Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | I am a 17 year-old highschool senior who is doing a research paper on the Creation-vs-Evolution theory. I have been wondering if anyone who has been studying this theory has ever considered that both Creation and Evolution exist. I have seen enough evidence in both to come to the conclusion that both exist. Sincerely, Jenna Potts |
Response | |
From: | |
Author of: | Evolution and Philosophy |
Response: | The renowned biologist Theodosius Dobzhansky was both a Russian Orthodox believer and an evolutionary biologist. He asserted that he was both a creationist and an evolutionist in an essay in American Biology Teacher in 1973 entitled Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | I have just
read
an article by Dr Russell Humphreys PHD at the Institute of
Creationist Research (ICR) where he uses the diffusion
of radiogenic helium in zircons to arrive at a 6000 yr
Earth.
I have also read many articles on the theory of radiometric dating and whilst I go along with the scientific approach, I have not really seen any good counter arguments to the Helium diffiusion agruements? What is talk.origins stance / reply on this issue? |
Responses | |
From: | |
Response: | Although
it's hard to tell from the summary that Humphreys provides
in his article, the model he's discussing appears to me to
depend upon the rate at which helium leaves the Earth's
atmosphere. Creationist estimates of this rate have been
notoriously low, because young-earth creationists fail to
account for the escape of ionized helium along the earth's
polar magnetic field lines. This escape rate is essentially
in equilibrium with the radiogenic production rate [see
Helium Escape from the Terrestrial Atmosphere - The Ion
Outflow Mechanism, Journal of Geophysical Research
(Space Physics) 101(A2): 2435-2443 (1996 Feb 1)].
You should also see the following: |
From: | Chris Stassen |
Author of: | Isochron Dating |
Response: | Humphreys'
paper regards helium retention of zircons, not of the
Earth's atmosphere. It has been discussed in talk.origins a
couple of times.
For example: Humphreys' helium paper revisited |
Feedback Letter | |
Comment: | I have read
from both sides, Why does your side sound so angry? I mean
no harm, I really am curious why so angry?
(It makes it hard to take you seriously) |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: |
Hmm. Perhaps the reader just isn't reading the right bits of the other side. Fortunately, I can help with that. Have a look at the thread on invidious comparisons used by "intelligent design" advocates. Invidious comparisons are not the only forms of rhetoric used by antievolutionists that are less than civil. Right here in this feedback facility I have seen antievolutionists call us liars, frauds, pagans, atheists, and other, less printable, things. It should be expected that that sort of provocation will raise the temperature of discussion. Perhaps the reader should consider determining what to take seriously based upon concilience of the argument with the empirical data rather than upon the perceived prosodic content of the message expressing the argument. I think in that case, the reader will be forced to side with the biologists. Wesley |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | In your page
on false credentials you say that Kent Hovind claims to
have a Doctor of Education degree. Technically, that is not
correct. He claims to have a Doctor of Christian Education
degree. However, he is normally introduced as having a
Doctor of Education degree and he NEVER corrects the
moderator.
Hey, if God can create the heavens and the Earth in six days, why can't these guys get doctorates in six days? Joseph "Rick" Reinckens II, B.A. '68, earned Juris Doctor '81 |
Feedback Letter | |
Comment: | To whom it
may concern,
I have a question to which I was not able to find an answer to on Talk.Origins. What should I say to a Creationist who asks, “Why, if natural selection was working, didn’t the common ancestor for humans and apes produce only humans? It is clear that humans are more advanced, therefore our genetics ought to give us (and have given us, even with the first mutation from the common ancestor) selective advantage over the branch toward apes, right?” He’s got me stumped...any suggestions? Scientific fact? Thank you, Jonathan Pritchard |
Response | |
From: | |
Author of: | Evolution and Philosophy |
Response: | Sure.
"Advanced" in evolutionary biology only means "advanced in
this place, this time and for this
organism. Humans were advanced for the ecology in which
they evolved. They weren't competing against other apes,
who were in their own environment; they were competing
against members of their own kind in their own place. We
evolved because varieties occurred that had some advantage
over the others of our own species (at that time).
Chimps are perfectly well suited for their environments (or rather they were until we cut down the forests and hunted them). We did compete to some degree with other hominid species, and where our ancestors and they met, ours won out (and had one of their ancestors won out, they could say the same thing, so don't get the idea that humans are somehow evolution's favored sons and daughters), but the winners are only ever better in a certain environment. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | Steve |
Comment: | To: John
Wilkins
I’ve addressed this post specifically to you since you took the time to respond to my prior post (September 2003) on the subject of evolution as fact v. theory. However, the reason for this post is because you failed to address the issues I brought up and failed to convincingly demonstrate why you (and other evolutionists) hold evolution to be a fact. In fact, it seems you only gave a cursory reading of my post… either that or you have very poor reading comprehension skills (and I doubt the latter is the case). So let me begin again. I am NOT a creationist, and I do not advocate or espouse creationism. I also accept evolutionary theory as a tenable explanation for the diversity of life on the planet Earth. My contention is with the view on your website that evolution is a fact… as much a fact as gravity. (Please do not merely respond with a link to your article: Evolution as Fact & Theory. The article is a poor argument in favor of evolution being a fact). I fully understand that scientists differentiate the mechanism of evolution from the occurrence of evolution. However, I am not directing this post or seeking to discuss the mechanism of evolution, but I am directing my argument against your view that the occurrence of evolution is a fact. While I do accept it as a reasonable scientific theory, I fail to see sufficient or convincing evidence to label it with the designation, fact. As mentioned in one of your articles, evolution is defined as changes in allele frequency within a gene pool from one generation to the next. You seemed to avoid the issue by stating that not all evolutionists agree on this definition. However, if evolutionists disagree with the definition of evolution (as presented in your own website) then how can you claim evolution to be a fact if you cannot agree to what you all mean by evolution? Again, you also stated that such a definition is a definition devised to discuss evolution in scientific context and not for creation-evolution debates. I understand that, yet this definition found its way into an article on Talk Origins, in which creation-evolution is the basis for the website, and in which the author of the article in which this definition is utilized gives consent to this definition of evolution as a basis for demonstrating that evolution is a fact. Thus, at the very least, you must consider the definition to be a viable one. You know as well as I do that evolution (as evolutionists understand the term) means more than changes in allele frequency and more than just “descent with modification”. If that was all they meant by the term, then no reasonably educated person would have a problem with evolution. If you wish to limit the definition of evolution to this understanding, I concur that evolution is a fact. However, evolution, in its full sense, includes the view that all life arose from a single common ancestor (or a few common ancestoral lines, as you stated you believed). My point is that there is insufficient evidence for evolutionists to claim that this is a fact… as much a fact as gravity. Gravity’s existence is empirically verifiable by all humans and with relatively simple testing procedures. Yet evolution (in its fullest sense) is not so easily verifiable or validated. While it is a reasonable conclusion to claim that all life descended from a common ancestor, given our current data, it is far from sufficient to designate evolution as a fact. Moreover, the occurrence of speciation does not prove that all living organisms descended from a common line, especially when the understanding of what a species is is not accepted equally among all evolutionists. In addition, you (and other biologists) claim that there is no reason to assert that changes in allele frequency won’t result in the diversity of life (as we know it today). Thus, you conclude it is reasonable that changes in allele frequency (and possibly other factors) led to life’s diversity from a single common ancestor. But this is the error with such an argument: the mere possibility (or probability) of such an occurrence does not make it a fact; it makes it a plausible theory at best. Just because there is no evidence for the existence of a barrier to diversification, does not mean that there isn’t one. It might be that we have insufficient technology to test for it, or that we have not given enough time for such a barrier to be witnessed. Or perhaps we are not looking in the right places. In any case, it is in error to claim that a lack of evidence for a barrier constitutes evolution from a common ancestor as being a fact. It is as much an error as creationists claiming the existence of a barrier without adequate proof for their position as well. Now I know the cop out argument is to claim that there is no such thing as an absolute fact in science. We all know this. No one is that stupid (except a handful of fundamentalists out there who believe whatever is told to them by some man standing behind a pulpit). The term “fact” was a lay term long before science or philosophy tried to exact a more fitting understanding of the term to suit its purposes. But let’s take the definition of the term as accepted by your own website: a fact means "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." And the argument given in one of your articles (Evolution as Fact & as Theory) is “I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms”. But the reason why the view of apples rising into the air should not be given equal time in classrooms is because there is no evidence for believing or holding such a view. In this same sense, while there is evidence for the plausibility of descent with modification from a common ancestor, there is insufficient evidence to claim this as a fact. In other words, claiming so dogmatically that ALL life arose from a common ancestor is not a fact. It is not confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent. The best we can say at this time is that it is reasonable, given the evidence accumulated thus far, that all life may have arisen from a common source, yet we cannot go any further than this. The fact that some people are satisfied with this level of evidence to claim evolution as being a fact does not mean it is so. If you disagree then please show me evidence. For example, trace the lineages of humans, frogs, and ants to a common ancestor. Given the limited fossil evidence, lack of DNA information for deceased organisms, and only partial knowledge of ancient physiology for these organisms, I do not see how you can demonstrate (as fact) that humans, frogs, and ants originated from a common ancestor. At best, I think you’ll only be able to suggest or give the hint of traceable convergence at some point far in Earth’s history, but a suggestion or a hint is far from evidence confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent. |
Response | |
From: | |
Author of: | Evolution and Philosophy |
Response: | I have
reread
my answer to your post, and reread your post (which
like this one is rather longer than a feedback ought to be
- if you want to debate an issue, use the Usenet newsgroup
talk.origins). I did
not mean to imply you were a creationist, but responded on
the basis that this debate over facts and theory in
evolution was driven by them.
You asked me whether or not evolution, defined as allele frequency change, is a fact (incidentally, I am not the author of the Evolution is a Fact FAQ). You said it is not in the ordinary sense of fact, as used in evolution-creation debates. I said that it is, and anyway we don't revise scientific terms like "evolution" to suit those who are anti-science. I stand by that. Evolution, whether defined as the diversity of life arriving over time, or as the change in the frequency of alleles, is a fact. It has been observed, and there is no impediment to induction from known cases to unknown cases. To be sure, we do not know everything about the past - this is true in any discipline, from forensic science to astronomy - but what we do know we do know, and we are entirely justified in calling it a fact, or else all the rest of science is equally not based on facts. You might think that the ordinary usage of the word "fact" has some stronger connotation in ordinary talk than "theory", and that we ought not to call something a fact unless it has a notarised affidavit attesting to its truth, or whatever, but we are talking science here, and to give any ground on the use of scientific terms is to allow the ignorant to determined what we know. We do all know what we mean by evolution as a fact. We mean the appearance of new adaptations and the appearance of new species. These are facts. We have, so far as is possible, verified these things happen. And that remains true whether some think we should hedge our bets or not, on either side. We discuss whether it happens because of this or that process (all of which, I have to add, we have also verified happen - the debate is over when and how much), but nobody, I repeat, nobody in science disputes that evolution happens. As to definitions of evolution - so what if there are competing definitions in science for any term - try reading up on what "gene" means sometime? Science is supposed to test terminology for accuracy and unambiguity. But that does not change the fact that what is being defined, is real. Words do not drive the way the world operates. They are reality's slaves, not its masters. Evolutionary biology has always speculated on the origins of life, but at no point has it ever been a justifiable scientific claim that it began with one single origin of life event. Darwin never said that, nor has any other scientist, at least in the past 50 years, asserted that evolution must posit a single original organism. A few have, in fact, asserted the contrary. So no matter what the laity might think, the implicit definitions are just plain wrong, and the FAQ is in fact correct about "fact". And we should have the different definitions on this archive, to reflect the diversity of opinion in the scientific community. There are constraints on change - but they are not absolute, and they are no more than temporary. The idea that phylogeny is controlled by ontogeny, for example, is long abandoned. What we do know is that phylogenetic branches become less broadly plastic over time, but not that there are any set limits to change. It is just playing wordgames to insist that we don't know this is so. We can equally say that other people don't have minds either, but it would still be sophomoric wordgames. Other people do have minds, life did evolve and there are no set limits to change. And these are facts. And we should teach no "alternatives" in science classrooms unless they are scientific alternatives. The evidence is sketched (and I mean sketched, despite its size) in the excellent 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution FAQ by Dr Theobald. He has gone to the primary literature and so can you if you doubt the veracity of the data. To withhold assent is to deny there is such a thing as science. |
Feedback Letter | |
Comment: | I work in a
field which, like evolutionary biology, has its own brand
of people who have created their own little world and have
(at least in regards to the research field in question)
only the occasional brush with reality, which they shrug
off as quickly as possible. (Specifically, Mars research,
with the fans of the Cydonia face.)
I've noticed a phenomenon on both sides of Mars research that seems to apply as well to evolution - it's interesting how the longer a person has worked in the field, the more likely they are to believe the primary people on the other side are deliberately deceiving their followers for monetary gain. After all, they've had the truth shown to them how many times by this point? Clearly they're just faking it, right? I also find it interesting to see how often the non-mainstream rank-and-file seem to feel that if they just shout loudly enough and often enough, the other side will suddenly see the light. (In your case, it's the assorted feedback telling you to REPENT!; in our case; it's more likely to be a message shouting RELEASE THE REAL FACE IMAGES!) Still, the fight is worthwhile, and you do an excellent job of fighting it. Keep up the good work, folks. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | Great site,
but I would like to add a little info...
I'm Jewish and orthodox, from Greek "correct opinion" It has been the opinion of Orthodox Judaism that the Creation took 6 days, but that was God's days, not human days. From information given in the Scriptures the age of the universe was calculated to be about 15,340,000,000 years (calculation made about 1500 years ago in Babylon, and rediscoverd 200 years ago in Lithuania, available again in English by Arieyh Kaplan). It has been a fairly common knowledge from Kabbalah that prior to creation of our World, i.e. people capable of appreciatng the Creation, God had created and abandoned 974 Worlds. One could say that each 'World' is an era during which God created a seed for humnity, but that seed was not deemed to have the required potential for God's purpose. Indeed, even our own 975th World was almost wiped out. There is also exegesis from the Torah (Bible) that suggests human bengs existed BEFORE Adam and Eve (who were the first beings with spiritual potential), but these (our oral tradition tells us) devolved to animal state. I don't know of any discussion that may have contemplated DEvolution of species alonside Evolution of speces. Its an interesting philosophical point, no? In any case, so far science seems to confirm just about every point made by various Torah teachings, so I'm glad your site confirmd many for me. Someone should have told early Church Fathers to learn Hebrew and not to take certain things literally. We don't! Best wishes |
Feedback Letter | |
Comment: | You need to see the Answers in Genesis website. |
Responses | |
From: | |
Response: |
Yeah. Been there, done that. Or was there something specific that the reader had in mind? Wesley |
From: | |
Author of: | The Recession of the Moon and the Age of the Earth-Moon System |
Response: | And you need to see the No Answers in Genesis website. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | Ian Dowsett |
Comment: | I was looking at the recent New Scientist article on Ian Stewart, symmetry and sympatric speciation. As I often do, I was pondering the gulf of comprehension between creationists and evolutionists when it hit me - secular society siphons away the christians least interested in christian type things, christianity siphons away the people most interested in christian things (creationist worldview, young bearded guitar players singing Kumbayah...)... if society, religion and planet earth were much more stable than they appear to be now, would we eventually see a speciation event? |
Response | |
From: | |
Author of: | Evolution and Philosophy |
Response: | As it
happens, religion and science don't form a mating barrier
in humans. I think this is a good thing. But whether or not
it is, there is little danger of humans speciating either
sympatrically (in one place due to selection against
hybrids) or allopatrically (in different geographical
regions, evolving separately until they cannot successfully
interbreed).
Maybe when we go to other planets and settle there, after a few thousand or hundred thousand years. I wouldn't make investments on that basis, though, if I were you... |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | I am a Biology major planning to teach high school in the future. This is an issue I know I must someday be prepared to tackle, especially as I live in a very religious town in Indiana (the Amish are a stone's throw away.) By the way, both my husband and I are Christian, though I was once an atheist. I have always relied on science for my answers, but there came a point when I realized there was something beyond science that I wished to seek out. Anyway, I still believe in evolution and never found a conflict between it and a Creator. I became a Christian with this knowledge. However, my husband and his parents, who are pastors, do not believe in "macroevolution," nor do they properly understand the theory. I do not know how to educate them on it, their mind is already closed. I will need moral support when I start teaching, yet I won't find it in them on this important issue. One of my husband's main claims is that "Evolution is a bandwagon theory. It has been strengthened by many scientists because they start out their experiments from a desire to jump on this bandwagon." He accurately points out that human beings are imperfect and that if they have a belief it will influence their conclusions. I know the scientific theory is geared against this, but it is not foolproof, is it? What would your response to him be? By the way, thank you so much for your work on this site. |
Response | |
From: | |
Author of: | Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution |
Response: | Science is
not foolproof, but scientists are very much aware of this
already. Science is inherently anti-bandwagon, because
scientists get fame and fortune for discovering things that
are new and different. If a scientist (or anyone) found
evidence against evolution supported by solid,
independently verifiable evidence, that person would almost
certainly win a Nobel prize. Evolution is stronger today
than it has ever been despite the fact that almost
everyone, creationist and evolutionist alike, would destroy
it if they could. A theory must be sound to withstand that
much hostility.
The National Center for Science Education has resources for teachers, including moral support. Check them out. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | elephanticity |
Comment: | In the first
feedback for October '03, Chris Stuart responds with:
"Where the nonsense about an artist comes from I have no
idea." I'd say this 'nonsense' probably comes from someone
confusing the Lucy find with the Nebraska Man find. Web
searches for combinations of fossils for ancestors of man
and artist's conceptions tend to pony up Nebraska Man
regularly. In that, the 'artist conception' was for a
magazine, pretty much untouched by any scientist, and the
drawing wasn't the embarrassment for science that some try
to make it out to be.
I think it does embarrass people that get everything they know on the subject from reading a bunch of creationist materials and websites, without the slightest filter, and then hold forth on material they really have no clue on. |
Feedback Letter | |
Comment: | The whole matter of evoltuion and creation is based on the same evidence. It just depends how you see it. Whale and fish bones in the mountains. Evolutionists have a way to explain it and so do creationists. The thing that makes me lean towards creationists is that they have never been proven wrong. We have found out from other historical records that Jesus existed. So did King Solomon. So this shows that the Bible is historically accurate. Isaiah the Prophet predicted Cyrus the Great coming to Power years before he was even born and the Dea Sea Scrolls prove that. The discovery of Mt. Sinai in Arabia that even seculars are saying is the most remarkable geological find in history. And how did the universe come into being? It seems that scientists are changing their idea of how it came into being every day so I would honsetly like to know what the theory is. Thanks |
Response | |
From: | |
Author of: | The South African Spheres |
Response: | Mr.
Anonymous stated:
"The discovery of Mt. Sinai in Arabia that even seculars are saying is the most remarkable geological find in history. And how did the universe come into being?" What the anonymous author of this feedback is refering to in his comments is the claim by Cornuke and Halbrook (2000) that a mountain in Saudia Arabia, called "Jabal al Lawz" is Mt. Sinai of the Bible. This claimed is based on, among other dubious "evidence," their interpretation that the top of Jabal al Lawz is "melted" and "charred" as the result of events described in the Bible. Unfortunately, geologists, who are familiar with the geology of the area, in which Cornuke and Halbrook (2000) claimed to have found Mt. Sinai, would certainly not regard their ideas about Jabal al Lawz being Mt. Sinai a "remarkable geological find." Rather, they would regard their interpretation that the top of Jabal al Lawz had been both melted and charred by any event during the last few thousand years to be a remarkable geological blunder on the part of Cornuke and Halbrook (2000). Any geologist looking at the pictures of Jabal al Lawz readily recognizes that the dark-colored rocks shown in the pictures of Jabal al Lawz shown at Bob Cornuke's web page are quite clearly roof pendants of darker-colored rocks intruded by younger, light-colored rocks. In fact if a person examines the published geological maps of the Jabal al Lawz, i.e. Bramkamp et al. (1963) and Trent and Johnson (1967), they would find that these geological maps confirm this interpretation. These maps shows that bulk of Jabal al Lawz to be composed of light-colored granite and red or salmon granite. The dark-colored rocks comprising the summits are small areas mapped as (older) greenstone. These greenstone outcrops are roof pedants of older rocks that have been intruded by the red or salmon granite. North of this mountain are additional outcrops of older gabbro into which the granites have intruded. A roof pendant is: "A body of country rock surrounded by intrusive rock." An example of a roof pendant can found in "Figure 3: Close-up view of the roof pendant displaying granitic dikes intruding into the dark country rock." at: http://homepages.mohave.edu/science/fieldtrip/pic/marblemtns03.html and in "Figure 2: Distant view of the roof pendant showing the lighter colored granite overlain by dark country rock into which the granite intruded." at: http://homepages.mohave.edu/science/fieldtrip/pic/marblemtns02.html These figures are part of a field trip to the Marble Mountains within the Mojave Desert of southeastern California at: http://homepages.mohave.edu/science/fieldtrip/marblemtns.html (NOTE: The mountain containing the roof pendant in the above figures lies north of Interstate Highway 40 at a point just west of South Pass and Needles, California and due south of the community of Goff, California.) The descriptions of the units from youngest to oldest in the stratigraphic column within the in the Jabal al Lawz area as given by Bramkamp et al. (1963) are: "gm = Granite. Massive, light-colored calc- alkaline granite, mostly without large dikes, in large discordant stocks and batholiths on the flanks of Jabal al Lawz, Jabal Rawa, and Jabal ash Shati. gr = Granite. red or salmon, coarse-grained, commonly highly altered espcially in the mountains on the eastern shore of the Gulf of Aqaba; widely scattered throught the Underlying granite and granodiorite and cut by many dikes of basalt, rhyolite, and diabase. (This unit intrudes an older granite and granodiorite, unit gg in places). gb = Gabbro. In stocks and sills associated with the greenstone. Some basic intrusives may be younger than the granite and granodiorite unit, gg. gd = Greenstone. Diabase, andesite, and basalt; mostly flows, somewhat metamorphosed to greenschist facies, locally to amphibolite." The greenstone (gd) overlies older folded calcareous and siliceous schist and slate Silasia formation elsewhere in the area. Bramkamp et al. (1963) regards these rock units to be Pre-Cambrian age. It is intruded by the red or salmon (gr) and preserved as roof pendants as observed by both Bramkamp et al. (1963) and Trent and Johnson (1967). Even some Young Earth creationists dispute the claim that the rocks exposed at the top of Jabal al Lawz are either charred or melted. Their brief comments can be found in "PROBLEM NO. 11: Melted or Burned Rocks From Jebel al-Lawz are Volcanic" at: http://www.ldolphin.org/sinai.html Essentially, direct oservations by both "secular" and religious geologists of the Jabal al Lawz region readily refute argument by Cornuke and Halbrook (2000) that the top of Jabal al Lawz has been either charred or recently melted. If the rocks on the summit of Jabal al Lawz look "melted" it is because they consist of metamorphosed lava and other extrusive igneous rocks called "greenstone", formed from the cooling of once molten rocks billions of years before the Israelites even existed. This "remarkable find" is actually a remarkable blunder on the part of people, who obviously didn't understand anything about the geology of the area that they were studying. There is nothing about the geology of Jabal al Lawz that indicates it was either melted or charred by any event reported to have occurred by the Bible. It is true that (Young Earth) creationist and so-called "evolutionists" have different ways of interpreting the same evidence. In my experience as a geologist, the typical interpretation presented by (Young Earth) creationists is as badly and fatally flawed, as many of the FAQs on the Talk.Origins Archive demonstrate, as the interpretations discussed above by Cornuke, and Halbrook (2001) concerning Jabal al Lawz in respect to having been charred and melted in Biblical time and, thus, being Mt. Sinai. These FAQs also demonstrate that the boast that "that (Young Earth) creationists "have never been proven wrong" is as empty and as wrong as the above interpretations made by Cornuke and Halbrook (2001) concerning the geology of Jabal al Lawz. References Cited Bramkamp, R. A., Brown, G. F., Holm, D. A., and Layne, N. M., Jr., 1963, Geologic Map of the Wadi As Sirhan Quadrangle Kingdom of Suadi Arabia. U.S. Geological Survey Miscellaneous Geologic Investigations Map I-200A. U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia. Scale: 1:250,000. Cornuke, B., and Halbrook, D., 2000, In Search of The Mountain of God. Broadman & Holman Publishers, Nashville, Tennessee. Shelton, John S., 1966, Geology Illustrated. Freeman Press. San Francisco, California. Trent, Virgil A., and Johnson, Robert F., 1967, Geologic map of the Jabal al Lawz Quadrangle, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia; U.S. Geol. Survey, Mineral Investigation Map MI-13, 1:100,000. |
Feedback Letter | |
Comment: | Why dont you be the "bigger man" and stop ridiculing Dr. Hovind? |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: |
Kent Hovind is an active foe of good science education. Until such time as Hovind is not a threat to good science education, it is important to provide the evidence that shows that Hovind is not a reliable source of information. We already do conduct ourselves better than Hovind, to boot. Wesley |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | Thanks for your site - it is a valuable resource. I run a site called www.plesiosaur.com which, as you may reasonably infer, is all about plesiosaurs. A couple of months ago I was flamed by creationists. I'm not sure why, but I suspect that it has something to do with the fact that in not admitting that the caracase fished up by that infamous Japanese fishing boat was a plesiosaur, I am contributing to a huge international conspiracy to supress evidence which would 'prove evolution is wrong'. Following this I have done a fair amount of research on the subject and added some pages to my site, in particular a collection of creation myths http://www.plesiosaur.com/creationism/creationmyths/index.htm) - This is so that I can ask the questions "which of these do you believe to be true, and why?" - and an analysis of a particularly objectionable site I came across called '50 reasons to abandon your faith (evolution). http://www.plesiosaur.com/creationism/50reasons/index.htm) |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | I noticed that you had Kent Hovind in "Some Questionable Creationist Credentials." Why should that matter if he is speaking the truth and he is right on? Are you upset because he doesn't have a degree from a "legitimate school" and is doing an excellent job in spite of it? I have heard a lot more good that he is doing than the so-called correct school graduates. God wants us to glorify him and speak the truth in love. Is he doing this or not? You can find all types of people that were turning this world right side up with the gospel who didn't go to school, much less have a degree in a legitimate college. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | Perhaps it
matters precisely because he is not speaking the truth.
When people inflate their own degrees, they do so to fool
you into thinking that they have some sort of expertise and
that therefore you should pay greater attention to their
words. But their words should be given less weight;
not only do they not have the expertise they claim, but
they are demonstrably dishonest.
The quality of the school one attends matters to some degree, but it is not decisive on any issue. Some fine scientific contributors in many fields — paleontology and astronomy in particular — have no formal training at all. But those individuals have proven their work and insights worthy because they have spent the time and effort necessary to educate themselves in the field, to talk with others in the field, and to engage in the difficult, tedious, and unglamorous tasks of data collection, verification, and analysis. They've pored through dusty volumes at the library and spent hours craned over workbenchs or out in the field. People like Hovind haven't done that. Instead, they want the quick fix of respectibility. So they slap the term "Dr." in front of their name and proceed to bloviate on any and every topic under the sun. It's your choice whether you want to give their words any weight. We're just providing you with some relevant data on the subject. |
Feedback Letter | |
Comment: | YOU SAY EVOLUTIONISTS HAVE PROOF, WELL TELL ME WHAT YOU KNOW!! |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | Try this site: www.talkorigins.org, and go to the relevant FAQs or use the Search facility. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | Ryan Fischer |
Comment: | I am a
creationist trying to picture evolution from a purely
scientific point of view. Of Darwin's hypotheses I have a
problem with two hypotheses of the seven (you can probably
guess what they are based on my creationist stance).
The first problem I have is with common descent. This hypothesis could have only been formulated through deductive reasoning. The problem that I see with deductive reasoning in this case is that it ignores other possibilities that have equal validity. Therefore, the valid deduction based on Darwin's observations should have been, all things have a common LINK (this leaves the door open to several possibilities about what that link might be). This mistake that Darwin made presents a problem because focusing in on only one possibility and ignoring all other possibilities makes all future predictions biased. If Darwin would have made a valid hypothesis in this case, I don't think there would be any debate right now. This hypothesis has thrown evolutionary theory off on a biased tangent in my estimation. The tangent has extended for so long that turning back now would be an economic catastrophe. The second hypothesis I have a problem with is transmutation. This hypothesis employs only circular reasoning. Allow me to demonstrate. Observation: Common Descent, variety in species Hypothesis: Transmutation Now, think about this. This is where the tangent line starts. I can take away common descent, but then the hypothesis is invalid. By keeping common descent as an observation then transmutation is a beautiful hypothesis. But I already showed how poor of a hypothesis common descent was. Lets look at what the hypothesis would have been by replacing common descent with my valid observation... Observation: Common Link, Variety in species Hypothesis: A creator is the common link I know this doesn't necessarily refute the grand theory of evolution, but I wasn't trying to refute that. I was trying to illustrate how most evolutionary evidence is biased because Darwin "jumped the gun" on the common descent hypothesis. So how far off are we on this tangent? Well to know that we first must ask ourselves where the tangent would have gone if we would put an equally invalid hypothesis in place of the original: A Common Creator. This equally invalid hypothesis would have nearly proven the book of Genesis literally true (flood story) based on the empirical evidence. Where might we be now? Probably where we are now, except with a creator being a more dominant part of the theory. So we would be examining something like the mechanism the creator used to get us to this point. That is where the real test of evolution happens. We know Darwin's 7 has something to do with it. We would have to test each one to see how far it can carry us backwards in time. And etc., and etc. A creator in and of itself does not go against science whatsoever. Testing it exists is harder, but no reason to keep it out of focus in science. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | When Darwin
came up with the idea of common descent, the idea of common
design had been around for a while, in particular in the
so-called "ideal morphologists" who were influenced by
Goethe and Oken. There had been a number of systems, the
most well-known being the
"Quinary System" of William Macleay and William
Swainson, attempting to work out the affinities between
taxa based on the idea that God must have had a plan.
These systems failed, and in some cases were quite absurd - for example, Swainson felt there was a design affinity between tigers and zebras, because they were both striped and impossible to tame. Darwin's solution to the nature of classification was in fact proposed after considering these options and seeing how they did not work, and it was accepted so rapidly because it was so much more successful than these "equally valid" possibilities. Science may entertain ideas for a short while with no progress being made, but several centuries is enough to try any scientist's patience. Given that your "refutation" of common descent is historically inaccurate, we might also think that so too is your refutation of transmutation. In fact, the idea of "special creation" of each species is very late - the earliest I can find in a historical review of static species is Caspar Bauhin's (1560-1634) view. In this, he was followed by Linnaeus, but even he had to allow for some transmutation towards the end of his life, because he saw it happen. Christian writers typically allowed that species might arise by hybridisation from very early on - Augustine somewhere makes that comment, and at least one of the translators of the King James, or Authorised, 1611 edition of the Bible still thought just that. Science needs to be able to both explain in detail and to make predictions. Darwin's theories of common descent and transmutation explained a lot, while the creationist view failed to explain or predict anything at all. This is not proof of the truth of Darwin's hypothesis, of course, but if science can learn anything at all about the universe, it has learned that Darwin was pretty well correct on nearly everything (he got a few things quite wrong, of course; after all, he was only human). |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | My friend gave me this book called "Life-How did it get here? By evolution or by creation?" Yes I read it, and it did make quite a lot of sense. However, I read an article by some individual here, he/she was wrong about the book itself. The book actually answered some of my questions that I have been thinking of. You have to use so common sense when you read the book. Which some don't really use apparently. But whatever, some people see things differently. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | That book is
a good introduction to 1980's-era creationism.
Unfortunately, it is a very bad introduction to life or how
it got here. It is one of the main sources I used when
compiling a list of
creationist claims. You can find all of the significant
claims in that book addressed there.
The biggest problem with the book is that it is highly selective about what facts it reports, and its conclusions crumble if you consider all the evidence. Common sense requires accurate information to work with. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | In Chris
Colby's excellent Introduction To Evolutionary Biology FAQ,
he states that "[o]rganisms do not perform any behaviors
that are for the good of their species... Many behaviors
appear altruistic. Biologists, however, can demonstrate
that these behaviors are only apparently altruistic."
I was wondering what the standard explanation would then be for the classic altruistic examples of sterile worker ants, or for bees whose sting will kill them if used. |
Responses | |
From: | |
Response: | The genetic
line of workers ants and bees is contained in the
reproducing colony members, the queen and the drones.
Viewed from the genetic perspective, the entire colony can
be viewed as a single organism, with the individual bees or
ants as cells in that organism. Even if a particular
insect's action leads to the death of that insect —
such as the bee stinging itself to death — the
insect's genes will prosper and multiply so long as the
action protected the queen's survival or enhanced her
reproductive fitness. Thus what appears from the outside to
be altruistic — sacrifice of self to protect others
— is actually not; that insect's genetic line is more
likely to continue and multiply.
You should probably read Richard Dawkins' The Selfish Gene to help you understand this perspective. I would also recommend Robert Axelrod's The Evolution of Cooperation for a nice introduction into the way cooperation can evolve in competitive systems. And check out the Wikipedia for more information on bees and ants. |
From: | |
Response: | A classic example of an altruistic animal is the shmoo. Unfortunately, shmoon are extinct. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | Great site!
I am reading a book by Lynn Margulis and Dorion Sagan, called Acquiring Genomes: a theory of the origin of species. Their idea is that while mutations undoubtedly occur and provide variation upon which natural selection can act, they hypothesize that mutations alone cannot account for species variation as observed today. They hypothesize that much speciation has been caused by symbiogenesis, that is the dependency of on species on another in symbiosis to such an extent that the two species cannot live without the other, and that such a unit can form a whole new species (for example, plants of the genus Ardisia being dependent upon bacteria for completion of their life cycles). It is an interesting idea because evolutionary biologists (I am a plant physiologist) tend to focus on competition, extinction, etc. and rarely focus on symbiotic relationships as evolutionary forces. What do you think of speciation resulting from symbiosis? |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: |
Interestingly, the original notion of speciation,
dating back a very long time before Darwin, was that it
occurred through hybridisation. Among others, Linnaeus
thought this, but the idea goes back to Aristotle and
before.
A totally fascinating book on symbiosis is Sapp, Jan. 1994. Evolution by association: a history of symbiosis. New York: Oxford University Press. The Margulian approach seems to be based on a good amount of evidence of symbiotic capture, or endosymbiosis as it is called, and a tendency to assume that this new idea explains almost everything. She has made a lot of inroads into the thinking of modern biologists, but the claim that symbiosis or hybridisation is the reason for most speciation is not widely accepted. On the other hand, it is not rejected as a significant mechanism, either. Another form of speciation by relationships to other species is called "coevolution", which has been admirably discussed in Thompson, John N. 1994. The coevolutionary process. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. See also the articles in Nitecki, Matthew H., ed. 1983. Coevolution. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. In this process, species coadapt, and can become dependent upon other species, and reciprocally. Examples include the relationships between pollen bearing plants and insects, for example (which I am sure you are aware of, but this is for others). More recently, there has been considerable work done on the influence in intracellular parasites (that's right - parasites that live inside cells - in this case in sex cells) in insects, on reproductive isolation of infected and uninfected organisms of the same species, possibly driving speciation. See Buckling, A., and P. B. Rainey. 2002. The role of parasites in sympatric and allopatric host diversification. Nature 420 (6915):496-9. Bordenstein, S. R., F. P. O'Hara, and J. H. Werren. 2001. Wolbachia-induced incompatibility precedes other hybrid incompatibilities in Nasonia. Nature 409 (6821):707-10. Dedeine, Franck, Fabrice Vavre, Frédéric Fleury, Benjamin Loppin, Michael E. Hochberg, and Michel Boulétreau. 2001. Removing symbiotic Wolbachia bacteria specifically inhibits oogenesis in a parasitic wasp. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 98 (1):6247-6252. Is this "non-Darwinian"? Well, that's going to depend on whether you think everything has to be based on just those ideas Darwin proposed; Darwin himself would not have, and several times mentions hybridisation as a process in the Origin, for example, in Chapter 8, on hybrids. So far as I know, symbiotic relationships aren't mentioned by him as a cause of speciation. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | I just read
your piece on Bombardier Beetles since I examine both sides
of the coin, and I noticed you used the concepts of things
just developing, appearing, and falling into place without
any force to drive them. You indicate that vaginations and
tubes seemed to just fall together, chemicals just managed
to appear out of nowhere and things pretty much fell into
place for the beetle, ignoring totally the fact that such
things are improbable to say the least, but that these
chemicals would have to come from someplace, as opposed to
just magically appearing, then something would have to
analize threats in the first place before it could figure
out how to respond to them, hard to do for a human,
impossible for an evolving bug without a brain.
What bugs me is the bold leaps your theories take, the fact that you tout them as fact, even though they seriously require more explanation than just "appeared", "developed" and other bold statements. Particularly this is true if you are going to force feed this nonsense to kids in school while bashing Christians. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | It is a
well-established fact that small changes do just
"fall into place." They do not come from nowhere; they are
slight additions or modifications to things that existed
already. Microevolution such as this is taken for granted
even by many creationists. Some of the changes are good;
more are not. But the good one get selected. That selection
is a force to drive the long-term process.
I did not tout the scenario for bombardier beetle evolution as fact; I explicitly called it hypothetical. The "bold leaps" you refer to are also contradicted by the actual contents of the article. A major reason why I oppose creationism is because I support freedom of religion. If creationists are successful in getting the political power they want, most people, including Christians, will not be free to practice their religion. Non-creationist Christians are Christians too, and I hope you will not bash Christianity in the future by excluding them. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | One of your articles on Noah's ark http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html) brought up the point a couple times on how the carnivores were fed and whether they had to compete with each other or not. It's important to note that all animals ate plants prior to the flood. If you had done the proper research (which I sometimes hear Creationists bombarded for) then perhaps this mistake wouldn't have been made. Simple reading of Genesis would have sufficed. |
Response | |
From: | |
Author of: | Problems with a Global Flood, 2nd edition |
Response: | Many animals
today cannot be purely vegetarian. For them to have
originated from vegetarians would require either many
millions of years of evolution or another creation. Thus
all animals being vegetarians is incompatible with
creationism in most of its forms.
Vegetarianism in animals is not part of Genesis (although it does get mentioned in some Jewish commentary). In fact, pre-Flood vegetarianism is a good example of how far from a literal reading of the Bible some people will stray in the name of literalism. For an investigation of various Flood interpretations, see When the Great Abyss Opened by J. David Pleins (Oxford, 2003). |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | From time to time I hear the creationists argument that a Theory is just a Theory, therefore it must be wrong. I envision an analogy to a farmer who has livestock roaming loose around the country side. When he rounds up his livestock, he has to put them somewhere, so he builds a corral. Just fine if it has large slats, will hold large animals but the chickens escape. If the corral is not big enough, not the right size or shape, improperly constructed, has holes in it, he builds another. The argument that a Thory is only a theory and must be wrong is kind of like claiming a corral is only a corral and therefore the animals don't exist either. A theory was built to hold the facts as known. If the facts change, the theory will change. One cannot tear down the corral just because one doesn't believe in the livestock. My two cents worth. Thanks. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | If evolution is a fact can you explain the non existance of transitional life forms and the seemingly sudden appearence of all life and how about radio halos in rock formations with a halflife of less than 20 minutes what about the fact that not one life form has ever been found to have added d.n.a. information to its physical structure only rearanged information it allready had and many times this rearanging causses mutations that are harmfull to the organism and it is distroyed. This is just a start how could a bird only fly with one wing.I don't know about you but I am thinking YAWEH has got a lot better answers than you've got theories. |
Response | |
From: | |
Author of: | The Recession of the Moon and the Age of the Earth-Moon System |
Response: | There are
plenty of transitional fossils, and therefore transitional
life forms which became fossilized: (1)
Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ, (2) Fossil
Hominids, (3) Fossil
Horses FAQs, (4) On
Creation Science and "Transitional Fossils".
The "seemingly sudden" appearance of life is as expected if the theory of biological evolution is correct, so you have no critique to make on that point. The radiohaloes did not form with 20 minute halflives, see the Polonium Halo FAQs. Added DNA information is quite common, the result of gene duplication & divergence, which constantly lengthrns the human genome (and all others). See, for instance, How long did it take for life to begin and evolve to Cyanobacteria?, A. Lazcano & S.L. Miller, Journal of Molecular Evolution 39(6): 546-554, December 1994. Based on simple chemistry, and known processes for lengthening genomes, they estimate the time it takes for abiogenesis plus evolution to cyanobacteria at no more than 10,000,000 years. Not all mutations are harmful (see Are Mutations Harmful?). All that is required is a minimum rate of non-harmful mutations, and "evolution" is unavoidable ( The Modern Synthesis of Genetics and Evolution, Introduction to Evolutionary Biology, The Evolution of Improved Fitness, Random Genetic Drift ). And what do one-winged birds have to do with anything? This is not much of a start. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | Nice site. I especially enjoy your FAQs about macroevolution, a term I have just recently came to know as I read "In the Beginning" by Walt Brown. Your FAQs provide a very well thought out argument for the existence of macroevolution despite the existence of a compelling example. I find this whole debate to be very fascinating, and I am very favorably impressed with the caliber of your evidence and the dispassionate, well reasoned exposition of your authors. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | I take issue with one of your descriptors for Creationists. You describe our views as "anti-evolutionary." Would that indeed make you "anti-creationary?" If so, I would appreciate it if you would use the words equally, or don't use either. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | Accepting evolution does not necessarily make one "anti-creationary". As we have discussed in several places on the site, including the God and Evolution FAQ, not everyone who accepts the overwhelming evidence that biological evolution has occurred is an athiest -- one can simultaneously believe that evolution is a real process, and that God created everything. |
Feedback Letter | |
Comment: | How do you explain the fact that trilobites have been found crushed with a human sandle? Or the fact that evidence has been found for the transitional species of humans living together? |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | Mark Isaak's
Index to Creationist Claims addresses your first
question, the claim that trilobites have been found
associated with human footprints, here.
Your second question appears to be based on the assumption that a species must disappear once a descendant species appears. That assumption is common, but wrong. A new species can develop through the transformation of an ancestral species, without a speciation event occurring (in which case you would not find the descendant and parent species living at the same time). This type of evolution is known as phyletic transformation, or anagenesis. A new species can also develop from an ancestral species, however, if one population becomes reproductively isolated from the main population for a long enough period of time. This can happen when a population becomes geographically separated, and is unable to physically come in contact with the rest of the population (allopatric speciation), or when both populations are in the same area, but are not interbreeding due to other factors (sympatric speciation). In these cases, both the ancestor and descendant species may be found at the same time, and sometimes in the same place. |