Feedback for October 2006

Calvin Bell

Millions of fossils have been discovered sense Darwin's day. It is now claimed that evolution is a fact. If evoultion happened then the missing link has be found and there is a multitude to transitional forms to support Macro-evolution correct? Where are all these transitional forms displayed so I may go and view them?

Geoff Boulton

You mention the problem of inbreeding depression for the animals but I didn't notice any mention of the consequences of this for the population of humans, i.e. the current population of the Earth, that arose from only Noah, his wife, his three sons and their wives, a gene pool of only eight people, 4 of whom are already related.

Additionally, the time elapsed since the supposed flood is a little over 4,000 years. I'm not a mathematician but it seems to me a pretty amazing fact that the population of humans grew from 4 men and 4 women into the current population of some 6 billion individuals in such a short time scale.

Even under 'perfect' conditions with no disease, famine, war, etc. exponential growth would be slowed by the gestation period of nine months between each possible birth, the limited age range during which humans are able to reproduce and our rather short life span. Is such an amazing reproductive rate actually possible?

Other than that omission, a great piece of investigative work which I thoroughly enjoyed reading.

Thanks

ralf

please tell me where on your site do I find evidence/links/articles about the Creation of life - not just evolution.

thanks

Eric D. Braden

I've seen many requests in the feedback for more images in articles. I'm sure you've seen it, but I'll go ahead and send it to you anyway. I came across this today in talk.origins, posted by sharon192837...@yahoo.com :

Updated images on whale evolution are located here. http://s88.photobucket.com/albums/k168/dave_matson/whales/?start=all

For webmasters who have pages on whale evolution... These images were re-illustrated by myself, based on National Geographic's Nov. 2001 article, and they're public access. Also, the well known cladogram which shows a progression of whales (which we were granted permission to re-use in 2003) and a relationship with Mesonychids is out of date... I've added the statement on that graphic, and all the other illustrations which I revised, are available at above address. Nasal drift, evolution of echolocation, etc. They're very nice for educational material on blogs, websites, etc. Including the outdated Pakicetus skull model. I've placed a white background on the images, so they should match most websites.

All that I ask is that all original credits be kept intact.

Details about each images are located on our page http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/whales/evolution_of_whales/

Thanks again to Windy and Mike. Reference to: http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/d9e1d30... I deleted the "Procetus" illustration and replaced it with "Protocetus" illustration.

Ken

Hi, I've come upon something that I'm confused about, and could not find anything on your site about it. I was reading the final paragraph of Darwin's On the Origin of Species, and found that in the first edition from my reseach, Darwin does not mention any creator. But in the sixth edition the final paragraph has been reworded.

In the first edition, from 1859, it says: "...having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one, whilst this planet has gone cycling according to the fixed law of gravity..."

However in the sixth edition, from 1872: "...having been originally been breathed by the creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone circling on according to the fixed law of gravity..."

What's going on here? I looked on several websites, and two of my books, and out of a total of 16 sources, only 6 of them had the original quotation, without any creator being mentioned.

Was this some ploy by someone to cause people to think that he felt that evolution was caused my some god? Or did Darwin later rewrite that himself?

Maybe this is common knowledge, but forgive me, I'm still catching up; any information on why the later edition is written as it is would be very helpful, thanks.

In an august 2006 post, KL was looking for page. I think I found it and it may also be of interest to other readers: http://www.2think.org/hii/mo.shtml on http://www.2think.org/

John Sanders

Two men are standing on a street corner, dressed in identical shirts except one has ID on the front of his shirt and the other has Evo on his. Both hold identical rubber ball in their hands, extended at arms length. Evo says, 'I believe if I release this ball it will fall and bounce because of the forces of gravity, liks so.' He releases the ball and it bounces and he catches it and makes aditional comments. 'To prove this was no fluke we will repeat the process under identical parameter and compare the results.' This he does a dozen times and the ball always falls and bounces back up. 'This is how science works.' He announced then stepped back. ID steps forward and say, 'My faith tells me that if I release this ball it will not fall or bounce and thereby prove Evo wrong, my faith in God and the Old testament book of Rubbermiah tells me this is so. In fact my faith is so strong I don't even have to drop the ball to prove my point and anyone who dares to question my belief is doomed to go to hell and burn in eternal damnation.' ID satisfied that he had made his point places the ball in his pocket and walks away, telling every one he meets along the way how he disproved Evo's believe in the laws of gravity, and that the very idea of gravity was doomed because of his proof.

Kendra

The anwser to your questions about how we became is in the BIBLE! in the book of Genisus. The first few pages of the BIBLE talks about how the earth was created.I know that it is hard to understand, but you should believe because God does exist and this IS how the earth was created and so on. If you have any questions about some things like that then just read the BIBLE and pray for anwsers. i'm not forcing you to become christian, but i will tell you this GOD DOES have the anwsers just pray.The earth was created by GOD NOT scientists. I realize that this is the scientific view but this is how the earth was created.

Natalie

I would just like to say how useful and informative your wonderful site is. I arrive here often in order to clarify my understanding of the natural world and its beginnings. Thank you so much for all of your hard work, it is worth it, I can assure you. For myself now, evolution makes sense. As it ought to. Again thanks, you have done a fantastic job in promoting objective reality.

The article Bombardier Beetles and the Argument of Design lists a possible chain of events that could lead to the evolution of the said beetle; however, in step number six there is no explanation given as to how hydroquinones came to be in the beetle. It is said to be present because predators have evolved a resistance, and while this is a good reason, it does not explain how this chemical was introduced/made in the bambardier beetle.

A response sent to my email address would be appreciated.

Derek Atkins

Just a note about a response by Michael Hopkins to Allan Lee in the August Feedback section. Mr. Hopkins completely misunderstood Lee’s question, or perhaps was unable to offer a proper response. The question is more succinctly stated: How does evolutionary theory account for the ability of having male/female organisms as opposed to the older/primitive precursors, which were single-celled?

Can evolutionary theory account for the multiple and coordinated mutations that would have to occur at relatively the same time and for a coordinated purpose? How do you explain the sexual development of male and female without some kind of intelligent guidance? How can random and unspecified mutations develop into two independent and yet coordinated systems of reproduction? (The required hormonal and feedback systems in each, even in “simple” systems are dauntingly complex)

The development of a penis is worthless to an organism without the complimentary development of a counterpart…the female vagina and interrelated reproductive apparatus.

As a side note, the continual intelligence bashing of those who hold the view of Intelligent Design is beyond boorish. I’m sure it plays well to those who need to be kept on the evolutionary bandwagon and give them a sense of superiority, but it reads sophomoric at best. Can’t these differences be kept at a higher level?

Robert Harlow

The link to the Big Daddy? parody was dead, but I found it somewhere else.

http://www.facts4u.com/OffSite_Stored_Pages/wyd_files/wyd.htm

Chris Knight-Griffin

Patrick Wiley Clyde Jones

I am not good at being brief, so forgive me the shortcomings that come with being... short.

We need something to describe 'evolution.' The word is being used in all circles as an umbrella term to mean the myriad of scientific principles which creationists wish to promote, among them such disparate fields as cosmology, abiogenesis, geology... well, practically every scientific notion we hold today.

Many take advantage of this common phrase and twists its definition to suit there purposes rather than using it in the confines of its scientific definition. In short, they don't play by the rules.

So we have to play by theirs.

We need, desperately, a word, phrase, or sbbreviation that we can use to mean the various scientific principles that young-Earth creationists oppose. This discussion (forgive my impudence should this discussion be taking place, and I am not aware of it) will be the first step to exposing the well-marketed frauds on the other side of the debate.

If we start using it, eventually it will look ridiculous for the other side to attack their usual paper tiger... or, rather, their bull-fighter's cape, taunting the religious right bull while covering up a much larger scientific world.

I have, as humbly as I can present it, a proposition for this; The G.S.O.U.E.L. (pronounced 'G-Soul'), standing for "Genesis of Secular, Old Universe/Earth/Life."

But I'm not married to it. I encourage discussion on this topic; please, let us finally give this cortege of basic scientific principles tied together loose strings spray painted 'evolution' a real, proper, and true name.

And make Kent Hovind look like an ass.

Well, more of one, anyway.

Dr. John Michael Nahay

http://www.talkorigins.org/features/whales/

Absolutely amazing and informative. Congratulations to Raymond Sitera[sic]. I never knew that whales had evolved from land animals.

What is the best current scientific consensus for the original organism from which all life descended? Was this organism originally found in water? Stuck on a rock on land? Single-celled?

Tim

The theory of Evolution cant be true. The 500 amino acids that make up ONE MEASLY average-sized protein can be arranged in over 1 x 10^600 different ways. This number is vastly larger than the total number of atomic particles that could be packed into the known universe. Creation of life cannot be a random event; it is the work of God. The Theory of Evolution is not either fact or theory. It's a fable made by a wannabe "scientist."

Janiece

Under "common misconceptions about evolution" you list "Evolution has never been observed." Has macroevolution ever been observed?

Harry

Mark Isaak, I just read your response to Phillip O'Donnel's feedback of June 06. One thing you failed to touch on is that no (credible) pictures exist of the Mokele-mbembe. Would we not expect modern day explorers to carry cameras ("At Lake Tele in 1983, Marcellin Agnaga was on an expedition when he said he saw Mokele-mbembe swimming in the lake", etc...)?

Chuck Gordon

Ray Jennings wrote:

... THERE ARE NO ATHIEST IN FOX HOLES! ...

A quote comes to mind:

'There are no atheists in foxholes' isn’t an argument against atheism, it’s an argument against foxholes. -- James Morrow

The repetition of the 'foxholes' lie is galling to the many atheists, agnostics and other freethinkers who have proudly served the nation in uniform, and the many who have died in so doing. The lie is ignorant, affornting and completely unfounded.

I know. I was one, and I know many like me who are currently serving.

More info can be found here:
~ www.atheistfoxholes.org/
~ www.maaf.info/
~ ffrf.org/foxholes/
~ penn.freefm.com/pages/27696.php
~ www.atheists.org/flash.line/atheist9.htm
~ www.atheists.org/flash.line/foxhole1.htm
~ www.americanhumanist.org/humanism/foxhole.html
~ www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14322117/site/newsweek
~ www.valleyskeptic.com/atheist_foxhole.html
~ www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/foxholes/flachs.html

And that's just a small sampling.

Ya'll are doing a great work at Talk Origins, and I salute you, not only for your excellent service, but for your (dare I say it) saintly patience with the illitarati.

Keep it up!

Lance Wilson

I have enjoyed your website and I have found the information it contains useful for my own battles with a local creationist group.

I am wondering if you are familiar with Dr Steve Austin with the Institute for Creation Research? I live near Mount St Helens, WA and I am regularly fending off claims being advanced by a local business which claims the 1980 eruption of Mount St Helens support "evidence" for a catastrophic global flood. Much of the material used by this local business, relies heavily on "work" performed by Austin and others at ICR. What I am find to be disturbing when I read Austin's writings and watch Austin's videos (a prime example is Austin's and John Morris 2003 book on the St Helens eruption called Footprints in the Ash), is his inability to cite his sources. I do not expect Austin to give fair treatment to mainstream scienists, but I find that Austin also misrepresent work performed by fellow YECers. I am also finding instances where Austin is claiming work that is clearly attributed to other YECers.

Do you care to comment on the quality of research demonstrated by Austin and what is Austins real reputation like?

Ronald

This whole website is messed up. The earth isn't even close to your estimate. You say your scientist, but you can't even tell the age of a rock, not even estimate near to the age. True scientist would say that IF a rock was 3.5 billion years old, than it wouldn't have any oxygen left inside of it, and then you could maybe estimate it, but it'd still be very difficult. Every rock that we have discovered still had oxygen left inside of it and does not come of to be some million or billion years old. The earth is actually around 5-7 thousand years old. Please respond back so I can prove more to you.

P.S. If you guys also believe in evolution, the kind where a monkey turns into a human, or something like that, or if you believe in the big bang, I'd LOVE to talk to you about that too.

Ronald

I notice that the archaeopteryx is a bird known as a link between reptiles and birds. It had some unusual features, however several birds, including some that are still alive today, have the same features, classifying the archaeopteryx as a true bird.

Also, a closer look at the "horse series" reveals some ribs disapearing and reapearing like magic. How is all of this explained?

WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG READ YOUR BIBLE PEOPLE! GOD MADE ALL THINGS, HE IS ALL KNOWING AND SEES E-V-E-R-Y-T-H-I-N-G. HOW DARE YOU ANGER OUR GOD WITH YOUR STUPIDITY.

Alena

YOU are such an idiot whoever wrote about Kent Hovind being a fraud and his proposal of 250,000 being something tricky. YOU are a fool. The only reason you are getting hung up over this guy is A. He's right. B. If you had proof, you would show it C. You can't do anything about his offer cuz you got nothing pal. You know he's right that all scientists will offer is micro evolution proff Cuz you guys got nothing else to sit your butts on! everything else you simply believe and "infer" that it somehow all had to work out. Stop being a wuss! and picking on somebody that you can't even do anything about, all you can do is write a page on the website about how stupid he is, look at yourself buddy, who's the fool?

Gordon Leslie

My father asked me, once, what happens when an amputee reproduces (at least that was the gist of it). At the time I said that the genes passed on would be a snapshot of the body at the time of insemination. That is to say: If one were to amputate a given part of the body of every member of an isolated group with every succeeding generation, then, eventually, that part would no longer be reproduced in the progeny.

I have been studying your and others' sites since then, but I still haven't been able to confirm that thought.

Thank you for your time, and all the work you do.

Derek Atkins

I find it interesting that a question I posed didn't make the Sept. feedback for your site. Instead, plenty of praise quotes were put up, but I'm sure your readers would rather read complements to your perspective than reasoned questions about the flaws to some of your site responders. Is it not important for your own responders (contributors) to have at least some semblance of cohesion in their arguments? I again ask, if there is evidence of a time frame, i.e. 15 billion years since the Big Bang, (of which I do not argue) then why allow another responder to use an infinite amount of time for his calculations while refuting the creationist contention on the slim probability of generating life from non-life? Chose a side, because you can't have it both ways! Isn't peer review an important component in science? Why do you think you're exempt when you are in control of the contributors?? An argument of non-responsibility on this issue would ring of dishonesty in my view. If you do post this response, of which I’m doubtful, I insist the original post I submitted be included as well, since its omission is the point of this follow-up.