Feedback for June 2005
| Feedback Letter | |
| From: | |
| Comment: | Hate to break this to you but the latest research in genetics shows conclusively that changing the instructions in the DNA as little as 1 letter in 10 million causes sickness not change. |
| Response | |
| From: | |
| Response: | Contrary to what you believe, the latest research in genetics shows that most mutations cause change but not sickness. The Human Genome Project has mapped more that 10 million single nucleotide polymorphisms in the human genome. You can see the results of this latest research at dbSNP Build 124. The vast majority of these mutations have absolutely no effect on the people who carry them and they can only be detected by sequencing their genome. |
| Feedback Letter | |
| Comment: | Could someone answer the question about how there has never been evidence of new information in the genetic code ever observed. Since new information is required for evolution to be true, could someone answer this question. |
| Response | |
| From: | |
| Response: |
Your feedback is identified as having been sent from the main
Frequently
Asked Questions list. The kinds of questions that appear frequently change over time, and this FAQ is updated from time to time to address new common questions. The question you ask might be well suited for an addition to list. In the meantime, there are answers in several other places in the archive. In brief, new information arises frequently in the genetic code. For more detail, you can also check out the following files in the archive.
There is also an excellent set of articles on information theory in relation to this whole debate that has just been added to the archive. [This response updated on August 14 2005] |
| Feedback Letter | |
| From: | randy |
| Comment: | As far as "The Big Bang," how can something possibly be created from nothing, without "something/someone greater" to make it happen? If I recall correctly, there is a "scientific statement/principle" which states something to the effect of "Energy is neither created nor destroyed." How is that possible? It would seem that for one thing to be created that it had to be made of "pre-existing components" of some kind or other. Seems to me that there's some "mathematic principle" that goes something like "No-thing + no-thing = nothing," not "No-thing + some-thing = everything." Have the scientists and mathematicians gone to war with each other and I never heard about it? |
| Response | |
| From: | |
| Response: | Of course not. You
just don't understand what is being proposed very well, which is
perfectly normal.
The Big Bang is not proposing something from nothing. It proposes that the universe has expanded over time from a state of extreme density. It's not an arbitrary idea, but the surprising conclusion of many lines of evidence. There is no incorporation of a "from nothing" step. There are still many unanswered questions. Existing physics diverges to unbounded density and infinitesimal scale a finite time into the past. This is called a "singularity", which means a condition in which equations are divergent or ill-defined. This is not a condition in which there is "nothing"; it is rather a condition in which time and space are not the concepts we are used to and which we can handle with known physics. There is no basis for dispute here with mathematicians; the mathematics used is perfectly fine. The trouble is simply that some common intuitions turn out to be a very poor guide to how the universe works. Even in simple experiments in a lab we can explore phenomena right now that conflict violently with intuition. But the phenomena are not in question; it is our intuitions that need to be revised.
We cannot figure out how the world operates by sitting back and thinking about what makes sense for us. We have to look and see, and be willing to be surprised, and willing to learn from what we see shown in the world itself. It is good to bear in mind that although we have learned many things about the universe, there is no assurance that we will ever get it all figured out. |
| Feedback Letter | |
| From: | Natrobius |
| Comment: | Kent uses the definition for Evolution that is used by any and all "Evolutionist" scientists today. You try to make out like they are some sort of package that has to be accepted all together. Sorry, Kent isn't wrong. |
| Response | |
| From: | |
| Response: | Sorry, you are
dead wrong. Mention the "Theory of Evolution" to any respectable
scientist and you can be certain that they don't include things
like "Time, space, and matter came into existence by themselves,"
"Planets and stars formed from space dust," and "Matter created
life by itself." Furthermore, the modern Theory of Evolution does
not require the denial of God. On all these points Hovind is way
off base, and so are you.
If you want to see how real scientists define evolution then read "What is Evolution?". For a brief summary of the modern Theory of Evolution read "The Modern Synthesis". Once you realize that Kent Hovind has lied to you about the definition of evolution you will begin to appreciate why he doesn't even have much respect among Creationists. |
| Feedback Letter | |
| From: | |
| Comment: | I have recently heard claims of dinosaur bones containing carbon-14 and claims that creation "scientists" have dated the bones to 10,000 years or so. I am mesmorized by how they could make such a claim in front of the scientific community. Surely what they are saying cannot be true. If carbon 14 was found in a dinosaur bone it would be no more than 40,000 years old. However, I am unable to find any evidence that says dinosaur bones do not contain carbon-14. Is this just to be assumed? I cannot imagine science making such a blunder. Please post something about why creationists would make this claim and if it is true post some logical reasons for it getting there. |
| Response | |
| From: | |
| Response: | We would need to
know the specifics of what is being claimed.
Claims about carbon-14 in dinosaur bones have been made by creationists, but usually without sufficient detail to know what tests were done, how well protected the fossils were against contamination, and so on. You can get contamination in various ways, from ground water, bacteria, rootlets, and so on. Fossil bone does not generally have carbon present at all, which makes carbon dating problematic. Most of the arguments relating to invalid dates refer to other kinds of material. Fossils can sometimes have carbon. For dinosaur fossils such preservation is rare, and scientists are unlikely waste such precious material on a radiocarbon test. This issue is likely to continue to appear. Radiocarbon dating is not perfect; and critics will continue to inflate the degree of imperfection, and focus upon the exceptions. What is lacking, however, is any consistent alternative model able to explain the vast bulk of results that show radiocarbon dating to be a useful and accurate technique. |
| Feedback Letter | |
| Comment: | Your article on evolution was typical. It proposes many farfetched ideas that have zero fact or observible data. The writer indicates that creation is not science and evolution is. This is a lie. evolution has no basis in observation or fact. Therefore it is not science. Creation is as possible as evolution. Creation is really more probable because everything except the original creation is observible. Everything we know of is distinct and there are no part one species part another. I think the best way to approach in the schools is to NOT teach evolution or creation. I believe in creation, but since the original act is not observible, I will allow it not to be taught in public schools as long as the not observible evolution is also not taught. Evolution is as much religion as creation. |
| Feedback Letter | |
| From: | |
| Comment: | What a refreshing
change to see something intelligent. I really fear for the future
with the things people are turning to in the name of religon.
They openly reject thier own common sense and science in the name
of religon. I even met a chap who believed the dinosours werein
the ark with noah?
Thanks alot I really appreciate the hard work you put into this. |
| Feedback Letter | |
| From: | George |
| Comment: | The main issue with evolution as a science is that, for one, there are no observations that can be made. Thus, evolution must be classified in the same category as UFO's. Secondly, evolution is supposedly an ongoing process. If so, where are the shrew's that can "almost fly" or any half-bats? Where are any of thousands of variations that should have taken place between apes and humans? Where for that matter are the billions of countless variations of species that should be the go between for any number of billions stages in the so-called evolutionary ladder? The evidence should be overwhelming if evolution took place. If it is possible to locate fossils that are allegedly millions of years old, then we should also be able to find all the evidence to go with every "mutation" from then until our present day. In any case, I find that teaching evolution even as a theory, should not be done in ANY science class unless UFO's, and other "he-said, she-said" conspiracies are also allowed to bewilder our young minds. |
| Feedback Letter | |
| From: | |
| Comment: | YOU ARE ALL GOING
TO BURN IN HELL!!!! In the meantime could you please tell me how
I can evolve my toaster into a DVD player? I don't really care
about toast but my DVD's keep melting in the toaster.
Thanks for the good work. |
| Feedback Letter | |
| From: | |
| Comment: | Thank you, thank
you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you.
After reading some utter BULLS*** on this creationist website I found, about dinosaurs and man living together - interspersed with 'believe in god or go to hell' - AND presented as absolute fact, I nearly pulled my hair out. This was from the new 'museum' in whatever state it was. Fortunatly, I found your site shortly afterward and feel much better now. I realize there will probably always be creationists who refuse to see 'the word of god' as anything but totally literal, but I'm hoping your site will inject a little sanity into the world. Thank you. |
| Feedback Letter | |
| Comment: | Evolutionists convince many to believe their improvable theories and it’s now forbidden for schools to teach in contrary. Why should students value things like school and their behavior if they’re taught they evolved from apes? I don’t believe evolution should even be taught in science class because it doesn’t pass the scientific method. In the other hand there is confusion among creationists (I’ll mention it later). Lets take a look at the evolutionary theories first. Take spontaneous generation for example. How could a cell just come out of nowhere? The cell is said to be more complex than NYC, so it would be ridiculous to believe that. (That theory has already been abandoned anyway.) Why not believe that there is a creator that can make something out of nothing? Mutations may cause changes to species within their families but will never form new families. This is also supported biblically. For example, there are many breeds of dogs yet they're all still dogs. I think it’s racist that some evolutionists say that the natives from places like Australia may be the closest link to apes. Why can’t they give up and admit they’ll never find a link between apes and us? Who would want to believe they evolved from a hopeless ape anyway? The fossil record strongly supports creationism. The empty strata may have to with a worldwide flood. The theory of uniformity assumes that all natural processes worked the same way in the past. The Flood story also explains why some rare animals can be discovered today. Other times it might just be cross breeding or something. Humanists look at are “animal ancestry” as an excuse for immorality and violence. This provides license for people’s inappropriate behavior. At least creationists have their bible to tell them the origin and remedy for evil. The interesting thing is that many times animals behave better that humans. Did you know animals only mate because they have to? They don't do it just for the sake of doing it. This is because the live only by instinct so they can stay alive. In the other hand, humans have the freedom to make unreasonable choices that could kill them. Unfortunately the bible has rarely been studied deeply by many creationists(Comparing text-to-text and using prayer for some logical and supernatural guidance). It no wonder many are biblically illiterate! It’s because of this that there are so many different churches. Most of them don’t celebrate their seventh-day Sabbath (friday sunset to saturday sunset) to remind them of creation. Much less do they even celebrate their "lord's day" on sunday which originated from Pagan Rome. There are creationists who say that immortal souls are burning in hell right now. That doesn't even make sense. How can an immortal soul even feel pain? And what kind of remedy for sin is that? The bible explains clearly that the souls are mortal and the evil ones will get burned out of existance AFTER a period of a thousand years. This period will start after Christ returns to bring his people to heaven. I'm sure if people read the bible carefully they would get to know God a lot better and would behave better knowing that he doesn't want to torment anyone, or even take their life away. Another point that many creationists miss is the fact that their life, body, and blessings all come from God. If they really thought about that, they would think twice before putting on a tattoos, peircings, make-up, jewlery, etc. which you don't need anyway. The best thing to do is be modest. Sure you can have watches, braces, glasses and so on, but keep it simple. It doesn't matter what people think of you, because God always thinks of you. |
| Feedback Letter | |
| From: | |
| Comment: | I want to
congratulate the team who designed and maintains this website,
particularly the very extensive and cross-referenced FAQ. I am
neither a biologist nor a creationist, but a PhD student in
cognitive psychology. I was curious about the issue of
irreducible complexity from a theoretical standpoint. Your
explanation was excellent, to the point, with clear language.
I was under the impression that Behe (I have not read his book) had proposed a competing theory, with testable hypotheses, to explain certain biochemcial processes. But instead, as a scientist, he simply picked a phenomena that has yet to be fully explained, although still explained much more so by evolutionary theory and experimental biology than I originally thought. Because we haven't fully explained it, everything else that has been explained is now irrelevent. It's even more disingenuous coming from a scientist than a fundementalist. I do believe there are many "irreducible" complexities awaiting any scientist, but our job is to reduce those as well. To continue explaining that which has yet to be explained, and never to simply brush something off as unsolvable. Thanks for having a great site, and keep up the excellent work. |
| Feedback Letter | |
| From: | |
| Comment: | I sent this
tongue-in-cheek letter to the local paper:
Intelligent Design for unintelligent Americans Far from decrying Intelligent Design, Australians should encourage Americans to adopt the teaching of ID theory instead of the theory of Evolution by Natural Selection. This will lead to the evolution of a scientifically illiterate American population, meaning a decline in superpower status. This will allow the rest of the world to catch up. |
| Feedback Letter | |
| From: | |
| Comment: | I was very happy to stumble across your web site, However I'm afraid that the message will fall on blind eyes and closed minds. In spite of scripture being filled with contradictions, believers will not be swayed. Worse, the number of people who believe in evolution is decreasing if a recent statistic on television was correct. According to that source, only 1/3 of the population believes in evolution. We are becomeing a society led by those with closed minds and with too many of it's members emulating those leaders. There is work to be done, and apparently educators haven't found an effective way to do it. Mediums, ghosts, yeti and extrterrestrial aliens are ok, but not evolution. Scary. |
| Feedback Letter | |
| From: | |
| Comment: | Regarding moon distance from Earth. I diffidently suggest that your correpsondent works through the arithmetic for himself before asking his question. Moon/Earth distance = 400,000km = 400,000,000m = 40,000,000,000cm. 40,000,000,000cm / 4cm per year = 10,000,000,000 (10 billion)years. PLENTY of time for the orbit to decay to its present distance. Deep time is hard to visualise, but the effort is worthwhile. |
| Feedback Letter | |
| From: | |
| Comment: | I believe in
Intelligent Design. I am inclined to support and old earth theory
of creationism as opposed to a young earth theory. I am checking
out your site to see what some of the evolutionary apologetics
are in response to Intelligent Design.
As I read through your FAQ sheets to see what you have to say, I am getting the impression that most evolutionists are pretty impatient towards and scornful of people who believe in creationism in one form or another. That scorn comes across loud and clear in the editoral commentary aaccomanying the FAQ discussions. This impatience and scorn is all too common coming from evolutionists. Of course, I realize that creationists have their own temper problems. But there are there are many books on Intelligent Design written in a calm, rational tone of voice that manage to get their points across without painting evolutionists as nihilistic pagans. Here's my point and question. Why the anger? If evolution is self-evident and self-supporting then how is creationism even remotely a threat? A book on creationism should be no more threatening to a young person than a copy of Aesop's Fables. The evolutionist response to creationism is akin to that of a book banning. Wouldn't creationism be deselected from public discourse faster if its flaws were laid open for all to see in a public manner? If not, then maybe a strong case can be made that creationism has strong survival traits from generation to generation? ;) Anyway, here's what I want to see: an explanation of evolution written in a friendly, non-condescending tone. Not begging questions or avoiding difficult topics. Specifically addressing the religious implications of evolution. Written with the assumption that a religious person is attempting to make an honest inquiry into a difficult subject. Written with a sense of compassion and patience that acknowledges that a sensitive area is being breached and that people should not be brow-beaten into submission. Maybe such a book exists. If so, I would love to know its title. |
| Feedback Letter | |
| From: | brightmoon |
| Comment: | i loved that POTM
about ape ancestry and common descent ...please please please
keep up the good work
incidentally ny is trying to put ID into the school system here .....it's before the assemly as a bill any advice on how to stop this pseudoscience nonsence? |
| Feedback Letter | |
| Comment: | Thank you for a very well organized, logical presentation of these various scientific explainations... It is a bit amazing to me that the need for such argument exists, but it seems that many people refuse to see reality for what it truly is... And frankly, the acceptance of scientific principles and findings, contrary to what the zealots would have us believe, does NOT necessarily negate one's religious faith; in fact, it could very simply increase one's understanding of God's divine work (if that is how one views the universe.) I mean, consider the possibility that evolutionary processes, for example, are just the method used by the Creator to develop life; perhaps the complexity of the process as described by Science could be seen as evidence of God's work, rather than a refuting of it. He made the Big Bang happen, knowing that the universe would organize itself according to his design, because He crated the laws of Physics, Biology, Geology, etc. when He created the world... Just a thought. Keep up the good work. |
| Feedback Letter | |
| From: | I'm just a dumb creationist |
| Comment: | I'm just a dumb
creationist, I haven’t yet evolved to your evolutionist
level ha ha ha ha h hahhhhhaha
It really amazes me as to how blind evolutionist can be, you believe in bad science ther is no prooof of evolution it is hog wash pure and simple. I have seen both sides, your side is lacking and it sounds like you people are getting very desperate since you are loosing ground. You believe in evolution just because you want to and you would not dare beleive in God because that would make you face that you are a sinful fallen creature in desparte need of salvation. But hey that is you choice and man I am for choice arent you? |
| Feedback Letter | |
| From: | |
| Comment: | First of all allow
me to commend every one who has contributed to this great site.
It does an absolutely fantastic job in explaining biology in
layman terms, and I am always impressed by the level-headedness
that you all display in your articles and your comments
I have a problem that I have been thinking about for at least 3 years, and I still have not figure it out.... so I hope you guys can throw some light to this. In your FAQ, you have
Just because some people of the faith think it is not a issue does not make it a non-issue. Likewise, it is not reasonable say that "since some Catholic priests are pedophiles and that the church are known to have tolerated their behaviour for a long period of time, the Catholic faith accepts pedophilia." What is the logical difference between this and your Q&A? This is the exact reason why scientists with faith are routinely dismissed as non-believers by fundamentlists. In my humble opinion, this is a fair accusation. A believe system that revolves around an absolute entity such as christian god cannot be adaptable at the same time. At some point science and religion become plainly incompatible. An attempt to reinterpret religion to fit modern science is no more acceptable than an attempt to twist science to fit a particular religion viewpoint. |
| Response | |
| From: | |
| Author of: | Evolution and Philosophy |
| Response: | I have discussed
this a bit in my Evolution and Philosophy FAQ (which I must
revise some day soon) section on Metaphysics, in which I
said
In short, when religion and science conflict, if you want to retain any sense that science uncovers the world in some way, then so much the worse for religion. But that does not immediately make religion false. No elaborate system of ideas is so rigid that problems in one area immediately force a crisis of confidence. Christianity and other religions have been dealing with the problems caused by the unreasonable success of science for a very long time - evolution is no worse for religious belief than any other scientific success (for example, gravity or atomic theory). A religious perspective that required its adherents to reject science is in trouble. But no religion has remained constant and frozen, ever. All religions adapt to social change, technlogical change, and of course scientific change. It may or may not be acceptable in your view, but it is inevitable, and it has always happened. |
| Feedback Letter | |
| From: | |
| Comment: | I came across your site somewhat by accident while researching another matter altogether. To be fair, I could not care less whether so-called "creationism" is right or wrong. However,having read the site contents I am intensely irritated by the way in which people's credentials are attacked - and not their published work. This is usually an indication that the attacker is unable to refute the author's work so the character of the author is attacked. This appears to me to be common American practice. You must surely understand that it is the work that must be attacked (in an academic sense) and not the author. It seems to me that it is a uniquely American attitude to attempt to de-bar people from comment just because they did not attend some particular type of university. I would consider this to be the denigration of the true meaning of academic study - after all the greates advances in the decipherment of ancient scripts were made by amateurs. Perhaps when American universities are at least another 800 years old they may have learned a little humility. |
| Response | |
| From: | |
| Response: | What published
work? To be taken seriously in science, and that is what makes
something worthy of being taught in science class, you
have to publish in peer-reviewed (and that means reviewed by
scientists, not other creationists). And there are none. When
creationists do manage to get something published in a technical
journal (let alone a scientific journal), they certainly don't
publish anything on creationism.
Tolerance is only a virtue in broader society. Science is neither tolerant nor democratic, and that is the way it ought to be. |
| Feedback Letter | |
| From: | |
| Comment: | I have something
that can be added to claim Claim CA341
Hovind indirectly admits that his $250,000 Offer is impossible, and is flawed. The mp3 proves it in his own words... |
| Feedback Letter | |
| From: | |
| Comment: | You are deceiving yourselves. There are two origins of thought. One is from God (The Creator) and the other is from satan (The Deceiver). The thoughts that enter your mind are not all from within. So, evolutionists, please explain to me how my prayers to God in Heaven through his son Jesus Christ are answered, and have been answered repeatedly time after time after time for years and years. Specific prayers, not vague generalities. Too specific to be coincidence. Are they answered by the forces of nature?...or by dead apes?...or by the universe? So please provide your intelligent...er, I mean smart scientific answer to how prayer is answered. I,m sorry, I KNOW you don't have an answer, but I trust you will continue to trust in your own limited knowledge to be all the truth that you need in this life and the next. So, are you deceiving yourselves or have you been deceived? |
| Response | |
| From: | |
| Response: | There is only one possible explanation for your prayers being answered: You are more powerful than God and are able to force God to your bidding. I bow to you. |
| Feedback Letter | |
| Comment: | In the flood
section, I sorley miss a simple description of the amount of rain
that needed to fall, to create a flood that covered even the
highest mountains.
fast math: Raining 40 days > cover mountains up to 29 000ft (8 900 meters) above the sea level. 29 000ft(8900 meters)/40 days = 10 500 inches (222.5 meters) /day 10 500 inches (222.5 meters)/24 hours = 440 inches (9.25 meters)/hour 440 inches (9.25 meters)/60 minutes = 7 inches (154 milimeters)/minute 7 inches (154 millimeters)/60 seconds = 0,10 inches (2.57 millimeters)/second. Aside from this flood story, the heaviest rains ever recorded in one hour were 181 mm. This means that the downpour during the flood were 50 times heavier than the heaviest downpour ever recorded. The heaviest 24 hour downpour in the US, in a 24 hour period was in Houston TX, where 43 inches fell in 24 hours, comparing with the 10 500 inches it fell in a 24 hour period during the flood, that's more than 244 times the rainfall in Texas. |
| Response | |
| From: | |
| Author of: | Problems with a Global Flood, 2nd edition |
| Response: | Two factors make a valid calculation of rainfall impossible. First, the rain need not have been uniform. The rain could have been twice as heavy as you calculate over half the globe and a light drizzle over the other half. Second and more important, Genesis says some of the waters came from the "fountains of the deep," and it does not say what proportion was not from rain. |
| Feedback Letter | |
| From: | |
| Comment: | I read PZ Myers critique of Wells chapter on Haekel's embryo's and wanted to challenge the conclusion that similar characteristics such as "gill slits" are evidence of common ancestry. In Myers discussion of similarities among embryo's he states the following; "The best explanation for these phenomena is that they are a consequence of a common heritage". This expresses a common argument of evolutionists and I would just say that as a software designer I have learned that the existence of common charactaristics or patterns in a complex system is more likely evidence of a designer than anything else. Designers use common patterns to solve similar problems. Its not surprising at all that the fundamental mechanics of subsystems that support hearing, breathing, etc. in mammals would be similar. That could just as easily be explained by a common designer as by common ancestry in an evolutionary model. |
| Response | |
| From: | |
| Response: | The problem with
your argument is that in adult human beings, these features have
been so highly derived that they no longer bear any resemblance
at all to their homologs in other animals. It's all well and good
to claim that it's an example of reuse by a designer, but why
would a designer think the most efficient way to build a tiny ear
bone is to reorganize a substantial chunk of branchial structure
in an embryo? It's as if a designer of laptop computers decided
to build an LCD screen by reusing an old tube CRT -- so every
time they make a laptop, they contract Sony to send them a 19"
monitor, which they then melt down and rearrange and completely
restructure to create a flat screen that uses entirely different
imaging principles.
It makes sense if every feature of an organism is the product of its history, but it doesn't make sense if you want to argue independent design with appropriate reuse of common elements. Unless, that is, you're willing to argue that the Designer is wasteful, incompetent, and lazy. |
| Feedback Letter | |
| From: | |
| Comment: | It's amazing how you fundamentalist Darwinians keep the fantasy of evolution alive! Your fancy words hide the ''science'' that truly disproves the silliness of such a hideous explanation of life. I noticed you quoted Darwin on your site at the top. Want another quote from Darwin that may embarrass you? Be glad to send it! Course facts never get in the way of TALK ORIGIN, do they? Neither does debate! Their is no debate. The degrees of Sagan, Gould and Dawkins are worthless when the truth is exposed just like the Piltdown man. The cover=up was exposed, now the ''science'' of evolution is being challenge. You lose! |
| Response | |
| From: | |
| Response: | Please do send
your embarrassing Darwin quote. I can think of quite a few where
Darwin was flat-out wrong.
Why do you think this would perturb anyone? Darwin was a very smart man who had some great insights, but he isn't revered as a saint, and evolutionary theory has progressed to an amazing degree since Darwin (you do realize he wrote in the 19th Century, and it is now the 21st, right? Or do all of our far-future modern ideas blur together from your perspective in the 12th?) |
| Feedback Letter | |
| From: | |
| Comment: | I have college degrees in computer science, but have fallen in love with evolution in recent years. I collect data on atavisms and unusual biological specimens, such as humans with tails, humans with six fingers and toes, humans with multiple breasts and nipples (Polymastia and Polythelia), and wolf men (Congenital Hypertrichosis Lanuginosa). Most of my focus has been on humans and how these atavisms are evidence of proof and evidence against intelligent design. A recent headline from abcnews.com via the associated press documents a puppy with 6 legs being found in Malaysia. Are there more documented cases of animal atavisms I could add to my data? I have focused mostly on human atavisms and not much on animal atavisms. I am an amateur biologist, especially when compared to those on your website and would appreciate more detail on atavisms in general and animal atavisms in particular. |
| Responses | |
| From: | |
| Response: | Over to our readers... |
| From: | |
| Author of: | Ancient Molecules and Modern Myths |
| Response: | I would recommend Endless Forms Most Beautiful a new book about "evo/dev' or evolutionary developmental biology, written by Sean B. Carroll. Yopu will particularly like Chapter 2, "Monsters, Mutants, nad Master Genes." |
| Feedback Letter | |
| From: | ew |
| Comment: | in response to
Claim CB921 (irreducible complexity:
why are you not citing the stunning finds resulting from the AVIDA experiment in digital evolution? AVIDA has shown a means by which irreducibly complex structures like the eye can evolve in stepwise fashion. AVIDA has shown this very process occurring in the lab, in a digital environment, with digitial organisms that spontaneously evolve the ability to do an irreducibly complex mathematical operation that's dependent upon prior adaptations that in themselves do not produce the skill. the AVIDA writeup was a discover magazine cover story, i believe back in february 05. full text here: http://www.carlzimmer.com/articles/2005/articles_2005_Avida.html |
| Feedback Letter | |
| From: | |
| Comment: | Thanks for this
website.
There is a debate going on in the netherlands between the evolutionists and the creationists. I am quite happy to point out this website here and there to keep up the quality of the discussion. Thanks! Martien |
| Feedback Letter | |
| From: | |
| Comment: | In the article on
this website "Changing Views of the History of the Earth" it is
mentioned that
I would be interested to learn how someone, without having been present at the occurence of the event, can be so absolutely certain that meteorites formed at the same time as the Earth, that they feel confident to use this belief to base their scientific argument on. I could follow the above argument if it would have said: based on the assumption that meteorites formed at the same time as the earth.... But it doesn't. It states as fact that meteorites and the Earth formed at the same time. I am puzzled. |
| Response | |
| From: | Chris Stassen |
| Author of: | Isochron Dating |
| Response: | The cite is the
1953 entry in the isotopic
dating timeline. The 1953 entry includes some facts not
demonstrated until later; it is the first entry that mentions
meteorites, and stresses their importance up to today.
The reader's question is answered a few paragraphs later, under 1956. Briefly, the whole-Earth isotopic ratios falling on the meteorite isochron indicates a common origin. For Dr. Patterson's original 1953 calculation, though, he only assumed that meteorites without uranium retained the original Pb isotopic ratios of the solar system. Even at the time, that was known to be a solid assumption, because all iron meteorites had the same Pb isotopic ratios. |
| Feedback Letter | |
| From: | B. HOLDER. |
| Comment: | re: Mark Isaak response on beneficial mutations evolving a stick insect..... As I understand, many small beneficial mutations occurring in population of, say: ant-like creatures will completely morph the skeletal structure and metabolic functions into a stick-like creature. I.e.: through a series of small mutations, a beneficial extension to the left anterior leg will appear on an offspring that did not exist in the parent. In time, and with a subsequent beneficial mutation, the extended stronger leg will accidentally mutate into a still larger and stronger extension of the leg. Now, the creature has one enlarged leg and is unable to maneuver as well, but mates with another mutated member of the population who accidentally mutated a right anterior leg with, you guessed it, two successful mutations which approximate the size and strength of the first mutant. And, of course, the offspring will have two matching anterior legs. We are still a long way from a stick creature. My question is this: from the known quantity of functional cells, can you quantify the number of ‘beneficial’ mutations required to morph from the ant to the stick??? It seems improbable, but I’m sure the calculations are out there somewhere. Remember, mutations are small, so the enlarged legs would require considerable beneficial changes. And, I used the population mutation example so the creature wouldn’t have to mutate two beneficial anterior legs by himself... Looking forward to a response... |
| Response | |
| From: | |
| Response: | Biological development does not work the same as building something from scratch. There are genes which control many parts of the body and others which fine-tune such controls to smaller areas. To lengthen the left anterior leg would probably require three changes: one to lengthen legs in general, one to limit that change to just the anterior legs, and one to limit it just to the left legs. See CB751 for references with more details. I cannot say how many mutations would be needed to make an ant stick-like (how stick-like?), but it is fewer than you imagine. More to the point, it takes only one mutation to make the ant more stick-like, however stick-like it is already. |
| Feedback Letter | |
| From: | |
| Comment: | Here is a claim from my animal behavior class: evolution is not a fact because it explains facts. My answer to this was that the Theory of Evolution is the explanation of facts (observables) and that evolution as a process is a fact. Is there a better answer to this apparently popular claim? |
| Response | |
| From: | |
| Author of: | Evolution and Philosophy |
| Response: | That's about the
size of it. Often when this canard is made, there is a subtle or
not-so-subtle shift from we know the fact of evolution to how do
we know the theory is right? The answer of course is that the
theory is tested against evidence and experiment, and is refined
to match that. But then the challenge (for example, the "were you
there?" challenge) is made that we don't know the facts.
We do know the facts, though. We see evolution occurring. We see the results of evolution (in the molecular structure of organisms, for example). So we were there in the relevant way. But it is hard to explain this to those who do not wish to hear it. |
| Feedback Letter | |
| From: | |
| Comment: | Well organized and
nicely done. Since science is a continuum and we are learning all
the time, at some point we discard unworkable theories, no matter
how dear to the heart. I grew up through "land bridges" that made
no sense (except to biologists) as a physical scientist and
delighted as plate tectonics exonerated Wegener. I have watch bad
science from the creasionists and equally bad science from the
evolutionist rather than having the courage to say "I don't
know", No one will resolve the issue, for there is as much faith
in evolution as there is in creation, a delightedly enough
uncertainty in it all to keep us wondering, amazed, and awestruck
at the incredible beauty and complexity of it all. I teach
physics, it is not the answers that are important, but the
questions we raise...and I should think the evolutionist and
creationist, putting mechanisims and bias aside should look at
the woodpecker's skull and say "Isn't this an amazing structure"
- I'm still chewing on Stephen Hawking's works and no he doesn't
have it all together, it certainly gives one pause to
think...then I step outside on a beautiful night with my lovely
wife and can sit is awe of the heavens and still can't explain a
thing about women or why she loves me...and there I think all a
sudden of us males - evolutionist and creationist are suddenly
far beyond our depth. And in all honesty we are like a couple of
little boys playing with sticks in a mud puddle and thinking that
one of us has it all figured out and then we stop in wonder at a
blue damsel fly.
Thanks again for a good site and the good thinking, from a creationist friend who, like all of us, doesn't have it all together -"Like iron sharpeneth iron, so does one man sharpeneth another" A good verse that applied to us all as we think, and test ideas, and listen. Mike Chouinard |
| Response | |
| From: | |
| Response: | Thanks, Mike. It
is nice to have a civil comment from a creationist.
On the Woodpecker's skull - it is indeed a wondrous structure. Read about it here. On Wegener, you are right that the land bridges were a desperate attempt to explain biogeography, but they were only posited because the geologists said Wegener was wrong and continents couldn't move. In fact Wegener wasn't the first to propose it either. On Hawking, if you can comprehend what he says, you are a better man than I. But his ideas are not directly of relevance to evolutionary theory, as evolution occurs some ten billion years after the events he is discussing (apart from black holes, and so far as we know, evolution has nothing to do with them, either). On males, it is true we love to play in the mud, and watch insects. That is the basis of science. Quite a lot of females do, too. But on all other aspects of female motivations, I am fully in the dark. |
| Feedback Letter | |
| From: | John-Daniel Encel |
| Comment: | When I read the
March 2005 Feedback item from Randall Wald, suggesting that
religious Jews, even the most extreme ones, are not critical of
science in the same way that fundamentalist Christians are, I was
reminded of something I was given a copy of, a long time ago. I
found a copy on the Web, here: http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/_judaism_/9357
This is an example of at least one extremely religious Jew, the
late Lubavitcher rebbe, Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson, putting
forward arguments that will, I think, be sadly familiar in tone
to anybody who's seen the anti-evolution and anti-science
arguments of fundamentalist Christians.
It also turned out that the document emanating from Rabbi Schneerson was included in a multi-author book which receives an extremely critical examination and review here: http://www.talkreason.org/articles/challenge.cfm The review's description of the book shows that some other religious Jews take much the same view of evolution as Schneerson does, although the reviewer does say that the other authors' arguments are not quite as bad as Schneerson's. Randall Wald's comparison of religious Jewish and Christian attitudes was explicitly extended to cover 'even the most extreme religious Jews I've heard of', but I think the evidence shows that, although it may well be generally applicable, it's not universally applicable. |
| Feedback Letter | |
| From: | |
| Comment: | The link to Genesis (in Swedish) is not current. The new URL is http://www.genesis.nu/ |
| Feedback Letter | |
| From: | |
| Comment: | I was just reading
the POTM by John Harshman describing the relationships between
humans and the other apes using DNA sequences. It is an excellent
post; very easy to follow for someone of my limited education in
the field.
I do have a question though...how did John come to select ND4 and ND5 as the sequences for this test? Was it a random selection or was there some other reason for selecting those sequences. I read the post twice and did not see the reason mentioned, so I apologize in advance if I missed that detail. |
| Feedback Letter | |
| Comment: | Please address Sarfati's comment that the universe must have had a cause since it had a beginning - Gupta |
| Response | |
| From: | |
| Author of: | Evolution and Philosophy |
| Response: | It is question-begging and uninformative. Hope this helps. |
| Feedback Letter | |
| From: | |
| Comment: | In Volume 18(1) of
TJ (2004), a creationist technical journal, there are three
articles on the evolutionary origin of sexual reproduction. The
authors concluded that there is no evolutionary explanation for
sexual reproduction. An evolutionist suggested that I try this
website for an explanation. After searching your site, I have not
been able to find an explanation as to how the
process of sexual reproduction (the sperm and the egg) evolved.
There are a few references to sexual reproduction such as:
None of these responses even makes a serious attempt to explain the origin of the sperm and the egg. There are some references to other websites, but after checking these it was found that these websites had no explanation for how sexual reproduction evolved either. So it is correct to conclude that evolutionists have no explanation as to how sexual reproduction evolved, that it is merely a faith belief? Cheers, Frank Marsh |
| Response | |
| From: | |
| Response: | No. This is a
longstanding theoretical issue in evolutionary theory, and it is
included in any standard textbook on evolution. This site does
not aim to or pretend to cover all of evolutionary theory.
A short summary can be found at Brown University's site. Nature Genetics has a collection of technical papers available. Sexual reproduction is a modification of the mechanisms for cell division (mitosis) in which the chromosomes are not duplicated after division (meiosis). The resulting cell forms a gamete which then introduces its genes into another cell, or is the other cell. There are examples of all kinds of intermediate forms of sex from occasional sharing of small bits of the genetic component (plastids) among bacteria, through to complete sharing (conjugation), through to partial crossover of genetic complements, through to the most amazing array of lifecycles. Margulis and Sagan, in their book What is Life? (pp137-139) say This is also how cells acquired and domesticated our cellular organelles, such as mitochondria. This is widely known. It is disingenuous in the extreme for creationists to say evolutionary theory cannot explain sex. |
| Feedback Letter | |
| From: | |
| Comment: | Just recently my boyfriend has begun taking me to his Sunday school. I was surprised at first because I was not expecting to go, he told me that we were simply going to church. Much to my surprise and delight I found the Sunday school was going to be discussing evolution vs. creation for a period of a few weeks. After sitting and listening to everyone discuss this topic I found that they were very close minded. I was, at the time, only a little educated on the topic of evolution even though I believe in evolution. I went home that night and searched for something to help me to show the people in the class my point of view, as well as all the evidence backing evolution and not creation. I stumbled on this site and after reading everything I could for hours on end I was satisfied in my newfound knowledge. I scribbled down the notes I would need and studied up until the next Sunday school. Ever since I have been able to refute almost everything they say, the evidence they have for creation is very weak. They don't believe me and I don't expect them to but I hope that I am giving them a fresh perspective on evolution and making them think. I also don't want to bash their relgion and I don't think I am, just showing them some evidence that disproves that one part of the religion. We are currently discussing feathers and how they disprove evolution. I have studied up on the subject and thanks to this wonderful site I am ready to go head first into the battle that rages on. Any advice I could get on the feather topic would be much appreciated, I want know as much as possible. Thank you for having such an informative and well put together site! |
| Response | |
| From: | |
| Response: | We have a Feathers FAQ. You might also make good use of our Search function. If we don't have a direct piece on it, we almost always have references somewhere. Moreover, you will find pretty well every creationists objection, canard or claim in Mark Isaak's Index to Creationist Claims, which has just been published as The Counter Creationism Handbook, although the paperback is not yet available. |
