TalkOrigins Archive - Feedback for June 2004

Entry 1

Feedback Letter

From

Harry Mallory

Comment

You can lead a horse to water but you cant make him drink not a bit of it. Transitional forms?

This guy has a point about discribing an entire animal from only jaw fragments. How is that done?

Response

From

Troy Britain

Response

Or, you can lead an antievolutionist to evidence but you can't make them think…

As for reconstructing fossil organisms from fragmentary remains this is possible because of a knowledge of comparative anatomy which allows us to make educated guesses about the missing parts based on what is available. While this generally works pretty well it is of course not a perfect process, and reconstructions based upon partial skeletons, shells, etc. should be (and are by paleontologists) considered to be hypotheses to be tested by (hopefully) finding more, and more complete, material.

Interestingly the "father" of comparative anatomy (and paleontology), and the man who began the practice of reconstructing fossil organisms from fragmentary remains using its principles, was Georges Cuvier (1769-1832).

Cuvier was a creationist and a catastrophist, not an evolutionist.

So we can put the blame for starting this "insidious" practice upon creationists just as we can blame them for the idea that there is a progressive pattern to the fossil record and that intermediate fossil forms exist.

Feedback Letter

From

Frank

Comment

Great site folks and the tremendous work you put into it is definitely appreciated. I've traded a few emails with a fundamentalist lately, with exchanges reminiscent of King Arthur and the Black Knight in Monty Python and the Holy Grail. Anyway, he asked about "transitional species" in the fossil record and I came up with this analogy. Is it good? Flawed? I like it and I hope you do too. I'm a 7th grade science teacher, BTW.

"Or hey, look at it this way. The millions of fossils we have are frames in an enormous motion picture of past life. As an example, let's say some barbarian took scissors and cut up a movie reel of "Gone With The Wind" so that each frame was seperated from the others. Let's also assume that I had never seen (or read) "Gone With the Wind." Now all of the seperate frames of "Gone with the Wind" have been placed in a huge box and mixed and shaken. I am asked by this barbarian to shove my hand into the box and grasp as many of the frames as I can. Then I'm given a room with a huge table, lit from beneath, and a jewelers lens. I can spread the frames I've managed to grasp from the box on this table. With the jeweler's lens I can examine each frame in great detail. My instructions are to give the barbarian a basic narrative of the story contained in the random movie film frames. Can I do it?

It is my contention that I COULD give a basic narrative, and although I probably could not give this barbarian details like Scarlett's last name or the complex love triangle between Scarlett, Rhett and Ashley, I COULD more than likely state that some immense upheaval has taken place. I would note that some characters tend to recur more often than others. I may find that some ALWAYS occur together and some never seem to meet. I may see an isolated frame of Tara in its antebellum beauty and another of Tara as a pockmarked, burnt-out shell and be able to tell which image came earlier in the narrative.

This is what scientists do. A fossil by itself is as worthless as a single frame of film. But many together begin to knit a narrative, and the gaps get smaller the more we find. With the film-frames I have the advantage of knowing that they all came from the same movie. With the fossils, I have the advantage of knowing that they all came from the same planet with the same physical processes occurring. A film is only a record of the events at 1/24 of a second intervals. Where are the transitionals frames between these frames? Do I need them? How far and deep do I have to go in search of the transitional frames to get the basic story of Gone with the Wind? Could I reconstruct it at 2 second intervals? 4? 5 minutes? 30 minutes? It depends on the resolution and detail I want.

Thus it is with the fossil record and transitional species."

Entry 3

Feedback Letter

From

sailaway58

Comment

I love this website. I come to it often. I like the non-offensive language when explaining differences between creation "Science" and evolution. This has been a great resource me. Thanks for your great effort. Tim

Entry 4

Feedback Letter

From

Richard

Comment

Kent Hovind is a messanger of God. He carries the truth revealed through God's Holy Word. All these scientists, and evolutionists believing they are so intellegent cannot figure out the one and only thing that matters! God made this world, and sent His Son Jesus Christ to save the lost. My heart goes out to the lost who still (in faith) belive in evolution. What shame, saddness, regret, pain, will you feel when you face Jesus Christ. So please, I pray for all out there may they see the light of our Savior and Lord Jesus Christ and be saved into this Kingdom. May God bless Kent Hovind, and give him the strength to preach the good news to every creature! God bless all of you! Amen!

Entry 5

Feedback Letter

From

Sanna Rosengren

Comment

I love this. Especially the pi argument. 8-) On my car, I have a bumper sticker that I have designed myself. In essence it is the outline of a fish such as you see as Christian symbols, but in this case with feet. There is no "Darwin" written inside it, though, in contrast to all the Darwin fish out there. I have toyed with the idea of adding a cross inside it to reinforce the Christian symbol, thus emphasizing the idea of being a Christian who believes in evolution. I have also chuckled at the many variants of bumper sticker fish, paying special attention to the one where the Jesus fish voraciously eats the Darwin fish. So much for loving your neighbor..!

Entry 6

Feedback Letter

From

Readers

Comment

Is this a hoax?

Thanx.

Response

From

Troy Britain

Response

Yes this is a hoax. The photograph used comes from a computer altered photograph contest.

Entry 7

Feedback Letter

From

William Tobias Straney

Comment

Regarding your summary of creationist claim CB400, as stated by Johnson in First Things, 1990:

What this argument ignores is that Johnson (and myself, and many other creationists, scientists, and semioticians) are not arguing from ignorance (the, "I can't conceive it therefore it can't be" argument), but rather from the principle of non-contradiction. This principle states that nothing can be X and not-X at the same time, in the same way, or to the same degree. The evolutionists claim for the theory of consciousness that it can somehow be X (free and multidimensional) and not-X (not free and one-dimensional), at the same time. In evolutionary theory, men are nothing more than chemical histories, and chemical histories determine actions--not cause freedom. The idea that a chemical history would equip me with freedom is inconceivable not because it is difficult to understand, but because it is self-contradictory. It is not difficult to believe that evolutionary causation (that is to say, a complex chemical history) brought about consciousness and free will, it is impossible: chemical histories aren't "free," and there is nothing in the evolutionary organism (his brain, his liver, his kidneys, etc.) that is nearly as complex as the will (which is free and therefore can't be a chemical history) and consciousness.

To reiterate: the Talk Origins site made a gross assumption. When a man cannot conceive something, it is either because it is difficult and he doesn't want to conceive it, or because it is impossible and no matter how badly he wants to conceive it, no matter how many times he projects he will one day conceive it, he simply won't and can't, because it is self-contradictory to do so. And it is self-contradictory to conceive of a chemical history (a purely determined and determining process or system) producing a free agent with such a highly developed consciousness.

Tobias

Response

From

Mark Isaak

Response

To say that free will cannot come from non-free chemical histories is like saying big things cannot be made from submicroscopic atoms. There is no justification for your conclusion except incredulity. Combining things usually does not change their overall character so drastically, so some skepticism is warranted. But such synergistic effects do happen, so the claim of impossibility is not justified.

Probably you believe that plants do not have free will, so they can arise from chemicals (or at least your argument does not prevent it). But if living plants are possible, what about corals? Snails? Beetles? Lizards? Dogs? Chimpanzees? I see no place to make a qualitative distinction. Far from it being impossible, it seems to me that there is a gradual route from the pure chemistry of a simple cell to such a highly developed animation that we experience ourselves.

Entry 8

Feedback Letter

From

kevin byers

Comment

Boy, that Kent Hovind sure has you guys fired up dosen't he?

Response

From

J.E. Hill

Response

Are you sure it's not the other way around? I do know Hovind has the IRS fired up.

Entry 9

Feedback Letter

From

Duvenoy

Comment

Damn you and a pox upon your site!

You've made arguing evolution too easy. All I have to do is dip into TO to back up almost any statement I might make, and that leads to boredom. Thus, I find myself working twice as hard looking elsewhere and sooner or later, as often as not, wind up right back here, anyway. Phooey!

But I suppose it's an evil I can live with. :big grin:

doov

Entry 10

Feedback Letter

Comment

I really don't believe in Creationism or Evolutionism, but is it just me or does every site I click on to a little biased! I have heard the argument for Creationism and I must say Creationism agrees with science more than Evolution. I suggest to you instead of reading all Evolution all the time that you stick your nose in a book that exposes the REAL Creationist Idea and not some book with cool pictures with hairy men and abnormal reptilians. P. S. There are actually more flaws to Evolutionism than Creationism, my oh-so-ignorant friend.

Response

From

Troy Britain

Response

[I like the way this feedback's author begins with what amounts to a claim to be unbiased, then complains about bias, and finishes by repeatedly bashing evolution and praising creationism. It has a nice symmetry of sorts.]

Sir/Madam,

I cannot speak for the other authors & volunteers, but I have in my personal library over three hundred books and pamphlets written from a creationist/antievolutionist perspective (and going all the way back to the 19th century), and they are all full of pseudoscience, bunk, and hokum (see the Archive for numerous examples). It seems to me that this IS in fact the "REAL Creationist Idea".

Of course if you are aware of some creationist or antievolutionist book I do not already own, which is any different, do please tell me what it is.

As for creationism's agreement with science or supposed flaws with evolution, why don't you try being specific as to what those agreements and flaws are. It is easy to throw out vague generalities. Backing them up with specifics is another story.

By the way, how many mainstream evolutionary biology or paleontology books do you own? Given that we are "oh-so-ignorant" it must be whole lot.

Entry 11

Feedback Letter

From

David Persuitte

Comment

I'm sure you will be interested in knowing that the excavation of "little foot" will likely be completed in late 2005. This is the nearly complete australophicine fossil skeleton that was found by Clarke in Sterkfontein about five years ago. The completion date is according to the this South African Website. Incidentally, TalkOrigins gets a mention on it.

Entry 12

Feedback Letter

From

Craig Erickson

Comment

How do symbiotic relationships evolve?

Response

From

John Wilkins

Response

An interesting question. The standard answer - given by Peter Medawar - is that symbionts are long-standing pathogens of a species, which have, over time, evolved to become "commensual" and benign. Medwar thought that selection would tend to increase the duration in which the pathogen and its descendants could exploit the host's resources until they were mutually beneficial.

Recently, a masterful book entitled Evolution of Infectious Disease argued well that this need not be the case. Medawar's theory relies upon a coincidence of the genetic interests of the pathogen and those of the host being roughly similar. But if a disease or parasite is able to spread rapidly or use many species as hosts, then the interests of the disease/parasite are best served by exploiting the host to the maximum rapidly and moving on, even if the host dies. So only when transmission is slow will commensuality evolve. This has implications for diseases like AIDS, incidentally.

Another kind of symbiosis is the more equal variety, such as is found in lichens, which are an instance of mutualism. In this case two organisms that each generate products the other one can use evolve in a process known as "coevolution", adapting to each other and fitter together than apart. The nitrogen fixing nodules of bacteria that grow around tree roots are another instance.

A third case is endosymbiosis, in which one organism "captures" another kind, possibly in attempting to eat it, only to find that it survives and adapts until the two are effectively one. Cell organelles like mitochondria and choroplasts are thought to have evolved in this way, according to the theory of Lynn Margulis.

Entry 13

Feedback Letter

From

Robert H. Olley

Comment

A visit from the Physical Sciences:

I would like to express my appreciation of Tim Thompson's article The Recession of the Moon. I had been asked by a friend how it really worked. All the explanations on offer talked of angular momentum transfer, but I cannot envisage someone standing on the Earth calling "Here, Moonfred, catch a load of angular momentum”! The explanation in this article is sound and satisfactory.

In the Physical Sciences, though, we have a phenomenon, exemplified by Paul Marmet of the University of Ottawa who says 'the Big Bang hypothesis is another "creationist theory" for which the only difference with the usual "creationist theory" claiming that universe started 4000 B.C. is by changing the number 4000 B.C. by 15 billion years.'

Bizarre maybe, but one cannot necessarily write off such people completely. Fred Hoyle, who opposed the Big Bang and Darwinian evolution, is often denounced as a 'nutter'. But he was a top ranking scienctist who takes the lion's share of the credit for working out how elements are synthesized in stars (I recommend Marcus Chown’s book "The Magic Furnace" to read the story).

Marmet accounts for The Origin of 3 K Radiation, generally agreed to be left over from the Big Bang, by invoking the remarkable properties of molecular hydrogen. It would take a cosmologist to pick his argument to pieces, nevertheless, it does appear that molecular hydrogen may be turning up trumps in another cosmological puzzle. In order to account for rotation of galaxies, a mysterious "dark matter" has been invoked. Likely candidates such as hordes of small stars too dim to shine in the visible have been more or less ruled out, so people have been invoking entities such as MACHOs, WIMPs, and other strangely named hypothetical particles. But, according to Andreas Heithausen of the University of Bonn, the much more prosaic molecular hydrogen may fill the bill after all. Literally, Watch This Space!

Entry 14

Feedback Letter

From

Ernst Haffmans

Comment

Dear people,

I want to add something in reaction on the article about Harun Yahya and more specific Soykirim Yalani (The Holocaust Hoax or Holocaust Deception). This book is at the moment available in english on the website of Yahya at: http://www.harunyahya.com/download/download.php?id=13985

The title is announced as 'Holocaust violence', but when you download the document the real title is The Holocaust Hoax.

yours sincerely Ernst Haffmans

Amsterdam, The Netherlands

Entry 15

Feedback Letter

Comment

As a Christian who fully supports both the theory and the biological FACT of evolution, I sometimes find myself in a tough position, especially when ultra-zealous Young Earth Creation "Scientists" back me into that position in the first place!!! I'm a sociology major working towards my bachelor's degree in psychology, so even though I've had a fair amount of biology,I never actually studied the specifics of evolution - the how, why, where, etc etc. Needless to say, this fact alone makes me pretty vulnerable against YECs (and even "Intelligent" Design "theorists")when they start to lob rocks at the Theory of Evolution. Your site(s) have been an INVALUABLE resource in combatting these narrow-minded bigots who are destroying the credibility of my faith. The book of Genesis is about WHO created the universe and WHY he/she/it created it - it is not about HOW, WHEN, or WHERE. When you start to interpret six thousand year old Hebrew poetry written by Bronze Age sheepherders literally, you reduce yourself to being an arrogant, intolerant know-nothing in a lab coat with a total disrespect for science and a myopic, primitive view of our planet and indeed the rest of the universe. Please keep up the good work, thanks for the inspiration, and God bless

Anthropos

Response

From

Dr.GH

Response

"I'm a sociology major working towards my bachelor's degree in psychology, so even though I've had a fair amount of biology,I never actually studied the specifics of evolution - the how, why, where, etc etc."

I was in an extremely interdisciplinary undergraduate program (30+ years ago) so I know that a sociology major could seek a psychology degree. But it is odd for most readers. The only evolutionary question that is generating scientific discussion is the "how." There are simple answers to the "why?" (there is no why, it is the nature of the universe), "where?" (here and now).

I am glad you like the site, and have found it useful.

Entry 16

Feedback Letter

From

Rob

Comment

This website is arguably the most important site on the net. Thank you for all of the hard work. Because of your site, I am able to argue for science intelligently with sources, which can only leave my oponents silent. Great Work!

Entry 17

Feedback Letter

From

colin macdonald

Comment

Just read your citique of michael denton's book evolution -a theory in crisis. I find a few quibbles. Do you really believe you can change the diameter of cog in a clock without wrecking its funtionality? Ask a watchmaker if you think it doesn't. Could a digital watch really evolve from the gradual addition of non-functional electronic components? Surely the additional expense and lack of benefit would hinder the survival chances of such a watch. Have you found any evidence in the watch fossil record of such digital-mehanical hybrids. You cite the existence of a vast range of breeds of dogs as compelling evidence of macro-evolution. Yet all we've succeeded in doing is in creating new breeds and not new species. Indeed the further these breeds travel from their wolf ancestors, the less viable they become and their survival is only insured by human intervention. You say that the lack of any plausible intermediate between reptile and avian lung systems is down to evolutionists lack of imagination. If we can't design this thing, even in broad outline, what are the chances of this structure arising through chance mutation? It's a bit like monkeys and typewriters coming up with a bug free windows operating system! Ach well it was a worthy attempt at a critique and better than anything I could come up with. Or that big balloon Richard Dawkins.

Response

From

PZ Myers

Response

Clocks don't develop from teeny-tiny clocks that consist of a single cog.

Digital watches don't replicate.

Your analogies are lacking these rather critical elements. Organisms certainly do change their size liberally throughout development, all while retaining function. They also make copies of themselves from simpler components. Your analogies, if they had any validity at all, would imply that people can't reproduce and that babies can't grow up.

Entry 18

Feedback Letter

From

Kyle Leidna

Comment

First of all I want to state that I'm NOT a creationist. However, I recently heard an argument that human blood is closer to a rabbit's blood than a chimpanzee and human milk is closer to a donkey's than a chimp's. Is this true? If so, does it affect evolution theory?

Response

From

Troy Britain

Response

No, neither is true so no it doesn't affect evolutionary theory. These are a couple of examples of the many antievolutionist nonsense arguments that do not seem to want to die no matter how many times they are refuted.

See:

A Closer Look at Some Biochemical Data that "Support" Creation by Frank T. Awbrey and William M. Thwaites

The Bullfrog Affair by David Wise

And look here for a similar article by Harlequin

Entry 19

Feedback Letter

From

Justin Bynum

Comment

I realize that this site is heavily tilted towards scientific refutation of Creationists' arguments, but in the case of Noah's Flood, it seems that a historical perspective would be much more damaging than a geological argument. For example, the Olmec and Teotihuacan (pre-mayan) civilizations of Mexico existed prior to, during and after any plausible dates for a global flood, yet neither have any record of even a local deluge. And this says nothing of the other American cultures that existed concurrently, such as the Clovis and PreIncan peoples. Furthermore, the Mohenjo-Daro civilization in India, the Mons of Southeast Asia and the aboriginal Australians were also present during the time of Noah, yet bear no record of even a bad storm. Most damning however, is the fact that the Northern Chinese dynasties came into existence around 2200 BCE. I guess Noah's descendants dropped their Sumerian language, migrated thousands of miles eastward and started an empire with eight or fewer people less than one hundred years after everyone on earth was wiped out. I saw a post (perhaps not on this site) one time where someone said that you can't pass a fourth grade science test and believe in creationism. Well, by the same token, you can't pass a 10th grade world history test and believe in Noah's Flood.

Entry 20

Feedback Letter

Comment

I have a question. I understand where you are coming from saying that the second law was misinterpreted, and that the universe is not going down into a spiral of chaos. But there is one thing that is bugging me. Since energy is so-called neither created or destroyed and only transformed into another form, and energy is lost as heat through friction, then why hasnt all the energy changed into heat energy? It should've if the universe is infinitely old and molecules collide with each other, right? Since it hasnt, wouldnt that mean that the universe would've needed something to start it?

Response

From

Mark Isaak

Response

The universe is only about 13 billion years old, dating from the Big Bang. Give it time.

Some people suggest that we live in an oscillating universe, in which our universe is restored either by eventually collapsing in on itself (the "Big Crunch") or colliding with another universe. The second law may not even apply in these cases. Another hypothesis is that new universes are being generated constantly, and our universe is just one of them. Yet another hypothesis is that a universe does not need anything to start it.

Our scientific laws, including thermodynamics and cause and effect, are based on what we observe, which is but a small portion of the universe. We cannot guarantee that they apply everywhere and everywhen within this universe, much less outside it.

Entry 21

Feedback Letter

From

Nicholas Kayser

Comment

First of all I would like to congradulate you for a job well done on the website. You guys have helped me quite a few times in debates with creationists and proponents of Intelligent Design, especially when it comes to the idea of Irreducible Complexity. Although I know that many of you are Christians, Deists, Atheists, and Agnostics I was wondering if you know what the ratio is. I would also like to say that I am a high school student and have been an atheist my entire life, and like you said before, people do not believe in evolution, they feel that it is the best explanation for how species develop. Also, out of curiosity I was wondering if it was possible for people to volunteer to help out on the site at certain times, because I would love to help you guys out. Lastly I have a quote that I think some of you might enjoy: "Creationists make it sound like a 'theory' is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night."-Isaac Asimov

Entry 22

Feedback Letter

From

Brandon

Comment

Hiya guys, I know this a biology website but on the feedback page you've never seemed too unwilling to delve into the philosophical elements of life. With that in mind I pose this question: If we are merely products of our genetic makeup and our memories can anyone really be blamed for who they are? I mean after all if you had their genetic makeup and memories we would be the same person wouldn't we? So ultimately I guess my question is: Is virtue mearly something that comes about by chance and personal resposibility a myth? Obviously this is posed to one of your atheist contributors and I too am an atheist and would appreciate your feedback. Thanks in advance.

Response

From

John Wilkins

Author of

Evolution and Philosophy

Response

You might like to read through some of my FAQ on evolution and philosophy.

As to the question of moral culpability and biology, this is not just an issue if evolution is true. It is an issue if genetics is true, developmental biology is true, and if, indeed physics is true. And it is not an issue of evolutionary theory, but an issue of moral philosophy.

Moral issues occur no matter what physical sciences are true - to some degree what we do is constrained or determined by our physical nature. Any answer that can be given to deal with this applies, mutatis mutandis to all sciences.

Because it's not an issue of evolutionary biology, it really is not something we can defend here. Everyone must make up their own mind how to deal with determinism and moral responsibility; the actual science is just the problem-poser. And the issues are formally the same as when the determinism was God's foreknowledge of our actions, as if it is physical determinism. So it really has no place on this website.

However, I can recommend some texts on ethical philosophy that deal with the general problems if you'd like to contact me directly. In particular, I recommend Bernard Williams' Ethics and the Limits of Philosophy and his book on Utilitarianism: For and Against coauthored as a debate with Jack Smart.