September 8, 2012
Yes, adaptation is at the heart of evolution To the editor: I read S. V. Yumlu's letter (Sept. 2) with fascination. He alludes to my previous letter (Aug. 12) , claiming that I added confusion to the issue of evolution. But in fact, Yumlu, himself, has confused the issue. For example, Yumlu takes the concept of natural selection (proposed by Darwin) and claims its existence as evidence that evolution does not occur! Regarding microbial antibiotic resistance, he writes that resistant strains result due to a diverse genome containing naturally immune individuals. True enough, but then he writes: “Therefore, claims that a microevolution had taken place turn out to be nothing more than an adaptation process which gives the species ability to survive.” But that is the very definition of natural selection, and is a key part of the modern evolutionary syntheses!
December 10, 2005
To the editor: As Mr. Buhrer stated in his letter of Dec. 4, the "thorough lack of understanding of how science works" is sad indeed. Science is the study of observable phenomena that are repeatable and subject to hypothesis, testing and independent verification. Anything outside this process of observation and repeatability cannot be investigated scientifically. And this is exactly the problem with Darwinian evolution. To be fair, we must first define some things.
April 23, 2010
The April 9 announcement of the discovery of partial skeletons of a 9-year-old boy and a female about 30 years of age in South Africa was another confirmation of evolution. These fossil bones, estimated to be about 2 million years of age, also support the "out of Africa" predictions as the birthplace of pre-human primates leading to human beings. Many who are interested in the development of evolutionary thought are aware that Darwin published "The Origin Of Species" in 1859.
March 5, 2005
To the editor: I read with interest Allan Powell's (Jan. 23) essay against Christian fundamentalism. While I support his free speech rights, I continue to be amazed at how far he goes to build a case against people of faith. His straw man keeps growing bigger. This time, it is allegedly a "harmful social movement. " His criticisms of creation and various miracles in the Bible don't carry any serious weight. If a person only accepts a naturalistic view of the world, without any possibility of events beyond our declared laws of nature, then of course anything else is dismissed arbitrarily.