Comparison of the Human and Great Ape Chromosomes as Evidence for Common Ancestry Also, do you plan to respond to the rest of Camp's "critique"? I'd be especially interested in your reply to Camp on pseudogenes, the broken Vitamin C gene, and endogenous retroviruses. Keep up the great work. :-) |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | If chimpanzee and human populations began dividing from common ancestry only six Mya, imagine the superior evolutionary advantages of microorganisms! Microorganisms have generation time spans that are much shorter and population sizes that are several orders of magnitude greater than primates. Streptococci survived 2.6 years on the Moon. An AIDS epidemic has devastated huge populations in a portion of Africa. How long do we have until the HIV time bomb evolves strains as communicable as the common cold? Maggots thrive on matter loaded with microorganisms that are LD100 to humans in tiny doses. The large and few are vulnerable to the small and many. In modern times, extinction rates of species are very high. What mechanism does nature have that has been sufficient to restrain microorganisms from evolving species versatile enough and lethal enough to overpower any immune system and to have annihilated all but the very small organisms in the world long ago? |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | You might
get additional responses that go into specifics regarding
some of the things you have asked about, but consider just
a couple of generalizations here.
Six to eight million years ago (whatever the exact time turns out to be) when we last shared a common ancestor with what are now chimps, there were neither humans nor chimps. It took millions of years of evolution in both our lineages to bring us to what we each are today. Predator species do not exterminate their prey species. There are regular cycles of abundance and low ebb in both. Think about Arctic birds that periodically "erupt" southward in winters when northern food staples are in short supply. Some predator species forego reproduction in lean years. Populations rebound when prey species rebound. In a somewhat similar fashion there is an evolutionary "arms race" between organisms that produce diseases and the host or target populations they attack. Often there is a natural variation in a population that will be resistant to the disease (or pesticides, herbicides, pollutants). Remember to take ALL the antibiotics a physician prescribes. Keep an eye on the evolving SARS problem. This will be an instructive example for anyone interested in learning about evolution. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | Hi, I
believe in Creationism and until seeing the website at
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo/probability.html
I believed the odds of evolution were not possible. I still
believe in creationism but now I am unsure of whether or
not the odds are against it or not. Can someone who
understands these scientific laws discussed in that website
on thermodynamics and entropy please either refute the
article or admit errors in the creationist argument and
show why or why not evolution is still not probable even if
this website were true? I'd like to know what the answer to
this website would be that would still show why evolution
could not have occured if it were true.
feel free to visit my website at http://webking.tv |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | You are
asking the wrong people. The talkorigins archive is run by
people who accept evolutionary biology and other aspects of
mainstream science that are inconsistent with creationism.
Your question appears to be intended for creationists.
Some creationist web sites might answer questions, or you could try some debate forums. I know that Answers in Genesis often answer questions sent through their feedback pages; though they tend to answer by email and only publish very few emails on the website. They also have their own creationist thermodynamics FAQs. If you only want the creationist view, you should stop reading now and follow the links. Still here? Good... :-) The Answers in Genesis FAQs I cited above are nonsense. They pay lip service to the consistency of the second law with local entropy decrease in the context of energy flow; and then introduce their own unfounded and invalid claims about an ill-defined notion of information (which most certainly is not the same as thermodynamic entropy) and mechanism (the second law admits no exceptions of any kind for intelligence, special mechanisms, or guidance) and then by the usual sleight of hand they try to give this claim some credibility by associating it with the established physical laws of thermodynamics. If I was a creationist, I would be quite clear that the problem with evolution is not with the second law of thermodynamics, but with another creationist law which says that information cannot increase by random processes. However, I am not a creationist. I know that evolution involves a combination of random and nonrandom processes (by "random" I mean without any bias towards functional complexity) and that evolutionary processes can increase information by any measure used by creationists. We have some new FAQs on this subject coming on-line soon, starting with Apolipoprotein AI Mutations and Information. If you do get some answers from a real creationist, they are unfortunately bound to be physically nonsensical. If you get some answers which appear to conflict with the information we have supplied on the subject, and you want to know our response, feel free to ask again. It is excellent that you are looking into this for yourself. You should certainly do this at your own pace, and check out anything which troubles you. We'll be happy to help if we can, and if not we wish you all the best with your investigations. One suggestion I make is that you also try to get some understanding of the second law and entropy as they are defined in physics, without any reference to evolution or creationism. Try The Second Law of Thermodynamics. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | Jessica |
Comment: | Its me again, the one with the report, remember? The report's due in a coupla days so I can't really add anything to it now. But I do want to think you for posting this website. If I search for evolution on the web, most of the sites that come up are creation sites, then there was, beleive it or not, a whole evolution site devoted to dissing another creation site, and then there was yours. Since I already had the creationist side of things pretty well down-pat I wanted an evolutionist's view. Your site was the best place to find those veiws. I may not have agreed with all of them, but thanks for at least having them up. Evolution is taken as fact in our school's biology and other science literature that I have read, so I thought looking up evolution on the web would be a snap. Silly me. Anyhow thinks again! :)Jessica(: |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | I will admit
from the outset that I have not explored this site
completely but what I have seen disappoints me a bit. No
I'm not complaining about viewpoints. I'm complaining about
the attitude of many of the articles. The one thing that
has really turned me off to the evolution/creation debate
is that too many people spend too much time dogging their
opponents and not enough time on the facts! Creationists
are bad enough about it, I though perhaps the evolutionist
would be a little more reasonable. You do realize that by
calling other people stupid or ignorant of the facts,
(especially when that person has a PHD in the field they
are discussing) you really don't help yourself. You are
just emotionally charging the arguments. and making
yourself look really dogmatic.
Just thought I would let you know. Landon |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: |
I am unaware of a place in the archive where someone is called "ignorant of the facts" when they have a Ph.D. in the topic being discussed. Maybe the reader could give us a hand in making things better by pointing out precisely where this has happened. Until then, color me skeptical... Wesley |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | I was somewhat appalled when I visited one of your webpages entitled "Kent Hovind's FAQs: Examining 'Dr. Dino'" and saw the topics "The Hovind Bankruptcy Decision" and "Some Questionable Credentials." What is the purpose of these two topics? Is it to further science as the website claims, or is it to destroy the integrity of Kent Hovind instead of his information? I have personally talked with Dr. Hovind on three separate occasions. Let me assure you that he can refute these ad hominem attacks. I get the feeling that talk.origins is pulling up anything they can to discredit what Hovind teaches. I always enjoy reading the feedback section every month, but I do not like to see people being personally attacked in a somewhat "scientific" setting. I also question why you publish some of the off-the-wall emails while ignoring others, such as, some of my emails. |
Responses | |
From: | |
Response: |
The purpose of those two topics is to acquaint the reader with matters of character and authority concerning certain antievolutionists. Some antievolutionists make much of "moral decay" which they attribute to some insidious effect of the teaching of evolutionary biology. That certain of these antievolutionists show immoral leanings in their own behavior argues that immorality can stem from other causes. Some antievolutionists use claimed, but bogus, advanced degrees as a means of having their arguments on evolutionary biology accepted by the credulous without due consideration. Showing that certain people have degrees worth only what the diploma mill charged them informs readers that it is worth "checking under the hood" before crediting such "doctors" with real world expertise. Kent Hovind believes that moral conduct is a key issue. Kent Hovind does himself make an issue of the character of researchers, and does not restrict himself to arguing only the ideas. Here is an example, and not even the most egregious one available:
[Source: History of Evolution Part One] What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. It's pretty ironic that Hovind would accuse anyone else of being an "armchair philosopher". By the way, nothing that we say or do could "destroy" Hovind's integrity. Borrowing a memorable turn of phrase from the talk.origins newsgroup, Kent Hovind's integrity committed suicide; we are merely doing the autopsy. The ideas that Kent Hovind preaches concerning evolutionary biology have been refuted ad nauseam. It is erroneous to assert that because we examine the seamier side of Kent Hovind's behavior that we per force have not addressed the content of arguments which Kent Hovind does make. For example, what about the age of the earth? We have extensive FAQs covering the topic. Granted, Hovind is not mentioned by name in most of those, but then again it isn't like he was the first or only antievolutionist to use those arguments. Kent Hovind is absolutely powerless to deal with those issues, whatever he might make up about his own little peccadilloes. Even "Answers In Genesis", a dedicated bunch of antievolutionists by anyone's reckoning, has taken Hovind to task for his use of unsubstantiated arguments. Is there some reason why the tale of Hovind's diploma mill doctorate or his problems with the law or the IRS should not be heard by those who might otherwise be hornswaggled? The feedback is handled by volunteers who make their own choices about what to respond to. There is no policy for ignoring particular emails. The property that the unanswered items have in common is that they failed to interest all of the volunteer respondents. Wesley |
From: | |
Response: | Just to add
a couple of things to Wes' reply:
I too have spoken to Kent Hovind personally on several occasions. Your assurances that he can refute what we have written about him are simply false. He cannot refute the fact that his doctorate is virtually worthless and has nothing to do with science. This is a fact. Patriot University is nothing more than a diploma mill, and is listed as such even by Christian university accreditation organizations. He cannot refute the fact that his $250,000 offer is entirely fraudulent and impossible to meet. I have offered him $1 million if he can prove ANY claim using the same criteria that he uses in his absurd "challenge". No reply, of course. He does not reply because he knows he would lose, and in losing would show that his challenge, which he uses to great rhetorical effect, is a transparent sham. It should also be noted that nothing we have said about him is ad hominem. An ad hominem attack is a logical fallacy that says that an argument is wrong because of some personal and irrelevant flaw on the part of the one making the argument rather than because the argument itself is flawed. The arguments that he makes are refuted in several FAQs in this archive in great detail. Many of them (the moon dust argument, the alleged plesiosaur from Japan, etc) are refuted by his fellow creationists as well, yet he continues to use them. But Hovind himself calls himself "Dr" Kent Hovind and uses the title in order to gain instant credibility with those who see him, which makes his credentials a legitimate issue to dispute, especially when the degree isn't worth the paper it is printed on. And as Wes points out, Hovind goes to great lengths to argue that evolution leads to moral degradation. That makes his own history of dishonesty an entirely valid issue to examine. If Hovind wishes to refute anything we have said, we will gladly engage him in a written discussion on any topic he wishes related to either evolution or to his own personal credibility, to be posted to the archive and to his website if he would like to do so. Would you care to wager on whether he will accept that challenge? |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | It seems that a lot of creationists maintain that life cannot form from non-life. There is an experiment that theoretically can be done in a lab today or in the near future that can conclusively disprove that. Given today's state-of-the-art in molecular biology, it should be possible to create a new type of bacteria from its component parts. I know we already produced new varieties of e. coli; for example, by splicing the human insulin gene into its genome, so this shouldn't be too difficult. Why can't we synthesize DNA containing the essential e.coli genes (I know we already have its complete sequence), then add polymerases, ribosomes, nucleotides, and other proteins and enzymes to get the system started. We can then inject the mixture into an e.coli "shell" (cell wall + cell membrane + flagella,etc) thus producing a viable bacterium from non-living components. Can any of you comment on why this hasn't been done yet -- and if it has been tried, what specific difficulties the experimenters ran into? |
Response | |
From: | |
Author of: | Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution |
Response: | Craig Venter
has begun a project to create a synthetic bacterium with
the minimum number of genes. The goal is to make a first
step towards a synthetic life form that can be engineered
for any of various purposes, such as energy generation.
Venter's proposed technique is to synthesize the chromosome
and insert it in an existing cell whose own DNA has been
removed.
A virus has already been assembled from scratch. This article gives some information about both projects. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | Kelsey |
Comment: | I am a Christian, and just because I do not believe in evolution or the big bang, does not mean that all science is fake. Although I don't believe this crud, I must say it is pretty impressive that y'all can come up with all this. Most people would be too lazy. Thanks for presenting your interesting point of view. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | I absolutely love this website! It's got all the information I could ever want to know! THe only downside is lack of pictures. I think illustrations add greatly to the learning process and everything so I would love to see more here at Talk Origins. Thanks! |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | Eric |
Comment: | Stephen Jay Gould "The EXTREME rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secrete of palentology" (Natural History 86(1977) pg 14) the ship is going down, but I would be in denial too, I feel for ya! |
Responses | |
From: | |
Response: |
Took just a few seconds to find Gould's own words in response to the misuse of his work at the Antievolution Quotes and Misquotes Archive. Wesley |
From: | |
Response: | Stephen Jay Gould concludes,
|