Feedback for January 1999

I have even spoken to individuals who have taken biology courses where the teacher unwittingly mischaracterized evolution as the great chain of being, and other such outmoded ideas.

I myself remember an extremely perfunctory one-day discussion of evolution in my high school life sciences class. I think most teachers don't bother to be well educated on the subject, because they don't plan on teaching much of it, in any depth, for fear of negative action against them.

God also said: "See, I give you every seed-bearing plant all over the earth and every tree that has seed-bearing fruit on it to be your food; and to all the animals of the land, all the birds of the air, and all the living creatures that crawl on the ground, I give all the green plants for food." And so it happened.

Although God specifically mentions giving the green plants for food, He says nothing about giving only the green plants for food. Moreover, there is evidence of carnivorous behavior in fossil remnants that many creationists consider "pre-Deluge," e.g., the dinosaurs.

Moreover, Genesis 9:3 states:

Every creature that is alive shall be yours to eat; I give them all to you as I did the green plants.

God here gives permission to Noah and his family to eat meat, but remains silent on the question of carnivorous behavior in animals.

Whether or not the ancients considered plants to be living, a global flood most certainly would have an effect on them. It would wipe them out.

Biblical quibbling aside, the primary point is that there is no physical evidence for a globe-spanning flood, and quite a bit of evidence against such an event. See the Flood Geology FAQs for more details.

I'd recommend that folks examine the data which Snelling himself references. In particular, Dalrymple's paper, which reported K and Ar analyses of 26 samples from lava flows observed in historic times. Of those 26, one contained obvious (upon visual inspection) mantle inclusions and was therefore unsuitable for the method. Not a single one of the remaining 25 samples contained enough excess argon to interfere with an old-age K-Ar assessment.

For example, Snelling listed the Mt. Etna basalt from Dalrymple's paper, which had among the highest levels of inherited argon found in that study. It gave a K-Ar age of about 300,000 years, even though it is less than 2,000 years old. In 60 million years (when it will still be younger than any mesozoic, paleozoic, or precambrian formation is today), that same rock will give a K-Ar age of 60.3 million years -- an error of one-half of one percent due to the inherited argon.

Snelling knows that hundred-thousand-year errors due to initial argon are insignificant in the context of a hundred-million-year measurement. Dalrymple's study actually demonstrates that K-Ar dating is quite dependable for long-term isotopic age determinations -- because the error due to inherited argon in every one of Dalrymple's samples is far smaller than the spans of time that the dating method is regularly used to measure. That is precisely the opposite of the the position that Snelling tried to use it to support. Snelling has to know better, but I'd bet that most of his Impact readers don't.

The issue of whether it's intentionally misleading aside, I see three main issues with Snelling's Impact:

1. The data simply do not support the position that he wishes to promote -- that all old isotopic results based on the decay of ⁴⁰K can simply be ignored as untrustworthy. The bulk of the data suggests that the methods are reliable (more detail below). Snelling can try to create the opposite impression with a slanted presentation of carefully selected data, but even then (as noted above) the data is so consistent that he is stuck badly stretching the meaning of his own hand-picked examples.
2. If Snelling wishes to make a general case against dating based on the decay of ⁴⁰K, it's not going to be done by dealing in laundry-lists of marginal cases, deliberate misapplications of the dating methods, and concentrating on the least reliable methodologies. Instead he should be trying to bring down the opposition's best evidence -- the most reliable methodologies (Ar-Ar and stepwise heating for example), the samples which by all other tests appear the most suitable, the results whose interpretation isn't unclear. Snelling and other creationists never touch that data. I believe that they know they don't have a solid argument against it.
3. And, finally, even if Snelling succeeds with the first two items, his case is still only half-finished. It is fairly easy to make up excuses for ignoring the evidence -- that's all Snelling's Impact article amounts to. Snelling can't turn his own desired timescale into a legitimate alternative until he stops merely "explaining the evidence away" and begins to "explain the evidence." Snelling would have to show how the observed pattern of K-Ar results is a necessary and expected consequence of the age and history of the Earth which he accepts.

That final item is very important, and the remainder of this feedback response will expand on it.

As an example, consider the Albian Stage, which sits roughly in the middle of the Cretaceous. It was identified by distinctive fossil composition in the 1840s, more than a century before isotopic methods were applied to it. The identification was performed by geologists who believed in fixity of species, decades before Darwin published Origin of Species. It cannot be argued that the fossil content or relative position in the geologic column of the Albian Stage was driven by either "evolutionary" concerns or knowledge of its isotopic age results.

Harland et al. (A Geologic Time Scale 1989, pp. 89-90) report more than 30 dates for samples from the Albian Stage. The number of dates for just that one stage is greater than the number of bad ages that Snelling produces. Unlike Snelling's list, these samples are ones which have the highest appearance of suitability -- for example, least evidence of weathering or later metamorphism. Several of the reported individual numbers are actually the aggregate result of a suite of several samples and several measurements. The results are (values in millions of years, dates by K-Ar dating except red which are Rb-Sr):

The correlations are even more significant than the above list would suggest on its own. Formations sitting on top of Albian formations date to less than 97 million years; formations sitting below Albian formations date to more than 110 million years. Not only do the list of Albian ages fall into a consistent range; that range is in agreement with the ages of formations which were necessarily deposited before and after -- indicated by simple geological relationships that even Snelling would agree with. Harland et al. is an entire book of nothing but this sort of data, and the Albian Stage is just a tiny fraction that I chose at random.

Further, Harland et al. is merely a top-level summary of the data, packed with references to technical papers containing the actual measurements. If we dig into the detail behind these numbers, it gets even worse for the young-Earth cause. We have volcanic sanidine and biotite from Montana and Wyoming which sit with late Albian fossils (marked "[1]" above). These contain a range of concentrations of potassium, and yet give a series of almost-identical ages around 98 million years. We also have glauconite (a mineral that forms in clays where deposition is slow, often replacing fecal pellets, shells, and the like) from Germany which sits with late Albian fossils (marked "[2]" above). These contain a range of concentrations of potassium, and yet give a series of almost-identical ages around 98 million years. We also have glauconite from France which sits with late Albian fossils (marked "[3]" above). Multiple samples give Rb/Sr ages of 97 to 102 million years, each with about 3 million years uncertainty.

Why do these samples from all over the world -- matched up by distinctive fossil composition -- consistently date to similar values by multiple isotopic methods?

The mainstream scientists' answer to that question is simple: the results consistently agree because the methods work, and the Albian Stage represents a span of about 15 million years of time, roughly 100 million years ago. This answer cleanly explains all of the data discussed above -- the agreement of mutiple samples per location, the agreement of sample suites from distant locations, the agreement across different dating methods -- and in fact requires such a patten of results to be observed.

But what is Snelling's answer to the same question? He suggests that the methods are wildly unreliable, prone to giving random results that are off by a factor of a thousand or more. He believes that all Albian formations were deposited a few thousand years ago. What is his explanation for why there is a consistent pattern of results agreeing on ages that he is certain are off by over four orders of magnitude? If we are to take his Impact essay ("it's excess argon") as a response, it begs a number of additional questions that are going to be quite difficult for him to answer:

Did all of the dated samples inherit "excess argon" from a mysterious, unnamed source? How did the samples with the most potassium end up with the most excess argon so every sample in the suite of ages would yield the same result? How did the igneous samples ([1]) inherit exactly the same proportion of excess argon as the sedimentary ones ([2]) on a different continent, so that both suites of samples would agree? How did the samples with the most ⁸⁷Rb end up with the most excess ⁸⁷Sr so that the whole suite of Rb-Sr ages would agree? Even if we grant the assumption that there is some systematic answer to matching the K-Ar ages ([1] and [2]), how do the Rb-Sr ages ([3]) -- which depend on elements with chemistry very unlike that of argon -- get set to exactly the same numbers? Why do these far-flung groups of rocks yield "fictitious" ages that agree on the same value for multiple samples per site, and how did they each get buried with late Albian fossils?

Snelling's generic handwaving about excess argon does not explain the pattern of results. The young-Earth crowd doesn't have a sensible explanation for this data. A formally trained geologist like Snelling must know this, which makes his obfuscation about K-Ar dating all the less excusable.

However, I have a comment about your statement: "it's just as much as article of faith to argue that the universe is a self-sustaining mechanism w/o the need for a God as it is that the universe was created and is sustained by God". Have you ever approached the question from an atheist position? If not, how would you know that involves faith? Faith (as in 'religious faith') is belief in something in the absence of evidence. As an atheist, I find that quesiton involves no faith at all.

The chasm which you refer to is not so much a product of the modern RC Church, but by other denominations...

You can tell your roommate that the American government will not educate you on creation either- because that is forced religion and against our wonderful constitution. So don't feel bad about your Chinese government- they're doing the right thing.

As for the so-called fossil, you should be highly skeptical.

1) These things can be easily faked. Carving fake fossils is a creationist home-handicraft industry.

2) Creationists often willfully mistake fossils for what they wish to see, as in the Palauxy River "man tracks".

3) Creationists are, for the most part, not scientific experts. Few of them have any scientific training at all. They present their case as a literal reading of biblical scripture. I doubt they could identify a dinosaur footprint if they tried, let alone a human footprint (see Palauxy man tracks).

4) If such claims were true, you would hear about it from qualified scientists working in the field, not just from people who have an opposing position based on non-scientific reasons.

As to the photo, I have never seen it, and doubt that it is genuine, if it exists at all.

Talk.origins does not advocate Flat Earthism. You apparently missed the big disclaimer at the top of the page.

Here is an interesting example of natural selection unintentionally driven by human actions

Scripps Howard News Service L O N D O N, Sept. 29 "Evolution is saving elephants in Africa by producing herds with tiny tusks or none at all" which provides no profit for poachers and thus ensures the survival of the species.

The phenomenon has been noticed in all parts of Africa where hunting has been going on longest, with both trophy hunters and poachers always shooting the elephants with the biggest tusks. A survey in the Queen Elizabeth National Park in Uganda in the 1930s showed that only 1 percent of adult elephants were without tusks. Then it was regarded as a rare mutation. This year Eve Abe, of the Ugandan wildlife authority, found that 30 percent of adult elephants in the same area were without tusks. Richard Barnwell, World Wide Fund for Nature conservation officer for Africa, said the trend towards elephants having smaller tusks or none had been noticed all over the savannah area of West Africa, where elephants had been hunted longest. "All the elephants with genes that produce big tusks have been taken out of the population. Those that remain either have small tusks or none at all."

Big Tuskers Becoming Rare

He said it was now rare to find a big tusker in Cameroon, Nigeria, Ghana, Ivory Coast, Niger or Mali. Another attribute aiding elephant survival is bad temper. Elephants were hunted almost to extinction in South Africa at the turn of the last century. One small herd in what is now the Addo national park on the edge of the Indian Ocean survived, however. Barnwell said this was partly because these elephants were known to be very bad-tempered and did not have particularly large tusks. "Elephants are very intelligent and can be very dangerous if they are prone to bad temper. Hunters decided that trying to kill them was not worth the risk, so being bad-tempered is a survival technique too." Poaching in the Queen Elizabeth park reduced elephant numbers from 3,500 animals in 1963 to 200 in 1992. Now the population is 1,200 and is growing quickly. The difficulty of finding an elephant with large enough tusks is defeating commercial poaching.

Tusks May Still Have Uses

Lack of tusks is not all good news for elephants, however. Bulls fight for the right to mate with females, and in this respect large tusks are a big advantage. This is why bulls with big tusks developed in the first place. An additional advantage is that tusks are used as tools, particularly in the dry season for digging in river beds looking for water. Campbell said this did not particularly matter in the Queen Elizabeth national park because water was plentiful, but for the dry savannah elephants it could be crucial. In parts of central Africa, elephants are hunted for their value as meat, so even being without tusks is no help. He added: "The fact is that elephants with big tusks would come back if we stopped hunting them. Large tusks are an adaptation that took place to help survival. The message of all this is that we are forcing a change in elephants which is not necessarily to their advantage. If they are to survive, we need to look after them."

Your second point about the watch is very insightful and intelligent... as is the rest of your post.

As far as your final question, who knows? Here is my opinion:

The worst cases of crimes against Humanity- the Holocaust, the Persecution of the Native American Peoples, the Tyranny of the British in India and other parts of the World, the Slavery of Blacks in America- all had one re-occuring theme. In all cases, the oppressors thought that their victims were less than Human, unequal to themselves, and undeserving of the same rights. Religion, for all the good it does, was unable to prevent these tragedies, and in many cases supported and contributed to them.

Just maybe, if the perpretators of these crimes had been taught from childhood the truth of the Fact of Evolution, they might have realized that there are no 'inferior' species of Man; that we are all descended from the same ancestors, we all have the same DNA, we are all Homo Sapiens, and that we are all deserving of the same rights and priveleges.

Just maybe...

In terms of philosophy and logic, the assertion that "something must be eternal" is simply an unsupported assertion.

As for the common anti-evolutionary claim that there is no natural way for information to increase in a genome, it is simply false. I have provided an answer to this question before, and shown that the example given fits both Shannon-style definitions of information and a more casual usage of the term information. At this point, I'll have to ask, once again, that if the example supposedly does not represent an information increase, what definition of information is used to make that determination?

One can also read Richard Dawkins' response to this same question.

Wesley

The Moon "pulls" harder on the parts of the Earth closer to it than it pulls on the Earth as a whole -- because gravitational attraction is proportional to m/r2 and those nearer parts have a smaller value for "r" (distance from the Moon's center of mass). That difference in pull is roughly proportional to m/r3. Using units of Earth-masses (Moon = 0.012 E-m, Sun = 333,000 E-m) and gigameters (Earth-Moon = 0.384 Gm, Earth-Sun = 150 Gm), here is a quick back-of-the-envelope calculation:

• Gravitational attraction ([Sun-Earth]/[Moon-Earth]):
  ([333000/1502]/[0.012/0.3842]) = 180
  The Sun exerts about 180 times as much gravitational attraction as the Moon.
• Tidal gradient ([Sun-Earth]/[Moon-Earth]):
  ([333000/1503]/[0.012/0.3843]) = 0.46
  The Sun exerts just under one-half as much tidal influence as the Moon.

The distinction between "gravitational attraction" and "tidal gradient" explains the Moon's importance in tides, but it can not save Holden's argument. He claims that a massive Saturn was extremely close to the Earth; his model explicitly invokes immense tidal forces to create the "world mountain" and lower the "felt effect of gravity." Once he has demanded the Earth be subjected to a huge tidal gradient, he cannot magically excuse Earth's water from being subject to those very same forces.

Note that the Moon's tidal pull distorts the Earth's figure by a few centimeters, but results in water depth changes of almost ten times as much on average. The difference is due to the Earth being much more rigid than water. Tidal forces should always "pile up" a lot more water than land for that very reason. That is why the FAQ writer noted that Holden's "world mountain" would have been deep underwater.

One last thing: It would be an error to suggest that tides are "NOT" affected by the Sun. The "cycle of tides" is a direct result of the interplay of Solar and Lunar tides. Every two weeks (approximately) when the Sun and Moon are aligned, their tides add together and we experience "spring tides" which have the greatest difference between high and low tide. In between when the Sun and Moon are 90 degrees out of alignment, their tides cancel to an extent and we experience "neap tides" which have the smallest difference between high and low tide. This cycle would not exist if there were no Solar tides. This observation is also relevant to Holden's claims. The fact that we can see a similar cycle of tides preserved in billion-year-old fossils indicates that the Earth has had a Moon for a very long time, and suggests that it has not likely been in orbit around Saturn at any time in the recent past.

The basic gist of the explanation is that even a rudimentary light-collector provides some small benefit to organisms, who can thereby avoid predators and find prey just a bit more easily.

Actually, evolution represents a synthesis of many modern "hard" sciences. Creationism is a non-scientific attempt at supporting one particular religious sect's creation mythology with scientific-sounding terminology, but not by actually advancing any scientific theories, but by attacking evolution with tactics of confusion and deceipt. Their effort is aimed mainly at the public school system, which they detest for a couple of reasons: 1)teaching evolution 2)offering sex-education and 3)the elimination of forced prayer and religious teaching. (I know several fundamentalist extremists who would like to see the end of public school altogether).

The only class in which creationism should be taught is comparative religion, along with all the other creation myths- Hindu, Native American, etc. It is not, nor will it ever be, science. It begins with its conclusions already firmly established, and will not allow anything to disagree with biblical scripture.

If you have trouble fathoming the study of events that happened millions or billions of years ago, perhaps you should read further. Is paleontology to be doubted? Should archeology be thrown out? Is all of history suspect? There are real reasons behind the science of reconstructing the past.

My favorite analogy is forensic science. A man can murder someone (with no witnesses), and scientists can reconstruct the scene with such accuracy as to pinpoint the guilty person- with such accuracy as to cause that man to receive the death penalty. Evolution is much the same- reconstructing the past through examination of the evidence. Creationism does no such thing.

As far as bias, I think that scientists should have a bias against pseudoscience- at least they should be skeptical regarding claims that fall far outside known facts. Creationism has every chance in the world to prove to mainstream scientists that it isn't pseudoscience. It has yet to do so.

DISCLAIMER:

This article is not advocating flat-earth theory, nor is it attempting to show that most or even many creationists believe in a flat Earth. It simply illustrates that there are still real people who interpret the Bible so literally that they think Earth is flat. The Talk.Origins Archive does not support or endorse the views of the International Flat Earth Society. Clicking the "Feedback" button above sends feedback to the Talk.Origins Archive, not the International Flat Earth Society. Please do not send us feedback to tell us that the Earth is a sphere; we are already aware of this fact.

Note carefully the last sentence of that paragraph.

It is important to expose suspicious credentials, especially when these people claim to be experts in scientific fields. They confuse the public, and gain more credibility than they warrant. Many of these creationists have little or no scientific training. Most of their science comes from scripture, and they object to evolution for non-scientific reasons.

This web site isn't about the latter-day followers of the tenets of Mary Baker Eddy, so I don't really know what to say about that.

On the other hand, creation science certainly does partake of the oxymoronic character.

Wesley

I don't know what the "Pretorist" view is... it wasn't in my dictionary. But it doesn't matter anyway...

you didn't leave your email address.

According to their own understandings of the second law of thermodynamics, they can't provide scientific evidence or inference why their own hypotheses do not violate the second law.

The 2LoT is one of the biggest anti-evolutionist smokescreens, in my opinion. It is nothing. Birth does not violate the second law. Death does not, and neither does genetic variation. These three events are what cause evolution. It is a baseless objection- one they use to cause doubt and confusion in the non-scientific public. They're trying to sway the fence-sitters, as well as reassure their followers.

Claims regarding Thermodynamics must be made as mathematical expressions, not metaphors. To my knowlege, anti-ev's have not provided any mathematical calculations as to exactly why birth, death and genetic variation violate the second law of thermodynamics.

To me, it is the weakest of their arguments.

Scientific Creationism should in fact be re-named to Theological Objectionism, or Non-scientific Anti-evolutionism.

At the basis of all anti-evolution you will find, crouching behind scientific-sounding terminology, literal adherence to biblical scripture that will tolerate no interpretation.

I obtained my copy from the Dinosaur Nature Association at Dinosaur National Monument in Utah, but it is also available from Pan Terra's Worldwide Museum of Natural History.

That said, I am glad to hear that your friends have been tolerant of your views, as I hope you've been tolerant of theirs. In a democratic society where information flows freely, it is crucial that people like you and your friends engage each other in open discussions without anger. Be persuasive, not argumentative. As the old saying goes, "You catch more flies with honey than you do with vinegar."

I must point out to you for the sake of your science project that evolution is only about the origin of the diversity of life on Earth. It is not about the origins of life on Earth, or even the Earth itself; those are subjects of study for abiogenesis/molecular biology and astrophysics/cosmology, respectively. Learn what those sciences have to say, but more importantly, learn why they say them.

Keep searching for the truth, Megan, and recognize that the simple answers in life aren't always the correct ones.

The reason these other theories are not attacked as evolution is, quite obviously, that they do not threaten a particular theology.

Organisms do not intentionally grow 'new' body parts for survival purposes. Organisms do not evolve. Species evolve. Organisms remain as they are born. Organs do not have to be fully-functional as we know them in order to be useful. Body parts certainly do not 'pop up' in one or two generations. Organs may assume different functions over time, and each organ did not necessarily 'start from scratch'.

It sounds like you did not come across this FAQ on Abiogenesis.

I'm glad to see that you are aware of anti-evolution/creationism's flaws from a scientific perspective. But then, are you saying that creationism should stand as a valid science just because it has an invisible deity behind the scenes, ready to work out whatever insurmountable problems it has? That is exactly why creationism isn't science at all, but just a scientific-sounding version of your typical sunday morning sermon. Can't you see why the last place creationism should be pushed is into the science classroom? We don't need forced religion in our public schools.

This is America- people of course have the right to believe whatever they want. But when creationists throw their hat into the scientific ring, they're gonna get beat up! Creationism should be kept where it belongs- in churches, private schools and in the homes of those who believe it.

Your last comment sounds like that you're suggesting that just because something is complex and difficult to understand, we should write it off as the act of a "divine being" who can do anything.

Those aren't flaws in evolution, they are flaws in your understanding of biology. Your questions illustrate that you have done no investigating on the subject for yourself (or didn't pay attention during high school biology class). I suggest that you browse the FAQS on this website, and find out the answers. They're all right here.

This is such a common problem, in my opinion: people are used to sound-byte (or bible verse) bits of information that they can digest without having to think about the information. Yes, understanding evolution and science will take some effort on your part. Is it worth it? Absolutely. The mind is like a muscle- the more you use it the stronger it gets.

You should also read the God and Evolution FAQ to see how your religion can coexist with science.

Daniel Dennett does not force his views on anyone. If you do not like what he has to say, you may simply put down his book. If you do not like what I say, then click the back button on your browser. Some of us have a curiosity and a need to know our origins, and find beauty and wonder in the granduer of the natural world.

Once again we have the erroneous claim that darwinism or atheism is responsible for the holocaust....

1)

2)

1) Daniel Dennett does not force his views on anyone. If you do not like what he has to say, you may simply put down his book. If you do not like what I say, then click the back button on your browser. Some of us have a curiosity and want to know our origins, and find beauty and wonder in the granduer of the natural world.

Once again we have the erroneous claim that evolution/darwinism/atheism is responsible for the Holocaust. This is just not the case. Here are some quotations from Hitler himself from his autobiography, Mein Kampf:

a)"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."

b)"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison."

Of course there is much, much more. Here is a good source of information. But I realize it will take a long time before this erroneous belief dies away.

2) If you can't see the difference, I hope you don't move into my town. Here are a few differences for you to consider.

a)Humans have REASON, and know that what they are stealing does not belong to them- they did not earn it and do not deserve it.

b) a wolf stealing a carcass does so as a survival measure. Humans, in most cases, do not steal to eat. There are alternate methods of getting food. If a human has to steal to eat, then I say let them steal it (rather than starve).

c) Humans have EMPATHY, and can imagine the feeling of loss in the true owner of the property.

d) Animals are not capable of being moral or immoral. These are purely human labels. Animals do only that which they need to do for survival. Humans steal and kill for pleasure and profit (something that has no parallel in the natural world), and they have done so and will continue to do so, regardless of the prevailing theology. For thousands of years people have rejected the idea that we are "all animals", and yet they still stole and murdered.

Accepting Evolution does not mean you have to abandon morals and act like an animal.

First, anyone who thinks macroevolution means "rocks to humans" has rocks in their skull, and anyone who voices this idea is trying to deceive the gullible. (I've seen Creationist Kent Hovind use this one in his presentation). You're right- the statement "rocks to humans" is obviously false (it's a straw man argument, in fact), but since "rocks to humans" is not an example of macroevolution, it does NOTHING to dispel the idea of macroevolution. It simply makes the speaker look ignorant. Macroevolution is the cumulative effect of many microevolutionary changes, and it is a fact.

Second, the notion that microevolution is "restricted to a few trivial cases at the single-celled level" is incorrect, and whoever says it needs a education in biology. What you have described above as "normal changes due to genetic reproduction" is Recombination, not Mutation. These are only two of the five processes that are involved in evolution. (No wonder they can't understand it!)

The description you gave is NOT what I'd call evolution. If that is what your anti-evolutionist people are calling evolution, then they are pathetically under-informed, and you should tell them so. There are two processes that decrease genetic information (Genetic Drift and Natural Selection), and there are three processes which increase genetic information (Mutation, Recombination and Gene Flow). Until your anti-evolutionists can address all of these processes, they should probably keep their mouths shut. You can find out much more about each of these processes by clicking the search button and typing in one of the terms. You should also read up on observed speciation.

Hope this helps.

Sometimes, part of understanding what something is involves understanding what it isn't. A good deal of confusion results when members of the public use definitions of evolution that aren't the same as the ones biologists are using.

If the reader wishes a more complete discussion of evolution, may I suggest that the reader examine other files on this site, including Chris Colby's Introduction to Evolutionary Biology?

Obviously, 50 million years is WAY out of line with current understandings of human evolution. BUT, 1842 is prior to the publication of The Origin of Species by Charles Darwin, so there really weren't any "evolutionists" as we think of them today who could estimate any dates. Certainly, if someone found a skull in some strata in 1842, it is unlikely that they would be thinking in terms of hominid ancestors. Lastly, the technology to date strata did not exist in 1842.

This question is very much like a common creationist confusion tactic: throwing up a vague, unverifiable statement to cause doubt among the fence-sitters.

Biologists are sometimes guilty of casual use of the word "evolution". Dr. Moran mentions that biologists sometimes differ on the precise wording of a definition.

However, if pressed to give a clear technical definition of the word, I think that you will find that most biologists broadly agree with the concepts as reviewed and commented upon by Dr. Moran.

Is casual usage of "evolution" wrong? I would say that such usage should be deprecated, much like the use of "goto" in programming languages. If a more specific concept is meant, then a phrase that renders that specificity accurately would be preferred.

Dr. Moran's current email address can be obtained through the web page of his department.

Wesley

It's also like all the colors of the rainbow... Deep red on one side, then all shades of orange, yellow, different varieties of green, all sorts of blues, and purple on the other side. You want to be shown that red turns into purple, but you won't allow any of the subtle changes in between. The changes ARE as small as the "new varieties" that you speak of. That IS the process. (I think you might be in denial).

Do you think lungs just "popped up" in an individual fish?? The mechanism for new genetic information is mutations. Imagine (if you have an imagination) that a freshwater fish had a mutation which allowed the lining inside its esophagus to absorb oxygen directly. None of the other fish would have had this trait. Maybe for hundreds of generations this trait was passed on without any real benefit, but as a neutral trait. Then the oxygen became depleted in the lake in which this fish lived. The fish discovered that it could swim up to the surface of the water and get a gulp of air. (This is EXACTLY what the LUNGFISH does today). Now there is selective pressure to evolve a proper lung. With the fish spending time near the surface, it skimmed the shallows for food. To assist this, bony fins that can be used for propulsion would be extremely useful, such as in the mudskipper. When it evolved, it was inevitable that the fish would use it's ability to go up on shore to exploit an untapped food resource. Then came amphibians, with moist skins who still had to lay their eggs in water... and so on. Impossible in a human lifetime- even in the whole history of human life. But it's not impossible in, say, 50 million years. This is just a hypothetical, but possible, scenario that I came up with off the top of my head, and I'm not a professional scientist. The alternative-- mud-man and rib-woman, is totally unscientific and unbelievable.

You're like a man walking through a forest of giant sequoia trees. You look at the giant trees, and see a few tiny saplings, and say "You can't show me how these little two-foot high saplings can turn into these 300 foot giant trees!" No one has witness the process from seed to full grown giant redwood! It takes time.

You also apparently need to read this on Abiogenesis, or click the seach button.

As for sex, try this link: Sexual reproduction. One thing is important to understand. We cannot say how such things DID evolve, because they left no physical trace. We can suggest how such things MIGHT HAVE evolved (and be confident that we have a high degree of accuracy), based on the physical evidence we do have, and on biological processes that are well known, and by what is suggested from living species. But there is nothing wrong with that- it doesn't change the fact that it happened. That's the way historical sciences work.

The things you say are being "swept under the carpet" are just the things you haven't taken the time to properly research. The answers are out there. To look at a creationist website or book that says "evolutionists are sweeping the molecular origin of life under the carpet" and stop there is only serving your apriori bias. You can't stop at their uninformed propaganda- it simply isn't good enough.

Your first point- if you really study scientific materials, you will learn that evolution is indeed as much a fact as gravity, and it is not a philosophy. Philosophies are not constructed from physical evidence and experimentation, but science is! If by "new discoveries" you mean the creationist mis-information that you sited, you are, well, mis-informed. The examples you listed are, in my opinion, not worth commenting on here. Did you come up with all those questions yourself, or did you, as I suspect, get fed them by creationist literature? You can find the answers for them by typing in search words- if you are really interested in finding the answers. Click Browse and explore the FAQS.

But, from what I gather from your second point (and your last sentence), you are more interested in giving answers than receiving them. Your second point is really your more important point, I think-- evolution is at variance with scripture, invalidates the idea of Original Sin, undermines the idea that we are all totally depraved sinners, and eliminates the need for Jesus and Salvation. When you said: "If you can convince people that sin doesn't exist then people see no reason to turn to Jesus for forgiveness", you really summed up the fear of all creationists. You also object to evolution not because it is bad science, but because you think it would make you feel less special. (Aren't those contradictory positions? You are totally depraved, but hey, you're so special!)

Do you think that is reason enough that scientists abandon the search for our origins? (Obviously so). But that's not good enough, Ken. You have to provide hard evidence as to why evolution is not true... not that you just can't believe it. Creationists and Intelligent Design advocates have yet to provide ANY evidence that disproves evolution. This site is full of rebuttals to creationist's ridiculous claims. You also have to come up with a viable, scientific alternative to evolution. Creationists have been unable to do so... all they can do is quote scripture. We're looking for science here.

Are you aware that not everyone is Christian, or belongs to your particular sect of Christianity? If your goal is to "undo the damage" done by evolution, and to convince people that the bible is not a myth, you have not even begun to start. How is looking at scientific evidence "in the light of the bible" different from looking at it in any other light? Are you suggesting that the conclusions should be influenced by biblical faith? Shame on you. Facts are facts, regardless of your beliefs.

The talk.origins newsgroup is moderated, which can cause problems in posting for people who use misconfigured servers. DejaNews does not allow posting to moderated newsgroups via their site.

I find the comments expressed by the reader to be misinformed. While the mechanisms by which altruistic behavior might arise are hotly debated by biologists, there is little doubt that such behavior is part of the reason for the success of certain populations. Sociality and cooperation are evolutionary factors, and cannot be excluded from an analysis of what makes a species successful.

Should the expression of altruism and cooperation in humans be curbed because someone misunderstands evolutionary biology? I'd say no. See also Richard Dawkins' "The Selfish Gene" for another view of the topic.

As for resting easy as a species, I'm afraid that the elimination of altruism and cooperation would not provide any security on that point. The evidence shows that the typical residence time of mammalian species is a few million years. I haven't seen any evidence that this is influenced by or correlated with the social behavior of species.

Wesley

When you begin making up fairy tale explanations of nature, where will it end?

The creationist notion that the light of distant stars was created "in progress" is a malicious theology- a deceitful tactic of a malign deity (a deity made in the image of creationists).

You don't have to 'believe' evolution. You can trust that the thousands of scientists who study this phenomenon aren't morons, or satanists. You can accept the general idea that life propogates with modifications, and those modifications can lead to improved survival, and that those modifications are passed on, and that over time, many modifications can lead to a species that looks very different from its predecessor. Is that so hard to accept?

You can deny evolution, but I'd have to ask your motivation for doing so. If it's for scientific reasons, then I'd have to say you're a genius- to have figured out what every other scientist has missed. If it is for reasons of biblical literalism, (and that is all we have seen so far), then I would have to question your intellectual honesty. You would rather believe, without the slightest shred of evidence, in talking animals, the Tower of Babel, Jonah living in the belly of a 'great fish' for 3 days, sticks to snakes, water to wine, and on, and on...

There is no evolution god, sorry. Only the facts as we find them. The fossil record unambiguously supports evolution, as does genetics.

I challenge you to name one thing with a design! (a naturally occuring object or organism, obviously). Everything from a snowflake to a human is explained in detail by science. If you think you see the hand of a Designer in something, please state the evidence for it... the best "Intelligent Design" advocates have so far been unable to do so. Complexity does not require a designer... it requires an explanation.

To say that 'life forms are simply not viable unless they are whole' is not to understand the big picture. Sure, take a few organs out of a large mammal, and it will cease to operate. But that is looking at things from the wrong end of the time continuum. Don't start big, start small. Start will cells. What we have come to know as the components of cells, such as mitochondria, actually started out as free-swimming organisms. From the first multicellular organisms onward, evolution has progressed through millions of years of changes- all with "whole" life forms. The idea of a life form that is not "whole" doesn't fit anywhere in the history of life-- there has never been a 'partial' life form. I think you are trying to make an argument from "irreducible complexity", in which case, you should take a look at this FAQ.

Just because you enjoy the Muppets, that does not overthrow the theory of evolution.

Creationists may say they regard their hypotheses as true, but that doesn't amount to a hill of beans. They must substantiate their claims by providing evidence to support them-- they must provide theories that make testable predictions. To date they have failed to do so.

Creationists have made it very clear that no observational evidence will take precedent over biblical scripture. To me, that speaks strongly of religious faith, and indicates quite clearly that creationism is nothing more than a belief system.

Thanks for the verse. But it's not us at Talk.Origins that have a problem with that verse (or your belief in it). It's the creationists who will disagree with you.

You might try contacting them at Answers in Genesis, or contact Kent Hovind to get their opinions on biblical days equaling thousands of years. To the (YE) creationists, the earth is 6000 years old. Period.

If you chose to interpret that verse to make the bible conform to actual geological time scales, I think that's great.

Your question illustrates a misunderstanding of the process of evolution. The main driving forces of evolution are birth, death and mutations. For "new organs" to appear in a species (and here I'm assuming you mean a species such as a large mammal), it would take many, many generations of the species, far to long a time for direct observation.

But short-lived organisms have indeed produced observable changes. See the following FAQS:

Observed instances of speciation.

More Observed Instances of Speciation.

Macroevolution.

It also doesn't matter if it was 150 years ago or last week. If it is a viable example of natural selection, it should be reported.

There are more examples of speciation on this website than the moth. Click search and type in speciation, and start reading.

The first is that the organ did not have to appear fully-functional to be useful. Organs certainly do not 'pop up' in one or two generations. In the case of the eye, you can realize that a partial eye will offer some benefit to a species. Consider early on, before the emergence of land animals, that it would be beneficial for sea-going creatures to be able to distinguish where the surface of the water is. Therefore, light-sensitive cells on the head would be very useful, no? Would a predatory fish that had light-sensitive cells benefit if those cells were able to distinguish movement and shapes? Would prey fish have a better survival rate if they could see the predators? In saying that "each separate subcomponent would serve no purpose" is inaccurate. Every improvement on a light-sensitive cell would serve a purpose. You do not need to see perfectly for eyes to serve a purpose. Even people with 10% vision can make out objects and avoid colliding with them. They certainly would not want to lose whatever vision they have. According to Dawkins, the eye evolved independently about 40 times during the history of life on earth, and a 'camera eye' could evolve rapidly from a light-sensitive cell.

Another thing to remember is that organs may assume different functions over time, and each organ did not necessarily 'start from scratch'.

2. I'm going to get all philosophical on you and ask: what role does truth have in science? Most philosophers of science now think that the whole notion of truth in the context of science is misplaced and confused, and that what scientists seek is confirmation and reliability of information. Truth in the sense you mean it is a theological or metaphysical notion not relevant to scientific work.

3. See 2. Science is a fallibilistic human enterprise of investigating the world. It doesn't deliver truth, just knowledge.

The National Association of Biology Teachers has a list of online resources which may give you some places to look. Here's Al Bodzin's collection of biology links. The United States Department of Education has a list of government science sites. Ken's Bio-Web References have a great deal of biological information divided into topics such as evolution, cell biology, ecology, and so on. There's also the Frog Project and the Eisenhower National Clearinghouse for math and science education.

Don't forget to look at ETS's Web site for their resources on the AP Biology test.

What Genesis is Really About is online at National Center for Science Education website.

See A Reducibly Complex Mousetrap for an amusing elimination of the mousetrap parts, one by one. Behe's Empty Box contains a large collection of articles about irreducible complexity and the evidence of evolution in molecular biology.

If you wish to get a first hand explanation try going up to a fundamentalist and asking him or her.

As to why the idea of biblical days as eras is not mentioned in any Talk.Origins articles, I do not know. You can email the author of any article directly and ask. I do not think that the contributors of Talk.Origins are in the business of trying to make the bible correspond to reality.

The Talk.Origins Archive reserves the right to edit letters for grammar, format, and content. We try as best we can to preserve the flavor of the letters that come to us, even when we do edit them. Often times, we don't edit them, mainly because the respondent doesn't have time, sometimes because the respondent cannot really understand the argument being made, or sometimes to preserve the flavor of the argument as made by the reader. Each respondent has their own style in that regard. And before anyone complains about "censorship" or anything like that, keep in mind that (1) this is not a debate forum; talk.origins is; and (2) anyone who doesn't like our policy can start their own Web site. In the end, all the decisions regarding the content of the Talk.Origins Archive are controlled by its administrator, Brett Vickers.

First, it is amazing to me that with the nearly exhaustive amount of up-to-date evidence for evolution presented on this site, people still claim "there is no real evidence to support your claim." There are hundreds of pages of it. To borrow from the New Testament, "Some people have eyes, yet do not see." Name ONE instance of a question that has been swept under the carpet. Just ONE.

I know many evolutionists, some who are Christians, and I also know many atheists, none of whom are communists. In my opinion, communism is dead. To claim evolution is responsible for some "carnage" is not only an ad hominem attack that does nothing to upset the theory, does it? It would be just as well for me to point out that Roman Catholic Adolph Hitler thought he was doing the Church's work by exterminating the Jews. Or that the verse "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live." is directly responsible for tens of thousands of murders. If it's carnage you're looking for, just crack open your bible.

Are those insults a demonstration of your Christian values? (To sum up, you said: idiotic, ignorant, uneducated). Is that an example of Love Thy Neighbor? Jesus said "Whoever sayest 'Thou fool' shall be in danger of the fires of hell."

Evolution is more accepted now than ever, and it's acceptance will only continue to rise as more and more people get exposed to it. Most religious institutions accept its truth, and have found a way to live with it.

And America was not founded on christianity. It's laws are secular. The Constitution NOWHERE mentions God, and its only mention of religion is exclusionary. In fact, the first four of the Ten Commandments are unconstitutional! This nation is about freedom and equal rights for ALL- it has never been nor will it ever be a christian nation.

We BOTH are on the winning side because we are BOTH free to believe as we choose, without the government or anyone else enforcing a particular belief. Evolution is not a belief. It is simply an explanation of evidence and natural processes. When it was discovered that the earth went around the sun, the Church suppressed that knowledge with fire and sword, and resisted it for hundreds of years. They even killed people over it. But they eventually gave in. Nature simply is- regardless of man's wishes or previous beliefs.

Eventually (maybe in three to four hundred years) every religion will accept the truth of evolution, and alter their doctrines accordingly, just as Christianity did with the roundness of the earth and the heliocentric solar system. Face it- the earth is round, the sun is at the center of our solar system, and the human race evolved.

Somebody said "When the evidence contradicts the theory, the scientist rejects the theory. The theologian rejects the evidence." Certainly this has proved true in your case.

Forgive me if this response is on the harsh side.

The "great lie of evolution" is the mass of misinformation and flat-out lies that this reader has evidently been fed. For one thing, evolution does not and never has implied atheism. Plenty of devout Christians, Muslim, Jews, etc., accept evolution as the best explanation of the diversity of life on Earth. This includes quite a few evolutionary biologists. They view the study of evolution as a way to understand more fully the complexity and marvel of God and His creation.

I won't even begin to add up a body count of the number of people killed in religious wars as opposed to anything having to do with evolution. I'll just say that killing in the name of any sort of idea is wrong, and that neither religion nor evolution can be blamed for those who twist them to suit their own ends.

The reader seems to be confusing the theory of evolution with Social Darwinism, which despite its name and the use of terms like "survival of the fittest"--which doesn't even describe evolution that well--was a social and political philosophy and had not much to do with the science of evolution.

The theory of evolution is neither Communist nor Marxist. In fact, Josef Stalin put a man named Lysenko in charge of Soviet grain production. Lysenko did not accept evolution based on his aversion to the element of chance in it. As a result, Soviet agriculture was decimated, and roughly 20 million people starved in the resulting famines. See John Wilkins' Evolution and Chance essay, as well as Loren Haarsma's Chance from a Theistic Perspective.

The theory of evolution is neither ancient nor pagan. It commenced in 1859 with the publication of Darwin's On the Origin of Species, though its underpinnings go back to the early 1800s. Its validity as a scientific explanation was confirmed by scientists who, among others, held a six-day Genesis creation view.

I challenge the reader to go to his nearest university library and examine the scientific journals in the biology section. Look for journals like Evolution and Evolutionary Biology. See all those pictures and graphs and all that text? Flip through some back issues of Nature and Science magazines. See all of the references to evolution? Evolution is a science not because it confirms or denies any particular worldview, but because it provides confirmable evidence of the way organisms act and useful predictions about the evidence we see. If it were just a "philosophy" or a "worldview," it wouldn't be of much use to everyday scientists. Evolution is not science because it talks about biology; evolution is science because of how it talks about biology.

Macroevolution is an empirical fact, by which I mean that observations of phenomena that are classed as macroevolutionary have occurred. See the Macroevolution FAQ for the relevant definitions, and the Observed Speciation FAQ for documentation.

The way I view the situation is that "evolution" properly is used as a class of phenomena. We set criteria for recognizing if any instances of that class of phenomena occur. In the case of "evolution", the criterion is heritable change in populations over time, or succintly put as a change in allele frequencies or distributions in a population over time (see the Definition of Evolution FAQ. We can and have observed instances of phenomena that meet our criteria for evolutionary change. Thus, evolution as the class of phenomena does exist, and is a fact. This does not imply that we have observational evidence of all possible evolutionary phenomena. That is not necessary for the statement that "evolution is a fact" to be true.

To argue that evolution is not a fact on such a basis is rather like someone a couple of decades ago, who might have argued that gravity was not a fact for the simple reason that no one had direct evidence of a black hole at that point.

I'm not sure that I've understand the comment about "statistical links". However, the reader might try out my page on Sequence comparisons to see if that clears up any issues. If not, I invite the reader to make further commentary in posts to the talk.origins newsgroup.

Wesley

How old should the sciences be to be considered valid? Are there any sciences from more than 500 years ago that are currently in use?

Can you site any specific examples of your claim where several "legitimate discoveries" have been derided and ignored? The only examples I can think of are where religionists attempted to suppress scientists, such as Galileo, Bruno, and Darwin.

You seem to imply that scientists studying the science of biology have a "hidden agenda" and cannot objectively analyse a situation. Would you care to elaborate? How does Man suffer collectively through any of this, other than by being denied the best, most current scientific findings?

To say that "Truth exists no matter what" and then say "remember that everything is a Perspective" is a contradictory position.

Is that (and all of 'flood geology') science in any sense of the word? Is there one shred of evidence that supports any of your claims? Or are you simply trying to devise ways to make the bible appear as if it is correct? Making rationalizations to make the Flood mythology believable is a clear cut case of compartmentalization.

Science opens doors to discovery- it provides the tools to find the answers. It encourages open, free inquiry, and does not presume to have all the answers in advance. It does not presume to be infallable, nor inerrant. One thing all real scientists have in common- they can say "I might be wrong." Let's hear that from creationists Kent Hovind, Henry Morris or Duane Gish. (Yet WE are always the ones who are accused of being 'close minded').

Whales and fish could tread water longer... what, the sea-going dinosaurs and large reptiles could not? Where is the evidence for that claim?

Maybe it should flash in day-glow orange 72 pt. letters.

Thanks for the nice representation of time!

Not a scientific subject, I know, but as long as you brought up the Flood...

My other big nagging Flood question is if Jehovah knew the beginning from the end, He knew He would wipe the human race off the face of the earth (with the exception of Noah, his wife, sons and their wives). So why did He bother with Adam and Eve? Why didn't He just begin with Noah? Wouldn't that make more sense?

And if Jehovah knows all things from beginning to end, then why Genesis 6:6 --

"And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth"?

Didn't He know the future? How could someone who knows the future regret that He did something?? Does that make any sense?

In addition, Gen. 6:6 is in direct contradiction to:

1) Numbers 23:19 "God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent."

2) Ezekiel 24:14 "I the Lord have spoken it: it shall come to pass, and I will do it; I will not go back, neither will I spare, neither will I repent."

3) James 1:17 " . . . the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning."

Verses 1,2 and 3 comprise the instructions of God to Noah about how to load the ark. Verse 4, which you site, is PART of the same instructions, and God is saying that the 40 days and nights of rain will begin in 7 days. Verse 5 says "And Noah did according unto all that the Lord commanded him." That is, the loading of the animals.

Verses 7 through 9 detail the loading of the ark. Verse 10 states: "And it came to pass AFTER SEVEN DAYS, that the waters of the flood were upon the earth."

You are quite clearly wrong. According to Genesis, Noah had only 7 days to load all those animals (along with the food). A rather ridiculous notion.

While looking this up, I came across several other things of interest. Gen. 6:4, "There were giants in the earth in those days." Do you believe that as well? Fee Fi Fo Fum!

It also says in 6:9 that Noah was "perfect", and in 7:1, God calls Noah "righteous". BUT those verses are in direct contradiction to Romans 3:23 "For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God." If Noah has sinned, how can he be "perfect"? and in Romans 3:10 "As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one." Did the writer of Romans not know what's going on?

Do you really take the bible literally?

You apparently have a problem with taking Genesis metaphorically. If you believe in god, than you are going to have to make some choices about whether you will take the bible literally or metaphorically. If you chose to take it literally, you are going to have to isolate the bible from critical, skeptical thinking. You will have to avoid questioning the stories. You won't be able to honestly ask yourself: "Could the story of the Tower of Babel really have happened?" You can't honestly ask: "How could the Noah's Ark story be true? How could the ark be loaded, and how could all those species get started up again after the flood?" You can't ask: "What did all the meat eaters eat after getting off the ark?" You will compartmentalize your brain, using your reason in some areas of life, but not in any area where your faith is concerned.

You have the right to believe what you wish. But your beliefs cannot be considered by scientists when formulating or teaching scientific theories. Sorry.

The opinion that Genesis is a poetic interpretation is not unfounded. Genesis does not reflect the way the world is. It's that simple.

The reason Creation VS Evolution is debated is because ultra-right-wing Fundamentalist Christians will not cease attempting to either remove science from its proper place in public school, or attempting to insert their own particular creation mythology (or eliminate public school altogether).

You said "This brings only one thought to my mind = Evolution does not exist." Well, in your mind, evolution does not exist, and probably never will. You have chosen to ignore and deny real scientific findings in favor of talking snakes, a man made from mud, and the enchanted apple fable.

I have one question all who call themselves creationists: What would it take to convince you of the truth of evolution? I'll go ahead and answer for you- "Nothing." At least as long as your mind remains compartmentalized.

The evidence of evolution fills these web pages. If YOU have proof of Creationism, you probably should come forward with it, because Creationism's best and brightest have so far been unable to do so...

I looked at your website.

Carl Sagan's book "Demon Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark" has a chapter on pattern recognition in the human brain, and goes into great detail, with many examples, of how humans impose familiar patterns on random natural features. I highly recommend the book.

Here is a picture of the 'face on Mars', both the low-res version that was 'doctored' and the high-res close range picture that was taken last year.

I am curious as to how the reader thought that a face on the ocean floor, real or imagined, could help increase public understanding of evolution. Our purpose is to encourage scientific thinking, and this includes a healthy dose of skepticism.

I'm curious as to how evolution qualifies as a religion. It's details change constantly based on new physical evidence, it does not claim to be inerrant or infallible, does not take millions of dollars from it's supporters, and does not punish or persecute those who do not accept it- it's clearly not a religion. It doesn't even have a deity or worship rituals!

1. Despite the reader's assertion, I am not guessing. I have actually studied physics, including quantum mechanics. I don't claim to be an expert, by any means, but I do know that the randomness that exists in quantum mechanics is not due to "complexity" or "chaos," i.e., that we cannot predict the outcome because we do not know the initial conditions well enough. Nor is it really due to a lack of understanding about how quantum mechanics works; we understand it, and we understand that it is random.

   The macroscopic world is, to some extent, predictable based on a measurement of initial conditions. Our intuitions about the way events take place is based on that world. We know in our bones, simply from the experiences that we have in everyday life, that objects will not spontaneously disappear in one place and reappear in another. We can point to the location and motion of a teacup on a table or a baseball in flight and predict where they will be at some future point.

   The same can simply not be said of the subatomic world. Subatomic particles do not obey the same rules that macroscopic objects do. They do not exist in a single location, but as a probability waveform over many locations. They can move spontaneously from one location to another.

   I understand the reader's view of the quantum world, since it is one I once held myself. Unfortunately, that view is just not correct. The universe operates in strange ways at the quantum level. But don't take my word for it. Ask some physicists.

2. Let me put it to the reader in this fashion: Why would any logical entity design a fish with both eyes on one side of its head, which lies on its other side on the ocean floor, a fish which shows every sign of having come from vertically aligned ancestors which swam upright and had an eye on each side of its head? Why ignore the plan used by other bottom-dwelling ocean dwellers--symmetrical and flattened horizontally--such as skates and rays?

   The theory of evolution is not in scientific doubt and has not been for more than a century. Richard Dawkins needs no reassurance of that fact; he has seen more than enough of the evidence himself to come to a conclusion. Books like Climbing Mount Improbable are not science. They are an explanation to the general public of scientific results and the evidence to support them.

3. Dawkins' point is that there is no clear distinction between something that looks designed and is, and something that looks designed but is not. This means that the argument, "It looks designed; therefore, it is designed," is fallacious.

1) The two parts of evolution that you mention, speciation and abiogenesis, are in fact studied separately, as they involve different mechanisms. Most creationists object to the separation of these sciences. Within speciation, Microevolution and Macroevolution are the same processes. Microevolution is the short term variation within a species, and macroevolution is the long term, cumulative effect of microevolution.

The many similarities between birds and reptiles do not by themselves prove evolution, but transitional fossils do.

2) You should probably include your definitions of both words. I suspect they are incorrect. A law is a generalization that describes a natural phenomena. A theory is an explanation of a natural phenomena. For example, the laws of thermodynamics describe what will happen under certain circumstances; thermodynamics theories explain why these events occur. Laws, like facts and theories, can change with better data. A theory does not 'grow up into' a law as more evidence is gathered. Rather, theories are the goal of science. Scientific theories are explanations of natural phenomena built up logically from testable observations and hypotheses. Biological evolution is the best scientific explanation we have for the enormous range of observations about the living world. Scientists use the word fact to mean something that has been tested or observed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing or looking for examples. The occurrence of evolution in this sense is a fact. Scientists no longer question whether descent with modification occurred because the evidence supporting the idea is so strong.

The old, debunked creationist objection regarding the Second Law of Thermodynamics is, well, just that. An old, debunked objection. It is based on an incorrect understanding of the Law. The earth is not a closed system. Neither is the solar system. The universe apparently is, but the 2nd Law allows for the transferrence of energy from one part of a closed system to another. More importantly, none of the processes which bring about evolution (birth, death, genetic mutation) violate the second law- in fact they are observed all the time, aren't they?

3) Most of the creationists that are dealt with on Talk.Origins are in fact of the Young Earth variety. Some are even Flat-earthers. (If you don't think that the earth is 6000 years old, they probably would tell you that you are going to hell.) Do you really believe that the YE Creationists can be so far off in their estimate of the age of the earth, but that they are correct in everything else they say?

What do you offer as an alternative theory to the origin of life, and where is your supporting evidence?

I feel I am compelled to answer a few things in your letter.

First, humans did not evolve from any modern day species of monkey- just so we're clear on that.

Second, I have to assume that you're saying that you believe in microevolution, but not macroevolution. You should ask yourself: what limits the process to making only small changes within a species? (i.e. why can't hundreds of such small changes, say over 10 million years, result in a different species?) Can you come up with an answer?

Third, a scientific mind does not exclude any possible explanation until it is proved non-viable. In the case of 'uninspired' humans writing the bible, no evidence has yet been offered which eliminates this explanation. To say that the bible is true and inspired because the bible says it is true and inspired is circular reasoning, and proves nothing.

As for being flawed, the bible is in fact seriously flawed. It is internally inconsistent with itself, as well as containing many factual errors. (In my opinion, it is also morally flawed). Here are some lists of these flaws: Try Modern Documents : Donald Morgan first, and try Bible Contradictions, second and if you really want to, try Biblical Errancy. While you're at it, Things Ee Didn't Find Out in Sunday School details many biblical problems, as does The Origins of Christianity.

This is a website about science, not theology. The point being made with my response is that, as a scientific or historical reference, the bible cannot be relied upon.