Feedback for February 2005

In your answers to Haldane's dilemma on:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB121.html

something needs to be added. The main source of the dilemma is that Haldane makes an incorrect assumption. See:

http://www.bakkster.com/r_crea18.htm

for an explanation. For your convenience, I'm copying/pasting the relevant part of that web page:

Haldane's assumption was that it would take 300 generations to fix a single gene from initial mutation to ubiquity in a population. While one can debate this figure, it is not the main source of the Dilemma. This comes from the invalid assumptions that only one gene can be fixed at a time and that no other changes can accumulate until the ongoing one is fixed. That's why multiplying the number of generations per fixation by the number of total DNA differences makes no sense.

I noticed another problem with computer simulations for Haldane's dilemma. Some simulations assume just one parent because that's easier to program.... However, it's clear that evolution works much faster with two parents (that way good mutations can meet to produce even better offspring).

Mark van Hoeij

A possible error: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE310.html

The source of the shrinking sun claim is given as a 1974 book by Morris, but the response indicates that the claim stemmed from a report written in 1980. While Morris might be known by some for his smoke and mirrors, most would not ascribe future-telling to him as well.

Kurt Klein

DNA is a code, all codes are intelligently designed, therefore life was intelligently designed.

I could find no complete refutation of this argument, and was curios of your thoughts on the matter. Obviously, the statement "all codes are intelligently desinged" has no proof, yet I could find no evidence of a complex code that was not intelligently designed. In any event, thanks for maintaining such a great, useful site!

1. I was browsing your feedback and found one of your guys (Gary Hurd) taking a naive falsificationist view of science, whereby scientific theories cannot be proven but can be disproven (some say that this is what separates science from pseudoscience). Now, I don't do philosophy of science, but I think I know enough to inform you that this is a discredited view (or at least as discredited as a view can be when it's philosophical in nature). I take it that these days phil science experts don't go in for the proving or the disproving of theories at the hands of observation -- this is due to lots of worries about the relationship between theory and observation raised by Quine, Putnam, and others. Of course, some scientific theories are better than others, and this has a lot to do with how they stand with respect to observables, but the story is more complicated than that.

In any case, I imagine everyone would agree that there's something wrong with a scientific theory that has no observational implications at all. And that there's something wrong with theorists who endlessly tack on ad hoc hypotheses instead of revising their theory. And that might be all you need to say.

2. Also Troy Britain used "counterfactual" as though it meant "false". But a counterfactual statement is a statement that discusses alternate ways the world might have gone -- e.g., "If I hadn't scored that goal, my team would have lost" and "If Gore or Kerry had won, America's foreign policy wouldn't be so foolish".

Keep up the good work!

Cheers, Alex.

I send this letter in reply to Chris Colby's "Introduction to Evolutionary Biology"

In the paragraph "The development of Evolutionary Biology" he writes: "[...] Mendel mailed his paper to Darwin, but Darwin never opened it."

Because I have seen this factoid being used by some creationists to "discredit" Darwin (often refering to mr. Colby's article) I tried to find a relevant source to this claim. Apparantly, the claim that Darwin owned an unopened copy of Mendel's paper is exaggerated. As described in a letter by Andrew Sclater on the matter, this "unopened copy of Mendels' paper" is actually a part of a book which only mentions Mendel's studies. Mr. Sclater has also published his findings but unfortunately, I was unable to secure information beyond the abstract of this article.

It seems that Charles Darwin never owned a copy of Mendel's paper.

I think this information might be useful to pre-empt the next creationist who thinks this factoid will "utterly discredit" Darwin.

Sincerely,

Drs. Ronald Gravendeel
Licentiate Biology (K.U. Leuven, Belgium)
Belgium

Person 1: Well, how do creationists know that the Big Bang isn't true? Person 2: Tell me, Matt. If you put a bomb in your room, do you think setting it off would make it clean or dirty? 1) That's easy. A bomb would cause a huge mess. I would have clothes and toys all over the place. Mom wouldn't be happy about that at all. 2) Well, you can think of the Big Bang kind of like a big bomb. Evolutionists think that when this explosion happened things got more organized or straightened up instead of getting more disorganized or messy. 1) That sure doesn't make any sense. Another way we know evolution isn't true is to look at our so-called relatives, the monkeys. Man and animals do have many things in common, two eyes, two ears, and the way we breathe, for example. But if you compare DNA, the instructions inside our body that tell us how to look, of monkeys and men, there are some big differences. For the DNA of a monkey to accidentally change to the DNA of a man would be like saying I accidentally jumped over the Grand Canyon So big bang created everything that looks so beatiful on Earth? I wonder how Earth would look after an atomic bomb, maybe we might get more beautiful. Your logic is sad.

My main anger with ID is the dishonesty used to push it.

One question that I have is: What exactly is intelligent design theory? I say theory very loosely. Other than saying complex life had to have behind its existence a designer. Exactly what is the theory?

1. Did the intelligent entity, which I will arbitrarily call God, interact with phyiscal world a billion years ago, a million years ago, last night? 2. Is God involved with every conceptions or cell splitting?

Science assumes that the physical universe is governed by rules. Does ID say that it isn't?

Other questions:

1. How can you prove or disprove a God behind the creation of life. 2. Why does it matter so much to ID proponents that evolution of life occurs?

My religious says God created the universe twenty years ago on January 22, 1985. He set up the physical universe in that one moment. Our memories for before then were simply implants.

My question is: is my religious belief a scientific theory?

It can not be proved or disproved. It could actually be true. It would violation the scientific assumption the the physical universe follows rules that have existed for billions of years. The universe is only 20 years old, after all.

My cousin has another religion that split off from mine. His religious belief is same as mine, except he believes the universe is actually 40 years old.

Which of our "theories" is right? Can they be proved or disproved?

My points are:

1. Science makes certain assumptions about the universe following rules. 2. Science observes and proposes theories. Then scientist try to prove the theories wrong using critical thinking, the scientific method, and intelligual honesty. 3. ID is not science. It is not honest. And it wants people not to use their critical thinking skills. 4. ID could very well be true. However, just like my religion and my cousin's religion, ID is a metaphysical, religious belief that can not be proved or disproved. 5. Science is not trying to answer the metaphysical question about God. It does not have to. God can exist or not. He could have intervened at any point in time and we can not prove or disprove it. This is not sciences role and should not be. 6. If ID gets into science classes it is the failure of the boards to be intellectually honest. 7. Does it bother anyone that people, who push ID and probably think of themselves as followers of God, are so intellectually dishonest?

http://nation.ittefaq.com/artman/exec/view.cgi/10/8519

It is from "New Nation: Bangladesh's Independent News Source." The writing is in broken English and seems to make references to the Q'ran. It includes a realistic looking photos of a giant skeleton being excavated by two tiny figures. It bears a very recent date (4/22/04) and claims the photo was taken from a helicopter before the Saudi government restricted the area. The text of the story is below:

Giant human skeleton found in Saudi Arabia By Saalim Alvi from Riyadh Apr 22, 2004, 12:04 Recently gas exploration is going in the desert of south east region of Saudi Arabia. This desert region is called Empty Quarter, which means in Arabic "RAB - UL -KHAALEE"; this body has been found by ARAMCO exploration team. This proves what Allah SWT said in QURAN about the people of AAD nation and HOOD nation.

They were so tall, wide and very power full that they were able to pull out big trees just with the one hand. But what happen after when they become misguided and disobeys Allah SWT, Allah SWT destroyed the whole nation. ULEMA KIRAM of Saudi Arabia believes that this body belongs to AAD nation.

Saudi military took over this whole area. And nobody is allowed to go in this region except Saudi ARAMCO personnel's. Saudi government has kept it very secret but some military helicopters took pictures from air. And one of them he runs on internet here in Saudi Arabia.

There is almost certainly a problem with the phylogeny at the end of "Introduction to Evolutionary Biology" (Version 2 Copyright © 1996-1997 by Chris Colby [Last Update: January 7, 1996]) as Marcel Meime points out.

Not only is there the evidence that Marcel cites concerning phylogenetic inference of sequence data, but the inference that microsporidia are early branching eukaryotes rests on the assumptions that (1) they do not possess mitochondria; and (2) mutation rates are similiar between microsproridia and other eukaryotes. Neither of these assumptions are safe.

Williams et al (2002) use immuno-microscopic methods and more appropriate phylogenetic inference methods to demonstrate that the microsporidian Trachipleistophora hominis contains an organelle of mitochondrial origin and that when the more rapid rates of mutation in the microsporidia are accounted for they should be placed in the eukaryotic crown rather than at the base.

One reason why taxa can be erroneously placed as an early branch in a tree is because they have higher mutation rates than other taxa, or they could be said to be evolving more quickly. (This is known as "long branch attraction" where the fastest evolving taxa clearly produce the most change, the most change = the longest branch, and the longest branches get grouped at the base of phylogenetic trees) These data are consitent with a group that has adapted from functioning in an aerobic environment to functioning in an anaerobic one in a relatively short period of time and have become parasitic. This also explains why mitochondrial HSP70 genes, for instance, are found in this group. The fact that the microsporidia parasitise other eukaryotes should have perhaps suggested to us earlier that they were unlikely to have been the earliest branch in the eukaryotic tree.

see Williams BAP, RP Hirt, JM Lucocq & TM Embley (2002) "A Mitochondrial Remnant in the Microsporidian Trachipleistophora hominis" Nature; VOL 418; pp 865-9

Keep up the good work!

And would also like to encourage you guys to 'take no prisoners' when rebutting rude/dishonest/disreputable critics. Afterall, we live in a society that seems to believe that an accusation that is not addressed vehemently is an accusation that 'must' be true.

Again, thanks for all the effort!

Recently came across a website; truthorigins or something like htat. I haven't had time to read his articles, but he seems to counter many of the articles here. Do you know where I could view some rebuttal?

In your generally great (if slightly advanced) FAQ page discussing 'progress in evolution', http://talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil/teleology.html the page's author John Wilkins writes: "The current view is best summed up by a phrase of Gould's - evolution is a bush, not a tree."

Perhaps this is a slip of editing? I expect it should read "is a bush, not a LADDER", in the context of the paragraph and of Gould's general thought (in which I've read significantly). And between a bush and a tree I can't imagine significant differences pertinent to the metaphor.

thanks, Ron G

On one of the pages that was a refutation as part of the index of creationist claims pertaining to radiometric dating:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF210.html

The response reads, "The radioactive decay rates of nucleotides..."

Rather than the word "nucleotides," I believe the author meant to use the word "nuclides." There's a significant difference between the two and the former does not apply here. It can be an easy mistake to make, but it should be changed in order to be accurate.

Keep up the good work.

One thing I worry thought is that how long will this debate last? It must be very very tired seeing so many feedbacks rejecting evolution and old earth etc, while this debate will not have an end anytime soon. I can sense there'll be generations after generations of people rejecting the idea of evolution and an old earth. What kind of discovery or scientific development can help put a solid end to this debate?

David James

Fantastic job, the ammount of information on the site is staggering, I had not even heard many of the arguments listed on the site but now if I ever do I know how to thouroughly debunk them. Keep up the good work.

On the other hand, we have theories of heat transfer applied to the Earth system. We say it is cold in the winter because the Northern Hemisphere does not receive as much solar radiation as it does in the summer, so the temperature falls. We also have the theory of the Sun centered Solar System, in which the Earth rotates around the Sun, maintaining a constant angle of inclination relative to the stars. This theory assures us that given the passage of time, the Northern Hemisphere will receive enough solar radiation to warm us to summer temperatures.

My question is: “Why do anti-evolutionists want to demean the glorious Theory of Evolution by attempting to compare it with a mere fact?” The Theory of Evolution is much more than a fact, and I am surprised more people don’t recognize it.

Dr. Jay L. Wile, a Ph.D. graduate in nuclear chemistry from the University of Rochester, has offered to debate anyone over the accuracy of radiometric dating (including radiocarbon dating). Dr. Wile argues that RADIOMETRIC DATING IS UNRELIABLE, and that the earth is considerably younger than billions of years old.

NO SCIENTIST HAS YET ACCEPTED THE OFFER TO DEBATE DR. WILE.

Professors and scientists from Cornell University, Syracuse University, University at Buffalo, Monroe Community College, Buffalo State College, Binghampton University, University of Rochester, Rochester Institute of Technology, and Ithaca College were invited to debate Dr. Wile, but no one has accepted.

If anyone knows of any Ph.D. scientist who would be willing to debate Dr. Wile, please email me.

Q.1a. i believe that extinctions have happened in the history of the earth and that all the dinosaurs were probably dead when the ark was used. but again the bible has never been proven incorrect.

Q.1b. honestly i dont think that you can do both. many people think of Christianity as a religion but in actuallity it is a lifestyle. if you are living as a Christian lifestyle and tell people that you believe in evolution then you are not a true Christian. true Christians understand and believe that God CREATED the earth. therefore you cannot be a strong Christian and believe in evolution.

Q1c. and Q1d. i'm 16 and to tell you the truth i think that there are a lot more old creationists and evotulionists because thats the way they were raised and were told and thought. i think that a lot of young people believe in the THEORY of evolution because the teaching of God and CREATION have been thrown out of schools in the U.S.

Q1e. i dont think that science will hurt creationism because the sciences that are being found are continually providing evidence that the bible is true.

i promise to continue writing and answering these fabnaq.

This was naturally frustrating. I had learned of Mayr's 'What Evolution Is' at an evolution vs. creation forum, where it was cited as an undergraduate text on evolution by one of the forum's purported biologists. In my youthful naivete, I thought I could rely upon Mayr and that biologist for sound reference.

This one error, of including a universally discredited drawing, damaged my presentation and damages the integrity of Mayr's 'What Evolution Is'. It's hard enough to be a high school student advocating evolution among somewhat fundamentally Christian friends, all in the setting of a church. It's almost futile to persuade Christians (who, let's face it, practically all reject naturalistic evolution) with arguments that even peripherally include falsified evidences like Haeckel's drawings.

I do not understand why Haeckel's drawings enjoy the posterity rightfully denied to other falsified articles of evidence. While paleontological shams like Nebraska Man are swiftly expunged from the scientific canon upon their falsification, Haeckel's drawings remain popular. In addition to my obervation in 'What Evolution Is', I clearly recall my sophomore-year biology teacher saying "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny," and have heard anecdotes from other high school students about how Haeckel's drawings are included in their curriculum.

If such things have been discarded by academia, why do they still exist in secondary, and, apparently, post-secondary curriculum? Science publishers and educators alike should stop using false arguments to buttress evolution. Doing so gives Jonathan Wells and company an invitation to attack that much larger a target.

"I can read evolutionary theories (or facts as you like to call them) till my eyes cross and it will never convince me of it."

Such a statement is emblematic of a closed mind and also tends to bring Christianity itself into ridicule as St. Augustine observed:

"Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world....Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn."

If one is going to discuss science, whether to defend or disprove, it is incumbent on that individual to at least try to both understand the concepts being discussed, and obtain accurate information from a multiplicity of sources (rather than from one narrow one).

Retreat into arguments from incredulity or refusal to engage in discussing the intrinsic science of the topic is only injurious ones personal credulilty and ultimately, their cause.

Finally, as a Christian myself I find it dissapointing that self-styled Christians like Mark Borders slip into base derision. This is neither a Christian act nor a sound replacement for cogent, logical argument & knowledge of a subject.

My hat is off to those of you from Talk.Origins who exhibit such patience & civility in the face of continuous disparagement and condescension.

Your efforts are greatly appreciated and your combbined knowledge much admired.