Letters: Evolution is correct

It would help if the people who write in to The Advocate would first study or read and understand the theory of evolution before claiming it is not valid. The theory of evolution makes no claims about the origin or creation of life; it simply explains the changes in living organisms over millennia of time. This has been observed in nature and demonstrated in the lab many times. The theory of evolution is 100 percent valid, and Bob McDaniel’s claims in his letter of Aug. 12 are 100 percent wrong.

Raleigh Jenkins

retired chemist

Greenwell Springs

Comments

1) Comment by jedleland - 15/08/2012

i reckon phil has moved on as for the s court well the onus is on the plaintiff to prove a case and as its a civil court surely a preponderance of the evidence is needed to reach a conlusion now ask yourself what evidence creationists have (it would have to be physical evidence as biology is a physical science) and hearsay is inadmissable so there go phils eye witnesses. now the s court doesnt function in that way i know but theres your answer in the absence of any evidence of any kind at all the plaintiff cannot make a case that would indicate the decision to affirm the existence of a deity and thats before they even move on to decide which god or gods to declare in existence they wouldnt even take the case and would send it back to a lower court but it was a stupid question in the first place wasnt it

2) Comment by potkcalb - 15/08/2012

Sorry to have to tell you Phil, but the Bible is a book of myths and legends, truths and half truths, fact and fiction, allegories and parables, fantasies and superstitions, interpretations and reinterpretations, scribes and transcriptions compiled over a span of approximately fifteen hundred years by forty or more authors few of whom ever met. And as you know nimby the Supreme court would not, could not rule on a belief.

3) Comment by nimby? - 14/08/2012

wondering how the supreme court would rule as to whether or not there is a god . depending on the ruling I can imagine a flurry of class action lawsuits soon to follow ....

4) Comment by chem - 14/08/2012

A room full people can't agree on what was seen as a common occurrence. As a story gets told, it quickly gets changed to the point where it is unrecognizable from the original. So with that in mind, saying that adam & eve is true since the story has been carried in the bible for generations over millennia is not what I would consider a good argument. In fact, it is pretty lame.

5) Comment by jedleland - 14/08/2012

i guess you could blame age but im not too young myself i reckon some folks are just looking for a reaction in fact i think we all are phil just uses the 'im a really dumb old guy' approach but doesnt mean he is any more than any of us are what we seem

6) Comment by jedleland - 14/08/2012

i reckon you might be right about phil i mean look at his comment a few minutes back on the chemist and christian thread about the book of atheists and tell me a literate adult without a significant learning disability would actually write a paragraph like that i used to respond to marchiafava sometimes to remind people of his ***** before i realised years after everyone else that everyone already knew he was a phony looking for a reaction or attention. now you mention it i reckon phil is the same sort of thing dont they call them trolls? i dont know.

7) Comment by Being_Stupid - 14/08/2012

My wife got mad at me when I told the grandkids that the Bible Story of Adam and Eve was pure fiction created by somebody claiming to be inspired by God, who wrote it years ago. I explained to my grandkids the Facts of Evolution and how we came from the same line of apes and other primates and the obvious fact that all animal life has very similar traits because we all evolved from single cell life forms here on planet Earth years ago. My wife then told the kids that only my side of the family came from apes and that her side of the family came from Adam and Eve.

8) Comment by Being_Stupid - 14/08/2012

Evolution is fact, not a theory. Go look at a monkey at the zoo, then go look at the mirror.

9) Comment by gofigger - 14/08/2012

I consider him wise

10) Comment by potkcalb - 13/08/2012

I've begun to suspect Phil that you may not be as dumb as everyone thinks. I'm beginning to think that you are writing all of this involuted, convoluted babble just to get attention and and I have to admit its working.

11) Comment by jedleland - 13/08/2012

phil man your given regular dumb guys like me a bad name i just cant keep up with you

12) Comment by jedleland - 13/08/2012

i have proof that gollum fell into mount doom and took the ring of power with him frodo saw the whole thing you see and sam too so there ya go two eyewitnesses and it was in a book as well

13) Comment by phil - 13/08/2012

I forgot to mention that there are documented cases of people here on Earth who actually have seen Mary.

14) Comment by phil - 13/08/2012

This is really too much fun. I will live as long as I can because it is a sin to kill yourself and besides I enjoy posting here too much to leave now. Also I enjoy life. As far as the remarks that attack me personally - Ney, ney is my answer to those. Some here will understand. There is as much proof that Adam and Eve were real people and spoke to God as there is proof that life started from scratch all on its own. At least Adam and Eve were documented by the word of man carried over generations and written in the Bible. However, there were no people around when life began according to evolution theory so there were no witnesses. -right?

15) Comment by gofigger - 13/08/2012

Yes it was, but only to the living.

16) Comment by DMJ - 13/08/2012

I hear you on the manners bit. Like in Exodus, when he killed all those innocent children....how rude!!

17) Comment by gofigger - 13/08/2012

Sorry, I meant manners. I'm sure he has been wearing a frown for quite a while now.

18) Comment by DMJ - 13/08/2012

Nice. I love that quote...

19) Comment by nimby? - 13/08/2012

" god created all men equal , he just created some more equal than others " , Richard Penniman ....

20) Comment by DMJ - 13/08/2012

Uh....what? His "mannerism"? You'll have to explain that one for me. Does god have a facial tic or something?

21) Comment by gofigger - 13/08/2012

DMJ - we were created in his image, but unfortunately, not with his mannerism.

22) Comment by nimby? - 13/08/2012

was it "bag of hammers" or "sack of hammers' ? amusing , wonder what field of study it took to come up with that ....

23) Comment by DMJ - 13/08/2012

Certain religions hold that man was created in the image and likeness of god.... It seems painfully obvious to me that it's the other way around. That's why god is petty, jealous, spiteful, cruel, yet kind, generous, loving and forgiving.... just like people. Plus, people are arrogant and narcissistic...hence, the whole "man was created in the image and likeness of god" bit.

24) Comment by gofigger - 13/08/2012

Hang in there Phil. Keep your eye on the prize

25) Comment by chem - 13/08/2012

So, phil, how do you know that adam and eve even existed, yet alone spoke to god? who has seen mary, and what proof is there? oh, wait. I see how that works. The bible has stories in it that make it so. Einstein making a comment about god and dice is the same as me reading some of these posts and rolling my eyesvand saying, good lord!

26) Comment by HRoark - 12/08/2012

Phil, if you are so looking forward to heaven, why continue living? Must be terrible drudgery arguing with us curmudgeonly atheists!

27) Comment by potkcalb - 12/08/2012

So I take it Phil that you think Einstein lied when he described belief in God as "childish superstition"?

28) Comment by jedleland - 12/08/2012

Dang phil after reading that i had to call ace hardware and apologize to their hammers you remember what foghorn leghorn said right? boy i said boy your about as sharp as a sack of wet mice

29) Comment by phil - 12/08/2012

The questions have occurred to everyone, but the answers are still unknown.

30) Comment by phil - 12/08/2012

Just saying I do not make sense does not make it so. Who are YOU trying to fool here?

31) Comment by phil - 12/08/2012

Also I am not attempting to fool anyone, but others here apparently are trying to. Adam and Eve did have conversations with God and so did others in the Old Testament. Jesus did get tempted by the devil. People have seen Mary. Also the New Testament contains eye-witness accounts of the miracles performed by Jesus. So yes there is proof. I believe Einstein realized there is a "force" that is behind all of what exists. I believe in God, but honestly I am not sure exactly what God is either. However, Einstein did make the comment that I stated he did. - "I am convinced that He (God) does not play dice." That does not sound to me like a remark made by an atheist.

32) Comment by potkcalb - 12/08/2012

No one know what was before the "big bang" or even if the question is relevant. Try to ask an original question and not something that has occurred to everyone. No one who has posted on this site has indicated that they are above their "creator"if there was one. Just for once Phil try to say something that makes sense.

33) Comment by phil - 12/08/2012

More talk of how perfect physics and science is etc. Of course it is perfect when you consider that God created all of the laws of the universe. We are solving a few of the things that God created and all of a sudden we think we are above our Creator.

34) Comment by phil - 12/08/2012

A lot of remarks here about me but no real answers to questions I asked. Another question - what was there before the big bang, which is our best guess at how the universe began? At least I can take comfort in my religious beliefs. If I am good and die I go to heaven, When atheists die they just die. Not much to look forward to for atheists I think.

35) Comment by potkcalb - 12/08/2012

Beautifully stated chem.

36) Comment by chem - 12/08/2012

I posted the following on the thread about the Loch Ness Monster, under "Our Views." Seems appropriate for this thread also. ------It’s been said that we, humans, know far less about the universe than what we actually know. I’m not sure if that is a true statement, because we have made great strides in our study of nature and the cosmos, and I don’t exactly know how much is out there. The planets, solar systems, stars, and galaxies all follow the laws of physics. There are certainly phenomena out there that we have not yet encountered, but I am sure that it can all be explained by current laws or with minor tweaking. In the 20th century, science advanced dramatically -- exponentially -- compared to the previous centuries. People have tried to devise experiments to show that established scientific laws are wrong and have failed. Likewise, no natural phenomenon has yet to overturn the laws of physics. The laws are so good that they have foretold of certain things before they were discovered, for example, black holes and subatomic particles. That is the strength of science. Is science infallible? Of course not. But unlike the religious faithful, scientist accept findings that are contrary to current laws and tweak the laws if need be. Religious apologists steadfastly maintain their delusional thinking about gods, heaven, angels, and all of the other nonsense spewed forth from their “holy books.” If only they would open their minds, they would see a wondrous world, full of amazing things that require no supernatural beings, nor all of the baggage that comes with belief in such silly stories.

37) Comment by potkcalb - 12/08/2012

More ridiculous bamboozling nonsense from you Phil. Who do you think you are fooling? You know better and we know that you know better.You have made the statement that Einstein believed in God in previous posts, and it has been clearly refuted. Einstein used the word God as a rhetorical figure of speech. He described belief in God as "childish superstition" in a January 3, 1954 letter saying that "The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weakness, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish." But I know that I'm wasting my time. It's only going to be a matter of days or weeks before you are babbling this nonsense again. What I do not know is whether you can'tt think or just can't remember.

38) Comment by Scrooge - 12/08/2012

But what humans know (or believe on faith) is infinitely insignificant compared to what they do not. To paraphrase JBS Haldane (British geneticist and evolutionary biologist.): The universe is not only stranger than we believe, it is stranger than we can believe. Personally, rationalism proves to be an effective method for dealing with life on this earth in terms of the physical plane, but there are also dimensions in which we are blind, deaf, and especially dumb, as Stephen hawking admits we are a long (infinite) way from understanding why the universe, and indeed ourselves, exist. Faith bridges that divide but the tools that have been given us must have a reason and can be explained either rationally (science) or irrationally( faith and religion). It is obvious to me that a synthesis of the two is our categorical imperative. Politics evolved for comic relief and faith helps us to understand that we can survive the comedy.

39) Comment by krl777 - 12/08/2012

It is Sunday, and Christian fundamentalists will have gone to Church today, and for one brief hour, contemplated their role in a community and in the universe, something bigger than our humdrum, everyday lives. That's a good thing. But it is ultimately cheapened by anti-evolutionary ideology. The real goal of anti-evolution Christians (and their anti-evolution Muslim brethren) is to keep the universe small, cozy and easily comprehended -- some 6000 years old, and therefore no more than 6000 light-years across, with no amazing, confounding emergence of higher-order properties (such as life and consciousness) from mere inanimate matter. The awe with which they are thereby left is not the awe a scientist has for a truly magnificent universe, but rather the awe for a puny, cheap universe, with most of the awe reserved for a cheap, tyrant God. A Christian who contemplates the findings of modern science will find much more to be in awe about than the shabby little universe of the fundamentalist.

40) Comment by chem - 12/08/2012

Actually, Einstein did not believe in a god. Read about that and it is clear. The apologists, as they always do, take statements out of context to try to make their weak points. As far as scientists seeing evolution in the lab, the answer is yes. Numerous studies with other creatures, fruit flies, for example, demonstrate evolution. And as I said earlier, bacteria have evolved in our lifetime to become antibiotic resistant. Science has to have PROOF before proclaiming something as fact. Has anyone out there had a conversation with god, angels, the devil, whatever? I can answer that for you -- NO.

41) Comment by phil - 12/08/2012

Humans are actually something God constructed. Science is just human's way of trying to figure out what God did when He created everything including us. We are here, we know we are here, but we really do not know how or why we are here. Science actually has NO explanation for why we are here. Einstein was one of the greatest scientists that ever lived and he suggested that God did not throw the dice. By him saying that, I have to imagine that Einstein believed in God. To those who mentioned me here, thank you for reading my comments. yea, yea, ney, ney.

42) Comment by HRoark - 12/08/2012

God is a human construct; science is a way of describing nature and use observable data to provide a predictive framework. That predictive framework allows us to do useful and interesting things like treat diseases and land on Mars and such. Believing in god doesn't contribute anything to scientific endeavor. The answer to "rgeraldwallace"s question is yes. In fact interjecting a belief in god in conducting science is counterproductive and will lead to incorrect answers about nature and misguide efforts to explore or control it. But, if you believe something hard enough, the truth doesn't matter.

43) Comment by 1ryben - 12/08/2012

There goes Phil with his reasoning that we don't know all the answers therefore none of our answers are valid. I've said it before, and I'll say it again; for centuries, man has inserted a god as the answer for the unknown and for centuries, as the equipment used to measure has improved, a god was shown to be an insufficient explanation. Not once in the history of mankind has the inverse been true. Not once had man found a logical, natural, observable explanation for something has it later been proved to be a god.

44) Comment by 1ryben - 12/08/2012

Mr. Wallace, I'm not sure what you are implying, but science doesn't care about religion. It is neutral in that way. Therefore, in order for someone to be considered a scientist, they approach their work in the same way.

45) Comment by [e-mail] - 12/08/2012

Speaking as an "illiterate in the ways of science", may I pose a question to those of you who are literate in the ways of science? Is it scientifically ethically possible for a scientist to be an avowed atheist? Answer me that somebody.

46) Comment by DMJ - 12/08/2012

"People seem to think and say that they know a lot more than they really do..." Like say.... if there's a god...or what he wants....or what happens when you die....or how the universe began...or WHY it began? Science claims to know none of these things. Religion claims to know all of them. Maybe you want to re-think that particular point, phil?

47) Comment by potkcalb - 12/08/2012

To use your words Phil I want to believe that you are "just kidding." Keep it up by all means. A little levity goes a long way.

48) Comment by ABayouBoy - 12/08/2012

Maybe its all in our heads - which is why we can't truly make any sense of it all.

49) Comment by phil - 12/08/2012

And finally, I have to wonder if God created scientists on the 8th day just for the fun of it so they could figure out exactly what He did on the first 6 days.

50) Comment by phil - 12/08/2012

Back to the statement in the letter - "The theory of evolution makes no claims about the origin or creation of life; it simply explains the changes in living organisms over millennia of time. This has been observed in nature and demonstrated in the lab many times." How were changes in nature over millennia of time observed in the lab many times? Did scientists actually live for millennias of time so they could make those observations while things were actually taking place? Again, we are guessing.

51) Comment by phil - 12/08/2012

Of course evolution theory, according to most here, only includes the living. So how did the entire universe begin, how did it come to pass that basic elements are created by the stars, how did those elements combine to form basic chemicals, how did those chemicals unite to form what we define as living things, how did those living things combine to form another living thing by reproduction? I say it is just to complicated to all have just happened on its own. If you can explain all of this, then we have solved all of the mysteries of life right here and right now.

52) Comment by phil - 12/08/2012

CRW -good job of taking part of my original statement out of context and making it sound completely different than intended. Try reading my original comment again. I am back to saying that people seem to think and say that they know a lot more than they really do know. Your entire statement sounds impressive but is really not true at all. You state that the "software" got smarter over time but you have not indicated how the "software" was created in the beginning from scratch. The reason you do not indicate that is because you have no answer. Once again - we humans are really not that smart and really have a VERY long way to go before we have a understanding of how things really work . Try explaining in detail exactly how one cell knows how to subdivide until it becomes a complete human being. You can't. You can see the progress as it happens, but you cannot explain exactly how it happens and why. Are there a group of quantum angels in those cells or maybe in another dimension controlling the process? (just kidding?) We have a long way to go.

53) Comment by CRW - 11/08/2012

And we have the frequent and confusing remarks from Herman Cummings claiming that the bible is right, but it is not "creationism." However, evolution is also wrong. He has the secret knowledge. With such clear thinking, is it any wonder many creationists such as Herman can't integrate science into their belief systems?

54) Comment by KilgoreTrout - 11/08/2012

really, isn't it a waste of time to argue with the descendants of apes who insist they are not descended from a common ancestor yet just like chimpanzees, are incapable of understanding no matter how many times one reiterates the facts?

55) Comment by RationalOne - 11/08/2012

Nice letter. Yeah, that previous letter was a complete embarrassment. I think even most creationists were reeling from the stupidity within it.

56) Comment by Cognosium - 11/08/2012

Doubters of biological evolution by natural selection may benefit from taking a look here: \http://sciencebasedlife.wordpress.com/2011/08/22/evolution-confusion/#comment-626 A favorite bit of misinformation put forward by creationists is nicely refuted here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html A much broader model of an evolutionary continuum which extends beyond the realm of biology is outlined in ""The Goldilocks Effect: What Has Serendipity Ever Done For Us?" , a free download in e-book formats from my "Unusual Perspectives" website

57) Comment by SuzanneMS - 11/08/2012

Even scarier, potkcalb, are the ones who claim that it's God punishing us for refusing to bow to His will and just die from the diseases caused by those bacteria.

58) Comment by potkcalb - 11/08/2012

chem the "bags of hammers" can answer the question as to why bacteria have evolved to become antibiotic resistant: Its the work of that bad old devil, the one with the horns, cloven hooves, and forked tail.

59) Comment by chem - 11/08/2012

For the groups "bags of hammers", if you are so blind that you cannot see the truth in evolution, or just too lazy to look it up, then how do you explain a very real evolutionary process that has happened well within our lifetimes, and that is antibiotic resistant bacteria. Please explain how these bacteria, in the span of a few decades, have evolved to thwart just about every drug known. That's scary, real-time evolution.

60) Comment by DMJ - 11/08/2012

Great letter, Raleigh. Unfortunately, those who need to take it to heart never will....doing so would strain their "faith" and cause a crisis of self-understanding. In this day and age with religious mythology debunked left and right, the faithful see their close- mindedness as validation of the strength of this faith. People cling to their myths like children do to their banky. It's pretty sad.

61) Comment by potkcalb - 11/08/2012

We miscounted. A second bag of hammers has just turned up in the last post.

62) Comment by hzcummi - 11/08/2012

The world of Science is corrupted by the religion of Atheism. They will purposely overlook the truth, in order to promote a false and phony conclusion to try to prove that there is no God. Not one scientist, science writer, or evolutionist has agreed to see the PowerPoint presentation called the "Observations of Moses". It is the ONLY correct rendition of Genesis chapter one, and is the proper opposing view to evolution. It proves both Creationism and evolution to be in error. But where is the "zeal" for the truth? Is every stone being overturned to uncover the mysteries of the ancient past? No. Science wants to embrace Atheism, and not the truth. Herman Cummings

63) Comment by potkcalb - 11/08/2012

Yep you're right jedleland the bag contains hammers.

64) Comment by CRW - 11/08/2012

@Phil: This statement is blatantly false: "we can believe that over time that "software" just developed on its own and actually learned how to reproduce itself." Evolution predicts common genomic patterns between species, but also great diversity, which is exactly what we see. Humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes while other great apes have 24. Our chromosome 2 is a merged version of chromosomes 2a and 2b from the great ape genome. Looking at species down the line, you can see common genetic structures as well as divergence in the number of chromosomes, number of genes, etc. Consequently, we have clear evidence that the software "became smarter" over time. Of course, this mistakes natural selection for intentional design. Scientists have actually stimulated the evolution of replicating molecules in the lab. Google the work of Gerald Joyce. For non-genetic replication, we have prions (the source of mad cow disease), which developed from misfolded proteins, and prions are self-replicating. Prions developed "in the wild." This idea that replication could not possibly develop on its own is demonstrably false.

65) Comment by jedleland - 11/08/2012

Looks like the verdict is unanimous bag of hammers

66) Comment by phil - 11/08/2012

Bighug - Actually I have read the entire Bible more than once and also I have read numerous scientific books on several subjects and I still do not know all of the answers. That is no big deal but I am just trying to give you a little of my background since you bought up the subject. of the Bible. If you pretend that you do know all of the answers, then I think you think you know more than you actually do know. So even if it was all magic, who was the magician? We work on computers that had to be built by humans, and the programming that makes them work was developed by humans. It amazes me that we now know about the chemical program called DNA (and chromosomes), and we can believe that over time that "software" just developed on its own and actually learned how to reproduce itself.

67) Comment by chem - 11/08/2012

For rgeraldwallace and anyone else illiterate in the ways of science, there are basically two definitions of theory. Potkcalb correctly gave the definition as used by scientists when they speak of a theory. The other definition is synonymous with hypothesis. It is unfortunate that this is the case, because there would be no such confusion over the use of the word, theory. As a scientist (chemist) I never interchange the meaning of theory. If I want to talk about an unsubstantiated idea, I use hypothesis.

68) Comment by potkcalb - 11/08/2012

It is an oxymoron to ask "why is a theory just a theory." Everything that is accepted as scientific fact is based on theory.Why is electricity (a theoretical construct) a theory, why is atomic theory a theory, even though its been used to blow things up, why is the theory of relativity (gravity) a theory, why is the germ theory of disease a theory? In science a theory is not an opinion, a surmise, a conjecture, or an opinion. A theory is a "well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment." The theory of evolution meets all of those criteria. Currently no other explanation meets any of them.

69) Comment by [e-mail] - 11/08/2012

Hmmm....Answer me this somebody: Why is it that this theory is still just a theory if, as Mr. Jenkins stipulates, it has been demonstrated in "the lab" many times?

70) Comment by CRW - 11/08/2012

The evolution debate is a tiresome repetitious discussion. It is one of the only areas of science where non-scientists believe that they are qualified to make enormous pronouncements that the science is wrong. What's next? Are we going to start debating the merits of quantum mechanics? Is the wave particle duality a farce? How about prions and other interesting non-dna based structures - are they a plot from Satan? As soon as we can get people to understand that the bible is not a science book, and the Origin of Species is not a religious text, the better off we'll be.

71) Comment by chem - 11/08/2012

The writer, Mr. Jenkins, is 100% correct. I know this thread is going to wind up being another science v. god thing, so I'll start it off. In years gone by, the various religions all thought that we were the center of the universe. Of course, they had no idea what the universe was comprised of. They thought it was Earth, sun, moon and some stars. They did not even know the Earth was a sphere. Well, if a god made the universe, and we are the only beings in it (other than the other animals on this planet), why make all of the other planets, other solar systems, other galaxies? Science gives a very good, rational, and evidenced-based explanation for the formation of such things. The Hubble telescope has captured pictures of galaxies and stars forming. I see no hand of god in any of this. And as Mr. Jenkins correctly points out, evolution is only concerned with the changes of living things over time, not how life started.

72) Comment by Bighug - 11/08/2012

Don't you know, phil? All that creation stuff was way too complicated for a scientific explanation, so it was obviously magic. Read your Bible. Or one of several hundred other religious theories.

73) Comment by phil - 10/08/2012

Correct in that evolution theory only covers the living and for a very short time in comparison to the age of the universe. How do you explain all of those millions/billions of years before life began, how the universe was created and what there was before that and why it all took place? I think we have a lot to learn and really know very little.

74) Comment by Chucky - 10/08/2012

2&2=4