Dueling letters

There’s been an interesting series of letters in the Naples Daily News these past few weeks about evolution and creationism. It started with Dr. Malnak’s letter April 11 in which he promotes evolution and dismisses creationism. Mr. Dudley then attacks Malnak’s arguments by claiming that DNA studies show how impossible it is for humans to have evolved from chimps due to “6 billion nucleotides that must be haphazardly rearranged to change the monkey into human.” Mr. Harvey points out that Dudley is in error: “That ‘explanation’ shows you have little knowledge of evolution.” And Mr. Stoler writes “No one said we evolved from apes or chimps.” Mr. Sernovitz also says Dudley is ignorant about evolution.

It’s fun to be able to read the whole sequence of letters online like that. Even more entertaining are the readers’ comments at each of those links.

About Brandon Haught

Communications Director for Florida Citizens for Science.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

15 Responses to Dueling letters

  1. Kevin Folta says:

    Dudley.

    Classic Dunning-Kruger. So uninformed he does not realize he’s uninformed.

  2. Chris says:

    It is a common misconception that humans evolved from apes with the ongoing promotion of DNA similarities and the fabricated monkey like creatures. Even to suggest such a relationship will bring evolutionist like flies on cow manure, screaming ignorance. But in reality the unidentified mystical ape like creature is a mere figment of the imagination with nothing other than belief to substantiate its existence.

    The conclusion man has descended from the illusive ape like creature is a necessary component religious humanist doctrine. Without evolutions imaginary molecule to man tail the atheist is left with the unacceptable, the necessity of a creator.

    The fact is evolution beyond observation is not settled science and extremely controversial. Those not recognizing this must be on another planet.

  3. Pierce R. Butler says:

    Which planet are you logging in from, Chris?

  4. kmlisle says:

    Chris, did you every consider that the Apes may not want to acknowledge that they are related to a species a cruel, war-like, destructive and deliberately dishonest as humans? It does go both ways. I would much rather have an Ape for a cousin than say Hitler or some human mass murderer. Show a little respect for nature which often has examples of our better selves! Do you own a dog? Our DNA and heritage is very similar. What ever happened to that better self we see in our dogs?

  5. Chris says:

    kmlisle

    I don’t talk to monkeys or apes that much so I;ll leave discovering their desire choices up to you.

  6. Chris says:

    Pierce R Butler, “Which planet are you logging in from, Chris?

    Possibly not yours, I’m on earth.

  7. Jonathan says:

    So Chris, exactly how did humans get on this planet? I’m sure you have lots of scientific evidence. Please feel free to share it with us and the rest of the scientific community. Do I see a Nobel Prize in your future?

  8. Chris says:

    Jonathan

    How man arrived on the planet might depend on your world view. I think the evidence for mans arrival on the planet is quite extensive. But the interpretation of the same evidence does vary with different approaches to it .

    Are you looking for scientific evidence or for conformation to justify your belief?

    I see you consider yourself one of the scientific community. Have you acquired that title by your scientific employment or self inclusion within secular humanist pseudoscience religious cult?

    And just one more thing, do you have a Nobel Prize?

  9. Jonathan Smith says:

    How man arrived on this planet does not depend on mine or yours world view, it depends solely on the scientific evidence. It may be open to some interpretation, but only within the framework of that evidence. Again, if you have personal evidence for an alternative interpretation why you don’t state it?

    I most certainly look for evidence and continue to do so. Should I find evidence to the contrary, then I would have no problem in reexamine my position.

    No, I’m not a scientist, but I would consider myself as part of the scientific community, (my three degrees, one in science education, would perhaps qualify me) although, unlike you, I would not consider the scientific community, a secular humanist pseudoscience religious cult?

    I don’t have a Noble Prize, yet, however, if I ever am a recipient, I will be in the company of those who view science just as I do.

  10. Chris says:

    I’m not suggesting the scientific community is a secular humanist religious cult, far from it. However there are those who fall into the scientific community category who have far more interest in promoting their religious humanist doctrine than anything to do with science.

    I have to agree that our world view has no bearing on how man actually arrived on the planet. But the fact that man is here along with every other living thing pretty much says there was a process or a beginning for the arrival of life Here are seven theories on the origin of life, none of which provide any of the scientific evidence or fit with in the scientific framework you might call testable evidence.

  11. Chris says:

    Seven theories of life’s origin
    http://www.livescience.com/13363-7-theories-origin-life.html

    My point is molecule to man evolution has no foundation, no verifiable beginning. Wile it may be a good theory to accept the theory as fact requires blind faith.

  12. Jonathan says:

    Chris, let’s not entangle the origins of life (biogenesis) with the theory of evolution. Your point I think is that science just doesn’t know yet, how the first replicating DNA molecule came into existence.
    Under water volcanic vents or panspermia may be the key; yet,there is no solid evidence to support these ideas. However once multiple cell life began then the process of evolution began.
    Your clichéd phrase molecule to men (and women) is exactly correct and whether you choose to accept it or not, evolution has a mountain of evidence to support this. Because science cannot answer the “theory of the origins” question, this does not in any way invalidate the theory of evolution. I assume you think it does, so again I will ask you (3rd time now) how did man get on this planet and what is the scientific evidence for your position. If you have a point make it, if not, there is little point in continuing the discussion.

  13. Chris says:

    Jonathan

    To say science doesn’t know the origin of life yet is true. Actually secular science hasn’t a clue. Manufacturing a possible scenario which must first pass the secular humanist test of no intelligent input does defy all know possibilities. All of the seven theories I provided are considered to be natural processes and yet not a single one has been shown to produce anything of significance let alone biological life. This is far far from natural.

     I’m well aware that abiogenists is not  to be associated with evolution’s theory, as the combination of the two brings distain to the theory.  My point was as you know that of evolution begins in mid air with no foundational support .  It must rely on the suppositions and imagination of its believers for foundational support, it has no beginning.

    You have produced an excellent example of what I mean.  You said, “there is no solid evidence to support these ideas. However once multiple cell life began then the process of evolution began.”  The problem here is that science not only doesn’t know how, when or where life began, it doesn’t know at what level of complexity life began. The belief simple single and multiple celled organisms were the beginning of life is not a conclusion based on evidence but rather an assumption necessary to justify evolution’s theory.

    I do agree that the theories of origin do not in any way invalidated the theory of evolution, but the fact is the theory of evolution itself has not been throughly validated.

    How did man get on the planet?  Looking at the actual   evidence and  setting aside religious humanist doctrine or bias.   I would say the evidence shows that life was created by an  intelligence far greater than ours.  We have no examples of complex material structures forming  themselves through natural processes, nor has it been shown by example, discovery or test that any life can change from one form to another on the grand scale.   But it is common to recognize the intelligent handy work of a builder and the biological engineering used in farming and medicine.    We only have as sound examples, intelligence with the ability to manipulate the elements as a process.  So based on   the scientific evidence  I would say man was made by someone with the knowledge and   ability to build or create him. Male and female of course.

  14. Jonathan Smith says:

    So, there, you said it Chris, well done after me prompting you three times. Why so long, were you too embarrassed to admit your views? I would be on a science web site. Unfortunately you, along with the rest of the Creationist / ID ilk, do not posses a single and I mean single, shred of scientific evidence to support your wishful thinking.
    Of course, we all know who that “intelligence far greater than ours.” is, don’t we? (wink wink) The FCS is about teaching good, accepted science in the science classroom and that’s what evolution is, whether you agree with it or not. Your arguments are the same old trope that we hear time after time and to be honest, become tiresome. When you guys find some real evidence to either disprove evolution, or to support your position, then I’m sure science will modify or even abandon its position. You stating, “It’s not proven” merely demonstrates your incomprehension, ignorance, irrational incredulity, or all three.
    Thanks for your time, I now know your not here to offer any rational evidence: you’re just here to scold us for not giving creationists the scientific recognition, respect and accolades they have made no effort to earn. Perhaps it’s time to move on to another blog
    where you can find ideological comfort amongst those less informed. This will be my last response to you.

  15. Chris says:

    Jonathan, I see you were unable to refute any of my observations but rather reverted to insults. It’s ok I’m not offended, normally insults are a common response from someone who has no answers. But you claim to, which is great.

    I don’t know if evolution’s fantasy portion can be disproved any more than it can be proven. But well informed as you claim to be, I suppose you must have some unquestionable evidence to support your view. Hopefully it’s not just the standard talking points, “evolution is backed by multiple lines of evidence”. A true statement of course. The exact same evidence could have been set in motion by a creator. It would be nice if you could provide something a little more tangible than speculation. Perhaps you could show where the fusion of ape chromosome 12 and 13 produced the hundreds of coding genes only found in humans. Surly this has been duplicated in a lab to substantiate the claim without millions of years.

    I think you’ve mistaken my intent. I’d like to see the rational evidence you claim to have. So far what I’ve been shown requires far more faith than I can muster.

    Yes most definitely, my views lean to creationism, follow the evidence.

Comments are closed.