Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | Of all the things I ever expected to read on Talk Origins, a thorough debunking of the Coso Artifact wasn't amongst them! Thank you for publishing a final deconstruction of that bit of woo-woo. "Ancient" artifacts like Coso have been soundly rejected for awhile, but having a concrete explanation for them is priceless. |
Feedback Letter | |
Comment: | I once coined a
term for the creationist argument that 'life, the universe and
everything' is too complicated to have evolved and must therefore
be created. I call this the "Here be Dragons" argument. This, of
course, is what ancient cartographers would write on the edges of
their maps to indicate unknown territory. Use it as you wish!
By the way, I once had a college Biology 101 professor at San Francisco State University (!) use this argument. This was his attempt to inject a creationist view into the Origin of Life part of the material. His analogy was of a "Hurrican blowing through a junk yard and a Boeing 747 being created by accident." After that section was complete, he took survey by hands as to which view the students preferred. By a MAJORITY of about 80% or more, the students preferred the creationist view! I was utterly disgusted. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | I don't see any
mention on this site of the big story "Scientists recover T. rex
soft tissue 70-million-year-old fossil yields preserved blood
vessels"
Has this been addressed anywhere on the site? Thanks, Ryan |
Response | |
From: | |
Author of: | Dino Blood and the Young Earth |
Response: | I hope that there will be something here soon. In the meantime you can go to our associated site, The Panda's Thumb, and read Dino-Blood Redux. [Since Dr. Hurd wrote this, a version for this Archive has been posted.] |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | Brett A. |
Comment: | In your response
to Claim CI100 you make three counter claims (selected from
many): in order to infer design we must know something about the
design process, design aims for simplicity, and life is nasty so
if life is designed so then is death and disease.
It seems incredible that you believe any of these claims. Your first claim sees to say that archaeologists have lied about many prehistoric "tools" and stonehenge since we have no knowledge of how they were constructed or what they were used for. Also, it is certainly not true that design aims for simplicity. Often the simplest soution to a problem is not the best. As a "simple" example, when a mathematician designs a search algorithm he certainly does not design the simplest possible algorithm (random search). Instead he chooses to use his knowledge of mathematics to design a much more useful and complex algorithm such as the simplex search. Also, a design may become more complex if it is meant to provide more than bare minimum function or to be more aesthetically pleasing. I do not believe that anyone will argue that computers or cars are deisgned. In the case of computers data corruption is not (always) designed, it occurs naturally. In the case of cars things break, they stop working properly because of normal wear and tear. How then can one say that if life is designed that disease and death must also be designed? |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | Archaeologists are
able to recognize primitive tools and such, even if they do not
always know how or why they were made, because archaeologists do
know something about the design process. For example, some
archaeologists have made flint tools themselves, so they know
what kind of fractures are made in the process and what kinds of
materials work best. You do not need to know everything about a
design process to recognize the design, but you must know
something about it. Without any knowledge of the designer or the
design process (the complete ignorance which "design" theorists
claim), everything in the universe looks equally designed.
To claim that death and disease merely come from corruption is plain ignorance of biology. Without death, life simply could not exist in anything remotely resembling its present form. Disease-causing parasites are highly sophisticated organisms, and much of that sophitication comes from parts that are essential to their virulence. See the recommended readings with CH321 for more details. My statement that design aims for simplicity is, admitedly, and oversimplification. (I was aiming for simplicity.) Most design aims to be as simple as possible, but that, of course, is subject to design constraints. A Swiss Army knife can have one blade that does three functions, but if you want twenty functions, you have to add more blades. Complexity also comes in when designers get lazy or careless, especially when adding something to an existing design when a simpler, more elegant design could be done by starting from scratch. But deisgners do not (usually) go out of their way to make things complex. Designers (usually) need to understand their designs, so they break necessarily complex designs up into simple modules which can be dealt with seperately before being assembled into the whole. The exceptions to simplicity as a design principle are artwork, which gets to be very complex only when it is nonfunctional as anything but art, and designs done by evolutionary mechanisms such as genetic algorithisms. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | As a biology student (just starting) I was wondering how the endogenous retroviral insertions are identified in the genome. Are their genes identical to viruses in the wild? If so, why are they inactive? |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | Endogenous
retrovirus insertions are short stretches of DNA that resemble
active retrovirus sequences but they are usually inactive. The
genome fragments can be easily recognized because they show
significant sequence similarity to known retroviruses. In most
cases there are so many differences that we can be confident that
the integrated retrovirus cannot be functional.
There are many different types of retroviral sequences in the human genome. The most common class is called LINES (Long INterspersed Sequences). There are several subclasses. One of the common subclasses is the L1 subclass - there are about 30,000 copies of this type of LINE in the human genome. You can view the human genome using the USCD Genome Browser selecting for a view that shows you repetitive sequences. Here's an example of an L1 LINE on Chromosome 9. If you click on the solid black bar in the middle of the image you'll see that it represents a stretch of DNA that's 6168 bp long. It resembles a retrovirus sequence but it has diverged by 3.6%. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | I have the unfortune of being a homeschooled 15 year old in a rabid Fundamentalist household. They subjected me to the pseudoscientific biology curriculum sold by abeka... I must say, the creationists write so convincingly that I became one of them for a period. But thanks to this website, I have regained control of my mind. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | Hi T.O,
some further references for the section on 14C in coal. I had cause to look into this myself (prompted by an email discussion) and also contacted Prof. Gove. Some of their work has been published and more has been submitted and it may be worth adding to the 14C in coal discussion page. R.P. Beukens, H.E. Gove, A.E. Litherland, W.E. Kieser, X.-L. Zhao. (2004) "The old carbon project: how old is old?", Nuc. Instr. Methods. Phys. Res. B 223-224: 333-338 They reference some work to be submitted in this article ([5] X.-L. Zhao, A.E. Litherland, H.E. Gove, W.E. Kieser, to be submitted.) and a paper I found particularly useful: G. Alimonti et al. "Measurement of the 14C abundance in a low-background liquid scintillator" (1998) Phys. Lett. B 422:349-358 This has a section on the formation of 14C in petroleum, ranking the causes (with references) as: 1. 17O n,a 14C 2. 14N n,p 14C 3. 13C n,g 14C 4. 11B a,n 14C 5. direct 14C emission from tripartition of 226Ra They specifically indicate that cause 4 (alpha transition of 11B to 14C) is dependent on the level of boron in the material. Boron is, of course, quite common in many coals and forms a large part of the fly ash at power stations. Cheers, Craig. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | Hi!
I just wanted to say thank you to every single person that has contributed to this site, be they "evolutionists" or "creationists". I am training to become a social psychologist, and I have a special interest in the public understanding of science and technology (as well as the scientific understanding of public opinion!). Sites such as these are neverending supplies of grist for my disciplinary mill, as well as being intensely intellectually stimulating in their own right. These debates, not only evolution vs creation, but also the debates within evolutionary theory literature, are in my opinion some of the most challenging in modern day society for their political, ethical and social implications. Sincerely yours, Christian Solberg, London, UK. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | I have a question
that I am having trouble finding the answer to. To any
fundamental creationist, this site would surely result in anger.
Thankfully, I am not fundamental. However, the evidence on this
website is overwhelming that evolutionary processes do happen. My
question is to anyone who can answer it. To verify the
spontaneous generation, has any experiment (verified) involving
non-organic (non-living) materials resulted in the creation of
even the simplest living thing. If so, you have convinced me. If
not, I'm sure people will continue trying until it happens. To
think that life spontaneously generated without any intelligent
intervention would be a stretch for anyone who thinks rationally.
The simplest answer tends (overwhelmingly) to be correct and I
simply cannot see how spontaneous generation is more simple than
intelligent intervention. Until I'm proven wrong of course :).
Thank You, Sean Baugh |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | A couple of
caveats first:
First of all, the origin of life is conceptually distinct from the evolution of life subsequent to that event. Bear that in mind. Second, the issue is not spontaneous generation. That has a particular meaning (the origin of modern or modern-like organisms from non-living matter) which is not relevant here. The correct term is "abiogenesis". The original living systems would necessarily have been pretty simple. The reactions would need to have included something like metabolism (acquiring energy for chemical reactions to sustain life), and replication (reproduction of some components to a high degree of accuracy), as well as compartmentalisation (the formation of cell-like structures). Metabolic processes that might have occurred in early life include the use of a sulphur reaction, which has been recreated in the lab, as well as seen in very primitive organisms. Other processes have been demonstrated in the lab as well. Replicating molecules have been produced in the lab under reasonable conditions that might have obtained in the early earth. They include protein-nucleoside hybrids as well as RNA, which, it turns out, can self-replicate. And the existence of compartments has been shown by Sidney Fox to occur under again realistic early earth conditions. What hasn't been done yet is to have all three processes occur in a realistic series and a single system. It is, in my view, only a matter of time; but you may be more skeptical. At the least all our research points to a natural origin of life. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | I am saddened by this recent feedback. That feedback saddened me. I am sad because of that feedback. You only had like 3 kooks! I only got one good laugh out of it! You're losing your form. |
Responses | |
From: | |
Response: | No, no, a
traditional haiku is supposed to have seven syllables, then five
syllables, then seven again. So your feed back should have looked
more like this:
Saddened by feedback I am Now you try. |
From: | |
Response: | Tsk, Troy...
where's the seasonal
reference?
Feedback saddens me |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | CA001
in discussing evolution as the basis for a worldview. the most important point here seems to have been missed from a philosophical view . i think you should be mentioning moores naturalistic fallacy http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-non-naturalism/#1 for a good discussion. anyway basically he argues that you cant get 'ought' from 'is'. so creationists are simply misguided in trying to say that evolution is bad because of its moral consequences. thats my philosophy student opinion on it anyway. |
Response | |
From: | |
Author of: | Evolution and Philosophy |
Response: | The Naturalistic
Fallacy is not about naturalism in the sense required, nor is it
a fallacy. Moore is arguing that there is no property of the
natural world that equates to the Good ("ought" form "is" is
Hume's). It would be a bit of a red herring, although I did refer
to it in the Evolution
and Philosophy FAQ.
The kind of Naturalism that creationists object to is either a metaphysical kind (there is only the natural world) or a methodological kind (we can only find out the natural world by science). It is the latter kind that science is committed to, and the former kind they think it is committed to. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | more on assorted
creationist claims that you offer rebuttals to.
i just checked the hitler one as it seemed too ridiculous to ignore. surely all you need to say is "arguments ad hominem don't count" that would apply to all of the "X supported evolution and was an evil git" arguments put forward by creationists. otherwise good rebuttals but that should be the first point on the list in my opinion. |
Response | |
From: | |
Author of: | Evolution and Philosophy |
Response: | I agree, but ad
hominems can legitimately be applied in cases where the
weight of the conclusion depends on the authority or character of
the person making the claim. For example, if the pope says that
Christianity always leads its followers to live a moral life, it
would be entirely appropriate to show that he himself hadn't.
This is not the case here, as you note. Evolutionary theory makes no moral claims, and the truth of the theory does not rely on whether it leads to good consequences or not. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | Mark B. |
Comment: | The article by
Laurence Moran entitled "Evolution is a Fact and a Theory", that
is posted on your website, makes an interesting statement. A
sentence in that article says, "It is a FACT that all living
forms come from previous living forms".
Question: What lifeform did the very first living form come from? In his statement, it seems to me Mr. Moran has argued FOR the existence of an intelligent Creator outside of our time/space domain. Otherwise, somewhere up the chain, life must have come from non-life. Mark B. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | The sentence you
are refering to ("It is a fact ..") comes from an article by R.C.
Lewontin. I agree with Lewontin that it is a fact that all modern
living organisms have evolved from earlier ancestors.
Your question addresses a different point. You are asking whether there is a common ancestor of all modern living species. The answer is "yes," the evidence for a common ancestor is overwhelming and it's accepted by all scientists who understand it. (I need to add a minor caveat. It is possible that there were two or more common ancestors that swapped genes during the early stages of evolution.) Everybody agrees that the first primitive common ancestor arose from non-life. Most scientists would argue that this process was entirely natural. This is especially true of the majority of scientists since they are not religious. Some religious scientists believe that God had a hand in creating the first living organism from non-living material. I can assure you that neither Professor Lewontin or I were arguing in favor of an intelligent Creator and there's nothing in Lewontin's statement that supports such a claim. |
Feedback Letter | |
Comment: | This site provided me which excellent information on Charles Darwin's the origin of species, and therefor helped me to gain an award for my contributions to science lessons at school. An excellent site for people wanting to browse works, of for those who need references. |
Response | |
From: | |
Author of: | Dino Blood and the Young Earth |
Response: | Glad we could help. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | Just as I expected, my feedback was NOT selected...probably due to that three letter word that was included in my feedback. I am sure that I've been labeled as a fundamentalist, but I just happen to see the bigger picture. Utilizing human developed science to debate some point or attempt to debunk a specific fact is still focusing on the small picture. All the man made excuses that purport that DNA is not intelligent are absurd. Is DNA not instructional? Is code utilized in instruction? Is intelligence required for code, hence instruction. The evolutionist is truly the most "faithful" of all people to "believe" in something that does not have any evidence of being "true". Will the "true fundamentalist" please stand up. The truth of our existence is out there to any who are willing to see the "bigger picture". |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | In February 2005,
The Talk.Origins Archive received exactly 150 submissions from
the feedback system. None of them were signed as "Don McInroy" or
any obvious variant of that name.
There was a feedback that asked about the DNA is a language claim. But that clearly was not submitted by Mr. McInroy. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | I just found this
site. It was recommended to me by another acquaintence.
It's great! You guys are doing a wonderful job in the fight to eradicate ignorance and seek truth. As a freethinker I welcome the opportunity to encourage your efforts. You see, I was a fundamentalist, evangelical, creationist for over 30 years until I "saw the light." The amazing thing is that I didn't even know I was blind! Without being demeaning I need to say that blind devotion to an archaic religious dogma is quite debilitating. You simply act and speak the way you think you are supposed to and before you know it you aren't thinking for yourself at all. Yet, when anyone challenges you, your response is based solely on devotion to scripture you don't even understand and have never bothered to question. Isn't that sad? The main thing that woke me up was realizing that the Bible was simply not the source of all truth and that it in fact, contradicted itself. Since the Word of God was supposed to be infallible I couldn't quite accept this revelation at first and had to go through a long period of "soul" searching before I realized how wrong I had been. Now I have a new desire to fight ignorance and promote evolution and truth whenever I can. Needless to say this has made me some enemies too. Unfortunately many of my former friends and even some family members don't know what to think of me anymore. According to them, I've "lost the faith." But if I have, then I've found freedom! I know this sounds like some sappy testimonial but I really mean it. After such a long time of believing in myths and fairy tales, the truth is so refreshing. It makes you want to go out and change the world. In fact I've heard the same sort of language used by people who have "been saved" and have "found Jesus." In reality it just plain feels good to not have to submit to archaic ideas about God and religion and to really pursue truth they way it should be. I've rambled on for quite long enough, so I'll close for now. Thanks, again, for the website and keep up the good work. Ignorance will not be eradicated in a single generation. It will take a collective effort of all of us to achieve the goal of logic, reason and sanity in an insane world. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | First off, love this site and all the info one can find here. But I have a question. Did Darwin ever write in any of the editions of "Origin of Species" the following line..." having been originally breathed by the Creator"? It has been said that it is contained in the last chapter, of his book but I have not been able to locate this line in any edition. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: |
Yes he did write this, it is from the final sentence of the book: There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved. The interesting thing is that this is how the sentence read in the second and all subsequent editions of the Origin of Species. The first edition was slightly different: There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved. Darwin, apparently concerned by accusations that his work might be considered irreligious, added “by the Creator” to the sentence in the second edition. Some antievolutionists will actually reverse this story (I personally witnessed Duane Gish of the ICR doing this) and claim that Darwin removed the words “by the Creator” from the later editions of the Origin of Species. This is not the case. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | I was surfing the net, looking for some info for a school work, and I found your site. I think it's very good, you have some really hard work to keep the site updated, and I just wanted to congratulate you for the web page! Very good work! :) |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | i have a question, and I hope you will answer it! Is evolution a theory? If you say yes, then how did God create man? and why are monkeys or apes still alive if it took millions of years to evolve? wouldnt the monkey or ape have died before it fully evolved? It says in the Bible that God created man in six days and on the seventh he rested, so how could we have evolved if we were all equally created by God in our own special way? please answer my questions thank you! |
Response | |
From: | |
Author of: | Evolution and Philosophy |
Response: |
Feedback Letter | |
Comment: | I have noticed
that, in response to Russell
Humphrey's cosmology, Talk Origins has used old-earth
creationist sources. I find this somewhat disturbing to cite
articles in the Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal that did not
have proper review (i.e. not peer-reviewed by a more diverse body
of academics than simply fanatical creationists who want to "play
science").
I guess my problem is that, if an OEC had piped up with something new, we evolutionists would have been scrutinizing it extremely carefully. However, since this citation of OEC saves us some work in doing so, we accept it. I am wondering if there are mainstream scientific treatments of Humphrey's cosmology. Otherwise, great site! I have been a fan for many years. Cheers, Martin |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | I Appreciate the time you spent on this wonderful website. I found it by asking Jeeves, "How old is the planet Earth"? I am writing this comment to perhaps release some of the anger and frustration I've felt during my life concerning religion and it's claims. Especially in the last 5 years. I rarely speak out against religion, mainly out of respect for the people who choose to believe in creationism and god as the creator of our planet, but since America seems to be heading toward a theocratic form of government I have become more vocal. Even at times disrespectful toward those who are trying to impose their beliefs by shredding the U.S. Constitution. What I tell people who try to "convert" me is the following statement: If our life expectancy was say, 1000 years would you still believe the earth was flat, even today? These crusaders are stunting our growth. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | A friendly historian, theologan, & geographer |
Comment: | Please explain to us [the readers] how come "Lucy's" knee cap was found 22miles & 200' deeper than the rest of the skelliton. Also explain, in detail, how come all of the "prehuman ancestors" skuls are smashed in the back & why a single tooth of a wild pig could possibly be mistaken for a "Missing link" (Nebraska Man). I fully understand that this site is based on mainstream opinions & atheistic vew points & I understand if they can not give me a good explanation for these fax pas. |
Responses | |
From: | |
Response: | Well, I can answer
a couple of your questions. First, not all fossil skulls are
smashed in the back. Some are pretty well intact, but most have
suffered some damage. These things are thousands or even millions
of years old, and have not been kept in vaults, remember. The
world is an unforgiving place, and things happen (like rocks fall
down hills).
As to "Nebraska Man", you should know that pig teeth and human teeth are actually quite similar. This is not too surprising given pigs and humans are both omnivores, and thus have a generalist dentition. It's one of the reasons so many schools use fetal pigs for dissections in biology laboratories. Second, the tooth was quite worn. That happens as they animal ages, especially with a diet composed mostly of tough vegetation. If you have a dog or cat, you can verify this wear and tear for yourself. Finally, if you read up on the sequence of events, the tooth was tentatively identified as coming from a hominid. After closer examination, and an examination of similar teeth from a variety of species, paleontologists at the American Museum of Natural History revised to source. |
From: | |
Response: | See here for the details of why the claim about Lucy's knee is false and its repetition dishonest. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | I have a problem
with this article:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/genetic-drift.html I think it really overemphasizes the importance of genetic drift, while making a rather poor assumption that there are few experimental test of selection in the field. I myself have witnessed very good experimental evidence of selection in the field, for example experiments on predation vs. sexual selection pressures in peocilliids in the field done by Dr. John Endler. There are hundreds of such studies. even logically, it is ludicrous to assume that genetic drift could be more important than selection under most circumstances. whether you are talking about biological selection pressures such as competition, predation, parasitism, mate choice etc., or physical ones, I can't think of any case where an argument could be made that on average (in a given environment say) that genetic drift would play a significant role. At best, it would apply in very few circumstances. In fact, most evolutionary biologists i have ever worked with would use genetic drift as a kind of "null hypothesis". I am very unclear as to why this argument is presented here at talk.origins in the fashion it is. I would think the far predominant view, and that supported by the evidence, would be that selection is a far more important mechanism on average than drift. I'd be willing to bet that those who favor drift as a predominant mechanism are those who mostly model for a living, rather than experiment in the field. bottom line, you should present this in a more balanced light; as it is presented, it looks like a predominant argument. thanks |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | The article is
somewhat outdated ... I'll try and post a more modern version.
The point I was trying to make was not that there is NO evidence for natural selection. That would be silly. My point was that there is much less direct evidence for selection than most people realize. This is still true. The importance of random genetic drift is difficult to grasp if you are only interested in adaptations. However, there is no doubt whatsoever concerning the data. The vast majority of allelic differences in humans, for example, are neutral by any definition you prefer. Most of them are outside of any known genes. This means that their frequency in the human population is only influenced by random genetic drift. They are invisible to natural selection. Studies of homologous proteins in different species reveal that the vast majority of differences have no effect on function. Those difference must have become fixed in the species by random genetic drift. Indeed, the whole idea of a molecular clock, which ticks stochastically, depends on evolution by drift. There aren't many scientists who deny the importance of random genetic drift. Almost all modern evolutionary biologists recognize that drift is the predominat mechanism of evolution. The reason why I wrote the FAQ is to explain to people like you that there's more to evolution than natural selection. This is important because we don't want evolutionists to make mistakes when they defend evolution. It makes us look bad to the the anti-evolutionists. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | It has been said
in many articles that the earth was formed 4.6 billion years ago
like it as a fact, when in fact that statement has not been
proven and has no way to be proven. The word Evolution is a very
tricky word in fact there are about six different meanings or
corresponding definitions or terms that go along with that very
word. Hi my name is Andrew Torsky I am an Airman in the United
States Air Force. I happen to be a computer geek but also a
researcher on creation vs evolution using scientific laws. Laws
that are pretty much absolute and that are proven and can be
tested used and observed. There is a big difference between
science and evolution. Science is actual facts and evolution is a
theory. Just like creation is a theory. there is a difference
between the three. Science is all facts, all laws and can be
proven. Creation and Evolution have there differences, in fact
they are the exact opposite of each other. But here is another
difference. Creation is supported by scientific facts, not
proven, but supported. Evolution is supported by my tax dollars
and taught in public schools and drilled into the human minds of
every kid in America today. Which is why most people in the
united states believe in evolution. Did you know that Hitler said
“if you tell a lie loud enough long enough and often
enough, the people will believe it”. I believe in the
bible, the one that God inspired men to write. There is nothing
that can be proven wrong. Not to be rude or anything, but if you
think that you have found something that you think is a
contradiction, or is wrong or something to that nature, let me
know and I will get back to you with an answer. Anyways as I was
saying… if you look at some simple things such as the
human population/growth curve chart it shows that human
population started around 4400 years ago. That would be one
example that supports creation. Another one would be the age of a
couple things in this world such as the oldest tree. Its younger
than 4400 years old. The oldest dessert is younger than 4400
years old. If the earth is billions of years old, why isn’t
there an older tree somewhere? Or an older desert? Well that is
simple to answer, but ill get to that a little later on in this
email. Did you know that life on earth could not exist no more
that 25,000 years ago? Why is that? Because the magnetic field
would have been so strong any earlier that it would have burned
everything on the earth. It would be just as bad as living on
Venus. Another fact is the earth is slowing down at a pretty
constant rate. If you go back too far the earth would be spinning
so fast that the dinosaurs that text books say were there, would
have been flung off the earth. And the moon. Its leaving us at
the rate of 1 inch per year. If you go back too far in
time…. The dinosaurs that texts books say were here would
have drowned a couple times a day because the moon controls the
tide. Now see this supports creation because if you go back only
6,000 years which is the estimated time creationists say earth
was created, these few things would not be a problem. The
magnetic field would have not effected life on earth, the earth
would not be spinning too fast and the moon was about 500 to 600
feet closer to the earth. But in order to say that there
isn’t a God somewhere out there, Evolutionists had to come
up with a theory on how the earth got here on its own and how we
evolved. The bib bang theory was proven wrong a while ago. It
makes no sense. You are a scientist right? Or at least a
researcher. Well there is a few laws you should refer to before
spreading that theory around. 1st law of thermal dynamics
“matter cannot be created or destroyed”. This means
that everything was here from the start, or if you are a
creationist, you would believe that it was created by God who
would be powerful enough to do anything with this universe.
Another law is “the law of conservation of angular
momentum”. If you know what this law means if throws the
whole big bang theory off. Especially if this is how our solar
system came to be. Because two of our planets spin backwards, and
a few of the moons spin backwards showing no intentions or record
to predict its rotation on a different axis.
The Bible is supported very much by science and its laws people either dont read and understand enough details of the bible enought to understand that or they dont understand or know science enough to apply it to the bible. Well im sure this is enough for you to read, if you even consider reading something from an 18 year old who might not know anything. but let me make clear to you that I don’t want this t oturn into a email war. Im just trying prove this theory (not fact) of the earth being billions of years old, wrong. But feel free to email me back and I will be happy to respond. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | I am sorry to
break the news that your religious beliefs are based largely on
lies. About contradictions in the Bible, for example: Try to
arrange the four Gospels into a single account that is faithful
to all four. You cannot do it, because the accounts are
contradictory in several details. That does not mean the Bible is
wrong, but it does show that a literal reading of it is wrong.
The evidence you give is a classic creationist disinformation. None withstands scrutiny, and I urge you to scrutinize it for yourself. Here is some information to get you started:
Your Hitler quote is appropriate, if ironic. You have been lied to, repeatedly and on many subjects. The creationism that you have been exposed to often drives people away from religion when people discover its dishonest foundation. You may want to read some of the personal accounts at Glenn Morton's web site to see how others have dealt with the disillusionment. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | Robert Cooper |
Comment: | I've been trying to follow the Kansas ID 'trial' and its been rather difficult getting any details. Have you considered a page (or link) devoted to these official efforts to erode the standards of education? |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | For current news on the politics and science of creationism and evolution, see The Panda's Thumb, a companion blog site. The National Center for Science Education carries evolution/creationism news on their web site, too. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | Edward |
Comment: | This definition of
evolution is given by VonRoeschlaub in your article "God and
Evolution":
"The theory of evolution: A number of theories that explain, to the best of current knowledge, by what mechanisms evolution occurs." Elsewhere on your website, the following statement is made: [Stephen Jay]Gould is stating the prevailing view of the scientific community. In other words, the experts on evolution consider it to be a fact." Question: Is there debate or confusion within the evolutionary science community over the meaning of the terms "fact" and "theory" and the application of these terms? Given these statements, would you have a problem with inclusion of the proposed Georgia science textbook sticker, particularly if the statement "regarding the origin of living things" were removed? The proposed sticker states: "This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered." Please respond. Thank you. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | The Georgia
textbook sticker is dead wrong. It's just one more example of the
ignorance of Creationists.
Evolution is a fact. The Theory of Evolution is a theory about how evolution occurs - just as VonRoeschlaub says in the "God and Evolution" FAQ. This means that evolution is both a fact and a theory, just like gravity, economics, and continental drift. This is explained in Evolution is a Fact and a Theory. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | why are baby marsupials, such as kangaroos and koala bears, called joeys?? Thanking you in advance- Sincerely, Bonnie GErladis |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | The Oxford
English Dictionary offers this etymology:
However, a "joey" was also a slang term for a threepenny piece, and typically marsupial babies are very small, so perhaps it has something to do with that. Rhyming slang was very common in Australia, and often followed the London patois. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | In February 2003
Feedback the question was raised if I was a “stealth
agent” seeking to sabotage Talk.origins regarding my
recommendation of Del Ratzsch’s “The Battle of
Beginnings: Why Neither Side is Winning the Creation-Evolution
Debate” in the September 2000 Feedback.
The answer is no. I am not seeking any such sabotage. I presented Ratzsh’s book as “one of the best and most objective books I have ever read on the subject (including books written by both sides),” in response the person attacked not the actual book, but the author. Even then however (as John Wilkins wisely pointed out) that, “speaking at a creation conference does not automatically make someone a creationist.” He did take part in the book “Mere Creation,” but even then is actual role did not present much material that evolutionists would dispute. That is, he focused on the concept of design in general (e.g. how we attribute artifacts to be designed) rather than arguing for intelligent design in biology per se. He wants the new ID movement to avoid the pitfalls if its predecessor (the traditional creationist movement) and he believes they will listen to what he has to say. IIRC, Ratzch claimed in the book itself that he did not pretend to know which side (in the creation-evolution debate) is correct, though his views may or may not have changed since he wrote the book. But in any case, the book itself seems to be one of the best and most impartial one I’ve ever seen on the issue. Ratzsch criticized both sides for the mistakes they’ve made, and does not advocate (in the book) one side over the other. For this and other reasons, I still consider the book to be a “must-read” for anyone interested in the creation-evolution controversy. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | I have found out some interesting science through my research about evolution and creation. first of all, the dictionary meaning for air is wind and breath, and the english dictionary says the word spirit is energy, but to find out what kind of energy, I crossreferenced to the Greek dictionary, and it said spirit is also wind and breath, and both wind and breath according to the english dictionary are air, so this means that spirit is air, and that air is spirit, and since air is not the spirit of a man, it can only be the spirit of God, and science says, air is gases, and it was a gas bubble that formed and expanded and formed the universe, and so air origineated the universe, and the dictionary says the word GOD means the originator of the universe. now science says, air could not support life at first, then when it formed oxygen and other components and it changed to become where it could support life so it went from a primitive form to a higher form, and the dictionary says, the meaning for evolve is to go from a primitive state to a higher state, so air evolved and Darwins origin of species has proven that lifeforms evolve, therefore air is not just a spirit, but a lifeform. science has a theory that is used in modern atomic theory today that asserts that air is the leading element in the universe, and that it compresses and forms heavy matter, and air contains atoms that contains a nucleus that contains protons, electrons, and neuterons, these protons and electrons are what makes electricity, and when the electrons and protons , which are positive and negative charges, they cause an explosion, thus the big bang was caused by air as well. now when the explosion happened it caused the air to compress amd matter was formed. and the electrical force caused a huge storm that formed a black hole, and it was like a huge tornado in space, and it brought the mass together, and life on earth was formed when a comet or asteroid which is left over matter from the big bang, hit the waters of the earth, and all this was caused from the air compressing from the explosion of the big bang, therefore air formed the mass that formed the planets, the sun, the moon, and the asteroids and comets, and the chemicals that were in the comet or asteroid that hit the waters and formed amino acid, and mixed with the mudd in the bottom of the oceans and seas, and formed life, so air is even responsible for life on earth, and since air is the spirit of God, for the bible says, God is a spirit, then God created or origineated the universe, and since air is proven by science to exist, then science has proven that God exists. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | To address the
contention that a Flood could have occurred, or not, I submit
that if it did it could been done in only one way, there being no
other way scientifically possible if the Biblical account
conditions are to be met: worldwide darkness, water rising and
falling rather rapidly.
The water would have to come from and return to an off-earth source. If Earth were surrounded by equilateral triangle spacecraft joining to form a geodesic dome, darkness would result. If the craft converted energy into hydrogen and oxygen and ejected it at high levels it would form ice crystals and fall to warm lower levels where it would combine as rain. It would have to be removed by gravity beams until salt water was detected, being converted back into energy. The Flood account timeline is absurdly short for any 'natural' explanation, and absurd in toto as a 'naturally' explained event. Restoration of land animal creatures would require that they be recreated in numbers sufficient to allow reproduction, the same applying to fish species that die off. This is submitted only as an exercise in pure logic devoid of "beliefs". It does, however, require acceptance of the existence of a space dwelling culture having a consuming interest in Earth and its 'human' population, for some unknown reason, to eventually be learned, if true. Finis. |
Response | |
From: | |
Author of: | Dino Blood Redux |
Response: | Do not adjust your set. We are in control now.... |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | Hi, I am a
16-year-old biology student from a Catholic school in Minnesota.
My class is currently reading sections of Jonathan Wells' book
Icons of Evolution. Each student was assigned one
chapter to write an essay on, and I received chapter five,
Haeckel's Embryos. Although I am not usually particularly
interested in science, I found reading Wells' book to be
fascinating; he brings out all of the flaws of Darwinian theory
that I, as a religious individual, simply could not gloss over. I
came across this website while doing some extra research for my
essay, and I wanted to defend Wells on one instance where I think
PZ Myers read incorrectly.
"...in what I consider the most amusing line in this entire chapter, Wells expresses indignation that 'Some textbooks, instead of reproducing or redrawing Haeckel's embryos, use actual photos.' How dare those nefarious textbook authors use photographic data to support their ideas!" I believe Myers read this comment of Wells' incorrectly. Wells has a slightly humorous side to his writing, and putting the word "photos" in Italics seems to me to be sarcastic. I would imagine Wells would say the last comment of the above quote, "How dare..." in a sardonic voice in regard to Myers' statement. It is not, as Myers states, indignation. Thank you for your time. I generally tend to agree with Wells and the proofs he offers, but I am always open to other interpretations. Again, thank you. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | If Wells were
simply being humorous, that would have been a brief comment that
went no further. However, check the appendix of the book, where
he presents his scorecards for various textbooks: one of the
criteria he uses to mark books down is the use of photographs to
illustrate the similarity of embryos. He obviously takes it
seriously enough that he condemns books that use photos.
I suggest that you take a look at the FAQ on Wells. He is an exceedingly poor biologist who exhibits some shockingly bad scholarship -- although one should not attribute to malice that which is best explained by incompetence, his record of distortion is so awful that it's inescapably intentional. And I must say that I'm rather shocked that a Catholic school is using Wells' dreadful tripe in a classroom. My experience with kids from Catholic schools is that they've usually been given a solid grounding in the basics of biology, and haven't wasted much time on that kind of creationist garbage. You have managed to reduce my respect for the Catholic school system in Minnesota. Should I say thanks? You might mention to your teacher that you need some instruction in the scientific method, as well. Science doesn't deal in "proofs". |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | First, let me say I love what you’re doing here, and appreciate the hard work that goes into this web site. My daughter is presently enrolled in a school that uses the Core Knowledge curriculum and I was trying to see what they would be teaching her about evolution, when I came across this lesson plan. "http://www.coreknowledge.org/CKproto2/resrcs/lessons/01_7_Evolution.pdf" I understand this is from 2001 and may have been changed, and have not had the opportunity to verify that this is what is still being used. But am I wrong in thinking that the examples for theories on page 12 is an attempt to make theories look like foolish guesses? |
Response | |
From: | |
Author of: | Dino Blood Redux |
Response: | Over all the
lesson plan looked good to me. But the page you pointed out, #12,
did seem a bit odd. Teachers have much more to bring to the class
than can be written in a lesson plan (else why bother with
teachers). So, I have no real means to know how that teacher
planned to use that page. (Yeah, I know it was in the "Lesson
Plan"), but that is comparing an outline to the final novel).
If you are concerned, I suggest two actions; 1) talk with your child about their school work- you should anyway, 2) talk with the teacher about your specific concern- the format should be: Hi, I am ____'s Father. I was reading your lesson plan PDF and I was confused by page 12. Would you please let me know how you impliment this? Thanks. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | I just ran across the American Association of Physics Teachers' statement on teaching evolution. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | I stumbled across some fundamentalist site and they stated that the Miautso people (or Miao) in China have records indicating they came from one of Noah’s children after the flood. I found this interesting and Googled for more information – what I found were many more religious sites with the same information, treating this as proof-positive that everything they choose to believe is in fact "true". I even tried searching this on TalkOrigins, which I respect and refer to quite often, but found no mention or refutation of this assertion about the Miautso people. I am wondering, have you heard this and does anyone have more information or links to refer? Thank you! |
Response | |
From: | |
Author of: | Problems with a Global Flood, 2nd edition |
Response: | The Noah-like Miao/Miautso flood stories probably all derive from a translation by the Christian missionary Edgar A. Truax, Genesis According to the Miao People. The Miao or Miautso are also known as Hmong. Web searches for a Hmong flood reveal a quite different flood story, such as this flood myth in which the survivors are a boy and his sister, floating in a large drum. They have an incestuous marriage and give birth to an egg-like "baby" which, when cut into pieces, gives rise to other humans and all other living things. Such a myth has much in common with other flood myths from China. Given all these facts, it appears Traux's "translation" comes more from the missionary than from the Miao. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | I just wanted to thank you for this invaluable resource. I constantly refer to it to answer questions that come up in talks with family and friends. You have helped to supply the answers to creationist challenges, and I applaud your efforts. Keep up the excellent work. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | Unprofessional journalism is what I've seen on this site. You attack Dr. Hovind with insinuation, and malice, but not the truths he presents. No effort is made to discuss these truths. Why do I bother emailing you? Some day you may see the need to repent of your sins and allow God to forgive you and your attitude. The only other option is eternity in Hell. It's either God's way or the hot way. Why not answer the evolutionary reason (there isn't one) that polystrata fossils exist? Give one good explaination for them. I'm sorry I should feel sorry for you and pray that God will some day allow your eyes to be opened. The bible says that Satan will send a strong delusion (that you'll believe a lie). Could it be that the THEORY of Evolution is that delusion? Have you ever told a lie? If so then you are a liar just like the rest of us. Have you ever stolen anything? If so you are a thief. Have you ever looked on someone with lust. If so then you are an adulterer. By God's rules (the 10 commandments) you are a sinner. Do you think you'd go to heaven if you die? Do you think you're a good person. Didn't we just establish that you are a lying, thieving, adulterer? Really, If we are honest, with those qualifications you (we) are doomed to a Hell fire eternity. But God made a way that we could be with him in heaven if we only repent (turn away and forsake) of our sins, and accept his gift to us. Christ died in our place on the cross so we don't have to. The bible is a historically accurate book. People and places and events in the bible have been substantiated by the secular world. Jesus actually walked this earth. If Jesus really walked this earth (and he did), and he was really God in the flesh (He said He was), then don't you think that maybe He knows what is best for us, and that He loves us. He died for you, and then rose again from the dead to prove that He is who He said He was. Verily, Verily I say unto you; except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | According to the
referrer, Mr. Witt's
reply is to the No Answers in Genesis
web site which is completely independent of this web site but has
a link to our feedback page made from its homepage.
Still Mr. Witt's charges are false. Neither we nor "No Answers in Genesis" ignore Hovind's claims in any way. We have an entire section on Kent Hovind that includes a detailed refutation of many of his arguments as well as to links creationists who also find Hovind's arguments lacking. The charge that we can't give an explaination for polystrate fossils is also false: the geological explanation has been known for well over a century. See our "Polystrate" Fossils FAQs. And one has to find it amusing that someone who rants that our side does not address Hovind's "truths" devotes most of his message to a threat of Hell fire. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | just a quicky.
firstly, good site, one of my faves. i have a quick point. given that most philosophers now think that in response to scepticism you have to adopt a position of fallabilism, it seems to me that although evolution is a 'fact',, which i do think it is in that i thinks its 100% true, we might never be able to 'know' its a fact with certainty, since any argument to certainty falls prey to sceptical arguments. i know that you can invoke the closure principle, and IBE as an escape but even so you are still admitting the possiblity of fallibilty. obviously this holds just as much for any belief system that says creation science is a fact. cheers |
Response | |
From: | |
Author of: | Evolution and Philosophy |
Response: | I think that
"fact" in fallibilist epistemology means something very like that
which Professor Gould defined
it as:
All of science is in this boat. An extreme skeptic, a Pyrrhonian skeptic as Hume called it (Enquiry, Sect XXI, Part II), could doubt any scientific fact at all. And as Hume noted, "all human life must perish, were his [the extreme skeptic's] principles universally and steadily to prevail." |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | Babiigurl |
Comment: | This is quite dumb its bad that you have to think about weither or not God is real...the thing wrong with evolution is the fact that DARWIN THE MAKER OF THE THEORY EVEN SAID IT DIDNT EXSIST...THERE IS ONLY OEN THING TO BELIEVE IN AND THAT IS God...read Gensis 1-2 |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | i must say thanks to Dr.Theobald fantastic article."29 evidences for macroevolution" |
Feedback Letter | |
Comment: | I have personally found that the most simple of observations point to the impossibility of the modern world existing aside from a Creation. I agree that Evolution is a theory and that some microevolution does take place, however there are things call laws that are never wrong and that are recreatable which bring evolution into almost laughable question. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | If Kent Hovind is unqualified then why won't anyone at Berkley debate him? |
Response | |
From: | |
Author of: | Dino Blood Redux |
Response: | I am not at Berkley, but I have seen Mr. Hovind in action. I would have to say that the decision not to appear on the same stage with Mr. Hovind could stem from either self respect, or a strong gag reflex. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | Bob Cabbit |
Comment: | This site is a wonderful resource; thanks for taking the time to think through the tough questions. Speaking of tough questions, I'm tired of hearing the argument to incredulity, "Does a dog evolve into a whale? No, because they have different numbers of chromosomes. A dog will always be a dog because it has 78 chromosomes (no more, no less), regardless of what minor changes take place." What's the evolutionist response to "Chromosomes lock kinds, and prevent interbreeding"? |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | There was once a
theory that chromosomal differences caused speciation - it was
associated with the work of Michael J. D. White, who called it
"stasipatry". However, chromosomal numbers can vary quite wildly.
See the Post of the Month
for January 1999 for details or do a
search on "chromosomal". White's theory is now regarded as
one way species can evolve, but not the only way, or even the
most common.
Chromosomes are not a lock-and-key system - quite large changes can be matched up in pairing. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | Taylor |
Comment: | One of my primary
issues with Evolution is that its supporters seem to be content
with "well it just happened over millions of years" as the basis
for what they believe. This seems to ignore some specific
questions about the precise way in which life got from "there" to
here.
For example, at one particular moment in our planet's history, the decision had to be made for organisms to switch from asexual reproduction to reproduction requiring a male and female. This seems like a very informed, deliberate shift in the way things happened, and seems counterintuitive to what one would expect from a simple life-form reacting to a random environment. "Over millions of years" just falls short for me because certain 'decisions' had to be made at one particular point in time. How would you respond? |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | Sex is not a
simple matter of male and female. Many organisms have a diversity
of mating types, up to 7 or more. The process of meiosis in which
cells form by duplicating gene complements is also a partial step
to the combining of gene complements from different cells.
Sex evolved before there were multicellular organisms. Even now nearly all single celled organisms have a mechanism which enables them to mix their genes, ranging from inserting small amounts of genetic material in a process called "conjugation", through to complete half-and-half mixing. Sex has an evolutionary advantage, because it mixes mutations that might assist a lineage, so that at least one lucky lineage will get more than one of these mutations. This aids in resisting predators and pathogens. There are more refs in the Index to Creationist Claims CB350 and in this discussion list. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | Re: Altruism
explained in evolutionary terms. Parents risking their lives for
their children is an evolutionary advantage for mortal species.
The DNA carries on. The next stage is to expand one's definition
from parent to caretaker and child to anyone.
On the other hand: Is there really such a thing as altruism? |
Response | |
From: | |
Author of: | Evolution and Philosophy |
Response: | It is important to
distinguish between two not-always-distinct senses of "altruism"
here: psychological altruism, and genetic altruism. Let's call
them PA and GA. Under evolutionary theory, it is held that you
will not long find any organism that is GA, for evolution acts in
such a way that genes can be (mathematically) treated as if they
were selfish and rational agents. The persistent existence of GA
in organisms would be a disproof of evolutionary theory as it now
stands.
But the existence of PA is not a problem. Of course, there are people whose behaviour is altruistic. The evolutionary explanation is that such psychologies are genetically selfish, even if the individual doesn't breed because of their behaviour. That is to say, PA is either an advantage to the genetic traits overall, not just in that individual (a concept known as "inclusive fitness"), or it doesn't actually cause much harm to the genetic fitness of the individual (for example, if I give $1 to a beggar). Is there PA? Yes there is. Is there GA? Not if the game theory account of evolution is a correct model, no. Does genetic selfishness explain psychological altruism? That's the claim. |
Feedback Letter | |
Comment: | this site nee4ds more pictures but in other case this site is wiked awesom |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | Lara Avara |
Comment: | Hey - like don't
you know that the earth is round!! And if you all were so damned
right, why don't you collect the $250,000 from Dr.Dino.
BWAHAHAHA! Kidding aside, the site is great and I admire your ability to respond kindly to uninformed minions of Gish et al. who repeatedly trot out such inane falsehoods such as "if man(sic) evolved from apes, why are there still apes", etc. My personal favorite canard is the "well known fact that men have one less rib than women." |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | Dr Adequate |
Comment: | Hi. I'm a big fan.
That was the "praise". Now for the "random thought". I was
reading some guy going on about how "Darwinist dogma is on the
brink of collapse", as they do --- and I wondered just how
long creationists have been saying this sort of thing? For
how many years has evolution been on its last legs and the brink
of collapse? A list of quotations to this effect stretching back
several decades would be informative and funny.
Dr A. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | You would be
correct that the claim that Darwinism, (AKA Global Evilutionist
Conspiracy), is about to disappear is decades old and the list of
creationists' statements to this effect is very amusing.
"The Imminent Demise of Evolution: The Longest Running Falsehood in Creationism". by G.R. Morton should fit your request. The article is also found on Glenn's home website. Enjoy! PS: Thanks for the praise on behalf of the TO volunteers. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | How come some apes didnt evolve? How come there is no links between apes and another type of animal before them? It is wild how some people can believe such a foolish theory like Evolution. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | Who says apes didn't evolve? There is an apelike creature named Dryapithecus that is roughly intermediate between modern paes and us. And there are, of course, primates before them. The fossil record is sparse because woodlands creatures don't fossilise well, but we do have a number of ape fossils, and more are being discovered. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | Hello,
Greetings from Singapore. I am the webmaster for the Freethinkers' Community in the National University of Singapore. I would like you to play devil's (ok, God's) advocate for a while. What concrete scientific discoveries would make evolutionary science invalid and make scientists throw out the theory of evolution like the phlogiston theory? Regards, Lim Si Seng |
Response | |
From: | |
Author of: | How to be Anti-Darwinian |
Response: | Well, as I note in
the How to be Anti-Darwinian
FAQ there are several theories that are covered by the term
"theory of evolution". So let's think what sorts of things might
disprove or disconfirm each one:
1. Transmutationism - that species change form to become other species. To disconfirm this, we'd need to show that no species ever changed from one to another. Since this is, in fact, a matter of observation, it cannot be disconfirmed. But we might find reason to think that only a certain amount of transmutation can occur. I cannot conceive now what sort of evidence that might be. So leave it open. But it would need to be a theoretical reason, and not merely an assertion, as the creationists "argue". 2. Common descent - that similar species have common ancestors. Again, this is well-established. We need to show that apart from the observed common descent that there is areason to think this is limited to some scale. Same problems as for transmutation. 3. Struggle for existence - that more are born than can survive. Observed. But you might show that many, if not most, cases are in fact optimal in terms of birth rates - this would need to be a large empirical study. 4. Natural selection - that the relatively better adapted have more successful offspring. This is a logical deduction from the facts of biology - that there is variation, struggle for existence due to more being born than survive, and hereditable traits that have economic success. To disconfirm it, you need to show that these conditions fail to apply to most cases. 5. Sexual selection - that the more "attractive" organisms of sexual species mate more (and have more offspring), causing otherwise unfit traits to spread. To disconfirm this, you'd need to show that the cases explained by it, such as the peacock's tail, have a better (adaptive) explanation, in each singular case. 6. Biogeographic distribution - that species occur close by related species, explaining the distributions of various genera. This could be shown false by mapping related species and seeing that they don't tend to be adjacent to their nearest living relatives. 7. Heredity - a. Darwin's own theory was called "pangenesis" and is no longer accepted (it was a form of what we now call "neo-Lamarckism", or the inheritance of aquired characters). It has been shown false. b. Weismannism - the more modern view that genes don't record information about the life of organisms. This has been shown to have important exceptions, in what is known as "epigenetic" inheritance. One very important example of this is maternal imprinting, where non-genetic molecules that are attached to the DNA can restrict the expression of genes, and which often comes from the mother's egg, and is acquired in her life. The research program now is how often and ho this happens. 8. Random mutation - the notion that changes in genes aren't directed towards "better" alternatives; in other words, that mutations are blind to the needs imposed by the ecology in which organisms find themselves. If a mechanism were found by which organisms did encode information in their mutations - such as a bias for mutations to be ecologically useful, that would tend to disconfirm it as a general rule, but it may still remain a good first approximation. 9. Genetic drift/neutralism - the view that some changes in genes are due to chance or the so-called "sampling error" of small populations of organisms. Molecular neutralism is the view that the very structure of genes changes in purely random ways. Drift can be disproven by showing, for example, that all interesting cases are due to selection. Neutralism can be disproven by showing that all interesting cases are not random and have a strong selective bias. 10. Functionalism - the view that features of organisms are neither due to or are constrained by the shapes (morphology) of their lineage, but are due to their functional, or adaptive, benefits. This last one is contentious now. At the extreme it is the claim that anything on an organism is selectively advantaged. This is clearly false. Some organs that were once adaptive are no longer (such as cave fish eyes). So a distinction is made between "adaptation" (which eyes are or were) and adaptive (which cave fish eyes aren't). But the idea that everything is or was an adaptation is debated too. How to prove it one way or the other? I can't say. I hope this helps. Late Note: Dr Seng replied in email that he wanted a more concrete case, like a fossil human in a dinosaur. Here is my response: "In order to falsify a theory, you need to know what the theory says. Finding an out-of-sequence fossil or an "impossible" animal may not falsify evolution, but it would falsify the particular theories (in this case historical theories) about that group of organisms - for example, if we found a modern rabbit in the Cambrian Era, we would have a massive problem with existing phylogenies. We might even say that if the program of constructing phylogenies based on the theory of common descent were that wrong, there might be a problem with common descent, and abandon that theory. But this, in itself, would be insufficient to falsify the entire set of theories of evolution, although it might be enough to make people think twice about the general set of assumptions on which they are based." |
Feedback Letter | |
Comment: | Your site is extrememly biased in favor of Evolution and is guilty of attacking Creationism with the same methods that your site claims Evolution is attacked. On the positive site, there is some good information on what the theory of evolution teaches on this site, but that is all. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | And that is all we
claim to do - offer the
actual theory of evolution, as science has developed it, and to
deal with the misunderstandings and false claims made by
anti-evolutionists.
You'll need to be more specific about the tu quoque claims. |