TalkOrigins Archive - Feedback for April 2005

Feedback Letter

From:

Thomas

Comment:

Your response to CB411: Evolution cannot explain altruism should have a note in the responses that evolution has no burden to explain altruism. The strict darwinist would respond in the way you provided, by simply asserting that moral altruism is actually advantageous in social settings. But even if the opponent is unwilling to accept this suggestion, as they are unilikely to be, insisting that altruism is harmful to oneself by definition, there is another response or two.

1) Evolutionary theory can allow for deleterious traits to arise. Usually they "ride along" next to some other trait that is overwhelmingly beneficial. Impulses of moral altruism might be connected to structures of social learning that have lead to marvels throughout our lives: from our use of fire to our understanding of modern engineering.

2) Evolutionary theory need not explain any specific learned beliefs, especially once it demonstrates how our processes for learning an incredible variety of beliefs are advantageous on the whole. I can train a pigeon to fly into walls. Since learning for the pigeon is bad for it in the specific, it doesn't mean that learning for the pigeon is bad in the general... my trained pigeon is not a counterexample to evolution. The critic of the theory must first demonstrate that altruism is not simply a learned belief, but in fact, a genetic trait. I suspect this will be difficult, likely impossible. But even if it should be found to be provably true, it will probably contribute more to evolutionary theory than detract from it, as it reaffirms how phenotype is linked to genotype.

Feedback Letter
From:
Comment:	http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI141.html # There are similarities that cannot rationally be attributed to design. For example, an endogenous retroviral element (ERV) is a retrovirus (a parasite) that has become part of the genome. There are several kinds of ERVs, and they can insert themselves at random locations. Humans and chimps have thousands of such ERVs in common -- the same type of ERV at the same location in the genome (D. M. Taylor 2003). Your right, the Human Genome is acquiring an ever greater number of genetic disease. Humans are not improving from a baseline. I challenge you to give an example of how we are becoming more fit. The people I see suffering in hospital beds from crippling bone pain are far from agreeing with you that their sickle cell mutation is beneficial. Similar for the many other hematologic diseases which many evolutionists tout as evidence. Perhaps you may refer to a mutation of CCR5 providing resistance against some strains of HIV. 1. HIV is not & likely will not be expressed throughout the entire human population 2. This confers no benefit, except on exposure to HIV. Condoms can be beneficial too. Viruses mutate much faster than our genome dose & if they are exposed to multiple STD's concurrently then that worsens the prognosis. I will say more, after I can respond to your critique about me not considering how HIV affects the population long term. The evolutionary "shades of grey" or slowly changing over time are not realistic. The earth is very limited in its capacity.
Response
From:
Response:	Endogenous retroviruses are only vestiges of virues. Most of them are junk DNA, not diseases. I don't understand why you don't consider a mutation beneficial when it could potentially benefit "only" about 40 million people, plus an estimated 14,000 additional people each day [1]. Furthermore, there is evidence that the CCR5-delta-32 mutation which protects against AIDS also protects against another disease, perhaps smallpox or plague [2]. Another mutation, giving rise to apolipoprotein A-1(Milano), prevents atherosclerosis, protecting against heart disease [3]. You seem to have missed the point that many ERVs appear to be common to humans and chimp, and in a pattern that indicates common descent, not design. Good thing, too, in my opinion, because design would indicate that suffering such as you refer to was done on purpose. [1] http://www.niaid.nih.gov/factsheets/aidsstat.htm [2]Galvani, A. P.; Slatkin, M., 2003. Evaluating plague and smallpox as historical selective pressures for the CCR5-delta-32 HIV-resistance allele. PNAS 100: 15276-15279. [3] Weisgraber K. H. et al. 1983. Apolipoprotein A-I Milano. Detection of normal A-I in affected subjects and evidence for a cysteine for arginine substitution in the variant A-I. Journal of Biological Chemistry 258: 2508-2513.

Feedback Letter
From:	snaxalotl
Comment:	please stop disagreeing with those jerks who want to argue that the earth is round. enough time has passed to straighten out any serious truth questers. PLEASE from now on have the sense to ARGUE VEHEMENTLY that the earth is widely considered flat in these cases. It is NOT sensible to take some things too seriously.

Feedback Letter

From:

Comment:

There is a growing interest in the topic of evolution and in the search for a general theory that can explain what evolution is and why and how it happens. There is also a need for a general theoretical framework for process of both natural and cultural changes, including the systematic tools provided for each activity of evolutionary studies.

Among the great diversity and similarity of the universe, philosophers, scientists, theologians seek to relate one phenomenon to another and to recognize the causes and effects of phenomena. In this way, they have developed explanations for the changing of the seasons, the movements of the sun and stars, the structure of matter, the history of life on Earth, the changes in the society, and many other occurrences. Alternative models, processes, formulas, and theories in many areas are developing to help our understanding of how the universe works. The theory of evolution is one of the most important ideas ever generated by the application of scientific methods to the universe. Evolution in the broadest sense explains that what we see today is different from what existed in the past. The term “evolution” not only concerns changes in living things during the history of life on Earth but also refers to the changes of the universe over time, including cultural changes.

Evolutionary theory incorporates a large body of scientific facts, laws, tested hypotheses, and logical inferences but it is much harder to support scientifically in one process, one model, one formula, or one theory. This is because of the great diversity and similarity among the universe, the explanation of only evolutionary theory can not be applied to everything. For instance, biological evolution provides an explanatory framework for the processes of natural change, but that it can not be applies uncritically to cultural phenomena, the evolutionary formulas for making a universe and making life can enable everything- with the exceptions of man-made things, such as computer or buildings, and of complicated things, such as wooden boxes with nails in them, require thought, intelligence, and careful workmanship.

Feedback Letter
From:
Comment:	I can think of something to put a damper on your guess of how old the earth is. You say billions of years old ok. Our moon is moving away from us at 3.8 centimeters a year. Where does that put the moon 4 billion years ago. AS for evolution and your big bang one question where did the dirt come from? so don't tell people that its not a belief as in a religon.
Response
From:
Author of:	The Recession of the Moon and the Age of the Earth-Moon System
Response:	On the matter of the moon, see my archived FAQ file, linked above. As for the matter of where the dirt came from, that is also easy. As the universe evolved, the initial raw energy evolved into simple matter, which became more complex, and eventually evolved into dirt.

Feedback Letter
From:	George
Comment:	Interesting that someone named David states that a story parallel to the story of Noah is actually an argument "against" the flood. If you take the time to research that nearly every early civilization has an account of a global flood, I would say that these are actually arguments supporting the Biblical account of Noah. In addition, has anyone ever talked about the fact that no other book in history has withstood the literary tests as well as the Bible? Many of you would never think to question the writings of Aristotle, Homer, or Confucius. Their writings have shown considerable (yet tolerable according to literary tests) errors while the Bible has maintained its integrity to the period. I have to commend most of you as it takes more faith to believe in a theory concieved by a man who disclaimed it years after he dreamed it up.
Response
From:
Response:	Hello George: That nearly every early civilization has an account of a global flood hardly vindicates the biblical flood story. First the flood stories of other early civilizations have them occuring at different times. Some earlier (the Indian, Shatapatha-Brahmama epic dates to 2000 BCE). Some later (the Mayan Popol-Vuh epic which dates to the classic period 200-1000CE). (Interestingly, one of the oldest civilizations, the Egyptian, does not have a flood epic to brag about.) The real problem with the global flood, (aside from the lack of evidence) is the "global" area of most ancient cultures was a area of about 250-500 miles in diameter. That was their universe. Factor in the evidence that most early cultures lived on or near rivers and seas, and a major flood did occur, such as the floods created by Lake Missoula in Eastern Washington State, it certainly would have been preceived as a "global" event to them. Many of us that study philosophy do question the writings of Plato, Aristotle, Homer et al. just as we do the Bible. The discipline of Higher Criticism has and continues to place the Bible along side other great epic writings, complete with errors, omissions, myths and legends. Special pleading aside, there is no good reason to place the Bible in any other catagory. Where did Darwin ever disclaim his theory of Natural Selection?

Feedback Letter
From:	ariel smith
Comment:	this information on the flood is very good... it has helped me with lots of research.. thank you for you hard work ariel

Feedback Letter
From:	Patrick
Comment:	I know that this site deals mainly with the evolution debate but surely a powerful, scientific refutation to the creationists would be the evidence presented by the distance of stars from the earth. Even though the universe is expanding, the light must still have travelled over many millions of years from some of the more distant stars? Thus proving, at least, that the universe is more than 10,000 years old. I have never seen this discussed on either pro or anti-creation websites.
Response
From:
Response:	Hello Patrick, Unfortuately, one of the tenents of young earth creationism is that the universe, including galaxies and stars, was created in the present state with their light already shining on earth. Of course there is no good reason to believe this other than it is an article of faith with them based on a literal reading of Genesis.

Feedback Letter
Comment:	Help. There is one question I am confronted with that I can't answer. Doesn't there need to be great wisdom behind evolution? For instance how does an insect decide it would be a good idea to look like a stick or a leaf? And then after making such an ingenious observation, how does it start the process of making it happen? How does it figure out that it needs to be a certain color and how does it figure out how to create (sorry for using "create") that color? How does it ensure that future generations will continue with its plan and not "decide" to become something else? Since it can't see itself how does it know if it is succeeding?
Response
From:
Response:	Species do not need to decide to change in order to change. Mutations, most of them small, cause variation among individuals. Then the environment determines which varieties go on to produce new generations and which do not. In your example, the insect does not decide to look like a stick; the birds which eat the insects decide that by eating the insects that do not look like sticks. Remember, individuals do not evolve; a non-stick insect does not mutate into a stick insect. Rather, populations evolve. The non-stick insect lays eggs with mutations so that some more stick-like insects appear in the next generations, and those insects survive better to eventually dominate the population. (Other mutations which don't help the insects' survival will probably not increase; if the mutations are harmful, the insects will tend to die young, and the harmful mutations with them.) Gradually, the population of insects becomes more stick-like. If you still think this is a sticky subject, Dawkins' The Blind Watchmaker covers it at greater breadth and depth.

Feedback Letter

From:

Comment:

Awesome! Thank you. All this in one place.

BTW as Eastern Orthodox Christians, we never had any inkling that this was even an issue until recently. What a shock! When I went to a Catholic High School years ago what y'all call theistic evolution was called something like intelliget design. It sure wasn't what it appears to be now.

Some of these people need to consider their concept of God is too small.

Feedback Letter
From:
Comment:	Thank God ;-) for your site! I am an avowed Christian but see no conflict between science and religion when each is approached with a healthy dose of Humean skepticism. Science cannot "disprove" the existence of God any more than Theology can lay waste to science. Neither Dawkins nor Dembski have sufficient evidence to score the knockout punch in this debate. I find Darwinian evolution fascinating, plausible and in no way in conflict with a belief in God (see process theology), and in fact I find your site invaluable in providing good solid ground for refuting the pseudoscientific claims of the ID crowd. Not all theists are anti-science!

Feedback Letter

From:

Comment:

Re: Claim CC371 "Dino Blood" is about the work of Schweitzer et al. finding a "juicy" T.Rex dino bone

This is in the news again (Mar 2005), [but the original discovery took place a decade ago].

Your claim reports that amino racemization (AAR) was used to confirm the ancientness of this bone. But this technique can only date back 200,000 years (and not terribly reliable at that).

T.Rex died out 65 Million years ago, so how can AAR prove anything (except that it didn't die recently)? How come radiometric methods haven't been applied, which could settle the ancientness issue properly?

Response

From:

Author of:

Dino Blood and the Young Earth

Response:

The fossil T. rex femur, MOR 1125 that Schweitzer et al reported on March 24th of this year, was excavated about 3 years ago from the Hell Creek Formation in the state of Montana. The article linked above referred to a separate fossil from the same formation, MOR 555, on which Schweitzer based her doctoral thesis.

The point of the amino acid racimization analysis was indeed to demonstrate that the organic residue she had extracted was not a recent contaminant. The Hell creek Formation happens to be one of the better dated hunk of rock on the planet. The data below were compiled by Dr. G. Brent Dalrymple, and published (along with many more) in "Radiometeric Dating Does Work!" which can be read at the National Center for Science Education website.

The data are presented in the order of "Material," "Dating Method" "Number of samples," and "Age in Millions of years."

tektites	40Ar/39Ar total fusion	28	64.8±0.1
tektites	40Ar/39Ar age spectrum	1	66.0±0.5
tektite	40Ar/39Ar age spectrum	1	64.7±0.1
tektites	40Ar/39Ar total fussion	17	64.8±0.2
biotite, sanidine	K-Ar	12	64.6±1.0
biotite, sanidine	Rb-Sr isochron, (26 D.P.)	1	63.7±0.6
zircon	U-Pb concordia (16 data)	1	63.9±0.8

So, the MOR 1125, and MOR 555 femurs happen to be some of the better dated dinosaur bones known to exist. The independently established age of this bone is based on 86 seperate chemical analyses on three different kinds of minerals, based on four independent radiometric decay series. It doesn't get much better than that.

Feedback Letter
From:
Comment:	i used the evolutionist point about how similar a human's hand is to a bats wing, horses forleg, and a whales flipper is and was rebuttled with "unity in creation is not proof of evolution, perhaps The Creator saw perfect design with this structure in a veriety of animals". is there any further proof of evolution with this, say a fossil of a bat with half formed wings?
Response
From:
Response:	The rebuttal to the "perfect design" argument you were given is that many different designs are used for the same thing. For example, bat wings are nothing like the wings of birds, insects, or pterosaurs. When you get into designs for gliding, the variety is much greater still (see Half a wing?). Structural similarites follow the pattern we would expect from common descent, not functional design. Other evidence for evolution is given in 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution.

Feedback Letter
From:
Comment:	I wonder if you would reconsider a couple of the definitions in the "God and Evolution" article by Warren Kurt VonRoeschlaub. It just makes sense to be as accurate as possible with such a (peculiarly) hot potato topic. I've put my suggestions in brackets after what you've currently got. Evolution The fact the frequency of the apperance of alleles in a population of organisms changes over time. [All the changes that have transformed life on Earth from its earliest beginnings to the diversity that characterizes it today. from Campbell and Reece] At the least, the current version is pretty sloppy. Allele The pieces of DNA that cause a particular trait, ie. "blue eyes". [Put in gene, modify allele: Gene A discrete unit of hereditary information, located at a specific place on a certain chromosome, consisting of a specific nucleotide sequence. Allele An alternative version of a gene. Different alleles are located at the same specific place on homologous chromosomes, but their nucleotide sequences differ.] The current definition is flat out incorrect.
Response
From:
Author of:	Darwin's precursors and influences
Response:	I agree with you. But perhaps it might be better to revise the site to incorporate all the various glossaries into one, more authoritative, one. For example, there is a glossary in one of my FAQs that I know is inaccurate. I will raise this with the administrators.

Feedback Letter
From:
Comment:	This is a great site and has really helped me with my research project!

Feedback Letter

From:

Comment:

I have only recently become acquainted with your website. As a religious educator, a university academic and a practising Christian I have so far found the site to be of tremendous value in responding to the irrational claims of evangelical Creationism. There is, incidentally, a deep traditon in Catholic theology of engaging with the discoveries of cosmology, earth science and evolutionary biology as disclosures of the unfolding creative work of a loving God myseriously involved in the fabric of his wondrous creation.

thank you

Dr Bob Davis Head of Department of Religious Education University of Glasgow

Feedback Letter
Comment:	Your reference to Noah's Ark and the world wide flood that the entire event was 1 year, is false. According to Genesis the flood lasted 40 days and 40 nights.
Response
From:
Response:	The event begins here: Chapter 7, v11: In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened. And the event ends here: Chapter 8, v13: And it came to pass in the six hundredth and first year, in the first month, the first day of the month, the waters were dried up from off the earth: and Noah removed the covering of the ark, and looked, and, behold, the face of the ground was dry. So according to the Bible, the flood begins in Noah 600, month 2, day 17, and ends on Noah 601, month 1, day 1. This is, by my workings, 11 months, 13 days. Also, note the two statements: 7:24: And the waters prevailed upon the earth an hundred and fifty days. and 8:3: And the waters returned from off the earth continually: and after the end of the hundred and fifty days the waters were abated. So the waters remained constant ("prevailed") for 150 days and began to abate after that. It is sad that people don't actually read the texts they are supposedly defending from us evil science types...

Feedback Letter
From:
Comment:	Shame. Looks like you guys are really scared of those creationists. But hey when the creator comes back one day, you will get the same feeling the people outside the ark got. It will be to late.... But im praying for you. That is to the real creator, Jesus Christ.

Feedback Letter
From:
Comment:	i read your article about the Flat-earth society, and i thought it was great you wrote it. it was really funny to read what they had to say, i had a great laugh! i didn't know there were people like that out there. indy

Feedback Letter
From:
Comment:	hi i am nether a creationist or evolutionist, personally i really don't care where we came from, but i have a question. the termite can not digest wood, there is a small organisim (Tricohonympha agilis) living inside the termite that eats the wood and converts it into something that the termite can digest. nether can live without the other. so my question is this , which one evolved first? my source for the above information is : www.fcps.k12.va.us/StratfordLandingES/ Ecology/mpages/eastern_subterranean_termi.htm
Response
From:
Response:	Termite guts harbor not just one organism, but a complex and diverse community of dozens of species. The termite ancestors likely lived by eating detritus from the forest floor, as many cockroaches do today. They would have ingested many microorganisms in the process. Some of those evolved to live full-time in termite guts. As the termites evolved, their gut communities evolved along with them.

Feedback Letter
From:
Comment:	I would love to know how evolutionists explain the Bombadier beetle.
Response
From:
Response:	We would love to oblige: Bombardier Beetles and the Argument of Design

Feedback Letter
From:
Comment:	My name is Kasey, I am 16 years old and a firm believer in Jesus Christ and i was wondering if you would be willing to debate me through email. I believe that i can disprove every one of your theories on evolution. So please, if you would be willing, send your arguments. Sincerely, A Believer
Response
From:
Response:	This Archive is not generally a debate site, and the feedback maintainers do not generally enter into e-mail debates with readers. We get a lot of challenges of this sort, and quite frankly wouldn't have the time to answer them all. If you're looking for a debate, why not go to the newsgroup talk.origins? I'll warn you, though. Before you start debating evolution, you'd better know a lot more about it than, in all likelihood, you do now. (Certainly, you should know more than I do; I know enough to know I don't know enough.) Just cutting and pasting some arguments you read in a booklet somewhere probably won't cut it. Until you can really understand and analyze the evidence supporting evolution -- and there are mountains of it -- you'd probably be better off reading more and learning what you can. There's plenty of resources on this site; why not start with the Must-Read Files? When you decide you're ready to start debating, save yourself some hardship and read the talk.origins Welcome FAQ. Pay close attention to the pointers for debate. And good luck!

Feedback Letter
From:
Comment:	Thank you for taking the time and energy to compile such an organized and extensive site. It has helped me clarify my own attitudes on this difficult and contentious debate. I am a science educator at a church-affiliated private preparatory school. We in the science department are free to teach what we all believe to be science, that life evolved over a vast time scale, that the earth is billions of years old and most changes are almost too slow to perceive, and that the physical universe is governed by consistent laws. We can teach that in using the scientific method we can organize the observations and data that we collect using theories that stand the test of time and experimentation. However, our students also learn about Gilgamesh (in World History) about the world's religions (in a required religion class taught at the senior year) and about their personal faith and moral obligations in a supportive community structured by the church. We do not "indoctrinate" our students; we give them the tools and skills and access to information to find their own way. Perhaps the debate can be defused by allowing religion and philosophy to be taught in the public schools. That way the religious conservatives in any society will feel that their views are represented. On the other hand, my attitude may be shaped by my particular denomination's willingness to let people think for themselves; some denominations feel that their way is the only way to salvation, and letting them into the schools may restrict the freedoms of those that disagree. I feel sorry for anyone that does not find the world a fascinating, complex, interconnected place and does not feel the desire to learn as much as they can about it.

Feedback Letter
From:
Comment:	My theory on the origin of the word "Dinosaur" - In Sanskrit (the origin of all languages) the words "Danav" and "Aasur" mean "Demons/Giants" - putting these two together could have lead to the word "Dino-saur"??? Also, in ancient Hindu/Vedic scriptures/mythology, three distinct ages have been defined - the age of the Dev(s) - (Gods), age of the Danav(s) - (Demons/Giants) and the last age of the Manav(s) - (Man). Age of the Danavs could very well have been the Dinosaur age that modern day researchers talk about!!!
Response
From:
Response:	Which would all be fine, except that Richard Owen named them from the Greek, meaning mighty lizard. This is documented. Hindu fundamentalism is as opposed to science as Christian or Islamic. And Sanskrit is not the origin of all languages. It is part of the Indo-European family. Language far predates Sanskrit. This is more Hindu parochialism.

Feedback Letter
Comment:	What if you are wrong??? Dont give me the answer... "i'm not"...give me a REAL answer. What if you are wrong?? What will you do? Your whole existence would be altered. I'm not a scientist. I'm just doing a thesis paper on the argument over teaching evolution or creation in high schools. Dont be so sure of yourself. No matter what we think we find out, no one KNOWS. Remember, you WEREN'T there in the begginning. Think about it. What if you are wrong????
Response
From:
Response:	If I am wrong, I will change my view when new evidence comes that shows I am wrong. I love finding out I have been wrong about things, such as Mars keeping one face towards the sun, ulcers being caused by stress, and prion diseases needing genetic material. Whenever I correct something I am wrong about, it means I am learning more about the world, and it brings me that much closer to being right. Being wrong also helps me be humble (and I need all the help I can get). If I can be wrong about something like prions, then I can be wrong about matters in personal relationships. I have been around people who are right all the time; I do not like to spend time with such people, and I very much do not want to be like them.

Feedback Letter
From:
Comment:	You guys are the equivalent of a Bible to evolutionists. Wherever I go, this website tends to pop up in debate or discussion. Continue the good work.

Feedback Letter
From:
Comment:	Alpha-track halos and Young-Earth Creationism: Gentry’s book titled “Creation’s Tiny Mystery” is widely quoted by Young-Earth Creationists. It describes thin sections of biotite and fluorite containing spherical alpha-damaged halos, up to 35 microns in radius, centered upon microscopic centers of radioactivity, particularly those due to polonium-218 having a half life of 3 minutes. Gentry claims that the Po is primordial because many Po centers are not accompanied by uranium which could serve as a long-lived parent (U-238 decays, with a half life of 4.5 Gy, to Pb-206 via a series of intermediate daughters including Po-218). Gentry concludes that the “primordial” Po centers and their host Precambrian granites formed within the first minutes of the Biblical creation 6,000 years ago. That some Po radio-centers are unsupported by U cannot be denied: Neutron irradiation produces no fission tracks; concentric U halos are missing; and the final daughter Pb is free of the 205 isotope derived from U-235. Gentry argues that the Po was not derived from radon that had diffused from its U parent because he did not identify Radon-222 halos concentric with Po halos (there are usually 3 concentric Po halos from the 3 Po isotopes 218, 214, and 210). But some of his microphotographs clearly show Po halos centered on cracks, and the intersections of cracks, precisely where one would expect microcavities that could accumulate radon gas. Biotite has basal cleavage along which radon could diffuse, and his samples are flaked for viewing. Gentry erroneously states that fluorite has no cleavage, whereas it actually has perfect octahedral cleavage. Most importantly, the energies of Rn-222 alpha particles, 5.49 MeV, are sufficiently similar to those of Po-210 alpha particles, 5.30 MeV, to render their respective halos indistinguishable. Furthermore, only 5 distinct concentric halos are evident in his micrographs of fully developed U halos, whereas his idealized diagram shows 6. In U-free polonium halos the inner halo is especially intense, as one would expect if it were a superposition of two halos, one due to Rn-222 and the other to Po-210. Thus, the inability to recognize a separate Rn halo associated with U-free polonium halos is not sufficient evidence against the in-situ derivation of Po from Rn, which could have diffused away from parent U and accumulated within a microcavity. All this does not preclude the possibility that, in rare cases, Rn-derived Po migrated to a center of precipitation of unknown chemical affinity, although its 3-minute half life limits the distance it could have moved. There is no mystery: Gentry’s polonium is not primordial; it is derived from long-lived U-238 (half life = 4.5Gy) via the diffusion of the inert gas, radon-222 (half life = 3.8 days). Furthermore, geologic mapping shows that one of Gentry’s granites intrudes stromatolite-bearing sedimentary rocks (Wakefield, JGE 1988).
Response
From:
Response:	I added paragraphs to this only.

Feedback Letter

From:

Malex

Comment:

I'd like to respond to ice core dating.

What is the evidence that the rings are entire seasons? Couldn't the rings be caused by monthly or weekly differences in temperature causing some water to be compacted as ice and others as snow?

Sorry if there was evidence in the article against this, I didn't bother to read it all.

Feedback Letter
From:
Comment:	I'm not trying to complain about this, but Darwin said that evolution is just a theory. Darwin also said he believed in God. There has also been many things that are in the Bible that have been proven, but people don't mention that.
Response
From:
Author of:	Darwin's precursors and influences
Response:	No he didn't, and no he didn't, not exactly. Darwin spoke of "my theory", but he meant what any scientist means by "theory" - an explanation of phenomena which is gained from observation and experiment (he did a lot of both), and which is open to being tested (as his ideas were and have been). And the God Darwin believed in towards the latter half of his life was at best the Deist God, an absent God who worked through the laws of nature only. Not that this matters - there have been many theist evolutionary biologists, and Darwin is not an authority in this regard, but as a matter of historical accuracy, Darwin believed in neither the Christian God nor the Bible.

Feedback Letter
From:	Meriel
Comment:	I have not looked at this website previously, found it today and have spent an hour or so browsing and enjoying the commentary. I did have one comment about the question of whether public schools should also teach about other hypotheses of origin, and I have reservations that I think are not usually voiced. I actually use the evolution/creation debate in an introductory biology class, not as a fundamental question of origins but as a means of exploring the nature of science. Now this, it turns out, can be a) incredibly time-consuming and b) very easy to do inadequately. I am an evolutionary biologist by training, and consult regularly with a philosopher who studied epistemology at Brown, and it actually takes a fair amount of sophistication in both areas to teach this well(I claim to do it adequately, perhaps not well every time). That by itself is a pretty good argument against trying to do this in public schools. Let our biology teachers teach the range of biology. Perhaps we should also be teaching epistemology at a younger age...
Response
From:
Author of:	Evolution and Philosophy
Response:	As a philosopher, I agree. In large part the creationist movement is trading off the complete lack of decent science education for the general public, so that they can make obviously unscientific claims without fear of being called to account. But you can explore the nature of science more directly, by examining cases where older approaches failed. This would perhaps make it easier to transfer the lessons of the taught cases to the modern examples. But it doesn't help that many scientists don't know how to articulate the nature of science. There are a considerable number of what can only be called "textbook myths" about "scientific method". Science is in fact a living thing, not entirely capable of being captured by a definition; and so it gets hard to demarcate between science and pseudoscience in ways that could be passed through the limited nozzle, conceptually speaking, of the mass media.

Feedback Letter
From:
Comment:	I’ve never been able to get a rational explanation for this. Maybe someone here could help me, as I am genuinely curious in an explanation. At http://pubs.usgs.gov/publications/text/historical.html#anchor4833509 is the supposed timeline for the Earth’s continental drift, as provided from the U.S. Geological Survey Site. This is the accepted timeline. Notice the map at the Cretaceous period: The continent of South America is completely isolated from all other continents, save for potential nominal contact at its southernmost extreme with Antarctica. Notice that hundreds or thousands of miles of ocean separate South America from Africa by any direct or indirect route, such that it would be impossible to cross between the two. Notice that this is what, using the best scientific evidence available, the Earth looked like 65 million years ago. Now consider that the first and most primitive Primates supposedly appeared 60 million years ago—5 million years after the start of the Cretaceous period. The first modern Apes appeared 30 million years ago. Yet, there are ape species on both the African and South American continents. How is it that genetically compatible apes are native to both continents? I’m not sure if I’m more impressed by the monkey’s swimming abilities or their boat-building skills. Also: note to the webpage author-- I would be happy to offer a reply to any of your questions that could supposedly stump a creationist (the lists i've seen so far are not even remotely challenging). If, for some reason, you wanted some sort of accreditation I have a Ph.D. in Organic Chemistry from the University of Georgia and a J.D. in Law from Regent University School of Law, so I think you would find me qualified to respond to any technical queries. It's up to you. Bye, everyone.
Response
From:
Author of:	Dino Blood and the Young Earth
Response:	"I’m not sure if I’m more impressed by the monkey’s swimming abilities or their boat-building skills." You need not worry too much about either. Species found on Caribbean islands do suggest some ability to move by "island hopping" and we know that primates today can swim between islands very well. But just as likely was a simple overland route when the North and South American continents became connected. We know by comparison to the Indian, and African plates that the biological 'connections' follow the geological. What you should consider is the many primates such as Microsyopidae, and Plesiadapidae, which were present in both North America and Europe during the middle Paleocene to late Eocene. In fact, the oldest primate, Purgatorius, was found in North America. Most South American fossil primates, such as Cebidae, and Callitrichidae, do not appear until the Miocene. Even the earliest South American fossil primate, Branisella, did not appear until the late Oligocene. Africa was colonized from Europe in the early Oligocene. Similarly, the South American continent doesn't seem to have been colonized by primates until it was "reachable" from North America. Second verse; There are many authors who contribute to TalkOrigins. There is a quite clear set of submisison guidelines. I suggest that you review them.

Feedback Letter
From:
Comment:	Over time, the amounts of Pb-206 and Pb-207 will change in some samples, as these isotopes are decay end-products of uranium decay (U-238 decays to Pb-206, and U-235 decays to Pb-207). This causes the data points to separate from each other. The higher the uranium-to-lead ratio of a rock, the more the Pb-206/Pb-204 and Pb-207/Pb-204 values will change with time Why will the amounts not change in all samples, only some?
Response
From:	Chris Stassen
Response:	The text probably should say that ²⁰⁶Pb/²⁰⁴Pb ratios will change, due to accumulation of radiogenic lead, in those samples which contain non-negligible quantities of uranium. That is not necessarily "all" samples, though. That quoted text is from my Age of the Earth FAQ, discussing a Pb/Pb isochron diagram for the Solar System. In that diagram, the data point for iron meteorites will never move, because they contain little or no uranium.

Feedback Letter
From:
Comment:	I found a Darwin book "The Origin of Species" dated December 13, 1864 from John W. Taylor. My question is how can you tell if this book I have is a 1st addition or 2nd or 3rd. Please let me know. Thanks in advance Lane
Response
From:
Author of:	Darwin's precursors and influences
Response:	You can tell by whether it has "An Historical Sketch" in it or not. This was introduced in the third edition of April 1861, and the fourth edition wasn't published until 1866. Clearly this is an American reprint, and probably not an authorised copy (it was heavily pirated by American publishers). Most likely it is the second edition if the Sketch is not there.

Feedback Letter
From:
Comment:	This comment is directed toward Warren Kurt VonRoeschlaub's article on God and Evolution: When a person claiming to be Christian attempts to appease man-made viewpoints, it results in a compromise of the belief in the Christian God. If you do not believe the Bible to be the literal, inerrant Word of God, how can you claim to agree with Christianity? To take the Bible as literal is a fundamental must of claiming to adhere to the Christian faith. The sad fact is, when Christians try to appease evolutionist scientists by claiming both Creation and Evolution are true, they lose even more respect from evolutionists. Try taking one side and sticking to it, not watering down your belief in God to try and mollify the evolutionists. Trust me, they look at creation-evolution integrators and derisively laugh even harder than they do at Creationists who stick to pure Creationism.
Response
From:
Response:	Who is "they"? Not any of the 3000+ clergy who signed the Open Letter Concerning Religion and Science of the Clergy Letter Project, saying that science and Christianity are fully compatible. And their religion is not, by any stretch, "watered down." The sad fact is, the largest anti-Christian movement in the United States today is creationism, and is done in the name of Christianity.

Feedback Letter
From:
Comment:	Is this a true quote from Huxley?...is this what Creationist hang their hat on? “Evolution is thus seen as a series of blind alleys. Some are extremely short - those leading to new genera and and species that either become stable or become extinct. Others are longer - the lines of aadptive isolation within a group such as a class or subclass, which run for tens of millions of years before coming up against their terminal blank wall. Others are still longer - the links that in the past led to the development of the major phyla and their highest representatives; their course is to be reckioned not in tens but in hundreds of millions of years. But all in the long run have terminated blindly. etc. etc. Julian Huxley, “Evolution: The Modern Synthesis” page 571
Response
From:
Author of:	Evolution and Philosophy
Response:	Yes it is. It's part of Huxley's paean to the uniqueness of humans, a point which he often asserted. He goes on to say that only humans are progressing evolutionarily, which is a far from accepted viewpoint. In one book, he even went so far as to say that humans should be the sole member of a new kingdom, Psychozoa. This is not regarded as a core idea in modern evolutionary theory, and probably wasn't even then.

Feedback Letter
From:
Comment:	You folks amaze me with your fundamentalist Darwinian garbage. The Dawkin era is now upon us. The militant breed of fools. You can try to discredit those ''creationist''but it's not working! If you look at the new polls, you will see that the lunatic fringe of atheistic philosophy, which is what EVOLUTION is, and nothing more, is being seriously challenged by THINKING and curious people. Now, all the sudden the degrees of the evolutionist/scientist is becoming a worthless piece of paper when the doubt of a philosophical ''theory'' is being dumped into the recycle bin of YAK! Imagine. Dawkins having to defend his degree based on a false science! Will Oxford call it back in when they discover the value of teaching the false science of evolution is equivalent to a day at Disney World! Poor Richard! I read his garbage for years. He's first and foremost an atheist! YOU CAN NOT DENY THAT STATEMENT! That makes him a liar! As for you folks........you figure out what it makes you!

Feedback Letter
From:	Mathew
Comment:	All right, then. Which came first, the chicken or the chicken egg?
Response
From:	Chris Stassen
Response:	That depends on your definition of "chicken egg." See this talk.origins post of mine for a discussion.

Feedback Letter
From:
Comment:	Dear TalkOrigins, By the way you have a great site. My dad, a young-earth creationist as I once was, sent me this article about soft tissue preserved in 70myo dinosaur skeleton to argue for a young earth. http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=31&art_id=qw1113797161894B216 I know the argument is superficial and contains no quantitation but wonder if your site contains a critique of that or something. Thanks for any info. Mark Russell
Response
From:
Response:	It does now, at CC371.1 in the Index to Creationist Claims. The main rebuttal, though, is Gary Hurd's Dino blood redux on the Panda's Thumb. Briefly, claims that the tissues look young are exaggerated, and the bones are reliably dated at more than 65 million years old from the sediments they were found in.

Feedback Letter
From:
Comment:	Hey. Great website been checking it out for a while now. anyway a quick request. my girlfriend is writing an essay on the impact of evolutionary though on social democracy in early 1900s. anyway she wants a good explanation of the key differences between lamarckism and neo-lamarckism, and then the differences between those and darwinism. I read a bit of the stuff you had in the "So you want to be an anti-darwinist" which was useful, but was wondering if you could outline more of the differences between lamarckism and neo-lamarckism. thanks for your help and keep up the good work.
Response
From:
Author of:	Evolution and Philosophy
Response:	Three things are called "Lamarckism". Only two of them were actually views held by Lamarck, and none of them are really unique to him. (Type 1) Neo-Lamarckian heredity This actually appears in Darwin's own writings in two sub-varieties. The first is that traits that get used in a modified form will tend to be passed on due to some hereditary process, while those that do not will tend not to be passed on and will wither away over generations. This is use-and-disuse. Soft-inheritance or the 'inheritance of acquired characteristics' is the idea that changes accrued during an organism's life are passed on to their progeny. While Lamarck held the soft-inheritance view, this was well before Weismann introduced what Mayr later called "hard inheritance". (Type 2) Directed variation A second sense of Lamarckism is the idea that variations arise to anticipate or meet needs. This is not what Lamarck thought. Instead he thought that variations were brought about to deal with present needs as a result of the action of the local environment upon the underlying biology of the organism. How this happened was never really clear. (Type 3) The progressive evolution of complexity Lamarck and many since (e.g., Teilhard) thought that evolution is an inevitable increase in some measure that is progressive. It might be increasing in 'perfection', 'complexity', 'consciousness' or whatever. It is widely accepted that Darwinian evolution is no guarantee of progressiveness on any measure. Even the existence of an objective scale is open to question. Neo-Lamarckians adopted types 1 and 3 more or less unreservedly, in the period known as the "Eclipse of Darwinism" from around 1880 to 1920 or so. They occasionally also accepted type 3. It is important when discussing these ideas that you disambiguate them, or confusion will result. See the following books for more information: Barthélemy-Madaule, M. (1982). Lamarck, the mythical precursor: a study of the relations between science and ideology. Cambridge, Mass., MIT Press. Bowler, P. J. (1983). The eclipse of Darwinism: Anti-Darwinian evolution theories in the decades around 1900. Baltimore and London, John Hopkins University Press. Bowler, P. J. (2003). Evolution: the history of an idea. Berkeley, University of California Press. Gillispie, C. C. (1959). Lamarck and Darwin in the history of science. Forerunners of Darwin 1749–1859. B. Glass, O. Temkin and W. L. Straus. Baltimore MD, Johns Hopkins Press: 265–291. Hull, D. L. (1984). Lamarck among the Anglos. Introduction to reprinted edition of J. B. Lamarck’s Zoological Philosophy: An Exposition with Regard to the Natural History of Animals. Chicago, Chicago University Press. Jordanova, L. J. (1984). Lamarck. Oxford; New York, Oxford University Press.

Feedback Letter
Comment:	The letter, "The Impossibility of Evolution" seen in the What's New section, was beautifully written. Thanks for the logical, humurous, heart-felt response and keep up the good work.

Feedback Letter
From:
Comment:	Is the picture of the x-ray of the tail bone a fake (2.2.2) (Click Here) i tried to look up all information on the picture outside of this site and couldn't find anything Can you give a proper link so that i may varify that the photo is not a fake. if it is a fake don't you think you should tell people who read the article?
Response
From:
Response:	There is this old fashioned institution called a "library." It is generally a building with books and other forms of stored information inside of it. In a "library" you can find the many references provided in (Click Here). Best of luck in your next life.

Feedback Letter
From:
Comment:	I have been using this website to urge the KS State School Board to not "devalue" the teaching of Evolution as only one of "many" theories. They are using this argument to try and introduce "religious" and/or "philosophical" views that are not founded in science to our children. Thank you for such a great site!

Feedback Letter
From:
Comment:	I just finished reading the March 2005 feedback. There didn't seem to be as many crank feedbacks, maybe the lessons are at long last sinking in! Right. Toward the end of the feedback, somebody asked for current transitional species. Clearly, they are everywhere! Every living thing is a member of a potential transitional species to what will be; we just don't know exactly what everything is transitioning to, yet. Great site, keep it up!
Response
From:
Response:	As it happens, we don't publish all the crank feedsback. We received 125 messages that month, with around 2/3rds being people accusing us of damnation, heresy, blasphemy, or moral turpitude (no, I don't know what it means either, but I always wanted to use it in a sentence. I think it has something to do with drinking turpentine). Most of them are just too damned boring to put up.

Feedback Letter
Comment:	wow. satan is doing a great job to trick you all, but Jesus is more powerful than some evolution

Feedback for April 2005

(Type 1) Neo-Lamarckian heredity

(Type 2) Directed variation

(Type 3) The progressive evolution of complexity