|Comment:||The Internation Flat Earth Society is well known urban legend. I think you have been fooled! Don't be so gullible and maybe talk.origins wouldn't have such a well known credibility problem. You guys are as dumb as you sound!!!|
|Author of:||Isochron Dating|
|Response:||It would be
an error to equate "urban legend" with "untruth." The
meaning of "urban legend" is closer to: "a catchy, widely
repeated, and not necessarily true story." See also
the definition on www.urbanlegends.com:
That same web site's page on the Flat Earth Sociery urban legends does not debunk the existence of a society that promotes a flat Earth; it is a reprint of the very same flyer that we have on our site. (A flat-Earth society isn't the only urban legend that's a true story. That same web site documents the truth in some other urban legends, such as " hot water freezes faster than cold" and " running your fireplace can make your house colder.")
The International Flat Earth Research Society is a real live organization with several thousand members. Or at least, it was so until very recently; it may have died with Charles K. Johnson, who presided over IFERS until he passed away in March of 2001. See The Flat-out Truth, an interview with Charles K. Johnson by the late Robert Schadewald (an acquaintance of mine). That same interview is linked from our Flat-Earth FAQ.
web site and keep up the good work!
Hopefully someone there will have the time to critique the book by Thaxton, Bradley and Olsen, "The Mystery of Life's Origin: Reassessing Current Theories." Because the authors of the book have respectable credentials (All are Ph.D.’s plus, Thaxton: Postdoctoral Fellow at Harvard University, Bradley: Head of the department of Mechanical Engineering at Texas A&M University and, Olsen: Instructor and expert witness) and numerous references have been used throughout their book, the book comes across as being an academic work against evolution. As such a proper academic response is required. It would also be nice to see all their references checked for accuracy.
|Response:||The book you mention is not one I've seen often discussed on talk.origins, although references to it appear on several creationist web sites. If the book concerns abiogenesis, however, it is woefully outdated, having been published in 1984. See our Abiogenesis FAQs for more details.|
|Comment:||A principle of organic chemical synthesis is that reactions starting with an optically inactive mixture of reactants will yield an optically inactive product. This is the case when amino acids are synthesized from simple organic molecules. The amino acids formed are a mixture of equal amounts of the D- and L-forms, yet biological systems have the unique ability to incorporate only the L-form into proteins and completely exclude the D-form. This critical point in the problem of chemical evolution has not been resolved satisfactorily.|
Of course it has. Biologically relevant reactions are catalyzed by molecules called enzymes that have the property of steric specificity. It would be harder to evolve an enzyme that can bind both a substrate and its mirror image (not to mention that in this case, it would have little utility in doing so).
An example: my car has a dent in the driver's side door. We're going to take it to a body shop, where they are going to replace the damaged panel with a left door panel. Should I complain that they have not resolved this little engineering problem satisfactorily, because they haven't developed a generic car door panel that fits either the left or right side? Should I be surprised that the left and right sides of my car are not identical?
Congratulations to all at the Talk Origins Archive on your
many (well deserved) awards, & also on the
incorporation of your archive material into the curricula
of an impressive range of university courses, some of which
are offered at very prestigious institutions.
I'd like to point out however that the University of Auckland is not located in Australia, & is unlikely to be so in the foreseeable future - unless of course, by means of a hitherto unrecognized tectonic plate movement operating by a mechanism of "runaway subduction" ;-)
There a number of Australian contributors to the archive, so they should have caught this. That they didn't suggests only one thing: imperial aspirations. Watch your back, New Zealand.
We Americans, of course, don't have a clue about geography, and wouldn't have batted an eye if the page had said Auckland was somewhere in Greater Mongolia.
|Author of:||Evolution and Philosophy|
everything of value in New Zealand is by default an
Australian contribution to world culture, it follows that
the University of Auckland must be located somewhere in
Why, yes, I am Australian - why do you ask?
|Comment:||It seems by much of what I've read in your articles and others like it, that the evolution of evolutionary arguments follows the same pattern of devolution that nature itself, has followed. Just as MUTATION NEVER OFFERS ANY NEW GENETIC INFOMATION, evolution never offers any real evidence. Scientific fact should be based on proven experiments not someone else's guess work.|
claim that mutations never add any new genetic information
seems to be repeated more often these days. Perhaps this is
because another set of creationist pamphlets have been
churning off the presses. Unfortunately, we can count on
people misreading these pamphlets and getting even the
simplest arguments wrong.
Anyway, about the "no new genetic information" claim: Malarky. On the simplest level, any mutation which changes an original sequence alters the "information" is some way. Is this mutated sequence "old"? No, it's *new*: If it didn't exist in the parent organism but now shows up in the progeny, how else would one describe the relative age of the sequence change?
But what about the actual claim, that mutations *add* no new information? That's questionable as well. Mutations aren't always single changes in the bases of DNA. Duplications, transpositions and fusions are mutations that can also occur which increase the total length of DNA in the cell. Even a perfect duplication of a single gene will increase genetic information by some degree (And yes, even perfect duplications of a single gene can find an adaptive role). Some people such as Lee Spenter try to claim that a duplication is merely a change in copy number and not a change in information content, per se. Yet by any metric of information, any duplication requires more "bits" of data to specify. This change may be exactly one bit of additional data, but it is an increase. Any further mutations to either of the copies produces sequence divergences which require even more data bits to specify.
|Comment:||Ok, your website is starting to concern me now. over the past two months, i've asked really good questions that ended up never being answered or shown on your feedback page for that matter. Do you pick and choose what questions you can answer and what you can't answer? And if you can't answer them, just NOT show them?? What is the deal here???|
|Response:||This is a
volunteer website. We do what we can, but we cannot do
everything. Consequently we answer only those that the
volunteers "on duty" that month can answer (none of us can
answer every query in every speciality). Moreover, about
(in my guesstimate) 80% of feedback is asking questions
that are already dealt with in earlier feedback, or is
prominently dealt with in the oddly named FAQs on the
website, or is a misunderstanding (like the never-ending
stream of attacks because we supposedly support
geocentrism, which, as was noted last month, is a kind of
As you did not give an ID, I cannot check what your prior feedsback have been.
|Comment:||I'd like to
respond to robert's "mental exercize" question. I have
about 78 "arguments" for creationism:
1 TRANSCENDENTAL ARGUMENT (1) Creation is true. (2) If Creation is true, then reason must exist. (3) Reason exists. (4) Therefore, Creation is true.
2. COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT (1) If I say something must have a cause, it has a cause. (2) I say the universe must have a cause. (3) Therefore, the universe has a cause. (4) Therefore, Creation is true.
3. ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT (a) (1) I define God to be X. (2) Since I can conceive of X, X must exist. (3) Therefore, Creation is true.
4. ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT (b) (1) Creation is true. (2) Since Creation is true, God must be perfect. (3) That which is perfect must exist. (4) Therefore, Creation is true.
5. MODAL ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT (1) Creation is true. (2) God, existing, is either necessary or unnecessary. (3) God is not unnecessary, therefore God must be necessary. (4) Therefore, Creation is true.
6. TELEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT (1) Check out that tree. Isn't it pretty? (2) Therefore, Creation is true.
7. ARGUMENT FROM MIRACLES (1) My aunt Helen was most likely to die from cancer. (2) She didn't. (3) Therefore, Creation is true.
8. MORAL ARGUMENT (a) (1) Person X, a well-known atheist, was morally inferior to the rest of us. (2) Therefore, Creation is true.
9. MORAL ARGUMENT (b) (1) In my younger days I was a cursing, drinking, smoking, gambling, child-molesting, thieving, murdering, bed-wetting bastard. (2) That all changed once I became religious. (3) Therefore, Creation is true.
10. ARGUMENT FROM CREATION (1) If evolution is false, then creationism is true, and therefore Creation is true. (2) Evolution can't be true, since I lack the mental capacity to understand it; moreover, to accept its truth would cause me to be uncomfortable (3) Therefore, Creation is true.
11. ARGUMENT FROM FEAR (1) If there is no God then we're all going to die. (2) Therefore, Creation is true.
12. ARGUMENT FROM THE BIBLE (1) [arbitrary passage from OT] (2) [arbitrary passage from NT] (3) Therefore, Creation is true.
13. ARGUMENT FROM INTELLIGENCE (1) Look, there's really no point in me trying to explain the whole thing to you stupid atheists -- it's too complicated for you to understand. Creation is true whether you like it or not. (2) Therefore, Creation is true.
14. ARGUMENT FROM UNINTELLIGENCE (1) Okay, I don't pretend to be as intelligent as you guys -- you're obviously very well read. But I read the Bible, and nothing you say can convince me that God does not exist. I feel him in my heart, and you can feel him too, if you'll just ask him into your life. "For God so loved the world that he sent his only begotten son into the world, that whosoever believes in him shall not perish from the earth" John 3:16. (2) Therefore, Creation is true.
15. ARGUMENT FROM BELIEF (1) If Creation is true, then I should believe in Him. (2) I believe in God. (3) Therefore, Creation is true.
16. ARGUMENT FROM INTIMIDATION (1) See this bonfire? (2) Therefore, Creation is true.
17. PARENTAL ARGUMENT (1) My mommy and daddy told me that Creation is true. (2) Therefore, Creation is true.
18. ARGUMENT FROM NUMBERS (1) Millions and millions of people believe in God. (2) They can't all be wrong, can they? (3) Therefore, Creation is true.
19. ARGUMENT FROM ABSURDITY (1) Maranathra! (2) Therefore, Creation is true.
20. ARGUMENT FROM ECONOMY (1) Creation is true, you bastards! (2) Therefore, Creation is true.
21. BOATWRIGHT'S ARGUMENT (1) Ha ha ha. (2) Therefore, Creation is true.
22. DORE'S ARGUMENT (1) I forgot to take my meds. (2) Therefore, I AM CHRIST!! (3) Therefore, Creation is true.
23. ARGUMENT FROM GUITAR MASTERY (1) Eric Clapton is God. (2) Therefore, Creation is true.
24. ARGUMENT FROM INTERNET AUTHORITY (1) There is a website that successfully argues for the existence of God. (2) Here is the URL. (3) Therefore, Creation is true.
25. ARGUMENT FROM INCOMPREHENSIBILITY (1) Flabble glurk zoom boink blubba snurgleschnortz ping! (2) No one has ever refuted (1). (3) Therefore, Creation is true.
26. ARGUMENT FROM AMERICAN EVANGELISM (1) Telling people that Creation is true makes me filthy rich. (2) Therefore, Creation is true.
27. MITCHELL'S ARGUMENT (1) The Christian Creation is true. (2) Therefore, all worldviews which don't assume the Christian God's existence are false and incomprehensible. (3) Therefore, Creation is true.
28. ARGUMENT FROM BLINDNESS (a) (1) Atheists are spiritually blind. (2) Therefore, Creation is true.
29. ARGUMENT FROM BLINDNESS (b) (1) God is love. (2) Love is blind. (3) Ray Charles is blind. (4) Therefore, Ray Charles is God. (5) Therefore, Creation is true.
30. ARGUMENT FROM FALLIBILITY (1) Human reasoning is inherently flawed. (2) Therefore, there is no reasonable way to challenge a proposition. (3) I propose that Creation is true. (4) Therefore, Creation is true.
31. ARGUMENT FROM SMUGNESS (1) Creation is true. (2) I don't give a crap whether you believe it or not; I have better things to do than to try to convince you morons. (3) Therefore, Creation is true.
32. ARGUMENT FROM META-SMUGNESS (1) [obscenity deleted] (2) Therefore, Creation is true.
33. ARGUMENT FROM MANIFESTATIONS (1) If you turn your head sideways and squint a little, you can see an image of a bearded face in that tortilla. (2) Therefore, Creation is true.
34. SLATHER'S ARGUMENT (1) My toaster is God. (2) Therefore, Creation is true.
35. ARGUMENT FROM INCOMPLETE DEVASTATION (1) A plane crashed killing 143 passengers and crew. (2) But one child survived with only third-degree burns. (3) Therefore, Creation is true.
36. ARGUMENT FROM POSSIBLE WORLDS (1) If things had been different, then things would be different. (2) That would be bad. (3) Therefore, Creation is true.
37. ARGUMENT FROM SHEER WILL (1) I DO believe in God! I DO believe in God! I do I do I do I DO believe in God! (2) Therefore, Creation is true.
38. ARGUMENT FROM NONBELIEF (1) The majority of the world's population are nonbelievers in Christianity. (2) This is just what Satan intended. (3) Therefore, Creation is true.
39. ARGUMENT FROM POST-DEATH EXPERIENCE (1) Person X died an atheist. (2) He now realizes his mistake. (3) Therefore, Creation is true.
40. ARGUMENT FROM EMOTIONAL BLACKMAIL (1) God loves you. (2) How could you be so heartless to not believe in him? (3) Therefore, Creation is true.
41. ARGUMENT FROM INCOHERENT BABBLE (1) See that person spazzing on the church floor babbling incoherently? (2) That's how infinite wisdom reveals itself. (3) Therefore, Creation is true.
42. OPRAH'S ARGUMENT (a) (1) The human spirit exists. (2) Therefore, Creation is true.
43. OPRAH'S ARGUMENT (b) (1) Check out this video segment. (2) Now how can anyone watch that and NOT believe in God? (3) Therefore, Creation is true.
44. CALVINISTIC ARGUMENT (1) If Creation is true, then he will let me watch you be tortured forever. (2) I rather like that idea. (3) Therefore, Creation is true.
45. ARGUMENT FROM CROCKERY (1) Pots don't go around giving orders to the potter. (2) Therefore, Creation is true.
46. ARGUMENT FROM MASS PRODUCTION (1) Barbie dolls were created. (2) If Barbie dolls were created, then so were trees. (3) Therefore, Creation is true.
47. ARGUMENT FROM PAROCHIALISM (1) God is everywhere. (2) We haven't been everywhere to prove he's not there. (3) Therefore, Creation is true.
48. ARGUMENT FROM UPPERCASE ASSERTION (1) CREATION IS TRUE! GET USED TO IT! (2) Therefore, Creation is true.
49. ARGUMENT FROM INFINITE REGRESS (1) Ask atheists what caused the Big Bang. (2) Regardless of their answer, ask how they know this. (3) Continue process until the atheist admits he doesn't know the answer to one of your questions. (4) You win! (5) Therefore, Creation is true.
50. ARGUMENT FROM INCREDULITY (1) How could God NOT exist, you bozo? (2) Therefore, Creation is true.
51. ARGUMENT FROM HISTORY (1) The Bible is true. (2) Therefore, the Bible is historical fact. (3) Therefore, Creation is true.
52. ARGUMENT FROM RESURRECTION (1) Proof of God's existence will be available when you rise bodily from your grave. (2) Therefore, Creation is true.
53. ARGUMENT FROM BIOGENESIS (1) Where did Adam come from, dummy? (2) Therefore, Creation is true.
54. ARGUMENT FROM STEADFAST FAITH (1) A lot of really cool people believed in God their entire lives. (2) Therefore, Creation is true.
55. ARGUMENT FROM LONELINESS (1) Christians say that Jesus is their best friend. (2) I'm lonely, and I want a best friend. (3) Therefore, Creation is true.
56. ARGUMENT FROM ARGUMENTATION (1) Creation is true. (2) [atheist's counterargument] (3) Yes he does. (4) [atheist's counterargument] (5) Yes he does! (6) [atheist's counterargument] (7) YES HE DOES!!! (8) [atheist gives up and goes home] (9) Therefore, Creation is true.
57. ARGUMENT FROM CREATIVE INTERPRETATION (1) God is: (a) The feeling you have when you look at a newborn baby. (b) The love of a mother for her child. (c) That little still voice in your heart. (d) Humankind's potential to overcome their difficulties. (e) How I feel when I look at a sunset. (f) The taste of ice cream on a hot day. (2) Therefore, Creation is true.
58. ARGUMENT FROM INSECURITY (1) We have gone to absolutely berserk lengths to establish that atheists are laughable morons. (1.5) Actually, we did so in the hopes of curing our own insecurities about theism -- but there's no chance in hell we'll ever admit that. (2) Therefore, atheists are laughable morons. (3) Therefore, Creation is true.
59. ARGUMENT FROM SUPERIORITY (1) If God does not exist, then I am an inferior being, since I am not "special" in a cosmic sense. (2) But I am superior. Because I am a Christian. (3) Therefore, Creation is true.
60. ARGUMENT FROM PERFECTION (1) If there are absolute moral standards, then Creation is true. (2) Atheists say that there are no absolute moral standards. (3) But that's because they don't want to admit to being sinners. (4) Therefore, there are absolute moral standards. (5) Therefore, Creation is true.
61. ARGUMENT FROM HUMAN NECESSITY (1) Atheists say that they don't need God. (2) Which just goes to show that they need God. (3) Therefore, Creation is true.
62. ARGUMENT FROM HIDDEN LOGIC (a) (1) Intellectually, I know that the existence of God is impossible, or vastly improbable. (2) But I must put on the appearance of being cool and intellectual in front of my Christian apologist peers. (3) Therefore, I must pretend that (1) is false. (4) Therefore, Creation is true.
63. ARGUMENT FROM INDULGENCE (1) Atheists like to think that they can control their emotional desires. (2) But they're atheists, so they can't. (3) Therefore, atheists feel the need to indulge in whatever they feel like without worrying about committing sin. (4) This just goes to show how they need God in their lives. (5) Therefore, Creation is true.
64. ARGUMENT FROM HATE (1) Some atheists hate Christians and Christianity. (2) That's why they don't believe in God. (3) Pathetic, aren't they? (4) Therefore, Creation is true.
65. ARGUMENT FROM QUENTIN SMITH (1) Quentin Smith says that God does not exist. (2) But God does exist. (3) Therefore, Quentin Smith cannot be accepted as an expert on the matter, because he is wrong. (4) Therefore, Creation is true.
66. ARGUMENT FROM EVIL SPIRITS (1) I've just had contact with evil spirits. (2) Therefore, Creation is true.
67. ARGUMENT FROM HIDDEN LOGIC (b) (1) Atheists say that God doesn't exist. (2) But they only say that because they want to look cool and intellectual in front of their peers. (3) They don't fool me! (4) Therefore, Creation is true.
68. ARGUMENT FROM HOVIND'S CHALLENGE (1) Kent Hovind offers $250,000 (which may or may not exist) to anyone who can demonstrate evolution (defined as a natural, acausal origin of the universe) to a reasonable doubt (meaning with 100% certainty, allowing for no other possibilities whatsoever) in front of a neutral committee (handpicked by Hovind himself) and according to certain criteria (carefully worded so as to rule out any possibility whatsoever of the challenge ever being met). (2) No atheist has ever met this challenge. (3)Therefore, Creation is true.
69. ARGUMENT FROM INSANITY (1) No sane person could have thought up Christianity (2) Therefore, it must be true (3) Therefore, Creation is true
70 ARGUMENT FROM EXHAUSTION (abridged) (1) Do you agree with the utterly trivial proposition X? (2) Atheist: of course. (3) How about the slightly modified proposition X'? (4) Atheist: Um, no, not really. (5) Good. Since we agree, how about Y? Is that true? (6) Atheist: No! And I didn't agree with X'! (7) With the truths of these clearly established, surely you agree that Z is true as well? (8) Atheist: No. So far I have only agreed with X! Where is this going, anyway? (9) I'm glad we all agree..... .... (37) So now we have used propositions X, X', Y, Y', Z, Z', P, P', Q and Q' to arrive at the obviously valid point R. Agreed? (38) Atheist: Like I said, so far I've only agreed with X. Where is this going? .... (81) So we now conclude from this that propositions L'', L''' and J'' are true. Agreed? (82) I HAVEN'T AGREED WITH ANYTHING YOU'VE SAID SINCE X! WHERE IS THIS GOING!? .... (177) ...and it follows that proposition HRV, SHQ'' and BTU' are all obviously valid. Agreed? (178) [Atheist either faints from overwork or leaves in disgust] (179) Therefore, Creation is true.
71. MR. GOODSALT'S ARGUMENT (ARGUMENT FROM GENERAL INQUIRY) (1) Question for atheist population: [apparently random question] (2) Your answer is wrong. (3) Therefore, Creation is true.
72. PEACOCK ARGUMENT FROM ORIGINALITY (1) I have written the following to demonstrate the existence of God. (2) [insert entire text of a William Lane Craig article] (3) Therefore, Creation is true.
73. PEACOCK ARGUMENT FROM LIMITED VOCABULARY (1) You use lots of big words. (2) Therefore, I cannot possibly be expected to understand your refutation of my position. (3) Therefore, Creation is true.
74. PEACOCK ARGUMENT FROM SELECTIVE MEMORY (1) [Christian asks "stumper" question] (2) [Atheist answers question] (3) [A lapse of time] (4) [Christian repeats question] (5) [Atheist repeats answer] (6) [A lapse of time] (7) [Christian repeats question] (8) [Atheist repeats answer] (9) [A lapse of time] (10) Atheist, you never answered my question. (11) Therefore, Creation is true.
75. ARGUMENT FROM HISTORICAL CORRELATION (1) This historical event was recorded. (2) The Bible mentions this event. (3) Therefore, Creation is true.
76. THE CLASSICAL CIRCULAR ARGUMENT (1) We know that Creation is true because the Bible tells us so. (2) We know that the Bible is true because it is the word of God (3) Therefore, Creation is true.
77. ARGUMENT FROM SELECTIVE CELEBRITY QUOTATION (1) [insert famous persons name] is a well known Atheist. (2) [insert famous persons name] made a comment about God. (3) Therefore, Creation is true.
78. ARGUMENT FROM IRRELEVANT TRIVIA (1) The Bible was written over a period of 1500 years. (2) Many people from varied backgrounds wrote the Bible. (3) Lots of copies of the Bible have been sold (4) Therefore, Creation is true. (This is a modification of the 78 "therefore god exists" arguments)
|Response:||Marvellous. Is this original?|
|Comment:||The scientist thougth the coelacanths fish is been extinct for 60 million years bec. no specimen had been found less than 60 million years, have been identified in deposits dating back nearly 400 million years, and belive it walk upon the sea floor. then it found in 1938. and observed it never walk on the sea floor.Got the point|
point is that the fossil record is sparse and unreliable
and what paleontologists call "ghost lineages" (unrecorded
groups over some period) are common.
Incidentally, the coelocanths that have been found are not the species that existed in the fossil record.
|Comment:||As an assignment in my biology class at a christian university I was given the questoin "Doesn't evolution contradict religion?" I was also given the website answer and was told to respond. If you look at it in a naturalistic sense, yes it does contradict religion, but when looked at empirically it has it's fall outs as well does the naturalistic approach. Either apporach has it's strong points and has its weaknesses.|
is "perhaps". However, there are many religious thinkers
and organizations that do accomodate the two (e.g. religion
and evolution). With respect to Christianity and science,
I'd recommend investigating the ASA (American Scientific
Affiliation). On this group's main web page, they write:
"Science in Christian Perspective - The American Scientific Affiliation (ASA) is a fellowship of men and women in science and disciplines that relate to science who share a common fidelity to the Word of God and a commitment to integrity in the practice of science."
|Comment:||I believe in
evolution, and believe the big bang is probable, but what
is the reasoning for seeing galaxies in every direction of
the sky if we are supposed to be expanding analogously like
a balloon. With all the number of galaxies out there, you
mean to tell me that not a single one shows any blue shift?
I mean, I've seen plenty of Hubble pictures that show
galaxies colliding, so chances are we should be able to
find at least one with a blue shift, or else the
uncertainty principle doesn't apply to the big bang
Also, If light can be affected by gravity, then why can't the red shifts in galaxies be interpreted as a distance the galaxy is from us, as apposed to the galaxy traveling away from us.
Just like a rock dropped into water, a ripple forms and has a wavelength. At the same time the ripple expands, one could possibly take a vacuum and begin to suck the water up from the exact origin of the ripple. This affect could have enough force as to create drag on the nearer troughs, widening the wavelength of the propagating wave. This same affect could be done on light when light is bent around stars, galaxies, and black holes. This could be another explanation for redshifts.
There are a lot of holes in the theory of the Big Bang, and hopefully someday it is solved. I think it is nothing more than inaccuracies with measuring tools and bad formulas, as well as the fact too many scientists believe light does not slow down over long distances.
Let me know what you think of this,
Steven R. Rampage
there are a number of galaxies that are moving
towards our own, most notably the Andromeda Galaxy (M31),
which Slipher discovered to be blue-shifted in 1912. Most
of these galaxies are in our own local group of galaxies.
Wavelengths of light are shifted by the Doppler effect, which depends on the relative motion between emitter and observer, not on the distance between them. The Doppler effect can be and has been tested on Earth. Just think of a train whistle; it changes sound based on how fast the train is moving towards or away from you, not on how far away the train is.
Mass does have some effect on light in the sense you mention, but differences in redshift are seen even between two objects of the same mass. Those differences in redshift correspond to the differences in velocities those objects have relative to us.
|Comment:||I was just
curious, but what was the name of the painting that
depicted Man emerging from an evolutionary stage with the
monkey @ the beginning? I've seen it before @ museums &
in science books.
The reason I asked is because I was wanting to boot it up on my own site, & was curious to know, if you knew of some websites with it uploaded in a jpg or gif?
|Response:||You're in luck. Our Fossil Hominids: Frequently Asked Questions page contains a discussion of the March of Progress graphic.|
|Comment:||You guys are great at cleaning up creationist dribble, however I can't find anything refuting two things I have heard them say. I have heard that a change in three nucleotides is relentlessly fatal for organisms, and I have heard that new calculations have set the date of mitochondrial eve to 6,000 to 6,500 years ago.I would appreciate any help you can give me on this,thank you.|
You may have heard these things, but why should you believe them?
The claim that changing three nucleotides is fatal is blatant nonsense. I know of many mutations (such as large deletions) that change many more than 3 nucleotides, and lo, the animal survives. All I can imagine is that someone has a vague understanding that the genetic code is defined by nucleotide triplets, and somehow leapt to the conclusion that three is a magic number.
I have no idea where the claim of a recalculation of mitochondrial eve reset the date to 6000 years ago came from. Who did this recalculation? How was it done? I suspect that some creationist just made it up. It may shock you to learn this, but many creationists lie, and many more work to perpetuate the lies out of sheer, appalling ignorance.
|Comment:||Ok, this is
about the fourth feedback I'm sending. None of the others
ever seemed be displayed let alone answered.
I read a question from one supporting evolution asking about why do some trees bear fruit. The reply was that it was advantageous for the tree as the animals would disperse the seeds further away, making it easier for the trees to grow.
I'm sorry but I find this quite laughable. This site spends so much time talking about the ridiculousness of creationism, yet you believe that trees evolved with an intelligence that has a big overview of animals being able to help in its reproduction. Somehow these trees are able to communicate with these animals and say "Hey, what do you like to eat?" And then the animals say "apples." And then the tree goes ahead and makes them. Ridiculous. I'd like to see what evidence you have to back up your statements. Again, the evolution theory shows how loosely it it strung together. So sad that you accept it all as given fact.
to substantially misunderstand evolution by natural
selection. Trees obviously do not want animals to
eat fruit and propagate their seeds. They don't decide
consciously how to spread their seeds.
Evolution by natural selection proceeds on the basis of differential reproductive success. In other words, some organisms are more likely to survive and bear offspring that survive than others are. The natural consequence is that the genes of the successful organisms thrive and multiply, and therefore more organisms will have those genes.
Because trees do not walk around, they must reproduce by broadcasting their seeds. Trees that broadcast their seeds farther away are often more likely to bear offspring because the little trees are not competing for the same air and light.
Seeds can be blown by the wind, and obviously lighter seeds blow farther than heavier seeds. Thus some trees succeed reproductively (and thereby have offspring who will do the same) by producing lighter and lighter seeds, some even with little wings to help them drift farther. Of course, there is a trade-off; light seeds are unable to carry much in the way of nutrients to support the seeds once they land. But if the tree produces lots of seeds, chances are a few will survive and have offspring.
Note that there will be variation, even within a species. Just by random chance, some organisms in that species will produce lighter or more aerodynamic seeds than others. That slight difference multiplies over generations.
Another path to reproductive success is to produce fewer seeds, but to invest more resources in each one. A seed encased in a protective coating with a nutrient supply is more likely to survive than one without those advantages. Of course, it is harder to propagate such seeds by the wind, but if the tree is lucky enough that its seeds blow far in a windstorm or roll downhill, then the seeds may survive and reproduce themselves, continuing on the genome.
Imagine, then, a tree with a nutrient-filled seed package that just happens to be somewhat tasty to a particular species of animal. The animals eat the seed package (the fruit) and either digest or defecate the seeds. If the seed is not digested, it is deposited somewhere far away from the tree with a built-in source of fertilizer.
Over time, trees that produce tastier fruit are more likely to have their fruit eaten and their seeds propagate. That leads to success for the genome producing the tasty fruit and more copies of the tasty-fruit-producing trees.
Keep in mind that all of these actions take energy and other resources away from the organism's own survival. Each organism has an optimal balancing point where the resources expended on reproduction balances out with resources spent on survival in terms of maximizing that organism's likelihood of reproductive success.
Again, it is not that the trees are doing any of this consciously. It is that trees which propagate their offspring farther away are more likely to have successful offspring and those genes will continue on in the next generation, and the next. This is all blind trial-and-error on a massively parallel scale.
I'd suggest you read a good evolutionary biology textbook such as Douglas J. Futuyma's Evolutionary Biology to get a better handle on the basics of evolution. You might also read Richard Dawkins's The Selfish Gene to give you some practice thinking about gene survival and propagation.
|Comment:||Hello... Did you know that there is a creationist scientist who has a standing offer of a quarter of a million dollars that will go to the person who successfully proves evolution? You seem to have a pretty good handle on the arguments and the tactics. Have you ever considered taking this guy on? Here is the website with the offer. If you decide to take him up on it...I would love to hear about it. Dr. Hovind's $250,000 Offer|
|Response:||We are more than familiar with both "Dr." Hovind and his $250,000 offer.|
|Response:||It seems we get this question at least once a month. Kent Hovind is not a scientist by any definition of the term. He is a snake oil salesman and an embarrassment even to his fellow creationists. His quarter million dollar offer is a fraud. I've offered "Dr" Hovind a million dollars to prove ANY empirical claim with the same criteria he uses, with no response. There is no way any claim could meet the criteria he uses, which is of course why he uses them. His offer is nothing more than a rhetorical tool.|
|Comment:||You guys helped me find how old the earth is.|
|Response:||Glad we could help. To anyone else interested, more information about the answer (4.55 billion years +/- 1%) can be found in the Age of the Earth FAQ.|
|Comment:||The Atheist Banner Exchange is LIVE! http://www.atheistbannerexchange.com|
That's nice. However, this is not an atheist site. There are Christians who work behind the scenes here (although I am not one of them), and are not at all uncomfortable with having a sensible, rational acceptance of evolutionary biology while having faith in strange stuff I personally cannot understand at all. Belief in deities can be entirely orthogonal to comprehending science, so spamming your banners here is about as relevant as spamming a Volvo dealership.
|Comment:||Thank-you! Thank-you! Thank-you! I have just stumbled onto your pages and will pass this site on to my colleagues! I am a developmental biologist currently teaching biology at several community colleges in Southern California. One school, College of the Canyons in Valencia seems to have an unusually high number of 'creationist' students. I feel a tremendous responsibility to push reason into their little minds by any means possible. Fortunately many of them are at the very least willing to discuss evolution with me. I cherish the opportunity this affords me to challenge the dogma and expose the deciet of their leaders. Meeting their questions can sometimes be challenging and I am constantly trying to increase my own knowledge of pertinent subjects. This site will help me immensely! It is also a huge relief to again recognize that I am not fighting this battle alone. I am frequently shocked at the evasive non-confrontational stance that many educators choose to take as regards explanation of the principles of evolution. The seperation of scientific method and personal belief systems is not something any educator should avoid for fear of controversy!!! Thank-you! Thank-you! Thank-you again! I truly feel like I have just found a ray of light! Kimberly Jesu|
wanted to let you know that this site was my bane when I
was a fundie creationist. I would avoid it like the plague
when I would search for sites to back up my beliefs,
because it proved quite troubling for my poor brain that
wanted so badly to be logical while still holding to silly
ideas. I know it's not exactly a success story for a person
to deconvert from christianity (well, it is for me), but it
sure is nice to be able to engage my post-formal reasoning
facilities without fearing that God will get mad.
After having seen it from the other side, I realize how hard it can be to convince someone of something if the opposite is central to their worldview. All the available evidence plus three years of well-taught high school biology courses did nothing to change my mind. I'm well-aware of what an uphill battle it can be to introduce mainstream science into mainstream America, so I commend you for maintaining this web site.
for your feedback. I write only to point out that the
result in this case--a renunciation of Christianity--is a
result that leads many Christians, including a number of
contributors to this site, to oppose creationism. In their
view, lying for Jesus only weakens faith, not strenghens
it. Disgust with the misinformation spouted by creationists
can lead people to leave the faith entirely.
Those of you who read this Web site and believe that all its contributors are atheist hippie tools-of-Satan had better think again.
|From:||The Curious Pseduo-Engineer|
|Comment:||If the Ark's dimensions and abilities have been so thoroughly researched and mathematically understood as creationists claim, why hasn't there been an attempt to rebuild the Ark to prove their point? Has there ever been an attempt, even a mainstream computer simulation experiment?|
|Author of:||Problems with a Global Flood, 2nd edition|
been occasional projects attempting to demonstrate the
feasibility of Noah's Ark, such as The
Noahs Ark Project, but I have never seen any tangible
progress from them. Why this is so I don't know, but here
are my top ten speculations for the reason:
I was reading the article on this page: How Good Are Those Young-Earth Arguments?
I got to the section that dealt with the debunking of young-earth "proof" #6, and became befuddled.
In looking at the chart of half-lives, I see that the line is drawn just below Pu-244, which has a half-life of ~80 million years.
Why is Pu-244 still found in nature? Given a half-life of 80 million years, shouldn't it, too, have vanished after ~(80M * 10 = 800M) years? Given that the earth is 4.5B years old, how is it that Pu-244 is still around?
Am I making an error in assuming that after ~10 half-lives there's nothing left, perhaps? How many half-lives of Pu-244 does it take before there's nothing left of it?
I would like to use this material in an upcoming debate, but I'm sure that the fundies will point out this "apparent discrepancy", and so I want to be able to explain it to them.
Please explain this in as close to laymen's terms as possible, as I am not an expert in the field by any means.
Thanks, JJ Richard
|Author of:||Isochron Dating|
correctly: the short answer to your question is that the
passage of ten half-lives doesn't mean that everything is
gone. The way that radioactive decay works is: after ten
half-lives, there will be one part in 210 of the original quantity of the
parent isotope remaining. Since 210 is 1,024, approximately one
one-thousandth of the original quantity will remain.
As a rule of thumb, ten half-lives is usually roughly the limit for producing useful isotopic ages, which is where you may have seen that figure on this site. For an isotopic age, it is not sufficient to merely detect the presence of an isotope; it is necessary to accurately measure the quantity present. Further, as with any rule of thumb, that is just a ballpark figure. The exact limit depends on the original abundance, and the accuracy of the technique which one uses to detect any remaining amount. If an isotope is rare to begin with, it might take relatively few half-lives for it to reach the limit of usability for isotopic dating. If a very sensitive means of assessing the remaining quantity is used, it might be possible to detect one one-millionth of the original quantity or less (extending the range to twenty half-lives or beyond).
Dave Matson's chart probably came from Brent Dalrymple's work, as there is a similar chart in Dalrymple's The Age of the Earth (Table 8.3 on p. 377). Dr. Dalrymple says, about 244Pu:
Those researchers went to great lengths to detect a very tiny remaining quantity, that would not have been detected by normal means. As a result, they were able to find 0.000000000000008 grams of 244Pu in 85,000 grams of ore -- roughly one part in 10,000,000,000,000,000,000. That would represent the remainder from one kilogram of 244Pu, decayed over the age of the Solar System, and therefore it is not inconsistent with the mainstream age of the Earth.
This was an important discovery, because it means that the 244Pu must have been formed fairly close to the time of the Solar System's formation. Had it been formed much before that point, it should have decayed away to undetectability, by now.
|Comment:||Dear Sirs/Ms.: I am a resident of Atlanta, GA. where there is currently a controversy about the attempt to mitigate the affect of evolution by adding a disclaimer saying evolution is only a theory or by adding some counter balancing intelligent design material to the curriculum. Of course the war is on and the National Academy of Sciences has entered the fray to further isolate and discredit the few trying to take a stand. My question to you Sirs and to your organization is where are you!!!! This is a teachable moment, battle lines have been drawn and they are engaging us, but you people who act like you know it all on your websites aren't here. When the time has come to stand up and be counted you're hiding under your web pages, proving by your deafening silence, that you and what you have to say is totally irrelevant. A sham to make money off the lame who support themselves on the crutches of Christianity. May the Lord God Jesus remember you for this day. Sincerely, Kent Costello.|
We're not making money off anyone. This website is entirely a volunteer effort.
I doubt that we even have a volunteer living near the Atlanta area. I, for instance, am in San Diego, CA, and the commute to Atlanta to attend school board hearings is not in my graduate student budget.
I'm hopeful that the Cobb County school board will listen to the experts and keep teaching science in science classrooms, and keep non-science (like "scientific creationism" and "intelligent design") out.
regarding a column by Cal Thomas printed a couple of weeks
ago: (I'm not really recommending this, so I didn't send it
to your other site.) Making monkeys
out of evolutionists
from the column: "Pro-evolution forces say (and they are saying it again in Cobb County) that no "reputable scientist" believes in the creation model. That is demonstrably untrue. No less a pro-evolution source than Science Digest noted in 1979 that, "scientists who utterly reject Evolution may be one of our fastest-growing controversial minorities...Many of the scientists supporting this position hold impressive credentials in science." (Larry Hatfield, "Educators Against Darwin.")"
I have searched, but haven't found any information about Larry Hatfield and his statement other than on quite a number of pro-creationism sites. Have y'all heard this quote before?
I thought it was rather funny that Cal Thomas was using a 1979 Science Digest article to bolster his argument that creationism should be taught in schools.
Just wanted to bring it too your attention, in case you hadn't seen it. Keep up the great work!
|Comment:||I have submitted questions on how evolution accounts for emotion, thought, human technological developement, or even for that matter, how blind evolution accounts for the brain in the first place, and cant help but notice that with all of your refutations of everything creationists say and your instistence that the bible is a pile of folklore, neither your site or any other among about five I've tried ever approach the questions. Either you people are arrogant enough to just figure anyone wanting to know these things is stupid, which I've been told,(that's a regular copout to tought questions) or your theory does not have the answers. I keep waiting to find out which it is, from those of you who are so much more intelligent. I'm sure you'd remember my feedback if it has not been imediately deleted. Message board atheists have very pointedly attempted to refute my inquiries. I'd frankly expect better than that from the truly "educated". Inquiring minds want to know, right? It would be sad to blindly follow God.|
|Author of:||Evolution and Philosophy|
site is not, unfortunately, an encyclopedic collation of
any topic concerned with evolution. Apart from the fact
that's what scientists are for, they don't pay us enough
(that is, they pay us nothing) to go out and find
Second, if you want to find out what an evolutionary account of emotions is, I recommend
Griffiths, Paul E. What Emotions Really Are: The Problem of Psychological Categories. Chicago, Ill.: University of Chicago Press, 1997
and references therein. Unfortunately also, we cannot spoonfeed you if you really don't want to do any work yourself. Similar points apply to your other questions. Technological advance is not a problem for evolutionary theory once big brains have evolved, although there is much work yet to be done on how that occurred. Brains are the result of a sequence of evolution that can be tarced back to the initial evolution of multicellular animals.
If you want to discuss religious ideas, then contact those who claim to be able to - this site is unconcerned with religious ideas except in so far as they are opposed to science. There are many people who accept the fact and theory of evolution who are Christian, Jewish, Muslim, and of other religions.
|Comment:||One aspect of the inquiry into the "veracity" of the Great Flood Story that is seldom mentioned relates to the origins of the story itself. A pre-cursor to the biblical myth is found in the Babylonian epic "Gilgamesh." In this epic, Utnapishtim (a Noah equivalent) endures a tribulation by flood amazingly similar to that which Noah experiences in the biblical myth. Indeed, some variation between the two stories exists; however, the basic similarities are too numerous to discount (the birds sent out from the ark, the design of the boat itself, etc.). After studying the Babylonian version of the story, which incidentally must have been composed at least 1500 to 2000 years before the version attributed to the ancient Hebrews, one can only come to the logical conclusion that the story of Noah represents an example of oral tradition passed down through the generations, having originated in Babylonia and having made its way into the mythos of the ancient Hebrews via long years of captivity under, or of trade with, their more eastern counterparts. I realize that while this point of view takes into account in no way a scientific or physical explanation or discounting of the Noah story, from a culturally anthropological view, it is meritable as a possible explanation as to why the story had survived to be included in the Jewish Torah. That is, as the Babylonian account represents a possible origin for the story, what is more telling is the geography of the people who invariably borrowed its earlier incarnations from an even more previous society. The further back one traces the story's beginnings, the closer one arrives to the accepted origin of civilization - the fertile ground between the Tigris and Euphrates, an area in which an overflowing of these two rivers' banks would surely constitute a flooding of the "known world" by its inhabitants.|
|Response:||There are numerous connections between the biblical story of Noah's flood and other flood stories from that region, some of which predate the Noachian flood story. See the Flood Stories from Around the World FAQ.|
|Comment:||I just wanted to let all of you know how much I appreciate the work you've done. I came across your site with a Google search for "Origin of Species" and found that you had the full text of that work. This really helped me for my Evolutionary Biology class! Anyway, it's just refreshing to see that reason, logic, and sound argumentation are still alive and kicking, and that some people realize that "creation science" is NOT just another viewpoint, just as valid and just as scientific as the next. Thanks for helping to dispel the darkness of ignorance.|
|Comment:||Your site is excellent!!! Thanks for providing people with a way to counter the mis-information distributed by creation supporters. What I really wish is that they could just believe what they want without trying to push it on to the rest of us. Here in my school I see how creation teaching (by their church, not our school) actually stops some other kids from questioning and finding out how the world works. My dad always says that no matter how old you are, you never stop learning - and you should never stop asking questions. Unfortunately some of the other kids in school have, mainly because they think everything can be answered by saying that God made it so.|
reading a bunch of the feedback letters you've received in
the past, I thought I'd send you one myself. (And no, it's
not about the flat earth thing or the $250,000 prize...)
I just wanted to thank you for the vast amount of work you've put into creating (sorry...) and maintaining this site. It's pretty depressing that you have to go through so much effort to defend something as important as evolution, but I'm delighted that you have, as I've learned a great deal through reading the site (well, a subset of the site...it's huge!!).
|Comment:||I was raised
as an old earth creationist and was always told how this
"brand" of creationism was better than the young earth
variety. We used to laugh at young-earthers and their silly
viewpoints. I still do, but now I also laugh at old-earth
creationists as well. I do notice a bigger problem for the
old-earth creationsists as opposed to their cousins.
Old-earth creationists have no model for the flood. I was raised to believe that there was a world-wide flood around 2400 BCE. Of course, there is not a shred of evidence for this. My point is, that at least the young earth religionists propose a model (albeit a laughable one) that explains what evidence there is for a global flood. Old earther's, on the other hand, have no explanation, as if we can just ignore this issue completely. To me, it seems that, from a certain point of view, the old-earth creationist model is less scientific (theoretically) than the young earth model. Just a thought.
|Comment:||hi i've just
read an article on the Sydney Morning Herald website that i
thought you'd find interesting (if you don't already know
One fish's poison is another one's habitat By Deborah Smith, Science writer September 27 2002 It's an example of evolution in action. One fish's poison is another one's habitat
i have also sent it to Institute of Creation Research though i doubt that they'll respond
|Comment:||This is just a comment/update to your Age of the Earth article. As stated in the article, the oldest rocks found on planet Earth's surface are 3.8-3.9 billion years old. I went to the University of Wisconsin-Madison, and a professor there has found crystals from rocks in Australia dating to 4.4 billion years old. These rocks are known as zircons and are the oldest ever found.|
|Response:||Thank you for the update, and we'll try to track down Chris Stassen, the article's author, to update the information. Until then, here are some links to other (offsite) articles about the discovery:|
|Comment:||It seems to
me that Creationism is a belief and evolution (actually
science in general) is a study. When a Creationist studies
evolution, he does so with a pre-conceived conclusion, a
no-no in any form of knowledge gathering. I do not see a
problem in believing in a god, and at the same time,
accepting evolution as real and rational. The old testament
was written (IMHO) for two reasons: to explain the
unexplainable, much like the ancient Romans and Greeks did,
with a god for every purpose, and to codify rules for
living in a human society as beings "different" (read holy
if you need to) from animals.
My degree is in Biology, and its study has always filled me with awe and wonder. The question of who runs it all never seemed as important as studying life and learning about it.
guys might be interested to see this. I sent an e-mail to
the Cobb County School Board detailing my opinion on
allowing creationism or ID to be taught in that schools
science curricula. This is what I got back on 8/24/02. In
light of the recent decision by the board to allow such
topics to be included in science classes, I find the
response I recieved from a Cobb County Board member to be
quite dishonest. regards, ~S~
Science should be taught in the classroom and religion
taught at home. Sensationalistic media reporting has
contained misleading and inaccurate information. The School
Board has not restricted nor is it considering restricting
the teaching of the theory of evolution in the school
district's science classes. The Board is not considering
requiring, permitting or promoting the teaching of
creationism or other faith based ideas of origin of the
species in science classrooms. According to the current
U.S. Supreme court rulings, creationism/scientific
creationism/ intelligent design can not be taught alongside
evolution in public school classrooms. This has been ruled
as favoring the religious beliefs of particular organized
religions, particularly since many organized religions
perceive no conflict between evolution and the existence of
a Creator. It is our job in the public school classroom to
teach science at the current state of knowledge. Our
practice is for our teachers to acknowledge controversial
issues and refer students to their parents and churches for
a discussion of the issue from their particular faith or
moral perspective. As a board member, I want to
respectfully acknowledge the diversity of strongly held
beliefs in the community, but can and should favor no one
belief above another in teaching in a public school
classroom. Many of our high schools have elective
comparative or world religions classes. A discussion of
varying religious beliefs concerning creation would be
appropriate in that setting.
Thank you for taking the time to voice your concerns and opinions
I'm not a creationist, but some things about evolution puzzle me. I've tried to post one of the questions on the 'talk origins newsgroup', but I didn't get a serious answer. Maybe I've got beter luck here.
The mechanism's of evolution will 'direct' a species towards the best adepted form for the place it's living in. Then why don't all species in a biotope drift towards the same form. Take for instance the elephant. It has, as far as I Knows, no natural enemies. It's size, thick skin etc makes it invulnerable. So why don't all species become bigger and have a thicker skin with each new generation?
Secondly, certain features of organisms seem to have no advantage at all. I'm especially wonder why most male animals, with the rhino as main exception, have there testicles outside their bodies, instead of keeping them save inside. I know spermogenesis can only be done by a temperature below the body, but couldn't mother nature come up with something better? What's the advantage of having the exposed and vulnerable?
My last question is more practical. Reading a lot of creationists website, they allways use quotes of scientist stating evolution is a fraud. I know most of thm will be misquoted, twisted or just made up, but is there a database on the net, were I can check those quotes? Where the the most used ones are put in perspective?
an answer for your first question. Natural selection
enforces engineering trade-offs that depend on the niche
that an animal finds itself in. Elephants may have no
natural enemies, but their trade-off involves bearing
rather large offspring after long gestational periods, one
at a time, and a late weaning that decreases the number of
offspring that an elephant can produce. Other species, e.g.
mice have a different "strategy": they have shorter
gestation and weaning so that they can produce many more
offspring, although a lower percentage of those offspring
successfully reproduce. Bigger size would not necessarily
be an advantage for mice (need more food, easier for
predators to spot, more energy to dig bigger burrows,
longer to reach maturity). Different niches operate with
different selective forces.
I've wondered the same thing about external testicles. If you ever find an answer, let me know.
|Comment:||Where will you be ten minutes after you die? Don't wait until it is too late to decide! If evolution is true, all of your writings and all of your anti-creation material has been a waste of time. There is no point to living. Why would it matter if there were a bunch of creationists here anyway. What would be the point of discrediting them if you I are just going to die anyway? This fact remains. Whether you believe in creation or evolution, you are still going to die. No one escapes that. Think about it deeply. What will happen when you close your eyes for the last time? Will your life be worth it, or will your entire existence immediately terminate? Will you close your eyes and see blackness, and then cease to exist so that not even you are capable of being aware of your past existence? However, if God is real, and you have rejected him, you will be in alot of trouble. Don't let the first words after you die be "who are you?" as you realize that all of the "creation weirdos" were trying to tell you the truth all along. Why do you reject them and their God? Sure some of them may be imperfect, but can you blame them for sending out the message of a God whose judgement is upon mankind? If they know you are on your way to a Godless Hell, don't you think it takes them alot of courage and love to stand up and tell you about it. Even though when they do so you discredit them? So I ask again... Where will you be ten minutes after you die? Answer that for yourself, and no one else. No one else is going with you.|
|Author of:||Evolution and Philosophy|
|Response:||It is not true that if evolution is true there is no point to living. A good many people who are of the view that evolution is true have their own views on the point to life. Many of these are theists. Fact, is, you cannot get a "point" from evolution or any other science - evolution just is, just like electricity, gravity and chemistry. To draw a moral from anything, you need to step outside science and add some value judgements. For example, noted atheist Richard Dawkins holds the view that evolution is not the basis for a moral life, and that we must work against evolution if we are to be civilised. Theists like Kenneth Miller agree, only their goals are set by their faith. In neither case is it necessary to blindly say, "This is how life evolves so therefore life is worthless".|