Feedback for December 2001

Moreover, your comments reveal two fundamental flaws in your reasoning. The first is one of ignorance about the social impact of evolutionary theory. Those "socialists" you decry include a great many ultra-capitalists--such as John D. Rockefeller--who, under the rubric of "Social Darwinism," advanced the idea that evolution and "survival of the fittest" required governments to dismantle even the rudimentary social safety nets that existed a century ago. The "God-haters" also include devout Christians who argued that evolution demonstrated the predestined favors handed out by God.

Your second mistake, shared by these people and many others, is to think that the theory of evolution--a scientific description of what is--has any bearing whatsoever upon social ideas of what ought to be. The theory of evolution no more mandates certain human behavior than the theory of gravity, in stating that objects fall, requires us to push each other from windows.

2) New organs can and do develop. For example, people have been born with extra fingers and/or toes. Most evolution of organs, however, doesn't add new organs, but gradually changes existing ones into something new.

3) The vast majority of mutations are neutral, not harmful. And since selection removes the harmful ones, the net effect is not harmful. Furthermore, mutations that are harmful in one environment may be beneficial in another. See Are Mutations Harmful?

4) As you already noted, DNA gets altered by mutations, so the fact that selection doesn't alter DNA is a non-issue. By choosing which organisms survive, natural selection alters the frequency of genetic traits in populations. And it is populations, not individuals, which evolve.

5) If there are barriers to microevolution, nobody has ever found any evidence of them. The fact that creationists can't provide a criterion for defining "kinds" strongly indicates that there are no barriers which determine kinds.

6) If you expect a fruit fly to turn into something radically different in just a few years, you oppose creationism, not evolution. (And were you aware that there are hundreds of species of fruit flies?) For an example of evolution on a greater scale, see Tjis Goldschmidt's book Darwin's Dreampond.

7) Real science does not lie because it is supported by observations of the actual world. It does not just make up whatever "facts" it wants, as you appear to have done.

Evolution (common descent with modification) was not some idea that Darwin came up with out of thin air which he later searched for ways of proving. That is not how it happened. Rather what he did was to take all the then known facts/observations (gathered by other scientists of the time who were by and large creationists) and attempt to explain them in what today we would consider a scientific manner (a manner that was testable, not appealing to supernatural agencies).

In this particular case it was well known to geologists & paleontologists (again almost all of them creationists) long before Darwin wrote the Origin of Species that there was a pattern of change in the fossil record; the farther back one went in the record the more different the animals represented were from those alive today. It was also well known that there were fossils of animals that appeared to be intermediate in form between both various fossil groups and fossil and living groups.

Neither the pattern of the fossil record or the existence of intermediate fossil forms was considered controversial amongst the scientists of the time; they simply worked these facts into their creationist framework (mostly through forms of old earth progressive creationism). Darwin came up with an alternative explanation for these facts that did not rely on the supernatural. So the question is not what do intermediate forms in the fossil record (or the pattern of the fossil record) "prove", but rather how do we explain the existence of intermediate forms in the fossil record (and the pattern of fossil record)?

Evolution is the current best scientific explanation for this evidence; as well as that from many other biological fields. What modern anti-evolutionists tend to do is to simply deny that the evidence even exists rather than attempt to scientifically explain it. But then they are usually doing apologetics for their sectarian beliefs, not science.

As for Andy's claim that there is "no evidence that those particular creatures came from another," this is not exactly correct. Evidence there is (see the many FAQs in the archive), absolute proof there is not (there is no such thing as absolute proof in science). It is certainly true that there is no way to know with certainty whether one fossil species directly gave rise to another (we can't do DNA tests on fossils). But again it is the wrong question. As before, the better question is when we have a series of fossil animals that grade from one form to another, how do we explain this scientifically? [Note: "It is thus because it pleased God to make it thus", is not a scientific explanation]

Next we come to Andy's odd claim about "something with half a heart." It is often difficult to know exactly what anti-evolutionists mean when they say things like this ("where is the half a wing?" is a common refrain). Is Andy looking to see evidence of an animal with a heart that looks like it was cut in half with a cleaver? A heart that is sort of half way made? What?

If he is looking for simpler, yet still functional, forms than those that are found in humans (and other mammals) then there are plenty of those. One need only consult a textbook on comparative vertebrate anatomy. Crocodilians for example have a heart somewhat intermediate between the three chambered 'reptilian' heart and a four chambered avian one. Also the hearts of advanced vertebrates, like mammals and birds, grows from a simple one to a more complex one during embryological development. So through comparative anatomy and embryology we can see evidence of how this organ might have evolved.

Finally we see Andy's deep confusion about how evolution works in the statement: "The only finds are new species which evolutionists use for their 'evidence'. Usually, these are either one species or the other, not both."

What are we to make of this? Andy seems to think that a species that is intermediate between two others must be literally half one species and half the other. That is not how evolution works at all. Again, all species, intermediate or not, are their own fully formed and functional species. They are not half formed monstrosities that the anti-evolutionist caricatures would lead one to believe.

As for the face on the moon, there is more than one, and more than just faces. See The Man in the Moon and other weird things for a few other faces on the moon. I can also find a squirrel, sea horse, rabbit, and other things. Such patterns that we see in random blotches are creations mostly of our own minds.

If according to a theory the outcome is determinate, we still may not be able to predict the exact result because our measurements may not be exact enough. It is my own view that there is inherent chance in everything, no matter how determined it is, but a theoretical explanation must limit the outcomes to do any explaining (it's no good saying that orbits are regular according to physics if orbits vary wildly without apparent pattern, for example).

There are a couple of different relevant senses of "accident", too. First it can mean something like "not intended", as in "I accidentally hit the gatepost when I drove through the gate." Nothing random about that - I was being careless, and yet everything that happened could be seen as determined (by my body, the way the car works, etc.).

Another sense of "accident" is the classical philosophical one - "not essential". This can be illustrated by saying that it is accidental to being human whether or not you have red hair so long as you can interbreed with other humans. This is not so important here.

The sense that worries most people is that "accident" seems to imply that something is not caused by anything. Order cannot come from uncaused accidents, they think. But no science, including evolution, thinks things are uncaused; at worst things are not predictable. But they are caused. Mutations are accidents in this sense.

Finally, there is the legitimate sense of "accident" that applies widely in evolution. This is the sense of "contingent"; events that might have been different if the same situation occurs again. This is like the pinball bouncing differently every game - it is caused, but the slight differences of each case make for large differences in result.

So, let's go through each of these senses of "accident".

To explain things, we must think that things are regular. So we do not think things are uncaused.

An explanation might allow some indeterminacy, but too much and it gets to be a very poor explanation indeed. So we think that an explanation requires some degree of constraining outcomes to be useful.

We allow a lot of unpredictability in explanations, because in complex cases we cannot predict - we just do not have the accuracy and the ability to make logical deductions even if the theory is totally correct.

And finally, we allow a lot of contingency; small changes make large differences.

I hope this answers your concerns. Also see the "Evolution and Chance FAQ" linked above.

And even if this myth were true it would have absolutely no bearing on the scientific status of evolutionary theory.

See also:

The Lady Hope Story: A Widespread Falsehood

As far as the premise of your claim, the reality of faith healing, it should be noted that skeptics like James Randi have investigated many such examples and found them wanting. Faith healers have been challenged time and time again to produce real, verifiable evidence of faith healing and they have failed to do so, relying instead on anecdotes and "testimonies".

And why confine your question to the Bible? People follow and have followed the Koran, Vedas, Tao Te Ching, Kojiki, Popol Vuh, and thousands of different oral traditions just as seriously and diligently. If taking something seriously determines its truth, then hundreds of different and mutually contradicting creation accounts must all be every bit as true as Genesis. (See Barbara Sproul's Primal Myths for a large sampling of such accounts.) Indeed, lots of people take seriously urban legends about everything from cookie recipies to organ harvesting. It is a fascinating question what makes people take some stories more seriously than others, but one which I have no answer to.

The point is simple. This group is not an atheistic group. We are not an atheistic group of individuals. We have no one statement of faith, because individuals within the group range from hard atheists to evangelical Christians, and includes various forms of non-atheistic non-Christian faith as well. This is standard in science; theists, and atheists, can equally be competant scientists, and whether one believes in God or not is not relevant to scientific performance in biology, geology, physics or anything else.

It would be quite inappropriate for any individual to tackle your questions on behalf of the group. The qurestions would be better directed at a group which has some kind of interest in that question, and basis for answering as a group.

You are also mistaken to think we pummel readers with the notion that there is no creator. In fact, we generally do just the opposite, pointing out that the issue is not about whether there is a creator or not.

This assertion is not a part of science, and in fact mainstream cosmology rejects it. In mainstream cosmology, even time itself is not eternal. You may, if you choose, adopt the assertion for yourself, but it is logically invalid to project the assertion onto others and draw inferences about what others propose.

7:11 In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.

7:12 And the rain was upon the earth forty days and forty nights. [Italics added by JW]

...

7:24 And the waters prevailed upon the earth an hundred and fifty days.

...

8:1 And God remembered Noah, and every living thing, and all the cattle that was with him in the ark: and God made a wind to pass over the earth, and the waters asswaged;

8:2 The fountains also of the deep and the windows of heaven were stopped, and the rain from heaven was restrained;

8:3 And the waters returned from off the earth continually: and after the end of the hundred and fifty days the waters were abated.

8:4 And the ark rested in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, upon the mountains of Ararat.

8:5 And the waters decreased continually until the tenth month: in the tenth month, on the first day of the month, were the tops of the mountains seen.

8:6 And it came to pass at the end of forty days, that Noah opened the window of the ark which he had made:

8:7 And he sent forth a raven, which went forth to and fro, until the waters were dried up from off the earth.

8:8 Also he sent forth a dove from him, to see if the waters were abated from off the face of the ground;

8:9 But the dove found no rest for the sole of her foot, and she returned unto him into the ark, for the waters were on the face of the whole earth: then he put forth his hand, and took her, and pulled her in unto him into the ark.

8:10 And he stayed yet other seven days; and again he sent forth the dove out of the ark;

8:11 And the dove came in to him in the evening; and, lo, in her mouth was an olive leaf plucked off: so Noah knew that the waters were abated from off the earth.

8:12 And he stayed yet other seven days; and sent forth the dove; which returned not again unto him any more.

8:13 And it came to pass in the six hundredth and first year, in the first month, the first day of the month, the waters were dried up from off the earth: and Noah removed the covering of the ark, and looked, and, behold, the face of the ground was dry.

8:14 And in the second month, on the seven and twentieth day of the month, was the earth dried.

Now from the second month of Noah's 600th year to the second month of Noah's 601st year is one year, I believe. If you are going to argue against science on the basis of your sacred writings, it pays to actually read them first.

Some interesting examples of evolution in plants includes the fact that grass did not evolve until after the Cretaceous, and it seems that this drove the evolution of other species such as animal grazers such as horses and bovines.

I also recall seeing a paper recently on the evolution of land plants from sea plants, so informaton is out there.

Anyone who is interested in this field might like to get going on the FAQ.

I do not think that religion is superstition. But it is pre-science (so, for that matter is language, but I routinely use it in a non-scientific manner). All religious beliefs were initially couched in pre-scientific terms, and where a cosmology, or model of the universe, was supposed or put forward by these pre-scientific religious thinkers and writers, as in Genesis, they were pre-scientific in this as well.

One of these areas is the creation of living things. Pre-scientific ideas about taxonomy are very often wrong, because they were referring to organisms in terms of the ordinary commen sense language of their day. Hence we get words like "kind" or "fowl of the air". But neither of these refer to a real group of things, any more than the English words "tree" or "bush" do (some plants have both tree and bush forms).

Is this a criticism of the religious doctrines that are supported by these pre-scientific writings? Not at all. But the theological and the scientific notions of a religion are distinct things, and it is the latter that pre-scientific language gets wrong, often as not. Ignoring that won't make it otherwise.

Pre-scientific speculations about the world can be found in the early (Milesian) philosophers, and they canvassed a whole range of ideas. They were trying to do science, of course. But they didn't actually do it. Some things they happened to get right, and other things are clearly myth. The same is true of the Bible. Many things will be correct just because people then were as smart as they are now, and they had to make a living in their environment. But this does not make what they did good science.

The book by Durkheim, by the way, is Elementary Forms of the Religious Life first published in 1912. It's a long time since I read it, but I recall Durkheim as being very typological - that is to say, he divided social institutions up into fixed types. This is, I think, a holdover from earlier times, and should not be done. Society itself is evolving.

(Sorry. That was unworthy of me, but irresistable.)

Natural processes are often enormously subtle and complex. Genes, for example, do guide and control the growth and development of a living being, even one as complex and wonderful as a human being, all the way from a single celled zygote. This does not mean they are intelligent, or have a mind. Your mind grows and develops naturally, along with the rest of you. Science studies this amazing natural world.

There is a FAQ on thermodynamics here at the archive that you should have a look at.

The textbook, "Evolution As Entropy", by Brooks and Wiley advances an argument that the 2nd law of thermodynamics makes evolutionary change inevitable.

I like to point out that the processes necessary for evolutionary change are observed to happen in extant populations, so it is highly unlikely that any of these are thermodynamically disallowed. I regularly challenge people who claim that evolutionary processes violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics to identify a specific process which is disallowed by the 2nd law, show that it is a necessary part of an actual evolutionary theory, and that it is not observed to happen in extant organisms. So far, I've had no responses which fulfill the challenge. If you think you have one, feel free to post it to the talk.origins newsgroup.

Wesley

1. To give "our" views on God would require a different answer from each and every person who has written an FAQ, answered a feedback letter, or otherwise contributed to the Talk.Origins Archive. Obviously this can't be done. Some of the people who have helped put this site together are atheists, some are Christians, some are agnostics, some are deists, some are Jews, and so forth. There just isn't an easy way to answer your question.

2. I don't think I would accept your premise. The opposable thumb is obviously the most important trait in terms of gripping an object. I can't imagine that not having fingerprints would have much of an effect on our ability to grip things. As to how they formed, I haven't the foggiest idea. I would presume that they formed as a result of evolution like other traits. My guess is that there is probably some interesting research out there on this specific subject, but I've never seen it.

3. This is an odd question. You seem to be saying that logical and analytical thinking and belief in God are in conflict, and that is not a premise I accept. I doubt it is a premise you accept either. My suspicion is that you really intend to ask why so many people believe in God if there really isn't one. That is not a premise I accept either. Does widespread belief in God really mean there must be one? I don't think so. There are lots of sociological and psychological explanations for such beliefs. Does that mean that there isn't a God? Of course not. Either God exists or does not exist. Our belief can be based on lots of things other than actual knowledge of the right answer to that question. I certainly don't think that people believe in God because they are stupid, but it is also obviously true that throughout history human beings have used God as an explanation for things they did not understand at the time - sickness, thunderstorms, earthquakes, etc. Over time, as our understanding of these events widens, the scope of events attributed to the whim of a god shrinks.

Of course there are things we still don't understand. But the fact that we don't understand them does not mean that we should conclude that there is no explanation for them other than belief in a god. That doesn't mean there isn't a god, it just means that current lack of understanding does not logically lead to the conclusion that there is one. This is god of the gaps reasoning.

Scientific hypotheses must be testable and since there is no way to test (and potentially falsify) any idea that incorporates "God did it", any hypothesis which does is by definition not scientific.

Belief in an omnipotent God is a perfectly good theological position. As is believing that said God has performed miracles throughout history, and as long as you maintain beliefs about the supposed actions of such a deity simply as matter of faith you are welcome to believe them.

Just don't try to claim that hypotheses incorporating such beliefs are scientific.

The omnipotent God explanation works, but not because an omnipotent God could arrange for a flood. It works because an omniopotent God would be capable of covering His tracks so effectively after the flood that all evidence indicates a long geological history for the planet without a global flood.

The theological implications of an omnipotent God deliberately using powers of omnipotence to create a fictional geological history of an unflooded Earth are generally frowned upon.

Gentle readers please beware: Not everyone includes "winky" emoticons in their correspondence to indicate the nearby presence of hyperbole.

BTW - I'd offer 10 quatloos to the first, sub-twenty year old that could identify (without the aid of an internet search engine, _Movie Hound_ type book or parental assistance), the overacting star of the movie in which the term "soylent green" was originally used, but we'd probably hose the feedback system.