Feedback for June 1998

Patterson and Nelson are the leading exponents of a view called "pattern cladism", which is a technical field of systematics, or the classification of organisms. In effect they say that we are justified in classifying modern organisms into relationships but not fossil organisms. Needless to say, this view has been challenged. Recently, even those who have been sympathetic to the purely technical argument are starting to accept that the fossil record gives some information that can be used to make classifications and thus be used for reconstructing evolutionary history.

This is a problem of epistemology, or the philosophy of knowledge: it is an argument about what science can find out with confidence. I think Nelson is correct in that the techniques used under the name "cladism" are classification techniques not phylogenetic reconstruction techniques. There's more in the Evolution and Philosophy section on kinds and the essay on Colin Patterson being misquoted by creationists.

1. Our commonsense notions of origins and causality do not apply in the realm of quantum mechanics, where particles can appear literally from nothing. Nor do they apply to the Big Bang, where the laws of physics are substantially different from the ones we know today.

   The only scientific answer to the question, "How did the universe begin?" is "We don't know."

2. Gareth Nelson was a curator of ichthyology from 1967 to 1997 with the Center for Biodiversity and Conservation at the American Museum of Natural History in New York. In all likelihood, you have seen quotes from Nelson that have been taken out of context in order to "prove" that "scientists have doubts about the theory of evolution." One site on the web that has done so is the Top Ten Evidences Against Evolution site, which quotes Nelson and others out of context, and also repeats other legends such as the thoroughly debunked Lucy's knee joint story.

1. We must also not fall into the error of quoting others out of context to support propositions the author would not agree with. By "ape or monkey," Darwin was referring to present-day primates. In this context, this is true; both humans and other primates evolved from common ancestors which were identical to neither. However, these common ancestors had traits common to humans and other primates. See the Hominid Fossils FAQ for more information.
2. It is true that in the mid-19th century, Darwin had little access to hominid fossil evidence. He can hardly be blamed for stating accurately the current state of the evidence at the time. Looking at the Prominent Hominid Fossils FAQ, I see that only two of the specimens listed there--both Neanderthal fossils--were known by 1870, for example. But believe it or not, paleontologists have made some discoveries since the mid-1800s. That Darwin predicted evidence only later discovered is support for the theory of evolution, not evidence against it.

The analogy of the pocket watch, however, is unsound. A pocket watch has no DNA that can be altered over time, no method of self-replication, and there are no survival pressures in the drawer to act upon the watch in the form of natural selection. You should take advantage of the resources on this website and familiarize yourself with these concepts.

Here is the best I can offer you: Religious faith involves a concept that is held to be true without any supporting evidence. Faith can persist even in the presence of contrary evidence. An example of faith is the belief that a worldwide flood destroyed the earth, and Noah took 2 of each animal on a great ship that he built. Faith requires no evidence to substantiate it. In other words, you don't have to prove it to believe it.

A scientific 'belief' is an unambiguous idea which actually an expectation based on experience and objective evidence. Galileo had a 'belief' that a hammer and a feather, when dropped from an equal height, would land at the same time in an airless environment. He had no way to test this theory. It was not a demonstrated truth until the Apollo missions, when just such an experiment was conducted on the surface of the moon.

Monkeys did not turn into humans. Pigs, horses, chickens etc. did not emerge from a puddle of slime. The pyramids and the Taj Mahal have no DNA which can alter over time, have no method of self-reproduction, and are not subjected to survival pressures in the form of natural selection. I would suggest that you take advantage of the resources on this website to learn more about the subject, and to learn why your letter did not represent evolution correctly.

Faith involves a concept that is held to be true without any supporting evidence. Faith can persist even in the presence of contrary evidence. An example of faith is the belief that a worldwide flood destroyed the earth, and Noah took 2 of each animal on a great ship that he built. Faith requires no evidence to substantiate it. In other words, you don't have to prove it to believe it.

A scientific 'belief' is an unambiguous idea which actually an expectation based on experience and objective evidence. Galileo had a 'belief' that a hammer and a feather, when dropped from an equal height, would land at the same time in an airless environment. He had no way to test this theory. It was not a demonstrated truth until the Apollo missions, when just such an experiment was conducted on the surface of the moon.

I urge anyone who has the opportunity to do so to visit the Taj Mahal. Although the pictures are lovely, they don't begin to do justice to its beauty as viewed in person. It is truly a wonder of the world.

More information on the Taj Mahal, which is in the city of Agra in the state of Uttar Pradesh in India, can be found on the Lonely Planet web site.

Did somebody ask if there was a marine biologist in the house? ;-)

Let's look at Dr. Ross's objections.

• #1. Relatively small population. This one appears to be whistling in the dark. We do not have population abundance data from the fossil record.
• #2. Long generation spans. This is controlled by age to sexual maturity of females, and tends to be correlated with size. Obviously, the smaller, earlier whales would tend to have relatively shorter generation times compared to large modern whales.
• #3. Low number of progeny produced per adult. Bottlenose dolphin strandings indicate that females may typically produce between 3 and 10 offspring over their lifetime (Note: I'm asserting these numbers based on my memory of discussions with the people who performed necropsies on various female dolphins, noting uterine scarring.). Depending upon survivorship, this could provide a fair amount of reproductive excess.

  One way of examining the three objections given above is by reference to the population dynamics that are known for another species with similar parameters. I'll point to the Northern Elephant Seal. At the last turn of the century, there was a report of a total of eight (count 'em) remaining Northern Elephant Seals. Anywhere. The Smithsonian, alarmed at this news of a species on the brink of extinction, immediately dispatched collectors to dispatch those eight so that the museum's collection would not be missing anything. Fortunately, there were apparently a few seals that both the counters and the collectors missed. From that population bottleneck, current population estimates stand at about 180,000. The intrinsic rate of increase for the smaller Archaeocetes was probably not much different from that of the Northern Elephant Seal. Dr. Ross's three objections above wish the reader to believe that few individuals were available for the processes of variation and natural selection to act upon. The evidence of modern population dynamics and what we see in the fossil record does not tend to support that view.

• #4: High complexity of biochemistry and morphology. This objection puzzles me somewhat. The basic biochemistry of cetaceans is quite similar to other mammals. The biggest physiological change involved was the switch from freshwater dependence to saltwater tolerance, and there is evidence that this was accomplished over a period of four million years some 48 million years ago. Beyond gross anatomy, there are morphological specializations involved in respiration, sound production, and hearing, but none that seem to be extraordinarily complex.
• #5: Enormous size. If we look at the Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ, we find that Pakicetus was about 2.5m long, Prozeuglodon was about 15' long, and Protocetes was about 3m long. Eocetus is noted as a later and larger cetacean, at up to 25m. The FAQ gives time from terrestrial mesonychids to Eocetus as about 15 million years. For several of the early fossil finds listed in the FAQ, we see sizes that are not so enormous.

  Basilosaurus was larger, the page listing 45 to 70' as a typical range. Dorudon is stated to be about 20' in length. See the web page.

• #6: Specialized food supply. This objection does not seem to have evidential support. While some or many modern cetaceans are specialists, others, like the bottlenose dolphin, are generalists. The earliest whales were toothed whales. Baleen is a more recent development.

Summary: There are reasons to suspect that the "severe limitations" that Dr. Ross asserts for natural change in whale lineages may not be as severe as he would like us to believe. The fossils have a clear temporal sequence and show clear signs of anatomical similarities. Ross wishes to convince us that the timescale is too short for adaptive evolution to effect the changes seen across time.

Invoking a series of special creations as an explanation falls into the category of a "God of the Gaps" argument. Ten or fifteen years ago, the known fossil record for cetaceans was exceedingly sparse. Two or three ancient special creations and the modern panoply would suffice. Today, the number of fossil species identified in the cetacean lineage is a good bit larger, and still appears to be growing, now that paleontologists have figured out where to look for the fossils. As this number grows, the attractiveness of the "special creation" conjecture diminishes. With more species, the apparent likelihood that transitions took place via descent with modification becomes higher. That's just considering the numbers. When one looks at the anatomy of the specimens, other reasons to prefer accepting descent with modification suggest themselves. The Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ is a good starting point for examining this issue, but I would recomend looking up other sources as well. For links on a number of modern species, try my Cetaceans page.

Revolution and Rotation of the Planets is one of the URL's Fair gave, but he made a typo.

One piece of Evidence is easy. If the fossils were deposited, say by a large flood, they would be all jumbled together. They are not. Fossils are so strongly sorted, that even tiny microscopic fossils are sorted by species in the fossil record. Had the fossils been disordered, evolution would have been disproven.

Your statement of conservation of angular momentum is incorrect. If it weren't, not just planets but also tops, wheels, and even figure skaters could only spin in one direction.

The total angular momentum of a system is conserved if there are no external torques acting upon the system. (A torque is a rotative force.) But even if there are no external torques acting upon a system, this says nothing about the angular momentum of bodies within the system. A body in such a system may experience a change in angular momentum as long as the rest of the system experiences an equal and opposite change in angular momentum.

Space prohibits a full discussion of the formation of the solar system here. However, the planetessimals that later formed Venus and Uranus may have have been given retrograde rotations through collisions with other bodies whose angular momenta were affected as well.

Discussions of how angular momentum contributes to the formation of planetary systems can be found here. See Planetary image finders a page of sites with planetary images and information. Also, see the song lyrics to Josef Wankerl's "Conservation of Angular Momentum."

Light bulbs would evolve if they reproduced, and all steps to them were feasible. The difference between a light bulb and an organism is that light bulbs do not beget little light bulbs. If they did, and how well they lit their environment influenced how well different variants reproduced, then in no (evolutionary) time at all, you'd have extremely efficient light bulbs, probably better than the ones Edison designed.

I am tempted to suggest that creationists would not ever change light bulbs themselves, as they would expect God to do it, but that would be a cheap shot.

If the strategy of the SciCre-ists and other anti-evolutionists were premised upon finding and analyzing evidence supporting their views, things would be quite a bit different. We would see actual research being published, with hypotheses and theories stated and then tested.

However, that is not the strategy which most anti-evolutionists take. It's too much work, for one thing. Instead, anti-evolutionists seek to make their gains via political action, where rhetoric rather than evidence rules. In the political arena, it does not matter whether one is establishing a case for one's viewpoint, or simply making negative statements about someone else's. Favorable action can be achieved via either route.

It also means that evaluating cases on the evidence and finding one case to clearly be supported and another clearly not supported should not give rise to complacency. Action can continue in the political arena regardless of what reality tells us. This is why further discussion is not a waste of time, but is instead absolutely necessary to impede the progress of anti-science via political action.

I can't speak for anyone else responding to these messages, but for myself, the number one reason that I bother to oppose anti-evolutionists is precisely to combat the introduction of non-science or anti-scientific concepts into science curricula. As far as I am concerned, anyone can believe what they want to. What they cannot do is falsely claim that their beliefs are actually scientific when they manifestly are not.

Miller is still alive (and has a web page).

Time is a property of this universe. It is consistent with what we know about the universe that time came into existence during the Big Bang along with space, matter, and energy. If that is the case, the answer to your question would be, "No."

Unfortunately, as far as we can tell, science cannot investigate events which occurred before the "Planck time," which is at about 10^-43 seconds. So for now, the only scientific answer is, "We don't know."

Sometimes those who troll are also called "trolls," implying a different meaning of "troll"; namely, a grotesque creature that lurks under bridges or in caves, ready to ensnare unsuspecting victims.

Although "troll" is not in the talk.origins Jargon File, it probably should be, and I will suggest that a definition be added. Other unfamiliar terminology related to the origins debate can be found there, however.

Check out this site about teaching evolution: Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of Science (online) and this: Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of Science (reviews and purchase options).

As to how to debate from a particular creationist perspective, the Talk.Origins Archive leaves that up to creationists to determine. See the bottom of the Talk.Origins Archive welcome message, which explains the Archive's policy about creationist articles. See also our extensive list of links to creationist and anti-evolution web sites.

The story about the "missing day" of the Book of Joshua being proven by NASA researchers at the Goddard Spaceflight Center is an urban legend. The legend has its origins in the work of Charles A.L. Totten, a Yale military science instructor who came up with calculations allegedly proving "Joshua's missing day" in his 1890 book Joshua's Long Day and the Dial of Ahaz. It was later turned into an urban legend about NASA and Goddard Spaceflight Center by Harold Hill, former president of the Curtis Engine Company of Baltimore, Maryland, now deceased.

Goddard Spaceflight Center, where this legend allegedly took place, denies it occurred and explains why the legend makes no sense in its " Ask A Scientist" Web page. See also Jim Lippard's discussion of the myth. Even the Creation Science Foundation states that this is story is an urban legend on their Christian Answers Web site.

Further research turned up the Answering Islam site, which has a discussion of this hoax on its hoaxes page. The evidence on this site lists the story as originally appearing in the Evening World of Spencer, Indiana, with the date of the story listed alternately as 1978, 1970, or 1969, perhaps on December 6 or October 10. (Additional information can be found on the Answering Islam site at Joshua's Missing Day Found? and Joshua's Long Day.)

The Johnson Space Center's Space Educator's Handbook authored by Jerry Woodfill has a section on hoaxes with a page mentioning the story, citing it as appearing in the 1970 Evening World. [Ed: Perhaps someone near Spencer could research this? The Spencer Evening World is at 114 E. Franklin St., Spencer, IN 47460, (812) 829-2255. Spencer is about 15-20 miles northwest of Bloomington, Indiana, on Highway 46.]

Amazon.com shows the publication date (evidently a reprinting) of Totten's book to be in December of 1968. I suspect that Hill read Totten's book or heard an account of it and later transposed it in his mind onto the work he was doing as a NASA subcontractor.

A search on AltaVista for the "Curtis Engine Company" turned up about a dozen sites dealing with the legend. Scan through them and see how the myth changes and remains the same.

Sites that repeat the myth:

• Scientific Proof
• Christian Evidences by Richard Riss [Ed: Riss cites the claims of Immanuel Velikovsky.]
• The Sanctuary's Inspirational Pieces

Sites dispelling the myth:

• Goddard Spaceflight Center
• NASA JSC Space Educator's Handbook
• Answering Islam
• Jim Lippard's post on Urban Legends
• Christian Answers/Answers in Genesis
• Melissa Ho's Christian pages [Ed: Even reporters can be fooled!]
• The Christia Library

Some miscellaneous Spencer, Indiana, links:

• Home of the Spencer Elementary School Wildcats!
• The Owen County Public Library.
• International Breeding Centers Inc. - specialising in Black Angus; sells heifer calves, bull calves, bred cows, embryos and semen.

If we assume an omnipotent designer exists, then no set of facts will pose any difficulty for us. The concept of falsifiability requires that we consider the the case where no omnipotent designer exists. If the concept of the existence of an omnipotent designer is a falsifiable one, then there will be some test by which we can determine that the concept is not true. What Robert describes above is a brief case for corroboration of the existence of an omnipotent designer, not a case for the falsifiability of the concept.

Plausibility is a separate issue, and how plausible one finds the concept of an omnipotent intelligent designer (OID) of life's diversity will depend critically upon what attributes one associates with those concepts. This is what Paul Nelson has referred to as "theological themata" when evolutionists say that "God would not have done it that way". However, theological themata are implicit whether the person is arguing that "God would not have done it that way" or that "God certainly could have done it this way". The argument changes with each theological theme, and the theme is not usually articulated, which leads to a great deal of confusion.

The presence of an OID makes any fact seen a possibility. It is only the addition of some particular theological theme to qualify the concept of an OID that makes certain facts inconsistent with that specific theme. It must be understood that what is falsified in that case is the theme, not the OID.

Let me illustrate with the concept of "intelligent re-use". Some claim that similarities in the DNA of organisms stems not from a history of common ancestry and descent with modification, but rather from the intelligent re-use of modules of DNA that worked well elsewhere. In the case of the cytochrome-c protein, all aerobic organisms possess a version of the protein. Does cytochrome-c support intelligent re-use as an alternative to common ancestry? Here it becomes necessary to look at the molecular structure of cytochrome-c as it differs from species to species. Sequence comparisons reveal that it is not the exact same cytochrome-c that is used in all those different species. The protein is recognizably performing the same function in all of the different species, but it does not have the same sequence of amino acids in all of them. Common ancestry explains the pattern of changes based upon the accumulation of mutations in lineages separated since the last time those lineages shared a common ancestor. The data fit this explanation quite well. Intelligent re-use, on the other hand, has to explain the same pattern of data in the light of a designer introducing changes into a particular protein which performs the same function across all those species. Why would an intelligent and omnipotent designer prefer to put exactly a pattern of differences into cytochrome-c that is expected from a history of common ancestry, when simply putting the same sequence into all the species would work pretty much just as well? (Caveat: Some sequences probably do have some effects on function, such as result from Q10 considerations.) The answer to that question is theological in nature, and will differ depending on who is providing the explanation.

An omnipotent intelligent designer (OID) who takes care to see that the smallest details of heritable information conform to the expectations of common ancestry as well limits the number of theological themata that can reasonably be applied. Such an OID is completely consistent with and indistinguishable from a history of evolution that doesn't reflect the action of an OID.

More to the point, scientific theories do not stand or fall on the opinion of one person, even the originator of the theory. They stand or fall instead on the weight of the evidence gathered in observation and experimentation. The theory of evolution has undergone a rigorous process of testing over the past century and a half, and has been more than adequately supported.

You should check out the Fossil Hominids FAQ to learn more about the descent of Homo sapiens from our hominid ancestors.

Producers Incorporated for Televison
2700 Cyprus St.
Columbia, SC 29205
(803)799-3449

Videotapes are $49.50, which includes free shipping and handling and a transcript of the tape. Transcripts alone can be ordered for $10.00.

The December 19, 1997, debate on evolution and creationism is debate #203. For more details, see the Firing Line web site.