creat

Email from RF dated 15-04-04

I wrote:
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.

Your response:
This is the typical answer I always receive - when someone who devotes their life to appropriate studies takes a stance on the subject, many like to say, "sorry, he's not an expert", and so his word is discredited. We could play that game all day with just about anyone.

My response to that:
Science progesses by a process of publication and peer-review. Papers are submitted to journals, who send them out to reviewers. The job of the reviewers is to check that the facts are correct, suggest additional sources of information if they feel that there is a weakness in the evidence, and so on. Writing a book does not subject the author to this type of scrutiny. Spetner has been challenged outside the more formal system of scientific review and publication (see here http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/fitness/spetner.html and here http://www.asa3.org/archive/evolution/199909/0281.htmlfor example). Frankly, it's up to him to present his counerarguments, preferably in a forum in which they can be subjected to informed criticism.

I wrote:
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?

Your response:
How can you call a disease that impairs and that is eventually fatal, a beneficial mutation and proof for evolution?
My response to that:
I didn't offer it as 'proof for evolution'. I offered it as an example of a mutation which increases survical rates. It confers resistance to malaria, and occurs in populations which originates in area where malaria is widespread. In those circumstances it's beneficial. It's worth noting that in the US, the incidence of the genes causing sickle cell anemia is decreasing measurably, showing that under different circumstances it is no longer beneficial, and reduces in frequency. This is natural selection, one of the mechanisms of evolution, in action.

I wrote:
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.

Your response:
I read through some of the links above. It's interesting to note that everyone turns to plants as great examples for hybridization all the time. This may happen with plants, but it is more important that we focus on animals if hybridization leading to evolution is true. Though when we start looking at animals, it's a much different story than plants. Some of the links above show some examples of hybrid animals, but you'll notice once they start going too far away from the original, they become weak and sick and die very easily, and can't even support themselves or their young well. Evolutionists cling to these hybrids and say "look, proof for evolution!", but these hybrids never take off and form healthy, strong, continuing species. Now I'm sure you'll dispute this be saying look at this hybrid cat, or that hybrid elephant or whatever, but NEVER can you show them converging into a brand new, strong, completely different species, like lion to a monkey etc. Any experiments going this far, like I said, produce, weak, sickly animals. Hardly proof for evolution.

My response to that:
Are you seriously suggesting that we can simply ignore plants? They are living organisms, they evolve just a animals do. it is clear from your response that you simply haven't read the links.
To add a few more, and clarify some of the ones I've given previously This one shows hybridisation leading to a new species in ants: http://www.earthwatch.org/pubaffairs/news/helmscahan.html
This one mentions how hybridisation between species of duck is leading to the extinction of one of the species - the hybrids out-compete the native strain: http://www.actionbioscience.org/biodiversity/simberloff.html
This one discusses how hybridisation may have influenced hominid evolution: http://www.riverapes.com/AHAH/Hybrids/Hybrids.htm It also links to the abstract of a paper about hybridisation in fish: http://www.riverapes.com/AHAH/Hybrids/FishHybrids.htm
This discussed hybridisation as an speciation process in a generalised article on speciation: http://library.thinkquest.org/19926/text/tour/15.htm
This note discusses hybrdisation in relation to human gene therapy: http://www.wws.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/byteserv.prl/~ota/disk3/1984/8415/841514.PDF
All you are doing is repeating dogma. ", they become weak and sick and die very easily, and can't even support themselves or their young well." How do you know that? The references I give above demonstrate that this is simply not the case. You say "Evolutionists cling to these hybrids and say "look, proof for evolution!"". No they don't. Hybridisation is not 'proof of evolution'. It is one of the processes of speciation. It can be demonstrated in the laboratory and observed in the wild. It is evidence. By making statements such as " NEVER can you show them converging into a brand new, strong, completely different species, like lion to a monkey etc." you are simply repeating dogma. No evolutionary biologist would suggest that a lion-monkey single step transformation could take place. In evolutionary terms, it utter nonsense.

You wrote: The skull cap that Dubois found was very chimp-like,

I responded:
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.

You wrote:
and the femur very obviously was from an upright being, of which an ape is not.

I responded:
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,

You wrote:
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
.
You added:
There was also a Austrailian Blank fossil human skull found not far from where Dubois had his findings right around the same time. In addition Dubois unearthed one of the same type in that area in 1890. Interestingly he withheld this find until 30 years later when he mentioned it in Nature, Jan 6, 1921. Obviously it wouldn't support his case to admit that true man was found around the same area as it's supposed ancestor, Java Man.

My response:
Frankly I have no idea what you are talking about here. What "Austrailian Blank fossil human skull". Please provide a reference. I also have no idea why finding a human skull not far from where the Homo erectus skull was found should invalidate the erectus skull. It matches closely skulls found in other parts of the world. It's genuine. Not a forgery. Not a hoax.

You wrote:
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.

I responded:
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!

You wrote:
We are first taught about evolution in grade school. Any child assumes they are being taught fact, even if the teacher calls it the "theory" of evolution. 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.

My response:
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.

You wrote:
Exactly my point. Poor teaching has brought it to the point where no one knows much about evolution or even cares, they just assume it is fact and never really look into it. They do this because without any religious belief, they NEED the theory of evolution.

I responded:
For what?

You wrote:
They NEED the theory because it gives them reasoning behind the existence of living things if they do not believe in creation. Without the theory, it can 't be explained how humans got here. If you believe in creation, then we have no problem with the subject of how living things got here. If you don't believe in creation, then evolution is the only alternative explanation. Without creation as a possibility, evolution is required or one is left in a state of limbo, without any good foundation on which to base things off of.

My response to that:
What about the people of all religious backgrounds who find no conflict between their religous beliefs and science? Science is not religion.

You wrote:
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.

I responded:
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.

You wrote:
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.

I responded:
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.

You wrote:
Here is where we appear to have the largest disconnect. Throughout our conversation you always base everything you say on science, and religiously insist on scientific evidence, scientific theory etc, as though science is the ONLY thing to base anything off of. You seem to think that everything must conform to science in some way, or it cannot be dealt with. There are countless things going on around us that reason and science CANNOT explain. There are things scientists mull over for centuries, and nothing can explain them. So why do you insist that everything be handed to you with scientific evidence as though scientific, in-hand evidence is essential? I agree, scientific evidence must be looked at first and foremost, to help us determine what is going on around us. But what happens when you run into a scientific road block where science cannot explain something. Do you throw it out? Do you sit and wait until something turns up? What if it never does? Then do you throw it out? Some examples of things science can't explain are miracles and prophecy. Never could be explained and never will be explained scientifically. How can you base your entire foundation on science, when science can't explain everything? This seems to be the main point where we go in opposite directions.

My response:
You are presenting on your site objections to evolution based on 'facts'. Most of your 'facts' are wrong. If you are attacking the scientific basis of evolution, you need to do so on the basis of science. You don't understand the natue of scientific theory. You claim that you are presenting evidence to disprove evolution: you don't. You give an account of Darwin and the writing of the 'Origin of the Species' which is completely untrue. It doesn't need much research to show that: This gives a brief biography:
http://www2.lucidcafe.com/lucidcafe/library/96feb/darwin.html
A more detailed account: http://www.crystalinks.com/darwin.html
He did not present his argument for natural selection on the basis of the fossil record, but on living plants and animals. Try reading the 'Origin of the Species'. You can download the full text here: http://www.gutenberg.net/etext/2009
You make dogmatic statements about the fossil record, such as "instances of a transitional form have been found in the fossil records." Try a bit of research: start here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
I've already gone through your site pointing out the errors and inaccuracies, as well as the downright falsehoods. You have come up with a few responses to a few of my criticisms, none of which stand up to any sort of scrutiny.
I don't 'base my entire foundation on science'. I base science on science.
You should consider carefully the following passage from Steve Jones excellent book 'Almost like a Whale' which presents the science/faith dilema more clearly than I could: "To deny truth on grounds of faith alone debases both science and religion. This point was made by Galileo himself. Summoned to explain his views, and their conflict with Scripture, he argued that the Church had no choice but to agree with the discoveries of science. It would, he said be 'a terrible detriment for the souls if people found themselves convinced by proof of something that it was made a sin to believe'. Creationists have not yet faced that fact."
Consider this: Your beliefs describe a the model of a small, brief universe in which mankind under God has a central role. The model of the Universe built by science is vast beyond our understanding, old beyond our comprehension, complex beyond any possibility of our ever understanding even a fraction of the whole. Which model is closer to the mind of God?
Richard Forrest
richard@plesiosaur.com
www.plesiosaur.com

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.
£: