Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | This is an
email I sent to the author of the paper on evolution.
First off let me say that I appreciate your frank presentation of the theory of evolution. Although I believe evolution is a false theory I am not writing to argue that with you. The reason that I am writing to you about this subject is because you made a rather bad mistake when you tried to construct a logical argument. In the section about Creation you discredit yourself by using humor/ridicule to try and prove your point. I am specifically referring to the part about Creation being "100% crap". When constructing a logical argument you can not have statements like this included. |
Response | |
From: | |
Author of: | Punctuated Equilibria |
Response: |
The reader misquotes Colby's FAQ. Colby did not say that "Creation is 100% crap." What Colby said is that "Scientific creationism is 100% crap." Colby went on to document that his statement was in fact true. Scientific creationism is a specific doctrine promulgated by YECs designed to supplement or supplant discussion of evolutionary biology in secondary school science classrooms. It is not the same thing as "Creation". Saying that "scientific creationism is 100% crap" may be harsh, but I find that it is accurate. There are many other views of creation, as Robert Pennock ably documents in his book, "Tower of Babel: The Evidence Against the New Creationism". Wesley |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | nice website. out of interest, when a article has a copyright does this mean I cannot print a hard copy for personal use? I do not have a computer at home and must use the ones at work. I have no intention of selling the essays or passing them off as my own, I do this purely so that I may read them in my house and not in the superheated computer room Yours George |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | It means
that unless the copyright note says something along the
line of "reproduction without permission prohibited" you
can print it out and read it, as long as you do not modify
it or attempt to publish it yourself.
I have often given permission for my own oervres to be distributed in hard copy for discussion purposes. |
Feedback Letter | |
Comment: | What gives us the right to study ourselves and conclude that we have all the answers? |
Response | |
From: | |
Author of: | Punctuated Equilibria |
Response: |
Who is it that claims to already have the answers in hand? That sounds like the theistic anti-evolutionists. Perhaps our anonymous correspondent should take this up with one of the anti-evolutionary pages that actually espouses such a stance. Wesley |
Feedback Letter | |
Comment: | I was reading the article explaining evolution and saw that it happens over many generations. I was wondering how old you thought the Earth is. I was also wondering given however old you think the Earth is if it is mathematically possible for that many reactions in DNA to change a whole species. If you don't really understand my question feel free to e-mail me and I will try and explain a little better. Thank you |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | The Earth is about 4.55 billion years old; but this is not relevant to your second question. Speciation can occur in very short periods of time. Every new individual nearly always has some small changes in DNA sequences from their parents, and if circumstances are such that these changes accumluate, there is more than enough variation to permit quite drastic changes in species over a few thousand years. The vast majority of DNA remains the same in related species. So, no, there is certainly no mathematical problem. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | Please show me the inconsistency between evolution and creationism except for the the fact of time. 7 days, i believe, is a metaphorical symbol for time, which is a construct of MAN(Woman), so if you look at all the arguments that we make up regarding our origins, it proves that A. we are still children in this universe trying to understand, and b. we don't know s***, so wait a couple of billion years and you can tell me that either you were right or i was. The main question ids, does it really matter? |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | What really
matters most in this issue is quality science education in
public schools. So, yes, it really does matter.
The main inconsistency between the two camps is the quality of the science. In creationism, the outcome that the bible is literally true is all that really matters, and any scientific finding or empirical evidence that contradicts this preconceived conclusion is ignored or demonized. The study of evolution does not endorse any religious viewpoint, as can be seen from the fact that people of ALL beliefs accept it as true. Evolution is true science by virtue of it being formed from the evidence, not (as in the case of creationism) before the evidence or even in spite of the evidence. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | With reference to your position on the improbability of group selection: has it been modified as a result of Wilson and Sober's recent contributions? And, should you find them convincing, what would you say about species selection, an idea put to sleep by Hamilton and Maynard Smith. I asked Prof. Sober about this, and he says he has nothing against species selection. But could you comment on it? Thanks very much. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | I think that
their view is equally as improbable as the Wynne-Edwards
version Williams attacked in the 60s, but not because group
selection is impossible. Rather it is because they make
groups "superorganisms", and that is such a hard claim to
substantiate.
For a group to be a superorganism, it would need to have a high degree of cohesion of the right kind, and be able to reproduce, to a high degree of accuracy, the properties that are being selected. Groups do have properties, but they are rarely hereditable (other than biogrography, or niche constructions like beaver's dams). Now I greatly respect Sober and Wilson's work, but I don't think they have established that groups are ever of the kind of individual that can by definition undergo selection. I much prefer Elisabeth Vrba's Effect Hypothesis - the properties of groups (including species in some circumstances) leads them to be sorted but sorting is a superset of selection, and does not involve group-level heredity. However, on the view I adhere to, species are not the sort of groups that could even be sorted in that way, unless they were identical with demes (effective populations in the biogeographic and reproductive sense). I hope this helps. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | Science must be observable and REPEATABLE to be considered true science, correct? How can evolution be FACT if no one observed and recorded it, there is no evidence as of yet to prove it, and it can not be repeated? If you must believe in evolution, do not call it "Science". It is a theory, and nothing more until it can be proved by repeated observations. |
Response | |
From: | |
Author of: | Punctuated Equilibria |
Response: |
No matter how many people look at it, the Berlin specimen of Archaeopteryx lithographica continues to clearly display feather imprints. Observation... and repeatability... all right there. A necessary aspect of scientific research is that it proceeds by intersubjective experience. This does not make necessary that all phenomena have to be reproducible in a lab in order to be explored via scientific methodologies. Historical events sometimes leave behind evidence, and this evidence allows us to make observations and inferences with just as much validity as those which result from laboratory work. Evolution as such has been observed, both in the lab and in the field. There is evidence of evolutionary change in populations, whether the correspondent wishes to recognize it or not. Wesley |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | Ouch - this white-and-yellow-on-black typography is hurting my eyes. I am relieved to see that the articles are written black on white, but reading the contents list is giving me a headache. I know this light-on-dark thing is very popular on the web but it is _hard to read, and in the vast cyber world, a small dissincentive is enough to send me on to the next site. Anyway, looks like good stuff on your site - keep up the good work. In legible form...? |
Response | |
From: | |
Author of: | Punctuated Equilibria |
Response: |
Some browsers, like Netscape, allow one to override the font and color choices in pages. This can be very handy for those who have trouble reading certain pages. For Netscape 4.5+, click on "Edit", select "Preferences", then select "Appearance". Under that, there are options for specifying one's own font and color scheme and for forcing pages to be rendered using those rather than the ones specified by the page. Wesley |
Feedback Letter | |
Comment: | Where is your E-Mail, why the little key hole. Most people who are interested in an open-minded exchange of information, don't hide behind a closed door, and ask someone to type out three pages on scrap of paper, then shove it through a key hole. You want to know my name and address, I want to know your name and E-Mail. Who are we dealing with the Gestapo. |
Response | |
From: | |
Author of: | Punctuated Equilibria |
Response: |
This web site archive is run by volunteer effort. There is no one person who handles incoming mail. That's why we have the very nice feedback system that Brett Vickers has coded. It allows a number of interested volunteers to respond to issues raised in feedback. That said, there are many email addresses available here. Most of the FAQ files have email addresses for the authors. In the feedback section, one will find almost every response comes with the email address of the person making a response. Pick someone whose interests seem to cover the topic and send them email. Or better yet, use the talk.origins newsgroup to post items aimed at widespread exchanges of information. Wesley |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | Can YOU in any way,prove that any word,scripture,phrase or prophecy in the Holy Bible is false,real facts please. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | This website
is not concerned with biblical errancy, but with
evolutionary biology and geology, and refuting the specific
claims of creationism.
Internet Infidels keeps a listing of what you are looking for. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | Crystals take thousands of years to develop yet they have radio halos in them. How did this happen? |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | Polonium radio halos are discussed in the The Po-Halo Mystery FAQ. The short answer to your question is that Polonium-218 is a decay product of Radon-222, which is produced in the decay series of Uranium-238. Radon is an inert gas which can migrate into certain crystals and leave Polonium in its wake. The above FAQ and its links provides ample evidence demonstrating this is the likely way it happened. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | As I try to keep up on the evolution vs creationism controversy, many question are asked by some of my intelligent high school students. Even though I can answer most of them, this one has stumped me. Recent fossils are dated by measuring C14. The question was, how is the supply of C14 mintained? Since C14's half life is 5700 years, where is new C14 being made?. Thank you for your consideration. |
Response | |
From: | |
Author of: | Creation Science and the Earth's Magnetic Field |
Response: | Carbon 14
(14C) is produced in the upper atmosphere by the
bombardment of atmospheric Nitrogen 14 (14N
which makes up about 79% of the atmosphere) by neutrons (n)
generated by cosmic rays. The resulting 15N
nucleus should be stable, but the cosmic ray neutron
carries too much energy and the 14N falls apart
quickly into 14C plus a proton (p). In the
standard notation of nuclear physics this is written as
14N(n,p)14C where the incoming "n"
and outgoing "p" are inside the parentheses, and the
initial nucleus 14N and final product
14C surround them.
As long as there are cosmic rays there will be 14C. But the abundance in the atmosphere is not constant, and has to be calibrated. One common method is to use treerings, but there are other ways as well. The Radiocarbon Web is a good place to find out about the details & applications of radiocarbon dating. Also, I might add that my own Radiometric Dating Resource List has more links to radiocarbon dating explanations, as well as many other radioisotope (radiometric) dating methods, and specific criticisms of creationist arguments. |
Feedback Letter | |
Comment: | Maybe you
can help me in an argument with a Witness that I work with.
I am looking for information about the the statistical
probability of 8 people spawning 6 billion over four
thousand years (post-flood). I don't think it is possible,
do you know of any research that has been done of this.
Thanks. |
Response | |
From: | |
Author of: | Punctuated Equilibria |
Response: |
The intrinsic rate of increase poses no bar to six billion humans arising from some small number of forebears in a relatively short period of time. But the facts of genetics argue strongly that humans had no recent genetic bottleneck of the sort posed by the tale of Noah's ark. Wesley |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | brent |
Comment: | now, i don't have a closed mind on this subject, i try to be as opened minded as possible. and i just try to look at what makes sense and what doesn't. but when it comes to evolution, there's a lot of things missing. a lot of people tend to concentrate on how we were developed, i look before that and wonder,"how did the 'big bang' happen at all?" all they say is that matter molocules and energy molocules were compressed into one spot because of sigularity and reacted. now, my question is, where did those molecules come from. no one debates about that! if they do, i'm sorry, i must miss them. but with all the proof that something as powerful as the'big bang' did occur, i can see it happening, i just do not understand how. plus, if it did happen, how can such molecules create all of these different elements that exist on earth? how i ask? they say chance. how did the big bang happen? chance. how did we become more advanced than any other animal on this planet? chance. ok, who doesn't see something wrong with this? i mean, think about it. you can't throw a bunch of words into the air, let them land on the floor, and expect them to make 5-10 full words and possibly a sentence. maybe you'll make the words "it" and "is" after...oh maybe over ten times. see, in evolution, everything happened so well, one time. then again, maybe i'm wrong. maybe everyone is wrong. maybe the earth has gone over many developments of life only to die. who knows. it's just that everything is so, exact. or just...perfect. not the way it is now with the cities and everything, but nature it self. look at the human. look at yourself as you sit at your computer. how do you think ahead before typing it out? how do you know what the words are or mean? and if you read or watch something about the human body, there are many other marvels to admire, and question. you look into a mirror and see yourself. a dog on the other hand sees another dog and barks at it. i'm sorry to those who don't agree. if there is something i missed, send me a feed back at this address. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | Please find
a biologist or a biology teacher, and ask him or her how
the Big Bang happened, and how matter formed, and how
galaxies condensed, etc. They will probably stare at you
for a moment, and then tell you that they don't know. They
may have never even studied the subject at all; they might
have restricted their studies to their chosen field:
biology. The response they will give you would probably be
to go ask a cosmologist. And I suppose that is my answer to
you as well.
Evolution does not deal with anything other than living organisms that reproduce and change over time in response to environmental pressures and genetic variables. Evolution does not even deal with the origin of living cells. And, by the way, you're right that a dog, seeing itself in a mirror, sees itself as another dog. But a chimpanzee, humanity's closest relative, can indeed recognize itself in a mirror, just like we can. Do you feel that this is a coincidence? |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | As one exploring the origins of this earth, I commend the vast ammounts of time that have been put into writing, arranging, and publishing these posts. However, I'm a bit dumbfounded as to why you have approached the discussion from such a biased position. "The Talk.Origins Archive is a collection of articles and essays that explore the creationism/evolution controversy from a mainstream scientific perspective", your welcome page reads. If we intend to truly "explore" the controversy, shouldn't we be researching both sides equally? The idea that we should only approach the issue from the mainstream scientific perspective seems shallow. Isn't that the mistake that caused the Roman Catholic church to attack Galileo? Before we accuse the "religious right" of being closed-minded, perhaps we should make sure that we are not going to hypocritical in our accusations. |
Response | |
From: | Chris Stassen |
Author of: | The Age of the Earth |
Response: | Most of the
authors of our FAQs have spent much effort studying
creationist works. Some of us have read more creation
"science" materials than most creationists have.
Further, our site has on conspicuously display an extensive
library of links to creationist web sites. This allows
any visitor the luxury of reading pro-creationism and
anti-evolution materials, produced and maintained by
creationists themselves. If you are concerned about
"balance," you might try following those links and seeing
just how few of the creationist sites have any
"opposing view" links back to sites such as this one.
In my opinion, the real problem is that creation "science" is very bad science, regardless of the value of the religious beliefs it is used to support. When the issue is approached from any scientific perspective ("mainstream" or not), creation "science" has little value to offer. In writing the Age of the Earth FAQ, I'd gladly have included legitimate scientific data that stands up to critical inspection and indicates an age of 6,000 years for the Earth, if there were any. In a way it was like writing a "round Earth vs flat Earth" FAQ -- it's simply not possible to be totally "balanced" because the evidence is so one-sided. Without being misleading (e.g., using arguments that are demonstrably false) it is not possible to even make a decent-looking (let alone truly solid) scientific case for a 6,000-year-old Earth. If you think you can demonstrate otherwise, feel free to contact me offline. I'll always listen to new information, but to date the young-Earth crowd hasn't had much success in dealing with my nearly-a-decade-old FAQ. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | Having recently (and admittedly, snidely) entered the evolution/creation discussion, I was looking for a place to refute claims of new Earth, dinosaur blood, unfossilized dinosaur bones and the like. I haven't seen any here yet, but the stuff I have read is great. And it's not even mean! That's what I really respect. So thanks for the great site, and keep up the good work! |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | We do have
an entire series of
FAQs on creationists' claims that the Earth is only six
or ten thousand years old. I am unfamiliar with assertions
of the discovery of dinosaur blood or unfossilized dinosaur
bones. Additional feedback on this subject is welcomed.
We try very hard to keep a civil tone on this site; after all, you catch more flies with honey than vinegar. I'm glad you found that to be the case. |
Feedback Letter | |
Comment: | what do you think about the trueorigins.org website? i have studied evolution/creation controversary but as i don't have academic education the technical stuff is quite difficult for me. trueorigins.org is very critic towards talk.origins and they seem very convincing for a non-scientist person. |
Response | |
From: | |
Author of: | Punctuated Equilibria |
Response: |
The trueorigins site illustrates the adage about imitation and flattery. It is the nature of anti-evolutionary material to be presented with great confidence. Unfortunately, it does not appear to be a tradition that these materials also be compatible with empirical evidence. Without exception, I have found anti-evolutionary arguments to be erroneous, mistaken, misleading, outdated, oversold, or some combination of the foregoing. I entered this debate with my attendance at a SciCre lecture given by someone billed as a geologist. As a zoology student, I knew very little concerning geology, and it seemed to me that some of the arguments that the lecturer gave were very compelling. I talked with him after the lecture, and he kindly gave me a copy of a little book by Dr. Henry M. Morris of the Institute for Creation Research. The title was, "The Scientific Case for Creation". I thanked him and went off. When I started reading Morris' little tome, I started finding things that were disturbing. Either much of every science class I had taken was in error, or Morris was rather badly missing some basic points. I started marking each sentence which was to my knowledge incorrect. Within a short while, most pages in the book contained one or more such marks. I soon came to the conclusion that either Morris was almost completely inept or that he was being deliberately deceptive. The aggressive promotion of his authority as a scientific writer, though, made it less tenable to simply chalk it up to ineptitude. This exposure to anti-evolutionary ethics or lack thereof has caused me to since become involved in opposing arguments made in that mode. I find that quotes provided by anti-evolutionists make me want to read the original source, or that arguments made make me want to find expositions outside the anti-evolutionary genre. When I do these things, I routinely discover more shenanigans being pulled by anti-evolutionary authors. One doesn't have to be a technical whiz to look up a quote and find that the original author made a point inconsistent with what the anti-evolutionist quoting him claims he said. Do this a few times and one will take with a large grain of salt anything such a person says. Wesley |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | I would like to know why you have no unanswered questions about evolution and its errors in the same way you have them in the creation section. Why also dont you put the correct creation beliefs or those beliefs that have not been disproven in their section? Evolutionists do not know everything, but at least Creationists are heading in the right direction! |
Response | |
From: | |
Author of: | Punctuated Equilibria |
Response: |
It seems to me that much of the archive is devoted to taking up claims made by anti-evolutionists of "unanswered questions" or "errors" on the part of biologists and showing how those claims are wrong. If there is some "correct" anti-evolutionary belief, I would like to make its acquaintance. Perhaps "lk4" could post the details to the talk.origins newsgroup. In the meantime, this archive is host to one of the most extensive list of links to online anti-evolutionary materials that one can find. "lk4" is invited to nag some of those sites concerning parity in their listing of arguments and in their making available links to opposing viewpoints. Wesley |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | As a scientist and a believer in God, I often wonder why there is so much energy placed by one "belief" to discredit the other. The creation/evolution "controversy" does not exist, as the evidence for evolution is overwhelming. Does the fact that evolution is due to random mutation, survival, and chance exclude the idea that the universe was created by a God? Absolutely not. Nowhere in the bible does it say that life forms were created to be static and unchanging. In fact, this inherent path towards more complex, diverse living things attests to the uniqueness of His creation to continue life. I think the problem lies in that creationists mistake "evolution" for the "abiogenesis theory", which attempts to use molecular biology and the science of evolution to form a theory about the beginnings of life. Again, I think religion has little to fear here. Even if scientists are able to conclude that indeed, cells did form from simple precursors and began "self-replicating" to form more and more complex "organism" to eventually bring us to today, how does this disprove the existence of God. Science will lose either way. If indeed it seems, under even the most intense scientific scrutiny, that the formation of self-replicating cells from random precursors is not explainable by chance, then that supports a creator. On the other hand, if science shows that it is probable that life sprang from increasingly complex self-replicating systems by "chance", then the idea of a creator is still alive and well. After all, what is "chance?" Couldn't these precursors, with this "innate" ability to form more complex structures, be the very clay that God used? Where did the energy that exploded in the "Big Bang" come from? What type of energy was it composed of? How long was it there? What surrounded it before it exploded to create our present "universe?" Why is the formation of matter from this energy not more homogenous throughout the existing universe? I think scientific skepticism is a long way off from discrediting the theory of a Higher Power. Is it possible we are simply studying God's work and trying to draw conclusions from a limited insight? My main goal here is to challenge anyone to show me how science discredits the belief in a Creator? I would love to discuss these ideas with anyone. After all, any belief system should be able to withstand any scrutiny. Thank you for your time. |
Response | |
From: | |
Author of: | Evolution and Chance |
Response: | Science does
not either support or deny the existence or operation of a
creator, and so cannot credit or discredit belief in one.
All that you say is correct, except in one point: evolution
is not a belief system. It is a scientific theory,
or rather a set of theories, that is undergoing revision
and which commands respect only so far as it is supported
by the evidence.
Just as "creationism" is not synonymous with the doctrine of creation in orthodox theisms, neither is evolution a belief system. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | I read this
answer from you on this question :
----------------------------------------------------------
Creationists are qualified and honest scientists. How can
they be wrong? The quality of an argument is not determined
by the credentials of its author. Even if it was, a number
of well-known creationists have questionable credentials.
Furthermore, many creationists have engaged in dishonest
tactics like quoting out of context or making up
references. See the Suspicious Creationist Credentials FAQ
and the Talk.Origins Archive's Creationism FAQs.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
and I must admit that I find this to also point to you as
giving the dishonest answers so you can satisfy your
desires to disown God in your heart. You do know that you
are incorrect in your evolution theory and will not admit
it. You will answer to God as we all will at His timing.
What are you going to tell Him then? God created all
things, even you, my friend, and anything that humans think
they created is really a gift from God that has been given
that person. We can do nothing on our own, even though we
would like to think we can. God does it all and the whole
universe and everything in it is by Him alone. Not by
Darwin or any of you evolutionists has anything ever been
made. Show me a way you can create a human from nothing.
You scientists need to have something to start with. That
something in itself was created by God. Let me see you
create it from nothing, as God did. Come on... prove it
beyond any doubt. As you doubt Gods word, I doubt yours
too.
Always in Christ Jesus, Smitty |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | You say that
some among us here (or all of us) give dishonest answers.
Sir, I challenge you on that statement. Please supply ONE
dishonest answer that has been made on this website. As to
"disowning God", many of the contributors to this website
do not, and have not.
Your personal opinions about anyone else's theological beliefs you should keep to yourself. Such issues do not, I repeat do not enter into any scientific discussion. You have not addressed a single scientific issue in your letter. |
Feedback Letter | |
Comment: | Re:
Abiogenesis by Ian Musgrave
Your statistical analysis is at least as fallible as that of Fred Hoyle, in that you make a number of assumptions prior to beginning the maths. I quite accept that if you filled the sea with amino acids to a strength of 1mM, that you would be likely to generate many interesting peptides. The chemistry is not too hard to understand. However, by assuming that this 1mM amino acid solution exists in the first place ignores the problem of actually generating it to begin with, and to such a concentration. Where did your amino acids come from? Extend your calculation to include the probability of generating each amino acid in sufficient quantities to service the next part of your calculation, and the result would perhaps be more realistic. I have often heard of flasks of methane, sulfur and ammonia being heated up and zapped in all sorts of ways in the laboratory. However, I have yet to see any evidence that such a process is capable of generating the full spectrum of amino acids and nucleotides. Your assumption also relies upon this event occurring a lot throughout the ocean, in order to generate a 1mM solution. Or are the amino acids self replicating as well? If that is your assumption, then where did the chirality come from? I have yet to receive a convincing theory as to the origin of chirality in nature. You see...the problem is that there is some really fascinating thought about how things "might" have come about, but all too often, these ideas are taken as facts. This in turn contributes to the development of further erroneous theories. As a result, many contributors to this URL use terms that suggest that "this is how this happened", rather than "this is an idea about how this might have happened". |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | Your main
point, that the calculated probabilities make assumptions
that require justification, is quite true. This point can
be expressed as follows:
This applies for Ian's calculated probabilities also. However, let us note that the above quote is lifted directly from the introduction to Ian's FAQ! Ian also makes the same point again in his conclusion. His calculations are not intended to be actual measures of the real likelihood of abiogenesis. They rather show the enormous effect of unstated assumptions used by people who do propose worthless probability calculations as meaningful criticisms. The particular calculation to which you allude, which assumes a sea filled with a dilute solution of amino acids, is not proposed as a realistic model of biogenesis, and the opening paragraph of that section reads as follows: The FAQ is actually filled with conditional phrases and disclaimers to say that it is not about proposing the way things did happen. I think that you and I and Ian are all basically agreed that probability calculations and statistical analysis of this kind are not sensible as measures of how things actually happened. So if you can find a direct extract or quote from the FAQ which implies or suggests that the calculations are based on knowledge of exactly how things did happen, let us know, or even propose a better wording. I cannot see any such phrases myself, however; and plenty of disclaimers to make clear that this is not the intent. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | October 21,
1999
Dear TalkOrigins: I am writing to set the record straight on a certain topic. This will be found in the “Creationist Whoppers” in the article by Dan Ford. It has to do with the claim that Charles Darwin said something in his autobiography about having “horrid doubts” about his theory. Mr. Ford shows that Darwin did not say this in his autobiography; but Darwin did mention horrid doubts on another occasion. Darwin used these words in a letter to W. Graham (July 3,1881). It will be found in “The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin,” edited by Francis Darwin, Basic Books, 1959; Volume One, page 285. Darwin writes:
My sole reason for making this post is to point out that Charles Darwin did use the words “horrid doubt”. I do not care to enter into a debate about what he meant, or anything else. I request that this be placed on the Feedback page so that it may be read by all interested parties. |
Response | |
From: | |
Author of: | Darwin's precursors and influences |
Response: | This is a
worthwhile point to make. But allow me to interpret
Darwin's comment.
In recent years a movement known broadly as the evolutionary epistemology school has tried to defend the reliability of human knowledge from Humean doubts, by arguing that it has to be reliable or it would not have evolved. This is obviously panadaptationist and overly optimistic. That Darwin saw this problem is to his credit, and it remains a major reason why the evolutionary epistemology movement has either become more subtle or is not acceptable to modern philosophy. However, this is a problem whether you think we have evolved from organisms with less cognitive skill or are descended from fallen angels, or are mystified by the illusory nature of things. In other words, it's a general problem to anyone that thinks we learn about the world in some way, not just to Darwinian thinking. If one accepts the value of scientific knowledge, then being fallible is part of it. It makes as much difference to engineering, astronomy and accounting as it does to evolution. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | I have just discovered your wed site. I am a geologist by profession with a long time intertest like so many in our ancestors. I scanned the time line for homo types and their descriptions which is published on your site. It seems to suggest that Neandetals are in the human species linage. Recent research has shown that DNA extracts from fossil material of the Neandertals marks them as a distinct species distinct from modern man.It further indicated the DNA code was different enough to negate success bredding with homo sapiens. This data was point out to me by Dr. Hugh Ross who heads "Reasons To Believe" a Christian apologetics group. You probably are already aware of this research, but I just thought I might interject this data. Is Neandertal still considered to be in our linage since modern hominoids (Cromagnons) overlap the time line of the Neandertals? |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | First of
all, all the timeline shows is
that neandertals existed from around 200,000 years ago to
30,000 years ago, while Homo sapiens sapiens (modern
humans) existed from around 50,000 years ago. So, they
overlapped in time. This does not mean that they are
members of a series, but branches on a tree.
Neandertals are not thought to be the same species as humans, but a closely related species in the same genus. The Linnean species name used does not indicate this, and recently the taxonomic name for neandertals and modern humans has been changed: they are Homo neandertalensis and we are Homo sapiens, one of two major forms (the "modern"). In fact, some modern scholars even think that we and erectus are the same species. A recent claim was made that sapiens and neandertals routinely hybridised in Portugal. This is disputed, but people I trust who are paleoanthropologists think it is either true or plausible. On that account, the two species are sibling species - close enough to occasionally hybridise. DNA differences are not a perfect guide to cross-fertility. Many species have massive regional and subspecific genetic variation and yet are able to crossbreed, and some distinct species have very similar genetic structure and makeup and yet cannot, and all combinations in between. It is likely that we are distinct species from neandertals, but the possibility remains that we aren't. I hope this clears up your confusions on the matter. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | Regarding
Genesis and science, you make the mistake of labeling
scientific "facts" instead of "evidence." The age of the
earth, you admit, cannot be proven, therefore not a fact.
Secondly, the "gap" theory may be forced to fit in with
Genesis, but it doesn't fit in with Christianity.
Christianity teaches that death came into the world thru
sin. Eve was the first to sin. If there was death before
this, then the Bible cannot be accepted as true. I think
the "gap" theory should be renamed the "crap" theory. Of
course all of the "evidence" will point to "evolution" if
"evolution" is the only "credible" conclusion you put on
the list.
Here's one to keep you busy, give me life from non-living matter. I keep getting told that I should give up on this "strawman," but I feel that is a MAJOR hurdle for evolutionists to explain if they don't want to accept God. It it cannot be demonstrated, then flush evolution down the drain with the rest of the garbage. Don't label it as "fact" when it is far from it. My message may have an "angry" tone. I am actually not angry at all, just frustrated that evolutionists don't look at any evidence in any light other than evolution. It's like saying "Here's a question and here's the only answer you can come up with, get to work". Check out [A quote list] and see what REAL scientists say about evolution. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | I hate to be
the one to inform you, but "facts" are simply those things
we have so much evidence for that to deny them would be
preposterous. One of those facts is that the Earth is more
than a few thousand years old. We have evidence from tree
rings and Antarctic ice cores, from coral layers and tidal
deposits, from supernova light and from radioisotope
dating. All of these point to an old Earth.
Nothing is "proven" in science the way it is in mathematics or logic. A scientific proposition is "proven" when the overwhelming weight of the evidence points in its direction. On death: Most Christian denominations hold that the "death" the Bible speaks of is not physical death, but the death of the soul to sin. And what makes you think "evolutionists" don't want to accept God? Plenty do. See the God and Evolution FAQ. Evolution operates on preexisting, reproducing, organisms. It doesn't care where those organisms came from. Space aliens, magic pixie dust, abiogenesis, the Voice of God -- it doesn't matter a whit to evolution. I did look at your quotes. You have done what so many others have done -- taken quotes out of context and substituted them for real argumentation. Rather than quote-mining from some pamphlets, why not examine what those scientists actually say and believe? Better yet, why not read a good textbook on evolutionary biology? It sounds to me like you need to learn what evolution actually says, rather than what creationists say it says. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | When I went to look for information on the debate of creation vs. evolution, the search sent me directly to choices that stated only the evolutionists view on creation, which I think is highly unacceptable. This site will also give anyone who comes to look for an answer to this the evolutionist's point of view. As for facts, which you stated are not given on the views of creation, there are stronger opinions now than will ever be on evolution. Unlike evolution, every theory on creation that uses facts from the Bible has been proven, and therefore made fact. I am very disappointed in this website, and although there are options to go to creation sites, the views and purpose of this site is clear. You are merely giving options so that you do not recieve more letters like this one, and at that same time are feeding your own views into everyone looking for an answer. I find this very unfair and will not soon look to this site for information of any kind. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | As you say,
this site provides what is probably the largest selection
of links to creationist websites available anywhere.
I wonder if you have written to any creationist websites, similarly chastizing them for their lack of fair and balanced treatment towards the evolutionist view. They prolifically present their opinions, and it is only fair that the evolution side of this debate be accurately presented by evolutionary scientists. That is what this site is for. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | 1: It's like
this, evolution is based on chaos, pure chance. How is it
that chaos created a perfectly balanced ecosystem? It's
order verses chaos. Order is made, chaos is not. D.N.A. is
like computer code, if chaos made computer code it would be
gobble de gook, the code wouldn't work, it would have NO
function, no matter how much the gobble de gook was
rearranged, no matter how much it duplicated itself. It
NEEDS order, it NEEDS a programer.
2: evolution says species are too much alike, but DUH!! It's like the personal computer, a P.C. and a macintosh are different but based on the same thing, an inventor starts from something small like a calculator, and as ideas come along he makes something better, more complicated. But it's still based on the same thing. A calculator, even if it could mate, isn't smart enough to change itself. Have you ever seen a mutation? It's not an improvement, it's a D.N.A. glitch, and by the way people who are born blind or retarded etc. have normal kids. Think about it. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | Evolution is
not based on pure chance. The process of natural selection,
which is responsible for the development and retaining of
adaption, is the very opposite of pure chance. See the Evolution and Chance
FAQ.
Computer programs do not necessarily require programmers. Selection processes analogous to natural selection of living organisms can give rise to working computer programs which no-one really understands. Some of the best examples of this are in development of field-programmable gate arrays (a bit like programmable hardware). The circuits work, but use principles totally unlike those adopted by human programmers, and no-one fully understands how they work. See Adrian Thompson's home page at the University of Sussex, and a New Scientist article on the subject (both offsite). Species are not simply alike: they are alike in a very regular way, called a nested hierarchy. This is what allows us to say, for example, that a whale is unambiguously a mammal, and not a fish. Molecular evidence confirms this nested hierarchy, which is characteristic of cummulative inherited change. By way of contrast, computers and calculators are designed objects, and they do not have this pattern. Advances which make calculators better get reused in computers, and vica versa, which means that there is no clear cut basis for classifying computing devices into a hierarachy. This is a major difference betwwen designed objects and evolved objects. Mutations are sometimes bad, often neutral, and occassionally beneficial. See the Are Mutations Harmful FAQ. |
Feedback Letter | |
Comment: | Do you belive in God? If not, how can you argue against Creationism!? |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | Does it matter if I, or anyone else, believes or disbelieves? The evidence remains the same either way. Belief does not enter into it. And to answer your question, there are many people who contribute to this website who believe. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | not a
comment, but arequest for information. I am researching for
a BBC documentary about the creation/evolution debate, and
have been told of a California-based organisation that
supplies back up and support to beleaguered schools and
colleges under threat from creationists. Do you know of
them, and how I can get in touch?
Thanks David Fairhead |
Response | |
From: | |
Author of: | Creation Science and the Earth's Magnetic Field |
Response: | The organization you are looking for is The National Center for Science Education. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | Hi, this is
Jon Scott [www.talkscience.mytownnet.com], I just had a
comment that I normally would have shared with the
newsgroup (but i haven't had much luck getting connected).
It's about Sinornithosaurus. It's basically a
dromaeosaurid, with flapping wings like Archaeopteryx
lithographica, a hyperextendable second toe like
Deinonychus antirrhopus, and a mixture of small symmetrical
feathers and furry down. Many other larger dinosaurs had
small cavities for feathers to fit in their forearms. And
of course there are always the feathered "therapods"
(probably primitive flightless birds), protarchaeopteryx
and caudipetryx. But because of sinornithosaurus millenii,
it is now impossible to keep birds and dinosaurs as
separate groups.
I bet I know what creationists will be saying too. That even the there is just one big group from now on, the [bird-dinos], there is still no evidence that any kind of [bird-dino] evolved into any other kind of [bird-dino]. Which I would probably be doing right now had i not given up on creationism a couple of months ago. God bless, Jon Scott P.s. I plan on dismantling talk.science in the near future. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | Charles R. Miller Jr. |
Comment: | A comment about your web site: I am a Christian and obviously a creationist, and was surfing the web looking for information. I ended up on you site and became overwhelmed with the amount of info and its setup. What I am most impressed with is the amount of fair coverage to both sides of this issue you have. That made me very happy. Although my belief is in creation, I must be able to hear opposing views and the like. That, more than anything, is the reason I have been back to your site. Everyone has a say here and they are all represented. Congratulations! Excellent site. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | After
reading dozens of letters condemning this site for its
"bias," I am quite pleased to see that at least one person
understands its purpose. Thank you!
I do wonder, however, why you think it is "obvious" that you must be a creationist if you are a Christian. Believing in the Christian God and accepting that evolution best explains Earth's biodiversity are not mutually exclusive positions. See the God and Evolution FAQ. Or perhaps I am just misunderstanding what you mean by "creationist." If by that you mean that God had a hand in the origins of life and the universe, that position is not incompatible with science in general or evolution in particular. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | First, there is no proof of evolution, no matter what is said, it is simply guesswork and hypothesis stated as if it is fact. Second, Creationists are always presented as ignorant, or so dogmatic in their beliefs that they cannot accept other views. Hmmmm, sound familiar to evolutionists? The simple fact exists that evolution is a way to discredit God and to take His due Glory away from Him. To believe in God and evolution at the same time is a hypocrite in the fullest sense of the word. I do not mean to be offensive, I simply wish to have intelligent conversation with someone who has researched BOTH sides as I have done. I am a Creationist and believe in God wholeheartedly and His Word (the Bible) If anyone would like to respond, please feel free to e-mail me at my address 79beast@msn.com. I hope to hear from some of you soon! |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | You said
"there is no proof of evolution, no matter what is
said..."
That sums up the problem right there. No matter how strong the evidence, no matter how logical the arguments, no matter how sound the conclusions, you will not even consider them. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | I have never met anyone who believed in evolution whether that person attended university or not. Moreover,according to persons such as Profs. Phillip E.Johnson, William Dembski, etc. this theory is so outlandish it's not even worth considering. (See internet) |
Response | |
From: | |
Author of: | Punctuated Equilibria |
Response: |
Dr. Phillip E. Johnson believes that Darwinian natural selection has only been shown to produce minor changes in traits of organisms. This part he has no problem with, but he asserts that the larger claims for natural selection's role in common ancestry will soon be set aside. See this page for an in-depth review of Johnson's "Darwin On Trial". Dr. William A. Dembski certainly does not say that evolutionary theory is outlandish. Dembski, too, accepts that natural selection can do some things in the history of life. But Dembski claims that some events cannot possibly be the result of the operation of natural selection. See this page for links to both Dembski's essays and to commentary upon those essays. Wesley |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: |
Evolutionists and Creationists provide only two choices:
one or the other Actually it is only one choice: NOT
EVOLUTION! Let the other choice be whatever a person's
concience dictates. While there is a great deal of latitude
in the gene structure to allow adaptation within a species,
evolution from one species to another is impossible because
of one damning fact. ALL of the fossils found to date are
conveniently completely formed or parts of completely
formed animals or plants. The fact of mathematical
probability dictates that the externally unaided mutations
that must occur for evolution to be a fact must produce
microscopic, random cellular changes that, over time would
produce noticeably grotesque, asymmetrical life forms that
would dominate the fossil record. Symmetrical forms, if
any, would be few and far between. Entropy would also
dictate that these forms would degredate rather than
improve a species.
Therefore, it is not a question of evolution/creation but a question how life really began and cannot be answered scientifically. But one thing is absolutely true. It was not species evolution in spite of the rediculous Lucy Test which skips the necessary presence of millions of truly transitionary grotesque steps to get from form A to form B. It would be very beneficial if we would recognize that the similarities between species is infinitely more easily explained by acknowledging a common designer designing for function and beauty. This has nothing to do with religion but everything to do with acknowledging the facts. Armed with this acceptance, science could really make some strides instead of being in a complete funk regarding the origin of life and concentrate on something really worthwile such as the differenced bewteen living things and dead things which can be exactly the same chemically. We could also look for purpose in design and remove the basis of atheism and hedonism. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | Your
messages exhibits a serious lack of understanding of
evolution which you should really undertake to correct.
You say "ALL of the fossils found to date are conveniently completely formed or parts of completely formed animals or plants." You called it a "damning fact" against evolution. Do you think that evolution requires that fossils should be found of incompletely formed creatures (whatever those might be)? That is not the case. Evolution is driven by species being well-adapted to their environments. Evolution does not predict the existence of "incompletely formed" animals. Your claim that mutations must produce "microscopic, random cellular changes that would produce grotesque, asymmetrical life forms that would dominate the fossil record" is simply erroneous, uninformed and completely baseless. Your use of the word "entropy" here is also completely misapplied. Despite your wishes, the origin of life is indeed a scientifically answerable question. In your last paragraph you say "this has nothing to do with religion", but the last sentence betrays your real purpose. |
Feedback Letter | |
Comment: | Love the
site, just two things I'd like to bring up:
1) In the article "A Critique of Wallace" by Wayne Duck, Duck states that macroevolution hasn't been directly observed (as the definition of it he's using is "major transformations of organisms over geological time") but in John Wilkins' "Macroevolution FAQ", he states that macroevolution is "any evolutionary change at or above the level of species" (which would mean that it *has* been directly observed since speciation has been directly observed). From what I've read from independent sources, Wilkins' definition of macroevolution is the widely accepted one. I realize that your articles are written by different authors but I'm just pointing out a basic inconsistency between them. This should be corrected. 2) Both Darren Provine and Chris Stassen (in the March and May '98 Feedback columns, respectively) provide flawed rebuttals to the Borel's Law argument. Provine and Stassen both use counterexamples which are said to have a probability of occuring greater than 1 in 10^50 but they aren't applying Borel's Law to their counterexamples. In the example using the 5000 pennies, 2^5000 is the number of possible combinations you might get when tossing the pennies over & over. But what we're looking for is the probability of a particular combination to occur in a number of tries, like in certain anti-abiogenesis calculations where it's assumed that a certain number of tries are made for 10^17 seconds, which is the Earth’s age. Regarding the pennies, 1 in 2^5000 isn't the probability. It's actually is much higher than that. There are other parameters that have to be specified when you use Borel's law, not just the number of pennies. All that's needed is the ratio between the occurrence of an event in a number of trials over the number of trials. The strongest argument against anti-abiogenesis calculations is still that abiogenesis is a young field in which things are moving fast and that assumptions used in such calculations are, at best, speculative. |
Responses | |
From: | |
Author of: | Macroevolution FAQ |
Response: | On
Macroevolution:
The definition of macroevolution, derived from Filipchenko via Dobzhansky, is the correct definition, as far as it goes. However, many authors, particularly those who think, as many do, that the processes occurring above the species level cannot be just the effect of or the same as those occuring below the species level, are not actually referring to processes when they use the term "macroevolution". Instead, they are referring to patterns of evolution, whether they are aware of it or not. To discern a pattern at macroevolutionary scales, you need to have several (minimally three but many more in practice) taxa to compare. There is no pattern for one or two species. Since the evolution of one new species from another one is the minimum of macroevolution, when people talk about "major transformations" or "large scale evolution", they must be meaning the patterns of evolution. So, both are correct, if that distinction is borne in mind. The least macroevolution is a single speciation event. Major transformations are patterns of many speciation events, and are by definition macroevolutionary, but that isn't all that is macroevolutionary. This point pops up a lot, so I must amend the FAQ sometime to make it clearer. Thanks for your feedback. |
From: | Chris Stassen |
Author of: | The Age of the Earth |
Response: | When
shuffling a deck of cards: (A) the odds of ending up
with a shuffled deck of cards are very nearly 1;
while (B) the odds of ending up with a particular
ordering of the cards are about 10-68 . Confusion between
those two (applying the (B) odds to the (A) event) is an
after the fact probability fallacy. You're only
beating the long odds if you specify the "target" outcome
in advance (or at least independently of peeking at
the result of any trial).
Even if we go further and add multiple trials (as you
requested), I don't see that it makes a significant
difference. If we generously assume that you'll shuffle
cards about a million times in your lifetime, the odds of
you getting any particular sequence in your lifetime fall,
but only to about Similarly, the odds discussed by the creationists (in the feedback entries to which you refer) are not the odds of any life evolving, but instead the odds of exactly the same result that we've had -- which means that their argument involves that exact fallacy. It is also true, as you point out, that creationists' anti-abiogenesis calculations lean on a large number of questionable assumptions, and that there are huge uncertainties in the field that render such calculations useless. But regardless of that, they need to get their basic mathematics straight. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | I am afraid that I am not overly educated in the fields of paleontolgy and evolutionary biology, so please excuse my ignorance beforehand. My question is for my own clarification. I am not clear on the timeline of evolution as a whole and its relation to the fossil record. From a pool of inorganic chemicals to a simple organism and so on. As I understand it, the dinosaurs came considerably earlier than any form of hominid, millions of years or more. There is a considerable number of hominids that would have lived and died over the time of their origin and that of Homo sapiens. Why is it then that we are able to find numerous complete fossil records of many different species of dinosaurs and few (if any?) COMPLETE fossil records of any transitional forms of Homo sapiens? I would be greatful for any reference you might give that illustrates accurately the fossil record as we see it today. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | I can think
of at least six answers to your question off the top of my
head:
|
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | I believe
man is only 6,000 years old but the earth could be millions
of years old.
God could have made it old "instantly". One thing is for sure, God destoyed it by water and promised to never do that again. But, he will eventually destroy the earth, but by "fire". Read 2nd Peter Chapter 3. Good stuff! |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: |
Why do you believe man is only 6,000 years
old? What evidence prompted you to this conclusion? Human
remains and artifacts have been discovered that are far
older than that.
You must ask yourself why God would have made a world "instantly old". He certainly would not have had to. Taking your line of thought further... this leads to conclusions that God has deliberately intended to deceive the world into thinking the world is billions of years old. These immense ages are exactly what's needed for evolution to take place, hence God's deliberate deception of creating an instantly old universe also aids in the widespread acceptance of evolution. One thing is definately for sure: The world was never, in its entire history, submerged in a global flood. This cannot be refuted. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | The April 1997 Post of the Month is an embarrassing waste of however much time it took to concoct. I would be interested in hearing what the individuals mentioned in the article have to say about such a blatant case of libel. About the only redeeming value inherent in the article is the author's impressive imagination and knack for creative writing. |
Responses | |
From: | |
Response: | Can you spell "satire"? |
From: | |
Response: | S-A-T-I-R-E. Oh, wait, that's irony. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | I am both a scientist (MS 1970, Tufts, cellular physiology and protein chemistry, five years research U. Cal. SF Medical Center and Harvard Biophysics Lab, Mass. General Hospital) and lawyer (JD 1977, Columbus School of Law, Catholic University of American, practice in the life sciences, patent infringement, and business in Japan). I am not a creationist or Christian fundamentalist. I am not interested in the scientific position against creationists, nor in the position for Darwinism as required orthodoxy. I am not interested in scientists' defense of their position because no other theory is better. I am not interested in scientists' arguments based on their acceptance of evolution as fact. I want only to examine the evidence: that which supports and that which does not support Darwinian theory. Where can I find it, preferably clearly summarized? Thanks. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: |
Unfortunately the evidence is scattered throughout journals
and textbooks. This is because that's where most scientific
work gets published, and you cannot depend upon popular
treatments to give the best summary of the field.
So, the best I can do is list some texts that may help you. First, the history of opposition to Darwinism: Bowler, P. J. (1983). The eclipse of Darwinism: Anti-Darwinian evolution theories in the decades around 1900. Baltimore and London, John Hopkins University Press. Then a text that opposes Darwinism in favor of an alternative approach to biology: Webster, G. and B. C. Goodwin (1996). Form and transformation : generative and relational principles in biology. Cambridge, U.K. ; New York, N.Y., Cambridge University Press. Next, one of the standard textbooks in the field. Futuyma, D. J. (1998). Evolutionary biology. Sunderland, Mass., Sinauer Associates. and then a book that summarises experimental work done on natural selection: Bell, G. (1996). Selection: The mechanism of evolution. New York, Chapman & Hall. and finally, a discussion about alternative ways to think about evolution, taking development (growth of organisms) as the central theme. Schlichting, C. D. and M. Pigliucci (1998). Phenotypic evolution: A reaction norm rerspective. Sunderland, MA, Sinauer Associates. It's hard to be more specific than this unless you can refine your queries. Science is a massive enterprise, and simple summaries are hard to find. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | I have noticed that a few feedback correspondents have indicated that they are unable to access the talk.origins newsgroup for various reasons (e.g. using the computer at the library). You may want to let them know that they can use a web-based newsreader such as www.deja.com or www.remarq.com for this purpose (I know we're not supposed to use feedback to recommend a web site, but in this case I felt it was appropriate). |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | What I have is a question. In the book "Refuting Evolution" Jonathan Safarti Says that the Moon is receeding from the earthat a rate of 4cm/year but it must have been much faster in the past. Is there any justification for "much faster in the past" He further says that if the moon were initially touching the earth it would only have take 1.37 billion years to get where it is now. I find that to get to 400,000 km at 4 cm/year takes 10 billion years not 1.37 billion. Has he just blown the calculation or is there something going on here I don't know about? |
Response | |
From: | |
Author of: | Creation Science and the Earth's Magnetic Field |
Response: | See my response to the same question earlier on this page. I am in the process of writing an extended article on this question, for the archive. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | Sirs: I have just been through an interesting evening listening to Phillip Johnson speak on "Evolution, Fact or Myth?". The presentation was vague (in fact, several creationist attendees commented in the Daily Oklahoman that they got no hard facts), patronizing and definitely lacking in intellectual honesty. However, this new approach to Creationism, the intelligent design based on Michael Behe's attack is more dangerous than usual. Mr. Johmson offered the same old tricks: e.g. diverting questions or refusing to answer them, but he goes for a more dangerous tactic. He acknowledges old earth time, but constantly hammers at Haeckel's embryology and the idea that evolutionists are dishonest and cover up their errors. He denies the fossil record even when shown intermediate forms (see his 1996 debate with Kenneth Miller on the PBS site for an example)and constantly hammers his "wedge " concept as the way to change. I know this has come up here before, but it bears noting that he makes this approach very palateable to the middle of the road individual. This may need to be looked at in detail as a serious threat to proper scientific study if it is allowed to proliferate. My opinion, definitely, but one hich we all may need to watch carefully. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | Thank you for maintaining the site. I hope you can persuade others to let the US education system remain secular, which seems to be the main driving force behind the site. Those who wish to believe in Creation can do so, but I'd worry if one were making decisions on my behalf. Only by having a well rounded education can one form ones own opinions and participate in a meaningful fashion in society. Best wishes. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | James Byun |
Comment: | I am someone who is neutral in the debate over creation vs. evolution. While browsing through this website, I noticed a great deal of hostility towards your creationist opponents. The same could not be said for the creationist websites I have visited. It has become quite apparent to me that this show of negativity indicates weakness and a position of defense on your part. Where's the unbiased empirical evidence so vital to the Darwinistic theory? Why the constant creationist bashing? |
Response | |
From: | |
Author of: | Punctuated Equilibria |
Response: |
I rather doubt that there is much personal animosity towards anti-evolutionists here. Quite a bit of scorn and well-deserved contempt for the low tactics and arguments made by anti-evolutionists may well be evident. I don't happen to see that as a minus. I also don't think James gets around enough if he thinks anti-evolutionists do not get hostile. Let's have a look... Go to Altavista, click on "Advanced Text Search", and then enter the following search criteria: evolutionist near (deluded or stupid or ignorant or evil or lying or misquoting or lies or misquote or bad or mistaken or censor or censorship or discrimination or discriminate or Satan or Satanist). I got 85 hits back from that. What do we see when we look inside some of these?
How about a charge about deliberate deception?
I think James may be getting the idea by now. Anti-evolutionists have been caught using deception and rhetoric in order to advance their sectarian viewpoints and get non-science taught in science classrooms. That does not cause me to hold them in greater esteem. Wesley |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | I'm very glad that this site is here. I'm so sick and tired of the Christians trying to convince me that the Bible is a science book. I'm 42 years old. I grew up in Texas less than forty miles from Glen Rose. My parents used to take me and my brothers to Dinosaur Valley on camping trips. This was in the 60's, when the site was still private property. (The State Park was not established until the 70's.) I'd go there with my cousin's family and we'd try to scare each other with stories of what it must've been like 70,000,000 years ago. Anyway, keep up the good work. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | I am a creationist (not a Biblical creationist) because creationism best answers my questions regarding life. For instance, I have wondered why many Oriental women alter their eyes to make them look Western. Perhaps you can answer this question. Also, explain the origin of Oriental eyes. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | Most likely,
the reason some oriental women try to let their eyes look
western is because they think it looks nicer. Ironically,
for the same reason some western women try to alter their
eyes to look more oriental. There's just no accounting for
taste.
Generalizations on oriental/western eyes are difficult, since in different parts of the orient, or the west, there are all kinds of eyes overlapping in appearance. It is really quite a subtle difference. I'm not sure we can be definite on reasons for such differences; what has me astounded is that you consider this a reason for preferring creationism. Since you are not a biblical creationist, perhaps you believe that the "orientals" were created seperately from the "westerners" with various special differences. I think this is contradicted by the subtle gradations in forms of eyes in the many populations which defy simple classification into "oriental" and "western"; and that only some kind of evolutionary change makes sense of the evidence. Bibilical creationists generally assume humanity is descended from a single couple, which leaves subsequent evolutionary change as their preferred explanation also. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | John Croft |
Comment: | Maybe I just
haven't read enough, but why, when arguing with the
creationists, isn't it ever pointed out that there are two
creationists [sic] stories in Genesis, each contradicting
the other.
In my opinion, that should end the discusion. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | It is
pointed out, but literalists have all sorts of ways around
that. One is to "reconcile" the two accounts, which must be
possible if the text is the literal Word of God. The other
is to dismiss such observations as the result of liberal
biblical scholarship, due to those dastardly "humanists",
and so not worth responding to.
Evidence convinces some, but then they aren't creationists any more. However, there's a steady stream of new ones to fill that gap. |
Feedback Letter | |||||||||||||||||||
From: | |||||||||||||||||||
Comment: | Ken
Harding's attempt to explain the statistical problem with
evolution is to say the least, extremely naive. I fully
agree that it is impossible to predict the kind of world
that will evolove. But the problem is very simple, if
evolution proceeded statistically, the number of discarded
mutations will outnumber that of aceepted ones by a
phenomenally large number, too big even to name. This
happens even in most optimization schemes that foolow a
steep potential gradient.
So, to attain a semblance of mathematical respectability, one needs to show more fossils of life forms that died out (the actual number required is mind boggling) and compute some time frame, based on the number of possible mutations in each organism and the time required for each step of rejection/acceptance. Please don't forget that the mathematical theories of optimization in complex systems are quite advanced and are not limited to throwing of 3 dice as you make them out to be. George. |
||||||||||||||||||
Response | |||||||||||||||||||
From: | |||||||||||||||||||
Author of: | Punctuated Equilibria | ||||||||||||||||||
Response: |
George brings up an interesting point, but his conclusions do not necessarily follow from his premises. We can set up the probability problem such that it is parameterized, allowing us to treat the beneficial mutation case and the harmful mutation case in the same fashion. Each species has a (large but) finite number of organisms that live and die over its time of residence. We'll call this number N. Each species will tend to have a characteristic probability that any particular individual's remains become a part of the fossil record and available for discovery later. We'll call this probability the "Per Individual Preservation Potential" or PIPP. For each class of mutations that we are interested in, there are a set of parameters that we can apply to characterize the effect of these mutations. First, there is the per-individual probability that such a mutation occurs at all. Let's call this probability C. A mutation may be retained in the population at some frequency, or it can be lost shortly after appearing. The probability that any particular mutation of the type in question is retained in the population can be called R. (Thus the probability of loss is (1-R).) When a mutation is lost, it will have affected one or some small number of individuals. The average number of individuals affected by a mutation lost shortly after appearance is L. Mutations can occur at various times in the history of the species, and thus those individuals that lived before retetion of a mutation cannot possibly have the trait. The average time at which a mutation enters the population can be expressed as a number between 0 (time of speciation event producing the species) and 1 (time of extinction of the species). If a mutation is retained, then it will tend to achieve some equilibrium freqeuncy in the population after introduction. We'll call this proportion A. The number of individuals which might be seen as fossils
bearing a trait of a particular mutation type can be
calculated as Mut. type fossils = ((Individuals having mutation type
that were lost)
We aren't quite at the point of plugging in our terms discussed above. Each individual organism might carry more than one mutation of the type being considered. What we need is to calculate the probability that an individual does not carry any such trait. First, we need the probability that an individual does not carry a particular trait of the type in question. Probability that a trait that occurs is not carried by
an individual = 1 - ((probability of a retained mutation) + (prob. of a lost mutation)) 1 - ((((N-(N*K))*R*A)/N) + ((1-R)*L/N))
Given the probability that an individual doesn't carry a
particular trait of the type being examined and an
assumption that multiple such traits are independent of
each other, we can work out the probability that an
individual does not carry any such trait.
We have in hand a set of parameters to apply. How do the numbers that get installed in these parameters differ between the beneficial mutation case and the harmful mutation case? Certain of them won't. The number of individuals is the same. The timing of retention or loss should not be assumed to differ. It is likely that the number of individuals affected by a trait that is lost will be very small whether the trait was beneficial or harmful. This leaves three parameters, C, R, and A. The probability of occurrence C can be stipulated to be larger for the harmful mutation case than for the beneficial mutation case. However, both R and A should be very much larger in the beneficial mutation case than in the harmful mutation case. A harmful mutation will only be retained in a population rarely, and then it will be confined to a very small proportion of the population. A beneficial mutation, on the other hand, will tend to be retained far more commonly, and its representation in the population will tend to be very high. What one finds when these equations are applied is that there are values for the parameters which yield an expectation of many more beneficial traits than harmful traits to be seen in fossilized specimens. Further, these values are arguably reasonable values. Let's assume that any sort of mutation susceptible to discovery from fossil remains is rare, perhaps one in a billion (1E-9). Further, let's postulate that a harmful mutation is only slightly rarer, at 1E-10. Let's make beneficial mutations a nice round million times rarer than harmful ones, at 1E-16. For probability of loss of a beneficial mutation, let's be pessimistic and say that half of them are lost outright. Take 3 as our number of individuals affected by a mutation before loss for either beneficial or harmful mutations. For beneficial mutations, take the proportion for retained traits as one half. For harmful, this proportion is more like one in ten thousand or 1E-4. Likewise, harmful mutations are far more likely to be eliminated, again let's take one in ten thousand as our figure. I'll summarize...
The selection of numbers favors, if anything, George's position. Are beneficial mutations a million times rarer than harmful ones? No. Is the average proportion of beneficial traits at equilibrium 0.5? Usually, it would be very close to 1.0. Are beneficial mutations retained only half of the time? The real number probably lies closer to 0.75. Plugging those in, one will find that there is a broad range of numbers of individuals for which many more beneficial traits will be evident than harmful ones. The range covers several orders of magnitude. At very small total N, one would find that the PIPP will make it unlikely that any fossils at all can be found. At very large total N, the numbers of both beneficial and harmful mutations available make it unlikely that any individual carries none of each. At the intermediate values, beneficial mutations are much more common than harmful ones. Wesley |
Feedback Letter | |
Comment: | I have heard a lot of creationists citing that there is no reptile to bird transitional fossils. Is not archaeopteryx an example of this? If this is in any of the faqs please direct me there. Great site by the way! |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | You are in luck. We have not one but three articles discussing Archaeopteryx. Archaeopteryx lithographica shows characteristics of both birds and reptiles. See the Archaeopteryx FAQs for details. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | I am a geology major at Idaho State University. I have been taught that evolution is not a proven fact of science; that the fossil record does not prove evolution. One of your articles tells me otherwise. I feal this needs to be cleared up. I believe in the theory of evolution, but I do not believe that it has been proven. I am also a Christian and feal science/evolution does not eliminate the hand of God as the creator of all things in the universe be they great or small. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | What the
fossil record proves, beyond any reasonable doubt, is that
living creatures have been around on the Earth for billions
of years; and that over that time the form of living
creatures has changed. Various forms arise in the fossil
record, and diversify, and also become extinct. Forms
existing in the recent past are more similar to those
living now; forms existing in the remote past tend to be
very different. This fact of change in the forms of living
creatures over time is often called evolution.
Evolution also refers to the processes which we observe right now to cause changes in living forms. We observe the fact of change in the fossil record, and we study the processes leading to change in the present. In science, the word "theory" generally refers to the study of the principles and foundations for some area of study. Hence we have a theory of calculus, a theory of relativity, and a theory of evolution. The word "theory" in this sense suggests a deeper theoretical level of understanding for certain observations; it does not mean the same thing as "hypothesis" or "guess". This study of evolution does not eliminate the hand of God; unless you believe that God has no hand in the outcome of natural processes. Christians generally accept the observed facts of natural processes guiding embryonic development and leading to the development of a new individual; and they also believe that God is their own personal creator. Evolution is no more a denial of the hand of God than embryology. |
Feedback Letter | |
Comment: | There was a
letter to the editor in the local newspaper from a
creationist which had the following "information" in it:
'in 1971 a freshly killed seal was radiocarbon dated at
1,300 years old; in 1963 a living mollusk shell was dated
at 2,300 years old; and in 1984 a living snail's shell was
dated at a whopping 23,000 years of age.' I surfed looking
for the origin of these numbers, but the only thing I found
was the following excerpt from an untitled article at [How Old
is the Earth]:
These numbers seem suspicious to me, but I don't know enough science to refute the statements. Can you shed some light on this? Thanks. |
Response | |
From: | |
Author of: | Punctuated Equilibria |
Response: |
Radiocarbon dating utilizes C14 and C12 ratios to produce a date. But where does C14 come from? It turns out that the C14 isotopes needed for doing dating come from the atmospheric reservoir, and thus only carbon artifacts resulting from a terrestrial and atmospheric carbon utilization will be accurately dated by these methods. Notice that all of the examples given of discordantly dated artifacts result from organisms from aquatic environments or which obtain significant amounts of carbon from aquatic sources. Since carbon in aquatic environments may have long since have been removed from atmospheric sources, it will have depleted its ratio of C14 to C12 already to some degree even before incorporation into the organism eventually tested. Trying to produce a C14 date when the initial assumptions are violated is not likely to succeed. Wesley |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | Wow. This is quite a website, and quite an interesting subject. I commend all who have contributed to the making of this site, it is one of the most well develeped I have ever seen. If you do want my opinion, it is readily apparent, even from the welcome, that this sight is run by people who belive in evolution over creationism. Not that you can have a totally neutral sight, but a more neutral sight would be great. I am a rooky in this debate, so I will spare any technical questions. I do have one question, though. And that is why. Why make such a sight and put in so many hours of work and toil? It seems that the debate over creation, whether by God or chance or whatever, keeps us away from a more important question. And that is why. Not how, but why. Why do we act the way we do? Why do we have fears and hopes and an imagination? Why do we have hardships? Why cant we have peace all the time? All I want to ask is if anyone running this website beleives in a spiritual world or a god of anykind. I have noticed that those who say there is nothing outside this material world have\ not taken 5 minutes to really sit and quietly discover this or not. It just seems to me like you are letting this debate take over your lives and your souls. There is a more important question than what this website represents. I realize I am not a grand writer, but whether you publish this comment or not, maybe you could write me back and we could have a discussion. Thank you. |
Response | |
From: | |
Author of: | Punctuated Equilibria |
Response: |
The range of spiritual beliefs held by the volunteers who work on this web site runs the gamut. We include Christians, agnostics, and atheists. I haven't checked lately, but there may be a few Buddhists here, too. What we have in common is a sense that science classrooms should teach science. Science teachers should not be forced to teach non-science, or to single out some one field of scientific inquiry for especial skepticism. Recent events point out the seriousness of the problem. Kansas has removed both evolution and cosmology from its list of test questions for students. Kentucky is looking to substitute "change over time" for the keyword "evolution" in its educational materials. There are a variety of local school boards considering adoption of the propaganda of intelligent design in the form of the "Of Pandas and People" text. Whether YEC, OEC, of Intelligent Design Creationist, these groups all share the characteristic of wishing to change the content of science courses to suit their theistic agendas. I will expend a great deal of effort to oppose that. The other reason why is that it is sometimes fun to point out a new and different error made by one or another anti-science advocate. Discussions should be moved to the talk.origins newsgroup. I suggest posting the original comment there. I suspect that plenty of discussion will ensue. Wesley |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | What about the evolution of the dolphin? Wouldn't it have to evolve on land, and then go back into the sea? If it evolved on land, wouldn't it have to make many major changes if it wanted to return to the sea? |
Response | |
From: | |
Author of: | Punctuated Equilibria |
Response: |
Yes, dolphins have many adaptations for a marine existence. However, dolphins also show the traces of a terrestrial mammalian ancestry. For example, dolphins have the usual arrangement of the mammalian middle ear, which includes the incus-malleus-stapes chain of ossicles which for terrestrial mammals matches the impedance of air-borne sound received at the tympanum with the fluid of the inner ear's cochlear structure. Testing of white whales, another species of odontocete mammal, at depths up to 300m showed that auditory thresholds were not significantly different from those at the surface. Terrestrial mammals whose hearing is tested under pressure show a significant increase in auditory thresholds as pressure increases. Odontocetes like white whales and dolphins still have the traits of the mammalian middle ear impedance matching apparatus, but apparently do not rely upon this structure for function. Wesley |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | Hi, I am not
a creationist, but I find some of the articles on evolution
having serious scientific problems. One point is the
attempt to explain away the statistical problems the
evolution theory has. One author says that natural
selection ensures that harmful mutations are killed off
quickly and good ones propagate, so it is not a random
process that'll take a long time.
As a physicist using statistical evolutionary algorithms using various optimization schemes, I know how much time is involved in even very simple systems. If you assume a favorable mutation is chosen every second (a ridiculous assumption, but let us consider an extreme evolutionary case), it allows us to have had about 10 to the power of 18 favorable mutations since the big bang. One of the biologists should give an estimate of the number of possible mutations. It would probably a few trillion times more than this. And there is no way such a process can happen according to the known laws of physics. And when it comes to phases like the cambrian explosion, you'll run into enormous trouble. I am willing to accept evolution given at least a reasonable theory. I find biologists of today more dogmatic than the creationists tehmselves. Please learn from scientists in other disciplines who have revised there theories frequently (like the big bang) and are open to criticism, rather than publish articles that contain more personal accusation against opponents (this page seems to attack the creationists personally more than their theories) George |
Response | |
From: | |
Author of: | Punctuated Equilibria |
Response: |
I hope that George's calculations in physics are founded on better assumptions than the ones he asserts must hold for evolutionary change. George says that 10^18 seconds have elapsed since the Big Bang. George posits this as a bound on the possible number of favorable mutations, though no reason why is given to relate the two. Biology is a science that uses big numbers, too. Let's say that some bacterium has a paltry 1/1000th the number of nucleotide bases in its genome as does a human, or about 3 million such bases. Let's assume that point mutations are the only type of mutation around. Let's assume a typical rate of mutation, say 1E-9 per base per copy. Let's assume that each bacterium in this strain divides every ten hours. Let's assume a constant population size of a trillion bacteria since the Archean age six hundred million years ago. (Such a population might be comfortably kept in a large beaker.) Number of nucleotide bases copied per generation: 3E6 * 1E12 = 3E18 Number of point mutations per generation: 1E-9 * 3E18 = 3E9 Number of generations in 600 MY: 5.2E11 Number of point mutations in 600 MY for one small population of bacteria: 5.2E11 * 3E9 = 1.6E21 That number is sufficient to indicate that every single possible point change to a 3 million base genome was tried an average of 1.7E13 times over the course of a small bacterial population's 600 MY life. That finding is sufficient to indicate that while George may think that he has a handle on the math, he is actually quite mistaken. Wesley |
Feedback Letter | |
Comment: | Dear Sirs; I
have heard that the moon is slowly moving away from the
earth at 4cm per year. This rate was probably higher in the
past. Thus the moon could not have been orbiting the earth
for 4.5 billion years. How is this explained?
Thank you for your response. Michael Anderson |
Response | |
From: | |
Author of: | Creation Science and the Earth's Magnetic Field |
Response: |
The moon currently recedes from
Earth at a rate of 3.82±0.07 cm/year, according
to Lunar
laser ranging measurements (Dickey et al.,
1994). The current average Earth-moon distance is
384,400 km. Extrapolated backwards over 4.5 billion years,
the rate of 3.82 cm/yr would put the moon 212,500 km from
Earth. In order to be physically unacceptable, the moon has
to be within the
Roche limit of 2.97 Earth radii (Stacey, 1977),
or about 18,920 km.
The moon recedes from Earth because of the tidal interaction between them, and we do know that it must have been stronger (and the rate of recession faster) in the distant past. According to creationist arguments, the physics of this tidal interaction is incompatible with an evolutionary (i.e, 4.5 billion year old) Earth-moon system. But the creationist arguments invariably use the wrong physics to describe the tidal interaction, and therefore lead to spurious conclusions. Creationist arguments invariably take into account only the effect of the tidal bulge, and ignore all dissipative processes, such as ocean tides (creationists Walter Brown and Don DeYoung both use this erroneous argument), but creationist Thomas Barnes doesn't even bother with that much detail, preferring to use vague generalizations, and sources as much as 100 years old! While Barnes' approach to the problem is simply useless, Brown decides that the maximum age of the Earth-moon system is about 1.2 billion years, and DeYoung derives a maximum age of 1.4 billion years. It would seem that these could hardly be happy results for somebody who wants Earth to be no more than 10,000 years old. DeYoung solves the problem by expediently deciding that the moon was created in place, while Brown dances around and pretends that the Earth-moon system could be a lot younger, without doing a very good job of explaining why. But both of them used extremely oversimplified models guaranteed to underestimate the true dynamic age of the system, a fact that seems to have escaped their collective attention altogether. A correct derivation of the tidal interaction shows that it is dominated by the water oceans of Earth, an effect totally ignored by creationists. By 1982, it was known not only that the oceans dominated the interaction, but that the way the continents were distributed made a big difference (Hansen, 1982). So any attempt to understand the long term evolution of the system has to include plate tectonics and continental drift. It took quite a while to get the mathematical and computational capacity to attack the problem seriously, but that has now been done. The tidal evolution of the Earth-moon system has been computed, and shown to be compatible with an evolutionary age, because the rate of recession is not as fast early on as some thought, although more variable over relatively short periods than was thought (Ross & Schubert, 1989; Kagan & Maslova, 1994; Touma & Wisdom, 1994). The creationist argument that the true age of the Earth-moon system is much younger than allowed by standard (i.e., evolutionary) theory is seriously flawed by virtue of being extremely oversimplistic. A correct analysis of the tidal interaction shows that there is no incompatibility. Observational evidence of clues left behind by the rotation rate of the youthful Earth confirms the correct analysis and refutes the simplistic creationist arguments (Sonett et al., 1996; Williams, 1997; Sonett & Chan, 1998) References Dickey, J.O. et al. Hansen, Kirk S. Kagan, B.A. & N.B. Maslova Ross, M.N. & G. Schubert Sonett, C.P. et al. Sonett, C.P. & M.A. Chan Stacey, F.D. Touma, Jihad & Jack Wisdom Williams, G.E. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | I can't find
Dr. Carl Baugh's web site. I put in
www.creationevidences.org but it comes back as an unknown
host. Can you help me? I want to find out how to make my
water perfect.
Thanks so much, Bob |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | Omit the "s", and try www.creationevidence.org. I've also marked it for addition to our links page. Thank you. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | I am glad I came across your site because I am currently carrying on an informal debate with a colleague. Your site generally fits in with my focus on the matter of Bible versus Science. Your FAQ will give me much needed background for lively debates. In regard to the Flood, I asked my friend (and I intend to keep him as a friend), "How do you explain the polar ice caps being underwater?" An event like this would have to have left a devastating imprint that could be observed. Have not scientists taken ultra-deep core samples of ice -- showing year after year of earth history, like rings in a tree? Has anyone at this site done some research on the Polar Ice Cap v. the Flood? |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | As it states in our Icecore Dating FAQ, Antarctic ice core samples show no evidence of a global flood. What they do show is that the Earth is at a minimum 160,000 years old. (Of course, it is actually much older than that.) |