Feedback Letter | |
Comment: | [Ed.: This comment is in reference to the NBC's "Mysterious Origins of Man" FAQ.] There is a difference between skepticism and criticism; one is supported by facts but the other by opinions. It is clear to me after reading through your hard work that you need to do better. I am a postgraduate in the natural sciences and I have out of curiosity started to look into many of the articles and books written in the frontier sciences. What I find is that these researchers are no less credible than others in the science field. If you want to be critical, then do it in a credible way. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | Perhaps the
reader could be more specific in the criticism of the FAQ
and as to how it could "do better." The FAQ outlines the
claims made on the television show "Mysterious Origins of
Man" and discusses each one in detail, as well as
presenting links to other reviews of the show.
For example, one of the books used as a source for the show is Forbidden Archaeology by Michael Cremo and Richard Thompson. One of the claims made on the show that came from this book is that blue spheres, of an apparently artificial origin, had been found in South Africa in rocks dated to 2.8 billion years. In support of this claim, Forbidden Archaeology cites an article in the Weekly World News. I leave it to the reader to decide whether a supermarket tabloid is a reliable and accurate source of scientific information. As for "credible researchers," one of the "experts" on the show was "Dr." Carl Baugh, a young-earth creationist of suspicious credentials whose claims have been rejected even by other creationists. I won't repeat the entire FAQ here, as readers can examine it for themselves. I will note, however, that credibility in science involves making claims that will withstand scrutiny. The claims made by "Mysterious Origins of Man" do not. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | Congrats on
your continual journey towards excellence. Two comments:
Regards and keep up the good work. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | Thank you
for your praise. Like any authors, the writers of the FAQs
stored on the archive appreciate positive reviews of their
work.
Since we at the Talk.Origins Archive feel that the evidence is overwhelming in favor of evolution as the best explanation for the diversity of life on Earth, we invite all of our readers to read the information presented here, contrast it with information presented on other sites, and most importantly, check it against the primary literature referenced in our FAQs, our reading list, and in our extensive bibliography. We feel confident that open-minded, critically-thinking individuals will come to the same conclusions we have. The point you raise about education of the public is a good one that should be kept in mind by those attempting to dispel myths about evolution. I know that I learn information much better when I can touch it or manipulate it or get in mind some concrete example of how it applies in everyday life. For example, it has been pointed out that no farmer should be ignorant of evolution, since the rise of pesticide resistance in crop pests can have a major financial impact on their operations. Thanks for the book recommendations along those lines. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | Dear
Talk.Origins Archivists,
I've just read through the June Feedback and just wanted to drop you a line to cite a reference that might serve as a footnote to your FAQ regarding Stanley Miller's experiment at synthesizing amino acids. The following is an extract from "Science Daily News" and the full article can be obtained at Yale Scientists Recreate Molecular "Fossils," Now Extinct, That May Have Existed At The Beginning Of Life :
Regards, |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | Thanks for the link. |
Feedback Letter | |
Comment: | I enjoy studying the controversy between creationism and evolution. Why is the title of your article misspelled? Just curious. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | I assume the
reader is referring to E.T. Babinski's Cretinism or
Evilution? newsletter. The title is intended as
a joke, as explained by Babinski in the introduction to the
newsletter:
|
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | Good site! The part of the second law of thermodynamics that the creationists always forget is that it only applies in a closed system. The Earth's ecosphere, in which evolution takes place, is not closed, but receives energy from the Sun and geothermal energy from the interior. I have used this simple fact to deflate many a person who has been swayed into thinking that, "Well, they do have a point there..." But I've never convinced a believer; their mind is already made up. |
Responses | |
From: | |
Author of: | Punctuated Equilibria |
Response: |
I've never been particularly happy with the "only closed systems" and "See the Sun?" style of rebuttal. It strikes me as too glib and too abstract. Creationists do not "always forget" this, either. Some responses exist. The real point is that no process necessary to evolutionary change has ever been shown to be thermodynamically unviable. This is mainly because the only processes necessary to evolutionary change are exactly the same ones that are involved in the reproduction and development of organisms, which we observe to happen. |
From: | |
Response: | It's also
not true, as the Second Law of Thermodynamics is a
mathematical relation between temperature, work performed,
and entropy which applies to all thermodynamic
systems, not just closed systems. None of the processes
that take place in evolution--birth, development, genetic
mutation, reproduction, and death--violate the Second Law;
in fact, we see them happening spontaneously every day.
This is true despite often substantial decreases in entropy
in certain locations, because those entropy decreases are
made up for by heat flow as well as entropy increases
elsewhere. These processes take place spontaneously,
without any need for constant "intelligent intervention" or
"designed energy conversion mechanisms."
See the Second Law of Thermodynamics FAQs for details. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | I have not
seen a really good debunking of the Lady Hope story (that
Darwin became a Christian and renounced evolution shortly
before he died) anywhere on the internel including your
site.
The page that you have a link to has comments made by Darwin's daughter Henrietta refuting the story. Elsewhere on the internet I find the following comments made by Darwin's son Francis about the story. Francis Darwin is quoted in the book "The Darwin Legend" by James Moore as saying "Lady Hope's account of my father's views on religion is quite untrue. I have publicly accused her of falsehood, but have not seen any reply. My father's agnostic point of view is given in my 'Life and Letters of Charles Darwin,' Vol. I., pp. 304-317. You are at liberty to publish the above statement. Indeed, I shall be glad if you will do so. Yours faithfully, Francis Darwin. Brookthorpe, Gloucester. May 28, 1918." (Found at Folklore Concerning Charles R. Darwin.) One thing that nobody seems to have done is to look at Lady Hope's statement itself. One look at it and it seems pretty obvious that she is making the whole thing up. In her statement she quotes Darwin as saying
Nobody who knows anything of Darwin's life will believe that he said these things. First, Darwin was not a "young man" when he first published his theory. If I am not mistaken, he was past 50 when "The Origin of Species" was published. Second, he did not have "unformed ideas" nor did he "throw out queries, suggestions". He first came up with his theory some 20 years before he published it. He kept working on it in private until his ideas were fully formed. He did not throw out ideas - he revealed them, bit by bit, to his closest associates. When he did go public with his views they were in a remarkably complete document (The Origin) that anticipated a lot of the objections to his theory and answered them. In fact, had Wallace not come up with the same theory independently, Darwin. may have waited another ten years before publishing his theory in an even more complete and thorough document (his book on Natural Selection which he never completed). Finally, his ideas certainly did not catch on "like wildfire". It was a long and bitter debate. In fact, it took a fair bit of time for some of Darwin's closest associates to accept evolution. Interestingly, had Lady Hope's comments been about Wallace rather than Darwin, they might have been more believable. Wallace *was* a young man when he came up with the theory and he did "throw out" his ideas the moment they occurred to him. Also - Wallace did convert to a sort of Creationism (though not Christianity) towards the end of Darwin's life. He started believing that the human mind could not have evolved and had to have been created. Creationists seem to be so caught up in spreading the false story about Darwin that they have completely ignored the true story about Wallace. Sorry for the length of my post and congrats on a great web site. Keep up the good work. Raghu |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | This is an
excellent feedback, and I suggest to our Highly Esteemed
Site Administrator that it be added to the Lady Hope FAQ.
Darwin was 50 when he published the Origin. He came up with the idea of natural selection as the mechanism for evolution in, I think, October 1838, and the Origins was published on 24 November 1859. Wallace was converted to spiritualism around the end of the 1870s when he decided that natural selection was not able to account for the powers of the human brain. Since he was such a fanatic for the broad efficacy of selection in evolution (what we would now call a panadaptationist) his only other alternative was some kind of nonnatural process. Spiritualism was then in great vogue, including such luminaries as Conan Doyle amongst its devotees, and Wallace went for it in a big way, much to the embarassment of the other "X-Club" members of whom Huxley was the de facto leader. Ironically, had Wallace admitted something similar to genetic drift as an explanation of the cognitive capacities of humans, then he might not have had such a troublesome time. Drift, as you will know, is the result of considerations by Sewall Wright in the early 1930s which were eventually incorporated into the "synthesis" through the urgings of Theodosius Dobzhansky, and it makes selection a major, but not sole, mechanism of evolutionary change, just as Darwin insisted it was. |
Feedback Letter | |
Comment: | I read the
following in the Evolution is a Fact and a
Theory FAQ:
In the statement, two facts were mentioned: (i) modern populations are evolving and (ii) Homo sapiens and chimpanzees share a common ancestor. I would like to know what are the evidences for each of the two facts. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | It should be noted that the genetic evidence Kevin mentions is not the only evidence of the human-chimpanzee relationship, merely the best evidence. Evidence for that relationship also includes fossil evidence and morphological comparisons between humans, chimpanzees, and the rest of the primates. Check out the Fossil Hominids FAQ for information on hominid ancestors of Homo sapiens. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | Evolution is the biggest threat to modern science because the theary is not proven and it is treated as fact. Evolution is a FAITH! |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | Thank you for your opinion, If you expect it to be taken seriously however, you should give reasons why you hold that opinion. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | "And there
was war in heaven: .... and Satan, which deceiveth the
whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels
were cast out with him." Rev 12:7-9.
It is my sincere belief that these fallen angels are the White Man. They fell by the island of England "angels' land" and went on to invade Europe, America, Africa, Australia etc. hence they could say that they discovered these places. Where were they all along? |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | Humans of
whatever race did not originate in England, but came over
to the island from the European continent during the
Neolithic period (c. 4000 B.C.), with additional settlers
and invaders showing up every so often (including the Celts
around 750 B.C. and Julius Caesar and the Romans around 55
B.C.). There is, however, some evidence of sparse human
settlement in Wales and elsewhere in the British Isles as
early as 250,000 B.C.
England is named for the Angles, a Germanic tribe of raiders from Denmark who, along with the Saxons and the Jutes, invaded England in large scale during the fifth century A.D. and competed in the barbarian triathlon (plundering, pillaging, and looting), finally coming into control during the sixth century. So it's not "angel's land," it's "Angle land." And while some Danes (and even some Americans) may feel Denmark to be heaven, I doubt it is what John, the author of Revelations, had in mind. See Britannia for a nice set of articles on the history of the British Isles. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | I believe in evolution, but I lack knowledge about it. I think humans have 46 chromosomes and other animals have like 44, 48, 50, etc. But during evolution, how many chromosomes did the apes that evolved into humans have? And how many chromosomes did the reptiles which evolved into mammals and apes have? Do we keep 46 chromosomes all the time during the whole evolution? If we don't, that means, for example, an ape with 100 chromosomes suddenly has a child which had 46 and became human. I can't understand that. If we changed the number of chromosomes during evolution, then if humans need to evolve again, how many chromosomes we will evolve into this time? If we can evolve no more, why not? Appreciate your time. Thanks a lot if you can help me. I am looking forward to hearing from you soon. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | I'll repeat
response to a similar question in the October 1996
Feedback:
I'll also quote a statement by Tom Scharle, which can be found in E.T. Babinski's Cretinism or Evilution?: Volume 4:
Humans continue to evolve. It is not necessary for the karotype of a population of organisms to change in order for them to evolve; other, less dramatic changes can lead to variation and speciation. Furthermore, it is not possible to predict exactly which changes will occur in the future in the human gene pool, as such changes have their beginnings in random processes and are governed in subtle and complex ways by the interaction of the genetic code, the biochemical expression of that code, and the environment surrounding each human being, including interactions between humans. So we cannot tell now exactly what will happen to the human genome in the future. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | I have a
theory that might help disprove the "Big Bang Theory."
Could you comment, possibly explain why this theory could
be right or wrong?
|
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | There is some evidence for the hypothesis that much of the so-called "dark matter" in the universe is in the form of brown dwarves that were not massive enough to commence nuclear fusion and become stars. The MACHO project (short for MAssive Compact Halo Object) has detected gravitational microlensing of the sort predicted by general relativity when a massive object passes between Earth and a distant star. It is still unclear, however, whether the MACHOs would be sufficient to reverse the expansion of the universe into a "Big Crunch." |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | Heaven, hell, evolution, devolution ... waste-O-time-olution. The facts of the matter are these: * Each one of us was originally a god-like being. * We all precede the physical universe, are not part of it, only using it as an arena to play the game(s) of life. * The physical universe (matter, energy, space and time)is the result of the combined innumerable creations of each of us and only persists and exists to the degree that we (all of us) agree that it does. * Over eons (quadrillions or more of years) we have degraded to our current state (believing ourselves to human and part of the physical universe, or inferior to some imaginary slavemaster in the "heavens"). * It is possible to extricate oneself from this trap, regain awareness of ones own beingness, separateness from the physical universe and power over it. * All other "explanations" lead only to further entrapment and agreement with the phyiscal universe - none other offer a way OUT (which is what each and every one of us is ultimately seeking). |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | Truth is the degree with which a thing corresponds to reality. Your facts cannot be called facts if they are merely a product of your own mind. In regard to your suppositions, please list the evidence for "each one of us being originally a god-like being", as well as your other assertions. After you provide substantiation for your claims, they can be evaluated. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | As I browsed throug your book recomendation list, I found it lacking some interesting and up to date literature relating to the Creation science controversy. I am refering to the books by Michael Behe and Phillip Johnson. I would like to see their work included in your list, because what they have to say is of great importance to the debate. Thanks, Jonatas Berberian |
Response | |
From: | Chris Stassen |
Author of: | Talk.Origins Book Recommendations |
Response: | Thanks for
the suggestion. The book recommendations list was last
updated a couple of years ago; it is probably due for a
re-writing. I don't have time right now, though.
Personally, I wouldn't recommend many titles from the "intelligent design" crowd, because (1) I'd want to read more than the few I've read so far in order to pick out the best ones, and (2) based on what I have seen, they really don't offer much to the debate. If you take a standard creation "science" text and quietly cut out the truly worst arguments (e.g., on the age of the Earth), you'll end up with something that looks very much like the "intelligent design" position. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | Are you open
to editing the comically out-of-date Biographica? It would
be best to delete me entirely, but if you really want the
world to know that I defended Forrest Mims on the net 5
years ago as a grad student at Arizona, why not throw in my
current location and appointment, and maybe the elapsed
time since the debate occurred.
Frankly, I'm concerned that folks will make the somewhat- reasonable assumption that I am a creationist, or that I defended "scientific creationism", neither of which is true. And in any case, such an anachronism seems hardly worthy of a fine web site devoted to information and education. Don't you think? Otherwise fondly, Stephen Matheson P.S. No, I'm not volunteering to edit the file(s). |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: |
Yes, the Biographica should be updated. As the original compiler, I would be the logical choice for the person to update it. I've just written some software to make maintenance of Biographica and other similar resources easier. Yes, the suggestion to include a time-frame is a good one which I plan on using. I think that part of the future utility of the listing is precisely that it does record such minutiae as what stances each of the listed people has taken in the origins debate. I have on occasion updated various entries in response to specific feedback. I'll see what I can do to make sure that unwanted implications are removed from your entry. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | I wonder if it might be worthwhile for you to consider adding book reviews to your website. A simple approach might be a page with a list of recommended books set up as links to each individual books' specific page on Amazon and/or Barnes & Noble. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | You're in
luck. Check out Chris Stassen's list of book
recommendations. And if that's not enough, see the
Archive's enormous bibliography.
As for linking to an online bookstore, we may add that capability in the near future. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | As a believer in Creation, there's only one question I have to ask that throws evolution out completely... Where are the monkeys turning into humans? I haven't seen any recently, have you? |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | I certainly don't agree that your question throws evolution out completely. For one thing, the evidence shows that the time required for one genus to evolve into another is millions of years. Did you really expect changes of that magnitude to take place in a single lifetime? |
Feedback Letter | |
Comment: | To all
interested in evolution -
If you haven't seen it already, take a look at International Research Team Announces Discovery Of Two Species Of Feathered Dinosaurs. Nice nice nice |
Response | |
From: | |
Author of: | Creation Science and the Earth's Magnetic Field |
Response: | Feathered Dinosaurs; Caudipteryx zoui and Protarchaeopteryx robusta. An interesting discovery to be sure. One of the major failings of creation "science", as compared to real science, is its propensity for arguments and conclusions "cast in stone" as they say, like religious truth. But real science always maintains that attitude of flexibility that not only accomodates, but celebrates the new discovery. Are these creatures links between dinosaurs and modern birds? Nobody knows, but it seems a reasonable first guess. |
Feedback Letter | |
Comment: | Evolution is false; God created this earth by His command.(Genesis 1:21, Psalm 33:6, Isaiah 40:26, Hebrews 11:3, 2 Peter 3:5) Even Christians dealt with this evolution issue, but we only come to one conclusion. God is a loving and powerful God, and is also our Creator. Precious people like you can not be simply made by mistake or chance. God loves us enough to die on a cross for our sins, and if you don't believe in the Bible, look at the city of Jericho. It fell down exactly how it said in the Bible. And Jonah and the whale. There are whales that inhabit the Mediterranean Sea large enough to swallow a man. If you don't believe in God, fine. But his wrath is coming soon and you better be ready because He has no mercy for liars and thieves. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | It should be
noted that the Talk.Origins Archive takes no particular
stance on theological matters, except to the extent that
such religious doctrines as "creation science" contradict
the findings of mainstream science with regards to the
natural world. Kevin's statement that God created the
universe is neither confirmed nor denied by science, but is
an expression of his personal religious views.
However, Kevin's statement is evidence that one can be a fundamentalist Christian and still accept evolution as the best explanation for the diversity of life on Earth. See the God and Evolution FAQ for more details. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | I
"discovered" your site today and have really enjoyed
exploring it. For the first time, I have managed to find an
definition of evolution. It seems to be such a slippery
word in the popular press. There is some good, logical,
sane discussion here. However, there is also a tendency
from some to be a bit hostile without real need. I consider
myself a "creationist", but never have I resorted to the
various evils ascribed to creationists on some of these
pages!
It is obvious to the open-minded that change does occur. Variation within species and (depending on your definition of "species") across species is real. It is also obvious to that same person that evolution (as defined by your site) does not account for the initial lifeform that variation "started from". If everyone could quit name-calling for a bit, perhaps debate could result in some common ground and a realization that some things cannot be answered. I find some answers from the evolution "camp" to fit the observable facts. I find some answers from the creationist "camp" to fit the observable facts. I also find some really stupid ideas and some objectionable language from each side. I would like to address, if I may, the questions never answered section. Is there an email address I could use to debate some of these questions without clogging up your feedback page? Thanks for your time, |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | Perhaps in
learning more about evolution the reader might be persuaded
to obtain a textbook on the subject, which will certainly
provide more in-depth information (and fancy pictures) than
even this Web site can maintain. May I suggest Douglas
Futuyma's
Evolutionary Biology? It is full of information and
well-regarded by biologists, but is also well-written and
quite readable even for a layman like myself with a modest
background in science. The third edition was just released
in December of 1997, so it is up-to-date. It is published
by Sinauer Associates; the ISBN is 0878931899. You should
be able to find a copy in your local university library.
The reader is correct that these feedback pages are not really the proper place for debate on matters of origins. That purpose is served by the talk.origins Usenet newsgroup, for which this archive was intended to serve as a repository. See the Talk.Origins Archive Welcome FAQ for more details. Also, see the newsgroup news.announce.newusers, as well as news.newusers.questions and its associated Web page for information on Usenet news. |