While I was away this weekend, I was booted off the reflector. It seems
there was some kind of network problem. This is not important except that
I will not be able to respond to posts which I did not receive.
Glenn Morton wrote:
>Yeah, you're right Robert. Those of us who have been hoodwinked by evolution
>are mindless and just accept what we are told to believe by the evolutionary
>community. I suspect that Steve Clark and Jim Foley are part of that
>community. I just don't know how to do research and so accept anything these
>guys say. Why personally, I haven't read a book in about 15-20 years. I
>let Jim Foley tell me about fossil man and I swallow it all up hook, line and
>sinker. I let Steve Clark tell me about biology and boy, has he warped my
>mind. I sleep with an evolutionarily oriented geology book under my pillow
>so I can get by osmosis what that community says also.
Highly amusing, Glenn, but the bottom line is that if evolution is false, you
HAVE been hoodwinked. If, on the other hand, evolution is true, I am an
arrogant fool who has vastly overestimated his own intelligence and
badly misunderstood the evidence. Your appeal to authority here entirely
begs the question and is very inappropriate. (By the way, any "you said
it not me" comments with regards to the contents of this paragraph will not
be appreciated by the author.)
In this same vein, Jim Foley said I have to "give evolutionists credit for
intelligence". But my distrust of the evolutionary community has nothing
to do with intelligence, rather it has to do with intellectual integrity.
When I began to study evolution a year and a half ago (I am still very new
at this.) I found that evolutionists had lied to me. They had lied to me
in class, they had lied to me on television, they had lied to me in
books and magazines, they had even lied to me in my kindergarten readers.
(See Jack run. See Jill jump. See Danny the Dinosaur evolve into a bird.)
I am in the position of a woman who has been raped by hundreds of men; I find
it simply impossible to trust the evolutionary community. I wouldn't trust
an evolutionist if he told me it was raining in Seattle or sunny in San
Diego.
Glenn wrote (in a separate post):
>During your absence, Robert, I cited several facts which you need to be aware
>of. To me the most important fact is that today, one earth only one creature
>speaks--mankind. In order to accomplish this amazing feat of speech, an area
>of the brain, called Broca's area is required. Broca's area leaves an
>impression on the inside of the skull of you and I. Thus when we die,
>someone can look inside our skulls and tell that we were able to speak.
>
>Speech is a most characteristic feature of humankind. So guess what?
> Broca's area is also found in Neanderthal, Homo erectus, and Homo habilis.
> Thus there is evidence for creatures on earth with the characteristically
>human potential for speech for the past 2 million years.
>
>I raise this point because there is more to the evolutionist's lineage than
>you are mentioning. This feature of Broca's brain unites us clearly in the
>same category (creatures with broca's area) as Homo habilis.
>
>Secondly, there IS a gradual transition in morphological form from Homo
>erectus to Homo sapiens. There are no gaps which can be drawn. They start
>calling certain fossils archaic Homo sapiens about 4-500 thousand years ago
> Modern man appears 115-120,000 years ago. In between these times is a
>gradational scale.
Okay, Glenn, I know. More unbeatable evidence for evolution. Just like Joyce,
just like Yockey. Just like your Cambrian Explosion program. I will file this
for future investigation, but I am busy right now.
Glenn continued:
>This almost seems to be an oxymoron. You say my analysis is naive, critique
>it and admit that you are not familiar with the theory.
All I did was point out that according to YOUR proposition (that scientific
ideas are a response to problems of current theories with empirical evidence),
the falsification of the multiregional hypothesis left the "Out of Africa"
theory with unsolved problems. Jim Foley has helpfully pointed out that you
were wrong.
Glenn goes on:
>I know you don't hold that, but others on the reflector do. But by the way,
>there is more genetic variation than can be accounted for by Hugh Ross's
>maximal 60,000 year creation of man also. That is what the Mitochrondrial
>Eve and Y-chromosome Adam data is saying which was recently reported in the
>New York Times..
If you read the summary of the Y chromosome stories that I provided, then you
know that one study reported a variation of 50,000 to 500,000 years and
another reported a variation from 37,000 to 49,000 years. Reading further,
you would have found that the 37,000 to 49,000 year date was more reliable
because more nucleotide positions were surveyed. (100,000 versus 2,600)
Given that this kind of error is possible, it is certainly possible that
the "mitochondrial Eve" data is off by a factor of 10. Let me ask you
a question. If further investigation showed that "Eve" was younger (say
in the vicinity of 20,000 to 50,000 years) would you consider this evidence
against evolution?
Glenn then made two observations:
>Two observations:
>1. Since you have not looked at the articles, how can you
>be sure that they are wrong? Your research methods are unique! Also 1989 is
>not that old.
>
>2. You write: I will research and refute your claims at a later point.<
>
>I am glad you already have the conclusion in hand and we will be sure that
>the data does not get in the way. This reminds me of the Queen in Alice in
>Wonderland. To paraphrase her, "Conclusion first, data afterwards." Welcome
>to Wonderland!
As I said before, I can't count. But it seems to me that this is one
observation phrased in two different ways. To be frank, I can only say that
I am playing the percentages. The simple fact is that Hugh Ross has
a much better track record in interpreting scientific articles than you do.
In Christ,
robert van de water
associate researcher
UCLA