Feedback Letter | |
From: | sher |
Comment: | Isn't there a difference in [Ed: between?] evolution and adaptation? |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | Yes and no. Adaptation is a kind of evolution, but not all evolution involves adaptation. Quite a lot of it is a kind of random wandering around (what mathematicians colorfully call a "Drunkard's Walk"), and is known as random genetic drift. Sometimes evolutionary changes, whether random or directional like selection can be, result in new species; sometimes not. In the end, it boils down to what evolution is defined as. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | If Evolution exsists where does the lungs and eyes come from |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | Lungs
evolved very early in our ancestry. They are homologous to
swim bladders in fish, and existing species show clearly
that the various intermediate steps are quite viable. Lungs
may have evolved as a floatation aid, which was then
co-opted to assist in respiration; or as a respiration aid,
which was then co-opted to assist in floatation control.
Swim bladders in modern fish apparently evolved from lungs, and the respiration function has been lost. In either case, the main source of respiration for organisms with the first lungs was through the gills. Evolution is like that. It co-opts and modifies structures for new purposes. As lungs became more important for respiration in tetrapod evolution, gills became less important, until at some point gills were no longer contributing to respiration. A link with some background: Sarcopterygii: Overview The eye likewise has a very long evolutionary history, and living species demonstrate all kinds of gradations, thus demonstrating the viability of intermediate forms. A link on evolution of the eye: How Could An Eye Evolve? Darwin discusses both these examples in chapter 6 of Origin. It is interesting to note that Darwin speaks of the lung evolving from the swimbladder. We now know that the reverse is more likely the case; the lung most likely evolved as an aid to respiration, and was then co-opted as a swimbladder in the evolution of modern fish. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | Fantastic !!! well done still publishing words to defend your belief. My belief is firmly in the Bible and there is not a word in your site which would shake my belief. The difference is, my belief results in actions in a world where only the fittest survive why care for a baby? Or look after an elderly or disabled person. Where is your evolutionary proof? where? stop drawing pictures to fill in the gaps where you haven't found things!! Stop writing articles about people who agree with you. You have no more proof now than Darwin had then. Sure, you can explain away the creator all you like but you know deep down you know complex organisms do not, cannot, will not...ever appear by chance. It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: |
Ah, I see by the last sentence that Phil is a Robert Chambers fan, though what "The King in Yellow" has to do with evolution/creation issues is probably arguable. Elliott Sober and David Sloan Wilson have addressed the issue of the evolutionary basis of altruistic behavior in a recent book, "Unto Others : The Evolution and Psychology of Unselfish Behavior". Contrary to Phil's assertion, evolutionary biologists have on hand entire categories of evidence which were unknown to Darwin. For example, the entire field of genetics post-dates Darwin's publication of "Origin of Species". I'm not sure what articles Phil would like us to stop writing, but as I see it many if not most of the articles available here are not about just talking about those people who agree with mainstream science, but rather are specifically directed to taking up and debunking the arguments of "evolution deniers". I for one am not interested in "explaining away the creator". I'm much more interested in figuring out how the creator created. So far, it looks like the evolutionary biologists have the best account of the processes of creation. While chance is an important aspect of evolutionary process, it isn't the sole content of evolutionary mechanisms, and thus Phil's rhetoric delivers only a strawman. Wesley |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | I have read and am prepared to comment on your page reguarding the Earth's amgnetic field. The author of this piece admits many things about his mathematics that make me wonder if he is aware if the inherent uncertainties of conducting experiments where the numbers are arbitrary and admittedly separated from the physical evidence. That asside, I would like to address two of the many illogical thought processes that were expressed in that piece of work. The first is the telling lack of understanding of the basics as they pertain to magnetism. 1) All items have a magnetic field, living, non-living, Earth bound or terrestrial. This is why a large body of rocks at the Earth's core or anywhere else for that matter, can, and does have a magnetic field. And yes some fields are stronger than others, (Obviously I hope) 2) The dynamo theory is proofless, boundless, thoughtless and nothing more than evlutionary escapism. This is a last despearte attempt for evolutionists to hang on to thier groundless dogma that the Earth's magnetic field is not what it is and wasn't what we already know it was. 3) The dynamo theory (if allowed to exist against ALL the evidence) would allow evolutionists the opportunity to introduce some fabricated cataclysm, that would allow for yet more unsupported escape clauses for the constantly retreating evolutionary thought process. 4) Save the absolute invention of truth, the only evidence we have is that the known rate of magnetic field decay makes life impossible not long ago. Certainly not enough time for the chips to evolve into scientists. Though on second though evolution may not be nessasary. 5) This whole defenceless defence the Dynamo is all to reminscent of Carbon dating and the whole, "hey let's just pick our basline" thingy you guys like to cling to. 6) Hey I know why don't we just make things up based upon what we already believe and then change or introduce the numbers and math until they read the way we want, and when facts get in the way, we'll just not address them. Excellent jobe guys! way to go. You must be so proud when you look in the mirror and see a friggin' monkey. 7) And just for fun. . .Polonium 214 can't halo in soilid rock, or biotite, no matter how long "fissures" allow the path of Radon to has penetrate into it. No matter how you cut it, the seventh half life is Still less than 2 one thousandths of a second. That means that the solidification occured during that amount of time. No gradual seeping of Radon will permeate ALL granite, No amount of radon fissure penetration acn account for the abslute presence of biotite in all granits samples, and the presence of halos are just as impossible. 8) Perhaps SOME of us did evolve from chimps. I just think it happened recently. I think they are attracted to shiny things like flase doctrine, BS wrapped in tin foil and wet colorful rocks. |
Response | |
From: | |
Author of: | Creation Science and the Earth's Magnetic Field |
Response: | Before
making direct response to the substantive issues, I would
like to make a couple of suggestions. First, it is easier
to read and understand, if you use paragraphs. Second,
people will take you more seriously if you leave off the
insults & ridicule, and stick to the point. As it is,
it hardly seems worth the effort to respond to somebody who
has already made it clear that he has no intent to pay
attention. However, since there are a few points to make, I
will make them here, with reference to the numbered items
above.
1) All items have a magnetic field, ... Not true. Magnetic fields are "relativistic", as they exist only with reference to moving electric charges, and that motion is relative to the observer. It is quite possible for one observer to report a magnetic field, while another observer simultaneously reports no magnetic field, and both are correct. In the case of ferromagnetism, the external magnetic field is caused by a parallel alignment of magnetic domains inside the material, but that magnetic alignment breaks down at high temperatures. The Earth's core cannot have a ferromagnetic field because it is hotter than the Curie temperature. 2) The dynamo theory is proofless, boundless, thoughtless and nothing more than evlutionary escapism. You make several other, similar statements, but offer no support other than the fact that you assert this to be the case. You are quite wrong; dynamo theory has long since been well established in physics, and to deny it at this stage of the game is beyond the realm of reason in all senses of the word. 4) ... the only evidence we have is that the known rate of magnetic field decay makes life impossible not long ago. I thought creationists did not make unwarranted "uniformitarian" assumptions. Or perhaps they do it only when convenient? In any case, this is one of them. The evidence we have is that, over a time span of about 130 years, the dipole component of the Earth's magnetic field was seen to decrease by about 6.3%, although with some undetermined uncertainty. Furthermore, the actual pattern shows a decrease that took only 100 years, while the following 30 years shows no substantial change (see table 2 in my article). Any assumptions about what the magnetic field did before, or will do in the future, must be based on something. Barnes claimed to prove that the pattern was exponential. His claim was not just false, but very false; however, even if true it would not have justified the outrageous conclusion that it must always have been so. His backwards extrapolation over 10,000 years, based on an empirical fit to a 150 year baseline falls well beyond the limits of acceptability. Geological & geophysical evidence, on the other hand, clearly shows that the dipole component of the field has reversed itself numerous times (see my article and the references at the end). That evidence is so strong that even D. Russell humphreys, arch young-Earth creationists, accepts the reality of past field reversals (although he disputes the time scale). 7) ... Polonium 214 can't halo in soilid rock, or biotite, no matter how long "fissures" allow the path of Radon to has penetrate into it. This is not an issue covered by my article on the Earth's magnetic field. See "Evolution's Tiny Violences: The Po-Halo Mystery". The bottom line is that Po-214 certainly can do exactly that, if it is part of the well established U-238 decay chain. Not only can Gentry not distinguish the halo of Po-214 from Rn-222, but he only finds Po isotopes that come from the U-238 decay chain, and he only finds them in proximity to U-238 deposits. It does not look like much of a mystery to me. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | Joe |
Comment: | Dr David
Richards of the School of Geographical Sciences, University
of Bristol, made the study with colleagues in Arizona and
Minnesota. He said: "Beyond about 20,000 years ago there
are some dramatic swings in radiocarbon concentration,
which means the age offset between the radiocarbon age and
true calendar age can be up to 8,000 years."
Radiocarbon dating, which depends on the steady decay of carbon-14, is less reliable if an artefact is older than 16,000 years. But the changes in radiocarbon, and dating, fluctuate greatly up to 45,000 years. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | Thanks for
this information. This indeed interesting and significant
work. After a bit of checking, I can give some further
background.
Your text is probably taken from a very recent article by Roger Highfield, a science editor for the Electronic Telegraph. It appears in the June 30, issue and is available on-line at the time of writing this response. Dr Richards has a home page from which you can find some of his publications. The work in question is published in the latest issue of Science, June 29, 2001, as "Extremely large variations of atmospheric 14C concentration during the last glacial period", by J.W. Beck et al. One of Dr Richards' research interests is the calibration of radiobarbon dating. This involves checking the dates using other independent methods. The main source of systematic error in radiocarbon dating is the varying concentration of carbon-14 in the atmosphere in the past. Dr Richards and his colleagues have found good evidence of increased levels beyond about 30,000 years ago, with a very substantial peak around 43.3 to 44.3 thousand years ago, by studies of a stalagmite. They consider increased cosmic radiation from a supernova as a possible explanation for increased generation of C14 in the atmosphere around that time. There have been many other studies allowing calibration of atmospheric radiocarbon by various independent means; the study by Richards and his co-authors largely confirms and refines those calibrations; the finding of a large peak is a new result going beyond the limits of previous calibrations. The large peak they found is a new and interesting result, though it has no effect except for dates extending back over 33 thousand years. In summary, this work confirms the principles of radiocarbon dating, confirms and refines existing calibration of radiocarbon dates from 11,000 to something like 24,000 years, extends calibration back to 45,000 years, leading to some significant corrections for dates greater than 30,000 years. These corrections mean that some published dates may be too young. No major change for dates less than 30,000 years is indicated, and an interesting peak was found near the end of their range of study. There is, of course, not the slightest comfort for young earth creationists in these results. There may be cause for some substantial adjustments to published dates for some studies, such as Neanderthal sites, making them a bit older than previously thought, by up to 20%. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | How relevent is Darwin's "Origin of the Species" today? Are there any facts or truths in Darwin's book which no longer apply in light of new findings and modern science? |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | Quite a few. Darwin had no understanding of inheritance beyond the shared "commonsense" views of the day, and so he allowed that if an organism used its nose muscles, for example, then nose muscles would be more likely to be inherited. Other views of his that people do not now think are correct is that lungs evolved from swim bladders in fish (it is thought to be the other way), that species are caused mostly by natural selection (it is thought that most species are subjected to selection for new traits after they are isolated from the parental species) and that evolution has taken very much longer than he thought. A good book that "updates" The Origin of Species is Steve Jones' Darwin's Ghost (published outside the US as Almost like a whale). Here is a review. |
Feedback Letter | |
Comment: | You can fabricate your tales and lead many astray in doing so. But I will return in Glory as I left in Shame.....Turn to me and allow love and not lies to rule your debauched mind and heart. Love J |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | Yo J How's it going? Is that gig at South Park working out for you? Please enlighten me - what does this have to do with evolution? |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | Thanks for the humor. Having been an evolutionist and agnostic, all of the debate here has actually helped to strengthen and firm my belief in intelligent design and drive me further from evolution. The responses that I have found here have not all been objective and often spout facts erroneously to prove your (plural) points... as much as any creationist has tried to do on this site (albeit with maybe more intelligence and education than the typical creationsit, but the increasing level of education of creationists in the sciences is changing that, isn't it?). Also, let's not forget taking pride in how well you can dispute creationism and patting yourselves on the back for it (this is evident from the feedback). These things only proven one thing...we all die then we will know truth..or death. Evolution may have some facts to back it up and creationism the same, but it doesn't prove anything and never will. Therefore, I'll take my chances with God. If you believe it is a crutch for me, then I respond "I'll take two!" I have seen more truth in the Bible than in any other work of literature or textbook (science or fiction)or in any other religion that I've looked at. Furthermore, there is more fact to back the Bible up as God's Word than there is to back up evolution (Sorry, guys! I know you don't believe that). Of course, I will expect a reply from someone on TalkOrigins that calls this nonsense. What does this all prove? Nothing. Farewell to evolution. Eventually it will be relegated to the dustbin with other myths while the Bible will continue to be the most popular and widely published Book of wisdom and knowledge the people of this earth has ever known. Evolution and biology has affected our quality of life but they have never done anything to change anyone on the inside for the better. My life has changed by my faith in God, not evolution. Someday, you may see what I mean. No offense is meant by this statement to anyone. |
Response | |
From: | |
Author of: | What is Creationism? |
Response: | Thank you
for demonstrating the fact that rejection of evolution
rests not on God's word, but on a person's
subjective decision of what to see as God's word. Whether
or not you accept the Bible as God's word is irrelevant to
whether you accept evolution, because many serious
scripture scholars find evolution and the Bible to be
entirely comaptible. (See, for example, these
Statements from Religious Organizations.) You have
rejected evolution because you have decided to, not
because God has.
The law of universal gravitation, Maxwell's equations describing electromagnetism, and the germ theory of disease are all every bit as un-Biblical as evolution. I assume you reject them for the same reason you reject evolution? |
Feedback Letter | |
Comment: | <puzzled expression> |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | <wry grin> |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | Rob |
Comment: | I must admit, I am one of the evolutionary illiterates, not completely devoid (I have actually wrote a newspaper editorial supporting evolution!). Needless to say, I was very suprised and delighted to run across this page, I have now been enlightened. I have never seen such a thorough and intelligent FAQ, I commend you on your work and hope you continue. Also, I appreciate you not dismissing Christian theology, while I am not a Christian, I did think it was a classy and noble touch to include Christian evolutionists comments. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | Thanks very
much.
Actually, there was no deliberate attempt to seek out and include Christian evolutionist comments. The archive was started by a fairly random collection of folks who were regular on the talk.origins newsgroup. Some of them were Christians, some weren't. Some FAQs written by Christians have nothing to indicate that they happen to be by a Christian. Others written by atheists have nothing to indicate that they happen to be by an atheist. What is common to contributors is an interest in evolutionary biology, and recognition of a need for a resource to address some common confusions on that subject. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | In a Feb. 2001 response to feedback, Wesley Elsberry suggested that genetic drift might account for the intermediate stages of the mammalian middle ear. Since genetic drift affects the relative frequency of existing genes, this account seems to require that at each of several intermediate stages, genetic drift drove the frequency of that stage toward 1 rather than zero. The probability of this happening is 1 in 2 to the Nth power, where N is the number of intermediate stages; since N is large, this probability is small, and the account seems correspondingly unlikely. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: |
Mark originally asked for the selective advantage that accompanied each intermediate stage in the history of the mammalian middle ear impedance matching system. My response was that we do not know whether selection or drift accounts for the formation of the intermediate states that we know existed. What we can exclude with confidence is the de novo insertion of this as an IC structure into early mammals. Whether we will be able to reconstruct a series of selective gradients to go with the detailed fossil record of this system is an open question. What is not open is the fact that these various intermediate states are recorded in the fossil record, and cannot simply be dismissed as "correspondingly unlikely" by intelligent design proponents. I'll repeat my previous response since its central message seems not to have gotten through the first time.
Wesley |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | The Real Scientist |
Comment: | Your site is just non-scientific. You have a horrible anti-nonsensical bias. REAL scientists (like me) always consider nonsense as an alternative explanation. You can't prove that there is no nonsense, so it must be true. Oh, by the way Creation Scientists are REAL scientists too. They LUV nonsense! |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | You have obviously not yet visited the University of Ediacara. Bring beer. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | The authors
who titled their article"Evidence for Jury-Rigged Design in
Nature" should be aware that intellectual posturing is a
bit more credible when the English language is not abused.
Maybe I should come down to their level. Check your Funk & Wagnalls Dictionary boys and girls. There "ain't no such word as" 'jury-rigged'....it's 'jerry-built'. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | Hmmm, my old
Merriam-Webster dictionary (1956) lists 'jury-rigged'
"Jur'y-rigged', adj. Naut. Rigged for temporary use." And an on-line dictionary (on CompuServe) lists the following: Main Entry: ju·ry-rig Pronunciation: 'jur-E-"rig, -'rig Function: transitive verb Etymology: 2jury Date: 1788 : to erect, construct, or arrange in a makeshift fashion So, you were saying? |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | I have to say, I love your website and I am glad that this database is availible. I am concerned about creationism because it is not just corrupt "science", but it is corrupt faith. Trying to prove the existance of God goes against the whole principle of faith. Evolution as a science looks objectivly at evidence and forms a theory. Creationism manipulates evidence to fit their belief. You guys obviously already know this, but I just wanted to express my support. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | Did you at talk.origins ever notice that gradualism and punctuated equilibria appear to be a collective description of some ideas of the chaos theory? Gradualism is comparable to steady-state in a pendulum, and P.E. is oscillation; when species are subjected to a certain amount of evolutionary pressure (I hope someone figures out a way to measure this ;-)). |
Response | |
From: | |
Author of: | Evolution and Philosophy |
Response: | Not only has
this observation been made (although not by anyone here I
can recall), it was first made, so far as I know, by CH
Waddington back in the 1970s. Of course, it was called
"catastrophe theory" in those days.
Waddington, CH. The Evolution of an Evolutionist. Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh Press, 1975. More recent discussions include the following: Kauffman, Stuart A. At Home in the Universe: The Search for Laws of Self-Organization and Complexity. New York: Oxford University Press, 1995. ———. The Origins of Order: Self-Organization and Selection in Evolution. New York: Oxford University Press, 1993. Kauffman's work deals with the mathematisation of evolution in a systems theory approach. Michod, Richard E. Darwinian Dynamics: Evolutionary Transitions in Fitness and Individuality. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1999. Michod's book is an attempt to summarise the mathematical dynamics of evolution. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | As a somewhat distinguished evolutionist, I have been evaluating this website for quite some time and I must say that at first I was thoroughly impressed, however through more time and research I'm nearly enraged at the inconsistencies among the articles. Yes, they are insatiably convincing, but only by mere mind manipulation with taunting examples and unsubstantiated claims. I would suggest a much more exhaustive examination of the articles posted before posting them to avoid irreconcilable discrepancies. Especially the "factual" claims of each. Throughout the articles definitions are quite flux and blatantly inaccurate, so please be cautiously aware. Thank you. |
Response | |
From: | |
Author of: | Evolution and Philosophy |
Response: | Well, as an undistinguished evolutionist, I must say that the field is open to write your own submissions for the site, and to correct some of these mistakes. It is a bit hard to respond to vague generalisations. Also, the multiplicity of views taken here is in a way representative of the widely divergent perspectives within the biological community itself. This is healthy - science seems to this amateur to be less like a set of True Doctrines and more like the enterprise of humans trying to find out about their world. But we always look forward to informed contributions and corrections. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | On "Feedback for May
2001" where it says:
The URL is correct, but the link is broken and results in a 404 error. The HTML reveals why: [...] Given the context, I would think this would be quite embarassing. Keep up the good work! :-) John D. Hynes San Mateo, CA |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | Thanks very
much for spotting this! It is embarassing, but it is now
fixed -- and so is the original problem.
The feedback system does a bit of processing for links, but it is not perfect. It sometimes generates an anchor in the middle of an existing anchor. We have the chance to check for such problems, but I failed to check in this instance. Comically, the links you provided in your feedback fail after processing for a similar reason! I have taken the liberty of editing your comments to resolve the problem. (This could get recursive if I muck it up again!) |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | i have just read a flood story for a class i'm taking and i dont believe its on your site. it is a Pima Indian story and is quite different than the one you've published here. if you want a copy it is in the Norton Anthology of American Literature Volume 1. here's a website to help you find it. The Norton Anthology of American Literature |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | Specifically, the Pima Indian legend referred to may be found at this page. |