creat

Email from RF dated 01/04/04

(I have italicised parts for clarity)

-----Original Message-----
From: Response [mailto:response@overcomeproblems.com]
Sent: 01 April 2004 05:29
To: Richard Forrest
Subject: Re: Contact

(section snipped to save a bit of space)
Here is an expert account on how resistance to antibiotics is not a favourable mutation: I don't think that anyone outside the creationist community regards Lee Spetner as an expert! I can find many references to his book - many of them very critical - but no list of his record of scientific publication. Bearing in mind that science progresses by challenging hypotheses, it's up to Spetner to answer his critics.

In his book Not by Chance, Spetner likens this situation to the disturbance of the key-lock relationship. Streptomycin, just like a key that perfectly fits in a lock, clutches on to the ribosome of a bacterium and inactivates it. Mutation, on the other hand, decomposes the ribosome, thus preventing streptomycin from holding on to the ribosome. Although this is interpreted as "bacteria developing immunity against streptomycin," this is not a benefit for the bacteria but rather a loss for it. Spetner writes: This change in the surface of the microorganism's ribosome prevents the streptomycin molecule from attaching and carrying out its antibiotic function. It turns out that this degradation is a loss of specificity and therefore a loss of information. The main point is that Evolution. cannot be achieved by mutations of this sort, no matter how many of them there are. Evolution cannot be built by accumulating mutations that only degrade specificity
Lee Spetner, Israeli Biophysicist, "Not By Chance" 97

This is a very strange argument! Antibiotic resistant bacteria replicate in conditions where non-resistant bacteria don't. This is success in evolutionary terms. In what way is continued survival a loss to the bacterium? It's a mutation. It increases the survival rate of bacteria in the environmental conditions to which they are subject
. And what about sickle cell anemia?

(snipped to save space)
It's extremely rare that fertile hybrids are produced. Even if a fertile hybrid is produced, all breeding experiments have shown that there a limits to changes through breeding. If we try and breed that fertile hybrid again and again, we eventually see limits to change and changes into other species has NEVER been seen. So breeding cannot be cause for evolution.
Try talking to a plant breeder! They hybridise all the time to produce new, and fertile strains.
Have a look at
http://www.riverapes.com/AHAH/Hybrids/Hybrids.htm
http://www.hull.ac.uk/cichlids/MartinP.html
http://tinyurl.com/3339f
http://members.aol.com/jshartwell/hybrid-mammals.html
http://webdoc.sub.gwdg.de/ebook/y/2002/gregorius/speziat.pdf
http://www.ibot.sav.sk/karolx/BJLS_2002/Bot_J_Linn_Soc_2002.pdf - I could fill many pages with links to web sites showing how hybridisation can lead to speciation.

(snipped)

Please provide some examples if you would, thanks
Try here: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910.html

(snipped)

The skull cap that Dubois found was very chimp-like,
No it wasn't.
Here is a picture of a chimp skull:
http://skullduggery.com/images/0208.jpg
Here is a picture of a Homo erectus skull : http://skullduggery.com/images/0248.jpg
The Java skull cap matches closely that of other specimens of Homo erectus.

and the femur very obviously was from an upright being, of which an ape is not.
But Homo erctus is. However, this is not offered in evidence - the poor (by modern standards) collecting practices Dubois used make its provenance uncertain, and the limb bones of Homo erectus are similar to those of modern man,
In addition, among his findings, were found among MANY other animal bones.
And they are not offered as evidence of human origins!
So he picked out pieces from a heap and tried to claim they were the same animal. Then Dubois, after years of research after his finding, renounced his finding as a most likely a gibbon. Not sure how else to put it, he recanted.

Here: and this is from a Creationist web site! (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/docs/v13n3_java.asp)
"Did Dubois Recant? Revising the Record Evolutionist articles of textbooks and anthropological journal articles have often written that Dubois eventually renounced his 'Java man' and claimed it was merely a giant gibbon. Such authorities have naturally been quoted to this effect in creationist works. New information uncovered by that persistent iconoclast of evolutionism, Stephen Jay Gould, shows beyond doubt that this is a misleading picture.
Dubois had a highly eccentric theory of human evolution, which demanded a precise mathematical relationship between increasing brain size and body weight. In fact, by insisting that his 'Java ape-man' had the proportions of a gibbon (thus changing the reconstructed body-weight) he was ensuring that the ratio would fit neatly into his (erroneous) mathematical series. The purpose was to more firmly cement its status as a perfect 'link'. Dubois himself is quoted as having written in 1932: 'Pithecanthropus was not a man, but a gigantic genus allied to the gibbons … I still believe, now more firmly than ever, that the Pithecanthropus of Trinil is the real "missing link".'The idea that Dubois changed his mind about 'Java man' will die hard, among both evolutionists and creationists."

I suggest that you read Stephen Jay Gould's 'Men of the Thirty-Third Division' which is referred on the site. It's an interesting essay, and will leave you much better informed on the subject.

So: Dubois did not 'recant. The fossil skull cap he found is genuine It is not that of an ape - any compentent anatomist can tell you why. It is very similar to that part of the skull of Homo erectus, of which several other specimens have been found. see http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/java15000.html
So how can you conclude that it is a 'fraud'? For an account of how Homo erectus sits in the story of human origins, try here: http://www.leeds.ac.uk/bms/teaching/modules/humb1060/anth07.pdf (snipped to save space)

I ask this question based on discussions I have had with other evolutionists. What I've found is people of all beliefs easily accept evolution because it was taught in the schools.
Speaking for myself, one of the things I was taught at school to evaluate evidence. If anyone told me on the basis of his authority that I must believe something, I tended to be uncooperative!
They assume it is fact and figure, "why would our textbooks lie?" Most normally don't give the theory of evolution another thought after they are done with school.
More fool them, in that case! The theory of evolution by natural section is very poorly taught in schools. I doubt if one person in a hundred can give a reasonably acccurate account of the theory, and the evidence to support the theory. However, this reflects not on the soundness of the theory, but on poor teaching.
Then some people stumble on some inconsistencies and start to look into it further.
The inconistencies in the theory have been explored by the scientific community for 150 years. That is why the modern theoretical basis of evolution is much more complete and detailed than Charles Darwin's account. The greatest criticism of evolutionary theory comes from people working in the field. Try reading Mark Ridley's 'The Problems of Evolution', as an example.
The point to bear in mind is that the criticism of the theories comes from the evidence. It seems to me that you have a poor understanding both of the evidence for evolution, and the current theories of evolution. I suggest you read Ernst Mayr's recent book 'What Evolution is'. Then, if you criticise the the theoretical basis of evolution, you will not be attacking as straw man.
When they do, what happens from there is GREATLY affected by religious belief. The typical Christian, if he sees the scienitific aspect of the theory of evolution doesn't line up,
I'm sorry, but you're wrong. The typical Christian - by which I mean the vast majority of Christians in the world - has no problem in reconciling spiritual beliefs with the findings of science.
can easily scrap it as garbage because they have belief in a creator and can easily accept creation as the source of things. Atheists and agnostics on the other hand, when faced with scientific inconsistencies in the theory of evolution, will either look the other way, or will outright CLING to the theory anyway even when they see the inconsistencies.
Please - point out the inconsistencies! I've pointed out a load of inconistencies, false statements, misleading quotations and so on in your web page, and you have chosen to ignore most of them.
They do this because without any religious belief, they NEED the theory of evolution.
For what?
It is a fact that Darwin, Huxley and others of the time were originally Christians then dumped their religion and became agnostic/atheistic once they proposed the theories relating to evolution.
So why did they bury Darwin in Westminster Abbey - a Christian church. Darwin himself kept quiet on the subject of his religious beliefs. Huxley was an atheist - so what? That doesn't alter the fact that there is overwhelming evidence for evolution from the natural world.
I also have many quotes on my site from notable people who state how they will always believe in the theory of evolution REGARDLESS, because the alternative (creation) is unthinkable.
In what way is creation an alternative theory? What is the scientific theory of creationism? Where is the evidence from the natural world to support the idea of a creation event as related in the bible? Read about the history of the sciences of geology and palaeontology. They were intially developed by people who believed in the biblical account of creation, but were forced to reject it by the overwhelming weight of evidence against it. Try Deborah Cadbury's 'The Dinosaur Hunters', Chris McGowan's 'The Dragon Seekers'. There are many excellent books on the subject.
I talk to evolutionists who think this way all the time, and it is an embarasingly weak way to think. This is why I brought up the question.
If you find this way of thinking 'embarasingly weak', please let me know what evidence would convince you that your version of events is incorrect. I can see no conflict whatsoever between the findings of science and religious belief. I have spent the better part of 40 years grubbing around in road-cuttings, cliffs and quarries collecting fossils. I have spent the past 10 years in scientific research in vertebrate palaoentology. I know dozens of palaeontologists, and have met or correspond with hundreds. Some of them are athists, some are agnostics, some are members of mainstream Christian churches, some are evangelical Christians, some are Budhists, some are Hindus, and for all I know some of them may be devil worshippers. They come from many different countries. Some are funded by Universities, some by Museums, some by Government institutions, some by commercial companies and some (such as myself) fund themselves.
They are intelligent, knowledgable and argumentative, and motivated by a great passion for their research. Nobody ever took up palaeontology as a career to get rich.
I can't imagine a worse population to try to brainwash!

It's getting late and I have to go for now. Have a good night Richard. I look forward to your reply.

Comments:

Email exchange:

";
This site is run entirely in my own time and at my own expense. If you find it valuable, a small donation using PayPal will help me keep it going.
£: