A Typical Creationist Error

An Uncracked Code

The genome map does not confirm that human genes are millions of years old ["Life's Blueprint in Less Than an Inch," front page, Feb. 11]. Genes are simply sequences of four amino acids, and while Eric Lander and other gene researchers have theorized that genes evolve at a known rate of speed, this simply remains theory, not fact.

Assumptions and theories should be presented as such in your paper's scientific reports.

-- Bill Sardi

Mr. Sardi is incorrect. Genes are made of sequences of four nucleotides.

Since this creationist doesn't know even the most fundamental molecular biology, how can he judge the bigger issue of the evolution of the human genome?

Furthermore, the mechanisms and rates of sequence change are well established in laboratory experiments. I challange Mr. Sardi to learn in detail how both in vivo and in vitro experiments on DNA replication errors are conducted. Just because divergence rates are estimated based on theory (well confirmed in the lab) does not mean that these rates are incorrect, as Mr. Sardi implies. For example, the orbits of planets are based on Newton's theory and are found to make accurate predictions. Likewise, predictions based on evolutionary theory are found to be accurate. This is, of course, always within the error of the measurement and the limits of the theory, and is subject to revision as new data come in.

What is a fact? It is a very well established and generally accepted hypothesis. What is a hypothesis? It is an idea (guess, conjecture etc) about how the universe works. What is a theory? It is a large collection of hypotheses that have been integrated together, often with a mathematical basis. So it is obvious that there is nothing wrong with theory, despite Mr. Sardi's antagonistic tone. The question is how credible the theory is. Creationist 'theory', for example, has thousands of holes. There are so many that most scientists throw up their hands in disgust! One typical creationist tactic is to throw out, say, 2 or 3 incorrect statements. When the scientist objects to the FIRST one, they come back with a 4th incorrect statement. At this point the scientist either has to ignore the original incorrect statement or stick to it. If it is ignored, the creationist gets away with murder. If they stick to it the creationist will object that the scientist is not responding to the latest stupidity. This incredibly obnoxious move makes the creationst think they are 'winning'. But they are obviously just ignorant.

How do I know that this person is a creationist? It is one of their typical ploys to object that evolution is 'just a theory'. This implies to the uninitiated that it is wrong. However, the basic theory (reproduction with variation and selection over millions of years) is very well established and is as correct as any theory can get. How does Mr. Sardi make this error? He ignores mountains of data of the past 150 years. These data are in enormous stacks of books in libraries all over the world. You can't see them if you look around on the street, but fortunately more of the data are becoming publically available on the web. So he depends on the ignorance of the reader to get his point across. Don't let him fool you, read the literature yourself!

Reply by William P. Winter 2001 Feb 24; Page A21

Genetically Challenged

Bill Sardi has eloquently demonstrated his lack of qualifications to comment on the interpretation of the human genome findings by his egregiously erroneous statement, "Genes are simply sequences of four amino acids" ["An Uncracked Code," Free for All, Feb 17].

Genes, as almost any reasonably astute junior high science student knows, are DNA sequences and are composed of sequential patterns of four bases: adenine, guanine, thymine and cytosine. These compounds are totally different from amino acids, both biologically and chemically.

I am also distressed at Sardi's inability to distinguish between assumptions and theories and to understand the role and significance of a scientific theory. In science, a theory is not a wild guess, nor is it an assumption. It is a carefully constructed set of principles that adequately accounts for all relevant observations or tests. Theories cannot be proven, but they can be disproved or shown to require revision if a prediction based on the theory is shown not to happen.

The major theories of science, including the theory of evolution, have so much experimental support that scientists accept the the central tenets as true and concern themselves with fine-tuning the details. Thus, while the new information on the human genome will undoubtedly yield new understanding of genetic processes, it does not have to be tempered with the rejoinder that evolution is "only a theory."

-- William P. Winter
The writer is an associate professor of genetics at Howard University and deputy director of the Howard University Center for Sickle Cell Disease.

Tom Schneider's Home Page