Home | Feedback | Links | Books

Feedback from October 1997
© 2005-2007 T. Wallace. All Rights Reserved.


From: Michael J. Johnston

Evolution can't be proven. This goes along the lines for “burden of proof” A theory has never been nor ever can never been proven - that's why it's called a theory - so it's easy to say that evolution hasn't been proven. That's just the way science is. Science looks more for “answers” then it does for “truths.” It's wrong to say that evolution DOESN'T happen because it CAN'T be proven. That's just a sign of ignorance to those who says it and especially those who believe it. Science isn't against religion - so it should stop being treated as if it were. Mike


Response from Timothy Wallace:

Thanks very much for your feedback. I offer the following in response:

>>Evolution can't be proven. This goes along the lines for “burden of proof” A theory has never been nor ever can never been proven - that's why it's called a theory - so it's easy to say that evolution hasn't been proven. That's just the way science is.<<

This is incorrect. In scientific endeavors, a theory serves as a proposed basis or framework for explaining a phenomenon or set of data. A process of examining the empirical data through repetition and observation then serves to either confirm the theory as true, or falsify the theory (showing it to be not true). Matters concerning what we now know as the laws of thermodynamics, gravity, motion, etc., began as theories, which became established laws as the scientific process (observation and repetition) proved them to be universally true.

On the other hand, a theory that cannot be proven by the scientific process (i.e., observation and repetition), by definition cannot be called a “scientific” theory. The theory of evolution falls into this category. (And THAT is the way science is.)

>>Science looks more for “answers” then it does for “truths.”<<

Again, this is a complete contradiction of what the scientific process is all about. Science, by definition, means “knowledge” -- that is, true knowledge (or truth), as opposed to conjecture, opinion, philosphical belief, etc. It is for the disciplines of metaphysics and philosophy to come up with mere “answers” -- particularly if one isn't concerned with whether the answer is true or not. But science deals with what is true, verifiable knowledge concerning the environment in which man finds himself. A simple “answer” is meaningless to the scientific process unless it can be examined and found to be either a true answer or a false answer.

>>It's wrong to say that evolution DOESN'T happen because it CAN'T be proven. That's just a sign of ignorance to those who says it and especially those who believe it.<<

Based on your line of reasoning here, are you arguing that evolution DOES happen because it CAN'T be proven? Or even though is HASN'T been proven? It is not exactly clear to me what you mean to be saying. In any case, please note that my rebuttal of Mr. Isaak's FAQ does not contain the argument that evolution doesn't happen because it can't be proven. Rather, I responded to Mr. Isaak's implied claim that evolution HAS been proven, and isn't just a theory.

>>Science isn't against religion - so it should stop being treated as if it were.<<

My essay made no assertion to the effect that “science is against religion.” In fact, I for one find that science itself does more to confirm the reliability of the Bible and the Christian faith than it does for any other world view, including--nay, especially--the naturalistic, mechanistic philosophical views that are often held by many staunch defenders of evolutionism.

Regards,

TW

Back to Top


From: Enzo Giribaldi

Congratulations to Timothy Wallace on an outstanding rebuttal to Mark Isaak. Finally a Creationist who has the knowledge to present a case against the likes of Mark Isaak.

You absolutely blasted him out of the primordial soup!! I am tired of reading evolution arguments which always have a convenient starting point. My knowledge and education is not of your standard but it's not too hard for me to see and know that a fruit fly is still a fruit fly after bombarding it with whatever and at the risk of sounding harsh I think that there are a lot of higly educated idiots out there! Well done Tim.

From down under - Australia,
Enzo Giribaldi


Response from Timothy Wallace:

Thank you very much for your kind praise for my rebuttal of Mark Isaak's “Five Misconceptions” essay FAQ. It's always encouraging to hear from people who appreciate the results of one's efforts.

>>My knowledge and education is not of your standard ... I think that there are a lot of higly educated idiots out there!<<

You might be interested to know that my understanding of this subject comes from simply studying what both the evolutionists and the creationist have said, and then examining which position better explains the facts of science. I feel very strongly that if I can do this, ANYONE can. Understandably, not everyone has time or the interest to dig so deeply, but my point is that one doesn't need a lot of modern “education” in order to study and learn a subject, and then discern who really knows what he's talking about.

TW

Back to Top


From: David Mallarme

Mr Wallace,

I have to congragulate you for the way you rebute evolutionnist arguments. I really appreciate such a good explanations.


Response from Timothy Wallace:

Thank you very much for your kind feedback concerning my “Five Misconceptions” rebuttal. Most of the feedback I receive is from an antagonistic side (as evidenced on the “feedback” pages of my site), so it is always refreshing to hear from someone such as yourself.

TW

Back to Top


From: Steve Handy

my name is steve handy and I have just read your web page on the myth of evolution and I must say thst you know absolute nothing about about evolution. what is a gene? what is a gene pool? what is a species? what is a population? how do you view a population? what about genetic drift? what about natural selection? what is recombination? what about mutation? Like all creationist whom are misguided, you certainly fit the cake.

like the typical creationist you address none of the SCIENCE behind evolution. Why is chimpanzee DNA and human DNA 99% identical, why are other species, animal species, DNA and genes have a high percentage of sameness. the DNA and genes are not identical for no reason at all. you address none of this!!!

evolution has been observed, when a bacteria becomes resistant to a antibotic over time IS EVOLUTION. YOU DO NOT HAVE TO MORPHOLOGICALLY CHANGE TO EVOLVE, did you know that tim.

EVOLUTION is a natural phenomena,(excuse the spelling). All life is subjected to it, all life has been subjected to it.(as evident by the fossil record and genetic record)


Response from Timothy Wallace:

Thank you very much for your interesting feedback response to my essay. It seems that, while a careful reading of my document would have revealed to you that it is a rebuttal to another web page (by Mark Isaak) addressing five specific topics, you chose to ignore the contents of both the original and my rebuttal.

Nevertheless, I would offer the following in response to your comments:

>>...I must say thst you know absolute nothing about about evolution.<<

Since you offer nothing in support of this claim besides sweeping (and disfigured) generalizations (e.g., “Like all creationist whom are misguided, you certainly fit the cake.”), it remains unqualified and unsubstantiated, as does the balance of your message.

>>what is a gene? what is a gene pool? what is a species? what is a population? how do you view a population? what about genetic drift? what about natural selection? what is recombination? what about mutation?<<

What is your point? That you don't know the definitions of these terms? That you want me to teach you what your first year biology instructor should have taught you?

It is the purpose of neither my essay, nor Mark Isaak's, to define each of these terms for you. However, both documents address the role of gene pools, populations, species, natural selection, and mutation, as understood from our respective viewpoints. If this subject matter is so beyond your comprehension that you must ask for basic definitions from either author, I would suggest that you have no business deciding who knows what about the subject matter of both essays.

>>like the typical creationist you address none of the SCIENCE behind evolution.<<

On the contrary, the very point of my essay (as you appear to have unwittingly observed) is that one is hard-pressed to find ANY science behind evolutionism.

>>Why is chimpanzee DNA and human DNA 99% identical<<

The fact is, they are not. (And I prefer to stick to facts, if you don't mind.)

>>...why are other species, animal species, DNA and genes have a high percentage of sameness. the DNA and genes are not identical for no reason at all.<<

The similarities in DNA make-up are largely not “high percentage” as you claim, and those similarities that do exist happen to better fit the creationist model than the evolutionist model, since similar traits and structures in similar organisms are more likely to be a result of a process of intelligent creation than they are of any random process.

More important is the question: Where did DNA come from? This is a question that continues to stump leading evolutionists (e.g., Stanley Miller, Sydney Fox, and others), who remain at a loss to explain how a raw acid/base mixture of molecules could produce viable amino acids, when the greater product of any such mixture would be destructive to any such imagined amino acid immediately upon its formation (just for starters).

>>you address none of this!!!<<

Again, had you read both my document (and Mr. Isaak's) carefully, you would know that both documents address Isaak's five original points. That both of us happen to have neglected what is ostensibly your favorite subject is therefore of little significance -- except perhaps to yourself.

>>...evolution has been observed, when a bacteria becomes resistant to a antibotic over time IS EVOLUTION...<<

You appear to share Mr. Isaak's confusion between variation within an (existing) gene pool and documented evolutionary changes (addition of traits) to a gene pool. To simply call “change” the same thing as “evolution” is to pretend there isn't a difference (at best), or strong evidence for willful ignorance on your part (at worst).

>>YOU DO NOT HAVE TO MORPHOLOGICALLY CHANGE TO EVOLVE, did you know that tim. <<

Leaders in evolutionary thought would disagree with you here. Biological evolutionism -- by definition -- calls for morphological change over time, whether by gradual steps (Darwinism) or by saltational steps (Punctuated Equilibrium). If morphological change were not part of the equation, there wouldn't be any argument, since this would be an admission that evolution (involving morphological change) doesn't happen.

>>EVOLUTION is a natural phenomena,(excuse the spelling). All life is subjected to it, all life has been subjected to it.(as evident by the fossil record and genetic record)<<

Such a sweeping, blanket assertion without documentation from empirical data is meaningless, and this is exactly what my essay explains. I suggest you give both essays a good perusal, and write again when you have something more than baseless (but popular) dogma with which to respond.

Regards,

TW


Response from Steve Handy:

Well timmy,it is apparent that you must have not been an ace in science. while you may have been, that is irrelevant. But let me break you down, nothing personal of course.

1)Well tim you obviously do fit the cake because you make no attack against the SCIENCE behind evolution in your essay and you certainly DO NOT ADDRESS THE SCIENCE WITHIN MY LITTLE REBUTTAL TO YOU. EXPLAIN Tim what is a gene? what is a gene pool, etc, you don't address it. Like all creationist, in general, you attempt to use a religion,creationism, to attack a SCIENCE, of which YOU ARE OUT OF YOUR LEAGUE. These terms are all relevant. DNA, RNA, and gene are the things which evolution works on. Can YOU tim explain to me what DNA, RNA, and genes are tim. Here Tim I will leave some space for you, go ahead and explain.
1)DNA
2)RNA
3)genes

2)My point is this Timmy, if you are going to attack evolution, a science, you better have some damn good SCIENTIFIC evidence to back it up.Not just bias comments. Maybe if took some genetic courses or got exposed to some genetics you'd understand. And by the way Tim, I do comprehend, in fact I have taught genetics at a junior college. So don't go there. I research, DO YOU.

3)Chimpanzee and Human DNA ARE 99% identical. That is DOCUMENTED evidence. That is a scientific truth. remember tim, scientfic truths are discovered, no one, human, makes them up. Humans discover scientfic truths, no one makes them up, as these truths are defined by nature. No human made the earth round, the earth was round. humans discovered that.

4)where did DNA come from? Tim that is highly irrelevant. The real question is HOW tim. How is the key. How does evolution and DNA fit together. This is what has been answered. You, tim, on the other hand cannot answer this!!! and in fact avoid answering this. evolution describes HOW, and deals with WHAT, being DNA, not WHERE.

5)Tim your ignorance is astounding. Any evolutionary biologist would recognize that physical change is not totally required of evolution. The result of evolution can be amorphological or morphological change. Bacterial evolution, in respect to development of resistance to antibotics, is one of the biggest problems in the medicine field.

6)“Change.” Ok tim, how about this,GENE REARRANGEMT OR GENETIC DIVERSITY, yields evolution. There Tim, no where in this definition do you see the word change. But to understand that Tim YOU MUST KNOW WHAT A GENE IS? and more important Tim, YOU MUST KNOW THE ROLE GENES PLAY IN EVOLUTION.EXON Shuffling.What are exons tim? What role do they play. Do you know Tim? Answer? These are all relevant question.

7)Evolution is a natural phenomena.“Such a ...... without empirical data is meaningless.” OH MY GOODNESS, I know you did not say that Tim. Tim just look in the text books. Tim, Evolution is built on empirical data. The fossil record, the genetic record, animal behavior, anatomy, biochemistry, protein sequencing,etc,etc,. Tim, you are truely OUT OF YOUR LEAGUE ON THIS ONE.

INSTEAD OF FEARING WHAT YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND, AS YOU DO TIM, STRIVE TO UNDERSTAND. IGNORANCE IS DEADLY. UNDERSTANDING IS KEY. ENLIGHTMENT OF THE MIND IS THE KEY. Don't get me wrong, we all will be ignorant to a certain extent in our life because no one will know it all,but if given the opportunty to come out of ignorance and better get an understanding of something then it is worth it. All living things,from a bacteria to a human, contain a 14-ribosomal RNA sequence for a reason Tim. This was discovered Tim. There is a meaning to that. UNDERSTANDING is the key.

Before I leave Tim I want to say something very important.and not all scientists are atheists, doctors,lawyers, fireman,etc,people from all professions are atheists but I will use scientists for my purposes.

SCIENTISTS MAY DENY GOD,SCIENCE DOES NOT DENY GOD. IN NO WAY SHAPE OR FORM.

SCIENCE TELLS HOW THE UNIVERSE WORKS AND THAT'S BASICALLY IT. SCIENCE CANNOT PROVE OR DISPROVE GOD. IT'S THAT SIMPLE.

EVOLUTION TELLS US HOW AND WHAT HAPPENED!!! THAT'S IT NO MORE OR NO LESS!!!!!


Response from Timothy Wallace:

You seem to be very emotionally attached to this subject -- so much so that you have resisted my attempt to engage you in a reasonable, rational, and genuinely science-based dialog. To continue in this vein would therefore seem a fruitless endeavor.

Curiosity compels me, however, to ask you to kindly provide me with the following information:

1) The title, author, publisher, and page number(s) of at least one bonafide, published resource documenting your claim that “Chimpanzee and Human DNA ARE 99% identical.”

In the meantime, and in case you're interested in practicing a little objectivity, check out the following link to a well-documented treatment of your claim:

DNA Similarity of Humans and Chimps
[See also:
Greater than 98% Chimp/Human DNA Similarity? Not any more.]

2) The name, address, and telephone number of the institute in which you claim to “have taught genetics at a junior college.”

Thanks in advance for providing this information, and thanks again for taking the time to provide your feedback to my essay.

TW


Mr. Handy opted not to provide a response furnishing the above requested documentation, though he readily offered more of the same condescending, derisive, and undocumented monologue, conforming with remarkable accuracy to the behavior pattern described in the first paragraph of the “Five Major Evolutionist Misconceptions” essay.

Back to Top


From: Bob Williams

Great set of pages on the subject. But like mushrooms, these evolutionary arguments will pop up again in a slightly different form regardless of the finality of their rebuttal.

This is what you call Faith; evolutionists must have more of it than the most fervent bible thumpers. Darwin's ideas have been rebutted for a century or more, but they are just rephrased with some obfuscation thrown in, and repeated. For example, it is well known that a conclusion based on a set of premises, one of which is a tautology, is ipso-facto erroneous. Yet very many evolutionists will admit that “natural selection” (a.k.a. survival of the fittest) is a tautology, yet they still cling to the truth of the theory.

My belief is that this attitude is doing great disservice to the development of the reasoning process of the young minds to which it is invariably presented, among other things. Hopefully your web pages will help clarify the matter. You may publish this, but please do not take the time for a reply.

Regards, Bob Williams

Back to Top


From: Mark Lawson

Hello, I am using the listed subject as a reference in a research thesis I am writting on eugenics. I think you did a very good job in your exposition. Thank you for all your work.

Mark Lawson


Response from Timothy Wallace:

Thank you very much for your kind feedback. It's always encouraging to hear from (and be reminded that there are) members of the academic community who haven't sacrificed their critical thinking skills on the altar of their respective belief systems.

TW


   Google     
 
Web TrueOrigin Archive  
Home | Feedback | Links | Back to Top

© TrueOrigin Archive.  All Rights Reserved.
  powered by Lone Star Web Works