Feedback for November 2003

The key word you are looking for is "abiogenesis," roughly equivalent to the origin of life. It is quite simple to point out that evolutionary biology is the study of life, and not the origin of life. And, there is no particular reason that evolutionary theory need be concerned with the origin of life.

I will briefly respond anyway. You clearly think that there is some sort of difference between 'living' molecules and 'non-living' molecules. This notion is called "vitalism;" as expressed in the eighteenth century this is the theory that there is something unique about life that required 'vital force.' Thus, living tissues could only subsist on the molecules from other living tissues that were thought to have "vital force." We can still see the strength that this idea had in the organization of undergraduate chemistry courses which typically start with a year of general chemistry followed by a year of "organic" chemistry. Two discoveries put an end to vitalism. First it was discovered that urea, clearly a product of life that 'must' have had vital force decomposed into quite ordinary water, carbon dioxide, and ammonia. More importantly, in 1832 Freidrich Wohler showed that synthetic urea could be made from ammonium cyanate, and this could be made from simple gasses. The variation of vitalism most popular with creationists is the theory of spontaneous generation. This is popular with creationists because it was debunked in the late 1800s when Louis Pasteur published (1862) his investigations on the sources of microscopic organisms found growing in various broths. Although there were challenges as late as 1872 (H. Bastian, The Beginnings of Life, London) Pasteur had finished spontaneous generation theories for once and for all. Many creationists misinterpret Pasteur's work as meaning that life can only result from a supernatural intervention. This is not a valid conclusion. Rather, Pasteur demonstrated that complex cellular life does not spring full formed into existence at the same time he disposed of the 'vital force' notion.

So, the molecules of life were known to be quite ordinary matter. Astronomers discovered that not only were these carbon compounds common throughout the solar system, they are common through out the universe.

The discussion of the earliest molecular catalysis, peptides, genetic material, and (don't forget) lipid membranes, goes far beyond what I am willing to write out for you. I will point out that there are many catalytic mechanisms in addition to enzymes.

Instead, here are some intermediate level books that provide good overviews:

• de Duve, Christian 1995 "Vital Dust: The Origin and Evolution of Life on Earth" New York: Basic Books
  
  
• Fry, Iris 2000 "The Emergence of Life on Earth: A Historical and Scientific Overview" Rutgers University Press
  
  

Fry's book is my current favorite introduction.

The next two are more for historical interest.

• Oparin, A. I. 1953 Origin of Life. New York:Dover Publications (Re-issue of the 1938 edition)
  
  
• Orgel, Leslie 1973 “The Origins of life: Molecules and Natural Selection" New York: John Wiley and Sons.
  
  
• Shapiro, Robert 1986 "Origins: A Skeptics Guide to the Creation of Life on Earth" New York: Summit Books
  
  

See above comments about the Darwinist Mafia.

• Schopf, J. William 1999 "Cradle of Life:The Discovery of Earth's Earliest Fossils," Princeton University Press
  
  

For people who don't have access to good libraries (How can you live?) here are some websites:

• You should look at the section on the Urey/Miller experiment here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wells/iconob.html#Miller-Urey
  
  
• Another abiogenesis source here at TalkOrigins is the Index of Creationist Claims section on abiogenesis: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html#CB0
  
  
• The Origins and Early Evolution of Life
  
  
• Origin of Life Research
  
  
• Origins of Life
  
  
• The Geochemical Origins of Life

To get any where near the current research, you must use scientific journals rather than textbooks. I would suggest you read the following articles, and then work back through the reference sections to gain the background literature. I selected them as much for their references as their primary content.

• D.W. Deamer "The First Living Systems - A Bioenergetic Perspective", Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews, 61(2): 239; June 1997
  
  
• Hanczyc, Martin M., Shelly M. Fujikawa, and Jack W. Szostak 2003 Experimental Models of Primitive Cellular Compartments: Encapsulation, Growth, and Division Science October 24; 302: 618-622. (in Reports)
  
  
• Martin, W., and M.J. Russell. 2003. On the origin of cells: A hypothesis for the evolutionary transitions from abiotic geochemistry to chemoautotrophic prokaryotes, and from prokaryotes to nucleated cells. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 358(Jan. 29):59-85.
  
  
• Woese, Carl 2002 “On the evolution of Cells” PNAS Vol. 99 13:8742-8747, June 25
  
  
• Yao Shao, Ghosh I, Zutshi R, Chmielewski J. 1998 Selective amplification by auto- and cross-catalysis in a replicating peptide system. Nature. Dec 3;396(6710):447-50.
  
  

and

These are the standard works on ancient astronomy, although I note that Pecker's more recent volume is just out. Also check the following:

You can also find some material here.

Compare our FAQ with some of the rhetoric that is archived in the invidious comparisons thread at the Antievolution.org discussion board. We are, comparatively, all sweetness and light.

You should read our large collection of articles and links on Behe's work. One of them lists published articles in scientific journals explaining the evolution of biochemical systems that Behe says couldn't have evolved. I would also recommend that you read H. Allen Orr's critique of Darwin's Black Box. Oh, and even mousetraps aren't irreducibly complex.

Also bear in mind that the word proof in science refers to a test against empirical evidence or observations. This is the same kind of proof that is used in law and forensics and bar room arguments. It is not the same as the very specialized notion of formal deductive proof used in mathematics.

In the FAQ 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution, each of the evidences considered involves repeatable observations, and the associated discussion explicitly considers predictions, confirmations, and potential falsifications.

The feedback system is for feedback on material on the archive. Although we often answer general questions, that is not really the intent; and you should bear in mind that a feedback column is not suited to debate. If you are looking for a debate, you could try the talk.origins newsgroup. Your approach, however, is likely to provoke a hot reaction from some contributors there. You aren't being rude, but the questions are trite, and with a bit of effort you should be able to get a head start on answering them for yourself. Then, even if you remain dissatisfied with conventional scientific answers to these questions, at least you will be engaging at a non-trivial level.

A good idea is to read Welcome to talk.origins, then read the newsgroup for a week or so, and then post a question there, on one matter at a time. If you make a specific claim, give some defence of it, rather than just assertion. Check the post does not come across as insulting. If it does, you'll get insults back in return, and that does not help anyone.

OK. With that out of the way, here are some answers.

We don't have any good FAQs on formation of the solar system. I have commented on the matter in feedback, but without an indication of the month, I can't tell which feedback you mean.

Nobody thinks that the solar system was formed by an explosion, so let's just ignore that. Here is a good link for formation of the solar system. Any cloud of gas always has some non-zero angular momentum, and as a cloud compresses, basic physics means that it will spin more quickly to conserve that momentum. The initial composition of the nebula was mostly hydrogen, some helium, and traces of heavier elements. The heavier elements get concentrated as planets accumulate; and the models whereby this occurs are complex but still just basic physics. We can measure the composition of clouds of gas in star forming regions at the moment, and the kinds of numbers tend to be something like 90% hydrogen, 9% helium, and traces of other elements. Oxygen is the third most common element in the galaxy, but still only a fraction of a percent. (The link I have given leads on to some beautiful images of nebulae and regions of star formation in our galaxy.)

DNA was certainly not present. We are not sure how or when DNA first originated on earth, but it is most unlikely that the earliest living things used DNA. This is an area with more questions than answers: and we don't know how DNA first arose.

What establishes the composition of the dust and gases from which stars and solar systems are formed is the life cycle of other stars. Hydrogen and Helium is the basic material from which galaxies are made, and subsequently heavy elements are formed in supernova, and blasted out into space. That explosion does not mark the origin of the solar system. It marks end of a star, and the insertion of heavy elements into the clouds of the galaxy. We are made from the dust of ancient stars.

As for facts and theory. Evolution is a fact (or many facts) and it is also the theory which explains those facts. See Evolution is a Fact and a Theory. The FAQ also explains what the terms fact and theory mean in science.

I don't know why you are asking me about the Yucca moth. I'd never heard of it before now, but I've checked it out. It turns out that this is a spectacularly good example of co-evolution, and has been widely studied. The significance is mutual dependence between some of these moths and the Yucca plant, neither of which can survive without the other. There is a considerable literature on the evolution of these moths, going back to 1872! See Prodoxidae (The Yucca moth family) at the Tree of Life pages. This family includes many subfamilies of closely related moths, two genera of which are the "true" Yucca moths; both of which have many species in turn. There are many other closely related species and genera within this ensemble, and so they are very well suited for study of how the tight co-dependence with Yuccas and true Yucca moths evolved.

Modern creationists are now recognizing the need for considerable speciation in their models to account for living diversity to appear since the flood. The question arises; does the evolution of these moths fit within a creationist paradigm? If it does, then it is rather silly to raise them as a problem. If it does not, then it becomes rather a serious problem to explain how this tightly integrated mutual dependence was preserved in the flood.

But we do see species in the process of being born. We see species with forms that are so modified they seem to be of other species, and if we didn't know of the intervening forms that can progressively interbreed with each other, we would (and in some cases have) call the different species.

We see varieties of adaptations within species, and we see pretty much the sort of variety that evolutionary theory, by way of population genetics, tells us to expect.

We see species like the cheetah, which have undergone recent genetic bottlenecks. We see flocks of species like the finches of Galapágos, which are all similar in form, with special adaptations to local food sources.

It is not thought that most species arise by way of adaptation. Instead it is thought that adaptation happens after species become isolated from each other, although some species evolve by way of adaptation.

A well-written and informed overview of the issues can be found in

You might be surprised exactly what it is we do see around us.

There is no "law of biogenesis." It is well established that there is no clear dividing line between life and non-life, and that life can and does come from non-life by reasonable definitions of the two. (For example, see the Hinton reference here.)

Abiogenesis is a hard problem, but there is no plausible case against it. The only attempts to discredit it are pathetic calculations of odds that fail to consider physical realities; see Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics, and Probability of Abiogenesis Calculations. Part of the problem with abiogenesis is that there are so many possible explanations to choose from.

Finally, Francis Crick and others of his stature hold no reservations that the theory of evolution is sound.

Arguments we think creationists should NOT use

I wish they would continue vetting the specious arguments from their site.

Thanks.

evolution an explanation of the way in which present-day organisms have been produced, involving changes taking place in the genetic makeup of populations, which have been passed on to successive generations.

The word changed in biology because the understanding by biologists changed as they learned more. In fact, the modern view of evolution is not constrained by the ways the word was used in the past (Darwin actually referred in various ways to his theory, as "descent with modification" or "common descent").

Living things change over time, and sometimes they become more complex or specialised, and other times they become less complex or less specialised. There is no inherent "direction" to evolution. However, in another technical sense, things by definition evolve from primitive to advanced, because this means only that when a lineage changes, the older trait is called "primitive" and the later trait is called "advanced" or "derived". But the later trait might be a lessening of an organ or the loss of an ability, like the loss of sight in cave fish and insects.

Maybe next time I'll deploy "pedantism" instead.

:-b

There's no setup here. Pedanticism is a valid word, though perhaps less commonly used than pedantry.

Wesley

All of the standard arguments you give here, from the venerable 747 in a tornado, to the "law of entropy," are covered in this site. If you cannot find them by browsing, use the Search.

I don't think that there is any place on the TalkOrigins Archive that claims either that (1) all creationist are liars or (2) that every statement of some particular creationist is a lie. But I am curious as to the content of the claim that "many of their claims are substantiated." I'd like to see a few examples, since this doesn't correspond to my experience. My experience is that either the antievolutionist is echoing a comment from a legitimate biological researcher (usually with inappropriate spin), or is mistaken in one or more premises of an argument, or is simply repeating a falsehood.

An example of the case where one or more premises in the argument is false is thoughtfully provided by the reader. Did Stephen Jay Gould ever say that transitional fossils don't really exist? No, of course not. Did a concern about non-existence of any transitional fossils lead Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould to propose "punctuated equilibria"? No, of course not. The reader should consult the FAQ on punctuated equilibria here for more detailed information about punctuated equilibria and its theoretical underpinnings.

It is an unfortunate fact that the antievolutionary literature is replete with falsehoods. It is completely legitimate in discourse to point out the discrepancy between what antievolutionists say and what is real. That an antievolutionist might say that the sky is blue when, in fact, the preponderance of light reflected from the sky has wavelengths between those of green and ultraviolet does not mean that the speaker can be counted upon as a generally reliable source of information.

Wesley

Creationists "doubt" only when it suits them. They are not consistent, like the classical skeptics, and apply the same doubt to all knowledge - just to that knowledge that interferes with their favorite interpretation of the Bible or other scriptures.

Instead, I would say that the philosophical school with which creationists have the most in common is the postmodernist movement, in which there are no facts, no rational principles and nothing but the Text. This is a popular philosophy for those opposed to "modernism", which is a general term applied to modern technology, science and ideas that offend someone's own views.

For example, if a gene that would previously have killed its owners - say, phenolketonuria - is now dealt with so that the bearers no longer die, then in fact medical science has changed the fitness of that gene. But the gene is still relatively more or less fit than other genes, and the populations in which it is found will continue to change or maintain gene frequencies.

There is nothing that is not "natural" in this case. Medicine happens via natural processes, and like all natural processes it has its limits. We will find that there are cost:benefit tradeoffs in any medical science, and so populations will adapt to those tradeoff points. And it has ever been thus. Humans and a lot of nonhuman species care for their old, their weaker members, and of course their children. This changes the fitness of those organisms, allowing them to survive (and reproduce) when they otherwise wouldn't. Human sociality, like other animal sociality, is itself an adaptation.

Orchids provide another, and less dire, example. Orchids are pollinated almost exclusively by insects. They have evolved stunning shapes and colors to attract these pollinators to the flower. But orchids' flowers are still made out of the same petals and sepals as other flowers. They have had to "make do" with the equipment they had. A truly efficient design would almost certainly have included some better way of getting the insects to pick up the pollen.

Thanks for your kind words.

• What is Creationism?
• Scientific Creationism and Error
• How to be Anti-Darwinian
• The Creation Research Society's Creed

That said, I should point out that the National Center for Science Education does a good job of tracking news items related to the creation/evolution debate. You can access those items from NCSE's home page, as well as their Press Room. NCSE also has an e-mail mailing list for the latest news. These might satisfy what you're looking for.

So, how about you write up that FAQ, and post it to the Usenet group talk.origins.

"The Talk.Origins Archive is a collection of articles and essays, most of which have appeared in talk.origins at one time or another. The primary reason for this archive's existence is to provide scientific responses to the many frequently asked questions (FAQs) that appear in the talk.origins newsgroup and the frequently rebutted assertions of those advocating intelligent design or other creationist pseudosciences."

http://www.talkorigins.org/

and, "What is the Talk.Origins Archive?"

"The Talk.Origins Archive is a collection of articles and essays that explore the creationism/evolution controversy from a mainstream scientific perspective. In other words, the authors of most of the articles in this archive accept the prevailing scientific view that the earth is ancient, that there was no global flood, and that evolution is responsible for the earth's present biodiversity."

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/welcome.html

William Lane Craig does not fit well with any of the defining criteria for T.O. Archive submissions which are focused on the observable Universe and the consequent, logical inferences that can be scientifically considered. Miracles are not generally considered "testable" or "scientific."

While Rev. Craig's positions at various evangelical Christian institutions, such as Biola:

Biola University: Science and Religion -- Faculty

(AKA Bible Institute of Los Angles where: "Biola is the only university in the United States where all undergraduate students take 30 units of comprehensive Bible classes taught by the finest Christian scholars. Every class - from art to sociology, biochemistry to political science - is taught from a solidly biblical worldview.") does not a priori exclude his relevance to Talk.Origins, Rev. Craig's published work fails badly as an empirically testable scientific premise:

William Lane Craig Articles Index

However, it is highly unlikely that his supernatural cosmology can sustain the rigorous challenge of scientific review. Therefore, it is best that he stay in the safe cloister of fundamentalist institutions. I would be very surpised if you can find some plausible presentation of Rev. Craig's theology that would be appropriate for the TalkOrigins web pages, but by all means, give it your best shot.

Perhaps the foucus of the Archive is narrower that you (or I might wish), but as the recent textbook controversies in Ohio, and Texas illustrate, the masses as you call them, need some clear information to counter creationist's bamboozle.

And such it is with evolution. The scientific debate over evolution ended over a century ago, solidly in evolution's favor. Scientific debate over evolution now turns on which mode of evolution is important in which circumstances.

We are well-aware of how many people support creationism or intelligent design. Indeed, if it were confined to a few individuals, there would be no need for this site.

We are also well-aware of creationist arguments. Indeed, one can find links to them scattered throughout this site and on our links page. Not only have we taken the time to present creationist arguments, we have done so by providing links directly to their arguments, so that we cannot be accused of misrepresenting those arguments.

This is not a debate site, by the way. If you want debate on these topics, go to the talk.origins Usenet news group. But be sure to read the talk.origins Welcome FAQ first.

A response I enjoy to the "Why monkeys?" question is this: "If my sister and I have the same parents, then why is my sister still alive?"

Keep reading, thinking, and questioning.

In my opinion, the bankruptcy court's decision in In re Hovind is telling of Hovind's veracity generally, and thus at least of marginal relevance in judging his veracity on topics related to evolution. His efforts to avoid paying taxes are not relevant, but his fairly blatant misstatements under oath to the bankruptcy court — such as saying he had no assets when county public records clearly showed that he did — show at least some disregard for the truth.

There's far goofier stuff to be found on Hovind, such as can be found in Escambia County's public records. We have not included that information in our Hovind pages because it is not relevant to the discussion.

Castillo-Davis, C. I. and D. L. Hartl (2002). "Genome evolution and developmental constraint in Caenorhabditis elegans." Mol Biol Evol 19(5): 728-35.

It has been hypothesized that evolutionary changes will be more frequent in later ontogeny than early ontogeny because of developmental constraint. To test this hypothesis, a genomewide examination of molecular evolution through ontogeny was carried out using comparative genomic data in Caenorhabditis elegans and Caenorhabditis briggsae. We found that the mean rate of amino acid replacement is not significantly different between genes expressed during and after embryogenesis. However, synonymous substitution rates differed significantly between these two classes. A genomewide survey of correlation between codon bias and expression level found codon bias to be significantly correlated with mRNA expression (r(s) = -0.30 and P < 10(-131)) but does not alone explain differences in dS between classes. Surprisingly, it was found that genes expressed after embryogenesis have a significantly greater number of duplicates in both the C. elegans and C. briggsae genomes (P < 10(-20) and P < 10(-13)) when compared with early-expressed and nonmodulated genes. A similarity in the distribution of duplicates of nonmodulated and early-expressed genes, as well as a disproportionately higher number of early pseudogenes, lend support to the hypothesis that this difference in duplicate number is caused by selection against gene duplicates of early-expressed genes, reflecting developmental constraint. Developmental constraint at the level of gene duplication may have important implications for macroevolutionary change.