Feedback for July 2003

Evolution is solidly science. People believe in evolution, as they do in any other scientific model, because it is supported by the evidence. Either you are saying that we should not teach as science anything which people actually believe [boggle] or else you are unaware of the empirical basis for evolution. One of the reasons this archive exists is to let lay persons like you and I learn a bit about the actual basis for evolution. Many files in the archive address this empirical basis. One of my personal favourites is 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution.

I do not know what you mean by convergent theory or divergent theory. There are plenty of examples of what is known as evolutionary convergence; but by and large the main effect of evolution is divergence of lineages over time into many related species. Evolutionary convergence occurs when two separate lineages converge on a fairly similar external body plan. For example, dolphins and sharks. The convergence is invariably superficial, in the sense that the body structures and genetics show the same basic pattern of divergence. Dolphins are genetically just as far from sharks as tigers are from sharks. This is, by the way, a powerful indication that the processes of evolution are nothing like the processes of human designers.

There is a brief discussion of evolutionary convergence in the FAQ I listed above; although the actual word convergence is not used.

As for his other claims, even some Christian sites, such as Answers in Genesis disclaim them as well:

• Arguments we think creationists should NOT use
• Ark discovered! ... again?
• Has the Ark of the Covenant been found? And Noah's Ark? Pharaoh's drowned army?

J.E. Hill

As to your second question, it depends on what you are interested in. Are we talking about human evolution here? If so, one possible aspect of modern human evolution lies in resistance to diseases - humans in industrial urbanised societies are exposed to diseases way more than we were "in the wild". The Black Death, for example, and sexually transmitted diseases, have caused human genes to shift in frequencies, and are still doing so.

If you mean evolution in general, then there are considerable research projects ongoing. The work described in Jonathon Weiner's book The beak of the finch is one such. There are many others.

The reader's comment does go rather wide of the mark. My church and I are not in "warring camps". As Chris notes, SciCre is espoused by a small minority of Christian believers who nonetheless have the sort of arrogant attitude concerning their cult-like devotion to extra-scriptural doctrine that Jack Speer ironically imputes to scientists.

As for the finesse of the statement in question, I'd like to hear about any non-crap component of "scientific creationism". I have several board-feet of personal shelf space devoted to antievolutionary literature, and I certainly have not found such yet. The SciCre literature is a pastiche of outright falsehoods ("evolution violates the SLoT", the Lady Hope story, the Lucy's knee thing, etc.), recycled arguments that often date back to the 19th century (and which were disposed of then), and "borrowed" findings taken from legitimate evolutionary biologists (with completely misleading spin applied). If there is something I've missed, please feel free to post it to the talk.origins newsgroup.

The comment about plumbers is a common fallacy in considering science, for a practicing plumber is not thereby a scientist, but rather a type of engineer. Jack's business, as seen by examination of his website, is concerned with a sort of social engineering (it is a consulting firm, catering to businesses, with a mix of personality tests and advice concerning personnel).

When I'm testing the hearing of odontocetes, investigating the biosonar sound production of dolphins, or examining the behavior of lekking greater prairie chickens, yes, I am confident that I am applying the scientific method. When I'm responding to the socio-political commentary of antievolutionists, it is usually quite unnecessary, as they bring so little of scientific import to the discussion.

Wesley

The "God and Evolution" essay does make that point that many Christians have no difficulty with the idea that God used evolutionary processes as His method of creation, which handily resolves the issue about the origin of spirit.

On the last question, I'll pose another in response: If the native peoples of the North American continent are not from an Asian sub-continent south of the Himalayas, then why are they referred to as "Indians"? The answer to both questions is that the names derive from accidents of history, not insight into the actual origins of either.

Wesley

Trends in Ecology and Evolution, July 1, 2001 v16 i7 p405(7) Speciation in the fossil record. M.J. Benton; P.N. Pearson.

Abstract:

It is easy to claim that the fossil record says nothing about speciation because the biological species concept (which relies on interbreeding) cannot be applied to it and genetic studies cannot be carried out on it. However, fossilized organisms are often preserved in sufficient abundance for populations of intergrading morphs to be recognized, which, by analogy with modern populations, are probably biological species. Moreover, the fossil record is our only reliable documentation of the sequence of past events over long time intervals: the processes of speciation are generally too slow to be observed directly, and permanent reproductive isolation can only be verified with hindsight. Recent work has shown that some parts of the fossil record are astonishingly complete and well documented, and patterns of lineage splitting can be examined in detail. Marine plankton appear to show gradual speciation, with subsequent morphological differentiation of lineages taking up to 500 000 years to occur. Marine invertebrates and vertebrates more commonly show punctuated patterns, with periods of rapid speciation followed by long-term stasis of species lineages.

Also, evolution is not something that happens to an individual anyway. It is about differences from one individual to the next. You, for example, certainly have a significant number of mutations difference from your parents. There is nothing you or you parents could have done to prevent this.

Also, we don't really have a distinguishable first ancestor; but rather a chain of many ancestors.

Also, evolution does not have foresight to plan the best of all outcomes. And for any living organism, there are trade offs. Changes that are beneficial in one context may be detrimental in another; and even detrimental changes can become fixed in a population. Adaptations which are not used are frequently lost over time. An example is blind cave fish, for whom eyes no longer have any immediate advantage. As a result, mutations which degrade their function are not eliminated by selection, and over time the function of sight is lost. It may have been the same with limb regeneration. For creatures like ourselves, loss of a limb is so devastating that we are likely to die anyway before a limb has time to regenerate; and so perhaps the capacity for regeneration was lost due to lack of selective pressures to keep it. Or perhaps some other changes in skeletal structure had the side effect of degrading regeneration capacity. But fundamentally, we really don't know the why of such things.

A pessimistic estimate of the time required for an eye to evolve.
by Nilsson DE, and Pelger S
Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 1994 Apr 22;256(1345):53-58

Theoretical considerations of eye design allow us to find routes along which the optical structures of eyes may have evolved. If selection constantly favours an increase in the amount of detectable spatial information, a light-sensitive patch will gradually turn into a focused lens eye through continuous small improvements of design. An upper limit for the number of generations required for the complete transformation can be calculated with a minimum of assumptions. Even with a consistently pessimistic approach the time required becomes amazingly short: only a few hundred thousand years.

Professor Nilsson has continued this line of investigation within the Vision Group at the University of Lund, Sweden.

I am not aware of any mathematical basis at all for a claim that it would take more than the age of the Earth to evolve an eyeball. Claims for enormous amounts of time, or infinitesimal probability, are usually made without any mathematical model to justify the claim; or else they are sometimes made simply by multiplying together many numbers to get small probabilities; a technique which is meaningless because it does not even attempt to model the effects of evolution. The essential feature of evolution which is always omitted in such bogus calculations is the effect of cumulative selection.

I believe you are correct that anyone may submit an article to CRSQ. I recently perused the online contents of the CRSQ, though, and every author mentioned was a member. This is not meant to be definitive, but indicative.

Finally, there is something odd about a professional society requiring members to accept a creed. There is nothing odd about a religious society doing so, though. That's why "creation science" doesn't exist.

[The Wayback Machine has an archived copy -- September 2003.]

First, even evangelical Christians are dismissive of these figures as being real prehistoric artifacts and valid evidence of the co-existence of dinosaurs and man. This skepticism is discussed in detail by David Mathews in his Weekly column of May 27, 2000 that is titled "Domesticated Dinosaurs?"

In "Domesticated Dinosaurs?", Mr. Matthews concludes:

"Don Patton's reliance upon doubtful evidences and arguments is sufficient cause to doubt anything that he says as a scientist, an interpreter of science, and an archeologist. Because the presence of numerous scientific errors in Don Patton's materials, I advise Christians to reject his teachings wholesale or accept them only after intense skeptical scientific investigation."

Finally, until a Talk.Origins FAQ is written, a peer-reviewed paper that has much to say about these figurines is:

De Peso, C. C., 1953, Figurines of Acambaro, Guanajunto, Mexico. American Antiquity. Vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 388-389. (April 1953).

Some of his observations made by De Peso are:

1. "Further, none of the specimens were marred by patinantion nor did they possess the surface coating of soluble salts characteristic of objects of more certain antiquity coming from same area. Upon the word of the owner none of the figure had been washed in acid. Examination showed the edges of the depressions forming eyes, mouths, or scales to be sharp and new. No dirt was packed into any of the crevices."

2."In the entire collection of 32,000 specimens no shovel, mattock, or pick marks were noted." .... "Their field technique when witnessed on the site, however indicated that they were neither careful nor experienced."

(De Peso refers to the expertise in excavating artifacts of the farmers who claimed to dug up the Acambaro figurines. Given their lack of expertise, it is remarkable that they could have excavated such fragile artifacts without any obvious shovel, mattock, or pick damage.)

3. "The author spent two days watching the excavators burrow and dig; during the course of their search they managed to break a number of authentic prehistoric objects. On the second day the two struck a cache and the author examined the material in situ. The cache had been very recently buried by digging a down sloping tunnel into the black fill dirt of the prehistoric room. This fill ran to a depth of approximately 1.30 m. Within the stratum there were authentic Tarascan sherds, obsidian blades, tripod metates, manos, etc., but these objects held no concern for the excavators. In burying the cache of figurines, the natives had unwittingly cut some 15 cms. below the black fill into the sterile red earth floor of the prehistoric room. In back-filling the tunnel they mixed this red sterile earth with black earth; the tracing of their original excavation was, as a result, a simple task."

The above and other observations made in this paper provides a distinct impression that the figurines are nothing more than modern folk art made by people, who pretended to find them, as a means of earning a living by selling them to Mr. Waldemar Julsrud, a local and wealthy merchant, as actual ancient artifacts. The 12 pesos a figurine that Waldemar Julsrud paid for these objects was a substantial amount of money to the poverty stricken subsistence famers at the time the artifacts were purchased. Given that Mr. Julsrud reportively bought 33,000 of them, the farmers who sold them to him made many times over what they could have earned by simply farming the land. Dr. Hapood, who in the eyes of the local farmers was a wealthy American, would have also been regarded as a potential meal ticket like Mr. Julsrud. Thus, they would have obliged Dr. Hapgood, who lack the experience and the critical eyes of an archaeologist like De Peso, interest in the Acambaro figurines with similar merchandise.

De Peso, as described above, established that the figures came from within the rooms of a single component Tarascan ruin. The Tarascan are, in fact a Post-Classic and historic tribe as noted at: Tarascan

Their state and society emerged during the Postclassic (A.D. 900 - A.D. 1522) as noted at: The Tarascan state emerged in the Lake Pátzcuaro basin (LPB) during the Postclassic period

Thus, a person is left with the big problem of where there is evidence of dinosaurs within that part of Mexico at anytime during the last 1100 years, which was the time that the site was occupied and archaeological deposits alleged to contain the Acambaro figurines accumulated. The deposits from which Acambaro figurines are suppose to have come are thousands of years younger than the dates reported by Don Patten and other Young Earth creationists, who are promoting the authenticity of the Acambaro figurines.

As far as thermoluminescence (TL) dates are concerned, Don Patten and "Dr." Dennis Swift, at their web site actually admit that the people who conducted the TL dating "...asserted that the ceramics gave off regenerated light signals and could be no more than 30 years old." Then they dismiss this unpleasant fact by using a standard assertion of alternative archaeologists and Young Earth creationists that the people at University of Pennsylvania are just lying thought their teeth in order to suppress the "true" age of the Acambaro figurines. Don Patton and Dennis Swift similarly respond to the observations of De Peso by attacking his character.

[NOTE: Don Patton, who together with Dennis Swift strongly supports the authenticity of the Acambaro figurines, is also a strong advocate for the validity of the Malachite Man, a Japanese plesiosaur, Paluxy "Man Tracks", and many other alleged anomalous evidence.]

Finally, should an article espousing the creationist viewpoint appear that is sufficiently rigorous, I have no doubt it will take it's place on the site.

I would add that the public has a responsibility to learn the facts about this matter.

Discussions of this issue can be found at Coal Beds, Creationism, and Mount St. Helens and The ICR's Grand Canyon Dating Project.

It's a big putrid pile of rotting whale blubber.

You know, this isn't the kind of thing where the opinion of a bunch of scientists (or journalists) matters. Samples were analyzed, and they came back with an inarguable result: it's a dead mammal. Or at least, nasty bits of a dead mammal.

• The Origin of Whales and the Power of Independent Evidence
• Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ Part 2B

Finally, it isn't that we "like to think" a rock is some arbitrary age. We measure the age using well-established techniques. There has never been any valid refutation of radiometric dating:

• The Age of the Earth
• Radiometric Dating and the Geological Time Scale: Circular Reasoning or Reliable Tools?

Personally, I think the accolade of "honest" is one of the highest an endeavor can receive. Thanks.

Your definition is incorrect for several reasons. It includes the ill defined notion of uniformatarianism; but real evolutionary theory involves recognition that rates of evolution are not uniform, and recognizes that catastrophes (like the bolide impact that finished off the dinosaurs) have an enormous effect on the course of evolution. Your definition speaks of a lack of necessity for a creator, which is a theological question beyond the scope of any scientific model. Evolutionary biology is quite consistent with the metaphysical notion of necessity for a creator.

The RNA world includes the basic ideas of Darwinian evolution; but applies them for a different hypothetical kind of replicator. It has been a very fruitful model in biogenesis proposals. For more information, see:

• A discussion of RNA World by Sidney Altman.
• Scientists Debate RNA's Role At Beginning Of Life On Earth by Ricki Lewis, at "The Scientist" (requires a free registration).
• The RNA World at a site about panspermia.
• The RNA World Page, by Lawrence Roberge.

See this article in AIDS Weekly Plus, which discusses research on HIV mutability set forth in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

In this case, Young Earth creationists failed to understand that the rate at which snow accumulates within Greenland varies greatly across its ice cap. At the location where the Lost Squadron landed near the coast of Greenland, the rate of snow accumulation is considerably greater than the rate of snow accumulation within the interior of the Greenland Ice Cap where the ice cores have been collected. Inland from the Greenland coast, the average annual snowfall decreases dramatically to rates consistent with those calculated from the ice cores. Because of the difference in rate of snow accumulation, the use of the depth of burial of the Lost Squadron" as an argument against the usefulness of ice core dating lacks any scientific validity. It is like using rainfall records in Syndey, Australia to predict the rate at which a pond in Alice Springs, Australia would fill. In addition, the Lost Squadron landed on an actively moving area of the Greenland Ice Cap, quite unlike the areas in which ice cores are collected which are stable and motionless realtive to it.

As noted by Matt Brinkman is his 1995 article "Ice core dating", the close agreement of different methods used to determine ages from ice cores, including ash and chemicals generated by volcanic eruptions at known dates, have demonstrated the validity of ice core dating.

For sources of this argument, go see "CD410. WWII airplanes are now beneath thousands of 'annual' ice layers", which is part of Mark Isaak's "Index to Creationist Claims."

Proposing an alternative reference frame does not resolve anything, because the events used in the biblical account refer to the cosmology of ancient Mesopotamia. Some events have no correspondence to modern cosmology (the division of watery chaos into sky and sea) and some events are in the wrong order (Sun, Moon and stars created after plants) and some events turn out not to be at a particular time (plants created on the third day; but the plants named include grains and flowering plants, which only arose fairly recently, since the demise of the dinosaurs).

To try and fit this to modern cosmology is futile, and it definitely obscures all the lessons intended by the biblical writer.

As a minor detail, Alpha Centauri is actually 4.35 light years away, and the number of years shipbound elapsed time for a star voyage could be hypothetically any number you like depending on the velocity.

I think that we must have differing definitions for "intuitive" and "deductive". Also, holding to a "young earth" concept doesn't just mean that one can't verify it by reference to empirical data; it means that one must be willing to discard vast quantities of empirical data (and whole fields of science) that otherwise would falsify that view.

Have you considered the possiblity that Christ, when He returns, will tell you that common descent is true?

Wesley

I agree in part with Tom's sentiments. But the issue is not one of who has the better scientific argument; that was settled over a century ago. The antievolution movement is driven primarily by religious and political motivations. As such, the controversy is sociological and political in nature, not scientific.

Speaking for myself, I do think that discussion of the scientific issues should be kept delineated from the sociological, political, and religious issues. But I also feel that it is important that these other dimensions of the discussion be addressed.

I think it would be helpful if the objections could be made specific. If there is an article or articles on the archive which delve into religious issues without being clear about distinguishing that from discussion of the science, I'm sure that the author(s) of the article(s) in question would be amenable to making improvements in clarity. If, though, we are talking about feedback items and responses, I don't know that there is much to do about it other than reiterate clarity on the distinctions as something to be desired.

Wesley

The Corvette tree (actually a plant) is in Bowling Green, Kentucky. As is normal for intelligent design, the plant was not designed to reproduce itself. Part of the reason for this is that a normal goal of intelligent design is to keep things as simple as possible, not to make things complex.

The letter concerns the notorious National Geographic issue of November 1999, which reported prematurely on Archaeoraptor liaoningensis, which was almost immediately revealed to be a chimera; a fossil constructed by joining together two other fossils. Olson's letter was sent before the chimera was revealed, which makes his closing remarks quite prophetic; it also means that the letter omits a lot of subsequent detail, which Answers in Genesis does also consider in other pages.

The whole sorry episode has been discussed in feedback here on March 2003, and January 2000 with links and details.

In brief, National Geographic was badly caught out and hugely embarrassed. The fossil itself (or rather, the two fossils!) remains an exceptionally valuable discovery, part of a series of dramatic transitional fossils from China in recent years which have confirmed the evolutionary link between birds and theropod dinosaurs. Olson is one of the few holdouts against this idea, and he considers the Archaeoraptor liaoningensis fiasco to be symptomatic of a deeper problem in the field. Legitimate scientists like Olson acting as critics of the dominant paradigms are an essential part of the ferment of science. However, they have nothing in common with creationism or the Answers in Genesis perspective.

That is why Answers in Genesis makes clear that they are not endorsing the views of Olson more generally.

Using the word "pseudoscience" for things that are pseudoscience is not "name-calling". The proper term is "classification".

Our bias for mainstream science is clearly laid out in our Welcome page.

Popularity indeed says nothing about correctness of concepts. We prefer theories that have been tested and have survived those tests. Yes, theories have been proposed which failed certain tests (the class includes "phlogiston" theory and bathmism). Yes, theories have been proposed which now are subsumed within other theories (Newton's conception of the physics of motion being a example, as it describes non-relativistic phenomena adequately). Rather than hold out the bare possibility that something we mention here on the archive could be found to be wrong or perhaps not the whole picture, why not be specific and point out something that fails to accord with the available evidence? References would help tremendously.

Wesley

"Primitive", in evolutionary biology, means something different from what it means in ordinary conversation. For a long time, western thinking has treated anything different to the western way of thinking as "primitive", meaning less developed than western thinking. This isn't what it means in biology.

In evolution, a trait is primitive if it is something that the ancestor of modified descendent had. Hence, having four limbs is primitive for snakes, who now have none. Having no legs is "derived" for snakes.

What is a primitive precursor to modern cells? Any cell that had traits we can reasonably assume were ancestral to all modern cells, but which modern cells do not have or which are not changed. For instance, it is very likely primitive cells had lipid cell membranes (comprised of fatty acids which spontaneously form into cell-like structures, called "vescicles") because all cells have them. However, plant cells also have a cellulose cell wall. Since this is unique to plants, and there is no evidence it was lost in other branches of the tree of life, this is a "derived" (sometimes referred to as a "modern") trait.

Likewise other mechanisms or structures of modern cells. The primitive cell lacked a nucleus, organelles, and probably had no actin cytoskeleton. It was considerably less complex because it hadn't yet incorporated cells to form organelles. DNA is universal to cells, so the last common ancestor probably used DNA as its genetic code and used an "alphabet" close to the universal one today.

Before that it gets hard to estimate the structures of primitive cells. This is because in evolution we can only work out the past if there is a good system of heredity that retains the relevant information, and since that was evolving at the very beginning, we have to work from the principles of chemistry, which do not narrow down the range of possibilities. Still, this work is being done. Here is a link to get you started:

NASA Origins of Life

You forgot the punchline.

The fool says in his heart, "There is no God."
The Wise Man Says it to the World.

However, your comment is misplaced. This is not an atheist site, and the TalkOrigins archive does not take a specific stand on the existence of any gods. While some of us volunteers (such as myself!) may be atheists, other contributors are christian or followers of other religions.

These matters are discussed in the Thermodynamics, Evolution and Creationism pages on this site.

Under the Administration section of this site, there is a set of Submission Guidelines which answers this question in more detail.

As for your final question, I think that creationists do not know that their arguments have been disproven. In some cases this is simply a failure to understand or accept the disproofs; but it is also common for old arguments to recur for decades simply because people really just do not know that they are disproven. A great example can be seen in last month's feedback, where the old urban legend about Nasa computers and Joshua's long day was repeated.

The link you have supplied is for Walt Browns' site, which is very well known to us indeed. It is already included in the short list of particularly prominent creationist sites. Also, three of our FAQs have links to that site, and it shows up many times in the feedback pages.

Biologists are not philosophers. Nor are they physicists. They are biologists, doing biology. This means that they must attend to the facts and draw the best conclusions they can, and those conclusions attain the standing of "fact" when the evidence leads all competent biologists to the same conclusion, as it does in this case. Evolution is a fact now. You cannot deny it except through the use of esoteric philosophical arguments that equally prove there is no gravity or other persons than one's self. And it is worth bearing Hume's comments in mind about that sort of "skepticism":

I am confounded with all these questions, and begin to fancy myself in the most deplorable condition imaginable, environed with the deepest darkness, and utterly depraved of the use of every member and faculty. Most fortunately it happens that, since reason is incapable of dispelling these clouds, nature herself suffices to that purpose, and cures me of this philosophical melancholy and delirium, either by relaxing this bent of mind, or by some avocation, and lively impression of my senses, which obliterate all these chimeras. I dine, play a game of backgammon, I converse, and am merry with my friends; and when, after three or four hours amusement, I would return to these speculations, they appear so cold, and strained, and ridiculous, that I cannot find in my heart to enter into them any farther...

David Hume, A Treatise of Human Nature, (1739) in T.H. Green and T.H. Grose, eds., David Hume: The Philosophical Works, London, 1886, Vol. 1, pp. 548-549.

However, that is not what Gould means. In context, "all living forms" in this case means "all forms that are now living". The FAQ in which it may be found is Evolution is a Fact and a Theory. There is no logical problem in the statement as given which does not apply equally to "evolution is an incontrovertible fact", with which you agree; and the response from our resident philosopher has considered the philosophical aspects of declaring anything as a fact.

The page is called How can we see distant stars in a young Universe, by Ken Ham, Jonathan Sarfati and Carl Wieland; Ed. Don Batten.

Actually, I don't want to refute the site at all; but to encourage it, and applaud Answers in Genesis for presenting it. Despite my low opinion of the science presented in Answers in Genesis, this page does show some features which I would like to see more often from creationists, and which approaches the kind of style which is seen in real science.

• It recognizes a problem, and states the problem clearly. It states plainly at the outset that the visibility of distant stars is a problem for creationists, and one which they have yet to solve adequately.
• It focuses upon the need of creationists to actually come up with models that actually explain observations; rather than simply presenting (supposed) defects in conventional science.
• It reviews existing (creationist) models, and plainly states the difficulties with those models.
• It then presents a positive proposal that may resolve the problems, but cautiously and recognizing that the work is incomplete.
• Finally, the paper makes clear that the main foundation for their young earth beliefs is not empirical evidence, but their perspective on the bible.

The solution proposed in this page is the model of Dr Russell Humphreys. Basically, Humphreys proposes a model in which the Earth is at or near the center of the universe, and in the bottom of a deep gravitational well. It is proposed that relativistic effects result in billion of years passing in the rest of the universe while only thousands pass near the center, where the Earth is located.

Now truth to tell, I am a bit torn. To be completely honest, I think Humphrey's model is complete codswallop, easily refuted and inconsistent with all available evidence and not actually consistent with relativity as he claims at all. It would be a good subject to tackle at some point in detail and as a FAQ in the archive. There are also other defects in the page, which could be a basis for criticism.

But I want to leave this one, for the time being, as an exercise for our readers. For anyone interested in this, give it a try. Do a bit of a literature search to get more detail, and perhaps also see some of the criticisms that have been mounted already. How would Dr Humphrey's model be tested? What observation would falsify his model? Do such observations already exist?

The positive aspects of the page, which I mention above, are sufficiently refreshing that I'd rather acknowledge the good stuff.

And yet, there are many unanswered questions that remain, particularly with the specifics of different lineages; and many cases where evidence is not available to answer certain questions.

The bombardier beetle was raised as an argument by creationists, as an example of something which is impossible to arise by evolution. The FAQ Bombardier Beetles and the Argument of Design responds to this challenge in two ways. First, we show various simple errors which have consistently plagued creationist descriptions. Second (and this is the focus of your feedback) we present a hypothetical evolutionary development; which is precisely what Gish and others have said is impossible.

The FAQ is perfectly plain that the stages proposed are entirely hypothetical, and not based on any actual study of beetle ancestors. Quoting from the FAQ:

The scenario above is hypothetical; the actual evolution of bombardier beetles probably did not happen exactly like that. The steps are presented sequentially for clarity, but they needn't have occurred in exactly the order given. For example, the muscles closing off the reservoir (step 9) could have occurred simultaneously with any of steps 6-10. Determining the actual sequence of development would require a great deal more research into the genetics, comparative anatomy, and palaeontology of beetles. The scenario does show, however, that the evolution of a complex structure is far from impossible. The existence of alternative scenarios only strengthens that conclusion.

The FAQ thus answers all the criticism which has been raised. And that is all that the FAQ is intended to do. There is no pretence to having all the answers, and no claim to have knowledge of the precise evolutionary stages involved in the lineages of these beetles.

Your final sentence presents the recurring fundamental problem of creationism; the notion that a divine creator is in conflict with or an alternative to the notion that things arise by natural processes.

Web pages that can be used to either identify or find information about these fossils are:

1. "Fossils of Illinois"

2. "Common Fossils of Illinois"

3. Fossils of Kentucky

4. "Fossil Identification Key"

Finally, there is Geoscience Education Series no. 15, "Guide for Beginning Fossil Hunters", by Charles Collinson and published by the Illinois State Geological Survey. This publication contains useful information about the fossils found in Illinois.

Information about the geology of Illinois can be found at pages such as "The Age, Origin, and General Character of illinois Strata" and and at "Illinois by Time Period".

Also, freshwater clams can be found in the rivers of Illinois. A catalog of web pages containing information about freshwater clams can be found in the "Freshwater Bivalves"web page.

Having used this book in classes I have taught (the Fifth edition is sitting open on my desk as I write this) I can state with utter certainty that the authors lend no credence to Piltdown Man. It is not mentioned in the text of the Fifth edition at all.

My objections to the "intelligent design" movement are not based upon fear of the alternative. My objections are based upon the abysmal arguments presented by intelligent design advocates.

Intelligent design arguments are negative arguments against evolutionary theories. Period. Full stop. They put no effort whatsoever into making a positive argument for their alternative conjectures.

If an intelligent design advocate says something interesting about evolutionary biology, one can expect that the idea was taken from the legitimate biological literature. Intelligent design advocates borrow a number of invalid arguments from the young-earth creationists as well. Overall, my opinion is that intelligent design advocates don't do much in the way of contributing ideas to the discussion which are both novel and valid.

I'll take archaic and empirically tested any day over modern and empirically vacuous.

Wesley

And one small piece of advice: You might want to be careful about getting into heated arguments with your boss.

Taddei, F., et al, 1997. Role of mutator alleles in adaptive evolution. Nature 387: 659, 661-2.

Oliver, A., et al, 2000. High frequency of hypermutable Pseudomonas aeruginosa in cystic fibrosis lung infection. Science 289: 391-2.

For a creationist's account of the Acambaro figurines, see The Dinosaur Figurines Of Acambaro, Mexico. There is further information in threads on the message board in The Hall of Maat, particularly Re: Acambaro figurines and Re: Michael Cremo at WAC4, or type "Acambaro" in the forum search.

In fact, you have not quite quoted correctly. The actual statement in the FAQ is

There is no reason to believe that God was not a guiding force behind evolution.

The difference is significant. The author of the FAQ believes in a God who is responsible for the existence of the natural world, and regards science as a means for study of that world. God (in this view) does not help things along so much as stand as the ultimate final cause of the natural world, which we study in science. I don't share that belief; but this is a metaphysical difference in viewpoint, and not one we can resolve through scientific means. The comparison with a coke bottle misses the point, yet even so you appear to concede the whole point at issue, which is that evolution does not rule out God's involvement.

The initial "How dare you" appears to suggest that there is some ethical lapse involved here. But actually, science does not impose any required standard of belief (unlike many of the creationist organisations) and there is no reasonable basis for presuming to reprimand the FAQ author.

For example there was the giant (hornless) rhinoceros Indricotherium which, with an estimated weight of between 15 and 30 tons, approached sauropod dinosaurs in size.

No question is raised concerning the power of the state reasonably to regulate all schools, to inspect, supervise and examine them, their teachers and pupils; to require that all children of proper age attend some school, that teachers shall be of good moral character and patriotic disposition, that certain studies plainly essential to good citizenship must be taught, and that nothing be taught which is manifestly inimical to the public welfare.

The problem, of course, is twofold: (1) adopting proper standards for parochial schools and (2) enforcing those standards. Given the influx of creationists onto state boards of education, it's difficult for this problem to be addressed. Citizens must take it upon themselves to review all of their ballot choices and their governor's appointments carefully.

I'm sorry, but Walt Brown is a crackpot and a kook who is so far beyond the pale, he isn't even particularly interesting. He actually has rather poor credentials: his degree is in mechanical engineering, which has virtually no relevance to evolutionary biology. He is frequently brought up here in feedback by people who make this same kind of juvenile challenge every time, and I'm afraid the only response we can make anymore is one of utter, all-consuming boredom.

If you are honestly interested in getting a scientific response from the talk.origins crew, try writing a specific question about a specific issue. Lame claims of your many triumphs accompanied by fawning adulation of someone who is little more than a joke is not the way to impress us.

Second, all evidence- fossil and genetic- points to an African origin for the human species. No other continent has fossils as old as Africa (and people have looked!) and we see from genetic data that all humans are derived from an original set of African ancestors.

To answer your final question, most biologists believe that a deity somehow guided evolution. This is not part of evolutionary theory, but that does not mean it is an invalid aspect of human culture. Evolutionary biology has nothing to say about whether god decided how evolution should proceed.

You may be interested in these other articles:

• Evidence for Evolution: An Eclectic Survey
• Observed Instances of Speciation
• 29 Evidences for Macroevolution

Individual FAQ authors usually include an email address, and a couple of them also include some qualifications. This is entirely up to the author; it makes no difference as far as the archive or its review process is concerned. Most authors seem to provide a name and email address, and leave it at that.

I think the reader is referring to the Archive's pages on suspicious credentials of certain creationists. If I'm reading this right, the reader's argument goes like this: If the credentials of the author of an argument are irrelevant to the quality of the argument, then why does the Archive criticize the phony credentials of some antievolutionists? A moment's thought will resolve this issue.

The TalkOrigins Archive hosts those pages about suspicious credentials of certain creationists precisely because they make an issue of being called "Dr." and thereby wrapping themselves in a mantle of phony intellectual authority when making antievolution pronouncements. There is no double standard being applied here, for our FAQ authors generally do not make an issue of their own credentials in putting their arguments forward. Where our FAQ authors do note the acquisition of a Ph.D. degree, it is because they earned it at an accredited institution of higher learning.

The Archive also has not held back on showing the content of the various arguments made by those antievolutionists with suspicious credentials to be rather poor in quality. A person with suspicious credentials could be making perfectly good arguments, but that doesn't appear to apply to the instances here.

Wesley

The link we have supplied for criticism of the model is Aquatic Ape Theory: Sink or Swim by Jim Moore.

If you want to see species between apes and man, you can have a look at the Fossil Hominids FAQ. Check out especially the Hominid Species page, which lists many species intermediate in form between modern humans and our ape-like ancestors.