B. I Respond to Evolution Lecturer at UCI 04/25/07

I attended an evening lecture at UCI on Wednesday. The subject was how religion and evolution are compatible. It was a huge lecture hall, with about 300 in attendance. I sent an email to the lecturer, Dr. Francisco Ayala, who “wrote over 300 ariticles, 24 books, and is one of the leading evolution scientists in the world!” He is also good buddies with Richard Dawkins, the worlds smartest guy, and also the world’s leading evolutionist.
My email:


I attended your lecture on Wednesday. You seem like a very bright and kind person, but not a scientist. Good science requires a skeptical eye, and you do not have the good skepticism of a good scientist. Your discussion about evolution/religion really was about convincing your listeners about evolution, and that it is an absolute fact. Religion was a sidebar in your talk, which was really fine with me, as I came to hear what new evidences for evolution there may be. Your evidence was in the pebble realm when Darwinian evolution really requires a Mt. Everest. You listed:

(1) Fish that show growing fins over millions of years. Of course there is no proof that the later fish were progeny of the earlier, or that fish fins went on to become limbs. And, your fish are a poor example anyway.

(2) A moth that changed colors. This proves that some animals can change colors, nothing more.

(3) Bacteria that become resistant to a chemical. Trillions die, but the remaining few, who are resistant by biochemical inheritance, produce progeny that are also resistant. This is simple mathematical biochemistry, not Darwin’s radical evolution.

(4) A biochemical DNA relationship between species, which demonstrates that all life is biochemically related; nothing more.

(5) Eyes of current species that show different levels of complexity. That is not evidence that eyes evolved from nothing to the complex eyes of today. It is only proof that there are different types of eyes of current species.

(6) Evolution of the jaw and teeth. I am a dentist, and I spent years studying and dealing with the incredible matching of the maxillary teeth with the mandibular. They fit like a perfect puzzle, the cusps of the maxillary teeth fit perfectly into the fossa’s of the mandibular. The anterior teeth allow for cutting, the bicuspids allow for shearing and cutting, and the molars are primarily for mashing, exactly as they should. If you can come up with any way Darwinian evolution could possibly evolve a lower set of teeth to match perfectly against the upper, then you would have something. But, there is absolutely no way that that could happen. To understand the occlusion of human teeth is to understand an engineering biological miracle. You mentioned the nerves in teeth that cause so much misery as evidence of the imperfection of nature versus the design of a perfect God. The pulp chamber of teeth is a necessary byproduct of the formation of the teeth. The odontoblasts that lay down the dentin of the body of the tooth would run out of blood supply if they continued until the tooth was solid. They must quit dentin formation before they finish the job, which is unfortunate for mankind, but necessary. The nerve/pulp chamber is simply a byproduct of tooth formation. The fact that many people do not have the room for all teeth is just evidence that nature is not perfect; but it is pretty damn close, considering that our bodies function like near perfect machines.

Evolution that produces change in size (your fish), abilities and habit (your bacteria), or color (your moth), the evidence that you used, is not even remotely close to the evolution that would be needed to produce hearts, eyes, lungs, and brains. You had pebbles when Mt. Everest is needed. And the Mt. Everest of evidence either does not exist, or it has not been found, either of which should place Darwin in the realm of very weak theories.

For Darwin to be correct, there would have to be tremendous changes in species for which there is a fossil history. Fossil history should look something like the growth of a fetus, spread over millions of years. The growth of fingers, limbs, eye sockets and ear canals in the fossil record, should be the norm. These are not the norm, not the exception, but non-existent. If you were a real scientist, you would see that. What you are is a real believer. If you would take a very critical and scientific look at Darwin and your lecture Wednesday, your next lecture would be very different. But, that takes a great deal of independence and courage to go against the norms. And most people don’t have that. Evidence shows that species did not arrive the way Darwin says. It’s time for a new look.

I wanted to enter your question session at the end of the lecture, but, obviously, I couldn’t express myself in a few sentences. And I hope you had time to read to here, and if you did, thanks!

Stephen Thomas DDS

Francisco responded:

Dear Dr. Thomas:

I did not intend to prove evolution (and other matters) in a one-hour lecture. You obviously are an educated person who knows that the evidence for evolution is in many books (including several of mine) and thousands of scholarly articles published in scores of peer-reviewed scientific journals.

Best wishes,
Francisco Ayala

Like Tom, Francisco doesn’t have the time to list any of the more profound evidences, or put them in his lecture. He used weak ones on purpose. He referred me to other literature, which is the norm for evo-illusionists. The evidence is always “over there”. They themselves cannot describe the MO of evolution, but “there are many books on the subject”. End of discussion. Now I get to go look through books and journals; which I have done. And, no the answers aren’t there either. Oh well. Thanks for responding Francisco. 


  1. gentledude said,

    It’s funny how Dr. Ayala brushes your huge email off with a paragraph length response. Guess he has better things to do than bother with people of your caliber. Scientists know better than to waste their energy on creationists. Dawkins argues that if he debated your kind, he would implictly be giving creationism undue credibility. No self-respecting evolutionary biologist should sink to the level of debating creationists.

  2. stevebee92653 said,

    Thanks for adding a highly intelligent comment to the list. Your comment is like a massive number of evo-commenters, including Dr. Ayala who have nothing to say, and can’t answer challenges.

    • Phyerbyrd said,

      How do you know that he’s not skeptical? because he doesn’t share your sentiments on the impossibility of knowing how life formed? You say anyone’s comment that you like is “highly intelligent” while saying anyone’s comment you don’t agree with is the result of “indoctrination”.
      1) Biological homology is passed down hereditarily. I highly doubt that something repeatedly killed each of the links in the chain he proposed, only to replace it with the next in the chain.
      2) It’s just a simple example of a mutation that works for the species. If color can change, why not more than that?
      3) The individuals that survived were rare mutants, who’s immunity then proceeded to make the drug useless.
      4) Genetic homology implies hereditary relation.
      5) It’s not to show that they evolved from one another, it’s to show that the eye can function without several parts you see as being vital.
      6) Selective pressure can come from an organism’s own body, the teeth influenced each other’s evolution. The individuals that had teeth that didn’t fit together couldn’t eat as well as ones who’s teeth fit together well.
      You’re setting the bar higher than what is necessary in terms of evidence. Not only that, you also assume you know everything about evolution, biology and the like, when most likely you don’t. You could be missing huge pieces of evidence or possibly not looking at what you do know of in the right light. To prove my point, i have a challenge for you; apply the same scientific method you used to determine if evolution was right or not and apply it to some other field of science, say the big bang theory or string theory. I have a feeling you won’t be able to validate some of them with your current knowledge. I’m probably worse than you, and I know that. I’m going to go into genetics and maybe I’ll find out how it works, but it seems like you’re stagnating yourself by just assuming that you completely understand it yourself. I’ll learn everything I can about fossils, genetics, biology, all of that. And when I know enough, i’ll do what you said and evaluate the evidence myself. Then i’ll come back and tell you my answer.

      • stevebee92653 said,

        Your list doesn’t qualify as anything. Individuals with straighter teeth out-survived ones with crooked? Heredity implies invention, design, assembly of incredibly complex bio system? When you come back, you will agree with evolution. There is not one bit of skepticism in you writing. Why not? Wouldn’t a good scientist say that nylon eating bacteria is a horrible example of evo-evidence, when the invention, design and assembly of bio-systems must be proven? Why do you have no wonder or skepticism. I will tell you. It’s what indoctrination combined with groupthink does to a person. And it did it to you . You will come back completely convinced that an entity with zero intelligence and invent design assemble everything in nature. No matter how illogical that is, you will believe, just like every other evolutionaut, and just like I did for so many years. Few escape, and regain their skepticism and wonder. I did. Odds are you have no chance.

  3. jan said,

    “Dawkins argues that if he debated your kind, he would implictly be giving creationism undue credibility. No self-respecting evolutionary biologist should sink to the level of debating creationists.”

    Totally irrelevant position to take from a “scientific ” perspective……. it would seem to any logical person that has some sort of educated sense of what science requires, understand that a “scientific” conclusion would have to take into consideration various hypothesis regarding a conceived claims that are being made……………..The actual information available to corroborate one conclusion over another regarding the development of “life ” as it is “observed” from our systems of observation is (to any thinking individual) scientifically inadequate ( which is an incredible understatement) to support the kinds of assertions and speculations required to conclude what “evolutionists” proclaim on a day to day basis………….. It is an interesting perspective….. and i think it is conjured up in the imagination to protect a particular philosophical preference………..(perhaps to sell books????????)

  4. jan said,

    Dawkins, you fool. where are you. signing books at bookstores in your neighborhood,,,,,,coming soon, the greatest show on earth,,,, pt barnum said there is a sucker born every minute………(oh shit more periods, i am so sorry)

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: