Feedback for October 1997

As a way of "giving the creationists some comments," we have an extensive collection of links to anti-evolution web sites. The total volume of creationist material available from our links page is far greater than the total size of this site. The creationists have complete control over the size and content of their own sites, so they can't complain about being censored or limited. (If you are truly concerned about the presentation of opposing views, I recommend that you follow those links and count how many of the creationist sites are unwilling to include links back to this one.)

Glad you liked the pages.

Evolutionary theory is quite different. Like any scientific theory it gets revised in the light of evidence. It has one major mechanism (natural selection) which has been repeatedly observed, and a number of (more or less) minor mechanisms that have as well.

It makes several predictions about the sequences of ancestors, the sorts of adaptations that can, and can't, be encountered, and in every relevant way is the very paradigm of a scientific theory.

Simply because an event is historical (happened in the remote past) does not make it impervious to investigation, nor are all speculations about the past of equal worth. Hypotheses about past events are based on and tested by the preserved evidence, physical properties of observable situations that are in the appropriate ways similar, and the consonance of many well-tested reconstructions. This is science. Creationism is not even in the same business.

On your second question, we attempt to include links to Creationist pages with our essays, so that readers can immediately hop to see what scientific dissenters have to say for themselves. It may seem, of course, that these sites take a biased view. But most people who work on them are in the scientific mainstream, so the mainstream view -- both the conclusions and the evidence and reasoning which underpin them -- are what we present. If you believe that some error of fact or reasoning exists in one of our files, then just say exactly what it is and give a sentence or two about why you think it is wrong.

The mainstream scientific view is the mainstream view because most of those who work in the relevant sciences accept it. If there were overwhelming data that supported some other view, that other view would probably either be mainstream now, or would supplant the current view in the future. Such changes are not unusual in science, though they don't happen overnight. This site presents the evidence and arguments for the mainstream view. Generally, it is considered a good idea to give priority to mainstream scientists over those on the fringes, whether it be forensic evidence in criminal cases, medical treatments for people who are ill, or geological data when preparing to drill for oil. Why should one act differently when the subject turns to earth history?

How does this show we are more closely related to a chicken? More closely than what? What other animal is being compared here?

We can compare chickens and humans with other animals, but the results are perhaps not what Dr Gish would like. For example, human and chimpanzee lysozyme are identical, whereas chicken lysozyme is substantially different, though still recognizably lysozyme.

What we are up against is evidently deliberate obfuscation on the part of Dr. Gish. The data itself matches with common descent very nicely.

You can compare lysozyme and alpha-lactalbumin proteins on the net. You can read about Dr Gish's problems with protein data in the archive[1] and [2].

[Archive maintenance note: The site that Chris linked to no longer exists and the link goes to an the Wayback Machine copy. The organization that produced it, the Coalition for Excellence in Science and Math Education, still exists (September 2003).]

Television shows are not science. The primary goal of a television show is to attract advertising revenue for its broadcaster (with the exception of public television broadcasts). Television shows do this primarily by providing entertainment. There is little incentive for a television show to present a boring truth over an exciting falsehood.

Much of the practice of science consists of mundane routine work that makes for boring television. An exciting claim of a breakthrough discovery makes for good television; backing up that claim by providing substantial and verifiable evidence does not.

Do not confuse television with real life. Certainly do not confuse it with science.

Try reading Ernst Mayr's, The growth of biological thought: Diversity, evolution, and inheritance (Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press, 1982). An excellent book -- available in paperback -- by one of the founders and key players in the development of modern evolutionary biology. In this work, Dr. Mayr focuses on the many of the same issues you've described. Although Mayr demands some effort on the part of the reader, it is directed at laymen and scientists alike. Regardless of previous experience and exposure to evolutionary science, practically everyone comes away with a better understanding of the details, history and underlying issues of evolution.

Or if you don't have as much time, try Elliot Sober's Philosophy of biology (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1993 - Dimensions of philosophy series). This won't provide anywhere near the same background as Mayr's book (which wasn't Sober's intent), but it does cover some of the points raised.

Suggestion - Stop into a library (university or metropolitan, ideally), and check out some books. Two reasons: 1) The web is a lousy place for in-depth information, 2) It's hard to justify reinventing the wheel.

A large part of Darwinian evolution is tracking the medium term fitness landscape, which is itself constituted from the interactions of evolving species in ecosystems. While one can represent it as a set of trajectories through a state space in the mode of thermodynamic physics, you will not see a simple equilibrium attractor point or simple behaviour within the space, for the obvious reason that the energy flows between organisms are incredibly complex and nonlinear. The behaviour is more like that of a connected network than an object on a stable surface.

You should look up the work of Manfred Eigen, especially his book of 1992/3. Unfortunately, I am not able to give better refs right now.

Facts ..., More Facts ..., Additional Facts ..., & Lotta Heavy Reading ...

Get with the program.

Scientists and mathematicians are only now beginning to understand how systems with simple rules can develop highly complicated behavior. Examples of this include fractals, such as the Mandelbrot and Julia sets, which exhibit exceedingly complex and unpredictable behavior but derive from simple equations. "Chaos" or "complexity" research is still a growing field, with much work to be done. Look up the Santa Fe Institute, which does research in this field. You might also want to read "The Quark and the Jaguar" by Nobel laureate Murray Gell-Mann.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics does not contradict evolution; if it did, babies could not develop from embryos. See the Second Law of Thermodynamics FAQ for more details.

However, we should also bear in mind that natural selection probably won't bring about any sudden changes, especially with a large breeding population. Leave it a million years or so, and see what happens. I'll take a wild guess that in that time period there will be a couple of population crashes; and that the future course of human evolution will be most strongly affected by what happens at those times; but that our descendants at that time will still be recognizably human.

Darwinian evolution is that evolution which proceeds via the mechanism of natural selection. Punctuated equilibria specifies spatial and temporal patterns of change, but not the underlying mechanism of that change. I suggest reading the Punctuated Equilibria FAQ for more detailed information. PE is based upon studies of observed evolution, specifically being derived by applying Ernst Mayr's theory of peripatric speciation to the fossil record. In fact, there are many known intermediate or transitional fossil sequences. In their original essay on PE, Eldredge and Gould presented two such sequences as illustrating PE. In their 1977 paper, most of the pages are devoted to discussion of transitional sequences. PE is established on both logical and evidential grounds as an active theory.

Gould has been cited as saying that transitional sequences don't exist before. Here's what he has had to say on the topic:

"Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists -- whether through design or stupidity, I do not know -- as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups."

(Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory", in Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes, p. 260, Norton, New York, 1980.)

Creationists have always claimed, and continue to claim, that evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics, which they claim will not permit order to spontaneously arise from disorder. This argument is refuted by the fact that the growth and development of living things clearly represents an example of order spontaneously arising from disorder. The creationist response has been to arbitrarily postulate an outside mechanism which "overcomes" the second law of thermodynamics. This outside mechanism is said to exist in the case of the growth of living things, but does not apply to the evolution of living things! The claim that this outside mechanism is stated in the second law of thermodynamics is completely untrue. Although mechanisms exist for thermodynamical lo provide a mechanism to overcome basic thermodynamics laws.

The laws of thermodynamics are rigorously based on the mathematical treatment of a few fundamental axioms. I have demonstrated, quite clearly, that the mathematics of thermodynamics does not, repeat, does not, rule out order spontaneously arising from disorder. If my position in this regard is unacceptable to the above critic, then it is up to him to refute the mathematics of my presentation. He has not done so, but merely repeated unsubstantiated creationist claims.

The comment that the formation of a crystalline structure is not an example of order spontaneously arising from disorder is truly bizarre. Ions or molecules in a crystal are clearly more ordered than those randomly moving in solution. The statement that there is an increase in entropy in the crystal when the water evaporates is completely untrue. As I repeatedly pointed out in my web page, it is the OVERALL entropy that must increase. The entropy of the crystal decreases upon formation, and the entropy of the water increases upon evaporation. The entropy increase of the water is greater than the entropy DECREASE of the crystal, so the OVERALL NET ENTROPY increases.

The terms "reversible" and "irreversible" are clearly and specifically defined in any legitimate textbook of thermodynamics. A reversible process is one in which the tendency to go forward is exactly balanced by the tendency to go backwards. In other words, it is characterized by a state of rest. An infinitesimal change one way or the other will make the process either go forward or go in the reverse direction. The time required to do so will approach infinity. Reversible processes are not real, but are used as a mathematical tool to develop specific mathematical relationships in thermodynamics. Any real process is irreversible. As I pointed out, the term "irreversible" does not, repeat, does not necessarily mean that the process can not be reversed by one means or another. It merely means that the reaction will not spontaneously reverse itself.

I don't know that evolution debunks the idea that Man is created in God's image. Most mainline Christians understand this to mean not that God has two arms and legs and a head, but that humans have some spark of divine spirit or soul or sentience or intellect given to them by God. To that extent, the origin of Man's physical body is essentially irrelevant, at least as far as it concerns their relationship to God.

Indeed, one can view Man's relation to primates and all terrestrial life as confirmation that we are part of God's creation.

(Please excuse me; I took the liberty of HTMLizing your feedback.)

I'm glad that Dr. Gould enjoyed the material you gave him. I doubt that Dr. Gould reads talk.origins, as he is a busy man, but he might find it a useful place to point others to.

Dr. Gould's point is well-taken; no one likes to have their name misspelled. I did a search of the Talk.Origins Archive for Steven and Gould. The only misspelling of Dr. Gould's name that I could find on the Talk.Origins Archive site (except in the feedback) was in the Archaeopteryx Challenge FAQ. I will request that the author correct this immediately.

As the author of the Jargon File entry mentioned, a cold chill ran through me at the thought that I might be among the offenders who misspelled SJ Gould's name. A quick check showed that this was not so. Phew.

My experience with SciCre-ists using the "Gould is a Marxist" fallacy in setting aside his comments dates back considerably further than April 1997. In 1991, Mike Posey on the StarText online service forwarded it, and in 1992 Mike Huben used it on talk.origins.

Wesley R. Elsberry

Most Christians resolve this by realizing that the "death" the Bible is talking about is not the physical death of the body, but the death of the soul due to sin. After all, Christ's death and resurrection didn't stop people from dying; he died for your soul, not for your body.

With this understanding, there is no incompatibility between evolution and the Bible on this point. (Actually, the assertion that death has existed for billions of years has less to do with evolution than with geology and astrophysics.)

From the Talk.Origins Archive home page:

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.

As such, it is the philosophy of the Talk.Origins Archive that the best people to make the creationist argument are creationists, especially considering that there are many "flavors" of creationism. The Talk.Origins Archive does provide, however, a large list of links to creationist web sites. The list can be found at Other Links.