email - April 2002

Foolish Email

Here is a look at what most of our email is like.

We get an awful lot of foolish email. If we wanted to, we could make evolutionists appear really stupid by printing only the dumbest email we receive. Since we have science on our side we don’t need to take a cheap shot like that and present a biased picture of what our critics are like. We only print the best email we get. We print only email that makes some coherent point worth addressing. But, by doing that, we present a biased picture of our critics. We make them appear to be a lot smarter than most of them are. So, this month, and this month only, we will share with you some of our more typical email.

By far, most of our email is similar to this.

Subject: (no subject)
Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2002 18:48:47 EST
From: Jake
To: comments@scienceagainstevolution.org

jesus! what a load of crap, do you know anything about probability? you only attacked (poorly at best) one old theory having to do with evolution, which you clearly don't understand. There are much more logical explanations, but you conveniently forgot those. and you confused issues in a major way. Sure you sound knowledgeable to people who don't know jack about anything, but to anyone from a moderately respectable scientific background, and an open mind!, you sound really confused!!

Subject: your interesting webpage
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 08:20:40 +0000
From: Mike
To: comments@ScienceAgainstEvolution.org

Hello! I just came across your webpage (science/creation, etc)... I'm bored enough to actually reply right now so here we go! It's amazing that an adult can be so dillusioned. The whole point of your website indictates complete ignorance of scientific principles. Have you actually graduated from college? A non-religious college? With a "real" science degree? More likely, if you did go to college, you have a fancy liberal arts degree. While we scientists were studying and gaining knowledge, you were no doubt at the bar (lusting you sinner you), or smoking dope you hippie. But enough with the insults! My advice... get an education, think for yourself, get off the pipe, and read a science book. The funniest thing? Even though you may be wondering what kind of a loser would actually take the time to write this email, you are a loser too for not deleting it after the first sentence! Haha. Moron.

PS: Mr T. says "Only SUCKA FOOS distort science for religious mischief!"

The real information in these emails is not the content but the passion. Clearly these people are out of control. There is no way one could carry on a rational conversation with them. It is pointless to try.

Here is another revealing one.

Subject: (no subject)
Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2002 20:24:26 -0700
From: Jason
To: "comments@ScienceAgainstEvolution.org"

My question is this...[ellipsis in the original, we left nothing out.]

If you don't think that Evolution is they key to life on this planent, then what is your hypothesis as to how life originated? By the way, your answer better not involve the word God because religion is a tool for a weak mind.

There are two things that stand out in Jason’s email. First, he believes there are only two options. Second, he has rejected one option and is forced to accept the other one by default. He is probably very frustrated that science hasn’t shown how life originated by undirected, natural forces. No doubt he would love to have any shred of evidence that what he believes by faith is actually true--but he doesn’t have any. He just accepts evolution by default, for no other reason than that the other alternative would involve a force greater than he is, forcing him to admit that he has “a weak mind.”

It is clear to us from the email we receive that belief in evolution is driven by rejection of religion, not positive scientific evidence.

Slightly Less Foolish

Here is a slightly more rational email. Normally we would extract just a few sentences from it that raise interesting points, but this month we will print the whole thing so you can see what is really motivating him to write.

Subject: Respond to this!
Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2002 03:19:33 -0700
From: Kevin
To: comments@ScienceAgainstEvolution.org

Hey creationists!

Let's talk about micro and marco evolution? Acknowledging mirco-evolution and not macro-evolution is like saying. Oh sure I believe in addition, but that multiplication is just a hoax.

How does the AIDs virus become a new species (by every definition) approximately every 48 hours? It is marco-evolution occuring everyday right before our very eyes! Incidentally the only way this disease will be stop is by people who truly understand genetics and evolution. Your organization's weak efforts to disprove evolution indirectly favor a deadly reality. This is foolishness and irresponsiblity. If it wasn't for Darwin most of you would have died at child birth from diseases that are now virtually extinct. This was discussed in the PBS evolution special. Funny you didn't mention that part in your selective review of the series?

According to Mr. Jones '97 writing on this subject, selective breeding causes the removal of genes. He used a silly and confused example with scrabble tiles. There is more genetic diversity in dogs than there was 1000 years ago? Information is not being lost as Jones suggests. It is just being reorganized at different frequency so that latent traits can form new combinations. Nothing has been lost from the genetic code of the wolf/dog species. It is just that some breeds express varying extrems of the possible combination that always existed in the wolf. In fact the modern dog has almost all the same possible combination that the dire wolf of the ice-age had 20,000 year ago. But not exactly. And when dealing with billions of variables, almost exactly creates new species.

If Jones knew what he was talking about he'd use an example like anagrams. The original word can be changed into new words. If the new words require less letters, the remainders are not thrown away, they are just not being currently used.

Mutations can in fact be like adding more letters to the code or taking letters way. Taking away usually is leathal. Adding more letters can also be leathal but on rare occasions it can also give more possibilities of more words. If most mutation weren't fatal, stability wouldn't exists in species. However occasionaly you draw the unique letter that adds another potential word or 10 to your anagram list. This is how macro-evolution works. Jones thinks mutation leads to de-evolution and used the example of blind fish. Would he be surprised to know that the genes for functioning eyes still exist in these fish but that they are just not being used?

Furthermore Jone's understanding of de-evolution is also flawed. The concept is a misnomer. Like the anagram the original word possibilities will remain until mutated out. This is how amphibians came on to land, evolved into reptiles, and yet were still able to which traded their new toes and claws in for the old flippers. The same thing happend with mammals in the evolution of whales.

And Mr. Jones, if you don't wish to believe in amphibian to reptile to bird evolution then trying wishing the AIDS virus away. In the meantime I hope for your sake that next time you report to the hospital with any illness your doctor has a more realistic view of evolution and genetics.

Finally any implication of Noah's Ark and micro-evolution is silly. If God caused the oceans to swell to several times their depth, what happen to all the saltwater fish and sea-life. Where they in pairs in say a few billion buckets onboard the ark? If not then they all would have gone extinct from the influx of all freshwater supplied by the rain? Or did God make it rain saltwater? In which case, what happened to all the freshwater lifeforms that were living in the lakes and rivers before being flooded out by the rising saltwater? Or did Noah have a few million buckets of freshwater that he kept out of the saltwater rain and sloshed around continuously to keep them properly oxygenated? Confused? Well then dump a couple gallons of saltwater into a freshwater aquarium or vice versa and watch what happens. Death! Extinction. Extinction that could only have been replaces with macro-evolution from what ever came off the ark -- if you need to cling to a literal interpretation of Noah Ark.

On the other hand, maybe God suspended all the natural and physical laws during Noah's flood just so a bunch of ignorant so called "followers" could justify their adolescent poltical agendas many thousand years later. Do you really think He did all of that just so you could ignore the real messages of Noah's Flood (right from wrong, punishment and reward, faith and trust, promises etc.) and instead get hung up on a bunch of silly details created by trying to take literal interpretation from story that was never ment to be taken literally?

I'm sorry but the God I believe has better things to do than condone stupidity just to attract believers. That's what Satan does..... which begs the question, whose side are you on? ....and are you sure?

Kevin

Kevin said he wants to talk about microevolution and macroevolution, but he doesn’t know the difference between the two. Microevolution is variation in a species. Changes in the Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV), Darwin’s finches, hybrid corn, and the various breeds of pedigreed dogs are common examples. Creationists all believe in microevolution, because it is obviously true, and scientifically verifiable.

Macroevolution is the alleged process by which one kind of creature turns into another. Evolutionists claim that macroevolution turned something like an amoeba into something like a jellyfish, and something like a jellyfish into a fish, and a fish into an amphibian, and an amphibian to a reptile, etc. This has never been observed in a laboratory, and is contrary to natural law. Creationists reject macroevolution.

Kevin asked, “How does the AIDs [sic] virus become a new species (by every definition) approximately every 48 hours? It is marco [sic]-evolution occurring [sic] everyday [sic] right before our very eyes!” This is not an example of macroevolution--it is microevolution. The HIV has not turned into a horse, or jellyfish, or even a bacteria. The HIV is not only still a virus, it is still the HIV virus (pardon the redundancy).

Kevin claims, “If it wasn't [sic] for Darwin most of you would have died at child birth [sic] from diseases that are now virtually extinct.” Actually, Darwin’s incorrect theory of evolution has been absolutely no help in conquering disease. Creation scientists like Louis Pasteur deserve much more credit than Darwin when it comes to fighting disease. When Kevin says, “This was discussed in the PBS evolution special. Funny you didn't mention that part in your selective review of the series?”, we don’t really understand his question (which seems more like a statement). We did mention what PBS said about AIDS, but we lumped it together with their discussion of TB because they made the same case for both AIDS and TB. Furthermore, we probably made a bigger deal than we should have about the PBS fear mongering that if we don’t keep evolution in the schools, and give free medicine to Russia, then we will all die from TB (or AIDS).

You may not have seen the PBS special, but you can see for yourself the fear mongering that Kevin uses. If doctors stop believing in evolution, according to Kevin, then all medical progress will stop, and everyone will die from a terrible disease.

Kevin’s rejection of creationist doctors is particularly amusing to those of us living in Ridgecrest. For serious health problems, many people living in Ridgecrest choose to drive more than 100 miles to Loma Linda University Medical Center rather than seek medical care at the Ridgecrest Regional Hospital. That is because Loma Linda has a well-deserved reputation for being one of the finest medical institutions in the world. Loma Linda is run by the young-earth, creationist, Seventh-day Adventist Church.

Kevin makes the following confused question/statement: “There is more genetic diversity in dogs than there was 1000 years ago?” We think he thinks there is more genetic diversity in dogs now because he goes on to say, “Information is not being lost as Jones suggests. It is just being reorganized at different frequency so that latent traits can form new combinations. Nothing has been lost from the genetic code of the wolf/dog species. It is just that some breeds express varying extrems [sic] of the possible combination that always existed in the wolf. In fact the modern dog has almost all the same possible combination [sic] that the dire wolf of the ice-age had 20,000 year ago.”

We aren’t really sure what Kevin means when he says information “is just being reorganized at different frequency,” but he is getting close to the truth when he says “latent traits can form new combinations.” There are dominant and recessive genes. When the dominant genes have been removed from the gene pool of a particular breed, then the recessive genes can express themselves. The information was always there in the recessive genes. The information carried by the dominant genes had to be removed for the recessive information to appear. Information had to be removed from a particular breed for it to express its unique characteristic.

We agree that very little has been lost from the genetic code of the wolf/dog species as a whole. It is the individual breeds which have lost some genetic information. When dogs of different breeds are allowed to mate, they acquire the genetic information from the other breed, and tend back toward the ancestral dog/wolf kind.

Kevin has apparently confused morphological diversity with genetic information. The modern breeds of dogs (including French poodles and Great Danes) look less like each other than the wild dogs thousands of years ago. But French poodles don’t have more different kinds of genes than wild dogs, they have fewer. Kevin must recognize this deep down because he says, “In fact the modern dog has almost all the same possible combination[s] …” [emphasis supplied]. The modern dog doesn’t have all the same combinations because a few genes are bound to have been lost over the years.

Then Kevin says, “But not exactly. And when dealing with billions of variables, almost exactly creates new species.” This is reminiscent of Darwin’s erroneous “incipient species” idea. Part of the problem is the difficulty of defining exactly what a “species” is. Creationists also struggle with finding a fool-proof way of determining exactly what the “created kinds” were. We talked about “the species problem” last month.

We feel Kevin’s anagram analogy is confused. Furthermore, it fails to address the issue of where the letters came from in the first place. However, we have presented it to you so that you can judge its merit for yourself. His conclusion is “Furthermore Jone's [sic] understanding of de-evolution is also flawed. The concept is a misnomer. Like the anagram the original word possibilities will remain until mutated out. This is how amphibians came on to [sic] land, evolved into reptiles, and yet were still able to which traded [sic] their new toes and claws in for the old flippers. The same thing happend [sic] with mammals in the evolution of whales.” (That’s exactly what he wrote. We didn’t leave any words out, although it appears he did. We hesitate to guess which words to put in to try to make his sentences make sense.)

He apparently thinks that the information to grow toes and claws previously existed in the genetic code to grow fins, and whatever information prevented the toes and claws from growing must have been “mutated out.” In other words, information that prevented toes and claws had to have been lost.

We certainly agree that information can be lost through mutation. In fact, it is our position that information is always lost through mutation. The questions evolutionists can’t answer are, “By what process did the information to grow toes and claws get into the genetic code in the first place?” and, “Why did toes and claws remain dominant for so long, waiting for a mutation to release them?”

Kevin asked, “Jones thinks mutation leads to de-evolution and used the example of blind fish. Would he be surprised to know that the genes for functioning eyes still exist in these fish but that they are just not being used?” No, Jones isn’t surprised at all. That is exactly Jones’ point. All the genes required for creating functioning eyes once existed in these fish. Some mutation damaged one or more of them, so that the remaining genes no longer function. That's how gene jockeys determine which genes cause certain features to be expressed. They selectively damage one particular gene and watch to see which feature (or features) fail to develop. They look to see which proteins aren’t formed because of the damage, and at what stage of development the protein doesn’t form. This can lead to development of new treatments for disease.

Kevin apparently thinks this is an example of how modern medicine benefits from the theory of evolution because he said, “And Mr. Jones, if you don't wish to believe in amphibian to reptile to bird evolution then trying [sic] wishing the AIDS virus away. In the meantime I hope for your sake that next time you report to the hospital with any illness your doctor has a more realistic view of evolution and genetics.”

The theory of evolution has nothing to do with treatment of disease. It doesn’t matter to doctors if the genes came from naturalistic evolution or special creation. All that matters is figuring out what the various genes do, and how to repair damaged genes.

Finally, we come to Kevin’s theological question, “If God caused the oceans to swell to several times their depth, what happen to all the saltwater fish and sea-life. Where they in pairs in say a few billion buckets onboard the ark?” Since we don’t deal with religious issues we won’t say that his question is answered in Genesis 7:14.

Instead, we want to point out that this statement shows that Kevin apparently doesn’t even really believe in evolution. If he believes HIV can adapt to become resistant to antibiotics (microevolution), and fish can adapt to live on land (macroevolution), why doesn’t he believe that fish can adapt to either fresher, or saltier, water? If fish can’t even adapt that much, how can they adapt to life on land?

We printed the whole email exactly as he wrote it, leaving in the personal attacks, spelling errors, and non sequiturs, because some people might wonder why we get the idea that evolutionists are influenced by emotion and religious beliefs rather than cold, hard, scientific facts. The email from Kevin certainly wasn’t a reasoned defense of evolution. It was an emotional, uncontrolled attempt to justify his belief that the Bible is not to be taken literally. He can believe whatever he wants about the Bible. We aren’t here to argue that. We are here to argue what he believes about science in general, and evolution in particular.

Kevin fails to understand that recessive genes can express themselves only when dominant genes are not present. Therefore, for an entire breed to acquire a recessive characteristic (like blue eyes, for example), all the dominant genes (brown eye genes, for example) have to be removed from the breeding population. The new breed is not a new species. There may be other breeding populations that retain the dominant genes removed from one particular population, and if those populations are allowed to breed, that recessive characteristic will become rare again.

If mutations damage a particular gene in an individual, and that damage is lethal, or severely debilitating, that individual is likely not to survive to maturity, and will probably die without offspring. The damaged gene (and, therefore the change/evolution it caused) dies with him. If the damage is only mildly debilitating, then the gene is likely to propagate through the gene pool. Since offspring receive half their genes from each parent, the child is likely to receive one copy of the undamaged gene, and may live a normal life. But even if the child is unlucky enough to receive damaged genes from both parents, it does not create a new species.

Kevin said he wanted to talk about macroevolution, but he didn’t provide any examples of macroevolution. All he did was confuse microevolution and macroevolution. Furthermore, he showed that he didn’t really understand genetics.

His belief in evolution is based on misunderstanding not only of science, but also of basic Biblical teachings about the flood. If he could separate religion from science, it would not matter if he understood Genesis correctly or not. But Kevin’s misunderstanding of Genesis, just like Jason’s absolute rejection of all religions, makes it impossible for Kevin and Jason to evaluate evolution from a rational standpoint. It is all about religion to them.

Certainly it is all about religion to the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) and Answers in Genesis (AIG), too. The difference is that ICR and AIG recognize what they believe by faith, and what can be shown by scientific experiments. ICR and AIG can tell science from religion. Kevin and Jason apparently can’t.

The theory of evolution is a creation myth. It must be accepted by faith. But people like Kevin and Jason have been taught so long that it is science, that they believe it is science.

The theory of evolution was not established using the scientific method. Furthermore, it requires one to believe that Pasteur’s and Miller’s experiments are not adequate proof that life comes only from pre-existing life. It requires one to believe that despite all the animal births that have been observed in zoos, laboratories, and on farms all over the world, that sometimes critters produce offspring that are a different species.

One cannot believe in scientifically verified natural laws and still believe in the theory of evolution.

Quick links to
Science Against Evolution
Home Page
Back issues of
Disclosure
(our newsletter)
Web Site
of the Month
Topical Index