Feedback for April 2003

They are not for nothing called rocks of ages.

4.56 ± 0.02 billion years old.

Van Til's response (on the ASA astronomy/cosmology page) is one of the better off-site rebuttals to the creationist claim. There is another by our own Tim Thompson which is pretty good.

In the sitemap of the archive (accessible from the home page) there is a section on The Evidence for Common Descent, which is (in my subjective opinion) the guts of the fact of evolution. That section lists four FAQs covering many lines of evidence, and which contain an enormous number of primary references. This section also has a link to the section on Fossils and Paleontology, which has a further nine or so relevant FAQs; again with references.

This much material can be overwhelming; feel free to focus on the aspects you find of interest, and to ask questions about what is contained in these files!

One way to get around this is a proposition that the speed of light might not be constant, as we generally believe it to be. Had the speed of light been greater in the past, it would have covered the distance we call 10,000 light-years in less than 10,000 years, and if it were fast enough in the past, it might have covered even millions of "light-years" in a mere 10,000 years. Creationist Barry Setterfield claims that the historical data record shows that the speed of light has varied in that record. The criticism of his work, by creationists, referenced also in the article you cited, is based on the original version of his claim, that only the speed of light was variable. He has since remodeled his claim into a cosmology that varies several "constants", and varies particle masses as well. While that circumvents the original criticisms, it certainly opens the door for a whole new family of criticisms. Not the least is that his claim that all of the constants can be seen as variable in the historical record is unsupportable, as he fails to realize that he is seeing measurement noise and assuming that it is a true effect of nature. You can examine Setterfield's work on his own website, and see the criticism The Decay of c-decay in our own archive.

And that brings us to the true purpose of the article, to play up the new creationist cosmology developed by D. Russell Humphreys (PhD in physics from LSU, retired from Sandia National Laboratories, where most of his work was in the nuclear engineering area, and classified). He published the book Starlight and Time - Solving the Puzzle of Distant Starlight in a Young Universe in 1994 (Master Books, ISBN 0-89051-202-7). He uses general relativity theory, in a bounded universe with a definite center in 3 dimensions, and uses time dilation to account for the discrepency between 6 literal days, and the appearance that those 6 days lasted several billion years. It is not at all obvious that he has used general relativity properly, and he has been criticized along those lines (see references 5 & 6 in the article).

The major problem I see with Humphreys' cosmology is that it is impossible, if one sticks to the laws of physics as we know them. This weakness Humphreys readily acknowledges, although to him it is a strength. Humphreys refers to Isaiah 40:22, Who stretches out the heavans like a curtain, and spreads them out like a tent to Dwell in. To Humphreys, this is an indication that God side-stepped the laws of physics, to drag space-time out of its own black hole and force the universe to expand, in what Humphreys calls a "white hole cosmology". The need for devine intervention comes about because Humphrey's assumes a bounded universe with a distinct center, both of which are aspects absent from standard cosmology. Standard Big Bang cosmology does not violate the laws of physics, simply because it is unbounded. Humphreys' cosmology does violate the laws of physics, simply because it is bounded. It's a clever idea that relies on direct, devine intervention, in order for the universe as we know it to exist at all.

I suppose if one is a creationist, it makes pretty good sense to rely on devine intervention for your cosmology to work. But, to me, the idea looks exactly the same as the idea that the light was created "in flight", and suffers from exactly the same criticism, namely a deceptive God. At best, assuming there is no other error in the white hole cosmology, it is impossible to tell the difference between it, and standard cosmology, just as it is impossible to tell the difference between real age, and the mere appearance of age. God's violation of the laws of physics to force the "impossible" expansion hides the true age of the universe behind a false cosmology. So, despite the title of his book, Humphreys never really solved the basic problem of a universe that is young, looks old, and how that encourages the notion of a deceptive God.

See Pathlights items resulting from a search of our website.

The pathlights.com pages you made reference to were about material more than 15 years old. I'm not aware of any more recent "smoking guns" against evolution. I think you can sleep soundly. Browse the FAQ Index to find scientific information countering their arguments.

The article also insinuates that biologists ignore mathematics. Nothing could be further from the truth. Mathematics is essential in modern biology. Fields from population dynamics to genetic analysis would be virtually impossible without highly advanced mathematics. I would hazard a guess that many biologists know more mathematics than some of the mathematicians in the article.

To illustrate the overall accuracy of the webpage, I will quote just one example. The article says,

George Wald stood up and explained that he had done extensive research on hemoglobin also,—and discovered that if just ONE mutational change of any kind was made in it, the hemoglobin would not function properly.

I did a little research on the NCBI website and found several variants of the human alpha hemoglobin that, by virtue of the fact that they were found in living humans, still function. I also see that human hemoglobin differs from that of other apes and monkeys by anywhere from two to eight amino acids, and from a bat (Myotis velifer) in twelve. Obviously, changes are viable.

[To see these results from yourself, go to the BLAST page, choose "Standard protein-protein BLAST", and plug in the human hemoglobin alpha sequence (below) in the search window:

mvlspadktn vkaawgkvga hageygaeal ermflsfptt ktyfphfdls hgsaqvkghg kkvadaltna vahvddmpna lsalsdlhah klrvdpvnfk llshcllvtl aahlpaeftp avhasldkfl asvstvltsk yr ]

For what it is worth, I contribute under my own name, and I have a PhD in mathematical logic and computer science from Monash University in Australia. This qualification is pretty much irrelevant. My knowledge relating to the creationism evolution debate, in biology, in geology, in astronomy, and in the bible, is all picked up over many years of reading in my own time; and I have no real credentials as a scientist.

On the other hand, there are others who contribute feedback responses who do have excellent and directly relevant qualifications, and considerable professional experience as working scientists.

None of us rely on credentials to substantiate any feedback response.

I take considerable exception to the claim that feedback responses are lacking in truthfulness.

1. The starting conditions are known ...

Knowledge of the starting conditions is not required to perform accurate radiometric dating. Just look at the Isochron Dating FAQ.Old fashioned methods had that problem, but modern methods do not.

2. Decay rates have always been constant.

Actually, this is a provable assumption, so far as "provable" applies in the natural sciences. We know from experience that no significant variation in decay rates has ever been observed. We know from experience that the variations we have seen, never amount to greater than 1% in the half-life, and usually are closer to 0.1%. And we know from theory where we would expect variation to be possible. It turns out that the variations we do see appear where theory says they should, and to the extent that theory says they should. See, for instance, " How to Change Nuclear Decay Rates.

The computed age is "linear" with respect to the half-life. That means, if we are uncertain about the half-life, to say 1%, then we are uncertain about the age by the same amount, about 1%. For an age of 4,000,000,000 years, that means an uncertainty of 40,000,000 years. 4,000,000,000 - 40,000,000 is still a lot more than 10,000, so any argument based on what we actually know does not help the idea of a young Earth.

So it is no surprise that sources such as Answers In Genesis, as you say elsewhere was the source of your information, rarely deals with what we (or they) actually know. They prefer to deal with speculation, and it is Answers In Genesis which fills their articles with assumptions that are not just "unprovable", but "incomprehensible".

3. Systems were closed or isolated so that no parent or daughter isotopes were lost or added.

This too is quite the provable assumption. It is not too difficult, in most cases, to see the thermal history of a rock in its mineral structure. It is also not to hard to characterize how and/or if the elements move around in the rock. Sometimes the systems really are closed, sometimes they are not. But even in cases where they are not, it's usually not too hard to figure out what happened and compensate for it.

Carbon Dating ...

Carbon dating certainly does not support a young Earth, nor an "old" one either. Since carbon dating cannot see beyond its own limits, roughly 50,000 years in most cases, it is simply not relevant to the issue. At least, not for an "evolutionist".

However, it suddenly becomes relevant for young Earth creationists, because 50,000 is bigger than 10,000, and if you think the Earth is 10,000 years old, even something 30,000 years old hurts. So the young Earthers have to make up as many ficticious problems as they can. In fact, carbon dating works just fine.

... trees have been found through more than five layers ...

This too is not the problem you think it is, or the problem that somebody else hopes you will think it is. See the "Polystrate" Fossils FAQs.

While you were reading that you probably already came up with something to counter it.

Indeed I have, and all based on fact & knowledge. It has nothing to do with going against my "faith". It has everything to do with fact & truth, both of which are in short supply amongst young Earth creationists. I don't care if the Earth is young or old, it can be either one. I only care that what I say is as true as I can make it. And I am continually dismayed at the inability of the young Earth creationists to practice what they preach, just a little respect, now & then, for the truth.

• Radiometric Dating Resource List.
• Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective.
• The Age of the Earth FAQs.

There is plenty of open-ended discussion on the talk.origins newsgroup. Please feel free to join the discussion there at any time.

Wesley

The archive site map includes a section on The Evidence For Common Descent; starting from there you can find a large number of articles setting out many different lines of evidence which allow all persons, regardless of their beliefs on whether or not the world is created by God, to see and learn something of the history of life in that world.

This web site is essentially a defence of mainstream scholarship with respect to ancient history, and a response to "alternative" histories from the lunatic fringe. The organization and style is very impressive, and there is some overlap with topics considered at talkorigins. There is an extensive and very active web based discussion area, and a good selection of articles.

Based on my first quick examination of what is available, I am very impressed. I will be looking at your site in more detail in the future. It is also a recent addition to our "other links" collection, under the heading of "Critical Thought".

And while we are at it, I have also submitted another web site to talkorigins for inclusion in our links collection. It is The Antiquity of Man, maintained by Mike Brass. Kudos, Mike.

Actually, I'd prefer that I were Omnipotent God-Emperor of the Universe myself, rather than just a guy sitting at a computer in a house in Minnesota. Unfortunately for your train of logic, what we'd prefer doesn't define what is true.

Your complaint would have more weight if you had examples of evolutionists who thought that making up phony degrees for themselves improved the quality of their arguments.

The point being made is that lofty credentials do not make one's arguments better. The relevance of the Suspicious Creationist Credentials FAQ is that apparently, many creationists do not understand this principle. Shouldn't you instead be questioning why people like Hovind and Baugh find it necessary to wave phony or worthless degrees around when they make their claims?

Given that the default entry page for the archive and the Welcome FAQ both explain that this site is for mainstream science answers to antievolution arguments, the reader's expectation should have been quite a bit different.

As for not finding links to antievolution arguments, the reader simply didn't look hard enough. This archive maintains one of the most extensive list of links to antievolution pages available anywhere. Those links do go off-site, true, but they are available. Many of our own pages link to antievolution sites featuring the arguments being critiqued. Contrast that with the very poor linking one finds on most antievolution sites. They certainly come nowhere close to the standard the readers promotes as "open-minded".

I came to the evolution/creation controversy prepared to accept good anti-evolutionary apologetics. What I found on the antievolution side of things was a morass of illogic, mendacity, and brazenly counterfactual claims. My personal library of antievolution literature extends to full file drawers and many board-feet of shelf space. The science turns on evidence, and that evidence does demonstrate a bias: it shows most antievolution claims to be absolute hogwash. (Some antievolution arguments have nothing to do with evidence of any kind.)

Wesley

Dear Dr. Lee:

My opinion is that your website is dreadfully poor.

Sincerely,
Paul

Websites should, I suppose, be judged by the content one finds. Personally, I find crowded or overly colorful pages to be difficult to read. Maybe it's my advancing age, but I find myself comparing webpages to well-designed book pages. But, as I often argue with myself about tasteful treatment when designing my own webpages, any criticism here might be unjustified.

Then there is the matter of spelling. When, in the first sentence on a webpage I find a word such as "Sovereinity," I start to squirm a bit. I feel just a tad uncomfortable. Does there exist a computer today without a spell checking application?

If, in addition to spelling problems, I encounter on the introductory page egregious grammar that is usually mastered by 7th or 8th grade, I am left to wonder whether the author of the website is seriously concerned about the opinions of his readers.

You seem to be concerned about this since you actually asked for feedback. I am, as a result of your request, willing to take time to explain why I was dissuaded from spending more time at your website.

Sincerely,

Bob Patterson

Your website appears not to have improved since you last asked for our opinions on it in March 2002.

What I said then appears to continue to apply now:

That's very humorous.

You were intending to be humorous, weren't you? I mean, otherwise the page would be espousing a profound level of ignorance concerning the content of evolutionary biology, the ideas of Charles Darwin, and philosophy of science.

Wesley

If you are interested in reading about some of the overwhelming number of specific facts (observed evolution, genetic evidence, transitional fossils) mentioned by Dr. Gould, then there are many FAQs on this website on such topics. The Site Index should be helpful in this regard.

I have a page about Evolution: Fact and/or Theory? which briefly quotes Dr. Gould and Dr. Paul Ehrlich as they attempt to explain the matter. There are also a few links provided for further reading.

I hope this helps.

You mention Ramapithecus. This is an exinct ape from about 12 to 14 million years ago which is possibly ancestral to orangutangs (not baboons). It was seriously proposed some forty years ago as a possible ancestor for the Australopithecines, and hence of humans; but that model was disproved as better fossils were found.

You mention "Nebraska Man" (Hesperopithecus) which was proposed, and rejected, all within a couple of years, and had almost no general acceptance in the scientific community. Most scientists were skeptical from the very start, and it had essentially no impact on science even in the few years before the inflated claims were retracted.

You mention Orce Man. This also has never been of major significance in study of human origins. It is a small fragment of a skull (not a complete skull) and although it could be from an equid (relative of horses or donkeys) this is not certain. See the link for more detail.

You mention Lucy -- which is a fine and legitimate example of Australopithecus afarensis; ancestral to humans or else a very close relative. Your claim that the pieces were found more than two miles apart is false; the pieces of Lucy were all found close together.

You are here repeating a confusion based on two different fossils from different individuals, and monumental incompetance on the part of a creationist (Tom Willis) which has been endlessly repeated by others who don't bother going back to the original reports. See Lucy's Knee Joint: A Case Study in Creationists' Willingness to Admit their Errors.

If you really want to get serious about "all the evidence", you should focus on the evidence which is actually used by scientists to examine human evolution. Of the fossils you mention, only Ramapithecus and Lucy stand as good examples of fossils which were used seriously for proposing a human lineage; and Ramapithecus was rejected in that role about twenty years ago. You have basically ignored all the evidence for human evolution in Africa which has been developed over the last forty years.

I direct your attention to Fossil Hominids: The Evidence for Human Evolution. One of the best fossils is Turkana Boy, an exceptionally complete Homo erectus skeleton about 1.6 million years old. See also the list of Hominid Species; and the list of Prominent Hominid Fossils.

As an exercise, try looking at at fossils found after 1990. This would include Sahelanthropus tchadensis (probably older than the divergence of humans and the great apes), Ardipithecus ramidus (fragmentary remains of 17 individuals), Kenyanthropus platyops, Australopithecus garhi, Australopithecus anamensis, Homo georgicus, and of course more fossils from already identified species. It is by no means clear exactly how each fossil related to every other in a family tree; but the overall picture is an excellent collection of transitional hominid species.

The details may have been somewhat overtaken by recent research, but it remains an excellent starting point. The short answer is that sex evolved from processes of reproduction of single celled organisms which exchanged genes - not all "asexuals" are always asexual, and there are a number of processes by which genes can be exchanged.

This site is not an encyclopedia of evolution, although we try to cover the many topics raised. Try Googling for "evolution sexual reproduction". When I tried it, it came up with a number of sites. The ones with ".edu" in the domain name are usually more reliable.

It will be some time before we see 'slime, protoplasm, &c.' generating a new animal. But I have long regretted that I truckled to public opinion, and used the Pentateuchal term of creation, by which I really meant 'appeared' by some wholly unknown process. It is mere rubbish, thinking at present of the origin of life; one might as well think of the origin of matter. [29 March 1863, quoted in Francis Darwin, The Life of Charles Darwin, London, John Murray, 1902, p267]

Elsewhere, he wrote, to his longstanding friend, Joseph Hooker, on 1 February 1871:

It is often said that all the conditions for the first production of a living organism are now present, which could ever have been present. But if (and oh! what a big if!) we could conceive some warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, light, heat, electricity, &c. present, that a proteine [sic] compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes, at the present day such matter would be instantly devoured or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed. [quoted from Janet Browne's The Power of Place, New York, Knopf, 2002, 392f]

More to the point, in print, Darwin denied that what he called "heterogenesis" (a term that preceded Huxley's coining of "abiogenesis") occurred on a daily basis. The paper, "The Doctrine of Heterogeny and the Modification of Species" was published in the Athenaeum, No. 1852, 25 April 1863, pp 554-555 (reprinted in The Collected Papers of Charles Darwin edited by Paul H. Barrett, Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1977. 2 Vols). in it, he said:

But let us face the problem boldly. He who believes that organic beings have been produced during each geological period from dead matter [the view he is debating, which was held by, among others, Cuvier] must believe that the first being thus arose. There must have been a time when inorganic elements alone existed on our planet: let any assumptions be made, such as that the reeking atmosphere was charged with carbonic acid, nitrogenized compounds, phosphorus, &c. Now is there a fact, or a shadow of a fact, supporting the belief that these elements, without the presence of any organic compounds, and acted on only by known forces, could produce a living creature? At present it is to us a result absolutely inconceivable. Your reviewer sneers with justice at my use of the "Pentateuchal terms," "of one primordial form into which life was first breathed" [in the final chapter of the Origin of Species]: in a purely scientific work I ought perhaps not to have used such terms; but they well serve to confess that our ignorance is as profound on the origin of life as on the origin of matter.

So Darwin accepted the abiogenetic origin of life but freely and openly confessed that he had no real idea how that happened. Many researchers since have quoted the "warm pond" idea, and this is still a viable hypothesis, although the weight of opinion appears to me to be shifting towards subterranean origins of living reactions.

The idea that "mature" living things, such as animals and plants arose from "slime and protoplasm" was common - it is found in Aristotle, and throughout the middle ages. Leibniz believed in it, and so, as you quote, did Lamarck. It is sort of the default view of the west, finally put to rest by Pasteur. But Pasteur did not deny that it had happened in the beginning; merely that it was not happening now for rotting and souring organisms in milk and so forth.

Six to eight million years ago (whatever the exact time turns out to be) when we last shared a common ancestor with what are now chimps, there were neither humans nor chimps. It took millions of years of evolution in both our lineages to bring us to what we each are today.

Predator species do not exterminate their prey species. There are regular cycles of abundance and low ebb in both. Think about Arctic birds that periodically "erupt" southward in winters when northern food staples are in short supply. Some predator species forego reproduction in lean years. Populations rebound when prey species rebound.

In a somewhat similar fashion there is an evolutionary "arms race" between organisms that produce diseases and the host or target populations they attack. Often there is a natural variation in a population that will be resistant to the disease (or pesticides, herbicides, pollutants). Remember to take ALL the antibiotics a physician prescribes.

Keep an eye on the evolving SARS problem. This will be an instructive example for anyone interested in learning about evolution.

Some creationist web sites might answer questions, or you could try some debate forums.

I know that Answers in Genesis often answer questions sent through their feedback pages; though they tend to answer by email and only publish very few emails on the website. They also have their own creationist thermodynamics FAQs.

If you only want the creationist view, you should stop reading now and follow the links.

Still here? Good... :-)

The Answers in Genesis FAQs I cited above are nonsense. They pay lip service to the consistency of the second law with local entropy decrease in the context of energy flow; and then introduce their own unfounded and invalid claims about an ill-defined notion of information (which most certainly is not the same as thermodynamic entropy) and mechanism (the second law admits no exceptions of any kind for intelligence, special mechanisms, or guidance) and then by the usual sleight of hand they try to give this claim some credibility by associating it with the established physical laws of thermodynamics.

If I was a creationist, I would be quite clear that the problem with evolution is not with the second law of thermodynamics, but with another creationist law which says that information cannot increase by random processes. However, I am not a creationist. I know that evolution involves a combination of random and nonrandom processes (by "random" I mean without any bias towards functional complexity) and that evolutionary processes can increase information by any measure used by creationists. We have some new FAQs on this subject coming on-line soon, starting with Apolipoprotein AI Mutations and Information.

If you do get some answers from a real creationist, they are unfortunately bound to be physically nonsensical. If you get some answers which appear to conflict with the information we have supplied on the subject, and you want to know our response, feel free to ask again.

It is excellent that you are looking into this for yourself. You should certainly do this at your own pace, and check out anything which troubles you. We'll be happy to help if we can, and if not we wish you all the best with your investigations. One suggestion I make is that you also try to get some understanding of the second law and entropy as they are defined in physics, without any reference to evolution or creationism. Try The Second Law of Thermodynamics.

I am unaware of a place in the archive where someone is called "ignorant of the facts" when they have a Ph.D. in the topic being discussed. Maybe the reader could give us a hand in making things better by pointing out precisely where this has happened.

Until then, color me skeptical...

Wesley

The purpose of those two topics is to acquaint the reader with matters of character and authority concerning certain antievolutionists. Some antievolutionists make much of "moral decay" which they attribute to some insidious effect of the teaching of evolutionary biology. That certain of these antievolutionists show immoral leanings in their own behavior argues that immorality can stem from other causes. Some antievolutionists use claimed, but bogus, advanced degrees as a means of having their arguments on evolutionary biology accepted by the credulous without due consideration. Showing that certain people have degrees worth only what the diploma mill charged them informs readers that it is worth "checking under the hood" before crediting such "doctors" with real world expertise.

Kent Hovind believes that moral conduct is a key issue. Kent Hovind does himself make an issue of the character of researchers, and does not restrict himself to arguing only the ideas.

Here is an example, and not even the most egregious one available:

18th AND 19th CENTURY EVOLUTIONISTS

And now we will view the armchair philosophers. Hardly one of them ever set foot in field research or entered the door of a science laboratory, yet they founded the modern theory of evolution:

Emmanuel Swedenborg (1688-1772) was a do-nothing expert. In his 1734 book, Principia, he theorized that a rapidly rotating nebula formed itself into our solar system of sun and planets. He claimed that he obtained the idea from spirits during a séance. It is significant that the nebular hypothesis theory originated from such a source.

[further examples skipped]

[Source: History of Evolution Part One]

What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. It's pretty ironic that Hovind would accuse anyone else of being an "armchair philosopher". By the way, nothing that we say or do could "destroy" Hovind's integrity. Borrowing a memorable turn of phrase from the talk.origins newsgroup, Kent Hovind's integrity committed suicide; we are merely doing the autopsy.

The ideas that Kent Hovind preaches concerning evolutionary biology have been refuted ad nauseam. It is erroneous to assert that because we examine the seamier side of Kent Hovind's behavior that we per force have not addressed the content of arguments which Kent Hovind does make. For example, what about the age of the earth? We have extensive FAQs covering the topic. Granted, Hovind is not mentioned by name in most of those, but then again it isn't like he was the first or only antievolutionist to use those arguments. Kent Hovind is absolutely powerless to deal with those issues, whatever he might make up about his own little peccadilloes. Even "Answers In Genesis", a dedicated bunch of antievolutionists by anyone's reckoning, has taken Hovind to task for his use of unsubstantiated arguments.

Is there some reason why the tale of Hovind's diploma mill doctorate or his problems with the law or the IRS should not be heard by those who might otherwise be hornswaggled?

The feedback is handled by volunteers who make their own choices about what to respond to. There is no policy for ignoring particular emails. The property that the unanswered items have in common is that they failed to interest all of the volunteer respondents.

Wesley

I too have spoken to Kent Hovind personally on several occasions. Your assurances that he can refute what we have written about him are simply false. He cannot refute the fact that his doctorate is virtually worthless and has nothing to do with science. This is a fact. Patriot University is nothing more than a diploma mill, and is listed as such even by Christian university accreditation organizations. He cannot refute the fact that his $250,000 offer is entirely fraudulent and impossible to meet. I have offered him $1 million if he can prove ANY claim using the same criteria that he uses in his absurd "challenge". No reply, of course. He does not reply because he knows he would lose, and in losing would show that his challenge, which he uses to great rhetorical effect, is a transparent sham.

It should also be noted that nothing we have said about him is ad hominem. An ad hominem attack is a logical fallacy that says that an argument is wrong because of some personal and irrelevant flaw on the part of the one making the argument rather than because the argument itself is flawed. The arguments that he makes are refuted in several FAQs in this archive in great detail. Many of them (the moon dust argument, the alleged plesiosaur from Japan, etc) are refuted by his fellow creationists as well, yet he continues to use them. But Hovind himself calls himself "Dr" Kent Hovind and uses the title in order to gain instant credibility with those who see him, which makes his credentials a legitimate issue to dispute, especially when the degree isn't worth the paper it is printed on. And as Wes points out, Hovind goes to great lengths to argue that evolution leads to moral degradation. That makes his own history of dishonesty an entirely valid issue to examine.

If Hovind wishes to refute anything we have said, we will gladly engage him in a written discussion on any topic he wishes related to either evolution or to his own personal credibility, to be posted to the archive and to his website if he would like to do so. Would you care to wager on whether he will accept that challenge?

A virus has already been assembled from scratch. This article gives some information about both projects.

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.

Source: Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory", in _Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes_, p. 260, Norton, New York, 1980.

Took just a few seconds to find Gould's own words in response to the misuse of his work at the Antievolution Quotes and Misquotes Archive.

Wesley

Stephen Jay Gould concludes,

"If you had given me a blank piece of paper and a blank check, I could not have drawn you a theoretical intermediate any better or more convincing than Ambulocetus. Those dogmatists who by verbal trickery can make white black, and black white, will never be convinced of anything, but Ambulocetus is the very animal that they proclaimed impossible in theory."

~~ Natural History magazine, May 1994.