Feedback Letter | |
Comment: | Your website is very one sided. The main thing you have about creationism is how it's wrong, and nitpicking about errors. Evolution, on the other hand, in your eyes is flawless. You say that evolution is a fact. evolution is not a fact, it is a theory. I highly suggest that you find out more about creationism before you start bashing it. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | Evolution is a Fact AND a Theory. And that's a fact. Just one of the reasons there are lots of FAQs on this website. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | I believe I have discovered a major problem for creation scientists, specifically young earth creationists (YEC’s), and I would like to know if anyone else has discussed it. The first part of the problem is known by only the more sophisticated YEC's, but is not much discussed (for good reason). The second part is a discovery that Genesis 2:14 conflicts with any creationist explanation of the first. When asked, "Where on Earth was the Garden of Eden located?", most biblical scholars and creationists point to some location near Iraq, since Iraq's Tigris (Hiddekel) and Euphrates rivers flowed into the Garden of Eden. Problem: Thanks to the petroleum industry, we know that Iraq sits on top of approximately 6,000 feet of sedimentary rock strata, and the Tigris and Euphrates rivers are situated above it (source: Sedimentary Geology of the Mesozoic Outcrops of Iray - Correlation to the Subsurface and Implications for Hydrocarbon Exploration). According to YEC's, this 6,000 feet of rock strata is global flood sediment produced by Noah's flood. Since the Tigris and Euphrates rivers are "pre-flood" rivers, then the remnants of these rivers should be positioned UNDER the 6,000 ft of strata, not on top of it. YEC solution: The present-day Tigris and Euphrates rivers are not the same rivers that flowed into the Garden of Eden. The Garden of Eden and the original rivers were destroyed by the global flood. Noah and his descendants named the new rivers after the original ones. This is like the city of Rome, NY, being named after Rome, Italy. New problem for YEC-s: Genesis 2:14 states that the Tigris river flows east of the land of Assyria. Assyrians are "post-flood" people, who originated around the ancient city of Assur (named after the god, Assur). They are first mentioned in history by the Egyptian pharaoh, Thothmes III (1504 - 1450 B.C.), who stated that the "chief of Assur" paid him tribute. At this time, they only existed as a small city-state around Assur. The great Assyrian Empire, under Ashurnasirpal, was still about 800 years in the future. Their land is situated ON TOP of the rock strata. Assuming that YEC's are correct about Moses being the author of the book of Genesis (five books of Moses), then there is a problem. The post-flood early Assyrians lived contemporaneously with Moses (1200 to 1500 B.C.). Just like Thothmes III, educated Moses (also born in Egypt) and the Hebrews would have known about the Assyrians living next to the Tigris. The information in Genesis 2:14 about where Assyria is with respect to the Tigris river and the Garden of Eden is for one purpose only, to orient readers to where the garden was. Moses could only have been talking about the post-flood Assyrian land. Were there "pre-flood" Assyrians, who passed on their name to post-flood Assyrians? This could solve YEC's problem, right? The name, "Assyria", originates from the Assyrian god, Assur. This god was the creation of the post-flood Assyrians. Also, a global flood would have completely destroyed all traces of pre-flood cultures. The only way Noah's descendants would have known about a pre-flood god would be from the mouths of Noah and his family. I don't think Yahweh would have liked his own people discussing the existence of rival god, Assur. Maybe Assur really does exist. That would solve the problem. Another YEC explanation for the Assyria mentioned in Genesis 2:14 could be that there was uninhabited land arbitrarily named "Assyria" by god (maybe after his brother, Assur) where the ORIGINAL Tigris flowed. Moses then transcribed this in Genesis 2:14 exactly by the hand of God. The god, Assur, and the city of Assur had nothing to do with the name, "Assyria". Archaeology is wrong again! |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | Evolution is not true! you suck! |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | I am a
junior in high school and I enjoy intellectually
stimulating debates concerning origins, theology, and
science. Being born a Christian and raised in a Christian
family, I've become accustomed to its teachings and
generally regarded them as fact. Instead of dogmatically
defending its teaching, I endeavor to obtain an objective
conclusion to its factuality and/or relevance. Part of this
process is falsifying its testimony about how the Earth
came to be, and obviously, its schism to modern scientific
teaching about evolutionary process.
Instead of perusing countless articles dozens of pages in length for answers, I thought I'd drop you a line. My curiosity revolves around just how new characteristics in organisms could evolve (even over millions/billions of years) from infintesimally small genetic mutations. Most specifically, how is it possible that complex organ systems such as the eye could evolve from random, blind, genetic mutations? As I understand it, the eye is incredibly complex: it has devices for focusing, letting in certain amounts of light, it has a protective cornea, a system for keeping it clean of foreign objects (eyelids and tears), it works seamlessly with the visual cortex of the brain, and there are neural pathways to and from the eye to communicate realtime data to the brain. How is a system of this grandeous complexity capable of existing through purely mechanistic, random processes? Do not dismiss me as another cliche bible-banging dogmatist; no, I'm really looking for the answers -- whatever they may be. I'm quite curious as to your answer. Please be as specific as possible. Regards, Austin |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | You write
well for your grade level, and your thought processes are
to be admired. Keep up the good work!
Since this subject comes up often, I copied a prior response in the February 2003 Feedback. You can find a number of items on the subect by using the TalkOrigins search feature and typing in "Eyes." This FAQ on Color Vision has some discussion about it. Charles Darwin suggested numerous small steps that could lead from simple light-detection spots to complex eyes. I have placed Darwin's text from both his 1st and 6th editions of Origin of Species side by side on The Evolution of Eyes: Gradual Change from Simple Forms. Following that text, you will find many links to information confirming Darwin's hypothesis. Scientists are now unravelling genetic pathways in the vision of numerous organisms and finding many interesting features such as the widely shared Pax-6 control gene. It is becoming very evident that the same inherited vision genes can be expressed, in combination with other genes, very differently in different lineages. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | My wife owns
a small restaurant in town. One day while eating breakfast
in her place, I asked if she could name a menu item or
product she uses in the preparation of those menu items
that do not use anything that comes from a something
living. Neither she nor I could think of anything.
My point is if we do not explore the biological and chemical "how and why" of living things through genuine scientific enquiry, we may as well write our epitaph thus - "Failed to understand so we therefore perished." I'll bet most people don't even think about the fact that animals and humans have livers and spleens, lungs and hearts, veins and arteries, etc. Understanding the process of how these vital organs evolve and work for all living things is the key to our survival. |
Responses | |
From: | |
Response: | Salt. |
From: | |
Response: | Water. |
From: | |
Response: | Lye. (forgive me, I'm in lutefisk country.) |
Feedback Letter | |
Comment: | I saw a movie about 23 years ago with a old man showing a creek bed. They drained part of it to show the tracks. I am glad you have this site here today! I thank you for your work. I wish you had some pictures here to show my daughter. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | There are a
few photos on the webpage for the
Dinosaur Valley State Park on the Paluxy River in
Texas. This might be the area where the film you saw was
made.
Better photos can be found by typing in "dinosaur trackways" at www.google.com. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | I've
recently entered a debate in another forum regarding a Dr.
Senapathy, who has his own theory of evolution, called "the
Independent Birth of Organisms." I am under the impression
that his work has not been seriously reviewed by other
molecular biologists, nor has his work been published in
any credible scientific publications. What I'd like to know
is if it [i]has[/i] been published, and where I can find
any reviews of his theory by other molecular biologists.
Thanks, M. Stradley |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | A search of
this website turns up a few items on
Senapathy.
Somewhat more, including at least one intelligent review, can be found by typing in "Dr. Periannan Senapathy Ph.D." at www.google.com His book, along with some reviews, may be found at Amazon.com |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | After reading your FAQ page, it is apparent that you believe there is amble evidence to support evolution, i.e., evolution is a fact. So why not go after the $250,000 offered by Dr. Kent Hovind? |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | This FAQ tells why. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | First of
all: a terrific site!
You say in your March 2003 feedback page "Our current best estimate for the age of the universe is about 13,500,000,000 years." Thanks to results from WMAP the same month, we know that it's 13.7 billion years old (to within 1% accuracy). See The Age of the Universe with New Accuracy for the beautiful images and other amazing results. |
Response | |
From: | |
Author of: | The Recession of the Moon and the Age of the Earth-Moon System |
Response: | Yes, that
was me. I couldn't remember the WMAP number when I typed
out that response.
Age of the Universe The "best fit" age reported by the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe was 13.7±0.2 billion years. Look on the WMAP technical papers page for "Maps and Basic Results" and "Determination of Cosmological Parameters". Those papers, especially the latter, give more of the details about how that number was arrived at. The 13.7±0.2 billion year age is based on a combination of data from WMAP, 2dFGRS and Lyman-alpha forest data, with a "running index model". If the WMAP data alone are used, the derived age is 13.4±0.3 billion years, not all that different. This says that the age is not strongly model dependent, and that several data sets are consistent with each other on the age of the universe. It is a robust result. But even more impressive is the fact that all of the cosmological age indicators give very similar results. The WMAP age was announced in February, but as of now is still unpublished, except in the pre-prints (though most have been submitted to the Astrophysical Journal for publication). In January, just before the WMAP age was announced, Krauss & Chaboyer, independently studying the oldest globular cluster stars, derived a best fit age for the universe of 13.4 billion years (given without uncertainty, but ±10% is good). This independent affirmation makes the WMAP result look even better ( Age Estimates of Globular Clusters in the Milky Way: Constraints on Cosmology, Lawrence Krauss & Brian Chaboyer, Science 299(5603): 65-69, January 3, 2003). And note that while the WMAP age is robust, it is not all that different from the age of the universe, based on pre-WMAP CMB data, 14.0±0.5 billion years (The age of the universe and the cosmological constant determined from cosmic microwave background anisotropy measurements, L. Knox, N. Christensen & C. Skordis, Astrophysical Journal 563(2): L95-L98, Part 2, December 20, 2001). At about the same time, another group combined the CMB data with a study of elliptical galaxies, high redshift type Ia supernovae, and a Hubble constant of 72±8 km/sec/Mpc (the value reported by the HST Key Project), to derive an age for the universe of 13.2 +1.2 -0.8 billion years, remarkably similar to the WMAP age announced about a year later (Setting new constraints on the age of the Universe, I. Ferreras, A. Melchiorri & J. Silk, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 327(4): L47-L51, November 11, 2001). And, a bit over a year before that, Wendy Freedman, who led the effort of the Hubble Key Project to measure the Hubble constant to ±10%, reported an age based on that work of 14±2 billion years (The Hubble constant and the expansion age of the Universe, W.L. Freedman, Physics Reports 333(1-6): 13-31, August 2000). Now, I would stop short of saying that we know the WMAP age is the age of the universe. But we can certainly be sure that if it isn't exactly the age, it's really close to the age. All of the evidence, from all of the relevant branches of astrophysics & cosmology, agree with each other, on an age for the universe most likely between 13 and 14 billion years old. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | I am confused as to why Darwin is ever associated with macroevolution (the evolution of one species into another) when he only supported microevolution (the evolution of one species within itself)! In chapter 6 of The Origin of Species on page 167 (6th edition, reprinted 1967) Darwin flat out states that it is "absurd in the highest possible degree" that the human eye could have been formed by natural secection. He also states on page 160 that he believes that "species come to be...well-defined objects, and do not at any one period present an inextricalbe choas of varying and intermediate links". Although he had breakthroughs in microevolutionary research, his findings led him to believe that macroevolution was absurd! |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | Why select
just six words when Darwin wrote more than 1,000 on the
subject. See the complete quote IN CONTEXT from both the
1st and 6th editions: What Darwin
REALLY wrote.
Darwin proposed not only that what is now called macroevolution happens, he proposed that all life has descended from one or a few original forms. Surely you will agreed that, if Darwin (and modern science) is correct about this, it must include macroevolution as part of the process. Furthermore, the title of Darwin's book was "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection". His purpose was to counter the then prevailing attitude that species were fixed or immutable. He demonstrated some of the ways in which species were mutable (changable into new and different species). His favorite term for this was "descent with modification." The fact that new species "come to be...well-defined objects" does not imply that there is no transitional period during which modifications occur. Brief, selective quoting, and taking such quotes out of the context in which they were written, is not the way to learn about any subject, including Darwin's views on evolution. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | Great site.
Lots of stuff in one place.
Is it possible that punctuated equilibrium can be explained not just by lots of little changes (the comment that macroevolution is lots of microevolution), but by a building up of potential change behind the scenes. In other words, either: 1. There are lots of small changes not in the outcomes themselves (e.g. a particular trait), but instead in the underlying probabilities of those outcomes occurring. At some point a threshold is reached, where the change in probability from one generation to the next becomes much more rapid and it takes only a few generations to shift the population. 2. The genes are kind of like a big rusty see-saw. Modest changes pile up on one side of the see-saw, but it's not until they accumulate to a certain level that they actually result in a shift, and the see-saw drops to the other side. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | Dr. Robert
Pennock has recently coauthored a paper in the journal
Nature dealing with the origins of complexity.
You may access the .pdf file for this paper from
his website.
I see no difference between "lots of little changes" and the building up of potential. Accumulating changes in the genotype might take a while before visible changes are observed in the phenotype. The real question is whether or not one might then expect to see really gross changes in the organism. Personally, I doubt that such a "hopeful monster" process, with real "jumps" or big changes that occur suddenly, happens. Even cases of polyploidy, which involve doubling of genomes and instant speciation, result in physical changes that are very moderate. But, the last word about this is not yet in. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | Lacey |
Comment: | I would like to add one more thing. Not all Christians believe that the earth is only 8000 years old. I believe that the first earth age contained the dinosaurs and possibly prehistoric man. God then destroyed that earth for some reason. After an unspecified amount of time, God created/ restored the earth during the time of Adam and Eve. The bible supports these claims. Without trully getting into scripture, it's easy to say that Christian beliefs and the bible do not go along with science. The truth is, science actually supports the views of creationists. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | The truth is
that, in the USA at least, most people who accept the facts
of evolution also hold beliefs in some religious faith
system. Do the math. In a nation where 85% or more of the
citizens are "believers," a majority of the 40+% who admit
to accepting evolution must come from that body of
believers.
The Bible, of course, can and does support many viewpoints. But evolutionary science is grounded in facts, not in beliefs. The belief that prehistoric man coincided in time with dinosaurs has no basis in fact. More than 60 million years separate the two groups of animals. |
Feedback Letter | |
Comment: | HOw can you
say that the earth is old. The testing methods are based on
two assumptions. 1)that the half -life of teh uranium
remains constant and 2)in order to do any dating you must
have the amount of uranium the substance began with in the
first place. The formula is years=amount of uranium to
begin with divided by the rate of decopisition
That leaves 3 variables. One variable is constanly changing(rate),the amount of uranium to begin with is totally subjective and the years is the result of am impossible equation |
Response | |
From: | Chris Stassen |
Author of: | Isochron Dating |
Response: | Constancy of
half-life is not a mere assumption; instead it is a
conclusion based on a wide range of evidence. See section 2.1 of
our Age of the Earth FAQ for details.
Isotopic dating methods generally involve assessment of the remaining parent and the accumulated daughter product. Both are quantities that can be measured in the present. The original quantity of parent isn't usually involved in the calculation, though it could be computed from the values that are used. Finally... contrary to your assertion, in most dating assessments there are a large number of equations and measurements, and a comparatively small number of variables. Rather than being impossible to solve (more variables than equations), there are instead multiple independent ways to apply the equations to compute the desired variables. These are more-or-less used as cross-checks on the computed result. For example, consider this Pb/Pb isochron that yields the Solar System's age (and therefore Earth's age): From our Age of the Earth FAQ The simple decay equation for U235-to-Pb207 and U238-to-Pb206 would be:
The Pb measured today includes both initial and radiogenic Pb. We can replace "Pbradiogenic" with the equivalent "Pbtotal - Pbinitial" and yield the equivalent equations:
Since iron meteorites contain negligible uranium, there is no measurable accumulation of radiogenic Pb in them. The Pb isotope ratios of iron meteorites do not change over time, and thus the Pb ratios measured today in iron meteorites are the Pb ratios present at their time of formation. By normalizing to Pb204, which is not radiogenic, Pb207initial and Pb206initial can be calculated for meteorites which do contain uranium. This changes the simple decay equations to a slightly more complex form -- with the same terms as above, but involving an isotope ratio instead of a quantity in each term:
There are a dozen decay equations of that form which are more-or-less represented in the one isochron diagram shown above (one for the X-value and one for the Y-value of each data point aside from iron meteorites):
Thus, we have a dozen equations, and only one unknown (t). Every other value in each equation is an empirical assessment of a present-day quantity. Every one of the twelve equations can be solved for t, and only if all of the values of t agree will the result be considered valid. The use of many independent calculations either proves or disproves the requirement that all meteorites started with the same Pb isotope ratios, i.e., it either validates or invalidates the iron-meteorite-based computation for subtracting Pbinitial. If meteorites didn't start out with the same Pb ratios, there would be no reason for all of the various calculations of t to yield the same result. (Further, someone proposing that meteorites started with a range of Pb isotope ratios would have to explain why all iron meteorites have the same ratios.) Note: This is a somewhat simplified discussion of the isochron data. The U235/U238 ratios are the same throughout the Solar System. As a result of that fixed ratio, uranium assessment can be canceled out of the pair of decay equations for each data point -- the two equations and the fixed uranium isotopic ratio can be solved into a single more complicated equation that does not involve any assessment of uranium. That is a closer approximation to the calculation underlying the Pb/Pb isochron age. See our Isochron Dating FAQ for more detail on isochron dating techniques. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | I am an IT
professional and as such very interested in the advances
being made to use evolutionary theory to write computer
code. It is entirely impossible for me to understand how a
creationist can deny evolution, since evolution occurs in
any system that replicates with variation and has
elimination by selective processes. There is no way to
despute this. This is an obvious result of very simple
math. and since it is simple, which statement do they
dispute?
1.) Animals reproduce. or 2.) Animals die. Seems pretty obvious that if evolution didn't happen, something VERY strange would have to be happening in these 2 processes. Anyhow, that's how i look at it. Thanks for the site.. love it. Great to read. |
Response | |
From: | |
Author of: | Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution |
Response: | You
oversimplify somewhat, and I don't think your point loses
much punch without the oversimplification:
1.) Animals reproduce with variation. 2.) Some of the variation is inheritable. 3.) Animals die, and some of the variation makes some of the animals more likely to die than others. (And of course, this applies to plants, fungi, bacteria, protists, and artificial life too.) Given those conditions, all of which are easily seen, evolution is inevitable. Creationists assert that there are barriers that prevent one "kind" from changing into another, but they have yet to give the slightest bit of indication of such a barrier. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | Can you please email me the core beliefs of evolution summed up in a few claims. I understand you have lengthy articles, but right now I'm interested in a quick summation of evolution and it's claims. Thank you |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | Garrett,
Six minutes after posting this query you posted another one. Perhaps you could have read a FAQ in that period of time. If I write a really thoughful summation for you, I might spend 15-30 minutes or more at the task. When is your homework assignment due? |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | I know there
has to be a refutation of the following link from AIG:
Dating dilemma: fossil wood in 'ancient' sandstone
Where? |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | Answers In
Genesis itself has a
Letter of refutation (and their response). The letter,
from Dick Reesman of Geochron, the lab that performed the
C14 dating of the Triassic wood, makes the following
points. First, the sample they received didn't look like
wood; they just took AIG's word for it. Second, Triassic
wood would have little if any of the original carbon in it.
Third, the sample could be contaminated by recent carbon
dissolved in groundwater.
Tas Walker's response for AIG does not convincingly address the second and third points. He says, essentially, maybe some of the original carbon remained. Okay, but more likely not. And he says there was enough carbon to do the analysis, but that could come from contamination. He repeats that they ruled out contamination, but they only ruled out contamination from microbe and fungi, not groundwater. Walker says the wood was above the water table, but groundwater would still percolate down from the surface. Finally, Walker mentions other discordant dates, such as young C14 dates for ancient coal. The Carbon-14 in Coal Deposits page addresses this claim, and its conclusion (that carbon dating can sometimes be thrown off by C14 created in situ by radioactivity in the surrounding rock) could apply also to the fossil wood found in Triassic sandstone. |
Feedback Letter | |
Comment: | There has
been much criticism of Michael Behe's work on irreducible
complexity.
Mr Behe's work theorized that for irreduciblly complex biological features, DIRECT Darwinian pathways are procluded, i.e. improvements to a given function. In the responses I've seen, from Miller and others, this idea comes under attack. However, I keep seeing only indirect pathways proposed as a response, i.e. biological units whose function is proposed to have changed over time before being incorporated into an irreducibly complex biological unit. Questions therefore come to mind: 1. Is Behe's point that for irreducibly complex biological units, DIRECT Darinian pathways are procluded conceded? 2. If not, present some experimental examples of Direct Darwinian pathways for proposed irreducibly complex biological units. 3. Are the indirect pathways proposed for irreducibly complex systems (a la Miller with the bacterial flatula) presented as contradictory to Behe, even though his theory does not address them, because his book and its proponents give the impression that his theory DESTROYS evolution? Are they aiming to correct this false impression? 4. Are they proposed, because their proponents do not understand the difference between direct Darwinian pathways and indirect ones? 5. Are they simply proposed as an escape hatch for Darwinian evolution to avoid Mr. Behe's blow? Regards |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: |
1) Maybe. The problem is that Behe picks systems for which we currently have limited knowledge, so it's hard to say. 2) You tell us precisely what you mean by "direct Darwinian pathways" first. 3) I really, really like your "flatula" malapropism. The indirect pathways do contradict Behe's implication that IC refutes evolution. IC doesn't. 4) They are proposed because they demolish the basis of Behe's argument. I don't understand why you are bringing up this stuff about direct vs. indirect evolution -- it isn't relevant. There has never been any requirement that evolution proceed by some kind of specific, linear, simple pathway. 5) Dr. Behe has not delivered any kind of blow to evolution. He has rather blown his own reputation, but nothing more. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | Timothy |
Comment: | I have been looking through the search engine for a while, and can't find an answer, or suggestion to a question I have been wondering about for a while- namely, how did the human reproductive system evolve? I found one place on the feedback section addressing it, however, the author unfortunately mentioned it amongst lots of useless babble, and consequentially, the post back didn't address the question. When looking on the net, the only places I can find it are on creationist websites, as "evidence against evolution". As I’ve yet to come across a useful creationist website, I usually skipped over them. any information would be helpful, perhaps there is a FAQ that I have missed on your site, but it would be great if I could get something a bit better than "it evolved from previous reproductive systems used in other animals" or something alogng those lines- I'm sure it probably did, however, it doesn't really help in answering the question. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | Sometimes we
ask the wrong question or pose it in a manner that makes
answering it difficult. Perhaps a better question is "How
did sexual reproduction evolve?" Or, at least, how much can
we infer from all the available evidence? This webpage on
Evolution
of Sexual Reproduction and the links at the bottom of
it, offer some insights.
In order to infer how "human" reproduction might have evolved it is necessary that we look at the reproductive systems of our closest evolutionary relatives among the primates and determine by how much we differ from them (not very much). Looking backward in time to our common ancestry with more distinct mammals we can chart a few more differences (say, litter size, gestation periods). Further back in evolutionary time we find differences in egg type and production and methods of fertilization. Unfortunately, reproductive systems and behaviors do not fossilize. We have no other choice but to look at living organisms and branching points and patterns that refer us back to common ancestries. This is also true for other complex systems or organs such as eyes, digestive systems, etc. Because of the amount of inference required in piecing together plausible answers to such questions, biology textbooks often concentrate on how current biological systems work and not on how they may have evolved. There are available highly technical books with hypotheses about the evolution of sex and the fascinating diversity of reproductive strategies. We simply do not have all the answers to some questions. The origin of sex and reproductive systems remain high on the list of incompletely answered questions in biology. |
Feedback Letter | |
Comment: | Can you
comment on red-shift quantization? I find a dearth of
material in on-line science journals and on the internet
from a non-Creationist perspective on this, and am curious
as to 1) whether this phenomenon has been clearly
documented, or whether the possibility still exists that
this is an artifact of poor or limited methodology. 2) what
the implications are if this is a real phenomenon. For
instance, if red shifts are quantized, does that (in a
worst case scenario) call into question whether red-shifts
actually have any velocity component at all (outside of the
velocity component that comes from the earth's own motion)?
Does that call into question their use as a distance
measure?
Thank you for your help! |
Response | |
From: | |
Author of: | The Recession of the Moon and the Age of the Earth-Moon System |
Response: | The large
majority of astronomers do not accept the argument that
redshifts are quantized, based on weaknesses in both
observational & theoretical evidence in their favor.
There are numerous published papers in support of quantized
redshifts, mostly from the originator of the claim,
William G. Tifft, from the University of Arizona (i.e.,
Global Redshift Periodicities and Periodicity
Variability, Astrophysical Journal 485(2): 465-483,
August 20, 1997;
Global Redshift Periodicities and Periodicity
Structure, Astrophysical Journal 468(2): 491-518,
September 10, 1996). But most of Tifft's studies have
examined relatively small numbers of galaxies, or galaxies
in relatively small regions of the sky. A recent study of
the very large 2dF database showed no indication of
quantization or periodicity in redshifts (No
Periodicities in 2dF Redshift Survey Data, E. Hawkins,
S.J. Maddox & M.R. Merrifield, Monthly Notices of the
Royal Astronomical Society 336(1): L13-L16, October 11,
2002). And it has been argued that Tifft's treatment of the
statistics is incorrect (i.e.,
Redshift data and statistical inference, W.I. Newman,
M.P. Haynes & y. Terzian, Astrophysical Journal 431(1):
147-155, August 1994). The debate continues in the
literature, nonetheless, but the argument remains weak.
Creationist commonly assume that quantized redshifts are a proven fact, and always base their arguments on this false assumption. But, unsatisfied with only one false assumption, they proceed to accept an even worse false assumption, namely that quantized redshifts and Big Bang cosmology are incompatible. This is most certainly false. Big Bang cosmology is built around the central principle that the early universe was very small, very dense & very hot. But there are a lot of ways to construct detailed models of space-time which adhere to this fundamental principle, and yet produce radically different observable universes. In the case of quantized redshifts, they are easily accomodated within a Big Bang cosmology simply by quantizing time, a procedure advocated by Tifft himself (i.e., Three Dimensional Quantized Time in Cosmology, W.G. Tifft, Astrophysics and Space Science 244(1-2): 187-210 (1996)). You would think that the scholarly creationists would have noticed this paper by Tifft, which refutes the notion that quantized redshift & Big Bang cosmology are incompatible. But, curiously, they seem never to mention it. Quantization in redshifts, even if real (which is at least debatable), does not affect the redshift-distance relationship, and presents no major problem for Big Bang cosmology, or a 13-14-15 billion year old universe. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | I can find nothing scientific concerning the Mount Blanco Fossil Museum and its claim of a large human femur that is purported to be "proof" of biblical giants. My skepticism is running on high about this claim, but I cannot find anything about it. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | There isn't
a great deal on the web about Mt. Blanco Fossil Museum
and Casting Co. or Joe Taylor. A friend of mine who is
a paleontologist, museum director, and also in the fossil
casting business, describes Taylor as being accurate with
both his fossils and casts (Taylor owns a good portion of a
fossil type locality) but holds some "quaint ideas about
other matters." He also says Taylor is a nice guy.
He's a businessman also, not trying to cash in on tax-exempt status as do some of his buddies, who include Carl Baugh. In any event, I cannot find any rebuttals by scientists about anything Taylor has placed in print. I suspect the reason for this is that he does not seek the notoriety that drives people like Baugh and Hovind. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | Hi!
I investigated creationist's arguments against dino-bird theory and I found that Creationists changed their tactics of argumentation. Now they try to attack the theory, but they try to ignore morphology of transitional fossils, or they say mad things. For example, "Confuciusornis has the same skeletal structure as modern birds…" Archaeopteryx and Other Ancient Bird Fossils. ;-) Now Creationists say that birds did not evolve from dinosaurs, and "there are no transitional forms". Creationists say about bird's lung structure and phalangeal formula. But there are no responses to this Creationist's arguments from evolutionists. I think that evolutionists must write the response. I don't want to say that Talk.originists must do it, but someone must. Creationists say many falsehoods about the fossils; they use old and doubtful data. Furthermore, they ignore many evidences. I found that Talk.origin's FAQ about feathers (www.talkorigins.org\faqs\feathers.html) is weak. But there is a great FAQ - "THE EVOLUTIONARY ORIGIN AND DIVERSIFICATION OF FEATHERS"; by RICHARD O. PRUM and ALAN H. BRUSH. The Quarterly Review of Biology, September 2002, Vol. 77, No. 3. A few links.
Creationists use quotations from works of Feduccia. Feduccia about creationist's quotations:
Ornithologist and Evolutionary Biologist Alan Feduccia Plucking Apart the Dino-Birds And a small joke. Creationists: The theropod dinosaur hand consists of the thumb and the next two fingers. The bird hand is made up of the middle three fingers. How could it evolve? Well, creationists say that Caudipteryx and Protarchaeopteryx are more likely to be flightless birds. But Caudipteryx and Protarchaeopteryx had heropod phalangeal formula of 2-3-4-x-x (nature 393: 753-761). How could it evolve? Sorry for my English. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | Maybe this page on Dinos-to-Birds will provide you with a bit more ammunition. It is based upon another excellent paper by Richard Prum, with a bibliography of recent publications in science journals. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | Bill |
Comment: | My comment
is in regards to an April 29, 2003 article in the magazine
Nature by Helen Pearson.
She summarized the current results of chimp genome research. There are two decoding projects on chimps going on. Ms. Pearson's comments concern one project in Japan. Researchers decoded chromosone 22 on the chimp genome. This chromosone is analagous to chromosone 21 on the human genome. Surprisingly, instead of the expected difference of 1.35%, the genetic difference was 5.5%, about four times as much. This project had achieved the greatest decoding and comparative analysis of the chimp genome and its human analog. Previous comparisons where based on much smaller genetic segments. If the initial results of this project are confirmed then: 1. Genetic differences between chimps and humans are four times as large as previously estimated. Based on those previous estimates, the chimp line was estimated to have split off from the human line 5 to 7 million years ago, while modern humans where estimated to have decended from the last common ancestor between 120 and 250 thousand years ago. 2. If genetic differences are actually four times larger than this, the ability to move the split with chimpanzees back in time is rather limited by other evolutionary splits and the fossil record. An 8 to 10 million year upper limit seems reasonable for the split between our ancestors and those of chimps. 3. However, this in turn takes the age of "Eve" down to about 75 thousand years, at the upper limit and to 50 thousand years if the current 6 million year age for the chimp-human split is maintained. 4. Wouldn't this 50K to 75K range contradict claimed ages for some South African and Palestinian fossils? 5. On the flip side, wouldn't a 50K to 75K for anatomically modern humans be more consistent with the "explosion" of humanlike activity apparent in the fossil record beginning about 40K years ago than the current 120K to 250K? 6. Is it a problem that a 50K to 75K range for mithcondondrial "Eve" is very close to the Old Earth Creationist age of 40K to 60K? or would it not matter because the former would be derived from hard science and the latter is derived from bad theology? |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | The article
mentioned appears at Chimps
Expose Humanness at Nature Science Update (not
in the journal Nature). This article contains the
following:
"The data call for some revision of the estimated genetic similarity between us and our closest relatives. Previously, human and chimp genetic sequences were quoted as being nearly 99% identical, with a difference of only a few DNA's letters. In fact, the similarity may be as low as 94-95%, says Todd Taylor of the RIKEN Genomic Sciences Center in Yokohama, Japan. "Taylor's team factors in whole segments that they found to have been added to or subtracted from one of the genomes; previous estimates were often produced by comparing smaller areas. "There's still not a good way to say how much we're similar," admits Taylor." [end quote] This is a case of comparing apples with oranges. Different parts of genomes exhibit different rates of mutation (change). Genes that are actually expressed tend to be more highly conserved and change less often than that part of the genome commonly called "junk DNA." See my response to Ibn Ifendi on the same topic in the March 2003 Feedback. Part of that response states: "Carl Zimmer addresses this issue as well as the controversy over including Indel and junk DNA in such calculations. See his essay Searching for Your Inner Chimp which appeared in Natural History for December 2002 - January 2003." |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | Timothy |
Comment: | do most evolutionists accept more than one theory as mechanisms for evollution, or do most neo-darwinists not accept punctuated equilibria and vice versa? i'm not quite getting a clear picture whether or not most authers of this site (yes, i know they are volunteers) accept the main mechanisms, or if they accept one, and not others. do most evolutionists accept all the more mainstream mechanisms, or do they "choose" one as more likely? |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | You ask some
excellent questions that are difficult to answer with a
simple "yes" or "no." As you seem rightly to perceive,
"evolutionary theory" may be viewed as a collection of
subtheories and hypotheses constantly under investigation.
The idea of "mainstream mechanisms" hints at the answer you
are seeking.
Personally, I think the theory of Punctuated Equilibria has been well documented in the years since it was put forward by Niles Eldredge and Steve Gould. However, it is not some kind of either/or theory. For instance, it does not replace natural selection, although some writers suggest that this was the intent of Eldredge and Gould. The real question is, how important is punk eek in the entire structure of evolutionary theory? Scientists DO argue over the weight or relative importance of any subtheory or hypothesis when considering the whole subject. Very few evolutionary biologists would totally discard any well-tested theory. You can be sure that over the years, as scientists discover more about the details and mechanisms of evolution, that some of these "mainstream" subtheories or hypotheses will be modified to accomodate the new findings. There are also a number of hypotheses that either have been recently proposed or that have not yet undergone rigorous examination. Some of these may fall by the wayside as more work is done to test them. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | I've listened and responded to many a creationist claim, but this one has me stumped. I've read Darwin's Ghost and other books but I still don't know how to put it in words without repeating entire books. The claim is that we either mated with (ouch) or decended from reptiles (I know, I know don't laugh too hard). I know that at some point (so many billions of years ago) we shared a common ancestor, but I don't believe that we could classify that ancestor as repitle (am I making sense here?) I don't have the expertise to explain DNA etc. She keeps repeating something about developing "tails" in the womb as proof that we decended from them. help! and thanks for keeping up this website. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | I applaud
you (and could never laugh at you) for reading Darwin's
Ghost and other books in order to try to understand a
complex subject.
Our species, going backward from our most recent ancestors to most distant, has evolved through the primates --> mammals ancestral to primates --> reptiles --> amphibians --> fish --> and back to single-celled forms such as bacteria. WE did not mate with THEM. Millions of years ago we had an ancestral species that was fully reptile, but whose offspring started the process of divergence or splitting away from the ancestral stock. They were still reptiles who, over time, gradually became less reptile-like and more mammal-like. These proto-mammals eventually crossed the threshhold to full mammal status. Mammals then lived beside the dinosaurs (fully reptile) and other reptiles for many millions of years. The dinos eventually died out, but one of their branches survived, and we now call them birds. By convention we do not call birds reptiles, but they really can be thought of as living dinos. Birds and mammals both descended from reptile ancestors, but not from the same group of reptiles. During embryology we appear to share many features with a wide assortment of other animals. Some of these features disappear during embryonic development, some of them go through a process of conversion to distinctly different organs or structures. The reasons for the similarities are basically due to our sharing an "original" vertebrate body plan which, over time, has diversified. The loss of most of the tail is just one of our diversifications (shared with our closest living relatives). Many of these details will become clearer as you continue your reading. Have fun. It's a great journey. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | I have read creationist sites claiming that there is a "general second law of thermodynamics" which includes order and "information theory". Does such a thing (the "general theory") exist, or is it just an imaginary interpretation that sounds real. I haven't been able to find any scientific sites that deal with a "general" verion of the second law, but thought you may be better able to answer. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | It is an
imaginary piece of rationalisation of their own claims that
evolution is precluded due to the second law. It is true
that any change of information involves a change in
thermodynamic entropy, but it is not true that any
change in entropy means a change in information content.
There is a one-way relationship.
In any case, information theory does not preclude evolutionary change occurring, because natural selection acts like a kind of Shannon's Demon, adding informational relevance to the effects of noise. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | Job |
Comment: | I have to
apologize for so many of my Christian brothers who get
caught up in this creation debate. They fail to understand
that Christianity is a faith system and was never meant to
be argued. The Bible is clear that God opens the hearts and
minds of men to understand the things of the Spirit. All
we, as believers, are expected to do is proclaim the
gospel--God does the rest. Of course, it's only natural
that a Christian look at evolution. A cursory examinination
is all that is necessary to satisfy the soul but so many
feel that intellectual stimulus will do to evolutionists
what God has done to them. The mass of scientific
information regarding origins causes the same problem
within Christianity with its mass of biblical information.
There is an inherent complexity that allows for great
confusion when one studies its details. Then, frustration
and confusion develop, even in the Spirit lead believer,
and emotions can get carried away. Negativities (word?) fly
with a resulting miscomunication of motivations.
The one thing that I never hear mentioned by the so-called "creationists" is how the Holy Spirit has infultrated their life and gave them a love for God and His Word. They forget or don't understand, I think, that this is supernatural and they hit the ground running instead of reading. There is a spiritual maturity that comes through obedience to God's word--and that takes time. What society so often sees when they look at American Christianity is false, or immature believers trying to do "right". You see them in these debates and in politics where they think they can bring God's blessings to men through the political lobbying of Judeo-Christian concepts into society. Millions and millions of dollars are thrown into these campaigns instead of helping the hurting, and we will be judged for it. See, we as believers, "know" there is a God because we have experienced Him and we often get caught up in worldly causes trying to get others to do the same. Yes, there is science as a result of the creation but it was no more expected to be a Christian concern than explaining the deity of Christ--but we do. Sincerely, Job |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | I'm an undergrad majoring in physical anthropology at Kent State and I was wondering if anyone here could explain to me dating techniques in a very simple manner. For some reason I do not understand the chemistry between the decay and how a time is calculated from the remaining substances. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | There are a
number of excellent files on this website found at The Age of the Earth
FAQs. Radiometric dating methods are discussed fully.
Anthropologists also use a number of dating methodologies other than radiometrics. You might wish to visit some of the links, grouped under 20 Dating Methods on my website. Basically, radiometric dating examines the isotopes of elements found in rocks. A radioactive isotope breaks down or decays over time (perhaps through several decay steps) to a stable "daughter" isotope. Unless the decay process has fully run its course, a sample will contain some percentage of parent isotope and some percentage of daughter isotope. For instance, in a simple situation, if the half-life of an isotope is 1 million years and your sample is 50% parent and 50% daughter, that sample is 1 million years old. If the ratio is 25% parent : 75% daughter it is two million years old. A simple chart, for each decay rate, can be consulted to determine the age of a sample, based on the isotope ratio determined by testing. You will find in the links provided above a list of many isotopes and the half-life or decay rate for each. There are many labs around the world to which samples may be submitted for testing. Often, multiple samples from a site under investigation are tested in two or more labs to guard against possible testing error. |
Feedback Letter | |
Comment: | Well, I have only one thing to say to make this short. Evolution is not the truth. Even Darwin himself before he died said that we WERE created by a supreme being. About the flood, they have found crustaceans on top of mountains, so explain that. If anyone is unsure about either evolution or creation just go read the book of Genesis and Matthew. You will find the truth about it. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: |
Darwin's authority in this matter is irrelevant; people don't accept the fact of evolution because ol' Chuck said so, but because the evidence is in its favor. Furthermore, he did not claim that we were created by a supreme being, but rather argued to the contrary. I don't know where you got this false idea. Is it because of the phony Lady Hope story, or because you've overinterpreted his one poetic mention of a creator in the Origin, which he is also on record as regretting? |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | Kuat |
Comment: | We're half
way through May and i still havent had my feedback fix from
March and in jonesing bad.
Ther say drug addiction is bad but i have the shakes cause i need my feedback fix MORE FEEDBACK MORE FEEDBACK MORE FEEDBACK MOREFEEDBACKMOREFEEDBACKMOREFEEDBACK i need my dose of creationist idiocy being debunked.....i need someone saying how stupid the archives are for thinking the earth is flat.......I NEED SOMEONE SAYING HOW SMART HOVIND IS AND HOW HIS ARGUMENTS WILL PUT ALL HIS DOUBTERS TO SHAME!!!!!!! |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: |
I apologize for the delay in getting the March feedback online. I was in Texas defending my dissertation and giving a presentation at a conference in San Antonio. Wesley |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | How can there be such a thing as creation/evolution controversy?? It's self-evident. Anyone who believes the creation nonsense deserves to be lion-food. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | You might
consider the difference between creation and creationISM.
And a less-strident argument might be used to support your
point of view, such as:
"No one who has not read the Bible or the Bard can be considered educated in Western traditions; similarly, no one ignorant of evolution can understand science." ~~ Steve Gould in I have Landed, p. 215 (Darwin and the Munchkins of Kansas). Also in Time magazine, Aug. 23, 1999. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | Paul |
Comment: | U R A BUNCH
OF DUMBASS F****** I HOPE U ALL DIE !!!!! THE WORLD IS
ROUND MOTHERF******!!!
P.S U SUCK |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: |
It's worth noting that this person made SEVENTEEN posts in a similar vein, all within a few minutes of each other. It's really rather pathetic. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | I am a
creationist, so naturally I will take the other side to
your arguments.
1. Do you accept that your side believes in certain assumptions that cannot be proven? I don't really want to dive into the flood of analyzing scientific data, but I am curious to your response on this point - I was reading through your evidences for evolution. To my mind all I see are similarities in design. It is a fair enough theory to suggest they evolved, but if they were created all your research fits well into a creationist theory too. 2. Have you seen this perspective? Do you agree or disagree? Why? Essentially science seems to be able to advance quite well regardless of whether you believe in creation or evolution. Again I can get myself into a neverending debate, but I'm willing to say the most significant scientific advancements were all from dedicated Christians who were creationists (or at least belief in a God - Newton, Einstien, Kelvin, Pasteur, Mendel etc..) (although you can be a Christian and an evolutionist too)You may disagree, but I would like to hear more on questions 1 and 2. (I know we can go a lot deeper on this so I'm happy for you just to disagree on that) Regards, Andrew. (science teacher, medical scientist, bible college student) |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | 1. I do not
take sides. I see no reason why creation and evolution (as
the method employed by the Creator to guide life processes)
are incompatible. I do, however, oppose the tenets of
creationISM which I consider to be a political movement
driven by a particularly narrow religious belief.
I think you are asking if science (rather than some side) deals in assumptions. The only assumption in science that comes to mind is that there is an observable reality in nature and the universe -- that what we see is real, not some fiction of our mind. For instance, an atom of oxygen is real, and has certain properties that are stable - in the past, present and future. As for "proof," that concept is best left for math and, perhaps, theology. Science deals in probabilities. I don't think we should consider (in biology or natural history) things to be "proven" or "true" in the sense of having arrived at some ultimate answer or conclusion that is never subject to change or correction. I do not know how we could ever be certain that there is not something more to be learned about anything. 2. Regarding design, I admit the possibility of thinking that one can see design in nature. But I can find no reason to presume that such possible design was imposed by a Creator rather than being the outcome of a natural process establish by or without a Creator. In fact, if we accept that a Creator is the logical reason for perceived design, I think we are obligated to ask ourselves some questions about this Creator or designer. When I see in nature evidence of bad design (something that could obviously be more efficient in operation) am I to conclude that the designer botched the job or was in some way incompetent? In real life we look for good design in competing products and we expect warranties against defect and premature breakdown. In other words, we rightly hold designers and creators to certain standards. May we do this also with regard to natural productions? Another problem when considering a designer in nature is that of disuse or elimination of parts of the design. I must ask myself why a designer would go to the trouble of creating a certain model of living organism, only to have that organism, over time, throw away much of the creative handiwork. Many parasitic organisms have done just this. Evolutionary theory provides answers to such questions. I can't seem to find satisfactory answers anywhere else. I agree that a Christian can be an evolutionist too. Here is another to add to your list, Theodosius Dobzhansky, a great geneticist and evolutionary thinker. Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | why is there so much fossil evidence of other mammals evolving, but not humans.And if chimps and humans shared a common ancestor, where when and why were we isolated, there seems to be large gaps in these timelines, considering that our intellect has (evolved)so fast in the last 10 thousand years.From caveman to landing robotrovers on mars, what stopped our ancestors from evolving so fast? |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | Actually,
there is much more fossil evidence for hominid evolution
and timelines than for many other mammalian lineages.
Please see this FAQ Fossil Hominids:
the evidence for human evolution and the wealth of
links provided there.
Don't confuse intellectual ability with cultural advancements. When our ancestors dispersed from Africa they were perfectly capable of adapting to different climates and making a living. We are certainly no smarter than those who invented agriculture, animal husbandry, metalurgy, art and storytelling. The quickened pace of discoveries had to await a few other inventions. The establishment of writing, libraries, the printing press, scholarly disciplines, advanced institutions of learning, science laboratories, the computer you use and other communication devices -- these allow us to move forward as never before. Most of these have come about in just the last 500 years or perhaps 20 human generations. They are not the products of biological evolution, but of human culture. |
Feedback Letter | |
Comment: | all you evolutionists are idiots!!!! |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | TO,
I have been teaching in public education now for 11 years. I love kids and I love science and history. I have a passion for the truth and I have found very little of it on your web-site. I am looking for a website where my students can get an un-biased look at origin science. I want my students to know the evidence for and against evolution so that they can decide for themselves. Your website is very deceiving because "Talk Origins" implies that you have an openminded approach to origin science. I take a very speculative approach to origin science in my classroom and the majority of my students are convinced that Intelligent Design is much more believable after evidence is brought forth from both sides. Censorship has no place in education and I am convinced that "Talk Evolution" I mean "Talk Origins" is stuck in a very naturalistic dogma that hinders the mind. Educator, Brady Mayo |
Responses | |
From: | |
Response: | Perhaps Brady would find www.talkdesign.org to be more useful to his students. |
From: | |
Response: | I hope some
of the qualified science educators in this forum will
respond to this supposed "Educator." It leaves me feeling
somewhat ill that a person posing as an instructor in
science education finds this website "deceiving," or that a
speculative approach (which "convinces" a majority of
students of Intelligent Design) is superior to sticking to
demonstrated facts.
My perception (admittedly based only on the testimony above) leads my open mind to understand that Brady Mayo confuses his anti-science bias, opposition to legitimate scientific method, and his personal pseudoscience agenda with a sound lesson plan to guide the instruction of students. A science classroom in which "anything goes" or passes for acceptable evidence is in itself a form of censorship. What is being censored is critical thought. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | Thank You
for an excellent website that continues to be excellent.
Chris Ho-Stuart wrote in March 2003 Post of the Month
I couldn't agree more. Atheism and creationism are essentially two sides of the same coin. They both use the God-of-the-Gaps -argument, or -fallacy, but in opposite directions. Atheists conclude that there is no God because scientific knowledge does not have enough gaps (any more) for God to exist. Creationists assert that numerous and insurmountable gaps must exist because God exists. The common ground of the two is the western over-rational attitude towards theological and spiritual issues. I think the Protestant reformation is to some extent responsible for that. About definitions: The word 'Creationism' should mean only "scientific" creationism; that is, a movement that tries to promote biblical literalism by empirical evidence (e.g. Flood burial of fossils) and by scholastic imagination in cases when the scarce information the Scripture actually has is not enough (e.g. the *true* meaning of the word "Kind" in Genesis, and imaginative calculations about how Noah's Ark was a feasible nautical project after all...). It should NOT mean that someone merely believes in God, Creation, the inerrancy of the Bible, etc., which is usually referred as 'biblical creationism'. If creationist views do not have any empirical or logical basis outside the Bible, then they cannot be an alternative to evolutionary science which has that basis very splendidly. It would be interesting to know how many of those who are categorized as 'creationists' in various "what do you believe in" -polls are really empirical creationists, and how many are just creation-believers who don't know or care about any non-biblical evidence dealing with God's work. In Finland many common religious people may say, when evolution is mentioned, that they believe in what the Bible says, and that's that. They don't try to change science; they ignore it. I have found very little point to argue with them, and usually they don't care about the topic either. The real creationists, most of which are members of some minor religious groups of American origin, are a completely different case... To me it really is an utter fallacy to assume that God is not involved in something that can be explained by natural processes. I think every Christian must believe that God acts continuously and in infinitely many ways in everyday world. God is Almighty, or not a God at all. Diseases and wheather have been explained by the same "naturalistic" science that the anti-evolutionists so fiercely curse. So, obviously God has retired from governing diseases and wheather, or has He? Could any Christian accept that thought? If not, there's no logic to assert that life's origin must not be natural in order to be God's work. A part-time-God that only makes divine miraculous interventions (apparently not very often) but nothing else is not the Lord I want to believe in. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | Thanks very
much for your comments, with which I basically agree.
You may be interested to know that I am an atheist. However, I don't consider this to be a matter of scientific proof, and I think the approach you describe does allow for a rational combination of theism with the empirical discoveries we all can make by application of scientific methods. |
Feedback Letter | |
Comment: | The Hebrews were a simple people, and Moses wrote the Pentateuch so any of them could understand it, hence, he wrote from the perspective of a human, since any human understands that perspective (hence "four corners of the earth"). However, Isaiah 40:46 says "He sits enthroned above the circle of the Earth.." (NIV). The Hebrew word "khug" means roundness and would equally apply to sphericity. There is taking the bible literally as I do, and then there is just ignorance... hence... "Like a lame man's leg that hangs limp is a proverb on the lips of a fool." (Proverbs)(NIV) |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | You state:
"There is taking the bible literally as I do, and then
there is just ignorance... "
My edition of the NIV says at Prov. 26:7 ~~ "Like a lame man's legs that hangs limp is a proverb in the mouth of a fool." The Jewish Publication Society Tanach renders this verse as ~~ "As the legs hang limp on a cripple, So is a proverb in the mouth of dullards." But let's consider also Prov. 26:16 ~~ "The sluggard is wiser in his own eyes than seven men who answer discreetly." (NIV) The JPS Tanakh renders this as ~~ "The lazy many thinks himself wiser than seven men who give good advice." Proverbs is one of many examples where, in the Bible, one cannot take things literally. Metaphors, parables and allegories always require thoughtful translation by the mind and rarely yield the same result to different individuals. I doubt seriously that you "take the bible literally." |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | Max Gordon Phillips` |
Comment: | A Google
search of anti-evolution websites lead to the following
lead-in quotes (out of hundreds and hundreds in total):
• "Evolution and the Bible are not compatible." • "Evolution breeds monsters like Hitler, Trotsky, and Stalin. Quick-read this article: Darwin's 'survival of the fittest' ideas." • "Evolution can not be proven is because it takes too long." • "Evolution can rationally be classified as one of the worst superstitions of all time." • "Evolution can't advance." • "Evolution CAN'T BE THEISTIC: design always points to a Designer." • "Evolution can't be true. This is a guide to help counteract the lies spread by evolutionists." • "Evolution can't happen: There Ought to Be a Law Against Evolution!" • "Evolution Can't Take the Heat." • "Evolution cannot be true. Something cannot come out of nothing." • "Evolution cannot take place in an open system such as the earth." • "Evolution Doesn't Add Up! BIBLICAL PERSPECTIVE: “In the beginning, God created." • "Evolution doesn't work." • "Evolution is a scientific hoax." • "Evolution is bogus!." • "Evolution is Dangerous Nonsense." • "Evolution is defective." • "Evolution is disappointing." • "Evolution is Impossible. All life contains DNA, so for evolution to be true the DNA molecule must first evolve." • "Evolution is irrational on pure mathematical grounds. Stay tuned for Why Evolution Is Stupid." • "Evolution is not the answer to man's origins." • "Evolution is not the best scientific answer." • "Evolution is theologically impossible." • "Evolution is theory and NOT fact as SOME would TRY to have us believe." • "Evolution is wrong." • "Evolution is wrong or unproven." • "Evolution is wrong. Evolutionary theory is a myth." • "Evolution is wrong. There never was a Big Bang, and stars cannot evolve from gas. Here are scientific facts to prove it." • "Evolution isn't a reasonable explanation for the origin of man." • "Evolution makes no sense. You don't get something from nothing." • "EVOLUTION ONLY IS CONTROVERSIAL AND SHOULD BE REPLACED WITH OBJECTIVITY." • "Evolution Scientists tell why evolution is not supported by the facts!." • "Evolution should not be taught as fact." • "Evolution should properly be viewed as religion." • "Evolution Shouldn't Be Preached in the Schools." • "Evolution simply cannot be true." • "Evolution: The Truth is Not in it!!." • "Evolution violates both these laws of science: the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics." • "Evolution will not fly." I’ve been studying the psychological phenomena associated with religious mystification for some time now and have come up with a theory: In the sense I use the word, “mystification” is the mentally-fixated quality or state of being perplexed or bewildered by factual reality that seems to contradict what one deeply believes to be true but at the same time being unable to recognize the associated cognitive dissonance as anything other than “noise.” Denial, then, becomes their only psychological recourse. Religious people, of course, may or may not be mystified. Those religious folk who are not mystified may adjust their beliefs to account for empirical, factual reality. For example, I, who call myself a God-fearing evolutionist, believe that God created evolution to be free (unguided) just as he created human beings to be free. But those who are in denial cannot modulate their rigid belief system at all. Hence, they invent or parrot rationalizations — as quoted above. What do you think of my theory? |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | Max, as I
understand the meaning of "theory," I am not certain that
your thoughts qualify to be considered as one. However,
when considering your stated beliefs as a "God-fearing
evolutionist" I am lead to admire your apparent conclusion.
Best wishes, Bob |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | Many
creationists and other anti-Darwinists make the statment
that humans and bananas share 50% of the same DNA. Of
course, this is true, as I've seen reputible scientists
report this. But, they go further to state that the 98-99%
similarity in DNA between humans and chimps is really
irrelevant since we share such a great amount of DNA with
the banana and, hell, we sure are a LOT different than a
banana.
Question: What is a good response to this seeming oddity? Obviously there is a large difference between us and fruit -- what else accounts for the difference besides just DNA? Thanks, Bradley |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | By one
measure, the range a variation within the human genome is
about .030 percent. If the difference between humans and
chimps is accepted to be 1.6% (98.4% comparable) then the
range in variation is more than 50 times greater between
the two species than within our species. Small differences
in overall DNA similarity account for very large apparent
or perceived differences.
Playing this numbers game, and if the 50% figure is true for bananas, we are more than 1,500 times different from bananas as we are from each other. Should I rest my case? If I am not mistaken, no banana genome has been decoded yet. While the human genome is now just recently "finished" you cannot yet get a precise count on the number of genes. So, in these early comparisons between distant genomes, we may not be comparing strictly apples with apples. In any event, it is becoming apparent that gross differences in genes probably cannot account for the gross differences we see in nature. Since genes code for proteins, and all living things are composed of proteins, there just has to be a great deal of overlap in protein use to make anything. I suspect that the differences in control genes guiding development may turn out to be a much more important factor in determining differences or similarities between organisms, than some quick-and-dirty method for gross comparisons of genomes. If this is true, we will simply have to wait for much more work in genomic analysis to be performed to better answer such questions. |
Feedback Letter | |
Comment: | I am curious
about explanations for the evolution of different types of
reproductive systems, such as changes from single cell to
multi-cell, asexual to sexual, etc. so: - how did the
different types of reproductive systems evolve? - did they
evolve in stages, so that they were compatible with
previous organisms (in the case of two-entity sex), if so
what fossil evidence do we have of this?
I have read an article that explained it (no, I can't find the reference, but if you want it I can have a poke around), but the explanation was flawed, so I am looking for a better one. Concerning the change from single entity sex to two entity sex, the article had the following explanation (I may be getting my terminology wrong here, feel free to substitute the correct terminology): Two entity reproduction offers an advantage in that genetic differences can build up in the redundant state, meaning that mutations would not necessarily be lost due to the organism being wiped out for being inefficient. This form of reproduction allows mutations to accumulate until chance brings them out in a single advantageous individual. However, this explanation begs the question. It does not offer an explanation of how the different reproductive systems emerged, rather it describes them as advantageous (and thus assumes they will occur because they are advantageous). I am interested in an explanation of the evolution of each change, however if this is too difficult an explanation of one change would suffice. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | Reproductive
systems are not dependent on number of cells except in the
sense that those involving complex organs will be
multi-cell. You can find both sexual and asexual
reproduction among single-celled organisms.
Another query dealing with the evolution of reproductive systems appears higher up in this file (see "Sometimes we ask the wrong question...."). You might read that to save me from repeating it here. I ended that response by stating "We simply do not have all the answers to some questions. The origin of sex and reproductive systems remain high on the list of incompletely answered questions in biology." Please remember that reproductive systems entail much more than sex. Complex organs are involved, and those organs can vary, even between very closely related species. Scientists working in the field of evolutionary development are beginning to gain insights into some aspects of reproductive evolution. Last November a fascinating article appeared in the journal Science regarding the evolution of the placenta in a genus of fishes. With the permission and assistance of Dr. David Reznick I posted this webpage that you may find of interest: Evolution of Placentas in Fish. As I point out, it is still "early days" in this research program. You have probably read of other fascinating cases in which some fish can, depending upon environmental or social conditions, actually change sex. In other cases (the Jefferson Salamander of the Appalachians comes to mind) a genomic change called polyploidy can result in a "new hybrid species" that produces only females. In this case, males of one of the species contributing to the hybridization are still necessary to stimulate reproduction by the females, but male sperm makes no contribution to the genetic makeup of the offspring. There are lots of seemingly weird situations in nature regarding sexuality and reproductive systems. In some cases these situations provide scientists with model animals for laboratory studies where it might be possible to engineer or reverse-engineer the genetic changes involved (as in the case of the placentas mentioned above). However, such studies can be very costly and time-consuming, and we will simply have to wait for opportunities for such research programs to be funded and carried out. It is to be hoped that some of these difficult puzzles with soon be solved. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | Hello, this is not so much a comment you can publish, but a few questions i desperately need answers to. I am a year ten student studying genetics in an advanced science course. I am trying to find a theory of original life, and have found the abiogenesis theory to be exactly what i am looing for. However, I am a little confused to say the least. I am very new to the course and there is a lot of genetic jargon i am not familar with. I was hoping you might be able to send me an e-mail which explains the theory abiogenesis in depth enough for me to research. I understand that the abiogenesis theory does not claim that simple chemicals made an enourmous jump straight to bacteria, or even that bacteria was the the first living organism. I have the most basic understanding one could possibly have. If you could please, I would very much appreciate it if you could include a more in depth explanation of what you call the "Hypothetical Ur cell" (I understand the diagram, I am more interested in where the cell came from). Thankyou Yours sincerely Mark Richardson |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | By the time
you receive this you will probably have found your answers.
But just in case:
This FAQ depicts the Hypothetical Ur Cell without much discussion. Since it is hypothetical the intent is only to suggest what might have been. The FAQ also presents considerable information about abiogenesis hypotheses. Another file that may be helpful is Progress in Abiogenesis Research: Post of the Month: January 2002. In some respects that file may be more directly help than a webpage I put together with a collection of links on Abiogenesis -- Origin of Life Research. If you have time to read the book The Spark of Life you will find a wealth of information about various abiogenesis hypotheses and research programs. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | S. Ferguson |
Comment: | I discovered
this web site some time ago, and I thought it was about
time I offered a "Thank You" for the volunteers who keep it
running. Although I had always been an evolutionist (for
lack of a better word- evolution is not an "ism"), I knew
very little of the details until I found your web site
about two years ago. My high school biology class (1997)
deftly sidestepped the issue of evolution; the closest we
got to discussing evolution was "Humans and certain apes
just happen to have some similar DNA." Not very
informative, is it?
A few years later I happened to stumble onto this wealth of information, and spent quite a long time reading the articles, following the links, and educating myself about the subject, with your help. It's too bad that my high school, which made a big deal about calling itself THE school for science and technology in the area, failed to educate its students about a rather important, and quite often severely misunderstood (especially by younger people, it seems), scientific theory. I hear that they have since improved, but that doesn't help those that have already graduated. Thanks again for a very useful web site. Keep up the good work. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | Thank you
for taking the time to post such nice comments.
After just a few months answering some of the Feedbacks it is easy to get a bit discouraged by some of the postings. Sometimes we tend to think this is just about confrontation, entrenched viewpoints and religious bias. I have no doubt that many people use the resources of this website to help educate themselves. When I attended high school (pre Sputnik), Darwin and evolution never came up in the standard biology class. This might be far less true today, but the sidestepping you mention is not uncommon. Also, some of the science we did learn years ago has been made more accurate by later findings. Learning does not stop at the schoolhouse door. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | Roney |
Comment: | Listening to creationist talk at work stating how evolution makes no sense and has no truth makes me think , evolution makes more sense than the thought that some critter made us from a mud ball |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | Maybe, just
maybe, they would listen to an argument such as:
"No one who has not read the Bible or the Bard can be considered educated in Western traditions; similarly, no one ignorant of evolution can understand science." ~~ Steve Gould in I have Landed, p. 215 (Darwin and the Munchkins of Kansas). Also in Time magazine, Aug. 23, 1999. It might open the door for you to present reasonable evidence with which to counter ignorance. The FAQs on this website provide much evidence to help you prepare for fact-based discussions. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | Hello. Some
time ago I asked Dr. C. Oxnard about his opinion on the
creationist use of his work. Here's his response (he gave
me permission to quote it).
Dear Atheologian The creationists often use my work in support of creation science. They do this by pointing to the fact that I disagree with the notion that Australopithecines were bipedal in the manner of humans. In this, they are correct. My work implies that, though the Australopithecines may well have been bipedal, it was not in the manner of humans, and they they could also operate very well in the trees. This was contrary to what my colleagues were saying years ago. But most of my colleagues have now come round to the view that this is indeed so. This is a functional diagnosis: what form of movement the Australopithecines were capable of - and obviously the form of the skeleton tells one something about function. When one applies this functional diagnosis to the question of genetic relationship, it implies that the Australopithecines were not intermediate between apes and humans, and also that they were not on the "direct" human lineage. They were nevertheless in the same part of the evolutionary bush as humans, but on twigs that went extinct. The creationists conveniently don't report this implication of the finding that they are happy to report, in other words, they use selective "quotations". Hope this helps Charles Oxnard |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | To maintain
the age of the earth or uuniverse at 6,000-10,000 years
seems to fly in the face of an extraordinary panoply of
evidence..from many different fields of science...
and the universality of the belief of the age of the universe being >10 billion years is so strong.... How could a thinking person believe in an earth (universe) of 10,000 years only??? |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | Thinking
people "believe" all sorts of things. The Earth being about
10,000 years old was at one time a reasonable assumption.
Even during Darwin's lifetime Lord Kelvin, one of the
better scientists of his day, could only find evidence to
support an Earth of 20 million to 100 million years of age.
New tools and methods of investigation were required to demonstrate that the Earth is 4.56 ± 0.02 billion years old. Recently, new technologies have narrowed the dating of the age of the universe to something close to 13.7 or 14.0 billion years. Many people have never heard of these factual advances in science, or they prefer to ignore them in favor of one or another traditional belief. Many persons learn some of these facts here for the first time. The Age of the Earth FAQs is a good place to start. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | A few months
ago I posted on this website. My complaint was primarily
about the attitude of the site that I found some what
unpleasent. I made a comment about some articles spending
too much time discrediting scientist that question
darwinism as the sole explanation for the origin of life.
Now I must admit that I was a little cheesed of at the
time, because I had just read an article posted in the
forum that was a response to Behe's "Darwin's Black Box",
that is Mr. Robinson's "Irreducible Complexity or
Irreproducible Irreducibility?" I also poked around and
looked at Behe's response to the article and previous
posts. I did not feel that the rebutle was handled well.
The paper did not solve the problem of irriducible
complexity it simply said that Behe doesn't know all the
facts and that I (bieng the author) do not think
irreducible complexity exists. Or at least that was my
reading of it. Please feel free to correct me. I did
however speak before exploring this site very heavily and I
apologize for my quick judgment. I do however stand by what
I have said about Behe, he does have a PHD and he is
speaking in his field in DBB, at least as far as I have
read, as I have only recently picked the book up. However
this comment is not about that. I have a question. I would
like to know what you (that is a general "you" meaning the
makers/maintainers of this site) feel is the core of the
creation vs evolution debate? Why is it that creationist
and indeed I would say all true christians hesitate to
accept evolution?
Thaks, Landon |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | Personally,
I see no conflict between creation, and evolution as the
method chosen by the Creator to guide life processes on
Earth. I do feel that creationISM is a political agenda
based on narrow religious viewpoints. But I essentially
feel that creation vs. evolution is a false
dichotomy.
A number of the volunteers here are Christians. Obviously, they accept evolution as factual science without perceiving it as a threat to faith. In the USA most evolutionists are also believers (with the great majority of them being Christians). Often, they are referred to as theistic evolutionists. Your comment about "all true Christians" strikes me as reflecting a depauperate view toward ecumenism and the body of Christ. I hope I am wrong about this. In any event, you might consider these comments: No one who has not read the Bible or the Bard can be considered educated in Western traditions; similarly, no one ignorant of evolution can understand science. ~~ Steve Gould in I have Landed, p. 215 (Darwin and the Munchkins of Kansas). Also in Time magazine, Aug. 23, 1999. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | In many old
Bibles there are dates in the margin beginning with 4004
B.C., the year the Earth was thought to have been created.
This date was calculated by the Bishop of Usher, a Bishop
who lived around the 10th century I believe. He is credited
with having counted all of the generations of humans
mentioned in the Bible, counting up all the life-spans
mentioned and determining an exact year for the creation of
the world.
I wish there was a web site which would show his actual calculations. I have never been able to find one even on Creationist web sites. Thanks. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | Here is a
summary
Excerpt from Ussher's Annals of the World, and here is
the complete text of
James Ussher's "The Annals of the World.".
Elsewhere on the web are files detailing the argument over who it was that published the actual hour of creation and what that hour was. It has often been misreported. The dates for Ussher's life are usually given as 1581-1656. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | Mathew |
Comment: | I think that
a lot of the belief in Creationism can be summed up with a
small story from my own life.
The night I turned 21, like most Americans, I got completely falling-down drunk. And, as a side effect, I was introduced to a lovely little effect, namely the drunken revelation. Mine was earth-shatteringly brilliant, and all around (except the stupid skeptical designated driver) who had the mind to think so agreed. In fact, it seemed to fit the facts of the matter SO much better than the orthodox beliefs. It was truly monumental. Then again, when your drunken revelation is that the entire history of the band The Cure can be explained if you just assume that Robert Smith and Simon Gallup were in a particularly shaky romantic relationship, you're kind of preaching to a small population. Needless to say, when I woke up the next morning wearing one boot, hung over to no end, and clutching a detailed flowchart (I wish I was kidding) of how all the albums post Disintegration are little more than stop gap measures in a dying love affair, I felt moderately silly. My friends, now turncoats, were even more venhement on my silliness. I mean, how, even in the flood of alchohol, could one BELIEVE such things? It's actually quite easy. Combine a lot of knowledge of one set of facts with a small knowledge of another, and carefully turn off any logic which would argue against your new pet theory, and you have a ready-made point for crusade. Creationists have combined knowledge of Genesis with slight knowledge of the past (often no more than what Hovind would teach) and have turned off the part of their brain that goes "That's SILLY!" with...I hesitate to say "faith", but it's the only word that comes to mind. Unfortunately, I fear that, for them to become sober, one needs to apply much more than a muzzy night's sleep on a friend's couch. In this regard, I thank you for your work. The Talk.Origins Archive functions as something of a cold blast of water. If only more people would stay still long enough to get drenched! |
Feedback Letter | |
Comment: | Literal creation can be disproven in so many different ways, it truly is not even funny. Evolution, on the other hand, can be proven in many different ways. E-mail me if you have any questions. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | OK. ummm.....at what address? |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | I am looking
for information regarding
Kent Hovind's claim of the early genetic load that
allowed Cain to marry his (nonexistent) sister. Hovind's
argument does not make sense to me and I was hoping someone
could explain it.
Thank you. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | I doubt we
can help you much. Hovind's claim seems to be based upon a
substantial misunderstanding of genetics. For instance, he
claims that "the information on our DNA gets more garbled -
it never increases in clarity." But "garbled" and "clarity"
mean nothing with respect to DNA. "DNA" is a class of
molecules that have a certain chemical structure (a
deoxyribose sugar, a phosphate group, and a nucleotide) and
that can be chained together in a double-helix structure.
One DNA molecule is no more "garbled" or "clear" than
another.
Hovind makes other statements here that are clearly false. For instance, he says that, with respect to birth defects, "It is only when both parents have the same mistake in their genes that their children manifest the resulting genetic problem." Huntington's Chorea, however, is caused by a single dominant allele, and thus is passed by only one parent. Hovind, quite simply, doesn't understand what he's talking about. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | I just discovered your web site, and it's EXACTLY what I've been looking for in identifying factual information & essays related to the evolution/creation debate. Keep up the great work--I know going through your site will keep me busy for quite some time, and it's been well worth it so far! --tony tackitt |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | Stefan Bresson |
Comment: | I have a few
quick questions. My biology book, which is creationist,
gave the following quote from Michael Denton's book
Evolution: A Theory in Crisis:
"The evolutionary basis of homology is perhaps more severely damaged by the discovery that apparently homologous structures are specified by quite different genes in different species..." 1. To what extent is this true, or is it even true at all? 2. Although my book stated that Denton was an evolutionist, I have trouble believing it. Is that possible? 3. If he is an evolutionist is this just another quote taken out of context? Thank you for your time. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | Dr. Denton
accepts some of the "traditional" views of evolution while
rejecting others. I cannot categorize him other than to
mention that he appears to have cooperated in the
production of reviews and interviews at Answers in Genesis
and ARN. AiG states that he is a non-creationist, whatever
that might mean.
See the FAQ Critique of Michael Denton's "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis" by Mark I. Vuletic on this website. In the "Other Links" box near the top of the page, the link to another review of Denton needs to be replaced. It may now now found at Evolution: A Theory In Crisis by Michael Denton. At the bottom of this page will be found links to several more reviews. The sloppy reporting by Denton (cited in these reviews) regarding the views of Darwin and other scientists does not give me confidence in those areas of his book where he should know more about the facts than does a layman. Homologous structures are those derived from a common ancestor. For instance, the avian hand (wing), the flipper of a dolphin, your hand and the wing of a bat are homologous. We do not expect that these structures arise from single genes (i.e., one gene does not a hand make). We should expect that, given the 300+ millions of years back to our common tetrapod ancestor, that the genomes resulting in our modern species have undergone considerable change and reshuffling of genes. |