It appears that Mr. Dubinin is as well versed in evolutionary theory as the physical education major from yesterday.

I am truly sorry that Mr. Dubinin can’t see the utility of evolutionary theory. However, I’m not surprised at this since he apparently believes that scientific theories are adopted for philosophical reasons.

Apparently, nothing that hasn’t been directly observed in the lab can be a scientific theory. Damn. So much for the atom, must be a philosophical belief.

At least we don’t have to worry about thermonuclear destruction anymore. I guess we can toss out astronomy, since no one ever saw the big bang. Sub-atomic particles?

Forget it. Has anyone ever directly observed an electron? Too bad, and electricity was so useful too. Nobody witnessed the formation of the geologic record, so I guess geology needs to go into the can.

Interestingly enough, there are many examples of contemporary evolutionary change that have been observed, including speciation events, for example, Oenethera gigas, Primula kewensis, Trapopogonan porrifolicus, Raphenaobrassica, Galeopsis tetrahit, Madia citrigracilis, Adiantum padatum, Stephanomeira malheurensis to name a few (check it out at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html).

Antibiotic resistance in bacteria, to name a few more. Not to mention numerous transitional forms in the fossil record including well documented transitions from reptiles to mammals, rapidly growing documentation supporting dinosaur to bird transitions, and hominid transitions.

Sorry to burst your bubble Mr Dubinin, but whether you like it or not, evolution is a scientific theory supported by enormous amounts of scientific data. If you don’t believe me, do a search of the term “evolution” in peer reviewed biology journals, read the several million articles you get and then explain how each of those articles could make it through the peer review process if they are merely supporting philosophical stances.

If you don’t have enough time to read all of those articles, search the same group of peer reviewed biology journals for articles supporting creationism. You should have plenty of time to read all of the articles that come up in that search, the last time I checked, there weren’t any. What do you think the odds of that happening are if both theories are simply philosophical stances?

Does is seem strange to you that the theory of evolution you claim to be a pinto has stood up to the scrutiny of millions of scientists for over a hundred years? If you have a better scientific explanation for the biological observations around us, by all means, share it with us. What are the odds that you know something millions of highly trained biologists don’t?

I totally agree with Mr. Dubinin that it doesn’t make sense to choose one’s science the same way as one chooses presidential candidates. Evolution is an explanation biological observations, based upon scientific data.

Creationism is an explanation of carefully filtered and frequently twisted observations, based upon a book that claims the earth is around 10,000 years old, and flat, and that the sky is supported by pillars, and that men used to live to be a thousand years old, and that cows will have striped calves if they look at striped poles while they are pregnant. Forget your gut feelings for each of the explanations, which do you think is more objective?

Tim Morgan

Graduate student

Veterinary pathology