Feedback for January 1998

Stars are created and destroyed through natural physical processes that we have studied for decades and that we now understand fairly well. Stars are created when large clouds of hydrogen gas, common in interstellar space, collapse under the influence of gravity. As the cloud of gas collapses, the center becomes hotter and denser, until it becomes hot and dense enough for nuclear fusion to commence. That nuclear fusion releases energy in the form of the light we see. A star is born.

Stars undergo fusion for a period of time determined by the amount of hydrogen in the initial cloud. A larger star "burns" hotter, thus it uses up its nuclear fuel faster. The fate of the star is then determined by its size. A smaller star, such as our sun, will swell into a red giant, after which the core of the star collapses into a white dwarf star. A larger star, on the other hand, will become a red supergiant, such as the star Betelgeuse, which is either destroyed in a supernova explosion, or which becomes a neutron star or a black hole. Here is a picture of Supernova 1987A from the Hubble Space Telescope.

Einstein's beliefs about the universe, whatever they might have been, aren't relevant to whether evolution is the best scientific explanation for the diversity of life on Earth.

Darwin did explain how the eye could evolve in On the Origin of Species. In all probability, you have been shown a particular quote from that work which, when taken out of context, makes it seem as if Darwin cannot explain the evolution of the eye. A discussion of this fraudulent misquotation of Darwin can be found An Old, Out of Context, Quotation.

"Codes" found in the Bible, such as those outlined by Michael Drosnin in The Bible Code, are merely the product of coincidences that can found in any work of substantial length. Darren Provine answered a similar question in the August 1997 feedback, where he pointed to Brendan McKay's demonstration of finding assassination predictions in Moby Dick.

Nevertheless, if fossil evidence is the only thing that will convince you, then you might want to check out the Fossil Hominids FAQ and take a look at all the pictures of ape-like human skeletons. Also, ask yourself why creationists cannot even agree among themselves which primitive human fossils look like apes and which look like humans? Doesn't this very fact suggest to you that our ancestors were more ape-like than modern?

Now, cladism is a formal methodology of reconstructing evolutionary relationships, mainly of modern organisms, on the basis of observations of characters they display. Pattern cladists deny that the resulting trees can logically support a particular phylogeny. They do not deny that evolution happens, nor that modern organisms have fossil ancestors. What they do object to, though, as a matter of scientific rigor, are hypotheses about this fossil being the ancestor of this modern genera or family, etc. This is the sense in which Patterson means

I gave a fairly rumbustious talk, arguing that the theory of evolution had done more harm than good to biological systematics (classification).

He's not talking about biology in general. He's talking about the discipline of classification, and in particular using modern patterns to infer the past history of a given taxon (natural grouping like a species). Pattern cladism is not the majority view, although it is a fairly persistent school of thought over the past 25 years or so.

Nevertheless, even if one cannot use phylogeny as the basis for classifying organisms as pattern cladists argue from formal grounds, none of them deny that evolution occurs. What they deny is that we can know a certain level of detail about it. History is lost information (what did Julius Caesar have for breakfast the morning he crossed the Rubicon?), and so some of what occurred in the evolutionary past will be hidden from us forever. What Patterson and his opponents are arguing over is the amount we can say we know.

It is possible -- and quite common -- to be a Christian and an evolutionist.

As for your second question--which has nothing to do with evolution, just to make that clear--the scientific position is one of agnosticism. That is, the laws of physics break down at the Big Bang. Our ideas of causality, matter, energy, and time are based on the laws of physics in this universe, and there is no reason to think that such things apply "before" the Big Bang. Indeed, there may not even be any such thing as "before" the Big Bang. In any case, the realm is beyond the limits of scientific inquiry.

An atheist might go further and ask where this "something" outside the universe came from. She would say that if a God created the universe and is omnipotent and omniscient, then He must be at least as complex as the universe itself. If that is the case, we have merely pushed the question of origins to a higher level, namely, where did God come from? But this is theology, or metaphysics, not science.

This archive is a collection of articles and essays, most of which have appeared in talk.origins at one time or another. The primary reason for this archive's existence is to provide mainstream scientific responses to the many frequently asked questions (FAQs) and frequently rebutted assertions that appear in talk.origins.

The archive aims to present the best possible information; and in our view this is nearly always found within the mainstream of science. The archive is not a collection of all possible opinions regardless of merit.

We do encourage open debate; but we do this with links to people who hold alternative views, rather than attempting to speak on their behalf. Individual files within the archive frequently contain links to pages expressing directly relevant alternative views, and our other-links page has what may be the web's largest collection of anti-evolution links.

There is no difference between variation and speciation. Absolutely no difference in the mechanism. It is only a question of degree. See the Introduction to Evolutionary Biology FAQ.

Evolution does not predict that species "develop into" other species. It does not predict that we should see a dragonfly being born to fruit flies. If we observed that happening, the theory of evolution would be disproved, not verified. We have, however, seen new species being formed, both in the lab and in the wild. See the Observed Instances of Speciation FAQ and the More Observed Instances of Speciation FAQ.

All taxonomic classifications over the rank of species are arbitrary. They are categories created by humans, names given to species of plants and animals that share common characteristics. Those names can encompass a large number of species, or they can encompass a single species, but those names are given by humans, and are not immutable. If you disagree with this, then please define what a "kind" really is. What makes one "kind" of plant or animal different from another "kind"?

Keep in mind that evolution takes place over periods of time much longer than a human lifespan. We are not going to see substantially large changes in organisms in a century or less.

As for evidence for common descent, you might check out the Horse Evolution FAQ and the Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ, among others. There are several independent lines of evidence supporting common descent, including fossil evidence, morphological evidence, DNA evidence, embyrological evidence, and immunological evidence.

You might also consider the evidence of ring species, such as coyotes, dogs, and wolves, that can mate in certain combinations with varying degrees of success. (If I remember correctly, you can get "wolfdogs" and sometimes "coydogs," but not "coywolves.") This is exactly the sort of evidence one should expect from common descent, and it is inconsistent with the notion of fixed "kinds."

Evolution, like any other science, begins with the premise that our eyes and ears do not lie to us. This shouldn't be a very controversial premise; after all, it's the same premise you use crossing a street to avoid being hit by a car.

You have made the mistake that so many have made about evolution, and that is to confuse it with atheism. Evolution is not atheism. It does not say there is no God. If it did, why would so many devout believers of every religion accept evolution? Why would most mainstream Christian denominations accept evolution? Why would the Pope accept it?

If you think that creationists do not portray those who accept evolution as ignorant fools, then you have not listened to enough creationists. Spend some time on the talk.origins newsgroup and learn otherwise. Or check out some creationist web sites and see what they have to say.

It is true that scientists tend to do poorly in public debates with creationists. That is for several reasons. One is that creationists present simple falsehoods and half-truths that have complicated answers. A thirty-second question may require a thirty-minute answer to repudiate, something which is not allowed in debate formats. A bumper sticker question is more easily remembered than a dissertation answer.

A second reason is that scientists are experts on one specific topic. Creationists make points that require rebuttals from physics, chemistry, biology, geology, and astronomy. It is easy for creationists to be ignorant of all of these sciences; it is much more difficult for a scientist to be schooled in all of them.

Finally, the most important reason is that debates are viewed by people who are, for the most part, ignorant of the subject material themselves. Science carries on debates itself, but scientific debates are carried on between people who are all experts in the field under discussion. Complex scientific concepts can be reduced to shorthand language that everyone in the debate understands. This is not the case in a public debate. Some concepts in the theory of evolution are difficult to understand, and take some background and familiarity with biology. It is hard to teach a year's worth of biology class in an hour-long debate.

You state that "Science can only explain material things." Just so. The theory of evolution deals with living things, plants and animals, bacteria and people. These are material things.

Certain creationists, primarily Steven Austin of the Institute for Creation Research, have advanced the notion that the Mount Saint Helens eruption provides verification for certain aspects of Young-Earth Creationism (YEC). Conventional geology says no such thing, and the claims made by Austin and others substantially contradict with the evidence. See the Coal Beds, Creationism, and Mount St. Helens FAQ for one example of creationist misstatements.

(For FAQs responding to the Global Flood argument in general, see the Global Flood FAQs.)

The trademark on the Darwin fish is held by:

Evolution Design Inc.
4005 Machaca Rd # 101
Austin, TX 78724
(512) 338-9671
(512) 442-1771

They are available from many places on the Web, including Lytha Studios.

Unfortunately, about all that one can give you to your questions is a science fiction answer. We know that there are roughly 100 billion stars in the Milky Way Galaxy alone, and ours is only one of billions of galaxies in the universe. We have only recently acquired the technology necessary to detect planets orbiting other stars; however, our models and current evidence suggest that planetary systems should be fairly common. There should be quite a few planets in this galaxy alone that have a similar chemical composition to Earth and orbit a similar star at roughly the same distance.

The real question in the equation is how freakish an occurrence the existence of life, not to mention intelligent life, is. We don't yet have a good understanding of how life arose on this planet; any estimates as to the probability of it doing so again under similar conditions is pure guesswork at this point.

I hesitate to speak to the motives and logic of an eternal and omnipotent God, since that would be also pure guesswork on my part as well. However, if you're interested in the scientific discussion on extraterrestrial life, you might look at this page and this page about the Drake Equation, then stop in at the SETI Institute's web site.

Of course not every Christian takes everything in the bible literally. Usually it is those who do take the bible literally who have a problem with evolution, but since you are not in this category, it remains a mystery why you would equate evolution with lack of faith. I personally think the two are different subjects, and know of many faithful Christians have no problems with evolutionary theory. You may like to read the God and evolution FAQ for one perspective from a Christian writer.

A slight correction: the Talk.Origins Archive does not "allow access" to creationists, as it were, but instead provides an extensive list of links to creationist Web sites so that creationists can present their side of the argument without any interference. We at the Talk.Origins Archive feel that the viewpoints of mainstream science can adequately withstand challenge by creationists and are quite willing to submit the views expressed here to scrutiny. Your quote is quite apt.

"Howlerfests" are gatherings held every so often by various members of the talk.origins community. Usually a field trip to a museum or natural history event is involved. The term "howlerfest" comes from the howler monkey, a nasty breed of critter that screams and flings its own excrement at intruders. The label "howler monkeys" was given to the pro-evolution side in talk.origins by Ted Holden some years back; it was then co-opted by the pro-evolution camp.

As for the University of Ediacara, I suggest you consult its home page. Requirements for induction into the faculty can be found therein.

Zecharia Sitchin would disagree, as you point out. Sitchin has not been discussed on talk.origins, although he would be on topic. Sitchin proposed that the Sumerians (who were sources for much of the material in the Enuma Elish) were aware of modern cosmology, including planets Pluto, Neptune and Uranus, and the various moons. The stories describe planetary catastrophes which led to the present form of the solar system, including the planet Earth formed by collisions involving another planet (presently unknown to modern science due its highly elliptic 3600 year orbit). This knowledge came from visiting aliens, and modern humans were formed when the aliens combined their DNA with that of early hominids.

Sitchin's views are widely disputed, of course, but this is grist to the mill in talk.origins. There is a good skeptical review available on the web which perhaps suggests some of the points likely to be raised in any extended discussion.

As a supporter of Sitchin, you may like to propose a suitable URL and submit it to the archive, using the forms on our links page.

As for ape-like humans, see their fossils in the Fossil Hominids FAQ. For examples of speciation being observed in action, see the Observed Instances of Speciation FAQ.

Finally, no one is trying to prove the Bible false. There is enough evidence, however, to falsify many of the claims of so-called scientific creationists (e.g., 6000-10000 year old earth, special creation of all kinds, a global flood).

As far as books are concerned, you should check out the Creation/Evolution Reading List for suggested books on evolution and creationism. A good list of books can also be found at the end of the Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution FAQ.

However, there are two senses in which evolution can be reversed. First, there can be (and has been observed to be) back-mutation of genes, where a novelty that arises is reversed. This is likely in cases where a single base pair mutation, called a "point mutation" happens, because the likelihood of the reverse mutation is just the likelihood of the initial mutation. However, a mutation is only evolutionarily important if it spreads through a population, and that is the result of processes other than just mutation - it requires selection or drift. Once the genie is out of the bottle and into the population, it can't be stuffed back in. This is just simple probability theory.

The other way is for genes to become inactive, by being "deregulated" by the loss of genes called regulator genes. These turn genes on and off in the growth of the organism, and sometimes the regulators get lost.

There is another process called "secondary loss" by which a gross feature or trait, such as limbs or colours, etc, are lost in a branch that evolved from species that had that trait. Cave organisms often lose their sight or colouring, for example. This is not "retroevolution" because the eyes and pigments still develop, but are not fully grown, leading to incomplete structures in the finished adult.

The reason for this is known as "Dollo's Law", although it's more of a tendency than a law. This is that complex structures need to be maintained by selection in order for nonfunctional mutations to be weeded out. Most fertilisations are not viable, and are either aborted or die before reproducing. In novel environments like a cave, some of these are viable and because they do not use valuable resources to fully build useless structures, they do marginally better than those that retain the ancestral trait. This is all that is needed for evolution to occur.

If you are aware of any others, please let us know the specific FAQ file.

Thank you very much. We always appreciate responses such as yours.

As always, if you should note any errors in any of the FAQs, please feel free to bring it to our attention, either here or on the talk.origins newsgroup. Furthermore, please feel free to write about your area of biological expertise and how it relates to evolution. We are always in search of new FAQs to add to the archive.

If you mean new species being discovered that we didn't know about before, yes, all the time. It is hypothesized that we only know about a small fraction of the total number of species on Earth.

If you mean new species evolving, we have observed that too, both in the lab and in the wild. See Observed Instances of Speciation and Some More Observed Speciation Events.