TalkOrigins Archive - Feedback for October 2006

Feedback Letter
From:
Comment:	Millions of fossils have been discovered sense Darwin's day. It is now claimed that evolution is a fact. If evoultion happened then the missing link has be found and there is a multitude to transitional forms to support Macro-evolution correct? Where are all these transitional forms displayed so I may go and view them?
Response
From:
Author of:	Dino Blood Redux
Response:	There is not single "missing link" that if it were only discovered "all would be known." That is silly. There are transitional, or intermediate fossils to be observed in every major museum of natural history, and most minor ones as well. We had more in warehouses than there was floor space to display. You should take a look at the TalkOrigins FAQ on Transitional Vertebrate Fossils by Kathleen Hunt. Gary Hurd, Former Curator of a Very Minor Museum Which Displayed World Class Transitional Fossils.

Feedback Letter
From:
Comment:	You mention the problem of inbreeding depression for the animals but I didn't notice any mention of the consequences of this for the population of humans, i.e. the current population of the Earth, that arose from only Noah, his wife, his three sons and their wives, a gene pool of only eight people, 4 of whom are already related. Additionally, the time elapsed since the supposed flood is a little over 4,000 years. I'm not a mathematician but it seems to me a pretty amazing fact that the population of humans grew from 4 men and 4 women into the current population of some 6 billion individuals in such a short time scale. Even under 'perfect' conditions with no disease, famine, war, etc. exponential growth would be slowed by the gestation period of nine months between each possible birth, the limited age range during which humans are able to reproduce and our rather short life span. Is such an amazing reproductive rate actually possible? Other than that omission, a great piece of investigative work which I thoroughly enjoyed reading. Thanks
Response
From:
Response:	You are correct about the problem of inbreeding depression. Population growth, though, is not quite the problem you suggest. Even at a fairly small growth rate, exponential population growth can produce a huge population in 4,000 years. If I recall correctly, the world's population growth rate in the last 100 years would more than suffice. The real problem comes when you consider periods earlier in history. There is no way that the eight people could have multiplied into hundreds of thousands (or more) that history records at several places around the world just one or two thousand years after the Flood was supposed to have occurred. See CB620 for more.

Feedback Letter
From:
Comment:	please tell me where on your site do I find evidence/links/articles about the Creation of life - not just evolution. thanks
Response
From:
Author of:	Dino Blood Redux
Response:	You will find your requested information about creationist sites from the extensive Links provided. A minor examination would also show that most of the TalkOrigins articles provide links to creationist sites and arguments. You will rarely find that creationsts provide links or clear references to scientific sources.

Feedback Letter
From:
Comment:	I've seen many requests in the feedback for more images in articles. I'm sure you've seen it, but I'll go ahead and send it to you anyway. I came across this today in talk.origins, posted by sharon192837...@yahoo.com : Updated images on whale evolution are located here. http://s88.photobucket.com/albums/k168/dave_matson/whales/?start=all For webmasters who have pages on whale evolution... These images were re-illustrated by myself, based on National Geographic's Nov. 2001 article, and they're public access. Also, the well known cladogram which shows a progression of whales (which we were granted permission to re-use in 2003) and a relationship with Mesonychids is out of date... I've added the statement on that graphic, and all the other illustrations which I revised, are available at above address. Nasal drift, evolution of echolocation, etc. They're very nice for educational material on blogs, websites, etc. Including the outdated Pakicetus skull model. I've placed a white background on the images, so they should match most websites. All that I ask is that all original credits be kept intact. Details about each images are located on our page http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/whales/evolution_of_whales/ Thanks again to Windy and Mike. Reference to: http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/d9e1d30... I deleted the "Procetus" illustration and replaced it with "Protocetus" illustration.

Feedback Letter
From:
Comment:	Hi, I've come upon something that I'm confused about, and could not find anything on your site about it. I was reading the final paragraph of Darwin's On the Origin of Species, and found that in the first edition from my reseach, Darwin does not mention any creator. But in the sixth edition the final paragraph has been reworded. In the first edition, from 1859, it says: "...having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one, whilst this planet has gone cycling according to the fixed law of gravity..." However in the sixth edition, from 1872: "...having been originally been breathed by the creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone circling on according to the fixed law of gravity..." What's going on here? I looked on several websites, and two of my books, and out of a total of 16 sources, only 6 of them had the original quotation, without any creator being mentioned. Was this some ploy by someone to cause people to think that he felt that evolution was caused my some god? Or did Darwin later rewrite that himself? Maybe this is common knowledge, but forgive me, I'm still catching up; any information on why the later edition is written as it is would be very helpful, thanks.
Response
From:
Response:	Darwin rewrote it himself, although he later in his correspondence bemoaned his use of "Pentateuchal language". He was very sensitive to claims that he had promoted atheism, given that his wife and many of his family were orthodox Christians.

Feedback Letter
Comment:	In an august 2006 post, KL was looking for page. I think I found it and it may also be of interest to other readers: http://www.2think.org/hii/mo.shtml on http://www.2think.org/

Feedback Letter
From:
Comment:	Two men are standing on a street corner, dressed in identical shirts except one has ID on the front of his shirt and the other has Evo on his. Both hold identical rubber ball in their hands, extended at arms length. Evo says, 'I believe if I release this ball it will fall and bounce because of the forces of gravity, liks so.' He releases the ball and it bounces and he catches it and makes aditional comments. 'To prove this was no fluke we will repeat the process under identical parameter and compare the results.' This he does a dozen times and the ball always falls and bounces back up. 'This is how science works.' He announced then stepped back. ID steps forward and say, 'My faith tells me that if I release this ball it will not fall or bounce and thereby prove Evo wrong, my faith in God and the Old testament book of Rubbermiah tells me this is so. In fact my faith is so strong I don't even have to drop the ball to prove my point and anyone who dares to question my belief is doomed to go to hell and burn in eternal damnation.' ID satisfied that he had made his point places the ball in his pocket and walks away, telling every one he meets along the way how he disproved Evo's believe in the laws of gravity, and that the very idea of gravity was doomed because of his proof.

Feedback Letter
From:
Comment:	The anwser to your questions about how we became is in the BIBLE! in the book of Genisus. The first few pages of the BIBLE talks about how the earth was created.I know that it is hard to understand, but you should believe because God does exist and this IS how the earth was created and so on. If you have any questions about some things like that then just read the BIBLE and pray for anwsers. i'm not forcing you to become christian, but i will tell you this GOD DOES have the anwsers just pray.The earth was created by GOD NOT scientists. I realize that this is the scientific view but this is how the earth was created.

Feedback Letter
From:	Natalie
Comment:	I would just like to say how useful and informative your wonderful site is. I arrive here often in order to clarify my understanding of the natural world and its beginnings. Thank you so much for all of your hard work, it is worth it, I can assure you. For myself now, evolution makes sense. As it ought to. Again thanks, you have done a fantastic job in promoting objective reality.

Feedback Letter
Comment:	The article Bombardier Beetles and the Argument of Design lists a possible chain of events that could lead to the evolution of the said beetle; however, in step number six there is no explanation given as to how hydroquinones came to be in the beetle. It is said to be present because predators have evolved a resistance, and while this is a good reason, it does not explain how this chemical was introduced/made in the bambardier beetle. A response sent to my email address would be appreciated.
Response
From:
Author of:	Bombardier Beetles and the Argument of Design
Response:	I do not know how hydroquinones are produced in bombardier beetles specifically. However, converting quinone, C₆H₄O₂, to hydroquinone, C₆H₄(OH)₂, is pretty simple. It requires only reducing the former, which can be done, for example, with the presence of an acid. (The reverse reaction is also easy.) (Sorry I couldn't send email; no address was left.)

Feedback Letter
From:
Comment:	Just a note about a response by Michael Hopkins to Allan Lee in the August Feedback section. Mr. Hopkins completely misunderstood Lee’s question, or perhaps was unable to offer a proper response. The question is more succinctly stated: How does evolutionary theory account for the ability of having male/female organisms as opposed to the older/primitive precursors, which were single-celled? Can evolutionary theory account for the multiple and coordinated mutations that would have to occur at relatively the same time and for a coordinated purpose? How do you explain the sexual development of male and female without some kind of intelligent guidance? How can random and unspecified mutations develop into two independent and yet coordinated systems of reproduction? (The required hormonal and feedback systems in each, even in “simple” systems are dauntingly complex) The development of a penis is worthless to an organism without the complimentary development of a counterpart…the female vagina and interrelated reproductive apparatus. As a side note, the continual intelligence bashing of those who hold the view of Intelligent Design is beyond boorish. I’m sure it plays well to those who need to be kept on the evolutionary bandwagon and give them a sense of superiority, but it reads sophomoric at best. Can’t these differences be kept at a higher level?
Response
From:
Response:	A penis is worthless without the existence of the vagina? A look at the biological world refutes your claim. Some fish just release sperm near laid eggs. Some animals without either a penis or vagina it is simply the cloaca of one the male rubbing against the cloaca of the female. In some animals the male has a penis but the female does not have a vagina. Only in mammals is there both a penis and a vagina. I would also not agree with your assertion that males and female reproductive systems are independent.

Feedback Letter
From:	Robert Harlow
Comment:	The link to the Big Daddy? parody was dead, but I found it somewhere else. http://www.facts4u.com/OffSite_Stored_Pages/wyd_files/wyd.htm

Feedback Letter
From:	Chris Knight-Griffin
Comment:
Response
From:
Response:

Feedback Letter

From:

Comment:

I am not good at being brief, so forgive me the shortcomings that come with being... short.

We need something to describe 'evolution.' The word is being used in all circles as an umbrella term to mean the myriad of scientific principles which creationists wish to promote, among them such disparate fields as cosmology, abiogenesis, geology... well, practically every scientific notion we hold today.

Many take advantage of this common phrase and twists its definition to suit there purposes rather than using it in the confines of its scientific definition. In short, they don't play by the rules.

So we have to play by theirs.

We need, desperately, a word, phrase, or sbbreviation that we can use to mean the various scientific principles that young-Earth creationists oppose. This discussion (forgive my impudence should this discussion be taking place, and I am not aware of it) will be the first step to exposing the well-marketed frauds on the other side of the debate.

If we start using it, eventually it will look ridiculous for the other side to attack their usual paper tiger... or, rather, their bull-fighter's cape, taunting the religious right bull while covering up a much larger scientific world.

I have, as humbly as I can present it, a proposition for this; The G.S.O.U.E.L. (pronounced 'G-Soul'), standing for "Genesis of Secular, Old Universe/Earth/Life."

But I'm not married to it. I encourage discussion on this topic; please, let us finally give this cortege of basic scientific principles tied together loose strings spray painted 'evolution' a real, proper, and true name.

And make Kent Hovind look like an ass.

Well, more of one, anyway.

Feedback Letter
From:
Comment:	http://www.talkorigins.org/features/whales/ Absolutely amazing and informative. Congratulations to Raymond Sitera[sic]. I never knew that whales had evolved from land animals. What is the best current scientific consensus for the original organism from which all life descended? Was this organism originally found in water? Stuck on a rock on land? Single-celled?
Response
From:
Response:	The current hypothesis is that there was no single organism as such, but a "progenote pool" of organisms which didn't form species as such, but shared genes easily. Think of it as a "tangled root" hypothesis. It makes sense (to me) because a single organism would not be able to form an ecological community, and probably "organisms" weren't so tightly integrated as they are now and have been for the past 3.8 billion years. There is no evidence either way as to what sort of habitat it existed in. Some think it occurred on iron pyrites substrates, probably in volcanically fed aquifers. Others think it occurred in the open ocean. We'll likely never know.

Feedback Letter
From:	Tim
Comment:	The theory of Evolution cant be true. The 500 amino acids that make up ONE MEASLY average-sized protein can be arranged in over 1 x 10^600 different ways. This number is vastly larger than the total number of atomic particles that could be packed into the known universe. Creation of life cannot be a random event; it is the work of God. The Theory of Evolution is not either fact or theory. It's a fable made by a wannabe "scientist."

Feedback Letter
From:
Comment:	Under "common misconceptions about evolution" you list "Evolution has never been observed." Has macroevolution ever been observed?
Response
From:
Response:	Yes it has. Macroevolution begins at speciation, and this has been observed. Longer term changes, of course, though they exceed the duration of human experience, have still been indirectly observed through evidence of genetics, paleontology and biogeography. Evidence for this is presented in the 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution FAQ. If we only restricted ourselves to thinking things occur when we see them, nearly all our knowledge would be trashed.

Feedback Letter
From:
Comment:	Mark Isaak, I just read your response to Phillip O'Donnel's feedback of June 06. One thing you failed to touch on is that no (credible) pictures exist of the Mokele-mbembe. Would we not expect modern day explorers to carry cameras ("At Lake Tele in 1983, Marcellin Agnaga was on an expedition when he said he saw Mokele-mbembe swimming in the lake", etc...)?

Feedback Letter

From:

Comment:

Ray Jennings wrote:

... THERE ARE NO ATHIEST IN FOX HOLES! ...

A quote comes to mind:

'There are no atheists in foxholes' isn’t an argument against atheism, it’s an argument against foxholes. -- James Morrow

The repetition of the 'foxholes' lie is galling to the many atheists, agnostics and other freethinkers who have proudly served the nation in uniform, and the many who have died in so doing. The lie is ignorant, affornting and completely unfounded.

I know. I was one, and I know many like me who are currently serving.

More info can be found here:
~ www.atheistfoxholes.org/
~ www.maaf.info/
~ ffrf.org/foxholes/
~ penn.freefm.com/pages/27696.php
~ www.atheists.org/flash.line/atheist9.htm
~ www.atheists.org/flash.line/foxhole1.htm
~ www.americanhumanist.org/humanism/foxhole.html
~ www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14322117/site/newsweek
~ www.valleyskeptic.com/atheist_foxhole.html
~ www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/foxholes/flachs.html

And that's just a small sampling.

Ya'll are doing a great work at Talk Origins, and I salute you, not only for your excellent service, but for your (dare I say it) saintly patience with the illitarati.

Keep it up!

Feedback Letter
From:
Comment:	I have enjoyed your website and I have found the information it contains useful for my own battles with a local creationist group. I am wondering if you are familiar with Dr Steve Austin with the Institute for Creation Research? I live near Mount St Helens, WA and I am regularly fending off claims being advanced by a local business which claims the 1980 eruption of Mount St Helens support "evidence" for a catastrophic global flood. Much of the material used by this local business, relies heavily on "work" performed by Austin and others at ICR. What I am find to be disturbing when I read Austin's writings and watch Austin's videos (a prime example is Austin's and John Morris 2003 book on the St Helens eruption called Footprints in the Ash), is his inability to cite his sources. I do not expect Austin to give fair treatment to mainstream scienists, but I find that Austin also misrepresent work performed by fellow YECers. I am also finding instances where Austin is claiming work that is clearly attributed to other YECers. Do you care to comment on the quality of research demonstrated by Austin and what is Austins real reputation like?
Response
From:
Author of:	Dino Blood Redux
Response:	You are doing a good job so far. I encourage you to continue your study of the geology of Mt. St. Helens, and how the creationist fraud is perpetrated. I encourage you to write down the specific errors you have discovered and to submit them to the TalkOrigins news group. You will find the submision guidelines at this link" Submission Guidelines. Thanks for your effort.

Feedback Letter
From:
Comment:	This whole website is messed up. The earth isn't even close to your estimate. You say your scientist, but you can't even tell the age of a rock, not even estimate near to the age. True scientist would say that IF a rock was 3.5 billion years old, than it wouldn't have any oxygen left inside of it, and then you could maybe estimate it, but it'd still be very difficult. Every rock that we have discovered still had oxygen left inside of it and does not come of to be some million or billion years old. The earth is actually around 5-7 thousand years old. Please respond back so I can prove more to you. P.S. If you guys also believe in evolution, the kind where a monkey turns into a human, or something like that, or if you believe in the big bang, I'd LOVE to talk to you about that too. Ronald
Response
From:
Author of:	Dino Blood Redux
Response:	Ronald, I think that you should read the TalkOrigins FAQ on The Age of the Earth a lot more carefully. But first, maybe you should read "Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective" by Dr. Roger C. Wiens. And, you should also consider the information in "Radiometeric Dating Does Work!" by G. Brent Dalrymple. You should also read Dr. Dalrymple's excellent book, The Age of the Earth. Your worry about the presence of oxygen is confused, since the chemical changes associated with weathering are more likely to incorporate oxygen into rock. This is the opposite of what you seem to think, but it is simply the way the Earth works. Contrary to your claim, there are minerals that do not have chemically bound oxygen, but that is also a different issue than the age of the Earth. The theory of evolution does not assert that "monkeys" turn into humans, and if you would like information on cosmology and the "Big Bang," I suggest you explore the results from NASA's WILKINSON MICROWAVE ANISOTROPY PROBE (WMAP).

Feedback Letter
Comment:	I notice that the archaeopteryx is a bird known as a link between reptiles and birds. It had some unusual features, however several birds, including some that are still alive today, have the same features, classifying the archaeopteryx as a true bird. Also, a closer look at the "horse series" reveals some ribs disapearing and reapearing like magic. How is all of this explained?
Response
From:
Response:	“All of this” is really explained quite easily. First while there are currently living birds that retain some primitive (meaning “more like the original”, not inferior) characteristics, Archaeopteryx is far more primitive in its overall anatomy than any living bird. Yes birds like the hoatzin have claws on their wings as chicks, but no living bird has not only claws, but teeth (no beak), and a long bony tail, just to name two obvious features, that no living bird has. Archaeopteryx skeleton is far more like that of a small carnivorous dinosaur than it is like that of any living bird and if feather impressions had not been found around the fossil skeletons of Archaeopteryx they would unquestionably be classified as belonging to a type of dinosaur. In fact historically two of the fossil specimens now recognized as Archaeopteryx were originally thought to be Compsognathus, a small dinosaur. See All About Archaeopteryx by Chris Nedin for lots and lots of more detail on this. As for fossil horses and their ribs you must understand something that is very basic in biology, that being the fact that living organisms of any particular species vary in their morphology (shape). For example living horses normally have 18 pairs of ribs, however occasionally horses (who are otherwise healthy) are born with either 17 or 19 pairs of ribs. This sort of thing happens with people as well. So given the fact that living horses vary in the number of pairs of ribs they have how is the fact that different fossil species vary slightly in the number of pairs of ribs they have supposed to be a problem for evolution? Again this is very, very, basic stuff in biology, and anyone who propagates this sort of (quite frankly) silly argument, is doing far more to demonstrate their own ignorance than they’re doing to discredit evolution, and if I were you I would take anything else they had to say with a rather sizable grain of salt.

Feedback Letter
Comment:	WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG READ YOUR BIBLE PEOPLE! GOD MADE ALL THINGS, HE IS ALL KNOWING AND SEES E-V-E-R-Y-T-H-I-N-G. HOW DARE YOU ANGER OUR GOD WITH YOUR STUPIDITY.

Feedback Letter
From:
Comment:	YOU are such an idiot whoever wrote about Kent Hovind being a fraud and his proposal of 250,000 being something tricky. YOU are a fool. The only reason you are getting hung up over this guy is A. He's right. B. If you had proof, you would show it C. You can't do anything about his offer cuz you got nothing pal. You know he's right that all scientists will offer is micro evolution proff Cuz you guys got nothing else to sit your butts on! everything else you simply believe and "infer" that it somehow all had to work out. Stop being a wuss! and picking on somebody that you can't even do anything about, all you can do is write a page on the website about how stupid he is, look at yourself buddy, who's the fool?

Feedback Letter
From:
Comment:	My father asked me, once, what happens when an amputee reproduces (at least that was the gist of it). At the time I said that the genes passed on would be a snapshot of the body at the time of insemination. That is to say: If one were to amputate a given part of the body of every member of an isolated group with every succeeding generation, then, eventually, that part would no longer be reproduced in the progeny. I have been studying your and others' sites since then, but I still haven't been able to confirm that thought. Thank you for your time, and all the work you do.
Response
From:
Response:	I'm afraid that is quite wrong. It was the idea prior to the discovery and research of the new (in 1900) field of genetics, but the inheritance of acquired characters, as it is sometimes called (or Lamarckism, as it is most often called) has been shown to be quite false. Genes are not modified in response to changes that the body undergoes, and they are passed on, assuming the body is capable and has a chance to reproduce, unchanged. Mutations, though, can occur that will change some genes in the sex cells. These changes, though, do not occur because of what has happened to the body. Instead, genes that are unable to produce a successful body, compared to the other bodies in the population, will tend to have fewer children, and so those genes will be eliminated over thousands of generations, depending on the size of the population and the degree to which the genes are troublesome. Amputation changes the structure of the body, but not the structure of the genes.

Feedback Letter
From:
Comment:	I find it interesting that a question I posed didn't make the Sept. feedback for your site. Instead, plenty of praise quotes were put up, but I'm sure your readers would rather read complements to your perspective than reasoned questions about the flaws to some of your site responders. Is it not important for your own responders (contributors) to have at least some semblance of cohesion in their arguments? I again ask, if there is evidence of a time frame, i.e. 15 billion years since the Big Bang, (of which I do not argue) then why allow another responder to use an infinite amount of time for his calculations while refuting the creationist contention on the slim probability of generating life from non-life? Chose a side, because you can't have it both ways! Isn't peer review an important component in science? Why do you think you're exempt when you are in control of the contributors?? An argument of non-responsibility on this issue would ring of dishonesty in my view. If you do post this response, of which I’m doubtful, I insist the original post I submitted be included as well, since its omission is the point of this follow-up.
Response
From:
Response:	There are several reasons why certain feedbacks do not get posted. In approximate order of commonness, they are: The feedback covers points already covered many, many times. The feedback covers several points, so that it would be tedious to address each one. The feedback is incoherent, obscene, and/or off-topic. The feedback asks a question which none of the volunteers here feel qualified to answer. Occasionally a disk crashes and feedbacks get lost. There are surely other reasons as well. Occasionally, I mean to respond to a feedback after thinking about it awhile, but forget to get back to it. Note also that we do post some feedbacks that fit into one or more of the categories above. And we post insults we receive as well as compliments. The Sept. feedback you speak of most likely fell in the first category, but I cannot find it, so it may fall in the last. The probability of abiogenesis comes up quite often, and we have some FAQs on the subject. Since I do not know what you are referring to with regard to "infinite time," I cannot comment further.