Feedback for May 1998

However, my main reason for replying is to discuss the second paragraph. It is unfortunate that the writer chose to only make vague allegations about "flawed scientific dating systems." It would be nice if someone would actually bother to show where they are sufficiently flawed to dismiss all of their results. Unfortunately, the only attempts that we ever see here (e.g., the first letter in the April '97 feedback) are easily demonstrated to be entirely false.

Robert J Richards argues, I think convincingly, that the divergent tree simile that Darwin uses was derived from Karl von Baer, in translation, giving a good reference to Darwin's notebooks and a diagram used by one of von Baer's interpreters.

Does it matter? Yes and no. Darwin was influenced by many people in the development of his theoretical views, which is to be expected. For example, he often cites Alphonse de Candolle who is influential in uncited views on the nature of species and classification. So it is interesting to see what the etiology of Darwin's views are as a matter of historical research, just as it is to find possible influences on Jesus from the Essenes or the Pharisees. Does it affect the value of Darwin's theory? Not in itself.

Once Darwin and Wallace were in contact in the open about evolution, they mutually influenced each other, sometimes for the better, sometimes not. Wallace's rejection of sexual selection was, in my opinion, a mistake. Wallace's contributions over mimesis were great advances. But why those views now prevail have nothing to do with who originated them (which I am sure you are not suggesting anyway).

Darwin clearly understood the importance of extinction long before Wallace put pen to paper, and what the impact that had on the reality and fixity of species. At least, that is my opinion.

It is true that evolution is not defined in the Evolution is a Fact and a Theory FAQ. It is, however, defined in the What is Evolution? FAQ, also by Mr. Moran. It is defined by biologists as any change in the frequency of alleles in a population over time. As we observe genetic change taking place, it is hard to classify it as anything but a fact.

To explain why allele frequencies change, we have theories of evolution. Those theories include mutation and natural selection. They also include common descent, genetic drift, gene flow, and other theories. What you are objecting to, I suspect, is the theory of common descent, the idea that all current life on Earth originates from common ancestry. This is a part of evolution, and an important part, but only a part.

You provide no indication why defining evolution in this manner makes it unable to "explain anything beyond the species level." Indeed, I see no reason for such an assumption. We know that speciation takes place, as we have observed it. Higher taxonomic classifications are man-made conveniences, artificially imposed by us humans. We know that small changes can add up to large changes. No one has yet to propose a reasonable barrier to diversification. I'm not sure what else is required.

I can't judge the quotation you provide, not knowing its context. However, I suspect that Medewar was trying to explain that in science, nothing is 100% proven. In mathematics or logic, statements can be proven true or false given a particular set of initial assumptions and rules for deriving new statements. But in science, proof means much the same thing as it does in law. Evidence is amassed to support or contradict a proposition, and the proposition is "proven" or "disproven" once the weight of the evidence falls one way or the other. Even the most tested and solid theories in science could be wrong, just as the man found holding the smoking pistol over the dead body could be innocent, but at some point we have to say there is enough evidence to accept it as true. (Actually, confirming a major theory in science requires much more evidence than we use to convict people of crimes.) By this meaning of "proof," the theory of evolution, including the theory of common descent, has been proven for over a century.

I'm not sure why you think that the goalposts have been moved. This understanding of evolution has been present since at least the 1930s and 1940s, when Mendelian genetics was fused into evolution during the period of the "Modern Synthesis." If you had the idea that evolution meant something else, okay, but that doesn't mean anyone moved any goalposts.

I'm also not sure who you think should decide whether the theory of evolution is scientifically accurate. If not biologists, then who? Architects? Taxi drivers? Your local greengrocer? Who knows more about genetics, a plumber or a geneticist?

And it's not simply a "majority vote" of biologists. It is peer-reviewed papers containing observations and experimental data. It is the process of cross-checking and rechecking results. It is skepticism applied to new hypotheses. It is an arduous process of investigation. It is not just a group of biologists sitting around saying, "Yep, sounds good to me."

As for what Christians believe, I'm sure the large number of biologists who are devout and practising Christians would be insulted by the implication that they must abandon their faith to accept evolution as the explanation for the diversity of life on Earth. This would seem to imply that they must be stupid, gullible, or hypocrites; I'm not sure which is worse.

Mutations in and of themselves are not destructive, beneficial, or neutral. The effect of mutations depends on the remainder of the genome and the environment that the creature bearing that genome is in. A mutation which is harmful in one context may be beneficial in another.

Finally, with regards to qualifications: As I have stated before and as is plain from my postings to talk.origins, I am (currently, though not for much longer) a law student at the University of Chicago. I did at one time, however, study space physics and mathematics at Rice University. I have been posting to talk.origins for several years now, and was asked to help with feedback to this Archive by its maintainer, Brett Vickers. As far as I know, I have just as much (if not more) scientific background as law professor Phillip Johnson does, yet he is considered "qualified" by many creationists to speak about evolution. I only ask for equal consideration.

Most of the FAQs on the Archive were authored by regular contributors to talk.origins. Almost all of them are either graduate students or professors in the field that their FAQ covers. If you are interested in the qualifications of a particular author or feedback respondent, please contact that person using the email address attached to their name on the FAQ or feedback page.

The "Science and Creation" page should appear in our list of other links shortly. As always, the Archive encourages its readers to check our information against that presented by other web sites and most importantly, against the primary scientific literature and books referenced in most of the FAQs and in our extensive bibliography.

And it is true that I had not read the later book by Eiseley at that time. I will now read it and incorporate responses to it in the revision (I may even agree with him - we'll see). However, it is too easy in historical research to (i) miss material unless one is a bona fide expert in the field, and I am not nor have ever claimed to be a Darwin scholar at the level of, say, Sulloway, Ghiselin, Hull or the like; and (ii) to seek material that confirms one's prejudices. I would have liked to find that Darwin was a de novo genius original in all matters, but that is not what the material suggests. You seem to want to denigrate him before you even begin, and that is not what the material licenses either.

Note that there is a tradition of claiming that Darwin was a plagiarist that dates from the late nineteenth century. A recent version is the otherwise excellent book Song of the Dodo by David Quammen, who wants to claim that Darwin gypped Wallace by withholding his letter. Then there's those who claim priority for Kant, Goethe, Erasmus Darwin, and a host of others (including, if memory serves, Schopenhauer). Why this is so is hard to fathom. If the theory of evolution had been developed by any one of those people, then it would still be the theory of evolution (and some would no doubt attack the credibility of that originator). Perhaps it has more to do with the discomfort some feel for the theory (or rather, as I claim in the FAQ, theories) itself (themselves) than for the person of Charles Darwin or any other individual.

And finally, if we are to criticise capitalisation, then the book of Proverbs in the KJV spells it "cometh"... de Beer's name is correctly capitalised according to all the works of his I have and all the references to him in other works.

However, it is not speculation in the everyday sense of the word. What we know about the past isn't just a guess; it is confirmed by existing evidence. That is what science is all about: piecing together existing evidence, coming up with new ideas, and then finding additional evidence that supports or rejects those ideas. If you think what scientists say about the origins of the world, life, and humanity are mere speculation, then perhaps you aren't familiar enough with the evidence. (To be fair, not many of us are.)

And why does it make a difference to learn about the past? Because the past tells us about the present and the future. I leave you with three quotations:

What's past is prologue.
-- William Shakespeare, The Tempest

To be ignorant of what occurred before you were born is to remain a child. For what is the worth of human life, unless it is to be woven into the life of our ancestors by the records of history?
-- Cicero, Orator

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.
-- George Santayana, The Life of Reason

The earth slows down overall bacause of tidal drag produced by the moon. If the moon were not there, the earth would be spinning much faster now than it is. The external force is not required to "keep the earth spinning", which it would do quite well by itself. The external force (lunar tides) is what serves to slow the earth down. One might argue that because of the moon, the earth spins slow enough to support life, rather than fast enough. But I doubt that anyone can actually quantify what is "slow enough" or "fast enough" anyway.

The small scale slowing such as you see with El-Nino is common and typical. The earth's rotation rate (expressed as a precise length of day) varies at the millisecond level on a daily basis, and also varies strongly (at the several millisecond level) with season as the earth exchanges momentum with trade winds in the atmosphere.

[1] "Neoproterozoic Earth-Moon Dynamics - Rework of the 900 MA Big Cottonwood Canyon Tidal Laminae" C.P. Sonett & M.A. Chan Geophysical Research Letters 25(4): 539-542 (1998 Feb 15)

[2] "Precambrian Length of Day and the Validity of Tidal Rhythmite Paleotidal Values" G.E. Williams Geophysical Research Letters 24(4): 421-424 (1997 Feb 15)

Also see the classical textbook by Kurt Lambeck, "The Earth's Variable Rotation: Its Geophysical Causes and Consequences", Cambridge University Press, 1980 (especially chapter 11, "Paleorotation").

• A technical description of tidal deceleration.
• The National Earth Orientation Service.

The argument that an asteroid hitting Earth must be a "good" thing because it's natural, or "that's evolution," is a non sequitur. Just because something will happen without intervention from mankind does not make it inherently good (or bad).

Valid evaluations of "right" and "wrong" are unlikely to come from science (or at least not from science alone). They are much more likely to come from elsewhere, such as philosophy and theology.

1. Humans didn't have to evolve an epiglottis; we inherited it because it is a feature common to all mammals. (For example here is a slightly gross picture of a dissected cat with the epiglottis exposed and labeled.)
2. There are animals (e.g., birds) that don't have an epiglottis, so there must be some way to survive without one.
3. I think the problem which bothers you rests with your (implied) assumption that inability to live without an epiglottis would probably predate the epiglottis itself. I would suspect the reverse to be true.

Evolution, on the other hand, is not so easily concluded. The hierarchy of organisms determined by examining the genes of living things, in conjuction with persuasive evidence from other fields like paleontology and comparative anatomy, is conclusive evidence that all living things descended from a common ancestor. Evolution would be falsified if there were no similarities in the genetic makeups of living organisms. Can the same be said for "intelligent design"?

The Talk.Origins Archive exists to provide mainstream scientific responses to the frequently asked questions and frequently rebutted assertions that appear in talk.origins. The archive's policy is that readers should be given easy access to alternative views, but those who espouse alternative views should speak for themselves. Hence, the archive supplies links to relevant creationist web sites within many of its articles. It also maintains a frequently updated and extensive list of creationist and catastrophist web sites so that readers may familiarize themselves with anti-evolutionary perspectives on scientific issues.

Here are the relevant authors and their contact addresses:

• Chris Stassen:
  • The Age of the Earth FAQ
  • Isochron Dating FAQ
  • A Critique of the ICR's Grand Canyon Dating Project
• :Steven H. Schimmrich
  • Geochronology according to John Woodmorappe
• :Robert P.J. Day
  • The Decay of c-decay
• :Tim Thompson
  • On Creation Science and the Alleged Decay of the Earth's Magnetic Field
  • Meteorite Dust and the Age of the Earth
• :John Brawley
  • Polonium Haloes: Evolution's Tiny Violences
• :Matt Brinkman
  • Icecore Dating FAQ

Hope that helps.

1. The Second Law of Thermodynamics has no requirement that a system be closed; it operates for all thermodynamic systems. Frank Steiger does quote the Second Law of Thermodynamics in The Second Law of Thermodynamics, Evolution, and Probability FAQ; it is dS = q/T, where dS is the change in entropy of the system, q is the amount of heat absorbed by the system, and T is the absolute temperature of the system. There are other equivalent formulations of the Second Law useful in different physical contexts, but it is only these mathematical formulas that are the Second Law. Statements about "order" and "disorder" are consequences of that Law as applied to specific systems.
2. One consequence of the Second Law is that the overall entropy of a closed thermodynamic system cannot increase. A "closed" system is one that exchanges no heat with its surroundings. Entropy can decrease on the surface of the Earth for two reasons:
   1. The Earth is not a closed thermodynamic system. Energy is constantly being received in the form of sunlight and being radiated away from the planet. So the overall entropy of the Earth can change.
   2. Even if the Earth were a closed system, this would only mean that the overall entropy of the Earth could not decrease. That would not prevent particular parts of the Earth (say, individual creatures) from decreasing their entropy at the cost of increasing the entropy of other parts of the Earth.
3. The point is that the Laws of Thermodynamics operate without regard to any "energy conversion mechanism." That's part of the power of the science of thermodynamics; scientists and engineers can make calculations about end results without having to examine the path taken to reach those results. It's not that one can't come up with an "energy conversion mechanism" --in the case of evolution, biochemistry and natural selection fit the bill--it's that thermodynamics does not require it to perform calculations. Anyone who says that an "energy conversion mechanism" is necessary to do thermodynamics is using an invented thermodynamics, not the one used by science and engineering.

1. Evolution does not expect a finch to give birth to goat, or a lizard, or even a magpie. If such a thing occurred, it would be evidence against evolution, not for it.

   What evolution does say is that we expect to see populations of organisms diverging, given reproductive or other isolation.

   An engaging account of current research on Darwin's finches and what they say about evolution can be found in the Pulitzer prize-winning book The Beak of the Finch by Jonathan Weiner, Random House, 1994, ISBN 0-679-40003-6.

   As for "macroevolution" (see the Macroevolution FAQ), in this context it basically means speciation, which we have observed. See the Observed Instances of Speciation FAQ and the More Observed Instances of Speciation FAQ.

2. Theories in evolutionary biology are observable, testable, repeatable, and falsifiable. Here's several ways:
   1. Given two types of modern organisms with certain common characteristics, a researcher predicts that fossils will be found with a mixture of characteristics of the two types. A prediction, with testable observables. If such fossils are found, they help confirm the theory. The observations are repeatable because anyone can look at the fossils and double-check. Likewise, evolution makes predictions about what we won't see. If we do see those things, then large doubt is cast upon evolutionary theory.
   2. Organisms that share a greater degree of morphological similarity should also share a greater degree of genetic similarity. This is an observable prediction of evolution, tested in many experiments.
   3. Molecular biologists can often test evolutionary theories through direct experimentation of the sort many people think of as "doing science."

   And so on.

   See the Evolution and Philosophy FAQ, especially the section on predictions. See also the Evidence for Evolution FAQ.

3. As for the Cambrian explosion, I'll point you to the Post of the Month for December 1997, in which Chris Nedin discusses the topic. The basic gist is that the organisms which appear during the Cambrian evolved from soft-bodied organisms that do not fossilize well and are therefore underrepresented in the fossil record.