Feedback Letter | |
Comment: | Just came across your site. I've been looking into whether to lean more towards creation or evolution. I think today made up my mind. It's interesting that there is so much talk about creationists being dishonest but the front page USA Today article on the fraudulent archaeoraptor that was hailed by the evolutionists that here was finally the "proof" for evolution, seems to have shown that the fraud is being perpetuated by the evolutionists. I'm sure that you are aware that this is far from the first time that this has happened rather this seems to happen far too often. Evolutionists jump at any supposed evidence for their ideology and then get embarrassed when they have bought into another fraud. With that kind of bias I think I will assume creationism to be at least as valid a theory as the theory of evolution. gthoresen@sunrich.com. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | It certainly
doesn't sound like you came here with an open mind to me.
And anyone who takes USA Today as the source of
their science certainly shows no evidence of wanting to be
properly informed - the popular press is no way to learn
anything, really.
The flap arose because the fossil, which was thought to strengthen not prove the bird-dinosaur link (also Professor finds clues to origin of birds), had not been subjected to peer-review by other scientists before being described in a proper journal, no offense to National Geographic. It was never the "proof" of evolution. That was proven long ago, to everyone's satisfaction in the biological field. Interesting that scientists picked the mistake, not journalists or creationists. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | I appreciate the article on the bombardier beetle because of the way it challenges me to be (more) honest in my argumentation for creation. I do not agree with the points brought forth by the author, especially with his concluding remarks that evolution and God are compatible. The God of the Bible did not use evolution to create, nor does the Bible allow for interpretation of the days of creation as evolution. On the other hand, I do realize some of the weaknesses that some apologists have made in the past, and hope to do better on my part. For that contribution, I thank you and the author. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | Kiki |
Comment: | I accept
evolution, but things still confuse me: a) If all life
evolved from a single celled organism found in the water,
who/what crawled out of the water first? b) It's not as
hard to accept animals evolving into different species of
animals as it is to understand plants and animals as having
a common ancestor. --Could an animal evolve into a plant,
or a plant evolve into an animal, or did the two separate
so long ago that neither was plant nor animal when this
occurred? --What exactly separates plant from animal? Is it
a central nervous system, consciousness, something more
specific?
Sorry if these questions sound dumb. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | You ask many
different questions, all of which involve lengthy
explanations, so I can only sketch answers to them here.
Life left the sea several times, first as plants, then as insects and other animals, then as vertebrates. Plants seem to have been necessary for animals, including insects and worms, to make a living on land. The last common ancestor of plants and animals may not have been a many-celled organism, but a single celled organism. Plants and animals are known as "eukaryotes", which means we both have a nucleus, a membrane surrounding our genetic material, and this probably occurred through the fusion of two older forms of cells, known as prokaryotes, which do not have nuclear membranes. What is different between plants and animals is also cellular. Plants have rigid cell walls, while animals have cell membranes which are more flexible, and plants include a cellular organelle (component) called a "chloroplast", itself the fusion of a eukaryote cell with another older form of cell known as a blue-green algae. The chloroplast enables plant cells to photosynthesise the sun's energy. Animal cells have different organelles. Plants do not evolve, and did not evolve, into animals. Not all animals have central nervous systems. I hope this helps, but you really need to consult a biology textbook for more information. |
Feedback Letter | |
Comment: | I only have a question. Is the basis of evolution come from a belief that something has come from nothing? If not where did that something come from, and so on? |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | No, the
basis of evolution is that living things come from earlier
and different living things - the exact opposite of the
claim you refer to. Every organ and every organism is a
modification of something that pre-existed it. The novelty
lies in the arrangement of these organisms.
As to the origin of the universe and other such matters, consult your local cosmologist. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | I have read
your commentry on how the bombardier beetle evolved.
Frankly it could not have happened. Why? Because unless the
beetle could evolve a valve between its collecting bladder
where it stores the chemicals and the combustion chamber
where the chemicals are combusted the beetle would blow up
because as it tries to use its defence all the chemicals
that were in the collecting bladder would explode unless
there was something like a valve to separate the two
chambers.
Josiah |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | Do note that
our FAQ on the bombardier
beetle is not a description of how it did evolve.
Frankly, we don't know the exact stages in the evolution on
these beetles. The point of the FAQ is to show that there
is no reason to say that it cannot have evolved.
The FAQ shows nicely why your objection is no problem at all. The stored chemicals do not explode when mixed. That is a common creationist misconception, and unfortunately some creationists continue to teach this, despite it being quite false. The two main chemicals actually react quite slowly. An additional catalyst is required to get an explosive reaction, and the FAQ suggests that cells secreting the catalyst may have evolved outside the mixing chamber, which resolves your problem. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | Hi there.
As a creationist, I get a lot of people saying that I believe in religious crap. But I found that more religions are based on evolution than creationism, and that the idea of evolution was taken from the Hindu's incarnation philosophy. Just want to know if any 'evolutionists' are willing to accept that their science and their religion go hand in hand? |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | I know of no
religions based on evolution, just as I do not know of
religions based on chemistry, plate techtonics, or general
relativity.
The idea of evolution has nothing to do with Hindu incarnation philosophy, and it was certainly not taken from that source. Evolutionists can come from all kinds of religious traditions. They generally have a world view that encompasses the findings of science in biology, geology, astronomy, etc; and which also encompasses a religious view point. These two can go hand in hand in the sense of making up part of someone's total world view; but there is no one religious view shared by evolutionists, just as there is no one religious view shared by geologists. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | I was
reading the FAQ page and one of the questions was why are
there so few transitional fossils. Shouldn't the question
be changed to Why have NO transitional fossils been found?
Because not a single transitional fossil has been found, if
you think I am wrong please e mail me and I will be happy
to give you evidence that there are no transitional
fossils.
Josiah |
Response | |
From: | |
Author of: | The Recession of the Moon and the Age of the Earth-Moon System |
Response: | I have a
better idea. Why don't you read the FAQ files first,
and then give us some feedback on why you think that these
are not examples of "transitional fossils"?
From the T.O archive: And from my own webpages: |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | I read your article discrediting creation with the argument of the so-called evidence of the Archaeopteryx. Now that this has been found to be a blatant hoax, Im wondering if your planning on writing an update on the facts. Sincerely, Dave Britton |
Response | |
From: | |
Author of: | Punctuated Equilibria |
Response: |
Archaeopteryx was claimed to be a hoax by Lee Spetner and Sir Fred Hoyle. A very rigorous investigation into the claims resulted in a firm finding that the fossil specimens were not a hoax. Charig et alia's 1986 article lays out the various lines of evidence which repudiate the charge of hoaxing. Dave, though, may have confused recent reports on the Archaeoraptor fossils with Archaeopteryx. Archaeoraptor appears to be a chimera, a joining of two distinct organisms in one fossil, probably done by a fossil collector in order to obtain a better price for the specimen. But Archaeoraptor is not the same thing as Archaeopteryx. As far as I can tell, our FAQs related to Archaeopteryx are still just fine. Wesley |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | I feel sorry for all of you if you don't believe in God. I am not a scientist, nor do I believe in evolution. I just have a hard time believing that I came from an Amoeba. Besides, if that is where we all started, where did it come from? If you know the answer to that, then maybe I can truly believe something that is scientifically based. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | The amoeba
is a highly evolved single celled organism; you and I
certainly did not come from an amoeba. It is as much the
end result of several billion years evolution as we are.
You may find it interesting that the genome of an amoeba is
much larger that our genone. The following Scientific
American article [broken link] examines some of the
astonishing capabilities of amoeba.
Your problem is not yet a matter of whether to believe evolution or not. You need to make the effort to actually understand evolution, before your decision to accept or reject it has any significance. This is hard work, but ultimately well worthwhile. And even then, evolution will not explain everything there is about how the universe started. Biological evolution is pretty much limited to how life changes over time. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | Steve Austin
obtained some "bad" ribidium [sic] -strontium
"dates?" Well let's see, when the carbon 14 dating method,
"dates" a shell off of a living mollusk at 23,000 years and
the clam inside at 32,000 years old you tell me who is
using "bad" methods and obtaining bad "dates." The carbon
14 dating method is relies on several assumptions usch as
you have to know how much carbon 14 the organism had in it
when it died and you assume that the decay rate has always
been the same. You also assume that the Carbon 14 level in
the earth's atmosphere has reached equilibrium when it has
not. I fyou put a new earth in the solar system the sun
would automatically begin producing carbon 14. The carbon
14 level is higher now then it was last week and last week
is higher than the week before. Quit relying on your
pathetic "pseudo-science, pseudo-religious" evolutionary
dogma. I would go over Potassium-argon and uranium-lead
"methods" but I don't have the time. Until next time.
Professor Enigma professor_enigma2000_2000@yahoo.com |
Response | |
From: | Chris Stassen |
Author of: | Isochron Dating |
Response: | Since
molluscs can build their shells with carbon from sources
other than the atmosphere, their shells are not necessarily
suitable for carbon dating. It's not surprising that one
can get "bad" results when one deliberately chooses an
inappropriate application of a dating method. However, that
does not constitute a case against the methods' reliability
when used carefully and properly.
Measurements of historical 14C/12C ratios (such as this one) demonstrate that the 14C/12C ratio has been both higher and lower in the last thousand years than it is today. This one fact demolishes your two key points: (1) the existence of the calibration refutes the claim that there's an assumption of an initial 14C/12C level or atmospheric equilibrium (the historic ratios are computed by dating objects of independently known age); and (2) the fact that the 14C/12C ratio has been both higher and lower than it is today refutes your claim of consistent non-equilibrium increase. Further, the constancy of decay rate is not a mere assumption, it is instead a conclusion based on a wide range of both experimental data and theoretical considerations. Perhaps the next time you "have the time," we shall see if your arguments against other dating methods are any better than what you've produced here. |
Feedback Letter | |
Comment: | My only
comment was a question:
What phyla transitions have been found in the fossil record? Thank you. |
Response | |
From: | |
Author of: | Punctuated Equilibria |
Response: |
That is an interesting question. I didn't know of any transitional sequences proposed to connect two separate animal phyla via some common ancestor. But Jonathan Woolf pointed out something to me:
But this brings up an interesting second question: How likely might it be that we would find some phylum-level split among animals in the fossil record? Obviously, a phylum-level split is simply another speciation event when we get down to the last common ancestor that links two phyla. We have some numbers for estimates of how many species have been described from fossils and estimates of total species numbers over life's history on earth. Raup is commonly cited in this regard, and gives about 250,000 described fossil species, as compared to about 5 billion total species that have ever lived on earth. I don't have a precise number for animal phyla, but between living and extinct groups the number probably does not exceed 100. If we considered it possible that any two phyla could be linked (an obvious error, but one which favors the anti-evolutionary interpretation if anything), we could be seeking any of 10,000 speciation events in order to find one such phylum-to-phylum transition. But observations of species is not the same thing as observations of fine-grained speciation events in the fossil record. In this case, the anti-evolutionary interpretation would be better off if we over-estimated the proportion of fine-grained species-to-species transitions. Let's say that 10% of observed fossil species include fine-grained species-to-species transitions. OK, we have a bunch of numbers biased toward, if anything, the anti-evolutionary side of the ledger. What about the kicker, our expected likelihood that we should have seen a phylum-to-phylum transition? That would be the proportion of observed fine-grained species-to-species transitions to total species times the proportion of possible species-to-species events that could represent phylum-to-phylum events to total species. Or... (Total fossil species * Fine-grained speciation proportion) / Total species * (Number of possible transitions of interest / Total species) = (250000 * 0.1 / 5000000000) * (10000 / 5000000000) = 0.000005 * 0.000002 = 1x10-11 In other words, the odds that we might expect to have already have an event representing a animal phylum-to-phylum link among our already known fossils is 1E-11. 1E-11 is a very small number. An event meeting these odds would be like winning a couple of lottery jackpots in a row. The fossil record is not like a videotape recording every event in life's history. Wesley |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | Jason Kleber |
Comment: | For all those who believe in evolution I would like to pose some things to think about. If we evolved than we have no souls, because something as powerful and emotional as a soul can only come from a divine creation. So if we have no souls, than there is no afterlife, because there would be no point for an afterlife withouth souls to go to it. So if there isn't an afterlife, than there is no God. And if all that were true than there would be no reason for even existing. I refuse to believe that! We were created by God in six literal days, six thousand years ago, along with the entire earth. If you don't believe that, than think for a moment if you are willing to risk your eternal soul on your false religion of evolution. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | I don't
believe in evolution. It is not a religion that one
has faith in. I accept evolutionary theories because
they best explain the facts that we witness today.
Your analysis is flawed because you think that evolutionary theory says God cannot be involved in the process. That is simply not true. One can have both God and evolution, despite what you may have been told. There is certainly no reason why an omnipotent God cannot be far more subtle in His creative acts than you suspect. One further point: You say "If we evolved than we have no souls, because something as powerful and emotional as a soul can only come from a divine creation." On what basis do you make that assertion? To put it crudely, why can't the souls be stapled on later? Or why can't souls evolve too? One must be very careful when assigning qualities to things that one cannot see or detect by normal means. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | Stephen J.
Gould suggested in his book "Full House, 1996" that the
large number and simplicity of bacteria were evidence that
evolution is a random walk, not an evolutionary progression
toward ever increasing complexity. This was based on the
assumption that the small size of bacteria is indicative of
simplicity (I believe he said they were the simplest
organisms detectable in the fossil record), and were near
the left wall of biological complexity.
Maybe this old cow doc has been kicked in the head once too often, but, although I agree with his general thesis, I beg to disagree with his use of bacteria to support it. Carl Woese suggests, based on rRNA sequencing, that the development of the first metabolically modern cell, thought to have occurred over the first 1 billion years of evolution, was a spectacular achievement unmatched in the ensuing 3 billion years of evolution. There is evidence that modern symbiotic bacteria, from Vibrio spp. living in squid light organs to Bacterioides spp. inhabiting the mammalian ileum, have often co-evolved with their hosts. The repertoire of sensing mechanisms, molecular responses, and regulatory systems necessary for pathogenic bacteria to infect and survive in their hosts is enormously complex. Bacteria, although tiny, aren't simple. Am I misreading my favorite author, or is the eminent Prof. Gould suggesting that bigger is really better? (I can provide references to all points, but you wanted it short.) |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | I don't
think Professor Gould would disagree that bacteria can
exhibit a startlingly diverse range of behaviors. Perhaps
it depends upon what level you think of your subject at: A
muscle cell exhibits certain characteristics on it own, but
can also be described in different fashions when one
considers a particular muscle tissue, the entire muscle,
the muscle plus nerves, the muscle plus attached bones, or
an entire animal. Is that set of behaviors more complex
than the set exhibited by a single bacterium? Perhaps so.
The point is at least debatable.
In any event, Gould's point is that the "complexity" of an organism, however one measures it, has little relation to the time or conditions of its evolution or the quality or quantity of its genetic information. More importantly, evolution does not represent a "march of progress" towards ever-increasing complexity. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | MY main
comment is that there is evedence that evolution has
occurred. You can even see microevolution happening before
your very own eyes. I have read the bible 10+ times and
have every time refuted multiple things the bible has
declared about creationism. One argument about creationism
is that how could things be so complicated with out a
intelegent designe. My responce to that, is that if life
started by amino acids being formed and slowly decaying (im
not so positive about that word but it works) into a one
celled organism and slowly changing into a more complicated
organisms. Why cant a 21 chromesome paired decay (still
again i use that word) into a 22 celled organism?
now on another note if the young earth theory is correct. For what reason did god create the fossils and dinasoar bones and every other thing that is buried and seems to be very very old? -Ben- P.S. You may think i am saying this on a bias side but i swear i am not. i have had many discutions with people that go to church, highly educated creationists, and a few preists(who told me i was going to hell cause i didn't belive which i think was a little odd) So i am saying this not by assumtion and bias but by facts i have obtained. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | I think the
word "decaying" is not appropriate. Also, there is an
enormous gap between amino acids and a one celled organism.
Any plausible scenario for biogenesis (origins of life)
will involve a number of intermediate steps. Part of the
trick is to figure out how replication got started. See
also our FAQs on The
Probability of Abiogenesis and Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics
and Probability of Abiogenesis Calculations. Both files
address some issues with the origins of life.
Your final question is properly addressed to creationists rather than to the archive, but I will point out that the question contains assumptions that creationists might not accept. The methods by which we establish great age, though not really controvertial in science, may never-the-less be challenged by creationists. I also wish to take a considerable liberty with your feedback! It just so happens that the very next feedback on our list considers the written quality of feedback contributions. Your feedback has a number of typos, and I wish to refer to it as a bad example, showing that it is not only creationists who make such mistakes. Your feedback is still welcome and appreciated, and I hope you will forgive me for not editing it in any way, and for refering to some writing errors that do not really bear on the substance of your comments. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | After
browsing through previous posts in the feedback section I
was struck by an interesting correlation. By far the
greatest majority of posts that are poorly worded,
misspelled or rambling (or all three) are submitted by
supporters of biblical inerrancy.
What can be inferred from this? Maybe nothing, but it does set me speculating on the level of education (or dare I say, intelligence!) of the average member of the fundamentalist Christian community. Dear oh dear. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | Many of us
have observed the same phenomenon. However, I suggest we
should not make too much of it. As the preceding feedback
shows (and I again apologise to the contributor whom I have
singled out in this way!) it is quite possible for all
kinds of folks to send feedback which could stand a bit of
editing. Furthermore, hasty or badly written feedback does
not necessarily mean low intelligence.
When we writing feedback responses, we are able to edit the feedback itself. I usually try to correct obvious spelling errors or typos, but not always. Some of the other feedback responders don't edit at all. So I'll take this opportunity to request all of our readers who send in feedback to please look over their feedback for obvious errors before actually sending it. By the way, incredible though it may seem, every month we get feedback that is so confused and laden with errors that there is no point attempting to make it readable or provide any response. You never get to see these gems. Despite all my provisos expressed above, you are correct that creationism is inversely corrolated with level of education. Exceptions abound. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | I've noticed that the creationists rant on about homology and how similar structures are not derived from homologous embryonic tissues. What is the evolutionist response to this? Are they correct? Is this a gaping hole in evolutionary theory? Or are they just barking up the wrong tree (as well as barking mad)? Can anyone help me out with some answers. |
Response | |
From: | |
Author of: | Evolution and Philosophy |
Response: | Homologous
structures are by definition those structures that are
developed from the same tissues and locations in the
embryo. They are usually defined in terms of location
relative to other structures that are homologous, and the
less related the organisms are, the less easy it is to
specify homologies. In the period from around 1750 to 1920,
there were sporadic attempts to define homologies in
vertebrates with invertebrate structures, but above the
genetic level this is no longer feasible. Genetic
homologies, called orthologies, are specified in terms of
sequence structure.
Evolutionary theory assumes that similar functions will generate similar structures. If they are homologous in the embryo, then this information is informative about phylogenetic trees. If they are not, they are called homoplasies ("same shape") and are considered uninformative about phylogenetic history. The following references give the arguments internal to biology: De Beer, Gavin Rylands. 1971. Homology: an unsolved problem, Oxford biology readers. London: Oxford University Press. Hall, Brian K. 1994. Homology: the hierarchical basis of comparative biology. San Diego; Sydney: Academic Press. Hall, Brian K, ed. 1999. Homology, Novartis Foundation Symposium 222. Chichester; New York: John Wiley and Sons. These two classics discuss the issue from a non-Darwinian viewpoint, and are well worth reading, or, in the case of Thompson, browsing at length: Russell, E. S. 1917/1982. Form and function: a contribution to the history of animal morphology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Thompson, D’Arcy. 1917/1980. On Growth and Form. Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | This is an essay that I wrote for an argumentive writing class. [essay snipped] |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | You may like to post your essay to the news group talk.origins. The feedback facility is for feedback on material in the talkorigins archive. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | Flood Shmud |
Comment: | I can't
bloody believe how much wasted time and effort has gone
into debating whether or not there was a world-wide flood.
I realized the utter impossibility of this ridiculous
notion in the second grade, after being taught it in
catechism, and believe me I was no child prodigy/budding
genius. So even though there hasn't been a doubt in my mind
that this absurd event never took place since I was a wee
girl, I still went ahead and read the FAQ, which provided
me with an overwhelming array of reasons why this could
never, EVER have happened.
AND PEOPLE STILL BELIEVE IT????!!!!! I know that putting sentences in caps is a sign of immaturity, but I don't care. That's how incredulously I scream this out. I don't think I'm better than anyone else, even the poor misguided chumps that take Genesis literally. I mean, back in the dark ages, I would have probably believed it too. And when it first was proclaimed that the earth was round and not flat I would have been like "Yeah right! What the hell are you talking about?" But, friends, it is now February of 2000. It's time to stand up tall and admit that No, there was no Flood. (Shaking my head in confusion) |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | And it's all quite simply reconciled if one accepts that (1) Biblical authors engaged in hyperbole, i.e., exaggeration for literary effect, and (2) the story of Noah's Ark describes a local flood, not a worldwide phenomenon. It still has the same theological implications in that case. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | Hi, I am
responding to John Wilkin's response to my philosophical
question regarding scientific methodology. I think that
what he says about the razor is consistent with what I said
- I am taking the razor to be what I call a 'doxastic
default,' where, given a set of explanations at epistemic
parity{A, B, C,...} the razor instructs us to choose the
simplest explanation (where 'simplest' can mean either
qualitative or quantitative parsimony). My intuition is
that this principle cannot be shown to be truth conducive
without circularity. Thus its justification, if there is
any, is practical in nature.
I think that John was correct to point out that there is great practical benefit in holding the razor - it allows scientific progress in all the ways he mentioned. At this point I let out my modestly instrumentalist leanings regarding science and claim that simple theories, although useful, don't really get at truth, they simply 'save the data' in a nice way. But do we have to apply the razor all the time to get these benefits? I'm not at all sure that we do. And I think there are reasons to suspend the razor at certain times and in certain limited contexts. If what I say is true about the razor, then if practical reasons arise that call for a suspension of the razor in a specific context, and these reasons are greater than those supporting the use of the razor in such contexts, then the razor should be suspended in those contexts (I am not, however, calling for a general suspension of the razor - that would be absurd). In terms of theistic belief, I think that a weakened form of Pascal's Wager might provide such reasons, though I have no time to get into it here - I can only make a suggestion and refer the reader to the ongoing efforts to produce a weakened and more defensible account of the Wager. (I am also currently working on a draft of a paper making this case). Regarding methodological naturalism,if we do take a naturalist line regarding scientific methodology, then the whole discussion between creationists and naturalists is mute. We would have two completely different starting points. If one is scientistic (a la Quine) and holds that justified beliefs just are scientific beliefs and none other, then one could never be justified in believing in anything not scientific. And if we rule out God as a possible scientific explanation, then we would never be justified in believing God, period. But this methodological stand in no way rules out the existence of God in reality, and it would make it impossible to discover God should He exist. And that's a risk I am not willing to take. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | I tend to
agree about the status of the Razor. But then, I'm a
pragmatist, in epistemology. Ultimately, we choose
epistemic and heuristic rules on the basis that they
deliver results. This also means that I do not accept
correspondence theories of truth (it's a fair bit more
complex than that, since I think models do represent
phenomena, but let it stand for now).
However, irrespective of the finer philosophical points, science must choose the least complex account that fits the observations both in the past and in the future, because there are a literal infinity of possible models (they are trivially easy to generate - consider this: X caused A ... X and Y caused A .. X and Y and Z caused A ... X and (an infinite number of other causes) caused A). Since science aims to deal with the world in a way that is both manageable and useful, it must by definition take the least hypothesis. Otherwise, science is not workable. As to the Pascal's Wager, I look forward to reading your paper (could you email it to me or post it on talk.origins the newsgroup?), but it also suffers from a plethora of alternatives that in terms of rational argument makes any single bet approach zero probability. If there are an infinite number of possible god-situations, and there are (trivially so, as with the possible models), then the probability that any one of them is correct is very nearly zero. In my book, this makes it a non-question, and undercuts the rationality of choosing one alternative. I do not think that Quine said that only scientific beliefs are justified, but if you have a ref, I'd love to check that up. Some philosophers this century have made that claim, but they got caught on a problem of self-defeating belief (is the belief that only scientifically justified beliefs are justified itself a scientifically justified belief? If not, then the principle is false, but if so, then what does scientifically justified actually end up meaning?). In my opinion, and that's all it is, some people do have practical reasons for believing in a god. And that will bias their calcualtion of the probabilities. But this does not translate to a scientific question, rather a metaphysical one, and so it is outside the purview of science. BTW: when someone's name ends in an "s", the possessive case is either "s'" or "s's". |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | I'd like to comment on the "Evolution and Philosophy" file. Very informative. Question: if science is to be methodologically naturalistic, shouldn't ontological naturalism be demonstrated to be true? Otherwise, you have constructed science off a philosophical assumption, rather than a fact. Any scientific conclusion, then, would have to have a naturalistic asterisk by it. The author states that "what scientists do...is in the end very little affected by a priori philosophical prescriptions." I strongly disagree. If science is to be confined to a philosophical box, then it matters a whole lot to what those philosophical conditions are. For instance, can it really be said that if science were confined to, say, theism, that there would be a search for a Grand Unified Theory (GUT) of physics? Or, rather, is that search in a direct correlation with the methodological naturalistic restrictions (and thus ontological assumption)that is placed on science? |
Response | |
From: | |
Author of: | Evolution and Philosophy |
Response: | Ontological
naturalism is the claim that what exists must be natural,
which is usually taken to mean, what is physical.
Methodological naturalism on the other hand is merely a claim about what we can discover and know about. It says that no matter what exists - invisible leprechauns, spiritual particles or tachyons - unless evidence can give us information about them, we cannot know them. Traditional Christian theology from Augustine to today agrees - "things unseen" are only known by faith, not by evidence and reason. Science is a cognitive enterprise. Consequently, if we cannot know about something using evidence, experiment and logic, we cannot know it scientifically. But this does not commit any scientist to the inescapable conclusion that nothing else exists but what can be known by scientific means. Some scientists draw that conclusion, while others are happy in their religious faith and see no contradiction between the two. It's not a conclusion that is forced upon a scientist by the methodology of science itself. The philosophical context of science is largely irrelevant to the enterprise. It is not required of science that it accept a theistic or atheistic premise as a starting point. One idea that seems to be at the heart of science is that the universe runs pretty much the same way all the time, and so we can use empirical data as evidence. This may be an assumption made necessary by the very goals of science. If you can't use empirical data as evidence, science will collapse. But this does not do much harm, for those who oppose the theoretical conclusions of science don't challenge that, at least in principle, or why do they attempt to give a quasiempirical footing to their religious attacks on it? |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | I see a great deal of discussion on these pages regarding how evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics. The standard response generally deals with how the Earth is not a closed system, thereby eliminating the 2nd law from the discussion. I think a better (or at least as valid) argument would be to state that evolution does not require or imply an increase in complexity. We may be smarter than Homo Erectus, but assuming greater complexity is assuming a lot. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | I basically
agree with you; although we should note that the second law
does not refer to complexity. It refers to entropy,
which does not correspond directly to the complexity of an
organism. The question could be asked with equal force...
does a 70 kilogram human have more or less entropy that the
same mass of bacteria? Frankly, I have no idea.
In brief, the notion that the second law of thermodynamics is any kind of problem for evolution is just silly. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | Marina |
Comment: | After all I've been taught about humans being "just another animal", I still can't help but think we're at least a little bit different than the rest of life as a whole. I know that a lot of people consider my view of humanity as selfish, unlearned, ignorant, and are quick to point out that humans have done the most damage to this earth, and that other species such as the dolphin are just as smart if not smarter. Though I agree, that still offers me no explanation. It is, specifically, human consciousness that I am referring to, which I still think is unique. What other animal is so aware of their environment, of the universe?! I can't figure it out. Can anybody recommend any books or links that discuss this, or have a comment of their own? P.S. I will not accept God as an explanation. I've already considered that and realize that the existence of God cannot be proven or disproven, and therefore has no place in science. Please, let's keep this scientific and not philosophical. |
Response | |
From: | |
Author of: | Evolution and Philosophy |
Response: | Humans are
unique in many ways. But so are bees, flowers, and algae.
In evolutionary terms, these are called "autapomorphies"
which is a technical term that just means "unique evolved
characters". Since every lineage has its own history of
evolution, every species and kind of organism has something
unique to itself.
Human cognitive and mental abilities are unique, so far as we know, although at one time there were several hominid species all, presumably, with similar abilities. But the differences are of degree, not kind. Something akin to those features we treasure most exist in other species, such as reasoning, morality, humour, and art. We are unique not in the abilities as such but in the degree and constellation of those abilities. But if there were orchid theologians or biologists, imagine them saying how special they were because they could trick bees and wasps into fertilising them! And they'd be right. We are just another animal, and like other animals, we are special and unique in our own way, and of course, that way matters very much to us. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | I was
directed to the articles on thermodynamics and entropy by a
poster in another forum.
I have questions regarding the articles as follows. Dave Hildebrandt - 08:57pm Feb 6, 2000 EST (#4061 of 4063) To know wisdom and instruction, to discern the sayings of undertanding. Prov.1:2 Homer: I read the two articles and bookmarked the site. I can't claim to understand the math since some of it at least is beyond what I studied 30 years ago. Creationists recognize that in many cases order does spontaneously arise from disorder: seeds grow into trees, eggs develop into chicks, crystalline salts form when a solution evaporates, and crystalline snowflakes form from randomly moving water vapor molecules. In cases like these, creationists have assigned an attribute that there must be a programmed energy conversion mechanism to direct the application of the energy needed to bring about the change. This statement was repeated in the other article as well, although in slightly different format. Now I have a problem with it. Creationists recognize that in many cases order does spontaneously arise from disorder: seeds grow into trees, eggs develop into chicks and so on. I don't accept the seeds to trees as disorder to order. I see it as order to order. Or possibly the order of the tree is contained in the order of the seed. The order of the snowflake is contained in the molecular geometry of water. There was one other problem I had with the article. The writer seemed to be assuming 100% conversion. And I know from physics in high school we did too. However, in real life, there is always some energy loss, or if you like, entropy increase. For instance, an internal combustion engine is not even 50% efficient. I realize that the sun contributes large amounts of energy to the earth, but I don't think that thermodynamic input from the sun is sufficient to answer my question of the incomprehensible complexity of life on earth. Dave |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | Dear Dave,
We do have some FAQs on thermodynamics and entropy, but your concerns are really about a quite different notion of complexity. Entropy is a very precisely defined concept, and it does not correspond to order in the sense you speak of. The energy of the Sun is more than sufficient to account for the thermodynamics of life on Earth; but this has nothing much to do with complexity of living systems. The explanation for living complexity is evolution, and this is in no conflict with any thermodynamic principles. I appreciate that you are probably skeptical of the efficacy of natural processes for producing the obvious complexity of living creatures, but that is a whole other topic. As a start, you may like to look at our FAQ on The Evolution of Improved Fitness. |
Feedback Letter | |
Comment: | What meterial created the big bang? If you tell me that they were just there you are saddly mistaking, for one thing I don't know if it's just me but I find that a all-powerful being created the universe is a much more likley thing to happen than a few random paritcles smashing together to form the universe. |
Response | |
From: | |
Author of: | The Recession of the Moon and the Age of the Earth-Moon System |
Response: | I presume
your intent is to draw a distinction between
atheistic evolution and theistic evolution?
This is not an atheist website, evolution is not an atheist
theory, and Big Bang cosmology is not at atheist theory
either.
As for the cause of the Big Bang, nobody knows what made it bang in the first place. But you can no more prove that God did it, than anyone else can prove that God did not. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | Hi. In one of your writeups you argued that evolution is not intended to prescribe a morality. If that is the case, what then would you say morality should be based on? Also, if evolution is not meant to prescribe what *ought* to be, what then do you mean by the word "origins" in the title "talkorigins"? If you refer to the origin of life itself, then a prescription for morality will necessarily follow from that. Or do you refer to the origin of something lesser? Thanks. |
Response | |
From: | |
Author of: | Evolution and Philosophy |
Response: | The theory
of evolution is a descriptive theory - it purports to
describe the ways in which things came about. It describes,
as it happens, the origins of things.
Moral systems are prescriptive not descriptive. They do not say what does happen, they say what should happen. If nobody ever treated their parents with respect, then if the Ten Commandments are the foundation of morality, the fourth commandment would still be morally right. But if everybody treated their parents badly, that is not the basis for a morality that everyone should. Why you think the origin of something makes it right or wrong is not clear to me. It is a common view, but it is a fallacy. Good things can come out of bad, and vice versa, and whether the physical world has any moral meaning is entirely distinct from whether the biological world evolved over time or not. I realise you think this is a knockdown argument against evolution, but all it really is is a lack of relection on the basis for moral standards. And "talkorigins" refers to the newsgroup talk.origins this site is a set of FAQs for. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | A. Brown |
Comment: | GOOD GRIEF!!!!THIS WHOLE SITE IS ONE CONTINUOUS FABRICATION! HOW CAN YOU PEOPLE SLEEP AT NIGHT???? |
Response | |
From: | |
Author of: | Punctuated Equilibria |
Response: |
If the reader has a specific point to take up with any of the material that I have written, I know that I am willing to correct anything that can be shown to be wrong or misleading. I believe the other contributors also are quite interested in correcting any errors of fact that may be found within archived articles here. I typically sleep just fine, although sometimes I worry that I am not doing enough to counter the anti-science activities and falsehoods of anti-evolution advocates. Wesley |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | I am a high school student who is involved in the debate program. This year's topic is improving education in America. My partner and I have decided that one of the best ways of doing this would be to remove creationism (at least until they are accepted), and mandate the teaching of evolution. But we are running into problems because there don't seem to be any statistics on how many schools teach origins and in which way, or where. Do you have this information, or know someplace that might? Any help would be greatly appreciated. |
Response | |
From: | |
Author of: | Punctuated Equilibria |
Response: |
Statistics on the prevalence of creationist teaching in secondary schools is a topic researched by Dr. Eugenie Scott at the National Center for Science Education. Look on their web site for a variety of useful information on the topic. Wesley |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | Greetings!
I stumbled across this website a couple of weeks ago, and have been avidly browsing its pages since. I would like to congratulate the contributors on a top effort! But bouquets/brickbats are not the raison d'être for this post. Before finding this site, I had absolutely no idea that such a thing as creationism existed. I was amazed to read some of the articles etc. contained herein, having previously believed evolution was (with the exception of extreme fringe groups) generally accepted as truth. Which leads me to my question: Just how widespread is this stubborn, ignorant rejection of evolution? As I mentioned, in all of my life (all 32 years of it) I had not encountered anything of a creationist ilk at all; not at church, not socially, not at work, nor in the media. I live in Tasmania, which may be insulated to a certain extent from this creationist movement, and I see little evidence of it here. Is it largely a US phenomenon? |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | G'day, fellow Aussie! We have a quite active group of creationists here in sunny Brisbane; Carl Wieland's Answers in Genesis group. They have strong links to the USA, and generally speaking the roots of scientific creationism are in the USA; but there are active creationists throughout the world. I attend a Baptist church fairly irregularly. They are quite strongly creationist; though fortunately this is not usually preached directly in services. It is supported as an aspect of their ministry. I try to be a genial but quietly subversive influence, happy to discuss the subject or not, with patience and sympathy. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | I sent something along these lines last month, but got no response. 1. Why does the supposed ability for DNA strands to be formed by chance in a soup of the needed chemicals imply life. A DNA strand is just a set of instructions of how to build a cell, but only an actual living cell has the ability to carry out these instructions and make a cell. Is this correct? Do you see the problem here? 2. This one really gets me. Even if scientists could construct every single one of the astoundingly complicated molecules and parts of a cell, and then connect them in such a way to create an exact replica of a living cell, wouldn't it still just be a "dead" cell? What would make it living? It seems to me that the skepticism that exists of life coming from non-life lies not in just the complexity of life, but in the fact the no one seems to be able to truly define, explain, or even grasp the essence of life. ...before I go, I was also curious about how evolution explains the bombadeer beatle. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: |
|
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | I guess I see why you ask the questions of "Creationists" that you do; their point seems so foolish and argumentative when compared with yours. I also know that a lot of people "call" themselves "Creationists" or "Christians" or even "Christ" Himself and have been shown to be false, weak-minded, and for the most part, ignorant of "true" science. The questions I would ask are easy: If you could explain God wouldn't you be God? Would you have to have supernatural intelligence to understand supernatural phenomena? Does your theory have an "eye-witness" account?... Just a thought. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | You ask:
"If you could explain God wouldn't you be God?"
Most people have views of some kind on God, without thinking that they know everything there is to know about God. The question you ask usually appears when one person has certain ideas about God which conflict with the ideas another person has about God. The first person then questions the value of the opinions of the second person because of their incomplete knowledge, but somehow fails to appreciate that this applies equally to themselves. There is a religious tradition in which God is quoted as saying "My thoughts are not your thoughts". I suggest those who apply this saying should properly apply it equally to us all, fundamentalists, liberals, believers, unbelievers, inerrantists, Christians, Bahais, etc. The maintainers of this archive do not have a consistent view on these matters. We are concerned with what can be known about origins by empirical means, and are mostly content to let our different views on the subject of God remain unresolved. You ask: "Would you have to have supernatural intelligence to understand supernatural phenomena?" This archive is not concerned with the supernatural. It addresses natural phenomena, like fossils, rocks, life, evolution, etc. For example, we observe that there has never been a global flood, because there are empirical traces of the past which show that certain areas have not been disturbed by large floods for millenia. Proposing a supernatural flood does not resolve this problem of the empirical evidence it did not leave behind; which is why creationists propose a kind of flood geology as a failed attempt to explain what we see in the natural world today. You ask: "Does your theory have an "eye-witness" account?" There are eye witness accounts of evolution and speciation and many of the processes of our theory; but there is no eye witness account of events in prehistory. However, in science, as in law, empirical or forensic evidence (if available) is often considered a more reliable guide than eye witness accounts. An eye witness account which cannot be double checked by empirical means is scientifically very weak. If you place special value on eye witness accounts for the past, then you have a problem. There is no eye witness account for many of the matters we discuss, like origins of humanity, or Noah's flood. The one account many people propose as an alternative to what is revealed by empirical evidence is the biblical account, which was written long after those events and therefore does not qualify as an eye witness account. Science considers that the study of empirical evidence is a good way to discover things about the world. This archive has little to offer those who disagree. We are mainly concerned with those who think the empirical evidence is incorrectly interpreted by mainstream science. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | I have read nearly every article on talk.origins and I get the impression that modern humans have been around from about 60,000+ years ago. I believe this is correct, but I am curious as to why it took so long for humans to form cultures in which writing, architecture, mathmatics and the like were common. I have studied archeology and there does not seem to be any cultures with these things until about 10,000 years ago. From that point on several cultures with these technologies arose separately, sometimes completely independent of one another. Do you have any thoughts on this? |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | You might
like to look over Jared Diamond's excellent overivew.
Broadly he tells the story as an ongoing development of
culture interrupted by various invasions. Most major
innovations, such as writing, appear to have spread from
two or three centres of origin.
Diamond, Jared M. Guns, germs, and steel: the fates of human societies. New York: W.W. Norton & Co., 1997. Diamond, Jared M. Guns, germs and steel: a short history of everybody for the last 13,000 years. London: Vintage, 1998. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | I just found your website and I am enjoying reading it but one thing perplexes me and I would like to share it. The APA Writing Manual recommends the use of non-sexist language, especially for scientific writing, and has recommended this practice since 1974. (Please refer to the latest 1994 edition.) In the future could you use gender neutral pronouns in your responses so that I will feel included--after all the original story in Genesis didn't talk about only "man" and what "he" did. (On second thought, maybe there is an advantage for women to be "grammatically" excluded from this male-centric debate because it allows me the freedom to ponder other "heavenly" exobiology origins or branches on the great "tree of life".) |
Responses | |
From: | |
Response: | Your point
is well-taken, and I commend it to my fellow Feedback
respondents. The problem, of course, arises from the
English language's failure to include a common-sex singular
personal pronoun. The problem arises especially in concert
with common-sex general words such as person,
everyone, anyone, and no one that are
singular, i.e.,
Substituting his or her is unwieldy, yet substituting their would be grammatically incorrect (though this is the likely direction English will take). Another makeshift is to alternate masculine and feminine pronouns, or to simply use feminine pronouns throughout. I try to alternate my use of masculine and feminine pronouns, but a better choice is to avoid the problem altogether through one of the following methods:
I commend to all Bryan A. Garner's marvelous Dictionary of Modern American Usage (Oxford Press) and its entry on sexism. |
From: | |
Response: | Further to Kenneth's suggestions. The issues we discuss here include the origins of humanity, not just the origins of man. And Neandertal Man has good historical precedent; but speaking of the Neandertals allows easier recognition of the other half of the species. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | My comment on the Ark info (this somewhat covers all info in this site): Almost all points are totally dependent upon an evolutionary model of origins. No sense can be made of the observable phenomena except from one's philosophy of origins. For instance, the points on the materials such as granite, lava, etc, assume the creationist model is exclusive and that no other catastrophies can explain stratification and the type of lava flow. If you know anything of the power of water (some companies are using it to cut concrete), it is possible to believe a catastrophic world-wide deluge deposited the sediment of the Grand Canyon, then carved it through the action of the receding waters. I consider this an unavoidable example of erosion (see points # 5, 6, 20, and 23). A man in Ohio chipped a pile of sandstone out of his pool water pump, because the minerals in the ground water reacted to form sandstone (point #2). Etcetera, etcetera, etcetera. Why did God destroy "innocent" children and old people? Because "their thoughts were only evil continually". Do you know what those people were like? Do you have any idea how much incest, for example may have polluted the human race, beyond repair? Even an innocent 2-year-old will innocently mimic our worst habits. Whatever mankind had become, this is the same reason He later promised never to destroy the whole earth in this manner again. You have no inkling of how it hurt Him to judge His special creation. All "religion" aside, taking this as a literary exercise, it is not logical that the Ark could be adrift a year and never touch land, if it was merely a local flood. I think it is interesting that places all over the U.S. and the world have been under water at some time. I guess the evolutionist would say not all at the same time, but the creationist would say the whole planet was below sea level all at once. Depends on how you interpret the evidence. Kind of like the Bible, huh? As for your accusations of inconsistencies, I do not think you know enough of the Bible to make such a claim. All your comments are on Scriptures taken out of context. A little knowledge is dangerous. Your site seems somewhat misleading and even slanderous, as I have seen much TECHNICAL material in creationist publications which have NO mention of God or Bible whatsoever. Many more have a creationist comment ONLY as a closing statement. I do have to admit, you have at least one person with manners and who does not resort to name-calling or ridicule. Thank you. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | It is not
true that geology simply assumes that no other catastrophes
can explain evidence. The various models you suggest are
really and truely inconsistent with the evidence. They are
not assumed away, but are shown to be incorrect.
We all agree that water carved the canyon. The real issue is that actual study of the sediments shows that they were deposited at different times. For example, the Coconino sandstone layer is several hundred feet below the top of the canyon. It contains tracks and burrows, and is believed to be formed from desert sand dunes. The next layer down is the Hermit shale, believed to have been formed from silt in shallow swamps or lagoons. This shale also contains reptile tracks. Much lower down in the canyon, although still not at the bottom and still above several more sedimentary sandstone layers, there are the Cardenas lavas, which are are mainly basalt. This layer is formed by volcanoes, and is emphatically not a sedimentary deposit. The existence of tracks, and lava flows, in the middle of canyon layers demonstrates that they were not laid down in a single flood. There is a lot more evidence than this, but these examples are simple enough to be appreciated by any casual reader. For further reference:
The rest of your feedback makes a number of points which I cannot respond to in detail. I'll just make two further comments. First, if you can give specific examples where archive files quote bible verses out of context, this would be useful. However, be aware that the context of verses refers to the immediately surrounding verses. Sometimes people confuse the real context of the verses with one particular interpretation of those verses according to a preferred doctrinal perspective. However, doctrinal models are not context, and people really can have different views on the bible while still reading all verses in context. Second, real interpretation of evidence strongly limits the reasonable conclusions. It is not the case that evidence can be interpreted to fit any model you like. The bible does not say how the Grand Canyon was formed, and belief that it was formed by the global flood is inconsistent with the available evidence. Flood geologists simply ignore most of the evidence (some of which is given above) and try to cast doubt on aspects of standard geological models without ever giving a comprehensive model that actually makes sense of what we see. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | Gabriel |
Comment: | I myself am not a scientist nor do I claim to understand the whole universe in terms of science and math. What I do understand is that there is an ever growing arguement between creationism and evolution. The problem I have with evolution is that it goes to explain everything in terms of science, thus disregarding the fact of God, Jehovah. I have read in some of the articles that evolution is fact, the unknown is how everything evolved. The claim that all life comes from life (which is true in the natural world) is what evolution bases its everything living thing has a common ancestor. Facts in science are based on observation that is consistent. Scientific method uses these observations to produce theories and "laws." I am not saying science is bad, no, it is a good thing, as long as it is used in context of the BIG picture. Science cannot explain the supernatural. It never has claimed that it could, yet looking at the world only through science is very dangerous. One cannot deny the seperation between man and other animals. We have dominion over all the animals and all the earth. No other animal has the capacity to do so. How is it that we alone have the power of thought? Would not others have so after that long of time? To say that we are more closely "related" to one species compared to others and use it to say we came from the same evolution branch is just ludicrous. Of course we will look more like one species than to others. Look at how many different life forms there are. How is it that after ALL this time that man has existed, that evolution is just now being known? Evolutionists are missing the point; it is a crying shame. Point is, there was a God, is a God, and always will be a GOd. That is FACT. Not because I say so or because creation scientists say so, but because God said so. I hope evolutionists figure that out before it is too late. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | Your major point of confusion is thinking that evolution is opposed to God. It isn't. It is opposed to reading Genesis 1-3 as literal inerrant history. Suppose we all accept that there is a God. This still will say nothing one way or the other about evolution, which remains as solidly established as ever, supported by a huge range of consistent observations. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | Please accept my compliments on an extraordinarily clearly written and effective site. As a Johns Hopkins-trained biologist and professor at a small liberal arts college, I am often engaged in discussions on this type of material, and I don't recall ever seeing the matter put any more clearly or effectively than you have done. I intend to make the site required reading for my students. Keep up the good work! |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | Daniel |
Comment: | How do you respond to the 2nd law of thermodynamics? Notice that this is a LAW and evolution is a THEORY. You can't prove evolution but you can prove this law. What do you say? |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | Evolution
and the second law of thermodynamics are both proven in
similar ways; by observations and induction from evidence.
What makes the second law a law is its simple
mathematical formulation. What makes evolution a
theory is its status as a comprehensive explanatory
framework for a large body of diverse observations.
You may be confusing the terms theory and hypothesis. Whatever you may think of evolution, you should be aware that scientists who speak of evolution as a theory are using the word in a standard scientific/mathematical sense, like theory of calculus. This does not mean uncertain or unproven. See the Evolution is a Fact and a Theory FAQ. There is no conflict between these two fundamental scientific principles. People who think there is a conflict do not understand thermodynamics. We have two FAQs on thermodynamics you may like to read. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | Daniel |
Comment: | How do you respond to Colin Patterson saying: "If I knew of any[evolutionary transitions], fossil or living, I would certainly have included them[in my book,Evolution]. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | We respond
by getting directly in touch with him and finding out what
he was really saying. See our FAQ Patterson Misquoted.
Colin Patterson was an influential and prolific evolutionist. He was well aware of the evidence of evolutionary transitions in the fossil record. Your quote actually refers to the fact that we can never be completely sure if one fossil is a direct ancestor of another, or simply a near relative. Do please read our FAQ. Sadly, Colin Patterson died in March 1998. Here is an obituary which gives you a picture of the man, his life and work, and his legacy. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | Who can tell me how the first cell is supposed to have evolved? Is there evidence that shows that a cell could be summoned into existence by the natural laws? What parts of a cell are necessary for it to work at all? Does all of these parts have to there from the beginning for the cell to be functional? Thank you for your time. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | Knowledge
about this is skimpy, but a good start has been made in the
past 20 years or so.
The protocell is likely to have been far less complex than even the simplest of modern cells. It probably had a membrane of fatty acids, and a number of molecules within it that reacted to each other so that one was used to catalyse the other, forming a closed catalytic cycle. The "food" molecules passed through the membrane to serve as raw material to this process. Other hypotheses suggest that proteinoids formed microspheres spontaneously (this has been demonstrated int helaboratory to occur) which grew through chemical reactions to split through mechanical instability. It is very likely that the protocells incorporated RNA, although it is equally likely that RNA had no strict role as a "genetic" material at that stage. As simple as they were, the parts probably were not "essential" in that if a protocell lacked one component, it may have grown in a different manner or it may have simply used another similar molecule. "Function" is a hard thing to apply to such simple systems. Once a variety of protocells existed, normal Darwinian competition for resources would kick in, and ecological diversification would commence. This means that different "species" of cells would be competing and would co-evolve, and that "similar" cells would compete for the same resources. Selection would then sharpen up the specialisations of molecules within these cells. For more information, see Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics and Probability of Abiogenesis Calculations and references. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | Is there any evidence for or against the Bible's claim that people once lived many hundreds of years? Is this possible? Also, since it's related, what of the Canopy Theory (there was a protective canopy over the earth before the flood)? |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | There is no
physical evidence that I am aware of to support a claim
that people once lived for many hundreds of years.
Contemporaneous records from other civilizations at the
time do not appear to support such a claim, either. One
explanation I have heard is that the word for "months" was
mistranslated as "years"; thus, Methuselah's 900-year
lifespan was actually 900 months. That would make him 75
years old, a long-lived individual in an age when the
average lifespan was substantially shorter. I am no
Biblical scholar, however, so I cannot assess the
likelihood that this explanation is correct.
As for the vapor canopy hypothesis, it holds no water. If it had existed, the canopy would have blocked out virtually all sunlight from reaching the Earth's surface, killing off all plant life. Moreover, the extreme temperature and pressure such a canopy would create would parboil antediluvian people and animals. You'd think someone would have noticed these effects. See the article The Vapor Canopy Hypothesis Holds No Water for details. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | Dearest
origin talkers,
You have a very well put together website here, and I'm very impressed. I think what I most like about this site is your feedback and response page. It resembles a nice game of Sunday afternoon tennis. I like the way you strike all creationists "lobs" with a comfortable response. I'd like to know what your writers think about "Darwin's Black Box" by Michael Behe. What response will you give to his interesting argument? And the argument on Irreducible Complexities? Have you heard of it? What would be your response? It was put forth by Stephen Meyer I believe. If not, William Dembski. But I'm sure you know of it. So, then...? |
Response | |
From: | |
Author of: | Punctuated Equilibria |
Response: |
There is a set of guidelines for responses to feedback to help remind us that if any particular feedback item gets one of us too exercised to keep civil that it is best to let one of the other volunteers handle that message. We do have a page here that discusses Behe. Behe's Irreducible Complexity (IC) does not erect any absolute bar to such a structure being developed through descent with modification. William Dembski did endorse IC as representing cases of "specified complexity" in his framework for design detection. I have a page devoted to links to criticism of Dembski's works. I presented at the 1997 "Naturalism, Theism, and the Scientific Enterprise" conference. Other presenters included Johnson, Meyer, Dembski, Nelson, and Wells. So, yes, some of us here do have some familiarity with the Intelligent Design Creationist movement. Wesley |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | Hi
Just a short message to as evidence that the world must have been created. Energy can not be created by man, it is just changed from one form to another form of energy therfore the universe must have been created by someone!! Because someone must have made the energy in the first place. If I am wrong (which I am pretty sure I am not )please correct me. Josiah |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | Your
question includes the assumption that that time is a
passive backdrop extending arbitrarily far into the past,
and that things happen at certain times along this infinite
expanse of time. The truth is far more strange. Time, like
matter, space and energy, is a part of the universe itself.
We cannot assume that there was "a time" at which the
universe came into existence, since time iteself is an
aspect of the universe.
Christians sometimes take this aspect of modern cosmology to show that God does not simply create at a certain time, but that God is outside of time altogether, and time is just another part of his creation. Your question also assumes that the energy of the universe is non-zero. However, this cannot be simply assumed. Energy is an abstraction we find useful for describing the universe, and some forms of what we call energy, such as gravitational potential energy, are actually negative. Your question also contains another assumption; and that is that the origin of energy must be personal. We don't know all about the very origins of the universe. Even if you could establish that there was a point in time in which conservation of energy was violated, it does not follow that there was a person who did the violation. Generally, from a theological perspective, it is not a good idea to focus on the distant past, and on places where there are gaps in scientific knowledge, for attributing the creative activity of God. If you cannot see God's creative activity in your own origins as an individual person, despite the fact we can observe and study the biological processes involved, then God's involvement with you becomes rather distant. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | why did you
not post my other 2 comments? Was it because I was right
and you could not find in your little "guide to evolution"
book what to say to me???? Or is it you are too stupid to
understand what I said???
Josiah |
Response | |
From: | Chris Stassen |
Author of: | Isochron Dating |
Response: | Actually,
your other three comments are already answered in
the feedback system. Both of your guesses at possible
reasons for our supposed silence are therefore incorrect.
The referenced items are not, however, up on the public page (as of the time of this writing). We give our volunteer experts about a month to pick out and answer feedback on subjects matching their interest/expertise. Then we pick out the best of the month's feedback to be posted in public. We shall see how many of yours "make the cut." Creationists often complain that we omit "questions that we can't answer." But in reality, we tend to weed out the ones that make them look the worst (name-calling, argument by threat of eternal damnation, etc.). |
Feedback Letter | |
Comment: | The fossil
record doesn't really support the theory of evolution.
There are few enough transitional forms that they can be
described as mistakes by palentologists and/or an extinct
animal. For example, all hominid fossils are fully human or
fully ape; many look like a a transitional from between
apes and humans. The neanderthal, for example. It is likely
that the bones of these "transitional forms" are bones from
people with arthritis. The skeleton of juvenile apes look
very similar to the skeleton of humans, and it is quite
easy to make a mistake when viewing them. The appearence of
bones can be changed by arthritis, rickets, and other bone
diseases.
The fossil record almost alwasy shows little or no change in a species from the time it enters the fossil record to the time it exits it. Niles Eldredge commented, "We Paleontologists have said that the history of life supports [the story of gradual adaptive change], all the while really knowing it does not." The "extreme rarity of transitional forms" was described by Stephen Jay Gould as the "trade secret of palentologists." E.J.H. Corner, Prof. of Botany, stated, "...I still think that to the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favor of special creation. ... Can you imagine how an orchid, a duckweed, and a palm have come from the same ancestry, and have we any evidence for this assumption? The evolutionist must be prepared with an answer, but I think that most would break down before an inquisition." Another evolutionist said, "The more one studies palentology, the more certain one becomes that evolution is based on faith alone..." The fact that the fossil record doesn't support the theory of evolution is strong evidence against it. If the theory of evolution was a fact, there would be a vast amount of transitional forms. |
Response | |
From: | |
Author of: | The Recession of the Moon and the Age of the Earth-Moon System |
Response: | Wishful
thinking is not a substitute for real research. The fossil
record is an eloquent natural account of
ancestor-descendent evolution from the earliest life forms.
All those transitional fossils you say don't exist are well
documented, in this archive, and in the scientific
literature.
And from the literature:
There are a lot more papers & articles where that one came from, but I don't want to overdo it. The fossil record is the creationist's worst nightmare. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | Does life evolve? Is it still evolving? |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | Yes. And
Yes.
To be a bit more informative, things only stay the same if there is something preventing them from changing. All living things are evolving at all times. Sometimes that evolution keeps them more or less in the one spot, while at other times, it makes them change "rapidly" or "slowly". And that goes for humans. The illusion that things are as they have always been is due to human ignorance and the brevity of our history in relation to evolutionary and geological time scales. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | In the
article under the FAQ section entitled "The Taylor Site 'Man
Tracks'" (refering to the Paluxy, TX site where
supposed human foot prints appear next to dinosaur prints),
the author states that the "man tracks" could have been
made by a dinosaur with a similarly shaped foot structure.
He includes a drawing in Figure 1 that shows how the
"toes/claws" of this dinosaur could have erroded away
leaving only a "human"-shaped print. To make this a
plausible argument, the author needs to answer three
important questions. First: What dinosaur(s) do we
currently know of that had this type of foot structure?
Secondly: Have we found fossils of these particular
dinosaurs in or around this region? And thirdly: How did
the "toes" on these trails errode while the "toes" on the
dinosaur trails did not?
Any evidence, information, or answers to these question can be sent to me at: michaelpearson@juno.com. Sincerely, Michael Pearson |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | We maintain
or link to an enormous amount of information on the Paluxy footprints, which is a
bit out of proportion to their importance. The absurd
notion that some of the dinosaur tracks are actually human
tracks has been largely dropped by most major creationists.
The onus of proof is clearly not on those who regard
the tracks as dinosaur tracks.
Never-the-less, on your three questions:
|
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | As I do not
have much room I will answer only 1 of questions 8. Where
did all of the water come from and go to? (This is a very
old problem for the Flood story, and it may be the most
frequently asked. All the water is till here on earth. The
reason why the earth was covered in a flood because God
flattened some what so the earth could be totally covered
by water!!!
Josiah aged 14 |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | Making the
Earth much flatter would indeed, as you suggest, allow for
all the Earth to be covered by water in existing oceans.
There are a couple of problems with your suggestion, however. First, suppose someone believes that the flood story in the bible presents a historically accurate account of events. In this case, the bible speaks of water coming from a lot of rain, and from fountains of the deep. It also speaks directly of mountains, but does not mention any changes in their height. So your idea, although intriguing, will most likely not satisfy those who read the bible as literal history. Second, suppose someone bases their ideas on geological study of the Earth. In this case, the record of the rocks shows many processes going on over long periods of time, but does not indicate a sudden world wide change in mountain heights within the last few thousand years. It is a good idea to try and think of ways to explain things that may be hard to understand. It is also a good idea to try and consider the consequences of our ideas and see if they fit with other things we may know or study in the world. One idea you may like to consider is one widely believed by many Christians, which is that the story of the flood in the bible is not written as history, but is written as a story. |
Feedback Letter | |
Comment: | What a great site you guys have here. I'm in a couple of creation debates now and I wish I'd found this sooner. I'm up against a claim that it's not possible for genetic material to be increased by mutations. I've pointed out to the fellow that it happens all the time in bacteria but I'm not getting anywhere (this fellow I'm debating is incredibly beligerant). I'm comming back to this site for more info. You folks are doing a great job. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | Of course
genetic material may be increased by mutations. One
mutation that can occur is a copying error where a section
of DNA is repeated, like so:
TTAAGCC ---> TTAAGAAGCC How is this anything but an increase of genetic material? Moreover, further mutations could change just the duplicated strand: TTAAGAAGCC ---> TTAAGGGACC That's new genetic material by anyone's standards. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | There is a book out that I have a copy of that I use in debates. It is "Darwins Black Box" by Michael Behe, I have read it. It does to evolution what the iceberg done to the Titanic. It is an excellent book. I use my copy when I debate evolutionist. You should read it. Then crow about evolution! Thank you Martin Mayberry |
Response | |
From: | |
Author of: | The Recession of the Moon and the Age of the Earth-Moon System |
Response: | I have an alternative suggestion. The Talk.Origins Archive includes an article entitled Irreducible Complexity and Michael Behe, which is a review of Behe's book, and his concept of "irreducible complexity". Perhaps you might want to read that review, and maybe follow some of the associated links. Then, once you actually know more about it, you might want to return and offer some more informed feedback. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | brent |
Comment: | let me just
say first of all, that i really crack up when someone sends
in a question that is so close minded and say that people
are going to hell if they don't believe in the bible. i
have a question for those people, where did hell come from?
where is it suppose to be? and most importantly, why would
god allow a place to exist, being the loving god he is?
now, i personally don't believe in evolution. i do believe
science is a good way to understand the universe though.
but anyway, i just wanted to get that off my chest. my question relates to the report about a scientist who did an experiment on creating life out of dirt, water, gases, and electricity... and succeeded, but decided to not go any further because he did not want to play god. i do not agree to use that as an example of evolution. you can get the dirt, water, gases, and electricity and place them orderly into the container and watch life emerge, but what part did the scientists play? he put it together in the right order (maybe not orderly but still the right ingredients) and created life. wouldn't his role of playing god apply the same as saying that god created life in the beginning? thanx, brent |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | Actually, I
am writing this to ask you not to publish my last comment.
I have another one.
Responding to John's response, so should I take it that you wouldn't rule out the design hypothesis a priori? Your reason for rejecting it, I gather from the response you wrote, is purely empirical - it does no explanitory work. If that is true, what would a succesful design hypothesis have to do? |
Response | |
From: | |
Author of: | Evolution and Philosophy |
Response: | It would
have to do several things. First, it would need to be able
to distinguish clearly between phenomena that are designed
and phenomena that are just the result of undesigned
processes we do not yet understand. Second, it would need
to be able to tell us something about the designer's goals
and nature (otherwise where's the explanation?). Third, it
would have to have some objective criteria for recognising
designs, as opposed to the subjective interpretations of
prior design hypotheses. In the days when design hypotheses
were de rigeur in science prior to the mid 19th century,
each interpreter of nature drew different conclusions from
nature about what was in the mind of God. There was nothing
that could favor one or the other interpretation.
Considering that there are designs in the natural world - we are the originators of most of them - the way to come to grips with this is to ask: how would we recognise human designs if we were Andromedans with totally different ways of doing things? My guess is that we'd have to use something like an inference to best guess - designs are things that are best explained using the assumptions of intelligence, and we'd make inferences based on our knowledge of ourselves as Andromedans and on the logic of design in general. Since we have many workable explanations of living things as undesigned outcomes, the so-called "Design Hypothesis" is otiose. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | i just have a few observations this time. It was stated by Wesley Elsberry that evolutionists don't date the fossils , the geologists and paleontologists do. That statement, in and of itself is true but it is better stated that the famed "geologic column" (invented in 1876 if I remember correctly) dates these fossils. The dubious but true "circular reasoning method." Most of the "bad dates" that don't cow-tow to the evolutionary religion are just "thrown out" to conceal the inconsistencies of these methods. There are many examples of these inconsistencies which more then shows that these "methods" cannot be trusted. Such as a FRESHLY KILLED SEAL carbon dated as having died 1,300 years ago. (ANTARCTIC JOURNAL, VOLUME 6, SEPT-OCT, 1971 PAGE 211) One part of a Vollosovitch mammoth being "dated" at 44,000 years and another part OF THE SAME MAMMOTH at 29,500 years. (Troy Pewe, "Quartenary Stratigraphic Nomenclature in unglaciated Central Alaska, Geological Survey Professional Paper 862, U.S. Gov. Printing Office, 1975, page 30) Carl Swisher's stunning finds of the "dating" of the Homo-Erectus skulls. He dogmatically assumed that they should be 250,000 years old to fit the evolutionary religion. He used two different methods and came up with the figures of no more than 53,000 years old and no less than 27,000 years old. Way off the mark he wanted and almost a 100 % discrephency. (Leslie Kaufman "Did a third human species live among us?" NEWSWEEK DEC. 23, 1996, page 52) The "dating game" is not objective nor consistent in any way. As far as Mr. Thompson's assertation about "leap seconds" he is very incorrect. We do in fact have to add a second to the atomic clock every ten months to one and one-half years to make up for the deceleration of the earth. Maybe you should read the following articles and let your avid readers see them also. (ASTRONOMY MAGAZINE, JUNE 1992, PAGE 24 & ASTRONOMY MAGAZINE JUNE 1994) The deceleration of the earth is a major problem for those who believe the earth is 4.57 billion years old. The fact that there is only a 20 mile difference in the equitorial and polar diameters is sufficient evidence that the earth couldn't be 4.57 billion years old. The afformentioned diameters would be much different. (On an 8,000 mile earth, 20 miles isn't much) My last comment was made by Wesly Elsberry I believe. He stated that there have been many cases of "creationists" changing their world views. There are two possibilities here, either these "changes" came about from biblical misinterpretation or Elsberry is lying. (By the way if you are asserting that Ptolemy's model was taught by the bible you are wrong, but ill give you an E for effort.) The bible does in fact teach a "mature" creation (Genesis 1 and 2) Mr. Elsberry, but that isnt discerned by biblical illiterates. If you or anyone else would like a detailed thesis entitled "GENESIS AND BIBLICAL CREATION" give me your e-mail address and i would be more than happy to send you one. As far as the bible being in harmony with evolution that is total heresy. There is not one verse in the bible to advocate an "old-earth" and that is documented in the thesis. It was also stated in January 2000 feedback that you don't worry about "religious" issues but concentrate on "origins." Why was there an article (I am sorry I cannot remember the title or the section) on this website that cited that many "religions" "believe" in evolution and the article when the Pope stated that "Evolution and Creation are compatible." If that was the case then why was that cited. Besides the Roman Catholic church is guilty of so many heresies that you could literally write volumes about it. Maybe you should study (2 TIMOTHY 2:15) the bible a little bit before you just "interpret" it to fit your "religion." By the way I would mention the KBS TUFF strata in New Zealand but I dont have time. Yours Truly, Professor Enigma professor_enigma2000_2000@yahoo.com |
Response | |
From: | Chris Stassen |
Author of: | The Age of the Earth |
Response: | The sequence
of the geologic column was worked out in the early to
mid 1800s -- decades before Darwin published, and by
geologists who believed in fixity of species. Geologists
simply noted the order in which the various sedimentary
layers overlie each other in Europe. There's a good
discussion of dating and stratigraphy in this FAQ written by Andrew
MacRae (which also demolishes your "circularity"
claim).
Your claims regarding carbon dating have already been discussed in a separate feedback in this same month. Further, due to 14C dating's limited range (about 30,000 to 50,000 years depending on the exact assessment technique and nature of the sample), it's perhaps the least of a young-Earther's worries. If you wish to make room for a young Earth, merely attacking carbon dating won't do. You should instead start by reading and then refuting this archive's Isochron Dating FAQ. As Tim Thompson correctly noted in last month's feedback (the article to which you are reacting is near the bottom of the page), your argument rests on a faulty understanding of the meaning of a "leap second." If we regularly added one leap second per year "like clockwork" (pun intended), it would not indicate any slowing whatsoever. It would indicate a fixed difference between the two time scales. Slowing of the Earth's rotation would be indicated if we had to add more "leap seconds" every year (i.e., not the mere fact that "leap seconds" are necessary, but a change to the frequency with which they must be added). You have essentially confused the integral of a function with the function itself. Please see the references that Tim has already supplied for further detail. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | To my etrnal dismay, I was consumed by the creationist claims of contradictory evidence. Their site was well formatted and easily navigated. It provided qoutes and references and SEEMED legitamately concerned with exposing errors in evolution theory. Through two scientists which I engaged in friendly debate, I recieved information that made me search for additional information. I wound up here. I believe in God, however, after reviewing specific details left out by the creationist web site, I have come to the sincere conclusion that they are deceptive and purposefully crafty. I am a novice at science, no experimentation, just lots of reading. If I can locate information that shows their accusations to be unfounded, I am sure that these people can (and should) do the same. They use their PhD's to induce your confidence in their research and obsevations, accuse evolutionists of bending evidence to fit their theory and leave out information that is pertinent. My first (and last) experience with them, has been terrible, though enlightening. My confidence in science is restored, but I am quite sure that I will forever question the findings of any creationist science group. My best advice to anyone that considers reading their material, is to research every single statement they make before reiterating it publicly. It is not always what they tell you either, it is what they do not tell you. Much thanks for this invaluable site. |
Response | |
From: | |
Author of: | Punctuated Equilibria |
Response: |
Your experience parallels mine. At college, I was in the market for good apologetics, and thus ended up at a lecture given by a young earth creationist who concentrated upon geological "difficulties" for evolution. Since geology was not my field and because the speaker delivered his material with confidence and as a fellow member of the church, I was willing to credit his arguments. I spoke with the lecturer after the meeting broke up, and he gave me a copy of Henry Morris' "The Scientific Case for Creation". I began reading the book. Soon, though, I was becoming quite uncomfortable. Morris was saying things that put YEC stances at odds with many different fields of science, some of which I had better familiarity with than geology. In weighing the arguments made by Morris, I came to the conclusion that the sheer volume of incorrect information argued strongly that these errors were, in fact, deliberately made. I could recognize strategies of propaganda that were familiar from reading in reactionary literature, like Stormer's "None Dare Call It Treason". Since that time, I have invested significant effort in trying to counteract falsehoods and other bad information disseminated by anti-evolutionists. It seemed to me that messy truth, however difficult to harmonize with some theological themes, was preferable to comfortable lies. My interest in the anti-evolutionary movement has caused me to look upon apologetics in a very skeptical way. Faith can be maintained without apologetics, and in my view, should not be jeopardized with apoogetics based upon innuendo, distortion, mischaracterization, and other non-truth based argumentation. It is just too risky when someone adopts an apologetic and later finds out just how weak or counterfactual it was. Wesley |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | Rod Bernitt |
Comment: | I read the
following report -
The Recession of the Moon and the Age of the Earth-Moon System Copyright © 2000 by Tim Thompson [Last Update: December 1999] Very interesting position disclosed. Some quick comments. a. I did not see anything documenting the fact that over 3,000 years of solar eclipse measurements support the higher tidal dissipation rate for the earth-moon system. Using these measurements and the tidal dissipation rate based upon them, you will encounter a Moon approaching the Roche limit about 1.5 billion years ago. b. I did not see anything addressing the fact that the current theory for the origin of the Moon, the giant impact model requires a much higher tidal dissipation rate during the period 4.5 billion years ago to about 4.0 billion years ago. This tidal dissipation rate would be much greater than later in the Precambrian. Reason, the model features the Moon forming initially about 3-5 earth radii distance. Today it orbits with a mean a little over 60 earth radii. The Moon would suffer a much greater tidal dissipation rate than today with initial rapid separation. What geologic evidence supports this? Precambrian varves anyone? c. Precambrian varve sediments were cited as physical evidence in support of a lower tidal dissipation rate in the remote past. What? Are there not alternative answers in hydrodynamics for such features in geology? I.e. they do not have to represent lunar tide actions at all. They could involve the action of water though. |
Response | |
From: | |
Author of: | The Recession of the Moon and the Age of the Earth-Moon System |
Response: |
Eclipses
The eclipse records, as you note, are good for about the last 3000 years or so. But we are talking about the history of the Earth-Moon system over some billions of years. What justifies the presumption that we can extrapolate backwards from a 3000 year baseline of "now" over 4 billion years? The answer is "nothing". I did not discuss eclipse records because they are not relevant. They give us the current dissipation, but say nothing as to tidal dissipation billions of years before the records begin. Let us revisit the last paragraph from the section "The Paleontological Evidence". The first two sentences read "As you can see, the paleontological evidence indicates that moon today is retreating from Earth anomalously rapidly. This is exactly as expected from the theoretical models that I have already referenced." Eclipse records will reflect the current, anomalously rapid rate of retreat, and will not be representative of conditions over a longer time period. Lunar Origin Indeed I did not discuss the matter of dissipation in theories of lunar origin, though it may be a worthwhile addition. Dissipation was much higher, and the rate of lunar recession much higher, in the time following impact origin. This is covered in one of the papers that I cited in my references ["Evolution of the Earth-Moon System", Touma & Wisdom, Astronomical Journal 108(5): 1943-1961, November 1994], and in a companion paper that I did not reference ["Resonances in the Early Earth-Moon System", Touma & Wisdom, Astronomical Journal 115(4): 1653-1663, April, 1998]. I doubt you can find any direct geological evidence of such motion because of the extreme age; oceans did not even exist so long ago, so there can't be any tidal rhythmite signature. Precambrian Varves Nobody has offered an alternative explanation, and none is known. The varve formations accurately record the ocean tide periodicities. I pointed out in my references the paper by Archer that shows the reliability of this method ["Reliability of lunar orbital periods extracted from ancient cyclic tidal rhythmites", A.W. Archer, Earth and Planetary Science Letters 141(1-4): 1-10, June 1996]. Also see "Geological constraints on the Precambrian history of Earth's rotation and the moon's orbit", G.E. Williams, Reviews of Geophysics 38(1): 37-59, February 2000. They are indeed hydrodynamic formations, but modulated by oceanic tides. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | Dear sirs, one of the big questions I have about evolution is. The big bang was an explosion. I have never seen order come from an explosion. How could this be? If an auto mobile co. blew up could we expect a perfectly working car to be produced by that explosion? even in slow motion this could not happen. something would have to act on the outside for this to be. Martin Mayberry |
Response | |
From: | |
Author of: | Creation Science and the Earth's Magnetic Field |
Response: | The Big Bang was not an explosion. It is the simultaneous expansion & cooling of the entire universe, from an infinitesimal size to its current size. The condensation of density irregularities out of the cooling universe is a necessary consequence of the laws of physics. So, contrary to your mistaken view, one cannot avoid the appearance of "order" in an expanding & cooling universe. It's just a matter of coming up with a detailed description of the process (no necessarily an easy task). |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | I am a
young-earth creationist, but I thought I should write to
thank you for the excellent article on isochron
dating. It is just what I needed to jump-start my
investigations in the field. Question: Some creationists
have proposed the idea that the speed of light is not
constant. What effect might a larger "c" have on
radio-active decay?
Pete |
Response | |
From: | Chris Stassen |
Author of: | Isochron Dating |
Response: | I'm glad you
like the Isochron
Dating FAQ. Feel free to use this archive's feedback
facility again for any additional comments or questions
you may have on that topic.
I don't know how a change to the speed of light would
impact rates of radioactive decay. I think that it would
depend on how the change to I get the impression that even the proponents of " There are two additional things which you should be
aware of. First, very few young-Earthers (especially those
with significant training in physics) think much of the
claims of " It's a fun topic to think about. A place where the speed of light is very slow is the subject of one of the many excellent essays in George Gamow's Mr. Tompkins in Paperback. That book is a great introduction to relativistic and quantum physics, which I highly recommend. But though it is an interesting "thought experiment," a huge recent change to the speed of light is not really considered (even by most knowledgeable young-Earthers) to be a reasonable way to "explain away" inconveniently old isotopic ages. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | I'm sure I'm
not the first to tell you, but the date on your feedback
page is off by a century.
On second thought, in light of the "progressive" state of creationism, maybe it isn't an error after all. Keep up the good work Greg |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | We can't answer right now. There's a mountain of baked beans and dried food to be gotten through, and the timelock on the door isn't set to open for another century or so. |
Feedback Letter | |
Comment: | I personally am a 100% born-again believer of God's Holy Word. I am submitting this comment/question, because I want to Know the truth. My question is, how do you know that evolution is the truth? I realize that no one was around then (except The Creator). At least creationists have the written record and account in the Bible. So, where is your proof? If you feel up to the challenge of answering my question, then please publish this comment with your "answer". [thanx for reading this, and please answer me.] |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | Evolution is
established in the same way as any other scientific theory,
by induction from empirical evidence.
This archive will only be of interest to those who consider standard scientific methodology to be a reasonable guide to truth, and wish to criticise evolution on that basis, or to argue a consistency of your particular reading of the bible with available evidence. If you choose to discount empirical evidence entirely in favour of Genesis 1-3 as a "written record" of events in prehistory (which is your prerogative) then we have nothing to offer you. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | Darwin
rejected his own theory of evolution before he died - maybe
he isn't the best person to quote to support a
pro-evolution page?
"When the views entertained in this volume ... are generally admitted, we can dimly foresee that there will be a considerable revolution in natural history." - Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species [1859] |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | No, he
didn't. See the Lady Hope FAQ
for details on this myth.
Darwin was right, however -- his views did cause a "considerable revolution in natural history." That revolution occurred in the late 1800s, and around that period, evolution became the accepted scientific explanation for the diversity of life on Earth. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | I have just found and read (obviously!!) a creationist article, taken from their magazine (Creation Ex Nihilo 19(4):42-43, Sept-Nov. 1997) which purports to have people finding red blood cells in Dinosaur bones. They say of course, that such an event would be impossible if the bones were millions of years old, and therefore they must be YOUNG! Is there anyone who knows about this and/or has the rest of the story? |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | I don't know
much about this, but did some checking. Generally, I find
the archives of
the dinosaur mailing list to be a useful place to look
for dinosaur news on the web.
The work is genuine and fascinating; the description by Creation Ex Nihilo is a bit off. What was found was not simply red blood cells (as the quotes in the CeN article suggests) but something which might be trace remains of cells. The major interest is that the researchers claim to have found and isolated organic molecules. No DNA has been extracted, but proteins are much more durable. Their preservation is surprising; but not impossible. The Answers in Genesis suggestion that this work shows dinosaurs lived relatively recently is characteristically silly. Here are links to three on-line articles. The first two are from the dinosaur mailing list, and the third is a New Scientist presentation.
I will take the liberty of posting on this subject to talk.origins, to see if anyone knows more; alas anything I learn as a result will be too late for this feedback response. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | brent |
Comment: | hi, i was
reading one of the questions someone sent in and it hit
me... a ball from my little cousin. actually, a question. i
know this is more astronomy than it is biology, but could
you try and answer it all the same. QUESTION: how could the
big bang, that consist of only energy moleculars and matter
moleculars, react and make a variety of elements?
thanx, brent |
Response | |
From: | |
Author of: | The Recession of the Moon and the Age of the Earth-Moon System |
Response: | in its
infancy, immediately after the Big Bang, the universe had
no matter in it at all, it had only energy. Matter "freezes
out" of the energy, once the universe gets cool enough, in
much the same way as ice freezes out of water, when water
gets cool enough. That matter is made up of a bunch of
different kinds of particles, including the protons,
neutrons, and electrons that we find in normal atoms today.
In the very high temperature environment of the infant
universe, those protons can fuse together and form larger
particles, namely the alpha particles that are the nuclei
of atomoc helium, along with tiny amouns of the nuclei of
lithium, beryllium and boron. But the universe does not
stay hot long enough to go beyond that yet.
Once the universe cools enough, the electrons become associated with the nuclei, and form the normal, neutral atoms that we are familiar with. An analysis of the basic physics implies that this kind of Big Bang Nucleosynthesis should result in a universe that is about 75% hydrogen and 25% helium, with all other normal matter making up less than 1% of the universe. That is in fact what we see. All of the heavier elements are formed in stars, from Carbon through iron in stellar nucleosynthesis, and beyond that in the high temperature environment of supernova explosions. In that way, starting with the Big Bang, we wind up with all of the elements in the periodic table. |
Feedback Letter | |
Comment: | If evolution is a fact, then why doen't it occur now, to the same extent that it "did" in the past? |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | It does. But the scale of evolution is usually many times the scale of a human lifetime, or indeed of a human society. Despite that, we see speciation and adaptation occurring. See the Observed Instances of Speciation FAQ, the Some More Observed Speciation Events FAQ, and read Jonathon Weiner's The Beak of the Finch. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | Matt (formorly known as God's servant) |
Comment: | When I look around at the feedback area I find numerous references to puncuated equilibrium. I am curious. How does this change the fact that Evolution does not coincide with the second law of thermodynamics? If it doesn't, tell me what you think does. |
Response | |
From: | |
Author of: | Punctuated Equilibria |
Response: |
Punctuated equilibria has no effect upon arguments concerning thermodynamics. I believe that claims that "evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics" or other similar statements require a few things before they can be taken seriously. First, the claimant must identify a *specific* process that is claimed to violate the laws of thermodynamics. Generalities will not suffice here. Vague arm-waving that confuses and conflates "order" or "disorder" and "entropy" is insufficient. Second, the claimant must show that some evolutionary mechanism theory must utilize the specific process identified in the first step. It doesn't matter if a specific process is identified that really is thermodynamically invalid if no theory in evolutionary biology depends upon it. Third, the claimant should show that the specific process identified in the first part and linked to a theory in evolutionary biology in the second part is not actually observed to happen in real-world populations of living organisms. Processes that are observed to happen are highly unlikely to be violating the second law of thermodynamics. As far as I can tell, no theory in evolutionary biology requires any process that has not already been observed to happen in living populations. This makes the odds for an anti-evolutionist to actually demonstrate that some theory in evolutionary biology is "against" the second law of thermodynamics quite remote. Wesley |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | I would like to thank the authors of this website for the time and effort that they have put forth in order for the general public to better understand their views. I am a college student currently enrolled in a general biology class. I have been, for my entire life, a creationist. I probably always will be, however, I do intend to learn what I can about this issue. I am quite aware that God could have used evolution as a tool to create the world. It is awesome to read about all of the wonderful intricacies that He used in designing each one of us. This might sound tired and old to you, but please hear one thing: God loves you. Creationists aren't as bad as they are sometimes made out to be; misunderstandings happen and, although there are a few nuts, most of us are good people, too. Thank you again! |
Feedback Letter | |
Comment: | hi, i decided to take a few minutes to let you know that this website is one of the best scientific sites i came across.i'm a biological anthropology student and the material in this site are of great use to me,and i use your website as one of my primary sources. everything in this site is of great accuracy, and most importantly, all the material is very clear and easy to understand for everybody. creationism is unfortunately a plague in our modern times, and unless people are made aware of the true nature of science, its goals and its limits, our society will fall back in another age of ignorance and darkness. |
Feedback Letter | |
Comment: | Your site claims that life has evolved on earth and that lifeforms adapt to their surroundings. If this is true why haven't other planets developed their own lifeforms? Theoretically, lifeforms should be able to adapt to the conditions on Mars, Venus, Pluto, etc. Although life as we know it can't exist on these planets, shouldn't lifeforms evolve on these planets that can handle the conditions? Why or why not? Justify your answer. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | There is no
presumption that life must evolve on any given
planet. If it did, then, yes, we'd expect it to evolve
through the usual Darwinian processes and not, eg,
Lamarckian processes of anticipating the needs of organisms
and evolving to meet that need ahead of time.
For life to arise, some set of chemical conditions must be in place. What those are, we do not know, and may never know (although my feeling is that we'll know some conditions that are needed for some forms of life to arise). We know life won't arise on a planet so cold that chemistry itself is retarded. We know it won't arise if the planet is so hot that large molecules can't stay stable. The rest is guesswork. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | It looks as if the Y2K bug has bit you. In the Feedback for January 2000, it lists it as January 1900! This is actually the first patently false claim I found on this site. Nice work, keep up the good effort. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | Of course,
since most creationist arguments were asked and answered in
the last century, sometimes it does feel like 1900!
Thanks for pointing out our error. I've asked the Archive maintainer to fix the bug. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | I very much
like your site but I have a question rather than a comment.
A creationist friend told me of a discovery by a scientist
of ancient bees that were dated 5 million years older than
flowering plants. I have tried to find this but with no
luck. He claimes he read it in something like the
scientific american or american scientist. He could not
quite recall. Have you heard of such a discovery?
Thanks |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | I had not
heard of this before inverstigating your question. Here is
some on-line stuff I found, which looks relevant.
This study proposes that bees originated more than 100 million years before flowering plants! Of course, this would mean that these bee ancestors used a different source of food, as discussed in the articles. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | brent |
Comment: | if evolution
did happen... what are we evolving into now? what's our
next step? and if any, why haven't we evolved in the past?
we haven't grown any new limbs yet.
brent |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | The future
course of change is not something we can predict with any
confidence. However, we can discern our evolution in the
past. See in particular the Fossil
Hominds FAQ.
Note that growing new limbs is one change which, by evolutionary theory, will not occur (almost certainly). Evolution tends not to make radical changes in body plan, but to introduce variations on existing themes. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | Hi, I am doing a report in school and I found out that Darwin was not the true creator of evolution. Could you please e-mail me back and tell me who the true person was. |
Response | |
From: | |
Author of: | Darwin's precursors and influences |
Response: | See Darwin's Precursors and Influences FAQ for details. There are many precursors, bu tthe first one to propose a real evolutionary theory was - ironically - Darwin's own grandfather. |