Feedback for November 1999

1. Any modern reptile or bird evolved, not one from another, but from a common ancestor. That common ancestor will not be entirely the same in its lung structure as either reptiles or birds.

2. There is no such thing as "the" reptile lung or "the" bird lung. It's not like they have a standard part that gets ordered from the factory. Each species has it's own version of a lung, and there will be differences.

Then you ask how a helf-way lung could function. The answer of course is that it functioned very well in the animal that had it, even if it would not function well in either a bird or lizard.

And Michael Behe's IR thesis is mistaken. One way that functions can be added to irreducibly complex systems (like genetic-determined biochemical pathways) is by duplicating the genes so you have a "spare" copy to mutate and evolve, so it can replace the older IR system if necessary.

This 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 mainstream scientific responses to the many frequently asked questions (FAQs) and frequently rebutted assertions that appear in talk.origins.

We most certainly do have a bias, and are quite up front about it. This archive seeks to provide the most accurate information available, and we are firmly of the view that the most accurate information unabiguously supports the mainstream science view. Indeed, that is why it is the mainstream view.

At no point does the archive claim to present information from both sides. It claims to present information about both evolution and creationism, showing why the one is accepted and the other is rejected.

We do encourage people to look at the other side of this debate. This is done by providing many links to pages maintained by those who hold alternative views.

You can find our huge list of links to various creationist views at Other Links, and also many FAQs have further links that will take you directly to creationists pages on the same topic.

But even if you had started out correctly, your next argument would still be wrong, because neither the whole solar system, nor its constituent parts, formed in such a manner as you describe. Rather, the whole solar system formed out of a condensing cloud that lost most of its angular momentum through interactions with magnetic fields that resulted in the ejection of considerable mass and momentum from the system. But the planets and moons did not form in this "top down" fashion, they formed in a "bottom up" fashion, being built out of the agglomeration of smaller "planetesimals" into larger planets. And, finally, the internal and external environments cannot be considered, even approximately, to be "frictionless". Indeed, the early evolution of the planetary system is dominated by hydrodynamic friction with the accretion disk out of which the planets form. [Growth of a migrating protoplanet by H. Tanaka & S. Ida, Icarus 139(2): 350-366, June 1999; Planet Formation by Jack J. Lissauer, Annual Reviews of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 31 (1993), pages 129-174]

So, when we look at the solar system, we first see that all of the planets rotate around the sun in the same direction, as expected. Two of the nine planets spin on their axes in retrograde (i.e., "backwards"), Venus and Uranus. The peculiar spin of Uranus is easily explained by the planet formation process. All it takes is one big thwack during the accretion of planetesimals, and you wind up with a sideways planet. Venus is only barely retrograde, just push it over a couple of degrees and it's spinning prograde (i.e., "forward"), not retrograde. This can be explained by the same kind of thwack that upset Uranus, only a much smaller hit will do the job, or it could be explained by the exchange of angular momentum between the planet and its massive atmosphere, or it could be explained by the fact that the obliquity (the angle of the spin axis with respect to the plane of the orbit) of a planet is chaotic and can undergo large migrations quite spontaneously (in other words, the planet can spontaneously move from prograde to retrograde spin, or vice-versa). As for the 6 moons, none of them formed with the parent planet. In the case of the retrograde moons of Jupiter and Saturn, they are all the smallest and farthest out. They were free asteroids until being recently captured by the gravity of Jupiter or Saturn, and have not had time yet to be forced into prograde orbits. in the case of Neptune's Triton, which is quite large, it too was undoubtedly a recent capture. [On the Character and Consequences of Large Impacts in the Late Stage of Terrestrial Planet Formation by D.P. Sheehan et al., Icarus 142(1): 219-237, November, 1999; Venus' Free Obliquity by C.F. Yoder, Icarus 117(2): 250-286, October, 1995; A Possible Constraint to Uranus' Great Collision by A. Brunini, Planetary and Space Science 43(8): 1019-1021, August, 1995; Evolution of the Spin of Venus by J. McCue & J.R. Dormand, Earth, Moon and Planets 63(3): 209-225, December, 1993; Why Does the Earth Spin Forward? by L. Dones & S. Tremaine, Science 259(5093): 350-354, January 15, 1993]

Your argument that an evolutionary scenario for the formation of the solar system violates the law of conservation of angular momentum, or any other law of physics, has been falsified.

There is no aspect of life that violates the second law of thermodynamics, nor is there any aspect of evolutionary theory which does either. Neither the 2nd law, nor any other law of thermodynamics, speaks to the impossibility of "order" coming from "disorder', nor in fact do any of them deal directly with "order" at all. Since your description of the thermodynamic constraints is wrong, and you offer no other argument, then I am forced to conclude that this argument too stands falsified.

Louis Pasteur disproved the "spontaneous generation" of whole complex organisms (particularly flies & maggots) at one shot. His results are not applicable to the science of abiogenesis. Pasteur dealt only with large fully-formed organisms, whereas abiogenesis deals with the smallest possible molecular life forms. Second, Pasteur. Your Pasteur argument against abiogenesis has now been falsified.

Dinosaur and human footprints have never yet been found together anywhere by anybody. So in this case there is no argument to falsify.

Judging from the comments made, I presume that you have not read any of the FAQ files before commenting. This is a feedback page, the idea is that you read an article (or 2 or 3 or more), and then you "feedback" opinions about what the articles say, or corrections if you find errors of fact. I suggest you go back and read, if you are so inclined, and then "feedback", if you are so inclined.

• The Archive Front Page
• Thermodynamics, Evolution, and Creationism
• The Probability of Abiogenesis
• FAQ Index - look up your favorite topic and see what's there

That new forms of living creatures have arisen on the Earth has been known for centuries. There used to be dinosaurs; but they are extinct. When they were living, there were no elephants. The question is thus: how do we explain the origin of elephants, or of other species?

Simply postulating the chance assembly of an elephant at some time since the extinction of the dinosaurs is, as you suggest, ludicrous. Generally we think that elephants came about by cummulative inherited change, with selection ensuring that only viable well adapted organisms persist. These processes are observable today: they are the processes of biological evolution. Humans are subject to the same processes.

These processes don't work for watches, not because of anything to do with complexity -- but because watches do not reproduce.

The only defect with your understanding is thinking of this as a critique of evolution. Evolution does have the objects which collect energy and make use of it to grow and reproduce. Living organisms do this all the time. That is why there are able to evolve. If computers reproduced themselves in the same way, then they might also evolve; and as you point out the second law of thermodynamics, and open and closed systems, have nothing whatever to do with the matter.

I am sure you will find the above unsatisfactory, since I make no mention of how living creatures first came about. This was not your point however, and you should be aware that evolution proceeds just fine, however it happened that life got started.

To consider the question of biogenesis is more difficult, because we really do not know how life got started. There are some interesting speculations around; but no comprehensive theory. But in any case, even non-living chemical systems are capable of utilizing energy to transform and self-organise in subtle ways; and a range of relevant processes have been demonstrated by which complex potential precursors to life can arise.

We have two relevant FAQs on biogenesis you may like to read:

• The Probability of Abiogenesis
• Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics, and Probability of Abiogenesis Calculations

The reasons some Christians accept evolution has nothing to do with wanting to please everyone. It is just a matter of accepting what the evidence shows.

I quite agree with looking at just the facts. One of those facts is that evolution does not break any basic laws of physics.

People who think that evolution breaks the second law of thermodynamics don't understand the law. This is such a common error that we have some FAQs on the subject.

The second law does not prohibit growth in complexity. After all, you and I both grew from a tiny egg, all by natural processes, without violating any laws of physics.

Of course, it can be hard to read through all the stuff that gets written on the second law, and decide what to accept; and sometimes people get rather vehement, in part because it is so simple. I invite you to contact me personally by email if you would like to discuss the second law in more detail. I won't try and prove evolution to you, or disprove creationism... I am just offering to go through the second law with you at whatever pace or level you would like, and consider whether or not it is in conflict with evolution.

Thanks -- Chris Ho-Stuart

Abraham's message would be excellent for a post to the talk.origins newsgroup. It is not appropriate for this feedback system.

Wesley

On the Amazon books site, there are 15 reader reviews. Most gave it five stars. Two people gave it one star. It is a bit amusing to see how polarised the responses are.

It might be worth noting that different people have different ideas of what consistitutes a biblical view of the universe. I gather Heene is not a young Earth creationist; but rather attempts to give an apologetics for God's existence in the light of mainstream science.

Here is a link to the relevant page at amazon books.

1) Species of large animals take hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of years to manifest major physical changes. We won't see any large mammals evolving into anything. We will see evolutionary changes in short lived species like fruit flies, but not apes.

2) The chances of any specific species being "evolved into" more than once is, in all practicality, nonexistent. There are far too many chance factors that are involved for things to fall together in precisely the same way twice. The exact physical conditions under which primates evolved into humans can never again be duplicated. Apes might evolve into something else, but it wouldn't be humans. Each species is a product of a bunch of random ecological conditions and chance genetic mutations. If you rolled a die 100,000 times, and had 100,000 numbers from 1-6, the odds are pretty slim that you could ever duplicate that same sequence. What happens next with evolution is that these random factors are acted upon by a highly selective and efficient method of rewarding the species that are better adapted for current conditions with increased offspring, and punishing those whose body plans are less effective at coping with the current conditions with diminished offspring (and possibly extinction). And so species descend through time with modification, and one species can give rise to another that looks very different.

I like to think of life as a river, with different streams branching out from the main river, each representing a different species. Some streams dead end and come to nothing, like Neanderthal Man. Humans and apes are like a stream that split into two smaller streams and went their own separate ways. Is there any particular reason why both streams must go in the same direction? Can one stream ever back up and try to go the same way as the other?

I hope this helps you understand why a specific species cannot, in practical terms, arise twice within the history of life.

Then I would say, "Read the Thermodynamics FAQs. After that, show me mathematically how the Second Law is violated."

Vote them out. Expose their reliance on pseudoscience. Show how marginal and sectarian their viewpoints are. Usually, YEC belief indicates certain other, less popular, stances as well. For instance, one popular YEC advocate has had entanglements with the IRS for non-payment of taxes. While US residents might fantasize about avoiding taxes, most of them resent a shirker.

In New Mexico, the state board of education recently passed a resolution strengthening the commitment to teach evolutionary biology in science classrooms. At least one board member had run for the post in order to displace a YEC member there, and then helped formulate the strengthened science resolution.

It takes people willing to get involved in the process. I would recommend getting in touch with the National Center for Science Education. They can help with putting you in touch with like-minded folks in your area.

Wesley

What evolution most certainly does not mean is that we are on the way to evolving "to" any particular end point, as if evolution was like a helium balloon that had to rise. There is no "next step" in human evolution. We just cannot say what we'll end up with.

I must warn you, though. By then, you'll be doing science, and who knows where it will all lead...

Exactly the same thing applies regarding the flat Earth. Although a few uneducated folks may have thought that the Earth was flat, its spherical nature has been known for more than two thousand years, and has not been the subject of serious debate in that time, always excepting a few cranks.

I strongly recommend you check out The Myth of the Flat Earth.

You may like to read the Evolution is a Fact and a Theory FAQ to get an idea of how these terms are used in the mainstream of science.

There is no evidence at all that proves so-called scientific creationism, which postulates that Earth and all its life was made from nothing a few thousand years ago. The arguments for this odd proposition are described in many other sites, which you can find from our Links Page. This archive is intended to help explain the problems with those arguments. The evidence which is readily available consistently and unambiguously demonstrates that the Earth is very old, and that life has existed on Earth in a huge variety of ever changing forms for millions of years.

I strongly agree that the bible is helpful for following this discussion. I've read it a number of times myself, and recommend it to others for clearer insight into the real issues. "Scientific creationism" is not based on scientific information; but is a flawed attempt to shore up one particular interpretation of the bible in the face of overwhelming evidence that this interpretation is false.

A solid knowledge of the bible is crucial to deciding whether or not you accept the proposition that the bible is in conflict with mainstream science.

You may like to look at the God and Evolution FAQ, and also a rather brief Interpretations of Genesis FAQ.

Whether the universe was created or appeared out of nothing, or from quantum discontinuities, the theory of evolution is unaffected. Whether individual kinds of organisms were created, evolved or arise due to some other process is the subject matter of evolutionary theory.

Incidentally, the Ontological Argument is a contentious doctrine in philosophy of religion. It may pay you to read further.

However, what creationists want to do is not find out the theology of the texts, but to not interpret them at all. Literalism is the desire to have only the plain surface meaning of Scripture be the truth. Unfortunately, two things are true: they have to interpret the texts to say they understand them as the literal truth; and their interpretation is contrary to all observable facts.

It seems to me, a non-Christian (and non-Jew), that literalists are in fact attempting to make their sacred texts into something unsacred, or mundane. They want a history and science text book that is, beyoind all doubt, correct. It makes for a simple set of choices. But the point is that the only way they can do this is to deify science - if science were not more important than the Midrash of the texts, they would not keep trying to reconcile the facts to the text, but accept the message of the Midrashim.

1. He has plagiarized the words of Kent Hovind without attribution. (Proper attribution is important, folks. Don't quote someone without saying who you're quoting.)
2. He has posted a several thousand word article to a feedback system meant to receive and answer short responses. If you have something that long to say, put it on the Web and send us a link to your site. Better yet, send it to talk.origins where it belongs.
3. He has assumed that we haven't seen these arguments before. But Kent Hovind's site is in our list of other links, and is featured in numerous places around this site. A simple search for "Hovind" would reveal those places. Pretty much everything Hovind asserts is contradicted in one place or another on this site. See, for example, Dave Matson's detailed analysis of Hovind's claims.

Discerning readers might also be interested in Ken Harding's Wild, Wild World of Kent Hovind, more of Dave Matson's arguments, and Harry Leckenby's Christian critique of the very article the reader quotes.

It is unfair, however, to accuse us of dishonesty and a lack of balance. We have clearly stated our bias, so that anyone who examines this site can take that bias into account. As for balance, we have the largest collection of links to creationist sites found anywhere. We link to a number of those sites directly from our articles. How many creationist sites do the same?

Finally, our bias is irrelevant. Take it into account, but don't use it as an excuse to ignore our arguments. Actually read them and try to understand them. Come up with counterarguments. Try to understand why we say what we say. (If you think it's because we're all irredeemable atheists, you are wrong. Read again.) Arguments may be reliable even when the source is suspicious. Consider the message, not the messenger.

The reader would do well in the future to read more carefully before accusing others of such misdeeds.

Sober, E., and D. S. Wilson. 1998. Unto others : the evolution and psychology of unselfish behavior. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass.

Sober is responsible for some of the clearest expositions, from a philosophical point of view, of the theory of natural selection, some of it very technical. David Sloan Wilson, the other author, is a noted biologist with an interest in group selection topics.

• Evolution is a Fact and a Theory

I also recommend Evolution: Fact Theory, Controversy, which also explains these concepts very well. This is an appendix to a white paper on evolutionary biology endorsed by many of the major biological science bodies in the USA.

Darwin made many self-depreciating comments; particularly when he was first publishing "Origin". Most likely this was to minimize the backlash which he anticipated, and feared. He was, nevertheless, quite convinced of the worth of his work, and marshalled such an impressive array of evidence that he won over almost the entire scientific community within a few years.

However, I have never heard of self-depreciation as some sort of death bed confession. I think you may be mixing this up with the (bogus) story of a death bed retraction, invented by Lady Hope.

I am not aware of stereotyping as a major problem in the archive. You will find the view expressed that creationism is crank pseudo-science, and you will find some specific and substantiated criticisms that do reflect on certain named individual creationists. Nevertheless, if you have a specific example in mind of a general stereotyping problem, please let us know where it is, in all seriousness.

Creationists usually just deny the data and insist that the observed patterns of change do not exist. Scientists explain the observed patterns of change by common ancestry, and the divergence of living forms over time from their ancestral forms. Lloyd Pye is another matter entirely; but more on this below.

Microevolution is about the (observed) processes which lead to change over successive generations. Why you think simultaneous existence of gills and lungs is in conflict with gradual change is a mystery. Most people think it is confirmation of gradual change.

The really interesting aspect of your feedback is Lloyd Pye! Lloyd is at odds with everyone in this debate. He recognizes the nonsense inherent in scientific creationism, but he also has harsh words for the scientists. Best to read Lloyd's own web page.

Lloyd's ideas are derived from those of Zecharia Sitchin. Humans are the result of genetic tinkering by aliens who needed us for slaves several hundred thousand years ago. You can read all about it in his books.

Be warned, however. Lloyd's web page start off with a long list of statements which are just not true, such as the old myth that we only use 10% of our brains (off-site.)

Of course, one need not accept all of Lloyd's ideas as a package. He presents some criticisms of evolutionary theory based on his problems with "macroevolution". Those criticisms should be considered on their merits. As far as I can see, his criticisms don't have any merits at all, and are based on his own misunderstandings. But you would be welcome to bring them up for discussion in the news group.

Sharks, obviously, are only as smart as they need to be...and it's quite probable that any additional intelligence would only be a detriment to their lifestyle. Would it help a shark thrive better to have to support the metabolic drain of a larger brain, and would that brain give it any advantage in feeding or reproducing?

Margulis' book is discussed a bit, but the consensus seems to be that she and Lovelock overplay the "organism" nature of the ecosphere. There are certainly homeostatic, that is, self-regulating, mechanisms in the ecosphere, and some of the views of Margulis, who is more famous for her work on endosymbiosis, have been taken up by respectable biologists on this matter as well, but generally it seems that nobody quite knows how to proceed with it, and a lot of it seems to be a matter of metaphor rather than substantive model. Not everyone: there have been some attempts to make models that develop it: for example The Daisyworld project.

Here are some links to Gaia sites:

Gaia Online [Defunct]

Earth2 - a site from a TV series

The Mountainman site

Try sending your essay to the newsgroup talk.origins. You should get some comment there.

The Interpretations of Genesis FAQ is, as you say, "off the cuff", and only briefly mentions the kind of allegorical interpretation you advocate. As a biologist and a Christian, you may like to consider writing a more comprehensive description of allegorial interpretations of Genesis.

Check out our submission guidelines.

PS: Read the introductory page :-)