Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | Chris, The point of my post was that the Bible presents a story of the creation of life, and that story is clearly false. In fact Genesis countains a mutally exclusive biblical "doublet", as I'm sure you well know. Even if the facts didn't soundly refute the non-sense that abounds throughout it, the mutually exclusive Biblical accounts of Genesis themselves show that it's a non-sensical fiction. I anticipated your "But it's not literal" response, and yet you still predictably answered by giving me an overly wordy and thinly veiled restatement of it. You say a conflict arises, "..when you treat the bible as if it is written directly by a divine being with the intent of explaining (amongst other things) the historical events involved in the origins of life and the universe." As a matter of fact Chris, I do not consider the bible to have any supernatural influence. It is a religious work written by men with mostly very ignoble motives. And it just so happens that it's not true and that it clearly contradicts the very scientific truths espoused by this site and the things you all seem to work so hard to promote and clarify. Life wasn't created in six days at the whim of a magical being; at least not by what the overwhealming mountains of evidence tell us. You can propose all kinds of reasons why the bible says such things. You can assume it's not meant to be taken seriously. As I said in my original post, that's not relevant! If they are meant to be taken seriously then they are false and malicious. If the aren't, then they are false and non-malicious. But either way they are clearly false. For you to say there is no contradiction, you'd have to admit to an age-of-Earth estimate of something like 6,000 years and that the first humans were fully formed at once and named Adam and Eve, etc. C'mon! Who are you kidding? A vast number of Bible stories are clearly false and totally out of sync with science. If you contend that one can be biblically incredulous and still be a Christian, then I'm a bit confused about what being a "Christian" even means. If we don't have to take the bible literally, then we don't have to believe there was a huge flood. We don't have to believe there was a man named Noah who lead the Jews around in the desert and carried animals in pairs onto an ark. We don't have to believe (and I most certainly don't) that there was ever a man named "Jesus" who even remotely resembles the Biblical character. And best of all, we don't have to believe in god. You see Chris, when you go throwing this thing "not literal" around, no matter what words you use to say it, you get into a bit of a sticky situation. Suddenly being a "Christian" is a totally arbitrary (and thus meaningless) thing. I can be an atheist and be a Christian in this case. I can believe every word of the bible to be part of a big fairy tale, but I'm a Christian. Chris, get real. The vast majority of Christianity would not agree that one can be a Christian and not believe in god. Yet by saying that we can accept certain totally arbitrary parts of the bible to be "metaphorical", that is exactly the logical paradox one runs into. Your link to the FAQ's leads to a statement about the Pope's standing on evolution. That's a wonderful argument from authority (logical fallacy) Chris, but not even the Pope can avoid the logical conundrum here. So your question as to why I'd choose to take "literalist" Christians "more seriously" is simple. A non-literalist Christian is like a math teacher who says "Oh..that 2+2=4 thing is just a figurative statement--2+2=5 as a matter of fact." A non-literalist Christian isn't a Christian at all. He's even weaker-minded than the fool who accepts biblical literalism, because he specifically chooses which parts of a mythology he will believe on the bases of what he finds personally satisfying. How much more weak and pathetic can a person get! And no Chris, don't even try to call my statements bigoted. That's a cheap shot because you can't defend your side of this argument with any facts. You're backed into a corner and so now I'm bigoted. Saying a Christian can't be a scientist is about as bigoted as saying "Jews celebrate Hannukah." A Christian, by definition, accepts "Christianity", the basis for which is the bible. A Christian can do a lot to promote science, and can perform scientific investigations and practice science. But science isn't a part-time thing. If a pacifist gives out 100 hugs and speaks about the virtues of peace, then goes home at the end of the day and beats his wife, is he really a pacifist? No, of course not! And just because a person practices science some of the time, but other times holds beliefs that are totally unscientific (and I'm not talking about "opinions"--strictly beliefs) that doesn't make him a scientist by any means. You can go around trying to say that a person can be a "christian" and still believe in evolution if you want to try to make evolution palatable for the ignorant. But the inescapable fact is that arbitrary metaphorization equates to the ability to believe absolutely ANYTHING and call oneself a "christian". Sorry but your statements don't hold water. Those who maintain that evolution is compatible with these childish fables do a horrible disservice to science. To the rest of you, thanks. Clay Schoentrup |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | You are
referring to matters in the January feedback.
You appear to insist that one must adopt strict literal
historical interpretation of Genesis to be a Christian.
This is obviously nonsense; and failing to use this
idiosyncratic definition is not the same as being
completely arbitrary. We have discussed this in email; I am
as promised allowing your feedback to appear for this
month. Beyond that, I have no comment, and consider that my
January comments remain a perfectly adequate response.
Debates belong in the talk.origins newsgroup. I
would be happy to pursue the matter there if you wish.
I will say this, however. I think I speak for the entire talkorigins team, Christians, atheists, agnostics, whatever, when I say that we do not appreciate or welcome "thanks" which deliberately set out to malign and misrepresent some of our most active and valued contributors. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | Several creation scientist friends of mine continue to bring up the "peppered moth" coloration research published in biology textbooks as one of the main examples of "evolution lies" that are perpetuated by the scientific community. Believe it or not, I have found it difficult to find good scientific information about the latest thoughts amongst scientists on this issue, other than one article published in the Scientist in 1999. Can anybody summarize the current prevailing scientific opinions on whether the peppered moth is indeed "evidence" for evolution or not, and cite references? Thanks. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | Much of the current noise being made by anti-evolutionists about the peppered moth originates with the author of the The Scientist article to which you probably refer, Jonathan Wells. See the section on peppered moths in Icon of Obfuscation by Nic Tamzek, here in the Archive, for a discussion of Wells' claims and of the prevailing scientific opinion of the peppered moth. It includes many links and references. |
Feedback Letter | |
Comment: | How true are creationist claims about the theory of recopitulation,(embryology)and the allegations of fraudulent drawings by Haekal printed still in textbooks. If these allegations are false, could you please provide embryonic photographs demonstrating their validity. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: |
The claims by creationists are mostly false. Haeckel's theory of recapitulation was rejected long ago, so it isn't even an issue; nobody teaches it anymore, although creationists like to pretend that they do. Drawings based on Haeckel's are sometimes found in a few textbooks (but less often than has been claimed), but they are usually used to illustrate a historical point. The biological concept that is valid is the observation that embryos go through a conserved phylotypic period, in which, for instance, all vertebrates express a set of highly conserved molecules (the Hox genes), and also express certain characteristic morphological characters, such as somites, notochord, pharyngeal structures, and a tail. You must not be reading the creationist literature very carefully. The most likely source for this claim lately would would be Icons of Evolution, by Wells. One of the more amusing ironies in that book is that while rebuking textbooks for publishing drawings derived from Haeckel's, he also chastises Campbell, the author of the textbook Biology, for publishing actual photographs of embryos exhibiting the phylotypic features. For a good online discussion of these issues, Zygote has a nice article on Haeckel and the Vertebrate Archetype, that also discusses the recent work of Michael Richardson on the subject. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | I am a
fundamentalist Christian. This does not mean that i am
anti-evolutionary, catastrophist or any of the other blub
you used in the definition, it just means I believe in
Jesus dying for me. In fact i can see that evolution is
quite a sensible theory. I just happen to believe that God
could have caused the mutations which eventually changed
the animal. In Genesis, the 'days' were actually translated
from the Hebrew word meaning 'periods of time', so could be
any length. The morning/evening argument cannot be applied
to this to say it has to be shorted, and we regularly talk
about 'a new dawn' or 'the end of so-and-so's day'. It also
doesn't happen to state how God created the animals, just
that he did.
Please respond to this even if you don't post it on the site. Thanks, Ross |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | Thanks very
much for your feedback. Normally, I would not comment
further, but this month I will take the liberty of adding
some comments, since they bear upon another feedback for
this month.
We have a FAQ on Various Interpretations of Genesis , and your view is similar to the first one listed. However, as the FAQ points out, this still has some serious problems. I will expand on some of the issues here, beyond what the FAQ has to say. The meaning of the word "day" (in Hebrew, "yom") is not a matter of translation, but of a (presumed) literatry device or symbol. The word "yom" unambiguously means "day", and cannot reasonably be translated as anything else. However, a "day" (in almost any language) can be used figuratively for a longer period; such as if an English writer speaks of "Shakespeare's day". Your interpretation of Genesis is that the bible uses just this kind of figurative meaning, and this is the first of the interpretations of Genesis listed in the FAQ. On the other hand, there are reasons (one of which you mention) for doubting that "yom" is used here as a symbol for some longer period. Without debating the point, I note that some Christians propose a "gap" model, in which there is a "first day" of creation, and a "second day", and so on, with long periods in between. This is the second of the interpretations listed in our FAQ. Both these approaches have a much more serious problem with the ordering of events. In Genesis 1, plants are created in day 3, and then the Sun and Moon created in day 4, and then birds and fish and sea monsters in day 5, and then land animals in day 6. This order of events is inconsistent with evolution; and it only gets worse when you look at the details. For example, grass is explicitly listed as one of the plants, but grass has only evolved since the dinosaurs died out. Also, when you say "God caused mutations", this is rather a theological minefield. Most mutations either have no effect, or else they are detrimental to the organism. Mutations have definite measurable stochastic behaviour. That is, they are random. When you use the word "cause", it seems to place "God" in the same kind of role as other "causes", as one cause among many. The difficulty with this can be seen by considering weather. Does God "cause" rain, and sunshine, and wind, and so on? Does God decide what kind of weather we will have from day to day? Maybe; but meteorology still will use natural processes as the cause of weather for making forecasts, and biologists gain no scientific insight by considering God as one of the causes of mutations. You are probably on safer ground, theologically speaking, to say that God has dominion over all of creation and so we cannot single out this event as due to God and that event as due to something else. God is not so much a "cause" like other causes, but a kind of foundation, or a cause in the sense of a "reason for being". In Aristotle's usage, God is a final cause rather than an effective cause. Some historians (eg, Jaki) have speculated that Christianity has a role to play in the rise of science, precisely because the bible allows for a different model to the ancient nature gods, who cause natural events from day to day. Read about this notion in the provided link. The talkorigins archive does not officially endorse this hypothesis, but I as an individual consider you might find it interesting. There are four other models for interpreting Genesis in our FAQ, all of which have been used by Christians, and none of which require any correspondence at all between the creation stories and science. My apologies for a long critique of your much appreciated feedback! I think it is important to recognize that many Christians find no conflict between evolution and their Christian faith, and your testimony to that is appreciated. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | I just have
a question I would appreciate you to answer. If sin is not
real why do we teach our kinds right from wrong?
Sincearly, Manda |
Response | |
From: | Tim Ikeda |
Response: | I'm not
certain there is a necessary connection between common
descent and whether sin is real. Many people think of 'sin'
in terms of moral directives established by God for humans.
In that case, the question of whether sin is real actually
depends on whether God exists as opposed to whether
evolution occurred. Evolution does not imply that there is
no God or that God has no interest in humans.
Now, to answer the original question which is independent of whether evolution occurred: If there is no God does it still make sense to give children moral guidance? I think it does. Humans are a social species and in every such species where the well-being of each member of the group depends on how well it relates to others, codes of behavior will arise. Some rules reduce social conflicts or make them less dangerous. Other rules help reduce 'cheating' or 'playing the system'. Still others increase group cohesion or extend 'safety nets' of co-operation. Add this to our strong ability to empathize or envision ourselves in another's position, and consider future possibilities, and I think a case could be made for why we create, enforce and perpetuate social mores. Philosophers have spent a great deal of time thinking of questions of morals and ethics. They haven't made a lot of headway at getting reliable answers, IMHO, but they've at least raised a lot of interesting questions (Asking good questions is 95% of the battle in discovery). You may want to look up a good collection of essays at your local bookstore if you're still interested. |
Feedback Letter | |
Comment: | I see that you have many words and drawings telling of fossil records. Why are there no actual photographs? Surely I can write something down and call it fact, but without photographs or other proof, my words and drawings mean nothing. In fact, that is all I have ever seen as proof for evolution . . . scientists telling of what they have supposedly seen. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: |
Obviously, our intrepid reader managed not to find this page, which links to pictures of many different hominid fossils. Or this page, which features images of trilobite fossils. There also appear to be a number of images which are currently unlinked. We'll have to see about getting a page for them. Kenneth Fair point out problems in obtaining photographs for royalty-free distribution in the June 2000 feedback. Wesley |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | After reading you "The Recession of the Moon" www.talkorigins.org/faqs/moonrec.html I was disapointed by the lack of follow-through. After checking www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/TechnicalNotesa2.html Things were made more clear. Is it not true that the moon recession is slowing down, and therefor was faster in the past? This is true because the moon was closer and therefor had more effect on the tides which would inturn transfer more energy to the moon. If this conclusion is wrong, please show me where. Thanks |
Response | |
From: | Tim Ikeda |
Response: | I checked
both the faq you read by Tim Thompson and the URL to Walt
Brown's calculations you've provided (FYI - Thompson's faq
references Walt's pages directly). I do not see how one can
say that Walt's discussion made things 'more clear' or that
Dr. Thompson's faq lacked 'follow- through'. If anything,
it's clear from Dr. Thompson's faq that Walt is using an
simplistic and obsolyte model that was discarded
decades ago. To put it simply, Walt is using
some terms as constants which are anything but constant
(see Thompson's discussion under 'The Creationist
Arguments' heading, about 2/3rds of the way through his
faq).
As for 'follow-through' try reading the most recently published article cited in Tim Thompson's faq: Ray R.D., Bills B.G., Chao B.F. Lunar and solar torques on the oceanic tides. Journal of Geophysical Research - Solid Earth 104(B8): 17653-17659, August 10, 1999 |
Feedback Letter | |
Comment: | I recently
read through the court cases agianst creationism presented
on your website. I find them to be irrelevent to your
purpose and to be based upon faulty reading of the
constitution.
McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education: In this case it is presented that the Actions of a state CAN violate the first amendment. The first amendment states that, "CONGRESS shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free excersize there of;..." Congress refers to the federal government NOT the state government by any accurate reading. Thus I fail to see the relevancy of the first amendment to any state program. Nearly all the cases are based upon the faulty logic that the first amendment applies to states as well as to the federal government. Thusly, I find these cases illustrate the amount to which are current interpretation differs from what is ACTUALLY written. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | The
First Amendment speaks of Congress, true. But the
Fourteenth Amendment applies the First Amendment to the
states. See
Jones v. City of Opelika, 319 U.S. 105, 108 (1943)
("The First Amendment, which the Fourteenth makes
applicable to the states, declares that 'Congress shall
make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the
freedom of speech, or of the press ....'"); see also
Abington School Dist. v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203,
232-42 (1963) (discussing the application of the
Establishment Clause to the states).
Perhaps the best exposition of the First Amendment's Establishment Clause is from Justice Black's opinion in Everson v. Board of Education of Ewing Township, 330 U.S. 1, 15-16 (1947):
If you have a complaint about this, take it up with the U.S. Supreme Court. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | This is
concerning John Brawley's paper "refuting" radio holos in
granite. Quoting from the author, "In Conclusion, I believe
that Radon-222 is the most likely candidate for the source
of certain "Polonium-218" halos in biotite mica. The
process envisioned is most consistent with the data
(including some observational data not mentioned by
previous researchers), and providentially is unique in its
characteristics: Radon is an inert gas, the only gas in the
Uranium-238 decay chain, having the thermodynamic ability
and more than enough time to migrate about in the mica, a
few atoms at a time. Also significant is the apparent
impossibility of distinguishing Radon-222 halos from
Polonium-218 halos under the microscope."
If Radon can only escape by a "few atoms at a time", how does the author propose enough atoms having collected in a particular site to form a spherical halo? Wouldn't millions be necessary? Wouldn't they continue moving in their diffusion process, firing single shots as they individually decayed? Finding any single tracks at all would be impossible. And if a single daughter element from the Radon is left at ground zero, it can only shoot one shot also. The analogy would be the pony express rider firing a single-shot at Indians encircling him, then his ghost gets up takes the rifle and fires (then gives up the ghost as it were), versus Custer and his men firing many single-shots in all directions before they died, their ghosts picking up the rifles and firing again...well, you get the idea. In other words, despite a valiant effort, Mr. Brawley fails to refute why these daughter elements are orphaned in a manner that truly fits the data. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | John Brawley does not claim that "a few atoms" moved along the cracks, but that "a few atoms at a time" did. Brawley has already presented evidence that either Rn-222, Po-218, or Po-210 has migrated through the halo-bearing biotite. His "crack-following halos" indicate that radioactive isotopes moved through the biotie. The scenario that Brawley presents is that Rn-222 forms from the decay of U-238 in uranium-bearing minerals, and that as the Rn-222 forms it moves away from the mineral inclusions through small cracks in the biotite, forming the "crack halos" as it decays. Brawley has also presented evidence that the Rn-222/Po-218/Po-210 can accumulate in sufficient quantities along those cracks to form spherical halos (he describes halos "string out along the cracks like beads on a chain). |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | In the late 1980s I wrote 8 essays on various issues associated withe the evolution/creationism controntation. One is a better explanation of the relative roles of chance and ordering in evolution than anything I've seen here. How might I submit it for inclusion? |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | See our Submission Guidelines for details. We always welcome new material for the archive. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | I really
like your website! My personal belief is that the Biblical
account is true AND the theory of evolution. BOTH ARE
TRUE!!! There were obviously "evolved" people all over the
planet when Adam and Eve were created in 4000 BC. I believe
God did exactly what he said in Genesis and created Adam as
the father to the Jewish people. Of course they then
mingled with the rest of the nations to some degree. I do
not see any conflict AT ALL between the belief in science
and my faith in the truth of the Bible. It seems so
ridiculous that people argue about this.
Thanks, Monica |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | This is certainly one possible interpretation of Genesis that does not contradict mainstream science. For others, see our article entitled Various Interpretations of Genesis. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | I was interested in punctuated equilibrium which seems to fly in the face of both creationism and evolutionism. Is there more about it on-line? I couldn't find it here. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | We have an
article on this very subject. See the Punctuated Equilibria FAQ.
Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge proposed the theory of punctuated equilibrium to explain certain trends in the fossil record regarding species-to-species transitions. It is a part of evolutionary theory, not a contradiction of it. Gould has in fact complained about constant misquotation of his work:
-Stephen Jay Gould, " Evolution as Fact and Theory" |
Feedback Letter | |
Comment: | Most scientific theories can be expressed through a mathematical model (e = mc^2 etc.) and thus be used to predict future events. Evolution doesn't, however, and thusly should be regarded as neither fact nor theory but rather as a hypothesis. |
Responses | |
From: | |
Response: |
Evolutionary theory has long had mathematical treatments of various propositions. The reader should check out works by Fisher, Wright, Haldane, Crow, and Kimura. Between them, they covered a good many scenarios involving natural selection and genetic drift. Ignorance is not a position of strength in an argument. Wesley |
From: | |
Response: | In addition,
the reader appears to misunderstand what a "theory" is in
science. A "theory" is a statement of what are held to be
the general laws, principles, or causes of something known
or observed. In other words, it is a model or explanatory
system for facts.
Although it is true that some scientific theories can be expressed in mathematical equations, many cannot. For example, the periodic table of elements gives chemists the ability to predict and understand many properties of those elements. It is an explanatory model for chemists, well-accepted by mainstream science. Yet this theory is not simply expressed in a mathematical equation. Plate tectonics is another example. The theory of plate tectonics holds that the Earth's surface is merely rigid plates floating on top of molten rock, and that the interaction of those plates causes earthquakes, volcanoes, and other such events. Controversial when first proposed, plate tectonics is now widely accepted. But although math may be involved at various points along the way, there is no simple mathematical equation expressing the theory of plate tectonics. "Evolution" is a broad label encompassing countless facts and numerous theories. Some of those theories are easily expressed as mathematical equations, as Wesley has pointed out, while others are not. But regardless of this, the theories that make up the core of evolution are judged on how well the evidence supports them. And thus far, the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly on their side. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | what part does God play in the evolution of man? |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | Any part he wants to, if he exists. However, that is for theology not science to determine, and it makes no difference to the way the science is done. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | In my Advanced Placement Biology class, an interesting question came up relating to the theory of the endosymbiotic origins of eukaryotic cells. It specifically directs attention to mitochondria and choroplasts, which receives a goodly amount of space in our text book. It seems that mitochondria are perpetuated over and over again through sexual and asexual reproduction in all phyla. But how are chloroplasts perpetuated? Vegetative and sexual reproduction in plants do not, for the most part, transfer chloroplasts. Since chloroplasts have so many prokaryotic features, where do they develop, say in a moss gametophyte or in a seed? |
Response | |
From: | Tim Ikeda |
Response: | The
mitochondria and chloroplasts both reside in the cytoplasm.
When a cell divides, a number of these organelles get
distributed between each of the two daughter cells much as
the cytoplasm is divided between the new cells.
If all the mitochondria or all the chloroplasts are lost from a cell's lineage, they cannot be regenerated again. That happens because both of these organelles contain their own DNA chromosomes which are necessary for reproduction and which are separate from the cell's other chromosomes in the nucleus. In such instances where organelles are lost in a cell line, the only way to 'replenish' these organelles is through cell fusion and/or reproduction with another cell line that carries them. In plant sexual reproduction, at least one of the two fusing gametes must contain chloroplasts if the future plant is to have them. Plastid inheritance can be maternal, or biparental, depending on the species. Gymnosperms seem to be mostly biparental whereas many [most?] angiosperms exhibit maternal inheritance. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | First, this
is a very helpful site. I've ended up in a long debate with
an old earth, intelligent design creationist and it has
been very helpful to have all the information put together
and easily accessible.
Second, I think that creationists will not be convinced by scientific evidence because the extra-scientific reasons for their belief are too compelling and meaningful to them to be overturned by any amount of evidence. The only, admittedly small, chance of changing their minds is to demonstrate that the extra-scientific arguments are not in their favor either; e.g that images or ideas of God compatible with evolution are more attractive and worthy than those implied by a fundamentalist creationism. Christian biologists should do more to work out these ideas. And as much as atheism/materialism is an aesthetically attractive system, it would help if scientists of that belief would more clearly distinguish between the science of evolution and the extra-scientific conclusions they draw from its success. It might make it easier to keep "scientific creationism" out of schools and keep Darwin in. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | I'm having a
little problem with genetics. The terms allele and gene and
locus need a little clarification for me. Maybe you could
add this to the FAQ.
This is how I understand it: You have a chromosome. A Chromosome contains pairs of genes. The location of a pair of genes on the chromosome is defined by locus. The information a gene can contain is called an allele. Polymorf loci contain a genepair that have more than one allele. So at that locus you will have either a homozygotal pair of genes or a heterozygotal pair. Non Polymorf loci only contain homozygotal pairs since they have only one allele. Ok, so when somebody talks about "the gene responsible for haircolor" , they actually mean 2 genes , or am I completely offtrack ? Because a phenotype is the result of of 2 genes at a locus. |
Response | |
From: | Tim Ikeda |
Response: | Locus: The
particular location along a chromosome where a gene
resides.
Gene: A sequence of DNA which encodes a product. That product could ultimately be a protein or it could be an RNA molecule that has a function elsewhere. Allele: A particular variant or alternate form of a gene that can occupy a particular chromosomal locus. Alleles can be slightly longer or shorter than each other or have different variations in their sequences. In diploid cells (cells that contain a pair of each chromosome) one may have a pair of each gene - One from each chromosomal locus. The loci are called "homozygous" if the genes are the same at both positions and "heterozygous" the they hold different alleles. Here's more help: Dictionary of Genetic Terms About hair color: Let's assume that there really is only one gene that affects hair color (not true in real life, BTW). If someone then talks about a "gene responsible for hair color" - and assuming there is more than one hair color - then yes, they are talking about at least two alleles. However... The hair color phenotype may or may not the result of two genes from the same loci of a chromosomal pair. One allele could produce *nothing at all* because it carries a mutation that makes a non-functional protein, while the other could produce a working protein that makes a pigment. If the one "working" allele is sufficient to produce enough pigment for a hair color then the phenotype really is the result of a single gene. On the other hand, if the one working gene cannot produce enough of the functional protein (so that you get a "washed out" hair color) or if the second allele produces a slightly different product that affects hair color, then one could say that the phenotype is the product of both genes. Thus alleles can be thought of as 'dominant', 'recessive' or something in between. There are also special cases where a pair of chromosomes may not carry the same loci. A classic example is the 'X' and 'Y' sex chromosomes in mammals. The Y-chromosome doesn't have the same number of genes as the X-chromosome. In males, all those genes 'missing' from the Y-chromosome must come from the X-chromosome and so a single, unmatched gene from the X-chromosome may be responsible for a phenotype in males. Now with females a different situation occurs: X-chromosomal silencing. Because having a 'double-dose' of genes from two X-chromosomes can cause problems, one of the two X-chromosomes in females is inactivated - shut off - to reduce the gene dosage. Which of the two chromosomes is inactivated can vary from cell to cell in a female. (Female mammals are 'mosaics' in this sense - see: Google search for "x chromosome mosaic".) And so again, a phenotype can be the product of a single gene. More than you were probably asking for, but I hope it helps... |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | Your site is fabulous. I read and read and I still can't seem to find the end of it. Kudos for your extensive and thorough examinations of such a broad range of controversial subjects. Every time I read feedback posted by belligerent creationists or anti-evolutionists, it just makes me wince in sympathy. They don't seem to realize that 99.9% of their arguments against you are answered or debunked already within the very regions of this database. Their other arguments just make me grit my teeth in frustration. (You know the ones. The "You only want evolution to be true so you can be godless sinners and moral degenerates" arguments, etc.) Or even worse, the arguments that tell us to look to what's around us to find the evidence for God's design. Have *they* taken a look around lately? (By lately I mean the past century or so.) Times, they are a-changin'. Creationists call evolutionists dogmatic, biased, groundless... all sorts of nasty names. Talk about a case of the grass calling the kettle green! The saddest, most pathetic part of this whole big debate thing is: We'll never all agree. There will always be strife and contention. There will always be at least one crazy old guy in the back row shouting out "Y'all are preachin' claptrap!" It makes me want to bang my head against the wall until all the ignorance just goes away... |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | Jerry Smith |
Comment: | In Introduction to Evolutionary Biology Version 2 by Chris Colby, the author describes the evolution in English (peppered) Moths according to a model that I believe is outdated. He describes the trend toward the dark variant as being a result of higher predation of the light variant due to discoloration of tree bark from industrial pollution. I cannot cite any source, but I believe I have come across several references to research that showed that the moths did not spend much time on the trunks of trees, and that the darker variety also had greater resistance to SO2 that was associated with the genes that produced the dark color. I believe that concensus is now that this, rather than higher predation rates, was responsible for the change in population. Again, I apologize that I cannot provide a specific reference, but it may be worth checking in to and, if necessary amending this article to reflect the newer information. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | You are most
likely referring to an article by Jonathan Wells entitled
"Second
Thoughts about Peppered Moths", an abridged version of
which was published in the May 24, 1999 edition of The
Scientist. Wells is a senior fellow at the
Discovery Institute's Center for the
Renewal of Science and Culture.
Wells's conclusions have since been criticised by peppered moth researches. For complete details, see our review of his book, Icons of Evolution. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | Was just doing so thinking after looking through your site. Something occured to me with the so called peppered moth example. Nobody seems to bring up is the good old walking catfish. The ones that escaped into florida waters were all albinos. Now days you very rarely see an albino in the wild. Found some documentation at Clarias batrachus (Linnaeus 1758) If the link doesn't come out it is from the USGS exotic species pages. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | I have read arguments from both sides of creation vs evolution. Neither side, in my opinion, has done any justice in proving their claims on this site. There is no reason real science and creation cannot agree (emphasis on REAL science). The arguments made often do not seem logical. I believe in searching for truth; it is out there somewhere. One must have an open mind and inquizitive mind to find it. For instance, the controversy regarding the age of the earth is foolish. Many creationist argue that the world is about 6000 years old while evolutionists argue it is MUCH older than that. To both of them, I pose this question: time relative to what? To make absolute claims about time on a cosmic scale is foolish. Einstein would have a field day with them. I would challenge evolutionists to pose one significant question that cannot be answered in harmony with science and creationism. At the same time, I would challenge creationists to come up with absolute proof about their claims. The reality is that the squabble between creationists and evolutionists will never end. Absolute proof can never be given, and to attempt to do so is again, foolish. There is one question that science can never answer; it is the mother of all questions. Whether or not we evolved from stardust into what we are today, where did the universe come from? An expanding universe must have a beginning. |
Responses | |
From: | Tim Ikeda |
Response: |
Relative to the local region of space for objects travelling at non-relativistic velocities. This includes you, the earth, the sun & the rest of the solar system, the Milky Way galaxy and other locations a few billion light years outward.
Einstein knew which frames of reference he was talking about. He would have agreed that the Earth and the universe was billions of years old, as perceived by most of its inhabitants. |
From: | |
Response: | Quite apart
from your confusions on the implications of relativity,
Einstein had a lot to say on science and religion. For
example:
Taken from an article by Einstein (available on-line) in Science, Philosophy and Religion, A Symposium, published by the Conference on Science, Philosophy and Religion in Their Relation to the Democratic Way of Life, Inc., New York, 1941. I have added the emphasis myself in two phrases. Basically, according to Einstein, science can and does answer the questions which our respondent proposes; but religion does not. Religion answers questions in a different domain; not of what is but of what should be. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | To the
editors of this Web site: Hi. Carl Wieland here from
Answers in Genesis. I noticed that you have Edward Max's
letter to me, critical of my item on pseudogenes, etc.,
prominently posted. In fairness, you may wish to
simultaneously alert readers of that piece to the fact that
I replied - you have my permission to publish that reply.
In the alternative, I would appreciate Edward Max's address
so I could contact him, as the exchange we had was not
unfriendly. It is not as if my response was a stinging
counter or anything like that, as I think he would confirm.
In fact, from memory, I withdrew the article in concession
to at least some of his points. So it would demonstrate to
your readers that legitimate critique is something that
even those you might regard as irreversibly benighted can
take on board. I am sure we have a mutual interest in
fairness and integrity, even regarding our philosophical
opponents. I look forward to your response.
Sincerely, Carl Wieland |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | Thanks for
pointing this out. The problem is now fixed.
Indeed all the exchanges on this subject have been cordial and constructive. We appreciate your approach on this matter, and will welcome any further feedback. As background for other readers: the archive contains an article by Edward Max, Plagiarized Errors and Molecular Genetics, which discusses pseudogenes as evidence for evolution. The side bar contains a link to an open letter from Edward Max to Carl Wieland, and also and also an acknowledgement that Carl had withdrawn an article from the Answers in Genesis site in response to this communication. Unfortunately, no such acknowledgement appeared in the page showing the letter itself, and so of course people using the search engine to access the page were not informed of Carl's response. The problem is now fixed, and the acknowledgement now also appears on the same page as the letter itself. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | Thanks for this wonderful site. I would recommend it to everyone and certainly to those who still claim to be creationists. I'm a scientist and evolutionists and I always thought that the creationist population was very small. An article of Scientific American turned me in to anger when I saw that 45% of the Americans subscribe to the creationist view. I understand however that this is merely our fault because we fail to make our words clear to the public. I think that resources as this website can help a lot to clarify evolution. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | Apart from the enormous amount of scientific work that supports the theory of evolution, would you agree with me that evolution is far more likely than creation because all animals look so much alike? Almost every animal has 4 limbs, two eyes, two ears, a stomach, guts etc. All birds look alike, all fishes look alike. The same holds for stars in the universe: they are all spheres, not a single one appears to be a cube or a piramid. There is (a lot of) diversity in detail, but not in concept. A creator would (should?) have been far more imaginative. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | Creationists
claim that the similarities in animals show that they had a
common creator. Furthermore, physical laws put some
constraints on things (such as the shape of stars), and
these laws would (arguably) apply as much to a creator as
to a natural origin. So similarity alone can be seen as
much as evidence for creation as for evolution.
What counts as evidence for evolution is the pattern of similarities. Life forms arrange naturally in a nested heirarchy. For example, we recognize separate groups of animals such as arthropods, chordates, and molluscs based on several different characteristics. Each of the groups divides into smaller separate groups; the arthropods, for example, consists of insects, spiders, crabs, etc. The insects include separate groups such as beetles, flies, moths, and so on. This pattern is not something people made up arbitrarily. In most cases, it is easy to see for yourself, and careful analysis of thousands of characteristics supports it. This nested heirarchy is exactly what you would expect from evolution, and it is what you would not expect from design. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | "Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth..." I found this in one of your articles while doing a research paper and was confused. I am a high school junior who was comparing evolution to creation and found somethings that reenforce my upbringing. I will admit to being a christian from the start so there may be a slant but i will try to minimize it. In that same article the claim is made that people evolve from ape-like creatures......its made as a definate factual statement. Yet you say later that evolutionist make no concrete definate statements saying evolution is right. One of my comments in the creation defense is this, many educated people once thought the earth was flat for many years. In the 1500's Galileo said the earth was round and was kind of laughed at. In 700's B.C. a man named Isaiah said "He(God) sits enthroned above the circle of the earth,..." Book of Isaiah ch 40 verse 22 That appears to me to be a definate statement saying the earth is round. That was a statement over 2200 yrs before Galileo but maybe its coincidence.......what about the bibles prophecy of a mark to come on the right hand or forehead in Revelation 13 verses 16,17? Being learned people i assume you all are i know you must have heard of the chip that can be put under the skin on the back of your hand which you can buy and sell with? What about the chip they put in a monkeys head so it could move a cursor with its thoughts? Think about that for a little while.....coincidence maybe but is it worth the risk? |
Responses | |
From: | Chris Stassen |
Author of: | Isochron Dating |
Response: | The article
in which you found the "perpetual truth" statement (our Evolution is a fact and a
theory FAQ) discusses the difference between ultimate
truth and scientific fact. The FAQ contains statements
about the latter, not the former.
I'm not sure where you got your information about Galileo, but it is in error. Flat-Earthism was not the prevailing belief in Galileo's time. The Greeks had demonstrated the Earth to be round, centuries before the time of Christ, and the shape of the Earth was well-known in scholarly circles from then onward. In the early 1600's, Galileo was denounced by the Church -- not for proposing a round Earth, but rather for challenging the geocentric fixed-Earth solar system. Ironically, Galileo was persecuted precisely because heliocentric cosmology disagreed with the then-accepted, literal reading of Bible verses which claimed the Earth to be fixed. Check out a biography of Galileo (for example this one) for more information. The "circle of the Earth" that you refer to in Isaiah 40:22 is often translated "vaulted roof of the Earth." In the culture in which it was written, it would have been understood to refer to the solid "firmament" that sat like an inverted bowl on top of the (flat) Earth. Anyone reading it as a "definate [sic] statement saying the Earth is round" is reading modern knowledge into it, for that is certainly not what it meant in its original context. See Robert Schadewald's Scientific Creationism, Geocentricity, and the Flat Earth for further information. It is more than a little ironic for creationists to refer to the (mythical) rejection of flat-Earthism as somehow a parallel for the overthrow of evolution in favor of creationism. They have it exactly backwards. It is creationism that, like geocentrism, was the original widespread belief derived from Bible literalism -- and which was eventually overthrown (despite very vocal religious opposition) on the basis of failure to measure up to the evidence. |
From: | |
Response: | As Chris
Stassen points out, the issue with Galileo was motion of
the Earth, not its shape. And where today will you find
people who continue to insist, on the basis of science and
the bible, that the Earth is fixed and without motion?
There are a surprising number, and they are invariably also
creationists.
Here are some examples. Remember; these folks are serious. This is not a joke.
|
Feedback Letter | |
From: | Anne |
Comment: | I will most likely be ostracized by the conservative Christian community for heresy after this, but after reading some of these negative comments, perhpas that's not so bad. I would just like to point out to all the rightously angry creationists out there that this whole discussion about creation vs. evolution is not about God, faith or religion. It is about science. In science, there are only theories. Theories can be proven or disproven. There is no need to get hot-headed over it; all you need to do is come up with better proof. "Extra-ordinary claims require extra-ordinary evidence." I have not decided, personally, which theory the evidence supports the best. Data is so easily teaked it's hard to tell who's lying, who's honestly misguided and who's just plain stupid sometimes. But I am not going to bash either idea--I am not offended by opposite views. Talk.Origins has done a nice job with this site (albeit, from an evolutionary viewpoint). Let's give them a break, 'kay guys? |
Feedback Letter | |
Comment: | I find it very offensive when it is said that "intelligent design" is used as a cover up to push personal beliefs in to the classroom. Dont you think that kids deserve to learn many different concepts of the origin of life? They can be taught that a designer was involved in creation of the earth without using religion at all. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: |
I find it offensive that people try to have things taught as if they were science that as yet have no scientific basis. If the kids are in a science classroom, they deserve to be told what the science of the origin of life is. They do not need to be told non-scientific conjectures, whether YEC, OEC, or ID flavored. Is ID a front for getting a certain set of theological concepts into the science classrooms? It sure looks that way to me. The "wedge" document states it pretty baldly. The actions of the Discovery Institute Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture fellows speaks to a socio-political agenda rather than a scientific research program. The writings of those fellows predominantly express the view that science must become, once again, safe for theism. Whether the reader finds it offensive or not doesn't change the facts. Wesley |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | Muslim
creationist Harun Yahya, referring to Michael Behe's
irreducible complexity and using many arguments from
personal incredulity, said the human
immune system cannot be formed by evolution.
(The guy doesn't sell his books, he put them all online! How gracious!) I'm after him (may Allah protect us from ICR in disguise as Muslims!), and I want to refute his non-evolvable immune system book (and others). What should I read? Any FAQs on the immune system? |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | Why not go straight to the source? In our section of articles on Michael Behe, we have the article entitled "Publish or Perish: Some Published Works on Biochemical Evolution." That article analyzes Behe's book Darwin's Black Box and lists various publications specifically discussing the evolution of the biochemical systems that Behe terms "irreduceably complex" in the book. Just scroll down to the heading labelled "Immune System" for articles on the evolution of the immune system. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | Harvey Gaither |
Comment: | People who believe that God created every thing and sent His Holy Son to die in our place so that we might be atoned for our sins have ABSOLUTELY nothing to LOSE and EVERYTHING to gain. And I am absolutely sure that you won't post this, but I had to try anyway. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | Thanks for
yet another example of “Pascal’s wager.”
If only the Archive got a nickel for every time we’ve
heard it, then maybe we wouldn’t be unpaid
volunteers.
There is a basic logical flaw in your reasoning. It assumes that there are only two possibilities, either that the Christian God exists (as presented in the Christian Bible), or that no God, gods or other supernatural forces exist. This clearly does not exhaust all possible realities. It may be that some other sort of god exists and that IT is really, really, unhappy with those that adhere to Christian theology, and doesn’t much care for Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, or Hindus either, but instead has a fondness for atheists, agnostics, and likeminded skeptics who make regular use the critical thinking skills that IT “evolved” into our species (this is just a, tongue-in-cheek, hypothetical, I am not claiming that theists are incapable of critical thinking). If such is the case, and there is no logical barrier to it being so that I am aware of, then Christians and other theists are the ones with EVERYTHING to LOSE. But hey, you’re absolutely sure that you’re right about what you believe to be (just like you were absolutely sure that we wouldn’t post your message) so you’ve got nothing to worry about. Then there is the question about someone who “believes” merely because they are trying to cover their bases rather than out of sincere faith. Is that a sound theological position in your opinion? Oh, and also the fact that one can believe that there is a God who created and that Jesus was his son etc. and accept the findings of science (evolution). All and all I think you better think a bit harder about your gambling problem. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | Hi My opinion about this matter is on my website. Please visit Which One is More Scientific, Creation or Evolution Theory? |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: |
That's very humorous. You were intending to be humorous, weren't you? I mean, otherwise the page would be espousing a profound level of ignorance concerning the content of evolutionary biology, the ideas of Charles Darwin, and philosophy of science. Wesley |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | I just wanted to complement you all on an excellent website. Recently my 6th grade son asked my opinion on whether creationism science should be taught in school in addition to evolution. There was an informal survey conducted. After we discussed the nature of science, etc, he asked me what evidence there was to support evolution. I was quite embarrassed to realize that my knowledge of the details of evolution was pretty limited. Since then he and I have endeavored to learn as much as we can about evolution and your webite has been of immense help. It has been very enlightening, I had no idea of the depth of the subject and how it involves so many areas of science. Again, thanks, and keep up the good work! |
Feedback Letter | |
Comment: | Where has the newsgroup gone to? I stopped getting updates a few days ago and when I looked for it, the group had gone away totally. Will it be back soon?? |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | There was a crash on the computer that moderates the talk.origins newsgroup. This caused a delay in serving the group's messages while the computer was being repaired. It's back up to speed now. See the moderator's message on the outage. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | Matt |
Comment: | I was just wondering if any evo-babbler was considering Dr. Hovinds $250,000.00 offer? I know if there were evidence for evolution I would claim the prize in a heartbeat! |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | "Dr" Hovind's offer has been considered, critiqued, and found to be a complete and utter fraud. If you were to do a search on this site for his name you will find that I've addressed the issue of Hovind's challenge numerous times, yet we get the same question several times a month here. Clearly "Dr" Hovind has found himself quite an effective propaganda tool. But the reality is that he will never lose his money and it has nothing to do with whether evolution is true or not. His challenge is designed to be entirely unwinnable regardless of the strength of the evidence. If I could use the same criteria he uses, I would offer Hovind a billion dollars if he could prove any statement whatsoever. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | I have
skimmed thourgh Mark Issak's collection of Flood Stories
from Around the World. I am astounded by how similar many
of the stories seem to be. It seems like way too many of
the flood legends contain an account of a man building an
ark (or other type of boat), taking his family on board,
taking animals on board, and using birds as a way of
determining if the flood is coming to an end or not. Most
of the flood accounts also seem to account for the flood as
punishment for humankind's sins.
Even more astounding are names used in the Chaldean and Zapotec accounts. The Chaldean account has a man named NOA, and his sons SEM, JAPET, CHEM. This is way too similar to the names of Noah and his sons as found in the Bible. In the Zapotec account we have a man named NOEH. Also the Angels Gabriel and Michael are found in the Zapotec account. NOEH is way too similar to Noah, and I know that the Angels Gabriel and Michael are figures from the Bible. What is even more strange is the fact that the angels Gabriel and Michael aren't mentioned as part of the flood account as recorded in Genensis. I am not a creationist, and don't believe Noah's flood really happened, at least on a global level. However, how do mythologians, historians, etc. account for the similarities between all the different flood accounts from around the world. The similarities between flood accounts is the one creationist argument that I have not found a satisfactory refutation for. Are there any articles on web which deal with this topic? I especially want to know what the deal is with the Chaldean and Zapotec accounts, which are way to similar to the Genesis account, especially with the names given. Please respond to this feedback, as this is a topic which has been bugging me for a long time. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | There are
four basic explanations for similarities in myths:
1. Coincidence. This almost certainly doesn't explain similarities as great as you describe above, but it can account for some similarities, especially in names, that overentheusiastic people sometimes ascribe to other things. For example, the similarity between "Noah" and "Nu Kua" (from a Chinese flood myth) is probably coincidence. 2. Common physical basis. If people in different parts of the world see the same things, it would not be too surprising for them to create similar myths about them. For example, the widespread occurrence of giants in myths and legends probably stems from the fact that all populations sometimes produce people who are unusually tall. See Vitaliano's book Legends of the Earth for examples of flood myths (and other myths) that appear to have been influenced by typical geological events. 3. Common psychological basis. Even in very different cultures, people still think about a lot of things the same way. Their common psychology probably accounts for similarities in attitudes between myths. In particular, the human need for justice may explain why floods show up so often as a punishment. Though unrelated to floods, An Instinct for Dragons by David E. Jones has an intriguing hypothesis about how the dragon motif is part of the human psyche. 4. Spread from a common source. Myths get repeated, and if they're not written down (and sometimes if they are), they change over time with retelling. If a traveller tells them in a different culture, they may be combined with elements from local folklore and, in time, accepted as a local myth. The Hawaiian flood myths are a good illustration of this. In the earliest ones, people survive on a mountain, and the absence of an ark is even noted explicitly. Later, the basic Noah myth appears, but it has local elements such as sacrificing to the god Kane. Spread of stories such as this isn't limited to sacred myths. Westervelt's Myths and Legends of Hawaii contains one 'Hawaiian' legend which is a retelling of the Grimms' tale "The Water of Life," with little changed except its setting. The spread of myths is the most likely explanation for the similarities you note. The Chaldean and Hebrew myths come from the same region, so it is not surprising they share a common influence. Robert Best's Noah's Ark and the Ziusudra Epic has a chapter that shows how parts of Middle Eastern flood myths are repeated word-for-word in other flood myths from the same region. In more recent centuries, missionaries spread the Noah myth far and wide along with other Christian teachings. Missionary work probably accounts for the similarities in the Zapotec account, hence the references to archangels Gabriel and Michael. These four types of explanations are not mutually exclusive; all of them probably play a part in at least some similarities. Unfortunately, much of the explaining will always just be speculation. While good cases can be made for the causes of some similarities, others still leave me scratching my head. In a Roman myth, humanity was repopulated by a couple throwing stones behind them; the stones turned into people. This theme shows up again in the Tamanaque myth from South America, only with palm fruits instead of stones. What accounts for this similarity? Your guess is as good as mine. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | Please email me your response if possible. I don't want to categorize myself as a evolutionist or creationist. I was visiting the other website I think it was creationist or similar, your guys arch enemies; anyways I was trying to find proof to support modern man evolving from ape, and they had an extensive article written about the human knee and how it has sixteen parts and minus just one and its useless. Apes have non locking knees and because of their makeup you aparently can't evolve it into a locking one you have to start from scratch. Evolution and mutations from what I've read only allow for small changes no mutation can allow for the formation of a complex organism with sixteen moving parts? The knee would have to be built all at once it couldn't evolve or it would have no use. How do you suggest that apes dumped their knees and immediately mutated new ones with sixteen brand new parts? I would like to believe it could happen just seems far fetched? Luke |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | This
argument originates from an article (Critical
Characteristics and the Irreducible Knee Joint)
published in the Creation Ex Nihilo Technical
Journal (Vol. 13, No. 2, 1999) by a British engineer
named Stuart Burgess.
From my reading of the article it seems to be highly flawed especially in its almost total lack of discussion on the comparative anatomies of living non-human apes, extinct hominids and H. sapiens. This lack of attention to comparative anatomy (and physiology) is typical of anti-evolutionists, leading them to continually talk about the anatomy/physiology of various organisms as if they exist in a vacuum (examples: THE woodpecker or THE bombardier beetle). They focus on some extreme example of organ or system in a particular species as if it is totally unique to that species. The fact is that when one looks at other closely related species one usually finds that there are variations on the extreme example that the anti-evolutionists have focused upon. For instance the bombardier beetle that anti-evolutionists often cite is just one species of a whole group of beetles (family Carabidae) many of which have some variation on a chemical defense mechanism, using the same basic chemicals (which exist in many beetles in varying amounts), but used in differing ways. The specific example that anti-evolutionists cite sprays an explosive mixture out of its abdomen in a fairly well aimed stream at its attackers, however there are other Carabid beetles that spray with less accurate aim, and others that merely excrete bad tasting chemicals out of their abdomens when attacked. There is a whole spectrum from fairly simple to fairly complex defense mechanisms. Anti-evolutionists only talk about the more complex variant. This discussion of the human knee is another example of this sort of argument in a vacuum. While I am not an expert in the comparative anatomies of the living non-human apes and humans, as far as I am aware there is no material difference between them. That is, every bone, muscle, ligament, tendon, and cartilage in the human knee has its corresponding representative in the knee of chimpanzees and the other great apes. Yes they are shaped somewhat differently. Yes they are proportioned differently. But as far as I know all the same parts are there. As for fossil hominids, the knees of more advanced types like H. erectus (which are either "fully human" or "just apes" depending on what anti-evolutionist you talk to) seem to be virtually identical to those of H. sapiens. As for the knees of the more primitive species of Homo (H. habilis) and the australopithecines these become increasingly like those of living non-human apes the farther back in time one goes. Exactly the sort of thing one would predict if humans evolved from an "ape-like" ancestor. The knee of Australopithecus afaresis (which most anti-evolutionists say is "just an ape") retains a number of "ape-like" features but also has characteristics like those of later hominids including H. sapiens. In other words it is an intermediate form in this regard. See The ICR and Lucy: Bearing False Witness Against Thy Neighbor for some comparative photos, or refer to any good text on human evolution for comparative illustrations. Burgess does mention living apes briefly but only to dismiss them as being poor bipedal walkers. However this is a problem for his argument for irreducible complexity (IC), at least as I understand Michael Behe's (the person responsible for the recent popularity of this term) definition of the term, in that while the knees of living non-human apes are slightly different in form, and are not as efficient for use in bipedal walking as those of humans, they do work, and they can walk bipedally. If the ancestor of hominids (bipedal apes including H. sapiens), whose knee was essentially identical to the living non-human apes, could walk bipedally at all, then it would be possible for there to be a selective advantage for any slight modifications in their descendants which lead towards an increase in efficiency of bipedalism. The human knee seems to me to be a poor example of an IC structure. Some of Burgess' other arguments just seem nonsensical to me. For example he states: "The knee joint presents a major challenge to the evolutionist because it is unique, and because there are no intermediate forms of joint between a condylar joint and the other two limb joints found in animals and humans - the ball and socket joint and the pivot joint." I fail to understand Mr. Burgess' challenge here. Knee joints did not evolve from elbow, shoulder, or hip joints. Rather knee joints have been knee joints since their origin in the first tetrapods. The same applies to the other types of joints. So why would we expect to find "intermediate forms" between them? It is a curious thing that Behe's principle of IC as an argument for design turns traditional arguments from design on their heads. No longer are those features of organisms that seem perfectly "sculpted" to suit their needs necessarily evidence for design. No longer are the features of organisms which are well designed from an engineering point of view necessarily evidence for design. Now, under Behe's IC principle of design, it doesn't matter how clunky, ungainly, and poorly designed from an engineering point of view something is, it only matters that it is supposedly irreducibly complex. Apparently the "Designer" under this new design “theory” is a (supernatural) cosmic Rube Goldberg. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | In your article "Flood Stories from around the World" I find it absolutely rediculous to include the prophecy in revelations. Revelations is a book which is written about what _will_ happen, not what has happenned. What is your rational for including it? |
Response | |
From: | |
Author of: | Flood Stories From Around The World |
Response: | My rationale is stated in the second sentence of the introduction: It is a story, it is folklore, and it involves a flood. The Egyptian flood myth is also a prophecy; I include it for the same reasons. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | All of your comments are all based upon carbon dating. Creationists have proven that carbon dating is flawed, and yet (out of stubbornness or sheer stupidity) evolutionists won't give in. You are basing your whole theory on a flawed technique. Also, there is a reason that its called the "theory of evolution". its just a theory, and a bad one at that. If the grande canyon was formed over 3 million years or whatever, why are there no fossils in its rock. I mean, if a river carved it, couldn't an animal die and be covered by sand and petrified? I laugh out loud when I think of its possibilities. Animals need to drink water, and a river that would be big enough to carve the canyon must have been heavily populated. I am amazed when i learned what evolution really states. It says that it rained on rocks for millions of years, and that after more millions of years, the water suddenly supported life! a one celled organism appeared! and what I find really incredible, is that one celled organism found something to eat! I read part of a paper on this site and I found it calling Creationists liars! I have one question to ask you people. what would we have to benefit from lying?!?!? what would be the point? if we wanted people to believe our ideas, we wouldn't convince them with lies. and even if we did convince them by using lies, who would prevent them from finding out those lies and returning to evolutionism? I can't believe that you would actually think that we'd blatantly lie about something we can PROVE correct. I am doing a report for school, and that I the only reason i ever came to this site. I can't believe the prejudice against Christians and Creationists that I have found. for the first time ever, I know what it feels like to be ashamed of my fellow men. |
Response | |
From: | Chris Stassen |
Author of: | Isochron Dating |
Response: |
Carbon datingActually, almost no comments on this site are "based on" carbon dating. Most mention of carbon dating on this site originates with creationists mistakenly arguing about it in the feedback. Carbon dating is not really relevant to geologic time, because it is limited to the last 50,000 years or so. See my Age of the Earth FAQ or Isochron Dating FAQ for more detail on the real dating methods that geologists use.TheoryTo a scientist, "theory" means something like: "highly successful and well-tested explanation which coherently explains a large body of data" -- for example, the "atomic theory of matter." (Do you doubt that matter is made of atoms?) Creationsts often try to sow confusion between the scientific and colloquial definitions of "theory;" the colloquial meaning is, roughly, "guess." In my opinion, it is not honest to try to profit from that confusion. See our Evolution is a Fact and a Theory FAQ for more detail.Grand Canyon fossilsThe phanerozoic rocks of the Grand Canyon are quite rich in fossils. For just one example, the Redwall Limestone is (as are all limestones) composed almost entirely of carbonate skeletons of dead sea life:
Creationism and accusations of lyingI'm sure many creationists are sincere (but misinformed). For example, possibly, you. Perhaps you didn't know better, with some of the claims you entered into the feedback.However, someone should have known better. Those who are representing themseves as scientists have a responsibility to do solid research and accurate work. Whatever the underlying reason, the fact remains that the "scientific" output of creation "science" is riddled with error. If you can, as you claim, "prove correct" your assertions... I'd like to see your "proof" on the lack of fossils in the Grand Canyon. If you wish to "be ashamed of your fellow men," perhaps you ought to start with whoever originated that whopper. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | I'm in the
middle of a long-standing debate about creationism vs.
evolution. I'm faced with the claim that a large fraction
of scientists either embrace creationism or reject
evolution. Can you point me to published surveys or polls
that summarize the scientific consensus on this issue?
Thanks. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: |
Nope, sorry, no can do. There is no survey that shows such a thing, since virtually all scientists who have had significant training in biology accept evolution. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | On a recent BBC "Horizon" programme (March 2002), Archeopteryx was demonstrated to be a hoax fossil made from a composite of different fossils. Amazingly, another half of one of the fossil pieces was acquired in China, which matched as a mirror image of the other half present in the "hoax". On further investigation it was concluded, however, that the skilled "hoaxer" had unwittingly taken samples from a fossil, displaying true transitional characteristics. There is no mention of this in your article on Archeopteryx, or is it simply not up to date? |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | There is no
mention of this because none of the things you listed are
true in the case of Archaeopteryx. I am afraid that
you either misheard (or misremember) the program in
question or the producers of the program you watched are
misinformed. The facts you list seem to be clear references
to another, more recently found, fossil known as
Archaeoraptor. This was indeed a fraudulent specimen
consisting of a fossil of a primitive bird with a small
dinosaur tail glued on to it, which was apparently done by
the Chinese farmer who found the fossils in order to
increase their market value.
Here are some relevant links on the subject of the Archaeoraptor fraud:
There have been claims by anti-evolutionists that Archaeopteryx is a hoax, however these have no basis in fact. See On Archaeopteryx, Astronomers, and Forgery by Chris Nedin here on the Archive for more on this. Chris also has a detailed discussion on Archaeopteryx in All About Archaeopteryx. |